Book 2 of 2 Books 

Pages 55791–56470 

Vol. 81 Friday, 

No. 161 August 19, 2016 

Part V 

Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration 

20 CFR Parts 676, 677, and 678 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Parts 361 and 463 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Joint Rule for Unified and 

Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and the One-Stop 

System Joint Provisions; Final Rule 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55792 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

20 CFR Parts 676, 677, and 678 

[Docket No. ETA–2015–0002] 

RIN 1205–AB74 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Parts 361 and 463 

RIN 1830–AA21 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act; Joint Rule for Unified and 

Combined State Plans, Performance 

Accountability, and the One-Stop 

System Joint Provisions; Final Rule 

AGENCY: Office of Career, Technical, and 

Adult Education (OCTAE), 

Rehabilitation Services Administration 

(RSA), Education; Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA), Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Departments of 

Education (ED) and Labor (DOL) (or, 

collectively, Departments) issue this 

Joint Final Rule to implement jointly 

administered activities authorized by 

title I of the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) signed into 

law on July 22, 2014 (hereafter ‘‘Joint 

WIOA Final Rule’’). Through these 

regulations, the Departments implement 

workforce education and employment 

system reforms and strengthen the 

nation’s public workforce development 

system to provide increased economic 

opportunity and make the United States 

more competitive in the 21st century 

evolving labor market. This Joint WIOA 

Final Rule provides guidance for State 

and local workforce development 

systems that increase the skill and 

credential attainment, employment, 

retention, and earnings of participants, 

especially those with significant barriers 

to employment, thereby improving the 

quality of the workforce, reducing 

dependency on public benefits, 

increasing economic opportunity, and 

enhancing the productivity and 

competitiveness of the nation. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 18, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

DOL: Adele Gagliardi, Administrator, 

Office of Policy Development and 

Research, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Room N–5641, 

Washington, DC 20210, Telephone: 

(202) 693–3700 (voice) (this is not a tollfree number) or 1–800–326–2577 

(TDD—Telecommunications device for 

the deaf). 

ED: Lekesha Campbell, U.S. 

Department of Education, OCTAE, 400 

Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11–145, 

PCP, Washington, DC 20202–7240, 

Telephone: (202) 245–7808; Edward 

Anthony, U.S. Department of Education, 

RSA, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 

5085 PCP, Washington, DC 20202–2800, 

Telephone: (202) 245–7256. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Joint 

WIOA Final Rule reflects changes made 

as a result of public comments received 

to the joint Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking that was published on April 

16, 2015, at 80 FR 20574. 

WIOA strengthens the alignment of 

the public workforce development 

system’s six core programs by 

compelling unified strategic planning 

requirements, common performance 

accountability measures, and 

requirements governing the one-stop 

delivery system. In so doing, WIOA 

placed heightened emphasis on 

coordination and collaboration at the 

Federal, State, local, and tribal levels to 

ensure a streamlined and coordinated 

service delivery system for job seekers, 

including those with disabilities, and 

employers. These regulations lay the 

foundation, through coordination and 

collaboration at the Federal level, for 

implementing the Departments’ vision 

and goals of WIOA. 

In addition to this Joint WIOA Final 

Rule, the Departments are issuing 

separate final rules to implement 

program-specific requirements of WIOA 

that fall under each Department’s 

purview. The DOL is issuing a Final 

Rule governing program-specific 

requirements under titles I and III of 

WIOA (hereinafter ‘‘DOL WIOA Final 

Rule’’). The ED is issuing three final 

rules: One implementing programspecific requirements of the Adult 

Education and Family Literacy Act 

(AEFLA), as reauthorized by title II of 

WIOA; and two final rules 

implementing all program-specific 

requirements for programs authorized 

under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended by title IV of WIOA. The 

Department-specific final rules are 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. Developing and 

issuing all five WIOA final rules 

collaboratively reinforces WIOA’s 

heightened emphasis on coordination 

and collaboration to ensure an 

integrated and seamless service delivery 

system for job seekers and employers. 

Preamble Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

III. Public Comments Received on the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking 

IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of Public 

Comments and Final Regulations 

A. Unified and Combined State Plans 

Under Title I of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR 

Part 676; 34 CFR Part 361, Subpart D; 34 

CFR Part 463, Subpart H) 

B. Performance Accountability Under Title 

I of the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (20 CFR Part 677; 34 

CFR Part 361, Subpart E; 34 CFR Part 

463, Subpart I) 

C. Description of the One-Stop System 

Under Title I of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR 

Part 678; 34 CFR Part 361, Subpart F; 34 

CFR Part 463, Subpart J) 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

G. Plain Language 

H. Assessment of Federal Regulations and 

Policies on Families 

I. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

J. Executive Order 12630 (Government 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights) 

K. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply) 

I. Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: 

President Barack Obama signed WIOA 

into law on July 22, 2014. WIOA is the 

first legislative reform of the public 

workforce system in more than 15 years, 

which passed Congress by a wide 

bipartisan majority. WIOA supersedes 

the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

(WIA) and amends the Wagner-Peyser 

Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

WIOA strengthens and improves our 

nation’s public workforce system and 

increases economic opportunities for 

individuals in the United States, 

especially youth and individuals with 

significant barriers to employment, to 

secure and advance in employment. 

WIOA reaffirms the role of the 

customer-focused one-stop delivery 

system, a cornerstone of the public 

workforce development system, and 

enhances and increases coordination 

among several key employment, 

education, and training programs. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55793 

WIOA supports innovative strategies 

to improve coordination among the six 

core programs and other Federal 

programs that support employment 

services, workforce development, adult 

education and literacy, and vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) activities. 

In WIOA, Congress directed the 

Departments to issue regulations 

implementing statutory requirements to 

ensure that the public workforce system 

operates as a comprehensive, integrated, 

and streamlined system to provide 

pathways to prosperity and 

continuously improve the quality and 

performance of its services to job 

seekers and to employers. Therefore, the 

Departments are issuing this Joint WIOA 

Final Rule to implement jointly 

administered activities authorized 

under WIOA, specifically those related 

to the Unified and Combined State 

Plans, performance accountability, and 

the one-stop delivery system. In an 

effort to promote collaboration and 

coordination at the State and local 

levels among the core programs and 

other Federal partner programs, the 

Departments have collaborated 

extensively with the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) and 

other Federal agencies in developing 

this Final Rule. 

The Departments are publishing this 

Joint WIOA Final Rule to implement 

those provisions of WIOA that affect all 

of the six core programs, specifically 

the: Adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

programs authorized under title I and 

administered by DOL; AEFLA program 

authorized under title II and 

administered by ED; Employment 

Service program authorized under the 

Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by title 

III, and administered by DOL (WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service 

program); and VR program, authorized 

under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended by title IV, and 

administered by ED. The requirements 

in these joint final regulations will be 

jointly administered by both 

Departments. The regulations contained 

in this Final Rule also impact other 

Federal programs that participate in the 

one-stop system and/or are identified as 

partner programs in a State’s Combined 

State Plan if a State elects to submit 

such Plan rather than a Unified State 

Plan. 

A critical part of the implementation 

of WIOA is the collection and reporting 

of accurate, timely information about 

individuals who receive services 

through the programs authorized under 

the law. Such information is critical to 

inform public policy and support 

analysis of effective strategies. In 

keeping with the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA), the methods for collecting 

such information are provided to the 

public for comment through information 

collection requests (ICRs). The Joint 

WIOA Final Rule had two 

accompanying requests to support the 

performance and planning aspects of 

these rules. Soon after publication of the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

(80 FR 20574, April 16, 2015), the 

Departments published a notice in the 

Federal Register announcing the joint 

ICR for the WIOA Performance 

Management, Information, and 

Reporting System (80 FR 43474, July 22, 

2015) and requested comments on this 

ICR during a 60-day public comment 

period (hereinafter ‘‘WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR’’) (see https:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!docket

Detail;D=ETA-2015-0007). On 

September 1, 2015, DOL solicited 

comments on its own WIOA 

performance accountability ICR to 

require the following programs to report 

on a standardized set of data elements 

through the WIOA Workforce 

Performance Accountability, 

Information, and Reporting System: 

WIOA adult, dislocated worker, and 

youth, Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service, National Farmworker Jobs 

Programs (NFJP), Trade Adjustment 

Assistance, YouthBuild, Indian and 

Native American (INA) grantees, and the 

Jobs for Veterans’ State Grants (80 FR 

52798) (hereinafter ‘‘DOL Performance 

ICR’’) (see https://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=ETA-2015-0008). On 

April 16, 2015, ED solicited comments 

on its ICR related to the VR program 

Case Service Report (RSA–911) to 

require VR agencies to report data 

required under sec. 101(a)(10) of the 

Rehabilitation Act, of 1973, as amended 

by WIOA, as well as performance 

accountability data under title I of 

WIOA (hereinafter ‘‘RSA–911’’). The 

Departments received 112 public 

comment submissions in response to the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR, DOL 

received public comments on the DOL 

Performance ICR, and ED received 

public comments on the RSA–911 

(respectively). 

On August 6, 2015, the Departments, 

together with the Departments of Health 

and Human Services, Agriculture, and 

Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), proposed a new information 

collection regarding required elements 

for submission of the Unified or 

Combined State Plan and Plan 

modifications under WIOA (hereinafter 

‘‘State Plan ICR’’) (80 FR 47003) (see 

https://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=ETA-2015-0006). The 

State Plan ICR received a total of 16 

public comments. These public 

comment submissions informed the 

development of the final State Plan ICR, 

which the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approved on February 19, 

2016. Most provisions in titles I through 

III of WIOA took effect on July 1, 2015, 

the first full program year after 

enactment; however, the new State 

Plans and performance accountability 

system requirements in the statute will 

take effect on July 1, 2016. Title IV took 

effect upon enactment unless otherwise 

indicated. 

Section V. Rulemaking Analysis and 

Notices, D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

provides summary information about 

the public comments on the Joint 

Performance ICR and the State Plan ICR. 

In addition to this Joint WIOA Final 

Rule, the Departments are publishing, in 

separate regulatory actions published in 

the Federal Register, four agencyspecific final rules that implement the 

provisions of WIOA that are 

administered separately by the 

Departments—one published by DOL 

implementing the agency-specific 

provisions of title I, and three published 

by ED implementing the agency-specific 

provisions of titles II and IV. Readers 

should note that there are a number of 

cross-references in this Joint WIOA 

Final Rule to the agency-specific final 

rules. Finally, the Departments 

structured this Joint WIOA Final Rule so 

that the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) parts will align with the CFR 

parts in the agency-specific final rules. 

To implement those provisions of 

WIOA that affect the WIOA programs 

and which will be jointly administered 

by both Departments, these regulations 

implement a number of improvements 

that WIOA makes to the public 

workforce system. These include 

improvements to: 

• Ensure that workforce education 

and employment services are 

coordinated and complementary by 

requiring a single, 4-year strategic State 

Plan for achieving the workforce goals 

of the State. Additionally, States may 

conduct, along with the core programs, 

collaborative planning with other 

Federal education and training 

programs specified in WIOA; 

• Ensure that Federal investments in 

education, employment, and training 

are evidence-based, data-driven, and 

accountable to participants and 

taxpayers by establishing a common 

performance accountability system for 

the core programs, requiring other 

authorized programs to report on the 

common performance indicators, and 

providing easy-to-understand 

information to consumers and the 

public about training providers and 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55794 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

program performance to help inform 

their decision-making; and 

• Enhance services provided to all job 

seekers and employers through the onestop delivery system, also known as the 

American Job Center system, by: 

Requiring the colocation of the WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service 

program; adding the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

program as a required partner; providing 

for State-established certification to 

ensure high-quality American Job 

Centers; requiring partners to dedicate 

funding for allowable infrastructure and 

other shared costs that are 

commensurate to the partner’s 

proportionate use and relative benefit 

received by the program; and promoting 

the development of integrated intake, 

case management, and reporting 

systems. 

Changes From the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

The Departments published a Joint 

WIOA NPRM on April 16, 2015 at 80 FR 

20574. The Final Rule supports the 

tenets expressed in the NPRM. In 

response to comments received and to 

strengthen the intent of the law, the 

Departments have made numerous 

revisions, including but not limited to 

changes to the following areas: 

• State Plans: The Joint WIOA Final 

Rule text, among other things: (1) 

Clarifies the expected involvement of 

stakeholders, core programs, and the 

State Workforce Development Boards 

(WDBs) in the State Plan development; 

(2) ensures consistency by requiring a 

description of joint planning and 

coordination across core programs, 

required one-stop partners, and other 

programs and activities included in the 

Unified and Combined State Plans; (3) 

requires States to provide an 

opportunity for public comment on and 

input into the development of Unified 

and Combined State Plans prior to their 

submission, and (4) clarifies 

requirements for Unified and Combined 

State Plan modifications. The preamble 

responds to suggestions regarding 

certain Unified and Combined State 

Plan requirements, as well as provides 

further guidance and clarifications with 

regard to certain regulatory 

requirements governing the Unified and 

Combined State Plans. 

• Performance Accountability: The 

Joint WIOA Final Rule clarifies certain 

definitions, primary indicators of 

performance, and sanctions. Changes in 

the Final Rule text include, among 

others: (1) Revising the definitions of 

‘‘participant,’’ ‘‘exit,’’ and ‘‘State;’’ (2) 

clarifying the credential attainment rate 

indicator; (3) adding the types of gain 

that are included in the measurable skill 

gains indicator; (4) clarifying the 

difference between the ‘‘adjusted level 

of performance’’ that is agreed upon at 

the time the Unified or Combined State 

Plan is approved and the ‘‘adjusted level 

of performance’’ that is determined at 

the end of the program year; and (5) 

adding a phased-in approach for 

sanctions due to failure to achieve 

adjusted levels of performance and a 

transition period for complete WIOA 

data to be available. The preamble 

explains intent to phase in 

implementation of the ‘‘effectiveness in 

serving employers’’ indicator and to 

implement a uniform, national customer 

satisfaction survey that is not tied to 

accountability provisions or the 

determination of sanctions. The 

preamble also provides further guidance 

and clarification regarding changes 

made to the Final Rule text, including 

the inclusion of outlying areas 

(American Samoa, Guam, 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and, as 

applicable, the Republic of Palau) for 

purposes of the performance 

accountability system. 

• One-Stop Governance and 

Operations: The Joint WIOA Final Rule 

includes changes to the operational 

aspects of one-stop operations 

including, among others: (1) Revising 

coverage of multiple program services 

and staff coverage in one-stop affiliate 

sites; (2) revising infrastructure funding 

regulations, and emphasizing partners’ 

responsibilities towards infrastructure 

costs; (3) providing detailed information 

about career services; (4) clarifying the 

involvement of the TANF programs as 

one-stop partners; (5) simplifying 

provisions governing Memoranda of 

Understanding (MOU) negotiations; (6) 

emphasizing the need to conduct an 

open competition for one-stop operator 

selection; (7); changing the requirements 

related to hours of operation outside 

normal business hours; (8) emphasizing 

both physical and programmatic 

accessibility; (9) clarifying when the 

State funding mechanism is triggered for 

the funding of the one-stop system, 

including the funding limits applicable 

to the State funding mechanism; and 

(10) establishing a deadline to conform 

to the new common one-stop identifier. 

As noted throughout this Final Rule, 

the Departments will be issuing 

guidance to help our regulated 

communities understand their rights 

and responsibilities under WIOA and 

these regulations. Consistent with the 

Administrative Procedure Act’s 

exemption from its notice and comment 

requirement for general statements of 

policy, interpretations and procedural 

instructions, this guidance will provide 

interpretations of many of the terms and 

provisions of these regulations and more 

detailed procedural instructions that 

would not be appropriate to set out in 

regulations. The Departments will also 

be issuing guidance to provide 

information on current priorities and 

initiatives, suggested best practices, and 

in response to stakeholder questions. 

The Departments also made a number 

of non-substantive changes to correct 

grammatical and typographical errors to 

improve the readability and conform the 

document stylistically that are not 

discussed in the analysis below. 

II. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AEFLA Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act 

ABAWD Able-Bodied Adults Without 

Dependents 

ABS Adult Basic Skills 

APA Administrative Procedure Act 

BFET Basic Food Employment and Training 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CBO Community-based organization 

CEO Chief elected official 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CHIP Children’s Health Insurance Program 

CMS Case Management System 

CRIS Common Reporting Information 

System 

CRO Community Rehabilitation 

Organization 

CSBG Community Services Block Grant 

CTE Career and Technical Education 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

DSA Designated State Agency 

DSU Designated State Unit 

ED U.S. Department of Education 

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission 

EFL Educational Functioning Level 

E.O. Executive Order 

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 

ESL English-as-a-second-language 

ETA Employment and Training 

Administration 

ETP Eligible training provider 

FEDES Federal Employment Data Exchange 

System 

FEIN Federal employer identification 

number 

FERPA Family Educational Rights and 

Privacy Act 

FY Fiscal Year 

GED General Education Diploma 

GPA Grade Point Average 

GS General Schedule 

HHS Department of Health and Human 

Services 

HSE High School Equivalency 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

ICR Information Collection Request 

INA Indian and Native American 

INAP Indian and Native American 

Programs 

IPE Individualized Plan for Employment 

IT Information technology 

ITA Individual Training Account 

JVSG Jobs for Veterans State Grants 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55795 

LMI Labor market information 

LSAL The Longitudinal Study of Adult 

Learning 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NASWA National Association of State 

Workforce Agencies 

NFJP National Farmworker Jobs Program 

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

MIS Management Information System 

OCTAE Office of Career, Technical, and 

Adult Education 

OJT On-the-job training 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

ORR Office of Refugee Resettlement 

PII Personally identifiable information 

PIRL Participant Individual Record Layout 

POP Period of Participation 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

PY Program Year 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RFP Request for Proposals 

RHY Runaway and Homeless Youth 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

SCSEP Senior Community Service 

Employment Program 

sec. Section of a Public Law or the United 

States Code 

SLDS Statewide Longitudinal Data System 

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program 

SRC State Rehabilitation Council 

SSA Social Security Administration 

SSN Social Security Number 

SWA State Workforce Agencies 

TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance 

TAG Technical Assistance Guide 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families 

TDD Telecommunications Device for the 

Deaf 

TEGL Training and Employment Guidance 

Letter 

UI Unemployment insurance 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VETS Veterans’ Employment and Training 

Service 

VEVRAA Vietnam Era Veterans’ 

Readjustment Assistance Act 

VR Vocational rehabilitation 

WDB Workforce Development Board 

WIA Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

WIOA Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act 

WISPR Workforce Investment Streamlined 

Performance Reporting 

WRIS Wage Record Interchange System 

III. Public Comments Received on the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

The Departments published five 

NPRMs related to WIOA on April 16, 

2015. The first NPRM is the Joint Rule 

for Unified and Combined State Plans, 

Performance Accountability, and the 

One-Stop System Joint Provisions (80 

FR 20574) (hereinafter ‘‘the Joint WIOA 

NPRM’’); the second NPRM is the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (80 FR 20690); the third NPRM is 

the Programs and Activities Authorized 

by the Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act (Title II of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act) (80 FR 

20668); the fourth is the State 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

program; State Supported Employment 

Services program; Limitations on Use of 

Subminimum Wage (80 FR 21059); and 

the fifth is the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act, Miscellaneous 

Program Changes (80 FR 20688). 

During the 60-day public comment 

period, the Departments received a total 

of 546 public comments on the Joint 

WIOA NPRM. In addition to these 

comments, the Departments also 

considered relevant public comments 

on the DOL and ED program-specific 

NPRMs. 

General Comments 

Comments: The Departments received 

many comments supporting these 

regulations. For example, the 

Departments received comments 

supporting cross-program data and 

performance measurement, the 

increased focus on adult education and 

services to immigrants, improved 

alignment between Federal initiatives 

and State and local needs, increased 

matching of apprenticeships with 

employers, as well as support for other 

provisions discussed in the section-bysection analysis below. Additionally, 

the Departments received comments 

commending the collaboration on joint 

regulations and encouraging additional 

coordinated guidance. Also, several 

commenters expressed support for the 

enactment of WIOA, noting the law will 

decrease unemployment, make the 

United States more competitive, lead to 

higher wages, and facilitate entry into 

the middle class. 

A few commenters generally opposed 

the rulemaking, in part because they 

disagreed with the role WIOA assigns to 

the Federal government concerning 

covered programs. Others suggested that 

the NPRM itself was excessive, overly 

cumbersome, and not understandable to 

the layperson, needed clarification, and 

was inconsistent with the plain and 

simple language of WIOA. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge these 

comments, but do not address them 

further in the Final Rule since they do 

not request specific changes to the 

regulatory text. However, the 

Departments note that the section-bysection analysis is drafted to provide 

additional clarity on complicated 

provisions, such as those related to the 

definitions used in the performance 

accountability regulations, requirements 

for the State funding mechanism for the 

one-stop system, and requirements for 

Unified and Combined State Plan 

modifications. Furthermore, revisions 

were made to various sections in the 

regulatory text to improve readability. 

Additionally, the Departments will 

continue to provide guidance and 

technical assistance, as needed, to assist 

States in implementing WIOA. 

Accessibility of the Public Workforce 

System to Individuals With Disabilities 

Comments: The Departments received 

many comments related to increased 

access to workforce services for 

individuals with disabilities, both in 

support of legislative changes and 

expressing concern that the regulations 

need to hold the public workforce 

system fully accountable to implement 

such changes. Several commenters 

noted that, under WIOA, individuals 

with disabilities will have greater access 

to workforce training programs and be 

able to take advantage of the benefits 

resulting from their training. However, 

one commenter asserted that the rule 

must do more to consider the unique 

needs of individuals with disabilities, 

who may take longer than others to 

achieve employment. Another 

commenter expressed concern that her 

organization would not have enough 

resources to provide pre-employment 

transition services to potentially eligible 

students with disabilities. A commenter 

encouraged efforts to improve the ability 

of the one-stop system to serve 

customers with disabilities through 

existing services and programs, and 

another urged the Departments to 

include specific requirements for 

training and access to text-to-speech and 

speech-to-text technologies for people 

with dyslexia and print disabilities. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA 

includes numerous provisions intended 

to increase employment opportunities 

for individuals with disabilities, and 

these regulations reinforce those 

statutory provisions. There are 

numerous discussions throughout part 

678 reiterating the Departments’ intent 

to ensure access to needed employment 

and training services to all individuals. 

The Department has published a Final 

Rule to implement sec. 188 of WIOA, 

which prohibits discrimination against 

WIOA participants, by making technical 

changes only to its existing regulation 

implementing WIA (i.e., (1) replicating 

at part 38 the rule from part 37, and (2) 

replacing references to the ‘‘Workforce 

Investment Act of 1998’’ or ‘‘WIA’’ with 

‘‘Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act’’ or ‘‘WIOA’’ to reflect the proper 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55796 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

statutory authority). See 80 FR 43,871 

(July 23, 2015). 

In addition, on January 26, 2016, DOL 

proposed updating these regulations to 

better align with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 

2008, Public Law 110–325, sec. 2(b)(1), 

122 Stat. 3553 (2008) and the relevant 

implementing regulations and guidance 

issued by the Department of Justice (28 

CFR parts 35 and 36), as well as the final 

regulations and guidance issued by the 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (29 CFR part 1630, 76 FR 

16978 (Mar. 25, 2011) (Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission 

regulations implementing Americans 

with Disabilities Act title I)). See 81 FR 

4493 (January 26, 2016). The proposed 

WIOA sec. 188 rule would ensure that 

the definition of ‘‘disability’’ is 

consistent with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act Amendments Act and 

current case law, which will enable 

more individuals with disabilities to be 

effectively served within the public 

workforce system. That NPRM also 

addresses accessibility requirements 

(such as those for information and 

electronic technologies) and service 

animals. The Departments encourage 

commenters to review carefully the 

provisions of part 678 in this Joint 

WIOA Final Rule, as well as the 

proposed WIOA sec. 188 rule. 

With respect to the commenter’s 

concerns about pre-employment 

transition services, the Departments 

acknowledge that the provision of these 

services is a new requirement imposed 

on the VR program under sec. 113 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by title IV of WIOA. States must reserve 

at least 15 percent of their VR allotment 

to provide these services to students 

with disabilities. The ED provides 

detailed discussions regarding this 

requirement in the VR program-specific 

final regulations published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register. 

Requests To Extend the Comment 

Period 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested a 60-day extension of the 

comment period. The commenters cited 

the size and complexity of the five 

proposed NPRMs implementing WIOA. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments recognize that the issues 

addressed in the NPRM are complex 

and important, the Departments 

concluded that the 60-day comment 

period was sufficient to provide the 

public a meaningful opportunity to 

comment, and this conclusion is 

supported by the hundreds of complex 

and thoughtful comments received. 

Additionally, the NPRM was available 

to the public for a preliminary review 

on the Federal Register Web site upon 

submission of the NPRMs to the Federal 

Register, which was several weeks prior 

to publication, thereby providing 

stakeholders additional time prior to the 

publication date. 

Conclusion 

These final regulations provide the 

critical framework for the 

implementation of WIOA. However, 

achieving the goals of WIOA will take 

visionary leadership and coordination at 

the State, regional, and local levels, and 

partnerships across many programs. It 

will require investment and innovation 

to develop new information technology 

that supports this important work, and 

make the most of this investment of 

public funds. The Departments will 

support these activities through program 

funding, on-going technical assistance 

and the provision of guidance to all 

levels of the American Job Center 

system. 

IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of 

Public Comments and the Final Joint 

Regulations 

A. Unified and Combined State Plans 

Under Title I of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 

CFR Part 676; 34 CFR Part 361, Subpart 

D; 34 CFR Part 463, Subpart H) 

WIOA requires the Governor of each 

State to submit a Unified or Combined 

State Plan to the Secretary of Labor that 

outlines a 4-year strategy for the State’s 

workforce development system. States 

must have approved State Plans in place 

to receive funding for the six core 

programs under WIOA—the adult, 

dislocated worker, and youth programs 

(WIOA title I); the AEFLA program 

(WIOA title II); the Employment Service 

program authorized under the WagnerPeyser Act, as amended by WIOA title 

III (Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service); and the VR program 

authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by WIOA title IV (VR program). States 

must submit, at a minimum, a Unified 

State Plan, which encompasses the six 

core programs under WIOA. However, 

States are encouraged to submit a 

Combined State Plan, which must 

include the six core programs of the 

Unified State Plan, plus one or more 

Combined State Plan partner programs, 

as described at § 676.140(d): (1) Career 

and Technical Education (CTE) 

programs authorized under the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.); (2) 

TANF, authorized under part A of title 

IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.); (3) Employment and 

training programs authorized under sec. 

6(d)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4)); (4) Work 

programs authorized under sec. 6(o) of 

the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 

U.S.C. 2015(o)); (5) Trade adjustment 

assistance activities under chapter 2 of 

title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 

U.S.C. 2271 et seq.); (6) Services for 

veterans authorized under chapter 41 of 

title 38 United States Code; (7) Programs 

authorized under State unemployment 

compensation laws (in accordance with 

applicable Federal law); (8) Senior 

Community Service Employment 

Programs under title V of the Older 

Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 

et seq.); (9) Employment and training 

activities carried out by HUD; (10) 

Employment and training activities 

carried out under the Community 

Services Block Grant Act (CSBG) (42 

U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); and (11) 

Reintegration of offenders programs 

authorized under sec. 212 of the Second 

Chance Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17532). 

When a State elects this option, the 

Combined State Plan will take the place 

of the Unified State Plan for that State. 

Coordination across multiple Federal 

programs provides a wider range of 

coordinated and streamlined services to 

the customer. 

This part describes the submission 

process and content requirements for 

the Unified and Combined State Plans 

under WIOA. The major content areas of 

the Unified or Combined State Plan 

include strategic and operational 

planning elements. Strategic planning 

elements include State analyses of 

economic and workforce factors, an 

assessment of workforce development 

activities, formulation of the State’s 

vision and goals for preparing an 

educated and skilled workforce that 

meets the needs of employers, and a 

strategy to achieve the vision and goals. 

Operational planning elements include 

State strategy implementation, State 

operating systems and policies, 

program-specific requirements, 

assurances, and additional requirements 

imposed by the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education, or other Secretaries, as 

appropriate. 

State WDBs are responsible for the 

development, implementation, and 

modification of the plan, and for 

convening all relevant programs, 

partners, and stakeholders. The 

Governor must ensure that the Unified 

or Combined State Plan is developed in 

a transparent manner and in 

consultation with representatives of 

Local WDBs and chief elected officials 

(CEOs), businesses, representatives of 

labor organizations, community-based 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55797 

organizations (CBOs), adult education 

providers, institutions of higher 

education, other stakeholders with an 

interest in the services provided by the 

six core programs, and any Combined 

plan partner program included in a 

Combined Plan, as well as the general 

public, including individuals with 

disabilities. Other stakeholders include, 

but are not limited to, youth education 

and workforce development providers, 

disability advocates and service entities, 

youth-serving programs, and other 

advocacy organizations relevant to the 

programs covered by the Unified or 

Combined State Plan. 

As noted in the NPRM, the 

Departments have chosen not to include 

all of the specific planning elements in 

the regulation. Instead, comprehensive 

State Plan requirements for both Unified 

and Combined State Plans are detailed 

in the WIOA Unified and Combined 

State Plan and Plan Modifications ICR, 

entitled ‘‘Required Elements for 

Submission of the Unified or Combined 

State Plan and Plan Modifications 

under the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act,’’ under the OMB 

Collection Number 1205–0522 (hereafter 

‘‘WIOA State Plan ICR’’). ICRs must be 

renewed every 3 years. In future years, 

the WIOA State Plan ICR may undergo 

revisions. Throughout this preamble, 

‘‘WIOA State Plan ICR’’ refers to the 

WIOA State Plan ICR as published on 

February 19, 2016. The WIOA State Plan 

ICR went through two rounds of public 

comment before being finalized and 

future revisions will be subject to public 

comment as well, as required under the 

PRA. In addition, the Departments 

jointly have issued guidance explaining 

the mechanics of how a State must 

submit its State Plan, through TEGL No. 

14–15, Policy Directive RSA–PD–16–03, 

and Program Memorandum 16–1, all 

entitled Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) Requirements 

for Unified and Combined State Plans, 

which were issued in March 2016. 

States must use the WIOA State Plan 

ICR to develop and submit the WIOA 

Unified or Combined State Plan and in 

accordance with instructions described 

in the jointly issued State Plan 

guidance. 

In the section-by-section discussions 

of each Unified and Combined State 

Plan provision below, the heading 

references the DOL CFR part and section 

number. However, ED has identical 

provisions at 34 CFR part 361, subpart 

D (under its State VR program 

regulations) and at 34 CFR part 463, 

subpart H (under a new CFR part for 

AEFLA regulations). For purposes of 

brevity, the section-by-section 

discussions for each Department’s 

provisions appear only once—in 

conjunction with the DOL section 

number—and constitute the 

Departments’ collective explanation and 

rationale for each provision. When the 

regulations are published in the CFR, 

these joint performance regulations will 

appear in each of the CFR parts 

identified above. 

Section 676.100 What are the purposes 

of the Unified and Combined State 

Plans? 

Section 676.100 describes the 

principal purposes of the Unified and 

Combined State Plans, which 

communicate the State’s vision for the 

State public workforce system and serve 

as vehicles for developing, aligning, and 

integrating the State public workforce 

system across Federal programs. Section 

676.100(b) explains how the strategies 

articulated in the plan support the 

State’s vision and overarching goals. 

The goals of the 4-year Unified and 

Combined State Plans are to align and 

integrate Federal education, 

employment, and training programs; 

direct investments to ensure that 

training and services are meeting the 

needs of employers and job seekers; 

apply consistent job-driven training 

strategies across all relevant Federal 

programs; and engage economic, 

education, and workforce partners in 

improving the workforce development 

system. The Departments received a few 

comments on this section, none of 

which necessitated substantive changes 

to the regulatory text. Section 676.100, 

as discussed below, remains unchanged 

from the NPRM except for minor 

technical edits. 

Comments: Several commenters 

supported the Departments’ stated 

purpose of the Unified and Combined 

State Plans. A commenter said the 

regulation should require that State 

WDBs be provided with regular (e.g., 

quarterly) program information and 

data, and at least annual analysis of the 

State’s progress toward State Plan goals. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered these 

comments and concur that regular 

receipt and review of program 

information, data, and analysis will 

better enable effective decision-making 

by the State WDB. Section 677.160 of 

the joint performance regulations 

requires States to report data annually 

for all six core programs; however, some 

programs will report data quarterly, 

specifically the WIOA title I programs, 

the Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service program, and the VR program, 

in accordance with part 677 of this Joint 

WIOA Final Rule. The State’s quarterly 

and annual reports are publicly 

available, and State and Local WDBs are 

encouraged to review this information 

regularly. Therefore, the Departments 

have concluded that it is unnecessary to 

amend the final regulations to require 

that data be provided to the WDBs 

regularly as the commenter 

recommended. 

Comments: A commenter requested 

confirmation that the references to 

‘‘relevant’’ and ‘‘job-driven’’ education 

and training, in proposed 

§ 676.100(b)(2) and (3), refer to 

‘‘evidence-based’’ strategies identified 

in the Job-Driven Checklist (from Vice 

President Biden’s report ‘‘Ready to 

Work: Job-Driven Training and 

American Opportunity’’ and the study 

of ‘‘What Works in Job Training: A 

Synthesis of Evidence’’). The 

commenter urged the Departments to 

provide clarification on how to, and 

encourage States to, use the joint State 

planning process to ensure that these 

evidence-based strategies are 

incorporated into their newly energized 

workforce development systems. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that evidence- based 

strategies are important for the strategic 

planning required by this section. 

Paragraph (b)(2) of § 676.100 requires, as 

part of the description of the purpose of 

the Unified and Combined State Plans, 

that the plans direct investments to 

economic, education, and workforce 

training programs that focus on 

providing relevant education and 

training. Section 676.100(b)(3) further 

requires that plans apply strategies for 

job-driven training consistently across 

Federal programs. The references to 

‘‘relevant’’ and ‘‘job-driven’’ education 

and training, in § 676.100(b)(2) and (3), 

include the ‘‘evidence-based’’ strategies 

identified in the Job-Driven Checklist 

from Vice President Biden’s report 

‘‘Ready to Work: Job-Driven Training 

and American Opportunity’’ and the 

study of ‘‘What Works in Job Training: 

A Synthesis of Evidence.’’ Through the 

issuance of joint Departmental guidance 

and instructions, the Departments 

offered further clarification and 

encouragement to States regarding how 

the joint planning process can ensure 

that evidence-based strategies are 

incorporated throughout the workforce 

development system, including the 

priorities of the job-driven checklist. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to this comment. 

Section 676.105 What are the general 

requirements for the Unified State Plan? 

Section 676.105 describes the general 

requirements for the Unified State Plan 

that apply to all six core programs. 

These requirements set the foundation 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55798 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

for WIOA implementation by fostering 

strategic alignment, improving service 

integration, and ensuring that the public 

workforce system is industry-relevant, 

responds to the economic needs of the 

State, and matches employers with 

skilled workers. The Departments 

envision a plan that describes how the 

State will develop and implement a 

unified, integrated workforce 

development system rather than a plan 

that discusses the State’s approach to 

operating each core program 

individually. 

Section 676.105(a) explains that 

Unified State Plans must be submitted 

in accordance with § 676.130 and sec. 

102(c) of WIOA as explained in joint 

planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education, with 

instructions to States on how to submit 

Unified State Plans. 

Section 676.105(b) implements 

WIOA’s statutory requirements in sec. 

102(a), and requires that the State 

submit the Unified State Plan to the 

Secretary of Labor to receive funding for 

the workforce development system’s six 

core programs. The Departments made 

an editorial change under § 676.105(b) 

to clarify that at a minimum States must 

satisfy the requirements of a Unified 

State Plan to be eligible to receive 

funding for the workforce development 

system’s six core programs. However, if 

a State submits a Combined State Plan 

then it will, by including all the 

requirements of a Unified State Plan as 

mandated by the regulation, also satisfy 

the requirements of a Unified State Plan. 

WIOA sec. 103(b)(1) and § 676.140(e)(1) 

of this regulation state that a Combined 

State Plan must include all of the 

requirements of a Unified State Plan. 

Therefore, if a State submits a complete 

Combined State Plan, it also will satisfy 

all the requirements of a Unified State 

Plan. 

Section 676.105(c) requires, in 

accordance with sec. 102(a) of WIOA, 

that the State outline its 4-year strategy 

for WIOA’s core programs and meet the 

requirements of WIOA sec. 102(b). 

Paragraph (c) of § 676.105 remains 

unchanged from that proposed in the 

NPRM. 

Section 676.105(d), which 

implements sec. 102(b) of WIOA, 

describes the strategic and operational 

planning elements that must be 

included in the Unified State Plan. The 

final regulation, consistent with that 

proposed in the NPRM, concerns major 

structural elements rather than 

enumerating all the statutory State 

planning requirements. States still must 

comply with each of the statutory 

requirements, regardless of whether 

they are repeated in regulation. In 

addition to minor technical edits 

throughout, the Departments made two 

substantive changes to § 676.105(d)(3). 

First, in § 676.105(d)(3)(iv), the 

Departments specifically mention the 

assurance that the lead State agencies 

responsible for administering the core 

programs reviewed and commented on 

the appropriate operational planning of 

the Unified State Plan and approved 

those elements as serving the needs of 

the individuals served by the programs. 

Second, the Departments added a new 

paragraph (d)(3)(v) that requires the 

Unified State Plan to include a 

description of the joint planning and 

coordination across the core programs 

and other required one-stop partners 

and other programs in the workforce 

development system. While these 

provisions are new in these final 

regulations, they do not represent new 

requirements on the States because each 

of these requirements are contained in 

sec. 102(b) of WIOA and were 

applicable to the States regardless of 

whether they were mentioned in the 

NPRM. 

In these final regulations, the 

Departments have added § 676.105(e) to 

make clear that all of the requirements 

of part 676 (which implements the 

Unified or Combined State Plan 

requirements of secs. 102 and 103 of 

WIOA) apply to the outlying areas. As 

a result, the outlying areas must submit 

a Unified or Combined State Plan to 

receive funding for all of the core 

programs. This regulatory change is 

discussed at greater length below. 

Outlying Areas 

Comments: The Departments received 

several comments related to the 

applicability of Unified or Combined 

State Plan requirements to outlying 

areas. In the NPRM, the Departments 

sought comments specifically related to 

this issue and provided two options: 

Either (1) require outlying areas to 

submit Unified or Combined State Plans 

or (2) exempt outlying areas from the 

Unified or Combined State Plan 

requirement as a prerequisite for 

receiving funds for core programs. The 

commenters were unanimous in their 

support of explicitly requiring outlying 

areas to submit Unified or Combined 

State Plans as a prerequisite for 

receiving funding for all core programs. 

In so doing, these commenters said this 

approach would ensure consistency and 

a unified planning process, increase the 

relevance and validity of national 

program comparisons, and contribute to 

a fair and equitable distribution of 

funds. These commenters also noted 

that this approach would avoid the 

concern that outlying areas would 

submit Unified or Combined State Plans 

that include only the adult education 

and VR programs, since titles II and IV 

of WIOA require the submission of such 

plans as a prerequisite to receive 

funding. 

While supporting the approach that 

would require outlying areas to submit 

a Unified or Combined State Plan as a 

prerequisite to receive funding for all 

core programs, one commenter 

expressed concern that ED permits 

outlying areas to receive adult education 

program funds under title II through the 

Consolidated Grant to Insular Areas 

application process (Consolidated Grant 

process). The commenter recommended 

that if ED continues to permit the award 

of adult education funds through the 

Consolidated Grant process, the 

Departments should require that 

outlying areas choosing to go through 

the Consolidated Grant process include 

title II activities as part of the planning 

process for the Unified or Combined 

State Plan, even though their funding is 

awarded through the Consolidated 

Grant. 

Another commenter expressed 

concern that, if the outlying areas were 

not required to submit Unified or 

Combined State Plans for all core 

programs, a situation could exist in 

which the VR program would be the 

only component of such a plan if any of 

the outlying areas opted to include adult 

education program funds in its 

Consolidated Grant application process. 

The commenter suggested that, in such 

a situation, the Departments should 

ensure that outlying areas are not 

penalized and denied funding for the 

VR program, which is one of the six core 

programs under WIOA. 

Other commenters expressed general 

support for requiring outlying areas to 

submit Unified or Combined State 

Plans, and one commenter noted that 

the inconsistency in the definitions of 

‘‘State’’ and ‘‘outlying areas’’ in WIOA 

raised questions as to congressional 

intent on the issue of whether the 

Unified or Combined State Plan 

requirements should be applicable to 

the outlying areas. A commenter 

suggested, if the intent of differing 

definitions was to treat outlying areas 

differently than States, a more 

comprehensive delineation should be 

provided. In particular, the delineation 

should specify more than just a 

‘‘competitive process’’ for the title I 

programs since outlying areas have 

historically received funding for these 

programs on a formula basis. The 

commenter suggested that the 

requirement for competitions is 

inconsistent with the need for a Unified 

or Combined State Plan because, under 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55799 

a competition, funds would come into 

question every year. The commenter 

further suggested that if outlying areas 

are not going to be treated differently for 

purposes of the State planning 

requirements, a reconciliation of terms 

should be provided by Congress, 

thereby eliminating all ambiguity and 

restoring formula funding for the 

outlying areas through submission of a 

Unified or Combined State Plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that applying the 

Unified or Combined State Plan 

requirements to the outlying areas is 

most consistent with the vision under 

WIOA for all six core programs to 

provide an integrated and coordinated 

workforce development system. 

The Departments want to make clear 

that the State Plan requirements in 

WIOA secs. 102 and 103 apply to 

outlying areas, not just to States. To that 

end, the Departments have added 

clarifying language in § 676.105(e) of 

these final regulations. The Departments 

have concluded that requiring the 

outlying areas to submit Unified or 

Combined State Plans that incorporate 

all of the core programs as a prerequisite 

to receive funding under any of the core 

programs is most consistent with the 

plain meaning of WIOA’s planning and 

allocation of funds requirements when 

both are read together. Further, it is the 

only interpretation that gives full 

meaning to the unified strategic 

planning required across all core 

programs. 

In resolving the apparent 

inconsistency and potential for 

confusion regarding the definitions of 

‘‘State’’ and ‘‘outlying area,’’ as it was 

explained in the NPRM preamble, the 

Final Rule relies on the Secretary of 

Labor’s general authority to regulate at 

sec. 189 of WIOA, and applicable 

provisions of titles II and IV of WIOA. 

In so doing, the Departments ensure that 

all core programs—and all grantees 

under each of those programs—are 

treated similarly, thereby achieving the 

vision of WIOA as an integrated and 

coordinated one-stop delivery system 

and a unified, strategic planning process 

encompassing all core programs. 

The Departments also agree with the 

commenter that the option, which has 

existed for ED, for outlying areas to 

include the adult education program as 

part of a Consolidated Grant 

application, raises some unique 

concerns with regard to the Unified or 

Combined State Plan requirements of 

WIOA. When an outlying area submits 

a Consolidated Grant application, 

pursuant to 48 U.S.C. 1469a, the 

application is submitted in lieu of any 

other State Plan required by any of the 

programs included in the Consolidated 

Grant application. The Departments 

have considered the suggestion made by 

the commenter; however, resolution of 

this particular concern goes beyond the 

scope of these joint regulations. The ED 

will take the recommendation under 

advisement and will address this issue 

more fully in its administration of the 

Consolidated Grant to Insular Areas. 

The Departments recognize that this 

interpretation raises additional 

questions with regard to the competition 

provisions that apply to the title I core 

programs in WIOA sec. 127(b)(1)(B). 

The DOL will address this issue in 

guidance. 

Joint Planning Guidelines 

Comments: Proposed § 676.105(a) is, 

in the NPRM, the first mention of joint 

planning guidelines to be issued by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education. A 

number of commenters questioned 

whether the joint guidelines would be 

subject to public comment, and a few 

commenters challenged whether, in 

issuing the joint guidelines, the 

Departments would be in compliance 

with the Administrative Procedures Act 

(APA). 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments’ joint planning guidelines, 

issued March 2016, complied with the 

APA. The APA does not require notice 

and comment for interpretative rules, 

general statements of policy, or rules of 

agency organization, procedure, or 

practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The 

planning guidance falls under these 

exceptions, and thus, was not subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking. 

Specifically, the guidance includes 

procedural rules explaining the 

mechanics of how a State must submit 

its State Plan, as well as interpretive 

rules as needed to explain the 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirement. 

Comments: One commenter 

supported the inclusion of adult 

education as a core program in the 

Unified State Plan in § 676.105(b)(2), as 

well as the requirement that those who 

administer adult education programs be 

represented on State and Local WDBs. 

Multiple commenters asserted that any 

grant programs under the jurisdiction of 

DOL ETA and operated through the 

State Workforce Agency (SWA) or the 

one-stop delivery system should be 

required to be part of the State’s Unified 

or Combined plan. As an example, the 

commenters said there should not be a 

separate planning process for the Jobs 

for Veterans’ State Grant (JVSG) or 

Foreign Labor Certification. Another 

commenter said non-WIOA core 

program partners should be allowed to 

participate in the strategic portion of the 

planning process, even if they cannot 

fully align their program budgets and 

operational plans with a 2- or 4-year 

operational plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the 

commenter’s support for inclusion of 

those who administer adult education 

programs on the State and Local WDBs 

in the regulation as proposed. State and 

Local WDB requirements, and related 

comments, are discussed in sections of 

the DOL WIOA Final Rule preamble, 

which is published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register (see 20 

CFR 679.110(b)(3)(iii)(A) and 

679.320(d)). 

Regarding comments in support of 

including additional programs in the 

Unified State Plan, sec. 102(a) of WIOA 

and § 676.105(b) make clear that only 

the core programs (as defined in sec. 

3(12) and (13) of WIOA) are to be 

included in such plan. Paragraph (b) of 

§ 676.105 is consistent with the six core 

programs identified throughout WIOA. 

States may submit a Combined State 

Plan that could include the programs 

mentioned by commenters. If a State 

chooses to submit a Combined State 

Plan, the plan must include the six core 

programs and one or more of the 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

and activities described in sec. 103(a)(2) 

of WIOA, and § 676.140(d). The JVSG is 

a Combined State Plan partner program 

which States may include in a 

Combined State Plan as described under 

WIOA sec. 103 and § 676.140(d). 

Foreign Labor Certification is not a 

Combined Plan partner program under 

WIOA sec. 103; however, a State may 

include a description of Foreign Labor 

Certification in its State Plan among its 

description of other programs and 

activities. 

Regarding the inclusion of non-WIOA 

core program partners in the strategic 

portion of the planning process, WIOA 

sec. 102(b)(2) requires State Plans to 

discuss alignment among core programs 

and the employment and training 

services within education and human 

services programs which operate in 

partnership with the one-stop delivery 

system, including those not authorized 

by WIOA. Although not described in the 

regulation for State Plans, this 

requirement is reflected in the WIOA 

State Plan ICR. The Departments agree 

that coordination with program partners 

and stakeholders to the fullest extent 

possible is vital for successful joint 

planning. In addition to the changes 

made to § 676.105(d)(3) as described 

above and relevant to these comments, 

the Departments revised § 676.140 

regarding Combined State Plans, which 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55800 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

will be discussed in more detail below 

in connection with that section. Further 

comments regarding the importance of 

public comment, review, input and 

coordination in development of the plan 

are discussed in this preamble in 

§ 676.130(c) and (d)(1) for Unified State 

Plans and under §§ 676.140(e)(4) and 

676.143(b) and (c) for Combined State 

Plans. 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

responded to the authority granted to 

the Secretaries by WIOA sec. 102(b)(2) 

to create additional operational 

planning requirements beyond those 

already detailed in statutory language. 

These commenters requested that the 

Secretaries, in their discretion, keep to 

a minimum any additional planning 

requirements to reduce the burden 

placed on States and to provide States 

with ample opportunity to comply with 

statutorily established planning 

elements. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have considered these 

comments and agree. WIOA contains a 

detailed description of planning 

requirements, and the Departments have 

chosen not to include all of the specific 

planning elements in the regulation. 

However, as made clear in the NPRM 

and this preamble, States must comply 

with all State planning requirements set 

forth in WIOA regardless of whether the 

requirements are repeated in these 

regulations. Comprehensive State Plan 

requirements for both Unified and 

Combined State Plans are detailed 

through the WIOA State Plan ICR. The 

Departments have endeavored to keep 

additional planning requirements to a 

minimum, while also attempting to 

ensure that the WIOA reform principles 

of program integration and alignment, 

job-driven training, accountability and 

transparency are reflected in the State 

Plans. 

Comments: The Departments received 

a number of comments that requested 

plan requirements be added. In response 

to these suggestions, described in more 

detail below, the Departments have 

made no change to the regulatory text 

but have indicated whether the 

particular suggested requirements are 

indeed already included in the 

applicable WIOA State Plan ICR, 

published on February 19, 2016. In 

future years, the WIOA State Plan ICR 

may undergo revisions. The level of 

detail of the plan requirements 

suggested by the following comments is 

more appropriately addressed in the 

WIOA State Plan ICR than in the 

regulatory text. The Departments have 

declined to incorporate the following 

suggested changes in the regulatory text, 

but the discussion of the following 

comments points to various provisions 

of the WIOA State Plan ICR and other 

places in the regulation that are 

pertinent to the commenters’ concerns. 

Some commenters asserted that the 

regulation should require that States 

address priority of service for covered 

veterans, and for those veterans with 

service connected and non-serviceconnected (condition not as a result of 

military service) disabilities. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have reviewed these 

comments. The WIOA State Plan ICR 

requires that States describe in their 

Unified or Combined State Plans how 

they will implement and monitor the 

priority of service provisions for all 

veterans in accordance with the 

requirements of 38 U.S.C. 4215. This 

provision applies to all employment and 

training programs funded in whole or in 

part by DOL. In addition, the WIOA 

State Plan ICR requires States to explain 

the referral process for veterans 

determined to have a significant barrier 

to employment, including certain 

disabled veterans, to receive services 

from the JVSG program. 

Comments: One commenter said the 

Departments should unify the definition 

of ‘‘supportive services’’ across 

programs, thereby aligning adult 

education and literacy activities with 

other core programs and with one-stop 

partners. The commenter noted the 

disparity between the definition of 

‘‘supportive services’’ under sec. 3(59) 

of WIOA and the definition of ‘‘other 

services’’ under career pathways 

programs. The commenter concluded 

that the quality and type of wraparound 

services offered should not be 

dependent on the program in which 

individuals participate, and the 

Departments should encourage States to 

develop comprehensive wraparound 

services that are available to adults, 

youth, dislocated workers, and adult 

education students whenever possible. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

3(59) provides a definition of 

‘‘supportive services;’’ this definition 

applies to, and remains consistent 

across, all core programs. The WIOA 

State Plan ICR, which implements the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for Unified and Combined State Plans, 

requires States to describe how the 

entities carrying out the programs 

involved in the Unified or Combined 

State Plan including the core programs, 

any applicable Combined State Plan 

partner programs, and any mandatory 

and optional one-stop partner programs, 

will coordinate activities and resources 

to provide comprehensive, high-quality, 

customer-centered services. This 

requirement includes the provision of 

supportive services. However, the 

determination of need for, and the 

extent to which there is a need for, 

supportive services is within the State 

WDB’s discretion, consistent with each 

of the individual program’s authorizing 

statutes. 

Comments: One commenter, in 

response to § 676.105(d)(1), said the 

Departments should ensure that 

consistent data definitions and 

comparable data are used to assess 

respective labor market areas. 

Departments’ Response: The WIOA 

State Plan ICR emphasizes the use of 

economic analysis and labor market 

information throughout and also 

addresses alignment of labor market 

information systems. The Departments 

encourage States to use a variety of 

accurate, reliable, and timely labor 

market information on which to base 

analyses in the State Plan. However, 

consistent with WIOA, the Departments 

will not require States to use a 

particular dataset and will leave the 

choice of data sources to the States’ 

discretion, thereby allowing each State 

to meet its own unique needs and 

circumstances. 

Addressing the Needs of Individuals 

With Barriers to Employment 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that the Departments require States to 

provide additional information 

regarding how they will address the 

needs of people with disabilities. 

Another commenter stated that WIOA 

requires that State and local planning 

efforts be informed by an analysis of 

various data, including data that include 

the education and skill levels of 

individuals with barriers to 

employment. A commenter said it 

would be helpful if the Departments 

explicitly required that States determine 

the number of individuals employed 

under 14(c) special wage certificates as 

part of the ‘‘analysis of the current 

workforce, employment and 

unemployment data, labor market 

trends, and the educational and skill 

levels of the workforce, including 

individuals with barriers to employment 

(including individuals with disabilities), 

in the State’’ pursuant to WIOA sec. 

102(b)(1)(B). This commenter also stated 

that the strategic planning elements 

obligate the State to examine the 

specific employment related 

characteristics in their State and that 

this would be a valuable opportunity to 

gather information on employment 

statistics for individuals with 

disabilities. 

Departments’ Response: Consistent 

with WIOA and these final regulations, 

multiple sections of the WIOA State 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55801 

Plan ICR require the State to address the 

needs of individuals with barriers to 

employment. The term ‘‘individual with 

a barrier to employment,’’ as defined in 

sec. 3(24) of WIOA, encompasses the 

following groups of people: Individuals 

with disabilities, including youth with 

disabilities; displaced homemakers; 

low-income individuals; Indians, Alaska 

Natives, and Native Hawaiians; older 

individuals; ex-offenders; homeless 

individuals, or homeless children and 

youths; youth who are in or have aged 

out of the foster care system; individuals 

who are English language learners, 

individuals who have low levels of 

literacy, and individuals facing 

substantial cultural barriers; 

farmworkers (as defined at sec. 167(i) of 

WIOA and Training and Employment 

Guidance Letter No. 35–14); individuals 

within 2 years of exhausting lifetime 

eligibility under the TANF program; 

single parents (including single 

pregnant women); and long-term 

unemployed individuals. Therefore, 

States are required to address the needs 

of individuals with disabilities in the 

Unified or Combined State Plan. 

Consistent with sec. 102(b)(1)(B) of 

WIOA and these final regulations, the 

WIOA State Plan ICR requires that State 

analysis related to individuals with 

barriers to employment include 

employment and unemployment, labor 

market trends, education, and skill 

levels of the workforce and any 

apparent gaps between the skills in 

demand by employers and the skill 

levels of the workforce. State and local 

planning efforts are informed by this 

analysis. Based on this analysis of 

workforce and labor market information 

required under sec. 102(b)(1)(B) of 

WIOA, § 676.105(d) and the WIOA State 

Plan ICR require State Plans to describe 

State’s strategic vision and goals for 

developing its workforce and meeting 

employer needs in order to support 

economic growth and economic selfsufficiency. To that end, the State must 

describe its goals for preparing an 

educated and skilled workforce, 

including preparing youth and 

individuals with barriers to employment 

and other populations. Further, the 

WIOA State Plan ICR requires the State 

to assure that the State obtained input 

into the development of the Unified or 

Combined State Plan and provided an 

opportunity for comment on the plan by 

primary stakeholders, including 

organizations that provide services to 

individuals with barriers to employment 

and that the Unified or Combined State 

Plan is available and accessible to the 

general public. 

Additionally, the Departments agree 

that the number of individuals 

employed under 14(c) special wage 

certificates may be helpful as part of the 

analysis by the State of workforce needs. 

However, the benefit of requiring the 

collection of sufficient data elements to 

satisfy the needs of every program must 

be balanced with the burden such a 

requirement would impose on State 

program operators and participants. For 

this reason, the Departments are not 

regulating such a requirement. While 

the collection of this data element will 

not be required of States, comparable 

data is publicly available. When an 

employer applies for a sec. 14(c) 

certificate from the Department of 

Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, the 

employer is required to report on their 

application the number of workers with 

disabilities they employed at 

subminimum wages during their most 

recently completed fiscal year. The 

Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour 

Division posts on its Web site (http://

www.dol.gov/whd/

workerswithdisabilities/) lists of all 

employers who hold sec. 14(c) 

certificates and certain data elements 

reported on their applications, 

including the number of workers with 

disabilities who were paid subminimum 

wages. 

Finally, the Departments agree that 

the strategic planning elements 

requirements present a valuable 

opportunity to gather information on 

employment statistics for individuals 

with disabilities, so long as States are 

mindful of Federal and State law 

protecting personally identifiable 

information (PII). 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

said States should be required to 

include the following information in 

their State Plans: (1) Explicit activities 

focused on how they will work to 

ensure ‘‘low-level learners’’ and hard-toserve populations are served by the 

State Plan, and (2) a report on the 

diversity of programs funded and the 

actions taken to ensure broad 

participation at the local level. A 

commenter urged the Departments to 

encourage States and localities to build 

activities into their State Plans 

specifically directed at raising 

awareness about older workers and 

dispelling stereotypes. This same 

commenter also urged the Departments 

to encourage States to create plans that 

ensure engagement of all players to help 

employers connect with older workers. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have reviewed these 

comments. As noted above, States must 

address in their Unified or Combined 

State Plans the needs of ‘‘individuals 

with barriers to employment,’’ as 

defined in sec. 3(24) of WIOA, in the 

State’s workforce analysis, goals for the 

public workforce system and in the 

State’s stakeholder input and public 

comment assurances. As described 

above, the term ‘‘individual with a 

barrier to employment’’ includes 

individuals who have low levels of 

literacy and older workers. However, 

the Governors and State WDBs will 

determine the explicit activities 

appropriate for their individual States. 

For this reason, the Departments are not 

requiring in these regulations specific 

activities to satisfy these requirements, 

though we acknowledge that some states 

may elect to do so. In developing their 

Unified or Combined State Plans, States 

must conduct a thorough analysis of 

labor market statistics, which will 

address the needs of specific 

populations. The Departments do not 

have authority under WIOA to require a 

report on the diversity of programs 

funded and the actions taken to ensure 

broad participation at the local level, as 

recommended by commenters. 

Comments: A few commenters 

recommended that the Departments 

encourage WDBs to establish effective 

operational partnerships with 

Continuum of Care bodies and State 

councils focused on homelessness. A 

couple of commenters also suggested 

that the Departments encourage State 

Plans to include specific strategies for 

using employment to prevent and end 

homelessness. One commenter provided 

examples of specific strategies for using 

employment to prevent and end 

homelessness, including HUD support 

for public housing residents, 

individuals with housing vouchers, and 

housing and community development 

projects. Lastly, this same commenter 

urged the Departments to work with 

HUD and other national experts and 

initiatives to identify and promote 

promising examples of where and how 

homeless services systems and 

workforce systems are working together 

for the benefit of increasing employment 

and economic opportunity for job 

seekers. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have reviewed these 

comments. The Departments encourage 

State and Local WDBs to partner with 

appropriate entities to address the needs 

and concerns of individuals who are 

homeless or at risk of homelessness, 

including Continuum of Care bodies, 

State councils focused on homelessness, 

and programs administered by HUD. 

These are appropriate strategies for a 

State Plan in States with significant 

issues related to individuals who are 

homeless or at-risk of homelessness. As 

noted above, in developing its Unified 

or Combined State Plan, the State must 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55802 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

address the needs of individuals with 

barriers to employment in the State’s 

workforce analysis, goals for the public 

workforce system and in the State’s 

stakeholder input and public comment 

assurances. An ‘‘individual with a 

barrier to employment’’ in WIOA sec. 

3(24) includes homeless individuals. 

Because each State’s needs and 

circumstances are unique, the 

Departments have not imposed the 

additional planning requirements 

suggested by commenters in these final 

regulations. The Departments agree with 

the commenter about the need for 

increased collaboration at the Federal 

level and, to that end, the Departments 

have collaborated with other Federal 

agencies, including HUD, in developing 

the WIOA State Plan ICR and will 

continue to do so to ensure full 

implementation of WIOA. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that WIOA represents a substantial shift 

from the WIA because it increases the 

amount of title I youth funding 

dedicated to out-of-school youth to 75 

percent (up from the prior 30 percent 

under WIA) and expands the age range 

to include those between 16 and 24 

years old. The commenters said 

immigrants represent more than 1 in 10 

youth in this age range nationwide. The 

commenters urged the Departments to 

explore ways to encourage States and 

Local WDBs to review their program 

design and recruitment strategies to 

ensure that they are reaching and 

effectively serving eligible immigrants 

and youth in their communities who are 

English language learners. 

Departments’ Response: Some 

guidance has already been released by 

DOL related to the change in the 

percentage of youth program (title I) 

formula dollars that must be spent on 

out-of-school youth, (see TEGL No. 23– 

14), and DOL plans to issue further 

guidance and technical assistance 

focused on strategies for complying with 

this requirement. The Departments 

agree that States should address their 

strategies for serving out-of-school 

youth in State Plans. The WIOA State 

Plan ICR requires States to describe the 

strategies the State will use to achieve 

improved outcomes for out-of-school 

youth as they are defined in WIOA sec. 

129(a)(1)(B), including how it will 

leverage and align the core programs, 

any Combined State Plan partner 

programs included in this plan, required 

and optional one-stop partner programs, 

and any other resources available. In 

developing their Unified or Combined 

State Plans, States must address the 

needs of individuals with barriers to 

employment in their workforce analysis, 

goals for the public workforce system 

and in stakeholder input and public 

comment assurances. Under WIOA sec. 

3(24), individuals with barriers to 

employment include youth with 

disabilities, homeless children and 

youths, youth who are in or have aged 

out of the foster care system, individuals 

who are English language learners, 

individuals who have low levels of 

literacy, and individuals facing 

substantial cultural barriers. In their 

Unified or Combined State Plan, States 

also must describe how the one-stop 

delivery system will ensure that each 

one-stop center is able to meet the needs 

of English language learners. The 

Departments encourage States with 

eligible immigrants and youth in their 

communities to revisit their program 

design and strategies to ensure that they 

are reaching and effectively serving 

these populations. 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

recommended that the Departments 

require that State Plans provide for 

access for English language learners to 

all title I-funded services. If any title Ifunded programs in a State or locality 

are not explicitly expected to provide 

access to English language learners, the 

commenters continued, the Departments 

should require that the State or locality 

demonstrate how it is complying with 

Federal anti-discrimination provisions 

and providing equitable access to title I 

services for English language learners. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have reviewed these 

comments and agree that providing for 

the needs of English language learners 

through title I services, as well as other 

services, should be a component of all 

Unified and Combined State Plans. Sec. 

102(b)(2)(C)(vii) of WIOA requires States 

to describe how the one-stop delivery 

system (including one-stop center 

operators and the one-stop delivery 

system partners) will comply with sec. 

188 of WIOA. In addition, the WIOA 

State Plan ICR requires States to 

describe how the one-stop delivery 

system (including one-stop center 

operators and the one-stop delivery 

system partners) will ensure that each 

one-stop center is able to meet the needs 

of English language learners, such as 

through established procedures, staff 

training, resources, and other materials. 

The Departments agree with the 

importance of ensuring that States 

address the needs of the specific 

populations mentioned by the 

commenters. As noted above, States 

must address, in developing their 

Unified or Combined State Plans, the 

needs of individuals with barriers to 

employment in their workforce analysis, 

goals for the public workforce system, 

and in stakeholder input and public 

comment assurances. It also should be 

noted that WIOA grant recipients are 

subject to all of the requirements of the 

sec. 188 WIOA Nondiscrimination and 

Equal Opportunity Regulations (29 CFR 

part 38). 

Suggestions for State Plan Requirements 

Section 676.105(d)(3)(i) through (v) 

lists the operational planning elements 

that must be included in a Unified or 

Combined State Plan. Section 

676.105(d)(3)(ii) states that operational 

planning elements must include State 

operating systems, including data 

systems, and policies that will support 

the implementation of the State’s 

strategy. 

Comments: In response to these 

requirements, a commenter requested 

guidance on where to focus State efforts 

in technology planning. Specifically the 

commenter asked whether the State 

strategic plan can describe a schedule 

for developing a comprehensive 

technology plan and how States should 

prioritize investments in technology as 

funds become available. Another 

commenter requested guidance on the 

Departments’ expectations regarding the 

States’ development of a common intake 

system among one-stop partners. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have considered these 

comments and agree that additional 

guidance regarding the operational 

planning elements contained in a State 

Plan is appropriate. The Departments 

plan to issue joint planning and 

operational guidance regarding the 

technology planning and data systems 

to be used for reporting and intake 

systems. Further, States are encouraged 

to utilize the Departments’ available 

technical assistance. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended that the Departments 

require States to include and address 

the following five topics in their Unified 

State Plan: (1) Priority of Service, (2) 

Career Pathways, (3) Criteria for 

Selecting Employers for Work-based 

Training, (4) Youth Committees, and (5) 

Measurable Skill Gains. The commenter 

went on to detail how States should 

address each of the enumerated topics 

in the State Plans. Specifically, with 

regard to Priority of Service, the 

commenter recommended requiring that 

Unified State Plans include a 

description of how the Governor will 

ensure priority of service for title I adult 

career and training services for 

recipients of public assistance, 

individuals who are basic skills 

deficient, and other low-income 

individuals. Regarding career pathways, 

the commenter said Unified State Plans 

should be required to explain: How the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55803 

WIOA definition of a career pathway 

will be applied to the programs in their 

State that align with industries in the 

regional economy; how the State will 

make accessible secondary and 

postsecondary education; how the State 

will include individual education and 

career counseling services; how the 

State will include integrated education 

and training; how the State is organized 

for acceleration; how the State will 

make available high school equivalency 

and at least one postsecondary 

credential; and how the State will 

promote career advancement. The 

commenter also recommended that 

Unified State Plans be required to 

demonstrate how they will track career 

pathway participants whose service 

happens not within one particular 

Federal program and funding stream, 

but across these programs through coenrollment. In addition, this same 

commenter urged the Departments to 

require States to list the criteria they 

will use for selecting employers as an 

operational element of the Unified State 

Plan, and to ensure that local plans in 

their State similarly describe the criteria 

they will use for selecting employers. 

Regarding youth committees, the 

commenter recommended that the 

Departments require States to explain in 

their State Plans the State-directed 

format for local areas youth committee 

elections. Lastly, to ensure the effective 

implementation of the measurable skill 

gains indicator, the commenter 

recommended that Unified State Plans 

be required to ensure that local plans 

include: (1) A process describing how 

they will use the measurable skill gains 

indicator based on their service delivery 

strategies across programs, and (2) a list 

of the measurable skill gains that they 

will be utilizing in the coming year. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered this comment 

but did not revise the regulatory text. 

Many of the concerns are already 

addressed by sec. 102 of WIOA, these 

regulations, and the WIOA State Plan 

ICR. The WIOA State Plan ICR, 

consistent with sec. 134(c)(3)(E) of 

WIOA, requires States to address, in 

developing their Unified or Combined 

State Plans, priority in the delivery of 

career and training services to 

individuals who are low income, public 

assistance recipients, or basic skills 

deficient. With regard to the 

commenter’s concern about career 

pathways, the WIOA State Plan ICR, 

consistent with secs. 101(d)(3)(B) and 

102(b)(2)(B)(ii) of WIOA, includes 

requirements for the State to describe 

both its sector and career pathways 

strategy. Further comments regarding 

career pathways are discussed in detail 

below. With regard to the commenter’s 

concerns about work-based training, the 

WIOA State Plan ICR requires States to 

address work-based learning approaches 

as a part of adult, dislocated worker, 

and youth activities under title I–B of 

WIOA. However, the Departments 

decline to require a specific policy on 

employer criteria because the 

description of the State’s approach will 

provide sufficient information to the 

Departments and stakeholders. 

Regarding youth committees, WIOA 

eliminates the requirement for Local 

WDBs to establish a youth council; 

however, the Local WDB may choose to 

establish a standing youth committee, as 

described at 20 CFR 681.110 (see DOL 

WIOA Final Rule). States with Local 

WDBs that have chosen to form standing 

youth committees may describe this as 

a part of the State’s operational planning 

elements, which are required in the 

WIOA State Plan ICR. However, the 

Departments have declined to require 

that States address standing youth 

committees because the creation of 

standing youth committees is 

determined by Local WDBs and the 

appropriateness of including such 

committees in the State Plan will vary 

from State to State. The DOL has issued 

guidance on standing youth committees, 

in TEGL No. 23–14 and in TEGL No. 8– 

15. Lastly, measurable skill gains is a 

required performance indicator under 

WIOA and it is defined in part 677 of 

this Joint WIOA Final Rule. That part 

further defines the specific allowable 

skill gains. The Departments addressed 

the data collection necessary to 

sufficiently measure skill gains and 

identify other indicators in the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR. The Departments 

also provided further guidance on this 

particular issue. Therefore, the 

Departments decline to revise the 

regulatory text in response to the 

concerns discussed above. 

Comments: Some commenters said 

the Departments should require the 

States to include in their Unified or 

Combined State Plans a demonstration 

of how they will ensure that eligible 

providers have direct and equitable 

access to apply and compete for grants 

or contracts. 

Departments’ Response: In response 

to this concern, the Departments direct 

the commenters to the WIOA State Plan 

ICR, which requires States to describe, 

with regard to the distribution of funds 

for title II programs in particular, how 

the eligible agency will ensure direct 

and equitable access to all eligible 

providers to apply and compete for 

funds. This provision in the WIOA State 

Plan ICR is consistent with sec. 231(c) 

of WIOA requiring direct and equitable 

access for all eligible providers under 

title II. Further, the WIOA State Plan 

ICR requires States to describe how the 

eligible agency will ensure that it is 

using the same grant or contract 

announcement and application 

procedure for all eligible providers. The 

guidance sufficiently addresses the 

commenters’ concerns; no changes to 

the regulatory text were made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: One commenter remarked 

that throughout the ‘‘Career Services’’ 

section of the law, there are references 

to the ‘‘assistance’’ provided by the onestop center or its contractor as it relates 

to financial aid eligibility and filing for 

unemployment compensation. Due to 

the significant decline in resources, the 

commenter requested that State Plans 

address how statewide resources will be 

utilized to ensure local areas have 

enough staff to meet this demand, 

including how the State will allocate 

funding and merit staff. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have considered this 

comment and concluded that adopting a 

requirement such as that would result in 

substantial burden to the States. The 

purpose of WIOA is best served if the 

States retain flexibility to determine the 

best use of staff resources to deliver 

workforce services in the State. 

Industry and Sector Partnerships 

Comments: Several commenters 

recommended that the Departments 

require States to describe in the Unified 

State Plan how they will carry out the 

requirements under WIOA sec. 

101(d)(3)(D) relating to the development 

of industry or sector partnerships. One 

of these commenters made several 

recommendations with regard to 

industry or sector partnerships. First, 

require regional plans to clarify the 

relationship between regional sector 

initiatives and any industry or sector 

partnerships in the regional planning 

area. Second, establish a new subpart H 

covering Industry or Sector Partnerships 

that, at a minimum, (a) describes the 

purposes of industry or sector 

partnerships, (b) reiterates the required 

partners for an industry or sector 

partnership as set forth in WIOA, (c) 

clarifies the role of Local WDBs in 

industry and sector partnerships, (d) 

identifies the ways in which States and 

local areas can evaluate the 

effectiveness of industry or sector 

partnerships, and (e) eliminates the 

current references to industry or sector 

partnerships in proposed § 678.435, 

which generally describes the business 

services that must be provided through 

the one-stop delivery system. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55804 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Additionally, as noted in the portion of 

the DOL WIOA NPRM preamble 

addressing 20 CFR 675.300, commenters 

recommended that the Departments 

define the terms ‘‘Industry and Sector 

Partnership’’ and ‘‘Sector Strategy’’ and 

suggested specific components to 

include in such definitions. 

Departments’ Response: The WIOA 

State Plan ICR requires States to 

describe the strategies they will 

implement, including industry or sector 

partnerships related to in-demand 

industry sectors and occupations and 

career pathways, as required by WIOA 

sec. 101(d)(3)(B) and (D). It also requires 

States to address industry sectors and 

occupations throughout the analyses 

required in the State Plan. Additionally, 

WIOA sec. 3(26) defines ‘‘industry or 

sector partnership.’’ Due to the changing 

needs of the workforce and employers, 

and in order to maximize States’ 

flexibility to develop strategies to 

address these changing needs, the 

Departments decline to change the 

regulation to be more prescriptive 

through changing the definition of 

‘‘industry or sector partnership,’’ 

defining the term ‘‘sector strategy,’’ or 

adding a new subpart H on industry or 

sector partnerships. The Departments 

have provided technical assistance on 

sector strategies and plan to continue to 

do so while also issuing further 

guidance on industry and sector 

partnerships. Lastly, regional planning 

requirements are addressed in 20 CFR 

679.510 (see DOL WIOA Final Rule 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register). 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that special emphasis be 

placed upon highlighting the 

importance of credentialing within 

industry and sector partnerships, 

especially for new high-growth 

industries. Specifically, the commenter 

recommended the following: (1) Funds 

be specifically allocated and used for 

State and local credentialing efforts 

within industry or sector partnerships, 

(2) DOL link credentialing to industry or 

sector partnerships and amend the 

proposed State Plan requirements to 

require States to use explicit language to 

clarify how they will integrate 

credentialing into the development of 

new industry or sector partnerships, 

where applicable, and (3) States should 

be required to explain their efforts to 

find industry-driven credentials as part 

of their Unified State Plans while 

providing a list of those credentials to 

DOL. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that credentialing as 

a part of industry or sector partnerships 

is important. The WIOA State Plan ICR 

supports the inclusion of credentialing 

and its role in sector and career 

pathways strategies. Specifically, the 

WIOA State Plan ICR, consistent with 

sec. 102(b)(2)(B)(vi) of WIOA, requires 

States to describe how their strategies 

will improve access to activities leading 

to recognized postsecondary credentials, 

including registered apprenticeship 

certificates. The requirement in the 

WIOA State Plan ICR further includes 

credentials that are industry-recognized 

certificates, licenses, or certifications, 

and that are portable and stackable. The 

WIOA State Plan ICR also requires 

States to describe the strategies the State 

will implement, including industry or 

sector partnerships related to in-demand 

industry sectors and occupations and 

career pathways, as required by WIOA 

sec. 101(d)(3)(B) and (D). Such strategies 

may include the use of credentials or 

industry-recognized certificates. The 

Departments have concluded that these 

requirements adequately address the 

States’ use of credentials within 

industry or sector partnerships. The 

Departments have declined to require 

States to use explicit language regarding 

how they will integrate credentialing 

and the State’s efforts to fund industrydriven credentials, or to require that 

States provide a list of those credentials 

to the Departments to reduce planning 

burdens on States. Lastly, funding 

allocations for State credentialing efforts 

are outside the authority of this rule. 

Career Pathways 

Comments: Several commenters were 

pleased that WIOA sec. 3(7) codifies a 

definition of ‘‘career pathways’’ in 

Federal law, but they expressed concern 

that the rule includes little guidance on 

how career pathways are to be 

implemented. These commenters 

recommended that the Departments 

require States to describe how they will 

carry out the requirements under WIOA 

relating to the development of career 

pathways. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered the 

commenters’ support for the WIOA 

definition of career pathways and the 

recommendation that States be required 

to describe how they will carry out the 

development of career pathways in the 

State Plan. Career pathways are 

designed to serve a diverse group of 

learners, including youth, dislocated 

workers, veterans, individuals with 

disabilities, individuals who have low 

levels of literacy or English proficiency, 

new immigrants, women, and 

minorities. Career pathways programs 

provide opportunities for more flexible 

education and training, allow people to 

earn industry-recognized credentials, 

and support the attainment of 

marketable skills that transfer into work 

for all. The Departments are choosing 

not to regulate further regarding the 

implementation of career pathways in 

order to promote maximum flexibility at 

the State and local level, and the 

Departments will continue to support 

career pathways programs locally and 

regionally through comprehensive 

technical assistance. 

Comments: A number of commenters 

recommended that the rule clarify the 

minimum requirements that a Local 

WDB must satisfy in order to 

demonstrate successful implementation 

of career pathways. 

A few commenters encouraged the 

Departments to use a forthcoming 

Career Pathways and Credentials 

Toolkit to amplify and build awareness 

of States’ and localities’ requirements 

for career pathways under WIOA. 

Another commenter encouraged the 

Departments to expand the use of career 

pathways, especially for racial 

minorities and women, and to provide 

support to States and localities as they 

implement plans to improve career 

pathways available locally and 

regionally. 

One commenter said the Departments 

should offer more specific guidance for 

operationalizing career pathways, such 

as acceptable strategies for braiding 

funding streams from titles I and II of 

WIOA and ways to identify and improve 

career pathways programs, with a 

particular focus on how to integrate 

wraparound services successfully into 

career pathways programs. 

One commenter provided the 

following recommendations: 

• Unified State Plans should be 

required to demonstrate how to track 

career pathway participants whose 

service happens across Federal program 

and funding streams through coenrollment. 

• The required elements for the 

Unified State Plan should specify the 

need to identify co-enrolled participants 

across the WIOA titles and in the CTE 

and human service partner systems. 

• Unified State Plans should illustrate 

roles for CTE partners in development 

and implementation of career pathways, 

including strategies for co-enrollment. 

• The Joint WIOA Final Rule should 

provide guidance to title I and title II 

providers on working with CTE in the 

design and implementation of career 

pathways, and should promote shared 

decision-making. 

• Unified State Plans should be 

required to address strategies for serving 

TANF recipients through career 

pathway programming, as part of the 

plan’s description of how career 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55805 

pathway services will be provided to 

adults, youth, and individuals with 

barriers to employment. 

Departments’ Response: Consistent 

with sec. 101(d)(3)(D) of WIOA, the 

WIOA State Plan ICR includes 

requirements for the State to describe 

the career pathways strategies. The 

WIOA State Plan ICR, consistent with 

secs. 101(d) and 102(b)(2) of WIOA, also 

requires States to describe how such 

activities will be aligned across the core 

programs and Combined State Plan 

partner programs included in the State 

Plan and among the entities 

administering the programs, including 

using co-enrollment and other 

strategies, as appropriate. States have 

the option of including strategies that 

address TANF recipients as well as the 

option of including TANF as a 

Combined State Plan partner program in 

a Combined State Plan. Because career 

pathways, co-enrollment, and TANF 

recipients already are reflected in 

guidance, the Departments decline to 

regulate planning requirements 

regarding career pathways further. 

Regarding commenters’ suggestions for 

specific strategies around 

implementation and requests for 

guidance, the Departments agree that 

additional guidance is necessary to 

describe WIOA requirements for 

incorporating career pathways into the 

State’s strategies, although the 

Departments have concluded that 

additional regulatory text on career 

pathways is not necessary. The 

Departments are working in partnership 

with other Federal agencies to provide 

additional guidance on the 

implementation of career pathways in 

WIOA, and the Departments continue to 

take steps to incorporate career 

pathways approaches into a wide range 

of program investments, evaluation and 

research activities, and technical 

assistance efforts. 

Combined State Plan Partner Programs 

Paragraph (d)(2) of § 676.105 

specifically requires that Unified State 

Plans include strategies for aligning the 

core programs with Combined State 

Plan partner programs and other 

resources to support the State’s vision 

and goals (WIOA sec. 102(b)(1)). 

Comments: A few commenters noted 

that the term ‘‘optional programs’’ is not 

used in WIOA sec. 102(b)(1), but the 

commenters also acknowledged that 

from the context it is apparent that the 

Departments intended to refer to the 

programs described at sec. 103(a)(2) and 

proposed § 676.140(d). The commenters 

supported this language, but they 

encouraged the Departments to clarify 

this intent explicitly by amending 

proposed § 676.105(d)(2) to include ‘‘as 

described in § 676.140(d)’’ after the 

words ‘‘optional programs.’’ One 

commenter stated that while the use of 

the term ‘‘optional programs’’ for other 

workforce development programs is 

understood to be in reference to the fact 

that they are not required to be part of 

Unified Plans, there is the danger that 

the term could inadvertently send a 

message about the value of these 

programs. The commenter 

recommended that guidance should 

clarify that ‘‘optional’’ only refers to the 

planning requirements and does not 

imply that other programs beyond the 

WIOA ‘‘core’’ programs are any less 

essential to workforce development. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have reviewed these 

comments and agree that the term 

‘‘optional program’’ was unclear. The 

term ‘‘optional,’’ as used in the NPRM, 

referred to the State’s option of 

including these partner programs in a 

Combined State Plan. The Departments 

also agree that Combined State Plan 

partner programs are a valuable part of 

the workforce development system and 

the Departments encourage States to 

maximize the involvement of these 

programs in developing the State’s 

strategies, goals, and vision for the onestop delivery system in each State. The 

Departments revised § 676.105(d)(2), by 

replacing the term ‘‘optional programs’’ 

with ‘‘Combined State Plan partner 

programs’’ and also applied the 

suggested edit cross-referencing the 

term to § 676.140. The sentence now 

reads as ‘‘Strategies for aligning the core 

programs and Combined State Plan 

partner programs as described in 

§ 676.140(d), as well as other resources 

available to the State, to achieve the 

strategic vision and goals in accordance 

with sec. 102(b)(1)(E) of WIOA.’’ 

Throughout this preamble to the Joint 

WIOA Final Rule, the Departments have 

generally used the term ‘‘Combined 

State Plan partner program’’ to refer to 

what were called ‘‘optional programs’’ 

in the NPRM. 

Coordination in Plan Development 

Comments: A number of commenters 

expressed concern about having an 

adequate voice and input into the State 

Plan development process. One 

commenter requested that the 

Departments issue a stronger or clearer 

regulation addressing which entities 

must be involved in the process. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments reviewed these comments 

and agree that the regulation would 

benefit from a more explicit statement 

regarding the role of core programs in 

the planning process. In response to 

these comments, the Departments have 

added a new paragraph (d)(3)(v) to 

§ 676.105 to clarify that operational 

planning elements must include a 

description of joint planning methods 

across core programs and required onestop partner programs and other 

programs and activities in the Unified 

Plan. Due to this addition, proposed 

§ 676.105(d)(3)(v) has been redesignated 

as § 676.105(d)(3)(vi) in this Joint WIOA 

Final Rule. The Departments also have 

added a new paragraph (c) to § 676.130 

to explain how stakeholder and core 

program providers should be involved 

in plan development, as well as the role 

of the State WDB in plan development. 

The Departments have made parallel 

revisions to §§ 676.140 and 676.143 for 

Combined State Plans, all of which will 

be discussed in connection with each of 

these provisions. 

Comments: Several commenters 

supported the unified planning process 

in general but expressed concern about 

the lack of oversight and enforcement 

mechanisms regarding the requirement 

that the development of the plan is 

collaborative. The commenters urged 

the Departments to remind all the core 

programs that they must truly 

collaborate if WIOA is to succeed. 

Similarly, a commenter said the rule’s 

strategic approach will require constant 

collaboration between Federal, State, 

and local governments, as well as other 

community partners, but the willingness 

to collaborate among these actors must 

be present. This commenter said other 

challenges include resistance to change 

within the workforce system, 

procurement requirements in a single 

State area, and conflicting performance 

requirements from different funding 

streams. 

Another commenter said research has 

shown that bundling multiple services 

leads to more successful outcomes in 

the workforce development field, and 

the workforce system provides an ideal 

platform to integrate financial capability 

services because they both are focused 

on ensuring individuals have the tools 

to participate in, contribute to, and 

benefit from the mainstream economy. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments issued this Final Rule 

jointly to lay the foundation, through 

coordination and collaboration at the 

Federal level, for implementing the 

vision and goals of WIOA. One of 

WIOA’s principal areas of reform is to 

require States to plan across programs 

and include this planning process in the 

Unified or Combined State Plans, which 

promotes a shared understanding of the 

workforce needs of a State and a 

comprehensive strategy for addressing 

those needs. Unified or combined 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55806 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

planning can support better alignment 

of resources, increased coordination 

among programs, and improved 

efficiency in service delivery. The 

Departments considered these 

comments and recognize the challenges 

mentioned by the commenters. WIOA 

placed heightened emphasis on 

coordination and collaboration at the 

Federal, State, and local levels to ensure 

a streamlined and coordinated service 

delivery system for job seekers. The 

WIOA State Plan ICR, consistent with 

the statutory and regulatory 

requirements, reinforces the importance 

of collaboration in the development of 

State Plans. However, to further address 

these comments and others relating to 

the issue of collaboration and 

stakeholder involvement, the 

Departments have added new paragraph 

(d)(3)(v) to § 676.105 to clarify that 

operational planning elements must 

include a description of joint planning 

methods across core programs and 

required one-stop partner programs in 

the Unified Plan. The WIOA statute and 

the WIOA State Plan ICR require the 

State to assure that core programs have 

‘‘reviewed and commented on the 

appropriate operational planning 

elements of the Unified State Plan, and 

approved the elements as serving the 

needs of the populations served by such 

programs.’’ The Departments have 

amended § 676.105(d)(3)(iv) to 

emphasize this statutorily required 

assurance. 

Lastly, the Departments note that 

some of the stated challenges, such as 

procurement requirements, are not 

relevant to the regulation of State Plans. 

Regarding the challenges cited by 

commenters regarding differing 

reporting requirements, WIOA has 

addressed this challenge by requiring 

the six core programs to report 

performance outcomes against the 

primary indicators of performance. The 

core programs will all use the same 

definitions and data elements. The 

Departments agree that aligning 

performance outcomes is a significant 

step toward aligning programs. WIOA 

sec. 116’s performance requirements are 

addressed in the WIOA State Plan ICR 

Appendix 1, as well as the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR and part 677 of this 

Joint WIOA Final Rule. 

The Role of State Workforce 

Development Boards in Plan 

Development 

Comments: Several commenters 

requested clarification about the role of 

the State WDB in approval of State 

Plans. One commenter said the 

Departments should require the State 

WDB to review and approve the State 

Plan before submission. This same 

commenter asked if core programs were 

required to sign off on the plan, or if 

their representation on the State WDB 

would serve that purpose. A commenter 

asked about the authority of a State 

WDB over specific programs’ plans, 

specifically requesting clarification on 

whether the Board can, in effect, veto a 

portion of the plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments reviewed these comments 

and agree that the Joint WIOA Final 

Rule should provide additional 

clarification about the role of the State 

WDB in approval of State Plans. 

Accordingly, the Departments revised 

§§ 676.130(c) and 676.143(b) to clarify 

expected roles during plan 

development. More detail will be 

provided in the discussions related to 

these particular sections below. The 

Departments expect the States to 

recognize the importance of an inclusive 

and collaborative process in developing 

the State Plan. The Departments also 

have revised § 676.105(d)(3)(iv), which 

implements an assurance required by 

sec. 102(b)(2)(E) of WIOA. Under 

§ 676.105(d)(3)(iv), States are required to 

assure that the lead State agencies 

responsible for the administration of the 

core programs review and comment on 

the appropriate operational planning 

sections of the Unified State Plan and 

approve that each element serves the 

needs of the population served by such 

programs. 

Comments: A commenter requested 

clarification on the processes of State, 

regional, and local planning. 

Specifically, this commenter wondered 

how much direct influence local 

workforce boards will have in their 

State’s respective State Plans. The 

commenter requested greater assurances 

that Local WDBs be systematically 

included in the State planning process. 

Similarly, a commenter recommended 

that Governors must have Local WDB 

and CEO consent before taking actions 

impacting Local WDBs, stating that most 

of the best innovations are developed 

based on local relationships. Another 

commenter recommended regulatory 

language that enables local areas to meet 

the needs of the State WDB in meeting 

their responsibilities under WIOA for 

statewide planning, but encourages and 

allows local areas to provide their own 

input, feedback, and strategies within 

the local plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with the commenters 

that it is important for the Governor to 

include Local WDBs and CEOs in the 

State planning process. Section 679.110 

of 20 CFR requires that State WDB 

membership include two or more CEOs 

(see DOL WIOA Final Rule published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register). The Governor has the 

flexibility to appoint more local elected 

officials to the State WDB as he/she sees 

fit. The Departments encourage the 

Governor to use this authority, which 

may include increasing the 

representation of CEOs, to ensure 

accurate representation of the interests 

of job seekers and businesses in the 

State and also to ensure the involvement 

of these local representatives in the 

State planning process. WIOA does not 

require that Governors must have Local 

WDB and CEO consent before taking 

actions impacting Local WDBs. 

However, the Departments do expect 

engagement of Local WDBs in the 

development of the State Plan through 

public comment and input. This is 

further discussed below at § 676.130(d). 

The requirements for local plan 

development and input are discussed in 

20 CFR 679.550 (see DOL WIOA Final 

Rule published elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register). 

Section 676.110 What are the programspecific requirements in the Unified 

State Plan for the adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth programs authorized 

under Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title I? 

Section 676.110 indicates that 

program-specific requirements for the 

adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

workforce investment activities in the 

Unified State Plan are described in sec. 

102(b)(2)(D)(i) of WIOA. Additional 

planning requirements may be 

explained in joint planning guidelines 

issued by the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education. 

Proposed Additional Title I ProgramSpecific Requirements to State Plans 

Comments: One commenter agreed 

with the proposed program-specific 

requirements in §§ 676.110 through 

676.125. Another commenter stated that 

this section provides insufficient 

direction and accountability to ensure 

that the needs of individuals with a 

barrier to employment or who have 

priority of service are adequately 

included and addressed in a Unified or 

Combined State Plan. The commenter 

recommended that the Departments 

require that State and local planning 

efforts utilize the most current Census 

and administrative data available to 

develop estimates of each priority 

service population in their planning 

efforts, and update these data year to 

year. The commenter said these data 

should be utilized in Federal reviews of 

State Plans to ensure that system 

designs and projected investments are 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55807 

equitably targeted to service-priority 

populations. The commenter further 

stated that the data also should be used 

to benchmark system performance in 

actual implementation of the priority of 

service from year to year. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have considered these 

comments. The WIOA State Plan ICR, 

consistent with WIOA requirements for 

title I–B programs, requires States to 

address priority in the delivery of career 

and training services to individuals who 

are low income, public assistance 

recipients, or basic skills deficient. 

WIOA sec. 134(c)(3)(E) prioritizes these 

groups for the receipt of individualized 

career services and training services. 

The Departments encourage States to 

use a variety of accurate, reliable, and 

timely labor market information on 

which to base analysis and priority of 

service. Indeed, priority for use of adult 

funds can be made using a variety of 

available data, in addition to the use of 

Census data. However, to minimize the 

burden for each individual State, the 

Departments will not require States to 

use a particular dataset, leaving it to the 

discretion of the States to choose the 

appropriate data sources. 

Section 676.115 What are the programspecific requirements in the Unified 

State Plan for the Adult Education and 

Family Literacy Act program authorized 

under Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title II? 

Section 676.115 explains the 

additional planning requirements to 

which the AEFLA program is subject. 

Section 676.115 contains three specific 

program requirements. First, 

§ 676.115(a) restates the statutory 

requirement that the eligible agency 

must explain in its Unified or Combined 

State Plan how it will align its adult 

education content standards with its 

State-adopted challenging academic 

content standards under the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act by July 1, 

2016. Second, § 676.115(b)(1) addresses 

the requirement that States describe the 

methods and factors the State will use 

to award multi-year grants on a 

competitive basis to eligible providers. 

Third, § 676.115(b)(2) requires that 

States describe the methods and factors 

used to provide direct and equitable 

access to funds using the same grant or 

contract announcement or application 

procedure. Based on comments, and as 

discussed further below, the 

Departments have deleted proposed 

regulatory text at § 676.115(c) 

concerning a requirement to describe 

the interoperability of data systems. 

Deletion of paragraph (c) is the only 

substantive change made to this 

regulatory provision from that proposed 

in the NPRM. 

Timing of Plan Acceptance and Open 

Competitions 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed concern that States may have 

to issue requests for proposals (RFPs) for 

funds before the plans have been 

approved. Several commenters said that 

this would result in an RFP process that 

does not address the objectives of the 

State Plan. Some commenters asked that 

the Departments provide an additional 

transition year in order to allow for the 

time necessary for States to receive State 

and local plan approval and begin the 

implementation of the approved plans, 

after which the States could run their 

competitions in alignment with the 

approved plans. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with the 

commenters’ concerns and recognize the 

time that is required for State 

procurement processes. The ED 

understands that it would create 

difficulties to require States to issue 

RFPs prior to the State Plan being 

approved when the RFPs are intended 

to be based on the approved State Plan. 

Additionally local plans must be in 

place before the RFP can be issued so 

applications for subgrants can be 

aligned with local plans. The ED has 

issued guidance regarding the process 

for awarding subgrants to eligible 

providers authorized under title II, 

which provides information regarding 

the timing of competitions and their 

alignment with State and local plans. It 

is not necessary to address this concern 

in the regulation and the regulation is 

not revised in response to these 

comments. 

Alignment With State Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act Standards 

Comments: Numerous commenters 

stated that most States have adopted the 

College and Career Readiness Standards 

for adult education and will 

demonstrate in their State Plans how the 

College and Career Readiness Standards 

for adult education align with the 

standards that State established under 

the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA). These commenters also 

expressed concern regarding the 

unavailability of standards for adult 

education that focus on English 

Language Acquisition. Additionally, 

commenters raised concerns about the 

absence of assessments that measure 

performance on the College and Career 

Readiness Standards for adult education 

and recommended that the Departments 

provide a 3-year transition period 

during which States are held 

accountable based on the available 

assessments instruments. A commenter 

also recommended that the Departments 

integrate the English language 

descriptors into the current adult 

education National Reporting System 

Educational Functioning Levels 

descriptors. Finally, another commenter 

recommended that the Departments 

adjust accountability measurements to 

reflect separate English Language 

Acquisition tables in the National 

Reporting System from the standard 

adult basic education (ABE) standards. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have reviewed the 

commenters’ concerns related to having 

adequate time to establish English 

Language Acquisition content 

standards, as well as the lack of 

assessment mechanism to measure adult 

education content standards. The ED 

recognizes that English Language 

Acquisition content standards do not 

yet exist. The ED acknowledges that 

there are currently no National 

Reporting System-approved assessment 

instruments by which to measure 

student progress and achievement in 

relation to College and Career Readiness 

standards. However, based on our 

review of the comments, it appears that 

some commenters might have 

misunderstood the proposed 

requirement pertaining to content 

standards. The final regulations require 

the eligible agency to describe in the 

Unified State Plan how, by July 1, 2016, 

it will align its content standards for 

adult education with State-adopted 

challenging academic standards under 

the ESEA. The regulations do not 

require that the State implement those 

standards by July 1, 2016, or that the 

State implement assessments aligned to 

the standards by July 1, 2016. The ED 

intends to issue guidance pertaining to 

the alignment and implementation of 

standards; the standards for English 

language acquisition; and the aligned 

assessments for accountability in adult 

education. Finally, although the 

Departments reviewed the comments 

about the integration of the English 

Language Acquisition descriptors into 

the National Reporting System and the 

separation of the accountability 

measures in the English Language 

Acquisition table from the ABE tables, 

the Departments concluded that they do 

not have the statutory authority to 

address these in the final regulations. 

No changes to the regulatory text were 

made in response to these comments. 

Interoperability of Data Systems 

Comments: Numerous commenters 

sought clarification on the definition of 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55808 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘interoperability.’’ Several commenters 

stated that there is a national data 

integration workgroup at the Federal 

level; and recommended that, rather 

than each State expending time and 

funds to create an interoperable system, 

the Departments give the States the 

option to await the results of the 

national data integration workgroup 

before creating their State interoperable 

system. 

Commenters stated that, due to the 

variety in State data systems, 

regulations that attempt to implement a 

‘‘one size fits all’’ approach are 

impractical. These commenters 

recommended that the Departments 

convey expectations for interoperability 

via non-regulatory guidance (including 

guidance highlighting existing solutions 

and offering States options for reporting 

this data). A commenter recommended 

that DOL work with other Federal 

agencies to establish minimum national 

standards for how integrated data 

systems should be designed and 

interface with existing public systems to 

support the employment needs of adults 

and youth facing barriers to 

employment. The commenter also urged 

DOL to work with other Federal 

agencies to ensure that integrated data 

systems align with existing data being 

collected on employment, education, 

and training services across Federal 

programs. 

A commenter said the requirement for 

a description of how the State will 

ensure interoperability of data systems 

in the reporting on core indicators of 

performance and performance reports is 

listed only under the AEFLA title II 

specific section (§ 676.115); however, in 

the law, the requirement for such 

information is listed under sec. 

102(b)(2)(C) State Operating Systems 

and Policies of WIOA. Therefore, the 

commenter suggested § 676.115(c) 

should be moved to § 676.105, General 

Requirements. Another commenter said 

the regulations place the responsibility 

of ensuring interoperability of data 

systems on the title II adult education 

programs, which is not feasible because 

the various data systems are governed 

under different programs and frequently 

by different agencies. The commenter 

also said the rule seems to place the 

burden of supporting the cost of 

interoperability on title II adult 

education programs, which is not 

equitable because there will likely be a 

significant cost to creating such 

interoperability. The commenter 

recommended that the Departments 

restate this in regulation as a joint 

requirement of core programs and any 

programs included in a Combined State 

Plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with commenters’ 

concerns regarding the complexity of 

integration, including the amount of 

time, planning, and resources necessary 

to achieve such integration. The 

Departments agree with the commenters 

that the integration and interoperability 

of data systems is not limited to title II 

of WIOA. The Departments understand 

that performance and accountability 

data collection and systems integration 

is a long-term process that will involve 

additional costs and resources for all 

programs. The Departments will review 

reports from the national data 

integration workgroup, as well as 

information from the planning 

descriptions provided by States in the 

initial State Plan, to inform possible 

policy decisions and the development of 

guidance on this topic. The Departments 

also will look into similar data 

collection and system integration across 

Federal agencies that provide 

employment, education, and training 

services. 

As a result of these concerns, the 

Departments have removed the language 

proposed in § 676.115(c), and instead 

have included in the WIOA State Plan 

ICR, consistent with sec. 102(b)(2)(C) of 

WIOA, a general requirement that States 

address fiscal and management 

accountability information system 

planning across all of the programs 

included in a Unified or Combined State 

Plan, as required by sec. 116(i)(1) of 

WIOA. 

Direct and Equitable 

Comments: Regarding § 676.115(b)(2), 

which specifies that all eligible agencies 

‘‘will provide direct and equitable 

access to funds,’’ several commenters 

said that there is no specific mention of 

this requirement in § 676.140, which 

governs the Combined State Plan. One 

commenter sought clarification on 

whether this was intentional or an 

oversight. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have reviewed these 

comments and agree that the omission 

of the requirement related to direct and 

equitable access of funds in the 

Combined State Plan was an error. The 

Departments have revised 

§ 676.140(e)(1) to include this 

requirement in the regulations that 

address the Combined State Plan. 

Request for Guidance 

Comments: Several commenters said 

States should be required to identify the 

guidance they will provide to eligible 

providers for nominating an adult 

education representative to the Local 

WDB that would represent all eligible 

providers in the region as well as 

communicate board activities. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have reviewed the 

comments supporting a requirement 

that States issue guidance for adult 

education representation on the Local 

WDB. States have the authority to issue 

such guidance and it is not necessary to 

revise the regulations to address this 

specific need. 

Section 676.120 What are the programspecific requirements in the Unified 

State Plan for the Employment Service 

program authorized under the WagnerPeyser Act, as amended by Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title 

III? 

Section 676.120 states that WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service 

programs are subject to the requirements 

in sec. 102(b) of WIOA, including any 

additional requirements imposed by the 

Secretary of Labor under secs. 

102(b)(2)(C)(viii) and 102(b)(2)(D)(iv) of 

WIOA. This section requires States to 

include any information the Secretary of 

Labor determines is necessary to 

administer the Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Services programs. The 

Departments have provided additional 

information through jointly issued 

planning guidance and the WIOA State 

Plan ICR. Except for the addition of a 

reference to WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iv) 

and other minor technical edits, this 

provision remains substantively the 

same as that proposed in the NPRM. 

WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iv) refers to 

Wagner-Peyser Act program-specific 

requirements. 

Proposed Additional Wagner-Peyser Act 

Program-Specific Requirements for State 

Plans 

Comments: A commenter agreed with 

the proposed requirements specific to 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Services programs. One commenter 

stated that homeless persons should be 

a prioritized group for employment 

services, including those with no 

income or work history, and those with 

a criminal background. Also, this 

commenter recommended that serving 

higher barrier persons be incentivized. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with the importance 

of ensuring that States address the needs 

of very low income and homeless 

populations in the State Plan. As 

discussed under § 676.105, the WIOA 

State Plan ICR, consistent with WIOA, 

requires that Unified and Combined 

State Plans address the needs of 

individuals with barriers to 

employment. As defined in sec. 3(24)(G) 

of WIOA, an ‘‘individual with a barrier 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55809 

to employment’’ includes homeless 

individuals or homeless children and 

youths. However, employment services 

under the Wagner-Peyser Act are 

universal and available to all; the 

Departments do not have the authority 

to prioritize use of Wagner-Peyser Act 

funds for specific populations. 

Comments: Several commenters said 

the regulation should require State 

workforce agencies to include a clearly 

defined management reporting structure 

for State merit-based employees as part 

of the State Plan for each one-stop 

center to minimize confusion and 

protect the systemic integrity of WagnerPeyser Act services. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments recognize the importance 

of adhering to merit staffing 

requirements for Wagner-Peyser Act 

services, the Departments decline to 

require a reporting structure for merit 

staff in the regulation or in the WIOA 

State Plan ICR because it imposes an 

unnecessary burden on States. However, 

a State may elect to develop such a 

policy and include it in its State Plan. 

Section 676.125 What are the programspecific requirements in the Unified 

State Plan for the State Vocational 

Rehabilitation program authorized 

under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended by Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title 

IV? 

Section 676.125 requires States to 

submit a VR services portion as part of 

the Unified State Plan that complies 

with all State Plan requirements set 

forth in sec. 101(a) of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended by title IV of 

WIOA. All submission requirements of 

the VR Services portion of the Unified 

State Plan are in addition to the jointly 

developed strategic and operational 

content requirements prescribed by sec. 

102(b) of WIOA. Except for minor 

technical edits, this provision remains 

substantively the same as that proposed 

in the NPRM. 

Individuals With Disabilities in the VR 

Program 

Comments: A commenter agreed with 

the requirements specific to the VR 

program. 

Some commenters stated that there 

should be greater emphasis on the VR 

program in the State Plans. The 

commenters encouraged Governormandated appointment of disability 

service providers on State WDBs to 

ensure proper representation for the 

development of this section of the plan. 

Similarly, other commenters urged the 

Departments to encourage greater 

inclusion of stakeholders within the 

disability community in the 

development, review, and 

implementation of the plans. One 

commenter further encouraged the 

Departments to issue guidance that will 

ensure that State executives will not 

ignore or under-represent the workforce 

development needs of people with 

disabilities in the strategic and 

operational planning outline in either 

the Unified or Combined State Plan. 

Departments’ Response: In response 

to the first concern, the Departments 

refer commenters to the WIOA State 

Plan ICR where the VR program is 

addressed at length in Section VI 

Program-Specific Requirements for Core 

State Plan Programs. This section 

overviews the descriptions and 

estimates that must be included in the 

VR Services Portion of a State Plan, as 

required by sec. 101(a) of the 

Rehabilitation act of 1973, as amended 

by WIOA, and sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of 

WIOA. State WDB membership 

requirements are addressed in 20 CFR 

679.110 (see DOL WIOA Final Rule 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register). The Departments also 

note that beyond these requirements, 

the constitution of State WDBs and their 

membership has been left to the States. 

Although State Plans must include a 

State WDB Membership Roster and a list 

of Board activities as described in sec. 

III(b)(3)(B) of the WIOA State Plan ICR, 

the Departments have concluded that it 

is unnecessary to include additional 

regulatory text. With regard to greater 

stakeholder involvement in the review 

and implementation of State Plans, 

§§ 676.130(d) and 676.143(c), already 

require that States provide an 

opportunity for comment on and input 

into the development of a State Plan 

from representatives of Local WDBs and 

CEOs, businesses, labor organizations, 

institutions of higher education, other 

stakeholders with an interest in the 

services provided by the six core 

programs, and the general public, 

including individuals with disabilities. 

Thus, stakeholders with disabilities are 

required to have opportunity to engage 

in the development of State Plans. 

Finally, sec. 102(b) of WIOA and the 

WIOA State Plan ICR require the State 

to address the needs of individuals with 

barriers to employment within the State 

Plan’s Strategic Vision and Goals and 

Operational Planning Elements. 

According to WIOA sec. 3(24), the term 

‘‘individual with a barrier to 

employment’’ includes individuals with 

disabilities, including youth who are 

individuals with disabilities. 

Interagency Cooperation 

Comments: A commenter said the 

Departments should make explicit the 

importance of including State 

developmental disabilities agencies in 

cooperative agreements regarding 

individuals eligible for home and 

community-based waiver programs. 

Another commenter stated that, in 

addition to the cooperative agreement 

between VR and the State 

developmental disabilities agency, State 

Plans should be required to contain a 

cooperative agreement between 

Medicaid and the State mental health 

agency in order to promote effective 

collaboration between State agencies. 

Departments’ Response: While not 

stated in the regulation itself, the WIOA 

State Plan ICR describes how a State 

will incorporate interagency 

cooperation between VR and other State 

agencies providing assistance to or 

serving individuals with disabilities. In 

the WIOA State Plan ICR, consistent 

with sec. 101(a)(11) of the Rehabilitation 

Act, as amended by title IV of WIOA, 

the VR agency must describe the 

collaboration between the responsible 

State agency administering the State 

Medicaid plan, the State agency serving 

individuals with developmental 

disabilities, and the State agency 

responsible for providing mental health 

services. Nothing in this requirement 

restricts collaboration between agencies, 

as the goal is to develop opportunities 

for competitive integrated employment 

to the greatest extent possible. A more 

detailed discussion of the collaboration 

between the VR agency and other 

agencies serving individuals with 

disabilities is provided in ED’s Final 

Rule related to the VR program 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

VR Program’s Order of Selection 

Comments: One commenter 

referenced a proposal to give State VR 

agencies operating under an Order of 

Selection the option to indicate that 

they will serve eligible individuals with 

disabilities outside the Order of 

Selection who have an immediate need 

for equipment or services to maintain 

employment. The commenter requested 

clarification in determining what 

services or equipment is allowed to be 

provided if identified as an immediate 

need if the individual is in jeopardy of 

losing his or her job. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended, indicates that State 

Plans shall, under an Order of Selection, 

permit the State, in its discretion, to 

elect to serve eligible individuals who 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55810 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

require specific services or equipment to 

maintain employment. The WIOA State 

Plan ICR allows for the VR program to 

identify whether it will serve eligible 

individuals with disabilities outside the 

Order of Selection who has an 

immediate need for equipment or 

services to maintain employment. 

Services or equipment provided to 

eligible individuals under these 

circumstances must be determined on 

an individual basis according to the 

employee’s need required to maintain 

employment, consistent with the 

Individualized Plan for Employment. A 

much more detailed discussion of this 

issue is provided in ED’s Final Rule 

covering the VR program published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

Records and Data Collection 

Comments: A commenter said the 

Departments should identify ways to 

allow State VR agencies to gain ready 

access to Federal employment data, 

such as the data that are available 

through the Federal Employment Data 

Exchange System funded by DOL. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments addressed this issue 

through the WIOA State Plan ICR 

process. Section III(b)(6)(A) of the WIOA 

State Plan ICR states that State agencies 

responsible for the administration of 

core programs (such as the VR program) 

shall describe plans to align and 

integrate available workforce and 

educational data systems for the core 

programs, unemployment insurance (UI) 

programs, and education through 

postsecondary education. This directive 

provides sufficient identification of the 

opportunities available to States to 

incorporate both State and Federal data 

into their State programs. For this 

reason, no changes to the regulatory text 

were made in response to this comment. 

Independent Living for Older 

Individuals Who Are Blind Program 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

opposed eliminating a requirement in 

the State Plan for the Independent 

Living for Older Individuals who are 

Blind program, stating that this 

elimination constitutes a great 

disservice to older persons with vision 

loss. The commenters recommended 

that an Independent Living for Older 

Individuals who are Blind section be 

added to the VR section of the Unified 

or Combined State Plans. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Independent Living for Older 

Individuals who are Blind program is 

covered under title VII of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by WIOA, and is not among the six core 

programs that must submit a Unified 

State Plan pursuant to sec. 102 of 

WIOA. The VR services portion of the 

Unified or Combined State Plan is 

similar in content to the standalone VR 

State Plans that were submitted prior to 

the passage of WIOA and covers only 

the VR program requirements of title I 

of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended by 

WIOA. The Independent Living for 

Older Individuals who are Blind 

program requires submission of an 

application with assurances every 3 

years that complies with the 

requirements for that program as set 

forth in title VII of the Rehabilitation 

Act, as amended by WIOA. A detailed 

discussion of the Independent Living 

Services for Older Individuals Who are 

Blind program (34 CFR part 367) is 

provided in ED’s Final Rule of WIOA 

Miscellaneous Programs published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

Section 676.130 What is the 

development, submission, and approval 

process of the Unified State Plan? 

In order to facilitate the State strategic 

planning process, and concurrent 

review by the relevant Federal program 

offices, this section requires the Unified 

State Plan to be submitted to the 

Secretary of Labor, according to the 

procedures established in sec. 102(c) of 

WIOA, which are clarified and 

explained through joint planning 

guidelines. Likewise, the Departments, 

upon receipt of a Unified State Plan, 

follow procedures established by this 

section. Section 676.130 also explains 

requirements for transparency, public 

comment, and submission, as well as 

the terms for approval of plans by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education. 

Section 676.130(a) requires that the 

Unified State Plan be submitted in 

accordance with the procedures set out 

in the joint planning guidelines, issued 

by the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education, which explains the 

submission and approval process 

described in sec. 102(c) of WIOA. 

Sections 676.130(b)(1) and (2) 

reiterate the requirement at sec. 

102(c)(1) of WIOA regarding the 

deadlines for submitting the initial and 

subsequent Unified State Plans to the 

Departments. The Departments 

developed a process for submission of 

Unified State Plans to ensure that ED 

receives the entire Unified State Plan 

submission concurrently. WIOA secs. 

102(c)(1)(A) and 103(b)(1) require States 

to submit the initial Unified or 

Combined State Plan no later than 120 

days prior to the commencement of the 

second full program year after the date 

of enactment (i.e., July 1, 2016), making 

the statutory submission date for the 

initial Unified or Combined State Plan 

March 3, 2016. However, pursuant to 

the orderly transition authority in sec. 

503 of WIOA, the Departments 

considered the initial Unified or 

Combined State Plans timely if 

submitted by April 1, 2016. 

Section 102(c)(1)(B) of WIOA requires 

subsequent Unified State Plans to be 

submitted not later than 120 days prior 

to the end of the 4-year period covered 

by the preceding Unified State Plan. In 

other words, WIOA Unified State Plans 

cover 4-year periods, and the 

subsequent plan must be submitted no 

later than 120 days before existing 

plan’s 4-year period ends. The 

Departments have made clarifying edits 

to the regulatory text in § 676.130(b)(2) 

to more clearly align it with these 

statutory requirements. The 

Departments anticipate that the second 

Unified State Plans will need to be 

submitted in the spring of 2020. The 

official submission dates for the plans 

will be announced in the joint planning 

guidelines. 

Section 676.130(b)(3) clarifies that, 

consistent with current practice for 

many of the core programs, a program 

year runs from July 1 through June 30 

of any year. This clarification is 

particularly important, in this context, 

for the VR program since that program 

operates on a Federal fiscal year basis 

and will continue to do so, in 

accordance with title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, despite the 

fact that the VR services portion of the 

Unified State Plan will align, for 

submission and performance purposes, 

with the other partners on a program 

year basis. 

In order to more accurately reflect the 

content of § 676.130, the Departments 

have made a change to the title to 

include the word ‘‘development.’’ 

Additionally, in response to comments, 

described below, requesting clarity 

regarding the role of the State WDB, 

core program administrators and 

required one-stop partners, the 

Departments have added § 676.130(c). 

This additional paragraph explains the 

statutory requirement that the Unified 

State Plan must be developed with the 

assistance of the State WDB and must be 

developed in coordination with 

administrators with optimum policymaking authority for the core programs 

and required one-stop partners. The 

term ‘‘optimum policy-making 

authority’’ is defined in 20 CFR 679.120 

as ‘‘an individual who can reasonably 

be expected to speak affirmatively on 

behalf of the entity he or she represents 

and to commit that entity to a chosen 

course of action.’’ See DOL WIOA Final 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55811 

Rule published elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register. Accordingly, 

§ 676.130(c) through (h) have been 

renumbered at § 676.130(d) through (i). 

Other than these changes to paragraph 

(b)(2), the addition of paragraph (c), and 

the edit to paragraph (h) discussed 

below, no changes to the regulatory text 

have been made. 

Deadlines 

Comments: The Departments received 

a comment that supported the timeline 

for developing initial Unified State 

Plans. Several commenters requested 

clarification about the definition of 

program year, specified in 

§ 676.130(b)(3), as it applies to VR, 

noting that the VR program operates on 

a Federal fiscal year. A couple 

commenters said the specified program 

year may put additional administrative 

burden and costs, especially in the 

startup, on State VR agencies. A 

commenter said the VR agencies should 

continue to report as they currently do. 

Due to the difference in fiscal year 

versus program year, one commenter 

recommended that the VR program be 

transferred to DOL to ensure seamless 

coordination of workforce activity at the 

Federal and State level and to ensure 

that the States operate unified, 

integrated programs. However, other 

commenters said it is unclear whether 

the change in program will be a burden 

for State VR agencies. In fact, one 

commenter anticipated a benefit for 

aligning State match, fiscal planning, 

and managing funds. One of these 

commenters said that ED should survey 

State VR agencies to see if this will 

prove to be a burden or an issue for 

administration of the State Plan. 

A commenter remarked that 

performance data and plans will be on 

the program year basis and that Federal 

awards and reporting will remain on the 

fiscal year basis. The commenter sought 

clarification as to how reporting and 

performance timeframes will be 

integrated. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the concerns 

expressed by commenters. The VR 

program will utilize a program year, 

according to the § 676.130(b)(3) 

definition, for the purposes of reporting 

performance and identifying its goals 

and priorities as part of the VR portion 

of the Unified or Combined State Plan. 

Since data will be collected quarterly, 

RSA will have the flexibility to report 

performance data for each of the VR 

agencies for both the program year and 

the fiscal year. The Departments have 

not concluded that this will cause any 

additional burden to the VR agencies for 

the development of the VR portion of 

the State Plan, in particular, to establish 

and evaluate the State’s performance 

measures. Further guidance about 

performance reporting for VR agencies 

will be provided in the final ICR for the 

RSA–911 report. Fiscally, the VR 

agencies will continue to operate on a 

Federal fiscal year basis as required 

statutorily pursuant to secs. 110 and 111 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. The WIOA State Plan ICR 

Appendix 1 clarifies what performance 

information States must include in the 

State Plan. The Departments provided 

further instructions through the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR, the WIOA State 

Plan ICR, and related joint guidance. 

Finally, WIOA does not authorize the 

VR program to move to DOL. 

Stakeholder Involvement 

Comments: Numerous commenters 

expressed concern about having 

adequate voice and input into the State 

Plan development process, and a 

number of commenters requested 

stronger or clearer regulation on who 

must be involved in the State Plan 

development process. Commenters said 

the Departments should require a role in 

the planning process for core programs, 

one-stop partners, State and Local 

WDBs, and CEOs, among other entities. 

Departments’ Response: Although 

WIOA requires an inclusive planning 

process, and there are many references 

to inclusiveness in planning and 

program implementation throughout the 

Joint WIOA Final Rule, the Departments 

considered these comments and agree. 

The Joint WIOA Final Rule will 

continue to emphasize inclusiveness in 

planning and program implementation 

and will further benefit from a more 

explicit statement of the entities 

required to participate in the 

development of Unified State Plans. In 

response to the comments, the 

Departments have added regulatory text 

in a new paragraph (c) to § 676.130 to 

clarify that Unified State Plans must be 

developed with the assistance of the 

State WDB and in coordination with 

administrators with optimum policymaking authority for the core programs 

and required one-stop partners. In 

addition, to ensure consistency, the 

Departments have added regulatory text 

in a new paragraph (d)(3)(v) of 

§ 676.105, discussed above, requiring 

that the Unified Plans include a 

‘‘description of joint planning and 

coordination across core programs, 

required one-stop partner programs and 

other programs and activities included 

in the Unified Plan.’’ The Departments 

also have revised the title of § 676.130 

to include the word ‘‘development’’ to 

clarify that this section describes the 

development of the Unified State Plan, 

as well as submission and approval. 

These changes are reflected in the 

WIOA State Plan ICR. 

Collaboration and Input Into the Plan 

Process 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

recommended that States should 

include title II adult education partners, 

as well as other immigrant-serving 

organizations, in their WIOA planning. 

A few commenters suggested that 

refugee programs and service providers 

be included in planning at the State and 

Local level and that the Departments 

should emphasize in the regulation’s 

discussion of local governance the 

importance of providing expertise in 

serving linguistically and culturally 

diverse populations. Some commenters 

noted several organizations should have 

input into the development of State 

Plans, including: quality credentialing 

organizations, immigrant-serving 

organizations, State and local human 

service agencies, community and 

technical colleges, nonprofit 

community-based and nontraditional 

service providers, and State 

Departments of Education. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered these 

comments and note that collaboration in 

the planning process for Unified and 

Combined Plans is required of title II 

adult education program partners as 

they are among the core programs 

included in all plans. The WIOA State 

Plan ICR enables States to include 

human services, faith- and communitybased organizations, and educational 

institutions in the State Plan, as well as 

other Federal programs, particularly as 

part of a discussion of innovative 

partnerships with the one-stop delivery 

system. These types of organizations 

may include immigrant-serving 

organizations and refugee programs. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Public Comment and Availability of 

Information 

Comments: One commenter said the 

rule should reaffirm that, as one of its 

responsibilities, the State WDB must 

provide an environment for State Plan 

development that is conducive to 

participation and receptive to input. 

Further, this commenter stated that 

States should be required to describe 

how they will make this process 

accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. 

Departments’ Response: The State 

must provide an opportunity for 

comment and input into the State Plan. 

Furthermore, the Departments agree that 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55812 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

the public comment process must be 

accessible to all concerned 

organizations and individuals, 

including individuals with disabilities. 

As described in § 676.130(d)(1), the 

State must provide an opportunity for 

public comment on and input into the 

development of the Unified State Plan 

prior to its submission which includes 

an opportunity for comment by 

representatives of Local WDBs and 

CEOs, businesses, representatives of 

labor organizations, community-based 

organizations, adult education 

providers, institutions of higher 

education, other stakeholders with an 

interest in the services provided by the 

six core programs, and the general 

public, including individuals with 

disabilities. Further, as discussed 

earlier, the WIOA State Plan ICR, 

consistent with WIOA, requires the 

State to address the needs of individuals 

with barriers to employment including 

the needs of English language learners. 

Comments: Several commenters 

stated that the consultation requirement 

should accommodate Single States that 

have only a volunteer State WDB and no 

Local WDB to consult. 

Departments’ Response: Although 

single-area States have no Local WDB to 

consult, they still have stakeholders, 

including CEOs. In accordance with 

§ 676.130(d)(1), single-area States must 

provide an opportunity for comment by 

CEOs and other stakeholders as a part of 

the opportunity for public comment on 

State Plans, which includes local 

officials and local stakeholders. 

Comments: A couple commenters 

recommended a minimum notice period 

of 90 days for the opportunity for public 

comment on the development of the 

Unified State Plan. A commenter urged 

the Departments to require that States 

publicly post the plan electronically and 

that the Departments themselves create 

an electronic database where States, 

policy makers, advocates, and the 

general public can access all of the 

plans. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have reviewed these 

comments and decline to set a number 

of days for public comment of Unified 

State Plans, leaving the decision of 

schedules for public comment and 

posting plans electronically to the 

discretion of the States. Many States’ 

laws require a minimum number of days 

for public comment, and many States 

use online posting as a way of making 

the plans available for public comment. 

While the Departments are not adding a 

regulation regarding an electronic 

database, the Departments provide a 

centralized online access point for 

completed State Plans. 

Review and Approval of Unified State 

Plans 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

WIOA indicates that approval of the 

Unified State Plan will occur within 90 

days after submission, but the NPRM 

stated that it will occur within 90 days 

of receipt. The commenter 

recommended a revision to the language 

making the terminology for establishing 

the timeframe for review and approval 

of plans be consistent and that a 

definition be provided for determining 

that start date. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

regulatory text and retain the use of the 

word ‘‘receipt’’ in the renumbered 

§ 676.130(h) in order to allow the 

Departments to have a full 90 days to 

review the plan in the event of any 

delay in transmission of the plan from 

the State to the Departments. However, 

the Departments have replaced the 

words ‘‘by the appropriate Secretary’’ in 

paragraph (h) with ‘‘the Secretary of 

Labor,’’ to clarify that the 90-day review 

period begins upon receipt of the plan 

by the Secretary of Labor. This wording 

is more closely aligned with the statute, 

at WIOA sec. 102(c)(1). As stated in 

paragraph (e) of this section, 

immediately upon receipt of a Unified 

State Plan from a State, the Secretary of 

Labor will ensure that the entire Unified 

State Plan is submitted to the Secretary 

of Education pursuant to a process 

developed by the Secretaries. At that 

point, the Secretaries will begin their 

review. 

Comments: Several commenters said 

States whose Unified State Plans are 

rejected should be given detailed 

reasons why in writing so those States 

can focus on areas that need 

improvement. 

Departments’ Response: As a part of 

the approval process, the Departments 

intend to provide States with detailed 

reasons in writing if a plan is not 

approvable. 

Comments: A few commenters 

asserted that there was lack of clarity in 

the NPRM regarding whether the 

Unified Plan submission process will 

change. These commenters 

recommended that DOL issue a TEGL 

on the submission process of the 

Unified Plan. Similarly, a commenter 

said more guidance is needed to 

understand how this process will work 

and differ from previous Unified Plan 

submissions. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered these 

comments and agree that additional 

guidance will assist States in 

understanding the submission and 

approval process for Unified State 

Plans. The Departments issued joint 

guidance, which describes the 

submission process in greater detail. 

This joint guidance included TEGL No. 

14–15, ‘‘Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) Requirements 

for Unified and Combined State Plans,’’ 

issued to DOL grantees, a Program 

Memorandum issued to AEFLA 

grantees, and a Policy Directive issued 

to VR program grantees, all of which 

contained identical content. 

Rehabilitation Services Administration 

Approval of Plan 

The renumbered § 676.130(g) states 

that before the Secretary of Labor and 

the Secretary of Education approve the 

Unified State Plan, the VR portion of the 

Unified State Plan must be approved by 

the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation 

Services Administration (RSA). 

Comments: Several commenters 

requested clarification on whether the 

90-day approval timeframe for the entire 

plan starts when the VR portion of the 

Unified State Plan is approved by the 

RSA Commissioner or when it is 

subsequently forwarded to the ED and 

DOL Secretaries for approval. A 

commenter suggested that the regulation 

require a timeline for the Commissioner 

of RSA to approve or disapprove the VR 

portion of the Unified State Plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 90-day 

review timeframe, which begins upon 

receipt of the State Plan by DOL, 

includes RSA Commissioner review and 

approval. The VR program is an ED 

program, and ED’s and DOL’s reviews of 

plan submissions are concurrent. 

However, the approval of the VR 

services portion of the plan by the RSA 

Commissioner must occur first, after 

which the plan, if it complies with all 

of the other requirements, will be 

officially approved by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education. The Secretaries of 

Labor and Education have developed a 

process to ensure that both Departments 

receive the entire Unified State Plan 

submission concurrently to ensure 

timely review. The Departments have 

concluded that the existing regulatory 

text and preamble place adequate 

emphasis on the timely concurrent 

reviews of the plans by the Departments 

and no changes to the regulatory text 

were made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: Some commenters asked 

whether it is the responsibility of the 

State VR agencies or the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education to obtain approval 

from the RSA Commissioner. One of 

these commenters stated that placing 

the responsibility on VR agencies to 

ensure that this review is done 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55813 

(especially before submission of the 

plan to the Secretaries by the States) 

would be an unfair burden to place on 

VR agencies and States. This commenter 

further asked when the deadline is for 

the submittal of the VR portion of the 

State Plan to the RSA Commissioner, if 

it is the responsibility of State VR 

agencies to submit and obtain approval 

of the VR portion of the plan by the RSA 

Commissioner prior to submission to 

the Secretary of Labor. 

Departments’ Response: It is not the 

State VR agencies’ responsibility to 

submit and obtain approval of the VR 

portion of the State Plan prior to 

submitting the Unified Plan to the 

Departments. Rather, the entire Unified 

State Plan, including the VR services 

portion of that Plan, should be 

submitted to the Departments, and the 

review and approval by the RSA 

commissioner will take place following 

that submission as a part of the 90-day 

Federal review of the plan. The ED, 

including RSA, and DOL will work 

together to ensure the timely review and 

approval of all portions of the State 

Plans, including the VR services 

portion. The Departments have 

developed a process for submission of 

Unified State Plans to ensure that the 

Departments of Labor and Education, 

including the RSA Commissioner, 

receive the entire Unified State Plan 

submission concurrently. The 

Departments have concluded that the 

existing regulatory text and preamble 

place adequate emphasis on the timely 

concurrent reviews of the plans by the 

Departments. 

Comments: Some commenters 

requested clarification on what happens 

to the full Unified State Plan if the RSA 

Commissioner does not approve the VR 

portion of the State Plan. 

Departments’ Response: Approval of 

the Unified State Plan requires that the 

requirements of all core programs are 

met, including the requirements for the 

VR portion of the State Plan. No change 

to the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Guidance on Submission and Approval 

Process 

Comments: Several commenters 

provided suggestions for potential joint 

guidance from the Departments and 

how the guidance should influence the 

submission and approval process for 

Unified State Plans. Some commenters 

recommended that the Departments 

issue guidance that provides 

recommendations for how States can 

develop appropriate outreach and 

engagement strategies for stakeholders. 

One commenter said the Departments 

should issue guidance that addresses 

whether the VR agency should hold 

separate public meetings on their 

portion of the State Plan or schedule a 

unified public meeting for the entire 

State Plan. One commenter welcomed 

guidance from the Departments that 

advises State and local areas on whether 

to submit workforce plans that cover 

additional workforce related programs 

besides the six core programs. 

Numerous commenters requested that 

any guidance from the Departments that 

provides further details on the 

submission of the State Plans be 

released as early as possible. A few 

commenters said States may be waiting 

for guidance from the agencies before 

beginning their planning processes in 

earnest, which may cause some States to 

bypass key opportunities for stakeholder 

engagement or forgo pursuing a 

Combined State Plan in an effort to meet 

the statutory deadlines for plan 

submission. 

A commenter said it would be useful 

if the Departments provided a template 

for the Unified and Combined State 

Plans, ideally several months before the 

plan is due. The commenter also said 

ensuring that the templates are available 

at least several months ahead of the 

submission deadline would make the 

process of completing the plan much 

more efficient for States. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments issued joint planning 

guidelines that address these and other 

topics regarding State Plan 

development, submission, and approval 

and the requirements of the WIOA State 

Plan ICR. For example TEGL No. 14–15, 

‘‘Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA) Requirements for Unified 

and Combined State Plans,’’ was issued 

on March 4, 2016. The ED issued 

identical guidance to its grantees via 

Program Memorandum OCTAE 16–1 

(http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/

ovae/wioa-16-1.pdf) and RSA–PD–16– 

03 (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/

guid/rsa/pd/2016/pd-16-03.pdf) on 

March 9, 2016. VR agencies must still 

meet the requirements for public 

participation prior to the submission or 

amendment of a State Plan in 

accordance with 34 CFR 361.20. 

Although not commonly referred to as a 

template, the WIOA State Plan ICR is a 

detailed and comprehensive set of 

requirements for developing and 

submitting State Plans. In addition to 

the written joint guidance, the 

Departments also have presented 

multiple webinars on the development 

and submission of the State Plans. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Section 676.135 What are the 

requirements for modification of the 

Unified State Plan? 

Given the multi-year life of the 

Unified State Plan, States must revisit 

regularly State Plan strategies and 

recalibrate these strategies to respond to 

the changing economic conditions and 

workforce needs of the State. At a 

minimum, a State is required to submit 

modifications to its Unified State Plan at 

the end of the first 2-year period of any 

4-year plan and also under other 

specific circumstances, examples of 

which have been included in this 

section. States may choose to submit a 

State Plan modification at any time 

during the life of the plan. Section 

676.135 further describes the 

requirements for submission and 

approval of Unified State Plan 

modifications, which are subject to the 

same public review and comment 

requirements and approval process as 

the full Unified State Plan submissions. 

Except for minor technical edits, such 

as corrections to cross-references to 

other sections that have been 

renumbered and edits to conform with 

changes to part 677 on the performance 

accountability system, this section 

remains substantively the same as that 

proposed in the NPRM. 

Timeframe for Unified Plan 

Modifications 

Comments: One commenter 

supported the 2-year timeline for 

modifying initial Unified State Plans 

specified in § 676.135(a). Another 

commenter said Federal agencies should 

use the State Unified Plan timeframe for 

submitting mandatory modifications to 

review the regulatory framework and 

other guidance under which WIOA is 

initially implemented. The 

Departments, this commenter 

continued, should use this time to 

review how the challenges and 

opportunities involved in WIOA’s 

implementation have evolved. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered this comment 

and agree. The Departments intend to 

update existing and future regulations, 

ICRs, and guidance as appropriate and 

as needed for the continued effective 

implementation of WIOA. 

Unified State Plan Modification 

Requirements 

Comments: Regarding proposed 

§ 676.135(b), several commenters stated 

that modifications to State Plans only 

should be necessary in the event of 

significant or substantial changes in 

labor market and economic conditions 

or other factors significantly affecting 

implementation of the plan. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55814 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the balance 

between the benefit of periodic 

modifications of State Plans and the 

potential burden of submitting State 

Plan modifications beyond those 

required at the end of the first 2-year 

period. The Departments agree that 

periodic review of State Plans aids in 

the continual update and improvement 

of State policies and that State Plan 

modifications other than those required 

at the end of the first 2-year period 

should be required only in the event of 

substantial changes impacting the plan. 

Paragraph (b) of § 676.135, which is 

consistent with WIOA, requires States to 

submit modifications at the end of the 

first 2-year period, and these 

modifications must reflect changes in 

labor market and economic conditions. 

Other than this 2-year modification, 

States are required to submit 

modifications only when changes in 

Federal or State law or policy 

substantially affect the strategies, goals, 

and priorities upon which the Unified 

State Plan is based, or when there are 

changes in the statewide vision, 

strategies, policies, State negotiated 

levels of performance (see § 677.170(b) 

of this Joint WIOA Final Rule), the 

methodology used to determine local 

allocation of funds, reorganizations 

which change the working relationship 

with system employees, changes in 

organizational responsibilities, changes 

to the membership structure of the State 

WDB or alternative entity, and similar 

substantial changes to the State’s 

workforce investment system. 

Public Comment on Unified State Plan 

Modifications 

Comments: Several commenters 

stated that the VR regulations in 34 CFR 

part 361 already address when public 

comments are needed in the State Plan 

modification process. Specifically, any 

change to the VR portion of the State 

Plan that directly affects the provision 

of services, such as Order of Selection 

or the imposition of a financial needs 

test, would require public review and 

input before such a change is made. 

These commenters recommended that 

the Joint WIOA Final Rule here reflect 

the same high threshold for public 

comments on State Plan modifications 

for the other five core programs. 

Departments’ Response: Paragraph (c) 

of § 676.135 contains the same public 

review and comment requirements for 

all modifications to Unified State Plans 

as those for the development of initial 

Unified State Plans specified in 

§ 676.130(d). In addition, States must 

adhere to any program-specific 

requirements for the core programs 

included in the State Plan, such as 

sec.101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended, and its implementing 

regulations under 34 CFR 361.10 and 

361.20. The Departments do not require 

that the entire plan be subject to the 

program-specific public comment 

requirements of the VR rules in 34 CFR 

part 361. However, the Departments 

plan to issue further guidance regarding 

State Plan modifications. 

Comments: Some commenters said 

States should have the flexibility to 

define what constitutes a major change, 

as plan modifications necessitated by 

minor changes are burdensome and 

expend valuable resources. One 

commenter stated that there was no 

definition of ‘‘substantial change’’ 

provided in the NPRM and suggested 

that the threshold for ‘‘substantive 

change’’ in proposed 34 CFR 

361.20(a)(2) be used in the Joint WIOA 

Final Rule. Another commenter said 

‘‘substantial change’’ should be defined 

as a change that involves a substantive 

change to service delivery or 

participating partners or substantial 

fiscal impact. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that State Plan 

modifications other than those required 

after the first 2-year period for State 

Plans should be limited in order to 

avoid undue burden. However, the 

Departments also want to ensure State 

Plans are up to date and that States 

periodically review State Plans. 

Sections 676.135(b)(2) and (3) describe 

the circumstances where a Unified State 

Plan modification is required (other 

than at the first 2-year period). States are 

required to modify State Plans when 

changes in Federal or State law or 

policy substantially affect the strategies, 

goals, and priorities upon which the 

Unified State Plan is based; or when 

there are changes in the statewide 

vision, strategies, policies, State 

negotiated levels of performance, the 

methodology used to determine local 

allocation of funds, reorganizations 

which change the working relationship 

with system employees, changes in 

organizational responsibilities, changes 

to the membership structure of the State 

WDB or alternative entity, and similar 

substantial changes to the State’s 

workforce development system. The 

Departments have not defined the term 

‘‘substantial change’’ in this regulation 

and have instead outlined in the 

regulation the specific situations where 

modifications of Unified State Plans are 

required. 

Section 676.140 What are the general 

requirements for submitting a Combined 

State Plan? 

States have the option to submit a 

Combined State Plan that goes beyond 

the core programs of a Unified State 

Plan to include at least one additional 

Federal workforce, educational, or 

social service program from the 

programs identified in sec. 103(a)(2) of 

WIOA. Generally, the requirements for a 

Combined State Plan include the 

requirements for the Unified State Plan 

as well as the program-specific 

requirements for any Combined State 

Plan partner programs that are included 

in the Combined State Plan. To expand 

the benefits of cross-program strategic 

planning, increase alignment among 

State programs, and improve service 

integration, the Departments strongly 

encourage States to submit Combined 

State Plans. 

Section 676.140 specifies the general 

requirements for submitting a Combined 

State Plan. Paragraph (a) of § 676.140 

states that a State may choose to 

develop and submit a 4-year Combined 

State Plan in lieu of the Unified State 

Plan. The Departments have edited 

§ 676.140(a), as well as § 676.140(e)(1), 

to correctly cite references to Unified 

State Plan requirements that must be 

included in a Combined State Plan. 

Paragraph (e) of § 676.140 specifies the 

information that a Combined Plan must 

contain. Paragraph (e)(2) of § 676.140 

has been edited to include the words 

‘‘and activities,’’ to clarify that the 

Combined Plan must provide the 

required information for any programs 

and activities included in the State Plan. 

Section 676.140(e)(3), consistent with 

WIOA, has been revised to expand the 

required description of joint planning 

and coordination to include core 

programs, required one-stop partner 

programs and other programs and 

activities included in the State Plan. 

Section 676.140(i) is a new paragraph 

that requires States that submit 

employment and training activities 

carried out by HUD under a Combined 

State Plan to submit any other required 

planning documents for HUD programs 

directly to HUD, according to the 

requirements of Federal law and 

regulations. Except for the changes 

described here, this section remains 

unchanged from that proposed in the 

NPRM. 

Comments: One commenter said 

planning and implementation must be a 

thoughtful process, and system 

transformation cannot be rushed. This 

same commenter also said there should 

be increased interagency collaboration 

between the Departments. Specifically, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55815 

the commenter stated that there should 

be more incentives for programs within 

the two Departments to be included in 

a Combined State Plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered these 

comments but did not make changes to 

the regulatory text based on them. The 

Departments agree that planning and 

implementation must be thoughtful 

processes and that system 

transformation is an ongoing process. 

WIOA does not authorize incentives for 

States submitting a Combined State 

Plan. However, the Departments 

encourage States to be as inclusive as 

possible in their State Plans because 

joint planning across programs, 

including between those in the two 

Departments, fosters greater alignment 

and coordination of services. 

Planning Cycles 

Section 676.140(a) allows States to 

choose to develop and submit a 4-year 

Combined State Plan in lieu of the 

Unified State Plan. In the NPRM, the 

Departments note that the Combined 

Plan’s 4-year plan development and 

implementation cycle, with a 2-year 

modification deadline, is inconsistent 

with the planning cycles governing 

many Combined State Plan partner 

programs. The Departments sought 

comment on how to reconcile differing 

planning cycles across Combined State 

Plan partner programs that do not align 

with the 4-year planning required by 

WIOA. In response, commenters 

provided various recommendations. 

Comments: A few commenters said an 

approved Combined State Plan should 

suffice to meet the planning 

requirements of Combined State Plan 

partner programs and that Federal 

agencies should address the issues of 

differing planning cycles at the Federal 

level through executive actions. Another 

commenter said the Departments should 

require Combined State Plan partner 

programs to describe their planning 

cycles for the upcoming 4 years, and to 

include when during the next 4 years 

they may need to submit modifications 

to their part of the Combined State Plan. 

Similarly, two commenters suggested 

that the Combined State Plan report on 

the progress of the mid-cycle plan 

submitted by the Combined State Plan 

partner program(s) and include language 

on how the Combined State Plan partner 

program’s submitted plan includes 

integration with WIOA programs. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA does 

not authorize the Departments to change 

the planning requirements, including 

submission deadlines that are under 

other authorizing legislation. However, 

WIOA gives the States the ability to 

apply the 2-year WIOA modification 

provisions to the Combined State Plan 

partner programs included in the plan 

in addition to any modification timeline 

or interval required by the statute 

governing the Combined State Plan 

partner program as long as they do not 

overwrite those programs’ required 

timelines. The Departments have 

concluded that for any Combined State 

Plan partner program included in the 

plan with a different planning cycle 

from WIOA, States should submit 

program-specific modifications that 

align with the natural planning cycles 

for that specific program, unless the 2- 

year WIOA modification cycle can 

accommodate that program’s planning 

and modification cycle. For example, if 

a State chooses to include CTE programs 

under the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act of 2006 

(Perkins Act), as a part of its Combined 

State Plan, the State would submit plan 

modifications annually to align with 

Perkins’ annual State Plan cycle. As 

another example, the TANF authorizing 

statute requires a State to have 

submitted a plan within 27 months of 

the end of the first fiscal quarter in order 

to receive TANF funds for that fiscal 

year. Accordingly, adopting the more 

frequent 2-year WIOA cycle for 

modifications should accommodate 

TANF’s cycle, allowing a State to make 

all changes to each portion of the 

Combined State Plan concurrently. The 

State must submit such modifications to 

the relevant Secretary for that program, 

as well as to the Departments of Labor 

and Education. Special instructions 

apply to UI State Quality Service Plan 

and to JVSG as described below. The 

Departments have developed a process 

for submission of Combined State Plans 

that ensures that all relevant Secretaries 

receive the plan concurrently and, as 

part of this system, the Departments 

anticipate that State Plan modifications 

will be housed in an accessible format 

with that State’s original State Plan. The 

State may choose to describe the 

planning cycles of the Combined State 

Plan partner programs that are included 

in the State Plan, and the State also may 

describe intentions to submit future 

modifications to comply with those 

planning cycles; however, in order to 

minimize burden, the Departments have 

chosen not to require these descriptions 

through regulation or through the WIOA 

State Plan ICR. 

States that include, in their Combined 

State Plan, UI programs (UI FederalState programs administered under 

State unemployment compensation laws 

in accordance with applicable Federal 

law) carried out under title III, sec. 302, 

of the Social Security Act including 

secs. 303(a)(8) and (9) which govern the 

expenditure of funds, should submit 

their UI State Quality Service Plan 

following the cycle, according to UI 

State Quality Service Plan Planning and 

Reporting Guidelines. 

The JVSG programs, carried out under 

chapter 41 of title 38 of the U.S. Code, 

require both a JVSG State Plan and a 

separate annual application for funding. 

States that include the JVSG programs 

in their Combined State Plan must 

submit the JVSG State Plan information 

in their Combined State Plan, and 

submit their funding applications 

annually as required by current 

Veterans’ Employment and Training 

Service guidance. 

Comments: One commenter said the 

bifurcated nature of the WIOA State 

Plans could be adapted to allow nonWIOA programs to participate in the 

strategic portion of the planning 

process, even if they cannot fully align 

their budgets and operational plans with 

a 2- or 4-year operational plan. A 

commenter suggested that the 

Departments issue guidance on how 

States can incorporate existing and 

aligned planned activity with WIOA 

funded programs, as well as other 

related programs. The commenter 

concluded that several agencies that 

administer the Combined State Plan 

partner programs permitted have plans 

that align with partners outside of the 

six core programs, and States and local 

areas need a method of aligning existing 

effective plans. A commenter 

recommended adding Social Security 

Administration’s Ticket to Work as a 

workforce program in the Combined 

State Plan. A commenter urged DOL to 

work closely with the Department of 

Justice to outline additional 

recommendations and considerations 

within guidance for working specifically 

with the Second Chance Act partners 

and State Departments of Corrections. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments received similar 

comments, in response to § 676.130, 

regarding the inclusion of program 

partners beyond the core programs and 

required one-stop partners in the 

development of the Unified Plan. As 

already discussed in the context of 

Unified Plans in the preamble section 

that discusses § 676.130, the WIOA 

State Plan ICR, consistent with secs. 102 

and 103 of WIOA, allows States to 

include programs beyond the core 

programs, required one-stop partners, 

and Combined State Plan partner 

programs in a Combined State Plan. 

This is particularly true in the context 

of a discussion of innovative 

partnerships with the one-stop delivery 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55816 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

system. These partners and programs 

could include human services, faithand community-based organizations, 

educational institutions, and Federal 

programs not listed among the 

Combined Plan programs. These 

programs may be incorporated into the 

strategic portion of the planning 

process. As mentioned in the 

introduction, the Departments issued 

joint guidance to facilitate the inclusion 

of innovative partnerships and to foster 

alignment across partner programs 

outside of WIOA’s core programs. States 

also are encouraged to utilize technical 

assistance, as the specific dynamics 

across program partners within States 

will vary. Because sec. 103 of WIOA 

provides an exclusive list of Combined 

State Plan partner programs, the 

Departments do not have the authority 

to expand the statutory list of Combined 

State Plan partner programs for 

inclusion in Combined State Plans. 

Comments: One commenter said the 

Departments should keep the approval 

of the core programs separate from the 

approval of Combined State Plan 

partner programs, such that the 

implementation of what would 

otherwise be an approved Unified State 

Plan is not impacted or held up by 

decisions on Combined State Plan 

partner program cycles. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with this comment 

and have added text to § 676.143(h) to 

clarify that approval or disapproval of 

Combined State Plan portions covering 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

does not impact approval of the 

common sections of the plan which 

cover the core programs. This change 

will be discussed in more detail in the 

preamble related to that section. The 

portions of the Combined State Plan 

related to the core programs are subject 

to the same approval requirements 

applicable to the Unified State Plan 

(WIOA sec. 102(c)). The Secretaries of 

Labor and Education’s written 

determination of approval or 

disapproval of the portion of the plan 

for the six core programs may be 

separate from the written determination 

of approval, disapproval, or 

completeness of the program-specific 

requirements of Combined State Plan 

partner programs and activities 

described in § 676.140(d) and included 

the Combined State Plan. For example, 

if all the common planning elements 

and program-specific requirements for 

the core programs are met, approval and 

funding may proceed regardless of 

specific issues that may be identified in 

the program-specific sections for any 

Combined State Plan partner programs. 

Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families 

Section 676.140(d)(2) specifies that 

TANF, authorized under part A of title 

IV of the Social Security Act, is a 

Combined State Plan partner program 

that may be included in the Combined 

State Plan. 

Comments: One commenter said it 

appears that as a Combined State Plan 

partner program in a Combined State 

Plan TANF would be subject both to its 

own current statutory participation rate 

requirements and to the six performance 

measures specified in WIOA. The 

commenter stated that the performance 

accountability sections in both WIOA 

and the NPRM consistently refer to the 

six performance measures in relation to 

the core programs only and it is the core 

programs’ funding alone that is tied to 

performance on these measures. The 

commenter requested that an exception 

be made such that when a State 

includes TANF as part of its Combined 

State Plan, TANF training and 

employment activities not be subject to 

WIOA required performance measures. 

The commenter requested that TANF 

training and employment activities only 

be subject to the performance measures 

under TANF, the same way that 

performance measures for CSBG 

employment and training activities are 

only those under CSBG. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have reviewed this 

comment but did not make a change to 

the regulatory text. WIOA sec. 103 does 

not require the Combined State Plan 

partner programs to report on the WIOA 

sec. 116 primary indicators of 

performance. WIOA sec. 103(b)(1) only 

requires the Combined State Plan 

partner programs, which include TANF, 

to include the requirements, if any, 

applicable to that program or activity 

under the Federal law authorizing the 

program or activity. This means those 

portions of the plans related to training 

and employment. An explicit exemption 

for TANF is not required in these 

regulations. In referring to CSBG and to 

HUD employment and training 

activities, WIOA sec. 103(a)(2) does not 

refer to a specific program within those 

agencies but to employment and 

training activities in general. In contrast, 

WIOA sec. 103(a)(2) refers to TANF as 

a whole and does not limit this to the 

employment and training activities 

under TANF. 

Comments: A commenter asked 

whether a separate TANF State Plan 

would be required even if the State opts 

to submit a Combined State Plan. If a 

separate TANF State Plan is required, 

the commenter asked what the 

advantage would be for a TANF entity 

in combining their State Plan with the 

WIOA Unified Plan. A commenter said 

the Departments should explicitly state 

that the Governor’s option to determine 

that TANF will not be a required onestop partner in a State is a separate and 

distinct decision from the option of 

including TANF in a Combined State 

Plan. 

Departments’ Response: If the State 

opts to submit a Combined State Plan 

under this rule that includes a TANF 

State Plan, the State would not be 

required to submit a separate TANF 

State Plan to HHS. Instead, HHS will 

receive the Combined State Plan under 

this rule. If a State submits a Combined 

State Plan that is approved, the State is 

not required to submit any other plan in 

order to receive the funds to operate the 

programs covered by that Plan. The 

Combined State Plan takes the place of 

the individual State Plans for the 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

that are covered by the plan and 

replaces the Unified State Plan. In this 

way, the Combined State Plan is meant 

to promote integrated planning across 

State programs in addition to the 

integration among the core programs 

that would occur under a Unified State 

Plan. While no additional plan is 

required, § 676.140(f) stipulates that 

each Combined State Plan partner 

program included in the Combined 

State Plan remains subject to the 

applicable program-specific 

requirements of the Federal law and 

regulations, and any other applicable 

legal or program requirements, 

governing the implementation and 

operation of that program. Finally, a 

Governor’s option to determine that 

TANF will not be a required one-stop 

partner in a State is a separate and 

distinct decision from the option of 

including TANF in a Combined State 

Plan. 

Perkins/Career and Technical Education 

Programs 

Comments: Several commenters did 

not support the use of a Combined State 

Plan because, according to these 

commenters, the current Federal 

funding is essential for local CTE 

programs; the current Unified Plan 

model is working well by allowing local 

control of Perkins funds; the workforce 

board should not dictate course 

offerings or the curriculum provided; 

and the reporting/performance 

requirements for both WIOA and 

Perkins would conflict. 

Another commenter stated that 

schools should have the ability to 

develop programs that align with each 

other and the resources to support 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55817 

program development. The commenter 

said Office of Superintendent of Public 

Instruction should be given the control 

to direct funds to support CTE program 

development and oversee the 

implementation of the Programs of 

Study. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered these 

comments. States have the option of 

including postsecondary programs, 

including programs of study described 

in sec. 122 (c) under the Perkins Act, as 

a part of their Combined State Plan. 

However, even if Perkins postsecondary 

programs are included as a part of a 

State’s Combined State Plan, there will 

be no impact on the amount of Perkins 

postsecondary funds that are distributed 

at the local level, unless the State 

formally amends its Perkins Act State 

Plan to change its secondary and 

postsecondary split of funds pursuant to 

sec. 112(a)(1) of the Perkins Act. In the 

case where there is a change in the split, 

the formula established in sec. 132 of 

the Perkins Act, or the alternative 

formula established in sec. 133 of the 

Perkins Act, still applies. 

In addition, under WIOA, Local 

WDBs cannot dictate course offerings or 

curricula. Local recipients retain the 

ability to develop programs and align 

resources to meet students’ needs. 

Finally, as discussed above, WIOA sec. 

103 does not require the Combined Plan 

partner programs to report on the WIOA 

sec. 116 primary indicators of 

performance. WIOA sec. 103(b)(1) only 

requires the Combined State Plan 

partner programs to include the 

requirements, if any, applicable to that 

program or activity under the Federal 

law authorizing the program or activity. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that the regulation should account for 

WIOA’s statutory requirement that 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

remain subject to their original 

authorizing statutes. This is particularly 

important, according to the commenter, 

in instances where the Perkins eligible 

agency does not fall under the direct 

line of authority or control of the 

Governor. It is imperative to assure the 

Perkins eligible agency that it has full 

authority to carry out the 

responsibilities under sec. 121 of the 

Perkins Act when part of a WIOA 

Combined State Plan. The Perkins 

eligible agency is ultimately subject to 

the Federal government fiscal and 

accountability reporting requirements 

under Perkins regardless of whether the 

Perkins State Plan is separate or part of 

a WIOA Combined Plan. 

Departments’ Response: Reference to 

the original authorizing statutes and 

their requirements are made throughout 

the Joint Rule with respect to Combined 

State Plan partner programs included in 

Combined State Plans. There is no 

intention of removing or minimizing the 

authority of the Perkins eligible agency 

to carry out its Perkins’ responsibilities 

under WIOA. 

Comments: A commenter made the 

following remarks about the submission 

of a Perkins State Plan as part of the 

Combined State Plan: 

• The NPRMs do not address a 

reconciliation of the two separate and 

distinct submission requirements (2- 

year versus annual). 

• If a State submits the annual 

Perkins Plan separate from the 

Combined State Plan, the rules are not 

clear if the Perkins Plan must be 

approved by the State WDB. 

• The rules require two agencies to 

negotiate the level of performance on 

the core indicators of WIOA but do not 

indicate if the two agencies must 

negotiate the level of performance on 

the Perkins indicators. 

• The Perkins State levels of 

performance are dependent on local 

negotiations and levels of performance 

but the NPRMs do not indicate how the 

integrity, validity, and reliability of the 

local Perkins negotiations can be 

retained. 

Departments’ Response: As discussed 

previously, WIOA gives the States the 

ability to apply the 2-year WIOA 

modification provisions to the 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

included in the plan in addition to any 

modification timeline or interval 

required by the statute governing the 

Combined State Plan partner program as 

long as they do not overwrite those 

programs’ required timelines. The 

Departments have concluded that for 

any Combined State Plan partner 

program included in the plan with a 

different planning cycle from WIOA, 

States should submit program-specific 

modifications that align with the natural 

planning cycles for that specific 

program. Section 676.140(f) stipulates 

that each Combined Plan partner 

program included in the Combined 

State Plan remains subject to the 

applicable program-specific 

requirements of the Federal law and 

regulations, and any other applicable 

legal or program requirements, 

governing the implementation and 

operation of that program. 

If a State chooses to include Perkins 

as part of its Combined State Plan, the 

State will submit Perkins State Plan 

modifications annually, consistent with 

the Perkins annual State Plan cycle. If 

the Perkins State Plan modifications 

affect only the administration of Perkins 

and have no impact on the Combined 

State Plan as a whole or the integration 

and administration of the core and 

Combined State Plan partner programs, 

then such modifications may be 

submitted only to the Secretary of 

Education consistent with 

§ 676.145(c)(2). Modifications to a 

Perkins State plan that impact the 

Combined State Plan as a whole or the 

integration and administration of the 

core and Combined State Plan partner 

programs are subject to the same public 

review and comment requirements that 

apply to the development of the original 

Combined State Plan. Under the 

Perkins-specific procedures, hearings 

may or may not be required depending 

on the specific facts presented. 

In response to the commenters who 

raised concerns regarding performance 

negotiations, the Departments are 

clarifying that sec. 103 of WIOA does 

not require Combined State Plan partner 

programs to report on the primary 

indicators of performance in sec. 116 of 

WIOA. Section 103(b)(1) of WIOA only 

requires the Combined State Plan 

partner programs, which include 

Perkins, to include the requirements, if 

any, applicable to that program or 

activity under the Federal law 

authorizing the program or activity. 

Perkins program inclusion in a State’s 

Combined State Plan will not impact the 

annual Perkins performance indicator 

negotiation process. See sec. 676.143(i). 

The WIOA State Plan ICR Appendix 1 

clarifies what performance information 

States must include in the State Plan. 

The Departments provided further 

instructions through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR, the WIOA State Plan 

ICR, and related joint guidance. The 

Departments issued operational 

guidance on both performance and State 

Plan submission guidelines following 

the finalized Performance and WIOA 

State Plan ICRs. 

Inclusion of Combined State Plan 

Programs Not Under Governor’s 

Authority 

Section 676.140(e)(4) requires States 

to provide assurance that all of the 

entities responsible for planning or 

administering an eligible program 

described in a Combined State Plan 

have a ‘‘meaningful opportunity to 

review and comment’’ on all portions of 

the plan. 

Comments: Several commenters 

recommended strengthening the 

language in the regulation to ensure that 

States give assurances that all of the 

entities responsible for planning or 

administering a program described in a 

Combined State Plan have approved the 

inclusion of the programs in a 

Combined Plan, especially where such 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55818 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

programs do not fall under the direct 

control of a Governor. According to 

these commenters, as the language 

currently stands, it could be interpreted 

as leaving this decision of whether to 

include a Combined State Plan partner 

program in the Combined State Plan up 

to the sole discretion of the Governor. 

One commenter stated that, based on 

sec. 121 of the Perkins Act, the Perkins 

eligible agency should have the 

authority to determine whether CTE 

programs authorized under the Perkins 

Act are included in a State’s Combined 

Plan. Section 121 of the Perkins Act 

states, in relevant part, that each 

‘‘eligible agency . . . shall prepare and 

submit to the Secretary a State plan 

. . .’’ As mentioned above, the Perkins 

eligible agency maintains authority to 

carry out the responsibilities under sec. 

121 of the Perkins Act under a 

Combined State Plan. 

A few commenters said the Joint 

WIOA Final Rule should state the intent 

that the TANF program should have a 

meaningful influence in all stages of 

plan development and be a voting 

member of the State WDB. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have concluded that no 

change to the regulatory text at 

§ 676.140(e)(4) is necessary in response 

to these comments. The Departments 

have modified § 676.140(e)(3) to require 

States to describe joint planning 

methods in the Combined State Plan 

among the core programs, and with the 

required one-stop partner programs and 

other programs and activities included 

in the State Plan. The Departments 

acknowledge that not all programs 

identified in WIOA for potential 

inclusion in the Combined State Plan 

fall under the purview of the Governor. 

For some, the Federal funds go directly 

to local entities, such as several HUD 

programs administered by Public 

Housing Authorities. Others, such as the 

Reintegration of Ex-Offenders, are 

competitive grants that may be awarded 

to community-based organizations. 

Perkins funds flow directly to a State 

eligible agency by formula. In some 

States the Perkins State eligible agency 

is an independent agency not under the 

authority of the Governor. The 

Departments expect the Governor to 

work in collaboration with any 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

included in the plan and with the 

agencies that administer those programs 

consistent with these regulations and 

sec. 103(b)(3) of WIOA. The 

Departments expect that the State’s joint 

planning methods across these programs 

ensure that the State has full 

cooperation from any such programs 

and agencies included in the Combined 

State Plan. Finally, in response to the 

comment that the TANF program 

should be a voting member of the State 

WDB, State WDB membership 

requirements are addressed in 20 CFR 

679.110 (see DOL WIOA Final Rule). 

Other Comments 

Comments: Two commenters sought 

clarification on the primary indicators 

of performance relative to the inclusion 

of those partners beyond the core 

programs. If a State should choose the 

Combined State Plan option, one 

commenter asked whether all partners 

would be held to the standards of 

performance accountability identified in 

WIOA. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

103 does not require the Combined Plan 

partner programs to report on the WIOA 

sec. 116 primary indicators of 

performance. WIOA sec. 103(b)(1) only 

requires the Combined State Plan 

partner programs to include the 

requirements, if any, applicable to that 

program or activity under the Federal 

law authorizing the program or activity. 

The WIOA State Plan ICR Appendix 1 

clarifies what performance information 

States must include in the State Plan. 

The Departments provided further 

instructions through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR, the WIOA State Plan 

ICR, and related joint guidance. 

Comments: A commenter requested 

that the Departments ensure that partner 

programs will not have to submit 

additional or separate standalone plans. 

Departments’ Response: Partner 

programs, except for those carrying out 

employment and training activities 

carried out under CSBG, HUD programs, 

and the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 

will not be required to submit 

additional or separate standalone plans. 

Paragraph (h) and new paragraph (i) of 

§ 676.140 explain the additional 

submission requirements for CSBG and 

HUD programs. Under paragraphs (h) 

and (i), the regulation explicitly limits 

the Combined Plan requirements for 

CSBG and HUD programs to 

‘‘employment and training activities.’’ 

However, these activities are only a 

subset of a broad range of antipoverty 

activities provided under these two 

programs. In the case of CSBG programs, 

under § 676.140(h), the State would 

submit the remainder of the State Plan 

for CSBG (e.g., those parts that apply to 

the other antipoverty activities provided 

by CSBG that are not ‘‘employment and 

training activities’’) to the Federal 

agency that administers the program. 

New paragraph (i) clarifies that, like the 

requirements under paragraph (h) for 

CSBG programs, only the components of 

the individual plans for HUD programs 

that pertain to employment and training 

should be submitted with the Combined 

State Plan. The State must submit any 

other required planning documents for 

HUD to the Federal agency that 

administers the respective program. The 

language in this new paragraph creates 

a consistent approach for the Combined 

State Plan partner programs that WIOA 

sec. 103(a) identifies by activities rather 

than by a specific program name. This 

change also makes the regulatory text 

relating to HUD consistent with 

instructions in the WIOA State Plan ICR 

for submission requirements for 

Combined State Plans. 

For employment and training 

programs and work programs authorized 

under the Food and Nutrition Act of 

2008, including those under secs. 

6(d)(4) and 6(o), the State would 

similarly submit to the Departments of 

Labor and Education only the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program Employment and Training 

programs (SNAP E&T). The Departments 

declined to regulate an exception for 

SNAP E&T because State Plans for 

SNAP E&T, as described under 7 CFR 

273.7(c)(8), are generally not comingled 

with the State Plans for the remaining 

activities under SNAP. 

Comments: A commenter expressed 

concern that proposed § 676.140 does 

not require States to identify 

populations for Priorities of Service, 

though this is required at the local level. 

The commenter recommended that the 

regulation be revised to require that 

States identify populations for priority 

of service, and provide explanation of 

why those populations are named. 

Departments’ Response: As discussed 

earlier under § 676.105, in the title Ispecific requirements, the WIOA State 

Plan ICR requires the State to address its 

policy for ensuring adult program funds 

provide a priority in the delivery of 

career and training services to 

individuals who are low income, public 

assistance recipients, or basic skills 

deficient. Otherwise, as with the 

Unified Plan Requirements, the 

Departments have chosen not to regulate 

the specifics of State Plan requirements, 

as these are explained in comprehensive 

detail in the WIOA State Plan ICR. 

Section 676.143 What is the 

development, submission, and approval 

process for the Combined State Plan? 

Section 676.143 implements WIOA’s 

statutory requirements for submitting a 

Combined State Plan. These are similar 

to the requirements for submitting a 

Unified State Plan at § 676.130, with 

added considerations for review and 

approval by the Federal agencies that 

oversee the Combined State Plan partner 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55819 

programs. The heading for § 676.143 has 

been modified to include the word 

‘‘development,’’ to more accurately 

reflect the content of this section. In 

response to comments, discussed 

earlier, regarding the role of State WDB, 

core programs, required one-stop 

partners, and other stakeholders in the 

development of the State Plan, the 

Departments have made several 

revisions to § 676.143 to mirror the 

requirements for Unified Plans related 

to coordination, public comment and 

input. A new paragraph (b) has been 

added to include information similar to 

the newly added § 676.130(c), clarifying 

that the Combined State Plan, just as the 

Unified State Plan, must be developed 

with the assistance of the State WDB 

and must be developed in coordination 

with administrators with optimum 

policy-making authority for the core 

programs and required one-stop 

partners. New § 676.143(c)(1) and (2) 

have been added to include information 

similar to § 676.130(d)(1) and (2) 

requiring that the State must provide an 

opportunity for public comment and 

input on the development of the 

Combined State Plan prior to its 

submission, and that these requirements 

apply to the portions of the plan that 

cover the core programs. Finally, 

§ 676.143(c)(3) has been added to 

further clarify that the portions of the 

Combined State Plan that cover the 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

are subject to any applicable public 

comment requirements for those 

programs. Proposed § 676.143(b) has 

been renumbered to § 676.143(d), and 

remaining sections have been 

renumbered accordingly. Renumbered 

§ 676.143(e)(1) has been revised to 

clarify that, before the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education approve the 

Combined State Plan, the VR services 

portion of the Combined State Plan 

must be approved by the RSA 

Commissioner. In response to comments 

requesting clarity around Combined 

State Plan approval, new § 676.143(h) 

states that the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education’s written determination of 

approval or disapproval of the portion 

of the plan for the six core programs 

may be separate from the written 

determination of approval, disapproval, 

or completeness for program-specific 

requirements of Combined State Plan 

partner programs at § 676.140(d). Except 

for the changes described here, this 

section remains unchanged from that 

proposed in the NPRM. 

Submission of Combined State Plan 

Section 676.143(d) requires a State to 

submit to the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education and, if applicable, to the 

Secretary of the agency with 

responsibility for approving the 

program’s plan or for deeming it 

complete under the law governing the 

program, as part of its Combined State 

Plan, any plan, application, form, or any 

other similar document that is required 

as a condition for the approval of 

Federal funding under the applicable 

program or activity. 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

stated that, to reduce the burden on 

States, the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education should be responsible for 

distributing the plans to other 

appropriate Federal entities. One of 

these commenters said the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education may want to 

consider taking all of the Combined 

State Plans and submitting them as a 

batch to the other appropriate Federal 

entities. 

Departments’ Response: The 

submission process set forth in WIOA 

sec. 103(a)(1) for Combined State Plans 

requires that they be submitted to the 

‘‘appropriate Secretaries,’’ which differs 

from the submission process for the 

Unified State Plan set forth in WIOA 

sec. 102(a). However, similar to what is 

required by § 676.130(e) for the 

submission of Unified State Plans, the 

Departments developed a process for the 

single electronic submission of 

Combined State Plans that allows for 

concurrent review of, and immediate 

access to, the plans by all the relevant 

Federal entities. As discussed in the 

introduction, the Departments issued 

guidance that explains the submission 

process for Combined State Plans, 

which is intended to streamline State 

submission of plans. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments, but the Departments 

have issued further guidance regarding 

State Plan submission. 

Timelines for Review and Approval 

Section 676.143(e) stipulates the 

timelines for review and approval by the 

Secretary of Labor or Secretary of 

Education, or another appropriate 

Secretary. 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

requested clarification on the different 

timelines for the review and approval of 

the Combined State Plan (90 days for 

core programs and 120 days for 

Combined State Plan partner programs). 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered these 

comments and are implementing the 

regulation to reflect the statutory 

requirements. As required by WIOA sec. 

103(c)(3), Combined State Plan partner 

programs that fall under an authority 

other than the Secretary of Labor or 

Secretary of Education have an approval 

timeline of 120 days, rather than 90 

days. This additional time allows for 

review and approval of Combined State 

Plan partner programs that are 

administered outside the Departments 

of Education and Labor, such as 

programs administered by U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, HHS, and 

HUD. These are statutory requirements 

not subject to regulatory change. 

Rehabilitation Services Administration 

Approval of Combined State Plans 

Comments: Several commenters 

requested clarification on whether the 

VR portion of a Combined State Plan 

must be approved by the RSA 

Commissioner prior to the full 

Combined State Plan being approved by 

the Secretaries of Labor and Education, 

as the Unified State Plan process 

description explicitly states in 

§ 676.130(g). 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered these 

comments and agree that the rule 

needed to provide additional 

clarification regarding this requirement. 

Just as required for Unified State Plans, 

the RSA Commissioner must approve 

the VR services portion of the Combined 

State Plan prior to approval of the full 

Combined State Plan by the Secretaries 

of Labor and Education. The 

Departments have added regulatory text 

to clarify this requirement at 

§ 676.143(e)(1). 

Comments: One commenter said 

ensuring review by the RSA 

Commissioner should be the 

responsibility of the Secretaries, not VR 

agencies, and asked if this review would 

be part of the 90-day review timeframe. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments worked together to ensure 

the timely review of all State Plans, 

including the VR services portion of 

each plan. As discussed under § 676.130 

for Unified Plans, it is not the State VR 

agencies’ responsibilities to submit and 

obtain approval of the VR services 

portion of the State Plan prior to 

submitting the Combined State Plan to 

the Departments. Rather, the entire plan 

should be submitted to the Departments 

and review by the RSA commissioner 

will take place following that 

submission as a part of the 90-day 

Federal review of the plan. The 

Departments developed a process for 

submission of State Plans to ensure that 

all Departments, as appropriate, receive 

the entire submission concurrently. The 

Departments have concluded that the 

existing regulatory text and preamble 

place adequate emphasis on the timely 

concurrent reviews of the plans by the 

Departments. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55820 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Review, Approval, and Disapproval of 

Combined State Plans 

Section 676.143(f) provides specifics 

on the approval process for Combined 

State Plans. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that there appears to be little incentive 

for States to pursue a Combined State 

Plan. One commenter said States need 

assurances that the Departments will 

handle the Combined State Plan review 

in a manner different from how the 

Departments handled the Unified State 

Plan review under WIA, which was 

largely superficial in nature. The 

commenter recommended that the 

review process not only enforce 

statutory requirements but also consider 

the plan in a coordinated, cross-agency 

approach. The commenter said States 

need additional clarity on how the 

Federal agencies will manage the review 

process and make approval 

determinations, particularly when the 

statutes provide mixed or conflicting 

direction. 

Departments’ Response: Although 

States only are required, at a minimum, 

to submit a Unified State Plan that 

encompasses the six core programs 

under WIOA, the Departments 

encourage States to submit a Combined 

State Plan that includes additional 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

as described at § 676.140. Development 

of a Combined State Plan allows for 

coordination across multiple Federal 

programs, cross-program strategic 

planning, increased alignment among 

State programs, and improved service 

integration, which provides a wider 

range of coordinated and streamlined 

services to the customer. WIOA offers 

an expanded opportunity for States to 

create and implement a shared vision 

and strategy for the public workforce 

system within the State. The 

Departments have added language to 

§ 676.143 in paragraphs (e)(1) and (h) to 

further clarify the review process for 

Combined State Plans. Review of 

Combined State Plans will take into 

consideration the strategic coordination, 

program alignment, integration, and 

cross-agency joint planning that is 

reflected in the Combined Plan. The 

Departments worked together to create a 

robust review process across all partner 

agencies and consider this review 

process to be integral to effective joint 

planning and implementation. The 

Departments have added regulatory text 

at § 676.143(h) to clarify that the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education’s 

written determination of approval or 

disapproval of the portion of the plan 

for the six core programs may be 

separate from the written determination 

of approval, disapproval, or 

completeness of the program-specific 

requirements of Combined State Plan 

partner programs and activities 

included in the Combined State Plan. 

Comments: One commenter requested 

guidance (1) that allows States to 

develop a Combined State Plan without 

the threat of a loss of funds if elements 

of the individual programs are not 

specifically identified, and (2) on how 

accountability metrics and reporting 

requirements for those programs 

included in the plan will not be a 

disincentive for inclusion. A commenter 

said it is not clear what benefit exists for 

the State or local Perkins recipients to 

attempt to address indicators that are 

not pertinent to their purpose of 

operation as outlined in State regulation 

as well as the ‘‘Federal Perkins 

regulation.’’ The commenter said if the 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

are not required to report on the WIOA 

indicators of performance, the benefit of 

a Combined State Plan is not clear. 

Departments’ Response: Regarding 

concerns about funding, the joint 

submission, or joint review process of 

the Combined State Plans will not 

impact funding because the 

Departments developed a process to 

ensure Combined State Plans are 

reviewed in a coordinated and timely 

manner across agencies. The Combined 

State Plan review process is further 

explained at § 676.143. Combined State 

Plan partner programs are not subject to 

the six common indicators for 

performance under WIOA, although 

they may be subject to the same or 

similar indicators under their own 

authorizing statute or under State law. 

Regardless of whether required 

indicators are identical, States will find 

that public workforce development 

system customers can benefit from the 

results of developing a Combined State 

Plan that fosters program integration 

and alignment and optimal use of 

resources. The Departments’ worked 

together to implement a robust review 

process across all partner agencies and 

consider this review process to be 

integral to effective joint planning and 

implementation. Performance issues 

have been addressed through the WIOA 

State Plan ICR, the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR, and related joint 

guidance. 

Comments: One commenter said it is 

unclear how the rejection of one part of 

a Combined State Plan would affect 

funding for the other programs. A 

commenter stated that the regulation 

implies that disapproval by any 

Secretary of their respective program 

will result in disapproval of the 

Combined State Plan as a whole, which 

provides incentive to submit a Unified 

State Plan (instead of a Combined State 

Plan). Similarly, another commenter 

said disapproval of a section of the plan 

pertaining to a program not considered 

to be a core program should not result 

in the disapproval of the entire plan. 

Another commenter requested 

additional guidance on the process to 

follow if the RSA Commissioner does 

not approve the VR portion of the State 

Plan. 

Departments’ Response: Per 

§ 676.143(h), disapproval of a section of 

a Combined State Plan pertaining to a 

Combined State Plan partner program 

does not impact the approval for the 

portions of the Combined State Plan that 

apply to the core programs. In the 

process mentioned above, the common 

planning elements and program-specific 

elements of Combined State Plans are 

reviewed concurrently across the 

Departments of Labor and Education 

and other relevant agencies, with the 

approval determination by RSA 

occurring first, and with additional time 

allowed for specific Combined State 

Plan sections that fall within the 

purview of U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, HUD, or HHS. A 

determination regarding approval or 

disapproval for the common elements 

and the core programs may be issued 

separately from the approval 

determination for program-specific 

requirements for Combined State Plan 

partner programs, including those that 

allow 120 days for review. The 

Departments have added a new 

§ 676.143(h) to clarify that the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education’s 

written determination of approval or 

disapproval of the portion of the plan 

for the six core programs may be 

separate from the written determination 

of approval, disapproval, or 

completeness for program-specific 

requirements of Combined State Plan 

partner programs specified in 

§ 676.140(d) in the Combined State 

Plan. However, the portions of the 

Combined State Plans that cover the 

core programs must be approved by all 

core program agencies. 

Special Rule for Perkins Act Programs 

Comments: Several commenters 

referred to § 676.143(f) in the NPRM, 

which has been renumbered to 

§ 676.143(i) in the Joint WIOA Final 

Rule, the special regulation for programs 

authorized by the Perkins Act, which 

directs the State to come to an 

agreement with the Secretary of 

Education regarding State performance 

measures. One commenter requested 

further clarification as to what 

accountability measures would take 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55821 

precedence under an agreement 

between the Secretary of Education and 

a State. The commenter stated that the 

Departments should specify that when a 

State chooses to include Perkins in a 

Combined State Plan, the State is 

required to include the totality of the 

Perkins State Plan in the Combined 

State Plan and cannot break off the parts 

relevant only to postsecondary CTE. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

103 does not subject the Combined State 

Plan partner programs to the WIOA sec. 

116 primary indicators of performance. 

WIOA sec. 103(b)(1) only requires the 

Combined State Plan partner programs, 

which include Perkins programs, to 

include the requirements, if any, 

applicable to that program or activity 

under the Federal law authorizing the 

program or activity. The WIOA State 

Plan ICR Appendix 1 further clarifies 

what performance information States 

must include in the State Plan. As 

discussed in § 676.140 above, if a State 

chooses to include postsecondary CTE 

programs under the Perkins Act as a 

part of its Combined State Plan, the 

State would submit the entirety of the 

State Plan, including any annual 

revisions, pertaining to the CTE 

programs authorized under the Perkins 

Act. In addition, the State would submit 

plan modifications annually to align 

with Perkins’ annual State Plan cycle, 

consistent with § 676.145. 

Section 676.145 What are the 

requirements for modifications of the 

Combined State Plan? 

Section 676.145 specifies 

requirements for modifying a Combined 

State Plan. Sections 676.145(a)(1) 

through (3) have been added to mirror 

the core program modification 

requirements specified for Unified State 

Plans in § 676.135(b). Section 

676.145(a)(1) through (3) outline three 

instances in which a modification for 

the core programs is required. These 

instances include: (1) At the conclusion 

of the first 2-year period of a 4-year 

State Plan, (2) when changes in Federal 

or State law substantially affect the 

plan’s implementation, and (3) when 

there are substantial changes to the 

State’s workforce investment system. 

The Departments revised § 676.145(a)(3) 

to clarify that modifications to the 

Combined State Plans are required 

when States modify their negotiated 

levels of performance. This clarification 

was made for consistency with the 

changes to part 677 on the performance 

accountability system. The Departments 

have added a clarifying edit to 

§ 676.145(c)(1) to explain that States 

have discretion to apply the plan 

modification requirements for core 

programs to Combined State Plan 

partner programs so long as it is 

consistent with any other modification 

requirements for that program. The 

Departments have incorporated 

proposed § 676.145(f) into 

§ 676.145(c)(2) to clarify these 

provisions to address commenters’ 

confusion in this area, and deleted 

paragraph (f). The Departments also 

have made technical edits at 

§ 676.145(d). Except for the changes 

described here, this section remains 

substantively the same as that proposed 

in the NPRM. 

Timeframe for Combined State Plan 

Modifications 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

said the Departments should consider 

emphasizing the opportunity for States 

to submit Combined Plan modifications 

following submission of the initial plan 

to ensure that Combined Plan partner 

programs continue to be engaged in the 

planning and implementation process. 

Some commenters said the Federal 

agencies responsible for the Combined 

Plan partner programs should accept the 

Combined State Plan on the timeline 

outlined in WIOA and not prescribe 

more frequent updates or different 

timeframes for modifications and 

renewals. In addition, the commenters 

said the submission deadlines must 

align. These commenters also said the 

Departments should issue final 

guidance early enough that there is 

sufficient time to negotiate the levels of 

performance for State performance 

accountability measures before 

submission deadline. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that modifications 

following submission of the initial plan 

are useful to ensure that Combined State 

Plan partner programs continue to be 

engaged in the planning and 

implementation process. Sections 

676.135 and 676.145 enable States to 

continue to modify and improve the 

planning process of both core and 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

through Unified and Combined State 

Plans. The Departments are not 

prescribing more frequent updates 

beyond what is required under WIOA 

timeframes. However, the Departments 

have revised § 676.145(a) to clarify the 

circumstances under which a Combined 

State Plan must be modified for core 

programs, which are the same 

modification requirements that apply 

under Unified State Plans. The States 

have the discretion to apply these 

modification requirements to Combined 

State Plan partner programs or 

activities. The Departments have added 

regulatory text at § 676.145(c)(1) to 

clarify that a State may apply these 

modification requirements to Combined 

State Plan partner programs, as long as 

this is consistent with any other 

modification requirements for those 

specific programs. As discussed under 

§ 676.140, the Departments do not have 

the authority to change the planning 

requirements, including submission 

deadlines, that are not under WIOA’s 

jurisdiction. The Departments have 

provided additional clarity on the 

review and approval process through 

joint planning guidelines. 

Combined State Plan Modification 

Requirements 

Unlike § 676.135, which addresses 

modifications of Unified State Plans, 

proposed § 676.145, which addressed 

modifications for Combined State Plans, 

did not require modification of a plan 

when there are ‘‘substantial changes’’ to 

a State’s workforce investment system. 

Comments: The Departments received 

comments requesting that language 

similar to that in § 676.135(b)(2) and (3), 

requiring States to submit modifications 

when there are ‘‘substantial changes,’’ 

be added to the section pertaining to 

Combined State Plan modifications. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered these 

comments and agree. The Departments 

have revised proposed § 676.145(a) by 

adding new paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) 

that are essentially identical to 

§ 676.135(b)(2) and (3) to clarify that the 

same modification requirements that 

apply to the Unified Plan also apply to 

the portions of the Combined Plan 

covering the core programs. States are 

required to submit a modification for 

the portions of the Combined Plan 

covering the core programs when (1) 

changes in Federal or State law or 

policy substantially affect the strategies, 

goals, and priorities upon which the 

Combined State Plan is based, and (2) 

when there are changes in the statewide 

vision, strategies, policies, State 

negotiated levels of performance, the 

methodology used to determine local 

allocation of funds, reorganizations 

which change the working relationship 

with system employees, changes in 

organizational responsibilities, changes 

to the membership structure of the State 

WDB or alternative entity, and similar 

substantial changes to the State’s 

workforce investment system. Under 

WIOA sec. 103(b)(1), it is at the 

discretion of the State to decide whether 

to apply these modification 

requirements to Combined State Plan 

partner programs or activities, as long as 

this is consistent with any other 

modification requirements for those 

specific programs. The Departments 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55822 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

have added language at § 676.145(c)(1) 

to clarify this distinction. 

Public Comment on Combined Plan 

Modifications 

In the NPRM, the Departments sought 

comments on how to streamline the 

public review and comment process for 

Combined State Plan modifications. The 

Departments further sought comments 

in the NPRM on whether it is advisable 

to limit the requirement for public 

comment on plan modifications to 

significant or substantial modifications 

to the common planning elements and, 

if so, how the Departments might define 

‘‘significant’’ or ‘‘substantial changes.’’ 

Comments: One commenter indicated 

that historically, in-person meetings are 

poorly attended, so comments in 

relation to § 676.145 should be allowed 

via other methods, such as surveys, 

webinars, video conferences, and phone 

conferences. Another commenter said 

public review should not exceed 30 

days. 

Some commenters said the 

Departments should limit the comment 

process under § 676.145 to significant or 

substantial modifications, such as 

substantive change to service delivery or 

participating partners, adding or 

removing a Combined State Plan partner 

program, or discretionary changes 

within a program that would directly 

affect the provision of services and its 

collaboration with other programs 

(excluding programmatic changes 

required due to audit findings or 

sanctions). One commenter said the 

Departments should allow public 

comment on the shared planning 

elements to streamline this process 

significantly, particularly for States in 

which core program agencies have 

different governance and review 

processes. 

Departments’ Response: In the Joint 

WIOA Final Rule, the Departments have 

not included requirements related to the 

timing, method, or other specifics 

related to public review and comment. 

The Departments leave much of the 

process related to public review and 

comment to the discretion of the State 

so long as regulatory requirements for 

public comment are met. If, based on 

the regulatory categories described in 

§ 676.145, a Combined State Plan 

modification is required, such a plan 

modification is subject to the 

requirements for comment as described 

in § 676.145(d). As described in 

§ 676.145(d), modifications to the 

Combined State Plan are subject to the 

same public review and comment 

requirements that apply to the 

development of the original Combined 

State Plan as described in § 676.143(c) 

except that, if the modification, 

amendment, or revision affects the 

administration of a particular Combined 

State Plan partner program and has no 

impact on the Combined State Plan as 

a whole or the integration and 

administration of the core and other 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

at the State level, a State may comply 

instead with the procedures and 

requirements applicable to the 

particular Combined State Plan partner 

program. The Departments have made a 

technical edit to § 676.145(c)(2)(ii) for 

clarity by adding the word ‘‘other’’ 

before Combined State Plan partner 

programs in the phrase ‘‘has no impact 

on the Combined State Plan as a whole 

or the integration and administration of 

the core and Combined State Plan 

partner programs at the State level.’’ The 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

being referred to here are those other 

than the program that is the focus of the 

modification. States may determine, at 

their discretion, if these same plan 

modification requirements apply to 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

included in the Combined State Plan. 

States can further use their own 

discretion to provide a reasonable 

period of time for public comment. 

Many State laws also require a 

minimum number of days for public 

comment. Likewise, States may 

determine the best way to streamline the 

public comment process while ensuring 

that regulatory requirements for public 

comment are met. 

In addition to the regulatory text 

changes discussed above, various nonsubstantive changes have been made for 

purposes of correcting typographical 

errors and improving clarity that have 

not been necessary to note elsewhere. 

B. Performance Accountability Under 

Title I of the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (20 CFR Part 677; 34 

CFR Part 361, Subpart E; 34 CFR Part 

463, Subpart I) 

1. Introduction 

Section 116 of WIOA establishes 

performance accountability indicators 

and performance reporting requirements 

to assess the effectiveness of States and 

local areas in achieving positive 

outcomes for individuals served by the 

workforce development system’s six 

core programs described in sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA. These six core 

programs are the adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth programs under title 

I of WIOA; AEFLA program under 

WIOA title II; Employment Service 

program authorized under the WagnerPeyser Act, as amended by WIOA title 

III (Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service program); and VR program 

authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by WIOA title IV. 

The performance accountability 

system established in WIOA subtitle A 

(‘‘System Alignment’’) in sec. 116 

requires that the performance 

accountability requirements apply 

across all six core programs with few 

exceptions. As such, the six core 

programs have an historic opportunity 

to align performance-related definitions, 

streamline performance indicators, 

integrate reporting, and ensure 

comparable data collection and 

reporting across all the core programs, 

while also implementing programspecific requirements. 

Through this Joint WIOA Final Rule, 

the Departments are laying the 

foundation for a performance 

accountability system that serves all 

core programs and their targeted 

populations in a manner that is 

customer-focused and that supports an 

integrated service design and delivery 

model. In addition, WIOA requires 

additional DOL-administered title I 

programs, specifically Job Corps, Native 

American programs, the Migrant and 

Seasonal Farmworker programs, and the 

YouthBuild program, to comply with 

the same primary indicators as the core 

programs (see 20 CFR part 686 and 20 

CFR part 684 of the DOL WIOA Final 

Rule published elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register). The inclusion 

of these additional DOL-administered 

programs into the common performance 

accountability system will better align 

both the core programs and other 

education and training programs across 

the public workforce system. Further, 

DOL is including other workforce 

programs under its purview in this 

performance-related streamlining effort, 

including the JVSG program as 

authorized by the Jobs for Veterans Act 

and other appropriate formula and 

competitive grant programs. 

In the section-by-section discussions 

of each performance accountability 

regulatory provision below, the heading 

references the DOL CFR section number. 

The ED is establishing in this Joint 

WIOA Final Rule identical provisions at 

34 CFR part 361, subpart E (under its 

State VR program regulations) and at 34 

CFR part 463, subpart I (under a new 

CFR part for AEFLA regulations). 

Although for purposes of brevity, the 

section-by-section discussions for each 

provision appear only once—in 

conjunction with the DOL section 

number—the discussions nevertheless 

constitute the Departments’ collective 

explanation and rationale for each 

regulatory provision. When the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55823 

regulations are published in the CFR, 

these joint performance regulations will 

appear in each of the CFR parts 

identified above. 

2. Definitions (20 CFR 677.150; 34 CFR 

361.150; 34 CFR 463.150) 

Section 677.150 What definitions 

apply to Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act performance 

accountability provisions? 

Section 677.150 defines ‘‘participant,’’ 

‘‘reportable individual,’’ ‘‘exit,’’ and 

‘‘State,’’ which are key performancerelated terms applicable to all six core 

programs for implementation of the 

performance accountability system 

under sec. 116 of WIOA and part 677 of 

these joint regulations. The definition of 

‘‘participant’’ has been revised, as 

explained below, to distinguish clearly 

between participants and reportable 

individuals. The definitions of 

‘‘reportable individual’’ and ‘‘exit’’ have 

been revised as explained below. The 

Departments also have added a 

definition of ‘‘State,’’ which includes 

the outlying areas for purposes of part 

677, other than in regard to sanctions or 

the statistical adjustment model. These 

definitions establish the foundation of 

an integrated performance 

accountability system and support 

clarity and alignment of performance 

metrics and comparability among the 

programs, States, and outlying areas. 

Definition of ‘‘Participant’’ 

(§ 677.150(a)) 

Comments: Numerous commenters 

responded to the Departments’ 

solicitations for input on the joint 

NPRM regarding the proposed 

definitions of ‘‘participant,’’ ‘‘reportable 

individual,’’ and ‘‘exit.’’ While several 

commenters supported the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ generally, many 

commenters raised multiple concerns 

regarding the distinction between selfservice and staff-assisted service. A 

common concern was that the proposed 

definition of ‘‘participant’’ excludes 

self-service only individuals, which 

conflicts with WIOA’s goal of leveraging 

technology to improve service delivery. 

Some commenters expressed concerns 

about the term ‘‘staff-assisted service,’’ 

stating that the term should either be 

defined or removed because it is critical 

to understanding the precise distinction 

between a ‘‘participant’’ and a 

‘‘reportable individual.’’ Several 

commenters asserted that the 

Departments should remove ‘‘staffassisted service’’ from the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ because it is not defined 

in WIOA or regulations and can be 

misleading when providing upfront 

assessment services to youth. Other 

commenters encouraged the 

Departments to define ‘‘staff-assisted 

service’’ in order to provide 

clarification. One commenter indicated 

that the regulatory definition of 

‘‘participant,’’ for purposes of the title I 

youth program, should reflect policy 

positions articulated by the Departments 

in the Joint WIOA NPRM’s preamble. 

Commenters also suggested additional 

terms and concepts that could be 

defined, including providing definitions 

for ‘‘qualifying services,’’ ‘‘facilitated 

self-service,’’ and ‘‘career and training 

services.’’ One commenter asserted that 

the Departments should issue timely 

guidance with additional definitions 

and clarifications or allow States to 

continue using definitions contained in 

WIA. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that it is critical that 

these definitions be clear in order to 

ensure compliant data collection and 

reporting. Section 677.150(a) provides a 

definition of ‘‘participant’’ that applies 

to all six core programs because the 

primary performance indicators set forth 

in sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i) of WIOA 

specifically base performance 

calculations on the participants in each 

of the core programs. The definition of 

‘‘participant’’ establishes a common 

point at which an individual is 

meaningfully engaged in a core program 

and thus, it is appropriate for the person 

to be included in the primary indicators 

of performance. In the NPRM, the 

Departments attempted to distinguish 

‘‘staff-assisted services,’’ which required 

more meaningful interaction with a core 

program, from ‘‘self-services’’ and 

information-only services and activities, 

where individuals engaged in these 

activities that require minimal 

interaction with the programs, by which 

the Departments mean minimal 

resources are spent on their behalf in 

most cases. While individuals who 

receive only self-service or informationonly services and activities do not 

satisfy the definition of ‘‘participant,’’ 

these individuals are considered 

‘‘reportable individuals’’ as defined in 

§ 677.150(b) and discussed in more 

detail below. 

The Departments considered each of 

the suggested revisions to the proposed 

definition of ‘‘participant’’ and have 

modified § 677.150 to clarify the 

application of this definition to 

requirements under WIOA. The 

Departments made the following 

changes to the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ in § 677.150(a). 

In § 677.150(a), the Departments 

replaced the phrase ‘‘staff-assisted 

services’’ with ‘‘services other than 

those described in § 677.150(a)(3).’’ In 

so doing, the Departments eliminate the 

confusion of what is meant by ‘‘staffassisted services’’ and make clear that 

individuals who receive the services 

described in § 677.150(a)(3) will not be 

deemed to be ‘‘participants’’ for 

purposes of the performance 

accountability system requirements 

under part 677, but rather will 

constitute a ‘‘reportable individual’’ 

under § 677.150(b). 

The Departments provided additional 

clarification in renumbered 

§ 677.150(a)(3) to describe what does 

and does not constitute self-service and 

information-only services and activities. 

In so doing, the Departments have 

eliminated the confusion noted by 

commenters. Specifically, the revisions 

contained in § 677.150(a)(3) clarify that 

the difference between reportable 

individual and participant is the point 

when a reportable individual uses 

services other than those identified in 

renumbered § 677.150(a)(3). The 

Departments clarify what is meant by 

self-service and information-only 

services and activities, thereby avoiding 

use of the term ‘‘staff-assisted services’’ 

in this regulation, which raised 

concerns among commenters. 

Because the Departments appreciate 

the concerns raised by commenters and 

recognize the changing landscape and 

advances in service delivery and design, 

the Departments added 

§ 677.150(a)(3)(ii)(A) to describe selfservice. The Departments recognize that 

not all electronic technologies are selfservice and that individuals engaged in 

this type of service could potentially 

meet the definition of ‘‘participant.’’ For 

example, there may be some services 

that provide robust levels of assistance 

in assessing a person’s skills and 

matching that person to a job that are 

provided using electronic technologies 

that involve one-on-one interaction with 

a one-stop center staff member, such as 

an Internet chat room, or interactive 

technology, such as video conferencing, 

that would result in the individual 

becoming a participant. Additionally, 

the Departments acknowledge how fast 

technology evolves and new technology 

emerges that could be used by States 

and local areas to maximize available 

resources and better serve job seekers, 

workers, and employers. The 

Departments will continue to assess the 

field and emerging innovative 

technologies that may provide more 

cost-effective services and inform the 

workforce system of such developments, 

and their allowable uses, through 

program guidance. 

The Departments are continuing to 

examine staff-assisted virtual service 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55824 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

delivery in order to determine its 

potential. Paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of 

§ 677.150 clarifies that virtual services 

providing support above an individual’s 

independent job- or information-seeking 

efforts would not qualify as self-service, 

thus resulting in the individual 

becoming a ‘‘participant.’’. 

The Departments have concluded that 

the following revisions to 

§ 677.150(a)(3), described in more detail 

below, add the clarity requested by 

commenters: 

Self-service occurs when individuals 

independently access the workforce 

development system information and 

activities with very little to no staff 

assistance. This can be done in either a 

physical location, such as a one-stop 

center resource room or partner agency, 

or remotely via the use of electronic 

technologies, with very little to no staff 

assistance. 

Importantly, if a service is virtual 

service it is not automatically a selfservice. As many commenters pointed 

out, there have been great strides made 

in the area of virtual service design and 

delivery allowing for staff to provide 

support and services through a variety 

of in-person and virtual platforms. For 

example, there may be some services 

that are provided using electronic 

technologies that involve one-on-one 

interaction with a one-stop center staff 

member or interactive technology, such 

as video conferencing, that would 

trigger participation. Furthermore, 

individuals who receive self-service or 

information-only services and activities 

can still be participants if they receive 

services other than self-service or 

information-only activities. 

Information-only services or activities 

are activities or services that provide 

readily available information that does 

not require an assessment by a staff 

member of the individual’s skills, 

education, or career objectives. In a 

public workforce development setting, 

information activities or services may 

include both self-service basic career 

services and staff-assisted basic career 

services. Both are designed to inform 

and educate an individual about the 

labor market and to enable an 

individual to identify his or her 

employment strengths, weaknesses, and 

range of appropriate services. However, 

basic career services that require 

significant staff involvement are not 

considered information-only services or 

activities. 

Applying the above guidance to 

determining when a reportable 

individual satisfies the definition of a 

‘‘participant,’’ an individual is a 

reportable individual, but not a 

participant, when a staff member 

provides the individual with readily 

available information that does not 

require an assessment of the 

individual’s skills, education, or career 

objectives, because the individual is a 

recipient of information-only services or 

activities. Such information could 

include labor market trends, the 

unemployment rate, businesses that are 

hiring or reducing their workforce, 

information on high growth industries, 

occupations that are in demand, and 

referrals other than referrals to 

employment. Information-only services 

or activities also occur when a staff 

member provides the individual with 

information and instructions on how to 

access the variety of other services 

available in the one-stop center, 

including tools in the resource room. 

Significant staff involvement that 

would result in an individual qualifying 

as a participant includes a staff 

member’s assessment of an individual’s 

skills, education, or career objectives in 

order to achieve any of the following: 

• Assist individuals in deciding on 

appropriate next steps in the search for 

employment, training, and related 

services, including job referral; 

• Assist individuals in assessing their 

personal barriers to employment; or 

• Assist individuals in accessing 

other related services necessary to 

enhance their employability and 

individual employment related needs. 

The Departments also added a new 

§ 677.150(a)(2) to align the regulatory 

text definition of ‘‘participant,’’ for 

purposes of the title I youth program, 

with the intent expressed in the NPRM. 

New § 677.150(a)(2) clarifies the 

definition of a ‘‘participant’’ for 

purposes of the WIOA title I youth 

program. 

The Departments did not add a 

definition of ‘‘staff-assisted service,’’ as 

suggested by commenters, because the 

revisions to § 677.150(a) described 

above resulted in the removal of the 

term from the regulatory text. In 

addition, the Departments declined to 

add the recommended definitions of 

‘‘qualifying services’’ or ‘‘facilitated selfservices,’’ because the modifications 

made to the definition of 

‘‘participant’’—particularly at 

§ 677.150(a)(3) regarding clarifications 

of self-service and information-only 

services or activities—will address the 

needs of commenters. In addition, the 

Departments consider additional 

recommended definitions to fall within 

the scope of either the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR (which identify 

performance calculations, definitions, 

and reporting parameters) or operating 

and programmatic guidance. 

The Departments did not add 

definitions of ‘‘career services’’ and 

‘‘training services’’ because WIOA sec. 

134(c)(2) and (3) define ‘‘career 

services’’ and ‘‘training services,’’ 

respectively, and these terms are further 

defined at § 678.430 (‘‘What are career 

services?’’) in the Joint WIOA Final Rule 

and 20 CFR 680.200 (‘‘What are training 

services for adult and dislocated 

workers?’’), in the DOL WIOA Final 

Rule, both of which are published in 

this issue of the Federal Register. The 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR contains 

further specifications regarding the 

collection and reporting of career and 

training services under this section. The 

Departments intend to issue further 

clarifying programmatic guidance 

regarding these and other performancerelated definitions in order to assist 

States and outlying areas in 

implementing them. 

Comments: A commenter 

acknowledged the problems associated 

with outcome evaluations of 

participants who do not go through an 

intake process but stated that the 

performance metrics should give credit 

for the investment of resources and staff 

required to maintain effective selfservice systems. Another commenter 

asserted that self-service individuals 

should be included in the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ to allow States to fully 

convey the impact and return on 

investment for this large customer 

group. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize commenters’ 

concerns about the resources required to 

maintain effective self-service systems. 

Although performance calculations on 

the primary indicators of performance 

are limited to individuals who meet the 

definition of participant and do not 

include individuals who only use the 

self-service system, other information 

that captures resources and costs 

associated with those individuals served 

by the public workforce system at the 

self-service or information-only levels is 

collected and reported in the State 

annual performance reports under 

§ 677.160, and additional elements are 

required through associated ICRs 

published by the Departments. 

The Departments expect that because 

information about reportable 

individuals, including those who access 

self-service and information-only 

services or activities, will be included in 

the State annual performance reports 

and associated WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR or Department-specific ICRs, such 

investments by States and local areas 

will be recognized. The Departments 

note that the changes in the regulatory 

text maintain the policy expressed by 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55825 

the Departments in the NPRM. 

Individuals who only use the selfservice system or who receive 

information-only services or activities 

are not defined as ‘‘participants.’’ No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter opposed the 

exclusion of self-service individuals in 

the definition of ‘‘participant,’’ asserting 

that it creates a bias against rural areas 

where one-stop centers are less 

accessible. 

Conversely, a number of other 

commenters stated that individuals 

receiving self-service and informationonly services should not be considered 

participants for performance purposes, 

stating that participation should not 

begin until an individual receives a 

staff-assisted service. A commenter 

agreed that self-service individuals 

should be excluded from the definition 

of ‘‘participant,’’ but suggested that a 

performance analysis be conducted to 

assess the impact of exclusion of selfservice results on performance. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize commenters’ 

concerns about the delivery of services 

in rural areas and recognize the 

importance of leveraging virtual services 

technology to improve the delivery of 

services in such areas. As discussed 

above, the Departments do not consider 

all services provided virtually to be 

‘‘self-service’’ and reiterate that such 

activities, even when delivered 

virtually, can trigger participation and 

subsequent inclusion in performance 

calculations. The Departments 

developed the proposed definitions in 

order to maintain a level of rigor and 

accountability that is consistently 

applied across programs, while also 

providing a platform that is flexible 

enough to accommodate changes in 

service delivery design and 

advancements in technology. As stated 

above, no changes to the regulatory text 

regarding individuals who only use the 

self-service system were made in 

response to comments, as these 

individuals are not considered 

‘‘participants’’ for purposes of the 

performance accountability system. 

With regard to the recommendation 

that a performance analysis be 

conducted to assess the impact of 

exclusion of self-service and 

information-only services or activities, 

the Departments analyzed a number of 

factors before proposing the definition 

of participant, including the relative 

impact of self-service exclusion and 

inclusion, and concluded that exclusion 

of such services had little to no impact 

on performance outcomes. Therefore, as 

stated above, the Departments decline to 

change the regulation’s definition of 

participants based on these comments. 

With regard to the recommendation 

that participation begin only when an 

individual receives a staff-assisted 

service, the Departments have 

concluded that to define such a precise 

attachment point in regulation would 

prevent the performance accountability 

system from being able to adapt and 

account for all the services that the 

programs are providing. For example, an 

individual could receive staff-assisted 

services in the form of an assessment in 

the WIOA youth program, or in the form 

of fewer than 12 contact hours of 

AEFLA services, yet still appropriately 

be excluded from the definition of a 

participant. 

Comments: A few commenters 

suggested that self-service participants 

should be included in Wagner-Peyser 

Act employment indicators or measured 

separately. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered collection and 

reporting burdens of doing so and did 

not revise the regulatory text to require 

additional collection and reporting on 

reportable individuals beyond the 

associated counts and information 

already required under the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR. However, States 

should feel free to conduct additional 

analysis beyond what is required to be 

submitted to the Departments, such as 

an analysis on outcome of WagnerPeyser Act self-service individuals. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: Several commenters 

remarked that, under the NPRM, a youth 

receiving an assessment could be 

considered as receiving a staff-assisted 

service and therefore be considered a 

‘‘participant.’’ These commenters 

further stated that this proposed 

regulation would conflict with the 

discussion in the NPRM, which had 

proposed that a ‘‘participant’’ for 

performance calculation purposes of the 

WIOA youth program, would be a 

‘‘reportable individual’’ who was 

determined eligible, received an 

assessment, and received a program 

element. These commenters asserted 

that an assessment alone should not be 

considered a staff-assisted service, and 

that the regulation should be revised to 

conform to the language in the preamble 

of the NPRM. Another commenter 

expressed similar concerns, stating that 

an assessment alone for any individual 

in any program should not trigger 

participation. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with the numerous 

commenters who asserted the NPRM 

text regarding the definition of 

‘‘participant,’’ as applied to the WIOA 

title I youth programs, could potentially 

conflict with the stated intent in the 

preamble. The Departments, therefore, 

revised the regulatory text by adding a 

new § 677.150(a)(2), which reflects the 

intent stated in the NPRM preamble. In 

so doing, the Departments have made 

clear that a WIOA program youth is not 

considered a ‘‘participant,’’ and 

subsequently included in performance 

calculations, until the youth has been 

determined eligible, received an 

objective assessment, developed an 

individual service strategy, and received 

1 of the 14 youth program elements (as 

outlined in WIOA sec. 129(c)(2)). The 

Departments have concluded that this 

change is consistent with the general 

definition of a ‘‘participant’’ in 

§ 677.150(a), as well as the application 

of the definition to all core programs. 

This differs from the NPRM only by 

additionally requiring the youth 

participant to have satisfied the 

applicable program requirement for 

provision of services, including 

eligibility determination, objective 

assessment, and the development of an 

individual service strategy, as required 

under WIOA sec. 129(c)(1)(B). 

Comments: A few commenters 

suggested that co-enrollees be counted 

as participants in all of the core 

programs from which they are receiving 

services. A few commenters discussed 

the benefits of co-enrollment, 

particularly for youth populations, and 

supported the idea that eligible 

individuals may be co-enrolled in title 

I youth services and title II adult 

education programs. One commenter 

requested clarification regarding how to 

account for individuals enrolled in 

multiple core programs. Another 

commenter remarked that differences 

among programs and uncertainty about 

reporting co-enrollees create a 

disincentive for co-enrollment. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the value of coenrollment across the core programs and 

greatly encourage efforts by the core 

programs in States to establish the data 

infrastructure and partnerships 

necessary to facilitate seamless 

enrollment in one or more core 

programs under WIOA. The 

Departments encourage co-enrollment 

between those programs that are 

required partners under WIOA, such as 

the Jobs for Veterans State Grant 

Programs, the Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) programs, and others 

as outlined in sec. 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA. 

However, the Departments have 

concluded there is no need for revision 

to the regulations to address these 

comments since WIOA sec. 116(d)(2)(I) 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55826 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

and § 677.160(a)(1) require core 

programs to report the number of 

participants who are enrolled in more 

than one of the programs described in 

WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii), 

disaggregated by each subpopulation of 

such individuals. Therefore, individuals 

who are co-enrolled in more than one 

core program and who meet the 

definition of participant under each 

respective program must be included in 

each respective program’s performance 

calculations. 

These calculations, as proposed under 

the WIOA Joint Performance ICR, would 

be done independent of the participant’s 

participation in another core program 

unless a State opted to implement such 

policies for co-enrollment that allows 

for a common participation or exit date 

based on entering any of the core 

programs. Under WIA title I, some 

States maintained similar policies. For 

example, under WIA title I, in those 

cases where an individual was initially 

enrolled in the Wagner-Peyser Act 

program and subsequently received 

services under another DOLadministered program, the participation 

date for each program was the same and 

the receipt of a program’s service was 

recorded as the date of receipt for first 

service as named. Such practices are 

allowed to continue under WIOA. 

Irrespective of the dates for 

participation and exit, each program 

would account for the participants in its 

program, and would be accountable for 

the outcomes of such participants in 

their reporting. For example, a title I 

youth participant who is co-enrolled in 

a title II AEFLA program and who also 

meets the definition of participant 

under title II, would be included in the 

State performance report for both title I 

youth and the AEFLA program under 

title II. No change to the regulatory text 

was made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: Several commenters 

addressed the applicability of the 

‘‘participant’’ definition to the VR 

program. A few of these commenters 

noted that the proposed definition of 

‘‘participant’’ would inflate the number 

of individuals exiting the VR program 

without achieving an employment 

outcome. Of these, one commenter 

stated it is not clear how the definitions 

of ‘‘participant,’’ ‘‘exit,’’ and the 

calculation of the performance 

indicators that rely on quarterly wage 

data are being operationalized in the 

proposed VR ICR for the RSA–911, 

particularly as it relates to calculating 

the denominator, and numerator. 

Specifically, this commenter said that it 

appeared that quarterly earnings and 

Federal Employer Identification 

Numbers (FEINs) only should be 

supplied for those participants who 

achieve competitive integrated 

employment. As a result, this 

commenter stated this would mean a 

significant number of VR participants 

would be included in the denominator 

but would be automatically excluded 

from the numerator for performance 

calculations if they did not achieve a 

competitive integrated employment 

outcome, even though they received 

significant VR services before exiting 

the VR program. This commenter was 

concerned that this approach would not 

provide a consistent and equitable 

comparison across all core programs 

since the definition of ‘‘participant’’ 

means an individual who received staffassisted services. For example, this 

commenter asserted that WIOA title I 

and title III (Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service) staff-assisted 

services may be quite limited compared 

to the intensive and sustained services 

provided to VR customers under an 

individualized plan for employment 

(IPE), the development of which 

requires substantial VR counselor 

investment and is in itself a service that 

may improve employment prospects. 

Therefore, this commenter 

recommended that the denominator be 

likewise limited to those participants 

who achieved competitive integrated 

employment or, in the alternative, 

require quarterly earnings and FEINs for 

all participants, not just those who 

achieved competitive integrated 

employment. This commenter 

recommended that RSA provide the 

specific formula for calculating 

performance indicators and provide a 

comment period. A few commenters 

stated that the proposed definition of 

‘‘participant’’ would exclude a 

potentially large number of students 

with disabilities who receive preemployment transition services under 

the VR program. Another commenter 

urged the Departments to provide 

guidance regarding the application of 

the ‘‘participant’’ definition to the VR 

program. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that the definition of 

‘‘participant,’’ for purposes of the VR 

program, will include both those 

individuals who exit the VR program 

after achieving an employment outcome 

as well as those individuals who exit 

without achieving an employment 

outcome. While the Departments 

understand that this calculation is a 

departure from what was done by VR 

agencies under prior 34 CFR 361.84(c), 

§ 677.150(a)(1) of the Joint WIOA Final 

Rule is consistent with the use of the 

term ‘‘participant’’ throughout sec. 116 

of WIOA and its application to the 

primary performance indicators set forth 

in sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i) of WIOA. 

Moreover, the definition of 

‘‘participant,’’ for purposes of the VR 

program, at § 677.150(a)(1) is consistent 

with the definition as applied to all core 

programs in § 677.150(a). Specifically, 

the definition of ‘‘participant’’ is broad 

enough to account for programmatic 

differences but narrow enough to 

capture the same type of individual 

with respect to each of the core 

programs. As the commenter noted, 

Wagner-Peyser Act services are often 

characterized as self-services and 

information-only activities. In 

accordance with § 677.150(a)(3), 

individuals receiving those kinds of 

services would not meet the definition 

of ‘‘participant’’ and, thus, there would 

be no comparison in the performance 

calculations between these individuals 

and participants of the VR program. 

However, individuals receiving WagnerPeyser Act services that go beyond selfservices or information-only activities 

would meet the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ in § 677.150(a). As such, 

there would be comparability between 

this participant and a participant of the 

VR program. The Departments recognize 

that VR services are provided in a much 

more intensive manner and for a more 

extended period of time than those 

provided by the Wagner-Peyser Act 

program. Such differences will be 

reflected in the performance levels 

established for each of the core 

programs. 

With respect to performance 

calculations, the three employmentrelated indicators measure the 

percentage of participants who are 

employed in the second and fourth 

quarters after exit, as well as their 

median earnings in the second quarter 

after exit. The Departments provide 

further guidance regarding the 

performance calculations in the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR. 

The Departments also agree that 

students with disabilities who receive 

pre-employment transition services 

without having applied, or been 

determined eligible, for the VR program 

would not satisfy the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ as set forth in 

§ 677.150(a)(1), but rather would be 

tracked and reported as ‘‘reportable 

individuals,’’ as defined in § 677.150(b). 

However, if a student with a disability 

applies and is determined eligible for 

the VR program and develops an IPE 

that includes the provision of preemployment transition services or any 

other VR service, such student would 

satisfy the definition of ‘‘participant’’ as 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55827 

set forth in § 677.150(a)(1) and would be 

included in the performance 

calculations as such. The Departments 

have provided additional guidance 

regarding the reporting of ‘‘participants’’ 

in the WIOA Joint Performance ICR. No 

change was made to the regulation at 

§ 677.150(a)(1) in response to the 

comments. 

Comments: Several commenters urged 

the Departments to adopt consistent 

definitions regarding point of 

enrollment across titles triggered by 

engagement in program activity, not just 

initial assessment. They expressed 

particular concern for the youth 

program. 

Departments’ Response: The 

definition of ‘‘participant’’ takes into 

consideration the unique purposes and 

characteristics of each program and the 

ways in which an individual may 

access, and ultimately engage in, 

services in each of the core programs, 

thereby focusing on the established 

common point in service design and 

delivery that an individual reaches 

regardless of the program. The 

Departments concluded that it was 

sufficient to revise the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ for purposes of the WIOA 

youth program. 

Comments: Several commenters 

sought clarification concerning the 

distinction between the data collected 

for reportable individuals and 

participants, particularly with regard to 

whether they are included in 

performance calculations for the 

primary indicators of performance. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments will collect and track 

information on reportable individuals as 

well as participants, the Departments 

currently do not intend to require 

reporting of outcomes of reportable 

individuals. The Departments will 

notify States via the ICR process of any 

collection and reporting requirements 

for reportable individuals. No change to 

the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter asserted 

that older individuals with barriers to 

employment may require priority in 

receiving staff-assisted services, since 

these individuals are not as likely to use 

self-service tools. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the unique 

challenges faced by the different 

populations with barriers to 

employment that affect both their access 

to and utilization of services within the 

public workforce system. WIOA 

provides for meaningful access to 

individuals seeking services, including 

individuals with multiple barriers to 

employment. The regulation no longer 

refers to staff-assisted services. 

Comments: Several commenters 

stated that while the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ is well suited for WIOA 

performance accountability purposes, it 

is not suitable for many education 

programs and postsecondary students. 

These commenters stated that 

postsecondary students may participate 

in the workforce system in ways that are 

not captured in the definition. For 

instance, students may take courses and 

determine a degree pathway but never 

officially enroll in a program of study. 

Departments’ Response: The 

definition of ‘‘participant’’ establishes a 

common point at which an individual is 

meaningfully engaged in a core 

program. This takes into consideration 

the unique purposes and characteristics 

of each program and the ways in which 

an individual may access, and 

ultimately engage in, services in each of 

these programs. For example, an 

individual who accesses postsecondary 

education through the VR program, as 

set forth in title IV of WIOA, would 

meet the definition of participant at the 

point at which the eligible individual 

has an approved and signed IPE. 

Likewise, an individual accessing a 

career pathway program funded through 

title II would meet the definition of 

participant once the individual has 

completed at least 12 contact hours. 

Therefore, because programmatic 

differences are already accounted for, 

including differences regarding 

educational programs, the Departments 

have made no change to this Joint WIOA 

Final Rule regarding the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ as applied to an 

educational program. The Departments 

note that further clarity is provided 

through the WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR. No change to the regulatory text 

was made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that the definition of ‘‘participant’’ is 

problematic when applied to all 

individuals in a program of study for the 

purpose of the eligible training provider 

performance report. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the need for 

clarity on terms as they apply to the 

eligible training provider (ETP) 

performance reports applicable to the 

adult and dislocated worker programs. 

There is further discussion on this and 

associated issues in the preamble of 

§ 677.230 below. The Departments do 

not consider all individuals in a 

program of study through an ETP as 

falling within the definition of 

participants as defined under § 677.150. 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: Although the Departments 

received no comments specifically on 

proposed § 677.150(a)(4), which 

requires that programs must include 

participants in their performance 

calculations, the Departments received 

comments with respect to other areas of 

performance accountability that 

highlighted the intersection between 

WIOA core programs and their partner 

programs. Some commenters addressed 

the general applicability of these 

provisions to the national programs 

authorized under title I, particularly 

with regard to those programs identified 

in WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B). 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments reiterate that sec. 116 

applies to other programs, including the 

national programs and the partner 

programs identified in WIOA sec. 

121(b)(1)(B), to the extent provided for 

by provisions of WIOA pertaining to 

those programs and their authorizing 

statutes and implementing regulations. 

In some instances, these statutes or 

regulations invoke the performance 

accountability provisions of WIOA sec. 

116. In other instances, a program has 

its own statutory or regulatory 

performance provisions that apply to 

the program. In the case of ETP 

programs authorized at 20 CFR part 680 

and reported through § 677.230 of these 

joint regulations, the definitions under 

§ 677.150 only apply to those 

individuals who are WIOA program 

participants who received training from 

an ETP. Where § 677.230 outlines 

required reporting for all individuals in 

a program of study, these definitions 

under § 677.150 do not apply. Further 

direction regarding the terms, 

calculations, and reporting is provided 

and discussed in the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Because of WIOA sec. 134’s unique 

eligibility requirements, the 

Departments do not consider 

individuals who receive incumbent 

worker training to be participants 

required for inclusion in the WIOA 

performance indicator calculations. 

WIOA sec. 134(d)(4) requires the Local 

WDB to determine if an employer is 

eligible to have its employees receive 

incumbent worker training; there is no 

separate determination of the eligibility 

of any particular employee to receive 

incumbent worker training. 

Definition of ‘‘Reportable Individual’’ 

(§ 677.150(b)) 

Section 677.150(b) defines ‘‘reportable 

individual’’ as an individual who has 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55828 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

taken action that demonstrates an intent 

to use program services and who meets 

specific program criteria for reporting, 

which may include the provision of 

identifying information, the use of a 

self-service system, or receipt of 

information-only services or activities. 

This approach requires counting as a 

‘‘reportable individual’’ those who use 

the self-service system, or who receive 

only information-only services or 

activities, as well as those who receive 

other services that may occur prior to an 

individual meeting the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ in § 677.150(a). 

A key difference between ‘‘reportable 

individuals’’ and ‘‘participants’’ is that 

reportable individuals are not included 

in performance calculations for primary 

indicators of performance. Furthermore, 

there currently is no requirement for the 

collection and reporting of outcome data 

for reportable individuals, but the 

Departments may propose an amended 

ICR through an additional PRA notice 

and comment period, to require such 

collections and reporting in the future if 

determined to be appropriate. The 

Departments intend to issue more 

detailed guidance on the tracking and 

reporting of reportable individuals 

under WIOA through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR, Department-specific 

ICRs, guidance, and technical 

assistance. 

The Departments revised § 677.150(b) 

by deleting the word ‘‘core’’ to clarify 

that the definition of a ‘‘reportable 

individual’’ is not limited to core 

programs, as had appeared in proposed 

§ 677.150(b). With this change, a 

‘‘reportable individual’’ is one who has 

taken action that demonstrates intent to 

use program services and who meets 

specific reporting criteria of the 

program. The Departments also revised 

§ 677.150(b) to emphasize that the listed 

examples of actions taken by a reporting 

individual (i.e., providing identifying 

information, using the self-service 

system, or receiving information-only 

services or activities) are neither 

exhaustive nor required. An individual 

may be properly treated as a reportable 

individual without having taken all of 

the actions identified at § 677.150(b). 

Similarly, an individual may take action 

demonstrating an intent to use program 

services by meeting specific program 

reporting criteria other than those 

identified at § 677.150(b). 

Comments: Of the commenters who 

remarked on the proposed definition of 

‘‘reportable individual,’’ most expressed 

support. Multiple commenters 

applauded the Departments for 

establishing a definition that is broad 

enough to cover students with 

disabilities who access pre-employment 

transition services under the VR 

program but do not subsequently apply 

for VR services. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments will continue to consider 

further clarification that can be 

provided in program guidance, the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR, and 

Department-specific ICRs that support 

alignment and consistency of 

performance definitions across all 

programs and States. The final 

regulations for the VR program, which 

are published elsewhere in this issue of 

the Federal Register, contain specific 

provisions regarding the application of 

this definition as applied to students 

with disabilities receiving preemployment transition services under 

the VR program. 

Comments: A few commenters 

asserted that receipt of staff-assisted 

services should align with the type of 

activity, not the level of engagement of 

one-stop center staff. 

Departments’ Response: As discussed 

above with regard to the definition of a 

‘‘participant,’’ the Departments 

modified § 677.150(a), particularly by 

adding § 677.150(a)(3), to explain that 

the point at which a person is a 

participant is when the person moves 

beyond self-service or information-only 

services or activities. In the NPRM, the 

Departments considered receipt of 

‘‘staff-assisted services’’ to be the most 

common point across the core programs 

to define the transition to being a 

participant. However, in response to 

comments, the Departments modified 

the definition of participant to eliminate 

the use of the term ‘‘staff-assisted 

services’’ thereby aligning the 

definitions of ‘‘participant’’ and 

‘‘reportable individual’’ and clarifying 

the progression from ‘‘reportable 

individual’’ to ‘‘participant.’’ 

Comments: One commenter proposed 

that the appropriate point of receipt of 

staff-assisted services should be when 

initial assessment and eligibility 

documentation is complete. 

Departments’ Response: As noted 

above, the definition of ‘‘participant’’ no 

longer incorporates a reference to ‘‘staffassisted’’ services, but the definition 

continues to require that the individual 

has received certain services after 

having satisfied all programmatic 

requirements for the provision of 

services, such as eligibility 

determination. The Departments note 

that the definition does not explicitly 

require completion of an initial 

assessment, but it does require 

satisfaction of all applicable 

programmatic requirements—which 

may include an initial assessment or an 

eligibility determination. No change to 

the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that ‘‘reportable individuals,’’ should be 

those individuals who have a signed 

and approved IEP. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to adopt the 

recommendation because to do so 

would be inconsistent with the 

distinctions between the definitions of 

‘‘participant’’ and ‘‘reportable 

individual.’’ The Departments plan to 

provide more detailed guidance on the 

tracking and reporting of reportable 

individuals under WIOA through the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR, 

Department-specific ICRs, guidance, and 

technical assistance. 

Comments: Several commenters 

sought clarification concerning the 

proposed definition of ‘‘reportable 

individual.’’ Of these, a few commenters 

requested that the Departments clarify 

whether a pretest is required for 

individuals in the AEFLA program in 

order to be considered reportable. 

Departments’ Response: A reportable 

individual is an individual who has 

taken action that demonstrates an intent 

to use program services and meets the 

specific criteria of the program. Further 

explanation of this definition is 

available through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR. A pretest has no 

bearing on the status of an individual 

being a participant or a reportable 

individual. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that a clearer description of the point at 

which an individual becomes 

‘‘reportable’’ would enhance 

comparability among States. Multiple 

commenters suggested that individuals 

become ‘‘reportable’’ when an 

individual provides identifying 

information. A commenter remarked 

that it is unclear how agencies should 

track reportable individuals. This 

commenter stated that an individual 

should not be considered reportable 

without providing identifying 

information to enable tracking. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that the regulations 

simply require the reporting of 

reportable individuals. Someone can be 

considered a reportable individual 

without providing identifying 

information. The Departments intend to 

issue further program guidance to aid 

States in implementing the requirement 

to report on ‘‘reportable individuals.’’ 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter thought that 

the term ‘‘reportable individual’’ may 

not be easily understood by the general 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55829 

public and suggested ‘‘customer’’ as an 

alternative. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have concluded that 

‘‘customer’’ would not be an appropriate 

term for these purposes as all 

individuals who are served through a 

program would be considered 

customers. The terms in § 677.150 are 

consistent with the purposes outlined in 

this section and with the requirements 

of sec. 116 of WIOA. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: A commenter inquired as 

to whether an individual could first be 

tracked as a participant and then 

tracked as a reportable individual if the 

person exited the program after 

receiving services and was subsequently 

determined to be ineligible. 

Departments’ Response: To do as the 

commenter suggests would be 

inconsistent with the definitions of 

‘‘participant’’ and ‘‘reportable 

individual’’ at § 677.150(a) and (b). To 

be clear, an individual is a ‘‘participant’’ 

if he or she is a ‘‘reportable individual’’ 

who has satisfied programmatic 

requirements for the receipt of services, 

such as eligibility determination, and 

has received services that go beyond 

self-service or information-only services 

or activities. Therefore, once an 

individual crosses the threshold from 

‘‘reportable individual’’ to ‘‘participant’’ 

by receiving such services, this does not 

change by virtue of the fact that the 

individual eventually exits the program 

because he or she is later determined 

ineligible. Neither the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ nor ‘‘reportable 

individual’’ contain requirements 

related to the individual’s exit from the 

program. Those requirements are set 

forth in the definition of ‘‘exit’’ at 

§ 677.150(c), discussed in more detail 

below. The Departments will provide 

further guidance regarding the reporting 

of participants and reportable 

individuals in the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR and Departmentspecific ICRs, as well as guidance and 

technical assistance. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Definition of ‘‘Exit’’ (§ 677.150(c)) 

Section 677.150(c) defines the term 

‘‘exit’’ for purposes of the performance 

accountability system for the core 

programs under WIOA, as well as 

applicable non-core programs as 

described through regulation or 

guidance. Several of the primary 

indicators of performance require 

measuring participants’ progress after 

they have exited from the program. 

Generally for core programs, except 

for the VR program, ‘‘exit’’ is the last 

date of service. The last date of service 

means the individual has not received 

any services for 90 days and no future 

services are planned. For the purpose of 

this definition, ‘‘services’’ do not 

include self-service, information-only 

services or activities, or follow-up 

services. Therefore, as set forth in 

§ 677.150(c)(1)(i), in order to determine 

whether an individual has exited, States 

will retroactively determine if 90 days 

have passed with no further services 

provided and no further services 

scheduled. 

The definition of ‘‘exit’’ at 

§ 677.150(c)(2) for the VR program is 

similar to that in § 677.150(c)(1) in that 

it marks the point at which the 

individual is no longer engaged with the 

program and there is no ongoing 

relationship between the individual and 

the program. However, because of 

specific programmatic requirements 

between the VR program and other core 

programs, it was essential that the 

definition of ‘‘exit’’ clarify when the 

individual’s relationship with the VR 

program ends. Under the VR program, 

an individual is determined to have 

exited the program on the date the 

individual’s case is closed in 

accordance with VR program 

requirements. 

Even with this programmatic 

distinction, the calculations are 

essentially the same as with the other 

core programs because in all instances 

the ‘‘exit’’ count captures all persons 

who are no longer active participants in 

any of the core programs. In addition, 

for purposes of the VR program, the 

Departments exclude from the 

definition of ‘‘exit’’ those individuals 

who have achieved supported 

employment outcomes at subminimum 

wages. This provision is necessary to 

implement WIOA’s heightened 

emphasis on competitive integrated 

employment. There are no substantive 

changes to § 677.150(c)(2). 

Comments: The Departments received 

numerous comments, in response to 

both the NPRM and the proposed WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR, regarding 

whether an individual would be 

counted more than once in a program 

year if he or she met the definitions of 

‘‘participant’’ and ‘‘exit’’ more than once 

in that same program year. The majority 

of these commenters opposed the 

Departments’ position, set forth in the 

proposed WIOA Joint Performance ICR, 

which was that an individual only 

would count once in a program year. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that under WIA, DOL 

counted as an ‘‘exit’’ from its programs 

for performance accountability purposes 

each time in a program year a 

participant exited from a program, 

regardless of whether the participant 

exited more than once in that program 

year. This was referred to as calculating 

on a ‘‘period of participation’’ basis. 

Thus, the same individual could be 

counted as more than one ‘‘participant’’ 

and as having more than one ‘‘exit’’ in 

that same program year for the 

performance accountability 

calculations. Although States reported 

individuals similarly for the VR 

program, States reported an individual 

only once in a program year under the 

AEFLA program, regardless of whether 

the individual would meet the 

definitions of ‘‘participant’’ and ‘‘exit,’’ 

more than once in a program year. 

The NPRM was silent as to whether 

‘‘participants’’ and ‘‘exits’’ should count 

more than once in the same program 

year. However, the Departments 

proposed a different approach in the 

proposed WIOA Joint Performance ICR 

published on July 22, 2015 at 80 FR 

43474. In the proposed WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR, the Departments 

proposed counting each individual once 

per program year regardless of how 

many times an individual met the 

definitions of ‘‘participant’’ and ‘‘exit’’ 

in § 677.150 within that same program 

year. 

After consideration, the Departments 

agree with the concerns raised by 

commenters. In response to those 

comments, the Departments will 

include in the performance calculations 

each time a participant exits from a 

program during a program year, even 

though this could result in such a 

person being counted as more than one 

participant. This calculation method for 

performance accountability purposes 

maintains the reporting approach 

historically used by some programs, as 

discussed above, and by linking a set of 

services or interventions to outcomes for 

each exit during a program year, 

strengthens accountability. 

However, the Departments will 

require States to provide unique 

identifiers for each individual 

‘‘participant’’ so that the Departments 

will be able to calculate the number of 

unique participants in each core 

program during a program year. The 

Departments will provide technical 

assistance and guidance to States, 

including the WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR, as they take the necessary steps to 

modify their systems and processes to 

comply with these instructions. 

Comments: Many commenters 

provided input regarding the proposed 

definition of ‘‘exit’’ and responded to 

the Departments’ request for comments 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55830 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

on the costs and benefits of taking either 

a program exit approach or a common 

exit approach. A number of commenters 

expressed support for utilizing a 

common exit in order to support career 

pathways and cross-program 

participation that would benefit 

participants. One commenter supported 

the use of a common exit, specifically 

phased in over a 4-year period. 

Conversely, other commenters opposed 

the use of a common exit and stated that 

the Departments should maintain 

program exits. Commenters cited 

numerous reasons for maintaining 

program exits including that: (1) 

Program exits are preferable to comply 

with sec. 504 of WIOA, which requires 

States to simplify and reduce reporting 

burdens; (2) States should be permitted 

to choose whether to use a program exit 

or a common exit, and indicate their 

selection in the Unified or Combined 

State Plan; (3) States should have the 

option to use integrated periods of 

participation with common program 

exit dates for some or all core programs; 

and (4) a common exit would be 

problematic if the services provided by 

multiple programs are sequential. 

Departments’ Response: Common 

Measures policies that included the use 

of common exit as a reporting structure 

were developed by ETA in 2005 for use 

in title I programs under WIA as an 

acknowledgment that integrated 

reporting was key to integrated case 

management. The efforts to promote the 

use of a common exit across WIOA title 

I and Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service programs have significantly 

increased the use of common exit 

policies across States. 

The Departments have concluded that 

continuing common exit policies would 

emphasize the importance of an 

individual receiving and completing all 

program services necessary to ensure a 

successful attachment to the labor 

market. The Departments also recognize 

that the use of a common exit is 

dependent on the ability of States to 

exchange data effectively and efficiently 

across core programs in order to 

determine outcomes for each of the 

programs. The Departments considered 

each of the commenters’ concerns and 

suggestions with regard to the proposed 

definition of exit and have revised the 

definition by adding § 677.150(c)(3) to 

allow WIOA title I and Wagner-Peyser 

Act Employment Service (title III) 

programs to utilize a common exit 

policy. The decision to allow a common 

exit date for WIOA title I and WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service 

programs—and not for the AEFLA and 

VR programs under WIOA titles II and 

IV, respectively—was based on a 

number of factors. In particular, under 

WIA and continuing under WIOA, DOL 

encouraged co-enrollment between the 

title I and Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service programs resulting 

in many states developing a common 

exit policy or co-enrollment strategies 

which DOL does not seek to disrupt. 

The ED will explore the feasibility of the 

use of a common exit policy for its title 

II and VR programs. 

The concept of integrated case 

management and common exit has 

extended beyond WIOA title I core 

programs and Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service programs to their 

DOL partner programs, such as the TAA 

program and the JVSG program. 

Paragraph (c)(3)(i) of § 677.150 provides 

that where a State has implemented a 

common exit policy, the policy may 

extend to those required partner 

programs administered by DOL. As 

such, DOL encourages States to 

implement common exit policies 

consistent with these joint regulations. 

Since 2009, co-enrolling TAA 

participants with WIOA title I and 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service 

programs has continued to provide 

participants supportive services, such as 

childcare and local transportation costs, 

that are not available under TAA. 

Further, due to the variable geography 

of TAA certified worker groups, WIOA 

title I program services and WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service are 

often essential in providing prompt 

assessments and follow up services that 

complement the more substantial 

training and other services funded 

under TAA. 

Similarly, the Veterans Employment 

and Training Service worked to align its 

programs with WIOA as a key partner 

program. Currently, JVSG and WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service have a 

common exit in multiple States. This 

ensures that program participants who 

may be co-enrolled exit all programs at 

the same point, and are measured and 

tracked for employment outcomes based 

on the same point. This approach is 

aligned with the idea that DOL’s onestop center programs offer seamless 

services to participants and that, despite 

referral to or from partner programs, 

employment outcomes are not measured 

until services are complete. The 

modifications to the definition of exit in 

this Joint WIOA Final Rule allow for 

these practices to continue and also 

allow States the flexibility to implement 

and move forward with existing 

common exit policies for programs 

administered by DOL. 

Comments: A few commenters cited 

the challenge of matching and 

exchanging data across agencies. 

Multiple commenters recommended 

implementing a research study to 

examine the use of the common exit, 

rather than codifying this requirement 

in regulation. One commenter stated 

that a common exit would make it very 

difficult to track and conduct follow up 

services. A commenter stated that the 

cost of reporting a common exit is 

prohibitive for that State. A commenter 

remarked that a common exit would be 

the costliest option. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the challenges 

raised by commenters with regard to 

infrastructure and integration of data 

systems that would be required under a 

common exit policy. Under the current 

regulation, the States have the 

discretion to choose to adopt a common 

exit policy for DOL-administered 

programs. The Departments 

acknowledge that certain States are at 

different stages and may vary in their 

approaches and ability to adopt a 

common exit across multiple programs. 

The Departments also note, however, 

that common exit supports a customercentric design that allows programs to 

leverage co-enrollment for individuals 

who are eligible for, and need, multiple 

services that cross program lines 

without penalizing programs that may 

have to delay outcomes for those 

individuals referred to or co-enrolled in 

a partner program. Further, common 

exit policies have allowed smaller pilot, 

discretionary, or partner programs to 

access data and outcomes at a level that 

would not be available through their 

grant or program alone. 

With WIOA’s focus on integration, 

common exit is a natural progression 

where appropriate infrastructure, and 

integrated data systems exist across 

programs. The DOL envisions full 

implementation of a common exit across 

the States for the DOL core programs. 

The DOL understands this is a long-term 

goal and intends to support States from 

where they are at in terms of capacity 

and structure towards achieving this 

goal. With this in mind, the 

Departments will require the States to 

develop a plan for implementing a 

common exit policy and will require 

States to share that plan with the 

Departments. The Departments 

anticipate modifying the requirements 

for State Plans through the information 

collection request process and will 

require the States to share their plans for 

implementing a common exit policy 

through the State Plan and will also 

require the States to conduct an 

examination and analysis of their 

capacity and structures that would 

support a common exit policy for the 

DOL core programs under title I and the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55831 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service 

program. This will allow DOL to 

support the States as they move towards 

implementing a common exit policy. 

The Departments will continue to 

work with State and Local WDBs, onestop center operators, and partners to 

achieve an integrated data system for 

the core programs and other programs to 

ensure interoperability and 

standardized collection of program and 

participant information, particularly for 

those States that have a common exit 

policy. Paragraph (c)(3) of § 677.150 

allows for the use and implementation 

of common exit policies for DOL 

administered-programs. The 

Departments encourage the use of 

common exit for DOL-administered 

programs, but do not currently require 

its immediate implementation, due 

partially to the commenters’ concerns 

about potential difficulties and costs in 

implementing common exit. The 

Departments have concluded that this 

approach is responsive to both 

commenters who supported common 

exit as well as to commenters who 

supported program exits and 

appropriately allows States flexibility to 

choose to continue their use of common 

exit or to plan for the full 

implementation of common exit as a 

policy for WIOA title I and WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service 

programs. Additionally the Departments 

will seek to collect information through 

the appropriate information collection 

vehicles on existing common exit 

policies, the programs included in those 

common exit policies, and their impacts 

on program design and outcomes. 

Comments: Many commenters 

supported the use of common exit in 

theory, but expressed reservations about 

the implementation of a common exit to 

title I youth programs, asserting that the 

use of a common exit would delay 

reporting of multiple performance 

indicators, harming the performance of 

the youth programs. These commenters 

suggested that the Departments 

encourage co-enrollment without a 

common exit, provide instruction for 

the identification in the participant 

record of individuals who are coenrolled, and afford local programs the 

flexibility to use a program-specific exit 

or a common exit. 

Departments’ Response: In response 

to the concerns raised about common 

exit and its effect on the performance of 

WIOA youth programs, predominately 

concerning the short-term or self-service 

nature of some programs as opposed to 

other programs providing longer-term or 

more intensive services, the 

Departments have clarified that the 

definition of ‘‘participant’’ at 

§ 677.150(a)(3)(ii) and (iii) excludes 

individuals who receive only ‘‘selfservice’’ or ‘‘information-only services 

or activities.’’ As noted above, States— 

not individual programs within a 

State—are afforded the flexibility to use 

program-specific exit or common exit. It 

does not appear feasible or preferable 

for individual programs within a State 

to choose the type of exit to implement. 

Comments: A number of commenters 

made additional suggestions specific to 

youth programs. One commenter stated 

that title I youth programs should have 

a defined end date, at which point 

participants should be considered to 

have exited, rather than waiting 90 days. 

Another commenter stated that local 

programs currently believe that no title 

I youth funds may be spent on youth 

once they exit, and requested 

clarification concerning follow-up 

services for youth conducted after an 

individual has exited. In addition, 

several commenters suggested that a 

hold status be maintained for youth who 

are not receiving services due to 

documented hardships. These 

commenters stated that a hold status 

would avoid counting these individuals 

as having exited if they reengage after 

the 90-day window. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments understand the concerns 

raised by commenters, the Departments 

decline to modify the definition of 

‘‘exit’’ at § 677.150(c) with regard to the 

90-day period of no services. This 

definition maintains consistency with 

the definition of exit applied across 

other programs. Paragraph (c)(1)(i) of 

§ 677.150 requires that 90 days of no 

services (except for self-service, 

information-only services or activities, 

and follow-up services) must have 

elapsed, and no future services, other 

than follow-up services, may be planned 

in order for a participant to satisfy the 

definition of ‘‘exit.’’ 

Conversely, § 677.150(c)(3) adds 

flexibility for States that have or are 

pursuing common exit policies and 

strategies for their programs under 

WIOA titles I and III (Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service) as well as other 

required partner programs that are 

administered by DOL. The clarification 

in this Final Rule that self-service and 

follow-up services do not delay exit 

should allay the commenters’ concerns 

regarding delayed reporting. By 

definition, follow-up services are 

provided to youth following exit and as 

a result, title I youth funds may be spent 

on participants once they exit in order 

to provide such follow-up services. 

For the sake of clarification, such 

expenditures of title I youth funds on 

participants for follow up services after 

exit do not result in delaying an 

individual’s exit from the program. 

Section 681.580 (see DOL WIOA Final 

Rule published elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register) clarifies which 

youth formula program elements may be 

provided during follow-up. 

Additionally, DOL will issue guidance 

on providing effective follow-up 

services for the programs it administers. 

Although the Departments are not 

implementing a ‘‘hold status’’ as 

suggested by the commenters, DOL will 

clarify through guidance the 

circumstances under which a ‘‘gap in 

service’’ may be appropriate in order to 

delay exit for those States that 

implement a common exit strategy for 

DOL-administered programs. 

Comments: Numerous commenters 

responded to the Departments’ 

solicitation for comments regarding the 

effect of self-service activities on a 

participant’s exit date. Most of the 

commenters asserted that self-service 

should not be used to delay the date of 

exit or count as re-enrollment in a 

program. However, other commenters 

asserted that individuals who access 

self-service activities should continue to 

qualify as participants because the use 

of these services indicates that 

participants have not completed their 

search for employment. One commenter 

suggested that self-service participants 

should continue to be tracked as 

reportable individuals. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge commenters’ 

recommendation that self-service not be 

used to delay the exit date or qualify as 

re-enrollment. With regard to 

individuals who continue to use selfservice, the Departments note that 

individuals access self-service tools for 

a variety of reasons, but the decision to 

retain an exclusion of self-service from 

the definition of ‘‘participant’’ at 

§ 677.150(a)(3)(ii) is consistent with the 

decision in the NPRM to establish a 

uniform program attachment point in 

service delivery and design from which 

to compare programs. See the extensive 

discussion regarding the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ and § 677.150(a), above. 

Comments: Commenters raised a 

number of questions regarding various 

aspects of the proposed definition of 

‘‘exit,’’ including requests for 

clarification regarding whether exit 

means exiting a core program or exiting 

all WIOA services. 

Departments’ Response: Whether 

‘‘exit’’ means from a specific program or 

a common exit from multiple programs 

depends on whether a State has 

implemented a common exit policy for 

DOL-administered programs. As 

discussed in more detail above, the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55832 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Departments have modified the 

definition of exit at § 677.150(c)(3) to 

allow WIOA title I and Wagner-Peyser 

Act Employment Service programs to 

apply a common exit policy. States that 

lack a common exit policy across title I 

and Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service programs will be required to 

conduct an assessment and develop a 

plan towards implementing a common 

exit policy. Additionally, States that 

retain or develop a common exit policy 

across title I and Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service programs may 

extend such a policy to DOLadministered required partner programs 

identified in WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B). 

Further, States with common exit 

policies that include WIOA title I core 

programs and Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service programs should 

ensure those policies align with the 

criteria in § 677.150(c). 

Comments: Several commenters 

expressed concerns regarding the 

definition of ‘‘exit’’ for purposes of the 

VR program since individuals served by 

VR typically require lengthier service 

delivery and follow-up activities than 

the other core programs. A few 

commenters also stated that a common 

exit would better protect individuals in 

the VR program from exiting the 

program before receiving the services 

they need. 

Departments’ Response: As other 

commenters have noted, the VR 

program typically requires lengthier 

period of service delivery than the other 

core programs. While not common, it is 

possible for a single VR participant to 

receive services for 10 years, and service 

durations of 3 to 5 years are not 

unusual. If there were a single exit, it 

would mean that other programs would 

not be able to exit these co-enrollees 

until the VR case was closed. The VR 

program is not included under the 

common exit provision at this time, 

because if they were incorporated into 

the common exit provision, programs 

under other WIOA titles would not be 

able to report exit achievements until 

the time of the VR closure, no matter 

how much time had elapsed since 

participation in those programs. With 

the VR program having a separate 

closure process, individuals are 

shielded from the entreaties of other 

programs that may wish to close the 

case. The ED will explore the feasibility 

of the use of a common exit policy for 

its title II and VR programs. No change 

to the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed support for expanding the 

proposed definition of ‘‘exit’’ to 

reference the termination of staffassisted services. 

Departments’ Response: The 

definition of ‘‘participant’’ at 

§ 677.150(a) no longer references the 

term ‘‘staff-assisted’’ services due to 

concerns raised by many commenters 

about the confusion such term raises. 

Section 677.150(a) now describes the 

services as being those other than selfservice and information-only services or 

activities, which are described further in 

§ 677.150(a)(3). See the response to 

comments related to the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ above regarding the 

Departments’ elimination of the term 

‘‘staff-assisted’’ services from the 

definition; therefore, it is not necessary 

to expand the use of that term with 

regard to the definition of ‘‘exit’’ as the 

commenters suggest. 

Comments: Several commenters 

remarked on the application of the 

definition of ‘‘exit’’ to education 

programs, noting that the definition 

does not account for a transfer between 

institutions or participants not taking a 

class during the summer term that could 

exceed the 90-day timeframe. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

677.150(c)(1)(i) makes clear that a 

participant ‘‘exits’’ a program only if 90 

days of no services have elapsed and 

there are no future services planned. 

Please see the analysis of comments 

regarding § 677.230, below, for further 

discussion of these and other terms as 

they apply to eligible training providers. 

Comments: Some commenters 

suggested the Departments revise the 

definition of ‘‘exit’’ at § 677.150(c) to 

lengthen the proposed 90-day period of 

no services to 120 days, citing the 

challenges of sporadic engagement in 

services in which youth cycle in and out 

of services. In such cases, service delays 

can extend an exit beyond the 90 days. 

One commenter suggested doubling the 

90-day window to 180 days. Other 

commenters suggested shortening the 

90-day period. 

Departments’ Response: Although the 

Departments recognize that out-ofschool youth, among other examples, 

may be a population that is difficult to 

engage in continuous services, the 

Departments have concluded that it is 

important to maintain consistency 

across all core programs regarding the 

definition of exit. The 90-day period has 

a basis in historical application. Under 

WIA, the DOL-administered programs 

and the AEFLA program under title II 

used 90 days of no service as a 

benchmark for determining when 

services had ended. Similarly, prior to 

WIOA the VR program closed an 

individual’s service record after services 

had ended and the individual had 

maintained employment for 90 days. 

The Departments have not revised the 

definition of ‘‘exit’’ at § 677.150(c) since 

lengthening the timeframe would delay 

outcomes for indicators that are already 

lagged behind the actual time period of 

exit, such as employment-related 

primary indicators that measure a 

participant’s employment at the second 

and fourth quarters after exit and the 

median earnings of a participant in the 

second quarter after exit. The 

Departments have concluded that the 

90-day period of no service strikes the 

appropriate balance for knowing how 

the programs are performing while 

providing enough time to account for 

sporadic participation. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed support for retaining the 

current ‘‘neutral’’ exits. Other 

commenters urged the Departments to 

adopt a more flexible exit policy that 

would allow participants who were 

‘‘negative’’ exits due to loss of contact 

with the program, to reengage and 

positively exit if performance outcomes 

are achieved. 

Departments’ Response: There are a 

number of reasons why individuals exit 

from the programs in which they are 

enrolled. The current definition of 

‘‘exit’’ allows for performance 

accountability that can uniformly 

translate across programs, while also 

retaining critical programmatic 

differences and the policy-based 

flexibility for States in their program 

engagement and design. The 

Departments have concluded that the 

definitions in § 677.150, including that 

for ‘‘exit’’ at § 677.150(c), are consistent 

with their applicability to the 

performance accountability system set 

forth in sec. 116 of WIOA. 

A ‘‘neutral’’ exit, as it relates to the 

performance accountability provisions, 

allows the State to exclude certain 

participants from the calculation of the 

primary indicators. The Departments 

have concluded that there is sufficient 

statutory authority to permit certain 

exclusions, as appropriate, from the 

performance calculations for the 

primary indicators of performance. The 

Departments have implemented these 

exclusions through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR. The Departments have 

concluded that it is important to 

account for premature exits from the 

program and that modifying the 

definition of ‘‘exit’’ to allow neutral 

exits would undermine program 

accountability intended by WIOA. The 

Departments intend to provide guidance 

on how to calculate the primary 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55833 

indicators of performance and provide 

guidance on other performance-related 

requirements through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR, programmatic 

guidance, and technical assistance. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter emphasized 

the need for guidance regarding the 

transition from active programming to 

follow-up services, particularly as it 

relates to the definition of ‘‘exit.’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments will provide further 

guidance regarding the transition from 

active programming to follow-up 

services as it relates to the definition of 

‘‘exit.’’ 

Definition of ‘‘State’’ (§ 677.150(d)) 

The Departments have added a 

definition of ‘‘State’’ as § 677.150(d) to 

specify that the outlying areas are 

subject to the performance 

accountability provisions of part 677. 

This provides that, for purposes of part 

677 other than in regard to sanctions or 

the statistical adjustment model, ‘‘State’’ 

includes the outlying areas of American 

Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and, as applicable, the 

Republic of Palau. In so doing, as 

discussed in detail immediately below 

regarding outlying areas, the 

Departments ensure that the 

performance accountability 

requirements apply to the outlying areas 

as well. This regulatory change is 

essential to ensuring consistency with 

the Departments’ decision to require 

outlying areas to submit Unified or 

Combined State Plans which, pursuant 

to sec. 102 of WIOA must include 

expected levels of performance, thereby 

making the performance accountability 

system applicable to the outlying areas. 

In the NPRM, the Departments 

specifically requested comments about 

the applicability of WIOA sec. 116 

performance accountability system 

requirements to the core programs 

administered by the outlying areas, 

namely American Samoa, Guam, 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and, as 

applicable, the Republic of Palau (80 FR 

20574, 20583–20584 (April 16, 2015)). 

The Departments explained the 

ambiguity that was created by differing 

terms and definitions for outlying areas 

and States, for purposes of the title I 

core programs, but made clear that titles 

II and IV specifically subject adult 

education and VR grantees, including 

outlying areas, to the common 

performance accountability system set 

forth in sec. 116 of WIOA. 

Sections 189(a) and (c) of WIOA 

provide the authority to impose 

planning and performance reporting 

requirements on outlying areas, which 

is being accomplished through this 

definition. The decision to treat outlying 

areas as States for purposes of the 

common performance accountability 

system dovetails, and is consistent with, 

the Departments’ decision to treat 

outlying areas the same as States for 

purposes of the Unified and Combined 

State Plan requirements, as discussed 

elsewhere in this preamble with respect 

to part 676 of this Joint WIOA Final 

Rule. 

Although the Departments will hold 

the outlying areas accountable for 

complying with the performance 

accountability system requirements of 

sec. 116 of WIOA and part 677, the 

Departments will not impose monetary 

sanctions against the outlying areas 

pursuant to sec. 116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA for 

two reasons. First, the sanctions are 

imposed against the Governor’s Reserve 

under sec. 128(a) of WIOA, which the 

outlying areas do not receive. Second, 

the sanctions are imposed when a State 

fails to satisfy the adjusted levels of 

performance or fails to report. The 

adjusted performance level is based on 

several required factors set forth in sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(v) of WIOA, including, 

among other things, the use of a 

statistical adjustment model. The 

performance output data provided by 

the core programs in the outlying areas 

yield too small a sample size; thus, 

applying an adjustment model to the 

outlying areas will not yield a valid 

result. In addition, there are cases in the 

outlying areas where required data are 

not available to run the statistical 

adjustment model. Despite the fact that 

the Departments will not impose 

monetary sanctions against the outlying 

areas in accordance with sec. 

116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA, the Departments 

want to make clear that the Departments 

will hold outlying areas accountable for 

poor performance or failure to report 

through technical assistance and the 

development of performance 

improvement plans in accordance with 

sec. 116(f)(1)(A) of WIOA. 

3. State Indicators of Performance for 

Core Programs (20 CFR Part 677, 

Subpart A; 34 CFR 361.155 Through 

361.175; 34 CFR 463.155 Through 

463.175) 

Section 677.155 What are the primary 

indicators of performance under the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act? 

Section 677.155 implements the 

primary indicators of performance as set 

forth in WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i). 

These primary performance indicators 

apply to the core programs described in 

sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA, and 

administered by ED’s OCTAE and RSA, 

and DOL’s ETA. These primary 

indicators of performance create a 

common language shared across the 

programs’ performance metrics, which 

the Departments anticipate will support 

system alignment, enhance 

programmatic decision-making, and 

facilitate consumer choice. The 

Departments implement the 

requirements of sec. 116 of WIOA 

through this Joint WIOA Final Rule, as 

revised and described in this preamble. 

Comments: A commenter expressed 

concern about the cost and time it 

would take to establish and operate a 

fiscal and management accountability 

information system. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the concerns 

raised with regard to the infrastructure, 

and resulting cost, required to 

implement the performance, fiscal, and 

management accountability information 

systems. No changes to the regulatory 

text were made in response to this 

comment because the performance 

accountability provisions outlined 

within sec. 116 of WIOA clearly 

mandate States and local areas to collect 

and report on the information contained 

in part 677. The Departments want to 

make clear that all core programs were 

required, even prior to the enactment of 

WIOA, to operate fiscal and 

management systems pursuant to WIA, 

former OMB Circular A–87, OMB’s 

Uniform Guidance (2 CFR part 200), and 

programmatic requirements. It is 

important to note that WIOA’s 

requirements for States to operate such 

systems are very similar to those 

required under WIA, which is why the 

Departments do not consider these to be 

new requirements. However, the 

Departments acknowledge an 

integration of such systems would be a 

departure from that required under WIA 

and recognize that time and resources 

combined with guidance and technical 

assistance will be necessary before an 

integration of fiscal and management 

systems could occur. 

The Departments have concluded that 

system integration will, in the longterm, reduce administrative and 

reporting burden while supporting 

alignment and comprehensive 

accountability across all of the core 

programs. The Departments will work 

with State and Local WDBs, one-stop 

center operators, and partners to achieve 

an integrated data system for the 

programs covered by WIOA to ensure 

interoperability and the accurate and 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55834 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

standardized collection of program and 

participant information. Integrated data 

systems will allow for unified and 

streamlined intake, case management 

and service delivery, minimize the 

duplication of data, ensure consistently 

defined and applied data elements, 

facilitate compliance with performance 

reporting and evaluation requirements, 

and provide meaningful information 

about core program participation to 

inform operations. Data integration may 

be accomplished through a variety of 

methodologies including data sharing, 

linking systems, or use of data 

warehouses. 

Comments: A commenter urged State 

and local planning efforts to use the 

most current Census and administrative 

data available to develop estimates of 

each priority service population. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that the WIOA State 

Plan ICR provides guidance as to what 

information should be included in the 

analysis and the State Plan 

requirements. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended creating data systems to 

separate participants by program and 

local area and allowing the progress 

measures to be skills based using goal 

setting rather than time intervals. A 

commenter recommended adding selfsufficiency as an indicator of 

performance. Commenters supported 

workforce system performance that 

addresses the needs of veterans with 

disabilities. 

Departments’ Response: Changing the 

primary indicators of performance to a 

skills-based measurement system, rather 

than one based on time intervals, would 

not be consistent with the primary 

indicators of performance set forth in 

sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i) of WIOA, which 

require the measurement of employment 

in the second and fourth quarters after 

exit, the attainment of a credential 

during participation in the program and 

up to 1 year post exit, and the 

attainment of measurable skill gains 

during the program year. WIOA clearly 

establishes timeframes for each of these 

primary indicators of performance. 

However, sec. 116(b)(1)(A)(ii) of 

WIOA and § 677.165 permit States to 

develop additional indicators of 

performance. If a State were to do so, 

the State could implement skills-based 

indicators or indicators that measure 

self-sufficiency or services to veterans 

with disabilities as suggested by 

commenters. The Departments 

encourage State and Local WDBs to 

work in collaboration to identify and 

implement additional indicators of 

performance that aid in the management 

of workforce programs in their State. No 

change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to this comment. 

Comments: In the preamble to the 

NPRM, the Departments requested 

comments on using the performance 

indicators identified in § 677.155 for 

additional programs beyond the core 

programs. The Departments postulated 

that this broader use of the six primary 

indicators of performance could 

streamline reporting on other DOLadministered programs, such as the 

JVSG program and other discretionary 

grant programs. Commenters supported 

the use of common metrics across 

education and workforce programs 

wherever appropriate. Commenters also 

raised questions about alignment with 

various specific programs, such as 

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers, Job 

Corps, Indian and Native American, 

Family Literacy, Integrated English 

Literacy and Civics Education, WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service, Adult 

Education, and JVSG. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge that WIOA 

has introduced unprecedented 

opportunities for alignment and as such, 

envision integration across workforce 

programs to the maximum extent 

feasible. The core programs, described 

in sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA, are 

covered under this Joint WIOA Final 

Rule and the WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR. National programs such as Job 

Corps, the National Farmworker Jobs 

Program, and the Indian and Native 

American adult and youth programs 

that are authorized under title I of 

WIOA are also aligned under this 

regulation, as well as their respective 

program regulations at 20 CFR parts 686 

(Job Corps), 685 (National Farmworker 

Jobs Program), and 684 (Indian and 

Native American Program). 

Additionally, the Departments intend 

that DOL-administered partner 

programs authorized by statutes other 

than WIOA and not covered under these 

joint regulations, such as the JVSG 

programs and the TAA programs, will 

be aligned with the performance 

accountability system under WIOA 

through both legislative and policy 

guidance. The Departments recognize 

the variety of interactions among 

programs under WIOA and programs 

authorized by other statutes. The 

Departments understand the need for 

further guidance and clarification, 

which will be issued throughout the 

workforce development system and 

which will include information on how 

and where to report. 

Comments: A commenter noted that 

many programs for out-of-school youth, 

including Job Corps, often use 

accredited online high school programs 

to provide education to youth 

participants. The commenter requested 

that any measure intended to capture 

progress on achieving or attaining a high 

school diploma or recognized 

equivalency degree should reflect any 

State-accredited standard. 

Departments’ Response: Details 

regarding accreditation are beyond the 

scope of this Joint WIOA Final Rule and 

will be addressed in guidance or in the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR or DOL 

Performance ICR. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: Commenters requested 

guidance and examples on several 

subjects, such as: Measuring and 

reporting registered apprenticeship 

performance; how wages for successful 

and unsuccessful closures are used and 

measured; performance data for 

industry-driven credentials; students 

with degrees from another country; 

areas where net income can apply as a 

performance indicator; incorporating 

self-employment as a successful 

outcome; performance metrics; when 

enrollment occurs; operational 

definitions; determination of 

competitive wage; cross program 

impacts; individualized measurements 

of the six primary indicators as relates 

to VR consumers; and individual skills 

measurement. A few commenters asked 

that States be allowed flexibility in 

developing data sharing agreements and 

additional performance measures. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the need for 

clarification and examples to illustrate 

the methods that each of the core 

programs will use to determine 

performance on the primary indicators, 

including details regarding data 

collection for self-employment 

outcomes, as well as educational 

attainment and measurable skill gains. 

The Departments will address these 

issues in guidance and in the 

instructions for program-specific 

reporting requirements contained in the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR. 

With regard to requests for State 

flexibility in developing data sharing 

agreements and additional performance 

measures, sec. 116(b)(1)(A)(ii) of WIOA 

and § 677.165 permit States to 

implement, through their State Plans, 

additional indicators of performance 

and encourage States to also leverage 

their program collection and reporting 

to analyze and manage performance of 

their programs. With regard to data 

sharing agreements States have the 

flexibility to enter into data sharing 

agreements, ensuring that such 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55835 

agreements meet all applicable Federal 

and State statutory and regulatory 

confidentiality requirements. No change 

to the regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Section 677.155(a)(1) identifies the 

six primary indicators of performance 

that will be applied to the core programs 

identified in sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of 

WIOA. Where practicable, DOL intends 

to leverage these indicators to 

streamline reporting for other DOLadministered programs, such as the 

JVSG program, TAA and other 

discretionary grant programs. 

Section 677.155(a)(1)(i) implements 

the first primary indicator as described 

in sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) of WIOA. This 

primary indicator is a measure of the 

percentage of program participants who 

are in unsubsidized employment during 

the second quarter after exit from the 

program. There are no changes to 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(i) from that proposed in 

the NPRM, which mirrors the statutory 

requirement of WIOA sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(i)(I). 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended that calculated 

employment percentages should not 

include individuals who never received 

core program services. 

Departments’ Response: The issue 

raised by the commenter is more closely 

related to the definitions of 

‘‘participant’’ and ‘‘reportable 

individual,’’ as set forth in § 677.150 

and which are discussed in detail above. 

The Departments have concluded that 

these definitions are clear in setting the 

standards under which participants are 

included in performance calculations 

for purposes of the primary indicators of 

performance. Specifically, the definition 

of ‘‘participant’’ at § 677.150(a) ensures 

that an individual is receiving services 

of a substantive nature from any of the 

core programs before the individual is 

considered a ‘‘participant’’ and, thus, 

included in performance calculations. 

Because § 677.155(a)(1)(i) is consistent 

with sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) of WIOA, no 

change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to this comment. 

Comments: A number of commenters 

expressed support for the WIOA 

requirements as proposed in 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(i) and (ii). However, 

many commenters recommended that 

this section of the regulation and the 

section related to calculating 

performance should include the option 

for excluding participants who report 

that they are not working and not 

looking for work. These commenters 

cited data showing that 29 percent of 

AEFLA participants were ‘‘not in the 

labor force.’’ A commenter suggested 

adding the words ‘‘who are in the labor 

force at enrollment’’ after the word 

‘‘participants’’ in § 677.155(a)(1)(i) 

through (iii). Another commenter stated 

that it would seem practical to include 

participants who are not looking for 

employment in the calculation of the 

employment performance outcome. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the concerns 

raised by commenters about being held 

accountable for those participants who 

enter the program and are not seeking 

employment, and about how 

participants not in the labor force might 

affect performance outcomes. However, 

WIOA secs. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) through 

(b)(2)(A)(i)(III) measure the percentage 

of program participants in employment 

during the second and fourth quarters 

after exit and the median earnings of 

participants in the second quarter after 

exit. Therefore, the Departments 

disagree with commenters who believe 

that individuals who are not looking for 

work should not be included in the 

performance calculation. Having said 

this, the Departments recognize that 

there are very limited circumstances 

where certain individuals, such as those 

who are incarcerated and receiving 

services under sec. 225 of WIOA, should 

not be included in the performance 

calculations for this indicator. The 

Departments have decided to exclude 

incarcerated individuals served under 

sec. 225 of WIOA because they do not 

have the opportunity to obtain 

employment or participate in education 

or training programs in the same 

manner as other participants who are in 

the general population. The 

Departments consider additional 

determinations regarding the need for 

exclusions from performance 

calculations to be more appropriately 

made through the ICR process and, 

therefore, have added § 677.155(a)(2) to 

the regulatory text. This matter will be 

discussed in more detail with respect to 

that provision below. 

Comments: Another commenter asked 

whether the State can use AEFLA funds 

to serve individuals who are not looking 

for employment. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

203(4) of WIOA defines an eligible 

individual for the purposes of AEFLA. 

Eligibility does not include employment 

status. Whether or not an individual is 

seeking employment does not affect that 

person’s eligibility status under title II. 

Further matters concerning AEFLA 

program implementation are in the 

program-specific final regulations 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

Comments: Several commenters 

opposed the suggestion in the preamble 

to the NPRM that the Departments plan 

to calculate an ‘‘entered employment 

rate’’ for participants who were not 

employed at the time of program entry, 

in addition to an employment rate for 

all program participants regardless of 

employment status at entry. 

Departments’ Response: Upon 

consideration of the various issues, the 

Departments have not made changes to 

these joint regulations to require the 

collection and reporting of an entered 

employment rate. Instead, the 

Departments intend to utilize the 

individual records available for the 

WIOA title I, Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service, and VR programs 

(i.e., the disaggregated data submitted 

by the States) to calculate such a 

measure for comparative purposes. The 

Departments can calculate this entered 

employment rate from the information 

that is required to be collected under 

sec. 116 of WIOA. Therefore, no 

additional reporting burden will be 

imposed on the States for these 

programs for this additional calculation 

at the Federal level. 

However, such entered employment 

rate calculations will not be possible at 

the Federal level for the AEFLA 

program under title II, because States 

report AEFLA program data only in an 

aggregate manner. Therefore, for the 

Departments to receive the data 

necessary to perform the entered 

employment rate calculation for the 

AEFLA program—and to produce such 

outcome data—would place an undue 

burden on title II programs. 

Comments: Most commenters 

opposed including the entered 

employment rate as a performance 

indicator. A number of commenters 

recommended that only the 

employment rate should be counted for 

those employed during the second 

quarter after exit because less document 

retrieval would be required, and there 

are other indicators that can show 

whether program participants are better 

off after enrollment. Other commenters 

suggested that the employment rate 

should include job seekers who were 

both employed and not employed at the 

time of participation because this will 

help determine how effective the system 

is at helping both the unemployed and 

those looking for career progression. A 

commenter added that it is difficult to 

capture information about employees in 

part-time or multiple-employer jobs. 

Several other commenters, however, 

supported calculation of an entered 

employment rate, particularly for youth 

programs. 

The Departments also received 

numerous comments in reference to 

calculating the second quarter after exit 

employment indicator as an ‘‘entered 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55836 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

employment measure,’’ as defined in 

WIA. A commenter only would support 

an entered employment calculation if 

the Departments modified the regulation 

to require submission of individual 

records under title II. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have concluded that that 

the entered employment rate will 

provide a useful comparison of the 

public workforce system as it exists 

under WIA and WIOA. As stated above, 

the Departments will calculate an 

entered employment rate for the WIOA 

title I, Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service, and VR programs using 

information collected through the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR. This entered 

employment rate will not be a primary 

indicator of performance and, thus, it 

will not be a basis for sanctions. It is 

nonetheless useful information in 

evaluating the impact and efficacy of 

programs under WIOA. No change to 

the regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter opposed 

measuring the employment rate in the 

second quarter after exit instead of the 

first quarter, as done under WIA, 

because the commenter suggested that 2 

quarters after exit is too late to 

determine unsubsidized employment. 

Another commenter agreed that it is 

simpler to locate and re-engage a 

customer after the first quarter 

performance measure rather than 

waiting an additional 3 months. A 

commenter added that the time frame of 

6 months for an individual working in 

an integrated setting to achieve a 

competitive integrated employment 

outcome is too fixed and arbitrary, and 

the time period should be increased to 

18 months if needed by the individual. 

Another commenter warned that using 

the second and fourth quarters after exit 

for performance measures will 

negatively impact States with a highly 

seasonal workforce. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the concerns 

raised, but sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) and (II) 

of WIOA specifically require that 

employment be measured at the 6- and 

12-month mark (second and fourth 

quarters respectively). Given the 

specificity of the quarters to be 

measured for purposes of the 

performance accountability system, the 

Departments do not have the authority 

to implement a regulation inconsistent 

with the statutory requirement. No 

change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter opposed the 

provisions in §§ 677.155(a)(1)(i) and 

677.175(a) because of a concern that 

these provisions would ask educators to 

store personal data, such as social 

security numbers (SSNs), that the 

students may be unwilling or unable to 

share. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the concerns 

about the retention of SSNs. The 

Departments concluded that, where 

available and possible, the use of wage 

records to fulfill reporting requirements 

is required in accordance with sec. 

116(i)(2) of WIOA. Matching participant 

SSNs against quarterly wage record 

information is the most effective means 

by which timely and accurate data can 

be made available to the system. 

However, consistent with the Privacy 

Act, program services cannot be 

withheld if an individual is unwilling or 

unable to disclose a SSN. More 

specifically, program eligibility is not 

contingent on the provision of a SSN for 

any of the core programs. 

Nevertheless, the use of quarterly 

wage records is essential to achieve full 

accountability under the WIOA 

performance accountability system to 

identify high performing States and 

localities, and, if necessary, to provide 

technical assistance to help improve 

performance or sanction low performing 

States and localities. Matching 

participant SSNs against quarterly wage 

record information is the most costeffective means by which timely and 

accurate data can be made available to 

the system. 

In consideration of the circumstances 

articulated by commenters in responses 

to both the Joint WIOA NPRM and the 

proposed WIOA Joint Performance ICR, 

the Departments will allow the 

collection and verification of non-UI 

wage data in the absence of available UI 

wage data obtained through wage record 

matching, as discussed more fully in the 

preamble to § 677.175 below. The 

Departments also intend to issue 

guidance and technical assistance 

regarding the collection and reporting of 

both quarterly wage record data and 

supplemental information. No change to 

the regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter remarked 

that the indicators in § 677.155(a)(1)(i) 

through (iii) would require an 

unprecedented degree of 

interdependency between VR and other 

State and Federal repositories of 

employment data. Another commenter 

recommended that, given that several of 

the primary performance indicators for 

the core programs, including VR, 

require reporting on the percent of 

exiters who are in ‘‘unsubsidized 

employment,’’ the Departments should 

clearly define ‘‘unsubsidized 

employment.’’ In particular, the 

commenter requested clarity regarding 

whether individuals in competitive 

integrated employment who receive 

supported employment services 

following VR case closure are 

considered to be in ‘‘unsubsidized 

employment.’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge that the use 

of wage record data for the employment 

and median earnings indicators will 

require a greater level of cooperation 

between the State VR and UI agencies. 

The Departments are developing 

guidance to facilitate this process and 

also are developing a new State wage 

record interchange system data sharing 

agreement to aid in the exchange of 

wage record data to enable all core 

programs to meet the performance 

reporting requirements outlined in these 

regulations and sec. 116 of WIOA. 

The Departments have considered the 

comments regarding the VR program 

and ‘‘unsubsidized employment.’’ 

Section 116 of WIOA describes the 

primary performance indicators for all 

core programs, including the VR 

program. Three of the performance 

indicators pertain to the employment 

status or median earnings of 

participants who exit a program in 

unsubsidized employment. In response 

to the commenter regarding supported 

employment and unsubsidized 

employment, the Departments want to 

clarify that supported employment 

means, in general for purposes of the VR 

program, employment in competitive 

integrated employment or in an 

integrated setting in which the 

individual is working towards 

competitive integrated employment on a 

short-term basis. Once an individual 

achieves supported employment as an 

employment outcome under the VR 

program and exits that program (in other 

words, his or her VR record of service 

is closed), the individual typically 

receives extended services from another 

provider. Receipt of extended services 

after the VR record of service is closed 

does not affect the nature of the 

employment. Supported employment is 

considered unsubsidized employment 

because the wages are not subsidized by 

another entity. Individuals in supported 

employment at subminimum wage who 

are working on a short-term basis 

toward competitive integrated 

employment would not satisfy the 

definition of ‘‘exit’’ for performance 

accountability purposes. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended that adult education 

providers receive student-level 

disaggregated wage or UI data for 

compliance and input into the Student 

Information System tracking and 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55837 

monitoring application and that MOUs 

and guidance from the Departments 

must authorize access. Commenters 

concluded that States may need to use 

alternative methods for tracking 

employment outcomes for participants 

and need to be provided with options 

for databases and data sharing. 

Departments’ Response: As 

mentioned above, the Departments are 

aware of the necessity for pathways to 

match wage record data to exit data in 

order to have complete outcome 

information on a program. The 

Departments reiterate their intent to 

issue guidance and facilitate a new data 

sharing agreement in order to facilitate 

wage record data matching required for 

all core programs in meeting their 

performance reporting requirements 

under WIOA. These agreements will be 

executed under the authority of WIOA 

sec. 116(i)(2) and consistent with all 

applicable Federal and State privacy 

and confidentiality laws and 

regulations. The Departments cannot 

require the sharing of individual level 

PII from wage records with entities that 

do not meet the requirements of 20 CFR 

part 603. It should be noted that the 

Departments are aware of and recognize 

that a variety of structures exist within 

States affecting levels of access to 

certain types of information required to 

comply with WIOA and efforts are 

underway to issue joint guidance on 

data access and how to obtain what is 

necessary to comply with WIOA 

reporting requirements. 

Comments: An individual expressed 

concern that the performance indicators 

in § 677.155(a)(1)(i) and (ii) may act as 

a disincentive to making progress in 

further education and training after exit. 

A commenter asked for clarification 

about the calculations for employment 

in the second and fourth quarters after 

exit, inquiring as to the time period for 

measurement and the individuals to be 

included in the measure. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have considered 

commenters’ concerns regarding the 

disincentive the employment 

performance indicators may create for 

furthering education and training after 

exit. However, sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) of 

WIOA establishes a statutory 

requirement for a performance indicator 

measuring the percentage of program 

participants who are in unsubsidized 

employment during the second quarter 

after exit from the program. Subsequent 

guidance providing the time periods for 

measurement and other operational 

parameters pertaining to calculations 

will be issued by the Departments. 

Comments: In the preamble to the 

Joint WIOA NPRM, the Departments 

asked for public comment on whether 

and how to collect information on the 

quality of employment. A commenter 

suggested that while the Departments 

are proposing some metrics that attempt 

to assess the quality of employment, 

specifically mentioning median wage, 

retention, and training-related 

outcomes, the Departments should 

consider looking at quality of 

employment once the current 

performance indicators are 

implemented. Other commenters 

asserted that information on the quality 

of employment should not be collected 

because it is redundant, costly, and too 

subjective. Another commenter 

described several factors contributing to 

the quality of employment: Fair, 

attractive, and competitive 

compensation and benefits; 

opportunities for development, learning, 

and advancement; wellness, health, and 

safety protections; availability of 

flexible work options; opportunities for 

meaningful work; promotion of 

constructive relationships in the 

workplace; culture of respect, inclusion, 

and equity; and provisions for 

employment security and 

predictabilities. Other commenters 

added the importance of wages 

sufficient to sustain the worker and 

dependents, work-based training, 

changes in net income, worker input 

into schedules, and employment 

outcomes consistent with the 

consumer’s education and employment 

goal. One of the commenters 

discouraged making inappropriate 

comparisons across programs. 

Departments’ Response: The majority 

of commenters did not support 

collecting information on the quality of 

employment because it would be too 

subjective to collect consistently, overly 

burdensome, and costly. At this time, 

the Departments have decided not to 

include such a measure because it 

would be too burdensome to implement 

a measure that would have to be 

developed in the absence of an existing 

metric. The Departments will consider 

in the future whether there is a suitable 

mechanism to measure the quality of 

employment. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Section 677.155(a)(1)(ii) implements 

the second statutory indicator as 

described in sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) of 

WIOA. This indicator is a measure of 

the percentage of program participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the fourth quarter after exit from 

the program. This section, which 

mirrors WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(II), 

remains unchanged from what was 

proposed in the NPRM. 

Under WIA, the common measures 

included a retention measure based on 

individuals who were employed in the 

first quarter after exiting from WIA 

services, and who were also employed 

in the second and third quarters. WIOA 

does not have an equivalent to the WIA 

retention measure. Instead, WIOA 

requires a second—separate and 

distinct—employment indicator for the 

fourth quarter after exit, which 

measures the employment rate in that 

quarter, regardless of whether those 

participants also were employed in the 

second quarter after exit from the 

program. In other words, a participant 

would be counted as a positive outcome 

for this indicator if he or she was 

employed in the fourth quarter after exit 

regardless of whether he or she was also 

employed in the second quarter after 

exit. 

Comments: In the preamble to the 

NPRM, the Departments sought 

comment on the advantages and 

disadvantages of collecting or reporting 

the employment retention rate. A 

commenter expressed support for a 

retention rate because it would be an 

important measure to know, for 

example, when comparing Job Corps to 

other youth programs. A few 

commenters reasoned that a retention 

rate would represent the quality of the 

initial job placement. Many commenters 

supported using a retention rate as long 

as programs would not be held 

accountable to negotiated goals for 

employment retention and States would 

not be required to capture, report, or 

calculate additional values. Some 

commenters opposed highlighting 

measures of employment retention 

because they would be confusing for the 

system and impede the transition from 

the measures in WIA to the indicators 

in WIOA. A commenter stated that there 

was no benefit to calculating this 

measure for WIOA title I programs; 

however, another commenter supported 

the proposed provision to calculate a 

retained employment rate in the fourth 

quarter after exit. An individual 

commented that if fourth quarter 

employment is not used as a retention 

measure, then the growth or reduction 

of the employment rate of the cohort can 

be used to evaluate occupational skills 

training, particularly for those who are 

underemployed. 

There were a few commenters who 

articulated a preference for the 

requirement under WIA. Commenters 

stated that employee retention is based 

on market conditions and dependent on 

factors such as company working 

conditions. Commenters also asserted 

that a retention measure should take 

into account a change or advancement 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55838 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

in occupation and quality or levels of 

work. A commenter remarked that by 

collecting or reporting the retention rate, 

the Departments could compare 

performance under WIOA with 

performance under WIA, but the 

commenter also suggested this was not 

necessary. A few commenters asked 

whether the individual had to be 

working with the same employer or at 

the same job between the second and 

fourth quarters. Other commenters 

recommended that employment 

retention should be measured regardless 

of whether the employer or job title has 

changed. 

Departments’ Response: As stated 

above, retained employment rate would 

not be counted for the purpose of 

performance calculations and, thus, 

would not form the basis for sanctions 

because it is not among the primary 

performance indicators set forth in sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(i) of WIOA. The 

Departments have concluded that 

calculating a retained employment rate 

would provide useful information about 

the effectiveness of services that lead to 

sustained attachment to employment. 

The Departments will calculate a 

retained employment rate for 

participants who were employed at the 

second quarter after exit for 

informational purposes at the Federal 

level for those programs for which the 

Federal offices collect individual (i.e., 

disaggregated data) records (i.e., for the 

WIOA title I, Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service, and VR programs). 

For the AEFLA program, for which ED 

does not collect individual (i.e., 

disaggregated) records, the Departments 

will not require States to calculate and 

report a retained employment rate in 

addition to an employment rate at the 

fourth quarter after exit. 

Comments: With regard to this 

indicator and partner program metrics, 

one commenter remarked that in States 

where TANF is a required one-stop 

partner, a performance metric that is 

limited to 1 year after exit from the 

program may not align with outcomes 

that are significant for TANF customers, 

resulting in positive outcomes of TANF 

employment services that will not be 

captured. Another commenter suggested 

that the fourth quarter employment 

information could be obtained more 

easily by the local DOL office rather 

than the State VR administration and as 

such, State VR agencies should not be 

required to report this data. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the 

commenters’ concerns regarding the 

capture of outcomes for TANF 

employment services and the difficulty 

some programs will face in the 

collection of the data necessary to 

calculate this indicator. However, if an 

individual is a participant in a WIOA 

core program as described in sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA, sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) of WIOA explicitly 

requires the Departments to measure the 

employment rate for that participant in 

the fourth quarter after exit, regardless 

of whether that individual is also a 

participant in TANF or any other 

required partner program. With regard 

to comments that maintain that VR 

agencies should not have to report data 

on the fourth quarter after exit due to 

issues of data access and availability, 

the Departments reiterate the intent to 

renegotiate the wage record data sharing 

agreements and issue joint guidance on 

accessing such data in order to meet the 

requirements laid out in WIOA sec. 116. 

The Departments strongly encourage the 

development, enrichment, and 

enhancement of partnerships at the 

State and local levels to leverage such 

connections in obtaining relevant 

performance information. No change to 

the regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Section 677.155(a)(1)(iii) implements 

the third statutory indicator as 

described in sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(III) of 

WIOA. This indicator is a measure of 

the median earnings of those program 

participants who are in unsubsidized 

employment in the second quarter after 

exit. This section remains unchanged 

from that proposed in the NPRM. 

Comments: Several commenters 

requested guidance on how to match 

wage records or collect employmentrelated data without the use of SSNs, 

because some States cannot collect 

SSNs and some students do not have 

them. A commenter suggested that the 

regulation should provide States with 

the authority to require SSNs as a 

condition of program participation. 

Another commenter asserted that WIOA 

only should require SSNs when 

customers are directly receiving some 

form of financial assistance. A 

commenter discussed the challenge of 

tracking the progress of individuals 

without SSNs. A commenter urged the 

Departments to provide ways for 

agencies to share long-term wage and 

employment information to enable the 

commenter to report on the indicators. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered the concerns 

raised by commenters in light of the 

statutory provisions at WIOA sec. 

116(b)(2)(a)(1)(iii) and concluded that, 

where available and possible, the use of 

wage records to fulfill reporting 

requirements is required in accordance 

with sec. 116(i)(2) of WIOA. Matching 

participant SSNs against quarterly wage 

record information is the most effective 

means by which timely and accurate 

data can be made available to the 

system. 

Nevertheless, the Departments want 

to make clear that neither WIOA nor 

this Joint WIOA Final Rule allows or 

requires States to request or require 

SSNs as a condition of program 

participation or for receipt of any form 

of financial assistance. As such, 

program eligibility under WIOA is not 

contingent on the provision of a SSN. 

Additionally, depriving such an 

individual of service would be in 

violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 

which establishes a code of fair 

information practices that govern the 

collection, use, dissemination, and 

maintenance of information about 

individuals contained in systems of 

Federal records. Specifically, sec. 7(a)(1) 

of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a Note, 

Disclosure of Social Security Number) 

provides that unless the disclosure is 

required by Federal statute, ‘‘It shall be 

unlawful for any Federal, State, or Local 

government agency to deny to any 

individual any right, benefit, or 

privilege provided by law because of 

such individual’s refusal to disclose his 

social security account number.’’ In 

consideration of the circumstances 

articulated by the commenters in public 

comments received on both the Joint 

WIOA NPRM and the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR, the Departments are 

allowing the use of supplemental 

information to augment the performance 

information obtained through wage 

record matching when necessary 

because critical information (such as a 

SSN) is not available. More information 

can be found in the preamble to 

§ 677.175 discussed in more detail 

below. The WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR also will provide for the collection 

of such supplemental wage information 

in those circumstances where quarterly 

wage records are not available or may 

not apply. The Departments also intend 

to issue guidance and technical 

assistance regarding the collection and 

reporting of both quarterly wage record 

data and supplemental information on 

employment-based outcomes. 

Comments: Some commenters 

supported the use of median earnings 

rather than average (mean) earnings, 

used under WIA, noting that averages 

can be skewed by a few numbers. One 

commenter stated that the indicator data 

should be collected at both the second 

and fourth quarters. Commenters 

suggested that the median earnings 

indicator should be based on all 

earnings and not just earnings related to 

the employment goals on the IPE for 

customers of VR services. With the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55839 

change from an average earnings 

calculation under WIA to a median 

earnings calculation under WIOA, one 

commenter asked how to arrive at a 

baseline for determining performance 

numbers. A few commenters said they 

would prefer reporting both average and 

median wages and highlight the highincome employment outcomes they 

have historically achieved. The 

commenters also asked how to best 

verify and include incomes for selfemployment outcomes in this indicator. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(i)(III), which forms the 

basis for § 677.155(a)(1)(iii), requires 

States to collect data regarding median 

earnings of participants who are in 

unsubsidized employment during the 

second quarter after exit from a core 

program. The Departments have the 

authority to collect additional 

information that provides context for 

the primary indicators of performance. 

Such information is important to 

understand and manage public 

workforce programs. The Departments 

note that the primary indicators 

identified in § 677.155 are the only 

indicators subject to the performance 

accountability sanctions. Additionally, 

pursuant to sec. 116(b)(1)(A)(ii) of 

WIOA and § 677.165, States may 

develop additional performance 

indicators which could include median 

earnings in the fourth quarter, as the 

commenter suggests. 

With regard to inclusion of all 

earnings and not just those earnings 

related to employment goals on the IPE 

for customers of VR services, the 

individual records collected under the 

RSA–911 can be used to determine 

median wages at exit. The Departments 

acknowledge that wages may vary over 

time and that median earnings at exit 

may not reflect median wages in the 

second and fourth quarters after exit. 

With regard to baseline data for median 

earnings, the Departments recognize 

that some programs may not have the 

historical data necessary to establish a 

baseline for median earnings while 

other programs can review the data 

collected under WIA to establish an 

approximate baseline for this indicator. 

The Departments acknowledge the 

concerns raised regarding such 

employment outcomes that would not 

be captured through a pure match 

against State UI wage records, such as 

self-employment. The Departments will 

promulgate guidance regarding the 

collection and verification of 

supplemental employment information, 

as noted in the preamble to 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(iii) and more fully 

discussed in the preamble to § 677.175. 

The Departments recognize there is a 

need to further clarify and provide 

guidance regarding transitioning to the 

WIOA performance indicators and 

intend to provide further clarification 

and guidance on the establishment of 

baseline data. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: A few commenters 

recommended that the value of benefits 

received should be included in the 

participants’ median earnings indicator. 

Commenters urged reporting of wages 

expressed as dollars per hour to reflect 

outcomes for part-time workers 

accurately. 

Departments’ Response: Since the 

value of benefits clearly does not 

constitute earnings, adopting this 

recommendation would be inconsistent 

with the statutory provision calling for 

measuring earnings. Further information 

and clarification regarding the 

operational parameters of each indicator 

will be provided through both the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR and 

program guidance. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that individuals participating in an 

education or training program should be 

excluded from the calculation of this 

indicator. Commenters especially 

expressed support for not including 

youth who were enrolled in 

postsecondary education in the median 

earnings indicator because such youth 

would not necessarily have an income. 

Some commenters warned that as many 

individuals are simultaneously enrolled 

and employed part time, they tend to 

work fewer hours at lower hourly wage 

rates. In these instances, the earnings 

measure serves as a disincentive for 

programs to provide further education 

and training. One of the commenters 

added that exiting applicants with 

entrepreneurship training may not 

reflect well on the earnings measures 

because a new business often takes time 

to become profitable. 

Departments’ Response: In response 

to the comments regarding exclusions 

from the median earnings indicator, sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(i)(III) of WIOA requires the 

collection of data regarding the median 

earnings for all participants who exit the 

program and are employed during the 

second quarter after exit, regardless of 

whether the participants are 

simultaneously enrolled in an 

educational or training program. The 

Departments understand the 

commenters’ concerns regarding the 

decreased likelihood of full-time 

employment while enrolled in an 

education or training programs, but the 

Departments expect the levels of 

performance for different programs will 

vary based on the results of the 

statistical adjustment of the 

performance levels for those programs. 

Furthermore, States will have the ability 

to disaggregate performance data in 

order to gain an understanding of the 

effect of including youth in performance 

outcomes. No change to the regulatory 

text is being made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: Other individuals 

requested guidance on how to treat 

missing earnings information for 

particular participants and whether the 

participant may be excluded from the 

dataset used to determine the median 

earnings. 

Departments’ Response: In State wage 

record systems, a missing wage means 

that no wages for an individual were 

reported by any firm residing in that 

State. The missing wage only indicates 

that the individual is not in 

employment covered by the quarterly 

wage records for performance 

accountability purposes. The 

Departments have determined that 

collection and verification of 

supplemental employment data is 

allowed for the performance indicators 

where a wage is not present in quarterly 

wage data. Supplemental information 

that is used to establish employment 

must include earnings information and 

be counted in the employment 

indicators and the median earnings 

indicator. This calculation is meant to 

represent the median quarterly wage of 

all individuals who are employed in the 

second quarter after exit, therefore, 

‘‘missing earnings information’’ will not 

be included in the median earnings 

calculation. Further, the Departments 

have elected to permit non-wage record 

matches (supplemental information) in 

the performance calculations. More 

information about this is in the 

preamble to § 677.175 discussed in more 

detail below. The Departments note that 

the use of supplemental information 

must be uniform across performance 

indicators. In other words, if a 

participant is included in the 

employment in second quarter after exit 

indicator based on information obtained 

through supplemental information, 

wage information must be collected and 

that data must also be used for the 

median earnings indicator. Likewise, if 

the collection and verification of 

employment and wages cannot be 

obtained for such a participant through 

either wage record matching or through 

supplemental wage information, then 

the participant cannot be included as 

being in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter and fourth 

quarters after exit, as measured by the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55840 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

first and second performance indicators. 

The Departments will issue guidance 

regarding the collection and verification 

of supplemental employment 

information, as noted in the preamble to 

§§ 677.155(a)(1)(iii) and 677.175. 

Section 677.155(a)(1)(iv) implements 

the fourth statutory indicator as 

described in sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(IV) of 

WIOA, subject to sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(iii). 

This indicator is the percentage of 

program participants who obtain a 

recognized postsecondary credential or 

a secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent, during 

participation in or within 1 year after 

exit from the program. The Departments 

are implementing § 677.155(a)(1)(iv) as 

revised and described here. The 

regulation, consistent with the statutory 

requirements, limits inclusion of 

participants who obtain a secondary 

school diploma or its equivalent in the 

percentage counted as meeting the 

criterion by only including those 

participants who are employed or are 

enrolled in an education or training 

program leading to a recognized 

credential within 1 year after exit from 

the program. The Departments 

specifically sought comment on 

clarifications necessary to implement 

this indicator. 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed concerns about including all 

program participants in the indicator 

and asked whether the indicator is 

limited to those in an education or 

training program. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments revised § 677.155(a)(1)(iv) 

to clarify that this indicator only applies 

to those participants who are or were 

enrolled in an education or training 

program. The purpose of the indicator is 

to measure performance related to 

attainment of a recognized 

postsecondary credential or a secondary 

school diploma or its recognized 

equivalent. As such, it would not fulfill 

the purpose of this indicator to measure 

a State’s performance on the credential 

attainment indicator against a universe 

of participants that includes individuals 

who are not in an education or training 

program through which they can obtain 

one of these credentials. The 

Departments decided that it is 

appropriate to include, for purposes of 

this indicator, only those participants 

enrolled in an education or training 

program. The Departments have 

excluded participants enrolled in workbased on-the-job training or customized 

training from this indicator because 

such training does not typically lead to 

a credential. This exclusion avoids 

creating a disincentive to enroll in 

work-based training. This section has 

been revised to clarify that only those 

participants in an education or training 

program are included in the 

performance calculations for this 

performance indicator, with the 

exception of those in on-the-job or 

customized training. The WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR also will explain that 

participants, for purposes of the 

credential rate performance indicator, 

are only those who are in an education 

or training program (excluding those in 

on-the-job training or customized 

training). 

During the review period leading to 

this Joint WIOA Final Rule, the 

Departments noted an error in the 

NPRM related to the statutory 

requirement that participants receiving 

a secondary school diploma or its 

equivalent be included in the 

percentage of participants meeting the 

performance indicator only if the 

participant is employed or enrolled in 

an education or training program 

leading to a recognized postsecondary 

credential within 1 year of exit from the 

program. The NPRM incorrectly stated 

that a participant who has obtained a 

high school diploma or its equivalent 

only is included in the indicator if the 

participant is employed or is enrolled in 

an education or training program 

leading to a recognized credential 

within 1 year of exit from the program. 

The Departments have corrected 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(iv) to make it consistent 

with WIOA’s requirement so that a 

participant who obtains a secondary 

school diploma or its recognized 

equivalent only counts as having met 

the performance indicator if the 

participant is also employed or is 

enrolled in an education or training 

program leading to a recognized 

postsecondary credential within 1 year 

after exit from the program. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that they fully supported the proposed 

provision. Some commenters remarked 

that WIOA presents a great opportunity 

to learn more about the credentials 

being earned by participants in the 

workforce system. The commenters 

suggested that regulations on the 

reporting of credential attainment 

should strike a balance between 

incentivizing the collection of better 

data and unfairly penalizing States that 

do not have the ability to measure 

attainment of all types of credentials, 

and that the Departments should 

consider a phased approach for making 

licenses and certifications part of 

performance levels. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments are not planning a phased 

implementation of the credential 

attainment indicator because such data 

generally were collected and reported 

under WIA. With regard to the full 

performance accountability provisions 

under WIOA sec. 116, which include 

the application of an objective statistical 

adjustment model and the 

implementation of sanctions, the 

Departments did modify § 677.190 to 

allow for a phased-in approach for 

assessing performance success or failure 

for the purposes of sanctions in order to 

provide programs time to collect and 

report at least 2 full years of data 

required to develop and run a statistical 

adjustment model on those indicators. 

More information can be found on this 

in the preamble to § 677.190 below. 

Comments: In the preamble to the 

NPRM, the Departments sought 

comments on clarifications that would 

be necessary to implement the 

credential attainment indicator. Many 

commenters requested clarification 

about accepted credentials; how to 

collect and track credentials; the 

definitions of enrollment and 

postsecondary credential; the 

determination of ‘‘within 1 year after 

exit’’ from the program; the achievement 

of a secondary degree or General 

Education Diploma (GED); and whether 

the indicator applies to the VR program. 

A commenter recommended 

consideration of apprenticeships as 

postsecondary credentials, but other 

commenters suggested that employerbased work activities generally do not 

result in industry-recognized credentials 

but often result in permanent 

employment. 

Departments’ Response: The 

definition of ‘‘recognized postsecondary 

credential’’ is found in sec. 3(52) of 

WIOA, stating ‘‘a credential consisting 

of an industry-recognized certificate or 

certification, a certificate of completion 

of an apprenticeship, a license 

recognized by the State involved or 

Federal Government, or an associate or 

baccalaureate degree.’’ 

With respect to one comment, the 

Departments note that this definition 

includes completion of an 

apprenticeship. In addition, the 

statutory language of the credential 

attainment indicator in WIOA sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(i)(IV) includes participants’ 

attainment of a secondary school 

diploma or its recognized equivalent in 

performance calculations, subject to the 

requirement that those participants also 

are employed or in an education or 

training program leading to a recognized 

postsecondary credential within 1 year 

after exit from the program. The 

credential attainment indicator applies 

to all core programs, including the VR 

program, except for the Wagner-Peyser 

Act Employment Service program, as 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55841 

specified in sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i) of 

WIOA. To be counted as having met the 

indicator, a participant must have 

obtained a credential at any point 

during participation in the program or 

up to 1 year after exit from the program. 

The Departments will issue joint 

guidance that further illustrates what 

constitutes a recognized postsecondary 

credential for the credential rate 

indicator, including definitions for each 

type of credential. The Departments 

recognize burden concerns for tracking 

credential attainment. However, as 

noted, WIOA requires the collection of 

data for purposes of reporting on the 

credential attainment indicator for all 

core programs, except for the WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service 

program. The Departments also will 

provide joint guidance and technical 

assistance for tracking and reporting 

with respect to this performance 

indicator. 

Comments: A few commenters 

expressed concern that the value of a 

secondary diploma would be reduced. 

One commenter suggested the 

regulations should clarify that 

employment is at any time during the 

year after exit. Commenters 

recommended including alternative, 

standards-based certificates of high 

school completion for students with 

disabilities among the credentials 

recognized for achievement of the 

credential attainment indicator. 

Commenters cautioned that this 

indicator may not be appropriate for 

students in English language acquisition 

programs, and one of these commenters 

requested that postsecondary 

credentials include completion of 

Career and Technical Education 

programs. A commenter encouraged the 

reporting of credential type in addition 

to the attainment of a credential. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments do not agree that a 

secondary school diploma would be 

devalued because a participant’s 

attainment of a secondary school 

diploma can be included in 

performance calculations for purposes 

of the credential attainment indicator. 

For those who obtain a secondary 

school diploma or its recognized 

equivalent, such participants must also 

be employed or in an education or 

training program leading to a 

postsecondary credential within 1 year 

after exit from the program. Such 

employment or enrollment in an 

education or training program only 

needs to be for some period during the 

4 quarters after exit, not for the entire 

1-year period after exit. The types of 

secondary school diplomas and 

alternate diplomas that would satisfy 

this performance indicator are those 

recognized by a State and that are 

included for accountability purposes 

under the ESEA, as amended by the 

Every Student Succeeds Act. The types 

of recognized equivalents, for those not 

covered under ESEA, that would satisfy 

this performance indicator are those 

recognized by a State. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: Several commenters also 

expressed concern that State VR and 

other programs do not track whether a 

participant is enrolled in postsecondary 

education after program exit and that to 

do so would represent a significant 

burden. One of the commenters 

recommended that educational 

attainment data could be reported as it 

occurs by the appropriate State 

educational authorities and matched to 

participant data. A commenter 

suggested that sharing information 

should be mandatory between 

workforce agencies and secondary and 

postsecondary educational and other 

training institutions. One commenter 

stated that national access to 

postsecondary records and earnings not 

covered by UI wage records are needed 

for implementation of the provision. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize that, in cases 

where information was not previously 

collected or reported on, there is an 

initial burden associated with 

establishing such collections for 

reporting. However, the Departments 

have concluded that WIOA sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(i)(IV), read in conjunction 

with sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(iii), requires that 

the indicator applies to all core 

programs and necessitates tracking 

enrollment and employment up to 1 

year after exit. With regard to the 

comments raised concerning real-time 

tracking and matching of educational 

attainment, the Departments note that 

tracking and reporting on participants is 

an obligation of the program. A State 

educational authority would not 

necessarily have information on all 

participants enrolled in education 

programs, public or private, non-profit 

or for-profit. The Departments do not 

currently have the authority to mandate 

sharing of information between 

workforce agencies and secondary and 

postsecondary educational and other 

training institutions in the manner 

proposed. In regards to the comment 

about national access to postsecondary 

records and earnings, the Departments 

do not think that implementation 

requires national access because States 

have the authority to implement 

appropriate mechanisms, including data 

sharing agreements, at the State level to 

fulfill these reporting requirements. The 

Departments are developing guidance to 

help the States meet their obligations. 

No change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to this comment. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that participants who were in 

occupational training designed to lead 

to employment in a specific occupation 

and who do not achieve the credential 

because they have become employed in 

the occupation should be removed from 

the indicator. Some commenters 

suggested that the credential attainment 

indicator should not be calculated as the 

percentage of all participants who earn 

a credential, but the indicator only 

should calculate the percentage of 

participants receiving education or 

training services who earn a credential. 

A commenter recommended that the 

indicator only should apply to 

participants who were enrolled in a 

program leading to a postsecondary 

credential or secondary diploma. One 

commenter cautioned that many 

students are currently unavailable to the 

job market. Another commenter 

reasoned that cross-enrollment may lead 

to participants furthering their training 

in one program after leaving another, 

and this may not be completed within 

1 year. 

Departments’ Response: With respect 

to the comment that the credential 

attainment indicator should calculate 

only the percentage of participants 

receiving education or training services 

who earn a credential, the Departments 

reiterate, as noted above, that 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(iv) has been revised, as 

contained in these final regulations, to 

address this concern. With respect to 

the comment that those who do not earn 

a credential because they become 

employed should not be included in the 

calculation for the credential attainment 

indicator, the Departments note that the 

reason that a participant fails to attain 

a credential, including participating in 

further training, is not a basis for 

excluding that participant from the 

performance calculations for the 

credential attainment indicator. No 

change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: Commenters also 

suggested that the indicator would 

result in a strong disincentive to enroll 

participants in title I programs that 

would not result in an industryrecognized credential. An individual 

mentioned that the indicator may 

discourage participation in training 

programs that take several years to 

complete. Commenters also suggested 

that prospective workers enrolled in 

TANF and other hard-to-serve 

populations may require more than 1 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55842 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

year to achieve positive outcomes and 

that States have varying requirements 

for attaining credentials. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that because the 

credential attainment indicator is an 

exit-based indicator, there is no 

requirement for a participant to attain a 

credential within 1 year of enrollment 

in the program. There is no time limit 

on how long participants are in the 

program, and the measurement point for 

credential attainment is not until 1 year 

following exit from the program. If 

participants are in a program multiple 

years before attaining a credential they 

are still counted as a success in the 

indicator if the credential is attained 

during participation in the program or 

within 1 year of program exit. Thus, the 

Departments do not think that this 

indicator will discourage participation 

in training programs that take several 

years to complete. It should be noted 

that in instances where participants are 

enrolled in an education or training 

program that is not intended to result in 

a credential, the measurable skill gains 

indicator can capture progress made by 

participants. 

Section 677.155(a)(1)(v) implements 

the fifth statutory indicator as described 

in sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(V) of WIOA. This 

indicator is a measure of the percentage 

of participants who, during a program 

year, are in education or training 

programs that lead to a recognized 

postsecondary credential or 

employment, and who are achieving 

measureable skill gains toward such a 

credential or employment. The 

Departments are defining measurable 

skill gains as documented academic, 

technical, occupational, or other forms 

of progress toward the credential or 

employment. After seeking and 

considering all comments on the 

measurable skill gains indicator 

proposed at § 677.155(a)(1)(v), the 

Departments added five measures of 

documented progress that specify how 

to show a measurable skill gain. 

Comments: The preamble of the 

NPRM identified six examples of 

standardized ways States could measure 

documented progress during 

participation in an education or training 

program, and sought public comment on 

these and other ways progress may be 

measured. Some commenters generally 

supported the examples as well as the 

preamble language that stated, 

‘‘Documented progress could include 

such measures as . . .’’ because it 

provided the State with flexibility. 

Another commenter recommended a 

menu system similar to the proposed 

but recommended the progress measure 

be attached to participant characteristics 

rather than a funding stream. Other 

commenters asserted that it would be 

difficult to standardize measures and 

documentation across all core programs 

as proposed by the Departments, and 

there would be little benefit for the VR 

program where individuals often seek to 

maintain their current occupation. 

Another commenter recommended that 

Local WDBs should be required to write 

into their local plans an exhaustive list 

of the documented progress measures 

they will use. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments noted the suggested ways 

in which the States could measure 

documented progress. The Departments 

disagree with commenters that 

recommend against standardized 

methods, across States and core 

programs, to measure documented 

progress for purposes of the measurable 

skill gains indicator. Section 

116(b)(4)(A) of WIOA requires the 

Secretaries to issue definitions of the 

primary performance indicators in order 

to ensure national comparability of 

performance data. Defining the 

measurable skill gains indicator to 

include standardized methods to 

measure documented progress across 

programs helps to ensure this 

comparability. With regard to the VR 

program, although a State VR agency 

may provide services to individuals 

with disabilities that enable them to 

maintain their current occupation, the 

Departments note that the majority of 

individuals served by the VR program 

receive assistance in obtaining or 

advancing in employment. With regard 

to local plan content and the 

recommendation that it include ‘‘an 

exhaustive’’ list of the documented 

progress measures, the Departments 

encourage States and local areas to 

consider the service provisions and 

applicable progress measures in the 

development of their plans but have 

determined that it is beyond the scope 

of part 677 to regulate concerning such 

requirements. State and local plans are 

discussed more fully in 20 CFR part 679 

(see DOL WIOA Final Rule, published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register). The Departments reiterate that 

States will be required to report on the 

measurable skill gains indicator as set 

forth in § 677.155(a)(1)(v), consistent 

with program guidance. No change to 

the regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: Many commenters 

strongly supported the fact that the 

proposed regulations recognize the 

intent of Congress to ‘‘encourage local 

adult education programs to serve all 

low-skilled adults,’’ and stated that the 

measurable skill gains indicator will 

help to achieve that goal. One 

commenter suggested that measurable 

skill gains should be the only indicator 

of performance required for students 

functioning below the ninth grade level. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments do not agree with the 

suggestion that the measurable skill 

gains indicator be the only indicator of 

performance for students functioning 

below the ninth grade level since WIOA 

requires that the indicators of 

performance apply across all core 

programs in order to assess the 

effectiveness of States and local areas in 

achieving positive outcomes for 

participants served by those programs. 

There is no basis for a blanket 

exclusion from all performance 

indicators except the measurable skill 

gains indicator for participants 

functioning below the ninth grade level. 

Such participants have the potential to 

receive services under a program, be 

included in performance calculations, 

and be counted as having met one of the 

other indicators. Therefore, unless a 

student functioning below the ninth 

grade level is otherwise appropriately 

excluded from participants included in 

the performance calculations for a 

particular indicator under 

§ 677.155(a)(2), the Departments will 

not categorically exclude such students 

functioning below the ninth grade level 

from the other five indicators of 

performance. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: The majority of 

commenters endorsed continued use of 

educational functioning levels (EFLs) 

and encouraged eventual refinement of 

EFLs or the development of other 

potential measures that can document 

participants’ progress toward 

educational goals. Other commenters 

expressed concern because in high 

intensity programs, students may 

advance two or more EFLs; therefore, 

the proposed language would not 

capture the full impact of adult 

education instruction. The commenters 

recommended that the requirement 

should be ‘‘the achievement of the EFLs 

of the participant.’’ 

Departments’ Response: As set forth 

in the preamble of the NPRM, the first 

standardized way States could measure 

and document participants’ measurable 

skill gains is the documented 

achievement of at least one EFL of a 

participant in an education program that 

provides instruction below the 

postsecondary level. The Departments 

agree with comments that supported the 

continued use of EFLs to measure 

progress towards the measurable skill 

gains indicator. The Departments also 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55843 

recognize that in some cases, students 

may advance more than one EFL during 

a program year. However, for purposes 

of the performance calculations, 

programs will be permitted to report 

only one EFL measureable skill gain per 

a participant’s exit from the program 

through the WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR. This means that if a participant 

exits a program more than once in a 

program year and attains an EFL 

measureable skill gain prior to exiting 

each time, then the program will be able 

to report, for performance calculation 

purposes, more than one EFL 

measureable skill gain for the 

participant in a program year. In so 

doing, participants, for purposes of 

performance calculation purposes with 

respect to the measureable skill gains 

indicator, will be treated the same as for 

any other performance indicator. Having 

said this, through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR, the Departments will 

require States to provide unique 

identifiers for participants. Thus, there 

will be a unique count of participants 

under the core programs regardless of 

how many times the participant exits 

the program (see discussion in this 

preamble regarding the definition of 

‘‘exit’’ in § 677.150(c) above). The 

Departments have added 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(v)(A) to include 

‘‘documented achievement of at least 

one educational functioning level of a 

participant receiving instruction below 

the postsecondary education level,’’ as 

one way of measuring documented 

progress under the measurable skill 

gains indicator. Options for measuring 

educational functioning level gain are 

described in the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended that attainment of a high 

school diploma not be included as one 

of the measures of documented progress 

for purposes of the measurable skill 

gains indicator. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments disagree with the assertion 

and consider attainment of a secondary 

school diploma a valuable measure of 

progress and have therefore revised 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(v)(B) to include 

‘‘documented attainment of a secondary 

school diploma or its recognized 

equivalent.’’ 

Comments: Commenters stated that a 

lower requirement of six credit hours 

per semester better reflects the 

capability of adults who must work to 

provide for their families. Another 

commenter suggested that the measure 

should be expanded to include a 

demonstration of semester-to-semester 

retention, which is a key indicator of 

academic success. 

Departments’ Response: As proposed 

in the preamble of the NPRM, the third 

standardized way States could measure 

and document participants’ measurable 

skill gains is through a transcript or 

report card for either secondary or 

postsecondary education. The 

Departments had proposed a measure 

requiring a transcript or report card for 

1 academic year or for 24 credit hours. 

The Departments agree with the concern 

that a transcript for 1 academic year or 

24 credit hours is too onerous for parttime students and have changed this 

measure to require that the transcript or 

report card reflect a sufficient number of 

credit hours to show a participant is 

achieving the State’s academic 

standards. The Departments’ current 

standard for a sufficient number of 

credit hours is at least 12 hours per 

semester or, for part-time students, a 

total of at least 12 hours over the course 

of 2 completed consecutive semesters 

during the program year that shows a 

participant is achieving the State unit’s 

academic standards. The Departments 

have added § 677.155(a)(1)(v)(C) to read 

‘‘secondary or postsecondary transcript 

or report card for a sufficient number of 

credit hours that shows a participant is 

meeting the State unit’s academic 

standards.’’ Clarification regarding the 

progress measures and the specific 

requirements for collection and 

reporting will be provided through the 

Departments’ WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR, Department-specific ICRs, and 

programmatic guidance. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that the Joint WIOA Final Rule identify 

progress reports from training providers 

as an acceptable measure of 

documented progress for purposes of 

the measurable skill gains indicator. 

Departments’ Response: As proposed 

in the NPRM, the fourth standardized 

way States could measure and 

document participants’ measurable skill 

gains is through a satisfactory or better 

progress report towards established 

milestones from an employer who is 

providing training. Such milestones to 

be achieved could include completion 

of on-the-job training (OJT) or 

completion of 1 year of an 

apprenticeship program. The 

Departments agree with the commenter 

that progress reports from training 

providers as to achievement of 

established milestones also could be 

acceptable and note that when 

participants are enrolled in training 

programs, the training providers are in 

the best position to report on 

participants’ progress toward 

established milestones. The 

Departments emphasize that rigor is 

expected in determining whether a 

progress report is satisfactory, whether 

from an employer or a training provider. 

The Departments have added 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(v)(D) to include 

‘‘satisfactory or better progress report, 

towards established milestones, such as 

completion of OJT or completion of 1 

year of an apprenticeship program or 

similar milestones, from an employer or 

training provider who is providing 

training.’’ 

Comments: Several commenters 

requested information on how progress 

shall be measured under the VR 

program. 

Departments’ Response: With regard 

to the VR program, there may be several 

methods for obtaining documentation 

related to measuring progress. For 

example, documentation such as 

standardized reports of progress from 

training providers, provided to the State 

VR agency, may be used to substantiate 

progress. To adequately document 

progress, programs should identify 

appropriate methodologies based upon 

the nature of the service being provided. 

For example, VR agencies frequently use 

grade reports from postsecondary 

educational institutions to document a 

student’s progress toward achieving a 

degree. For OJT, where the individual is 

being trained on site by either the 

employer or by a vendor, VR Counselors 

receive regular training reports that 

include the OJT milestones completed 

as the individual masters the job skills 

required. More broadly, for 

apprenticeship programs, the milestones 

are already incorporated into the 

process. The steps required to complete 

the apprenticeship and the increases in 

pay that occur can be used to document 

progress. 

Comments: Some commenters 

recommended that successful 

completion of an exam, as 

recommended in the preamble of the 

NPRM as a way of measuring 

documented progress, be understood as 

achieving a passing score on the exam. 

Departments’ Response: As proposed 

in the preamble of the NPRM, the fifth 

standardized way States could measure 

and document participants’ measurable 

skill gains is through successful 

completion of an exam that is required 

for a particular occupation, or through 

progress in attaining technical or 

occupational skills as evidenced by 

trade-related benchmarks such as 

knowledge-based exams. The 

Departments agree with the commenters 

that this measure documenting a 

measurable skill gain should require 

that a participant achieve a passing 

score on an exam and thus have added 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(v)(E), which requires 

‘‘successful passage of an exam that is 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55844 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

required for a particular occupation, or 

progress in attaining technical or 

occupational skills as evidenced by 

trade-related benchmarks such as 

knowledge-based exams.’’ Joint 

guidance will be issued about what 

qualifies as a trade-related benchmark to 

show documented progress for purposes 

of the measurable skill gain indicator. 

Comments: Commenters expressed 

concern about another measure of 

documented progress proposed in the 

preamble to the NPRM—measurable 

observable performance based on 

industry standards. Commenters 

indicated that it would be very 

challenging to identify a way to 

document this type of gain. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with the 

commenters’ concerns that it would be 

difficult to articulate a method for 

documenting progress using 

measurable, observable performance 

based on industry standards. The 

Departments did not include this 

measure in § 677.155(a)(1)(v). 

Comments: Commenters 

recommended using other measures of 

progress including achievement of 

passing grades, completion of high 

school equivalency (HSE) subtests, 

receipt of postsecondary education or 

training, completing some adult 

diploma requirements, and obtaining 

U.S. citizenship to document 

measurable skill gains. A commenter 

suggested that employment-related 

indicators of skill gains, such as 

employment in the participant’s 

program of study, advancement in job 

titles, and performance-based wage 

increases, recognize that skills 

attainment correlates with career 

progression. One commenter 

recommended that a high school 

credential from another country should 

be treated as sufficient in meeting the 

requirement. Some commenters 

suggested that the metric should 

measure completion of something easily 

definable such as a degree, certification, 

or entrance into a program. A 

commenter asked the Departments to 

measure interim progress, including 

documented gains in achieving ‘‘soft 

skills,’’ such as program attendance, 

timely arrival, gains in proper behavior, 

and creating an IPE. Another commenter 

asked whether proceeding through a 

prescribed program toward a secondary 

degree would be considered ‘‘achieving 

measurable skill gains.’’ One commenter 

cautioned about subjectivity in deciding 

positive gains. One commenter stated 

that the measurement should be simply 

‘‘making progress—yes or no.’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments reviewed all of the 

additional suggestions for measurement 

of documented progress under the 

measurable skill gains indicator and 

concluded that none of the additional 

suggestions would be included in the 

Joint WIOA Final Rule or WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR. The Departments 

concluded that subjectivity should not 

be a part of determining skill gains and 

have included five objective progress 

measures that States may use in 

implementing the measurable skill gains 

indicator of performance. These 

indicators are sufficiently broad as to 

provide flexibility that addresses some 

of the commenters’ concerns, while 

maintaining rigor. Several of the 

measures suggested by commenters 

(e.g., achieving soft skills) do not share 

the same level of rigor or objectivity. 

The Departments will provide further 

clarification, definition, and 

specification in the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR. 

Comments: Another commenter 

suggested the Departments empanel 

expert working groups to assist in 

developing measures of skill gains. A 

commenter suggested that regional or 

local workforce boards be allowed to 

assign the WIOA defined skill gains 

indicator to particular education or 

training programs based on program 

curriculum and goals. One commenter 

recommended allowing the Local WDB 

to define industry-related credentials or 

eliminating work-based learning from 

the measurable skill gains indicator. 

Another commenter agreed that workbased training activities, such as on-thejob training, should be exempt from this 

indicator. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the various 

points raised with regard to objective 

measures that are implemented in a 

rigorous manner. The Departments 

have, through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR, jointly coordinated 

the development of the underlying 

calculations, specifications, and 

operational definitions of the 

documented progress measures under 

this indicator. This will ensure 

measures uniformly are implemented in 

a rigorous and objective way. In 

addition to the WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR, each core program will define 

through guidance, the types of skill 

gains that are appropriate for the 

services provided and whether the 

program is an education or training 

program that leads to a recognized 

postsecondary credential or 

employment. For example, work 

experience in the WIOA title I youth 

program may not be considered an 

education or training program and, 

therefore, the measurable skill gains 

indicator may not apply to those 

participants engaged only in work 

experience under the WIOA title I youth 

program. More guidance regarding 

education and training programs is 

provided in 20 CFR part 680 (see DOL 

WIOA Final Rule published elsewhere 

in this issue of the Federal Register). No 

change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: Commenters asked for 

specificity and guidance about the 

‘‘comparator group/cohort;’’ how to 

most efficiently collect documentation 

(such as confirmation by phone or 

email); industry-specific recognized 

credentials; how time intervals would 

be used for skill gains; how the measure 

applies to shorter-term training 

programs that are completed within 1 

year; how different measures could be 

used for different trainings; whether 

Indian and Native American youth are 

included in this indicator; and 

definitions and timing regarding when a 

measurable skill gain must have 

occurred in order to be counted. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize that the 

regulation poses broad parameters for 

these indicators. Many concerns and 

requests for clarity by commenters were 

identified and will be explained within 

the WIOA Joint Performance ICR or 

Department-specific ICRs, which are 

designed to operationalize such aspects 

of collection and reporting as time 

periods, specific calculations, details 

regarding who is included, and where to 

record positive outcomes. In addition to 

the WIOA Joint Performance ICR, the 

Departments will provide further 

guidance on acceptable source 

documentation, and the definitions 

recommended by commenters. In 

addition, the Departments will provide 

program-specific guidance for programs, 

such as the Indian and Native American 

youth program, on the application of 

performance indicators in their 

respective regulations and in guidance. 

Comments: In the preamble to the 

NPRM, the Departments sought 

comments on whether time intervals 

should be required when implementing 

the measurable skill gains indicator and 

if so, what time intervals might be. One 

commenter suggested that specific time 

intervals should not be required because 

of variation in services across and 

within core programs and because 

individuals at different levels take 

different amounts of time to show gain. 

Other commenters agreed that a time 

requirement should not be used for 

determining measurable skill gains. 

Certain commenters, however, 

recommended that time intervals be 

established in a manner that is flexible 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55845 

enough to meet the varying durations of 

service across core programs, from 1 

month to an academic year, but those 

time intervals should not adversely 

affect the provision of services based on 

the particular needs of a customer. One 

commenter stated that, for youth under 

WIA, the skill gains and literacy/

numeracy gains are effective for a 

participation year. However, if a 

customer enrolls in education or 

training toward the end of a program 

year, it will result in a negative outcome 

due to the customer not having enough 

time to obtain the skill gain before June 

30. This commenter recommended that 

any participants, adult or youth, who 

were enrolled less than 90 days prior to 

the program year end, and are 

continuing services into the next 

program year be allowed to continue as 

an active participant, and considered 

enrolled in Year 1, and in progress in 

Year 2, with expected completion in 

Year 2. Another commenter supported a 

minimum program duration threshold, 

and suggested that measurable skill 

gains generally should not be available 

to programs that are shorter than sixteen 

weeks. Another commenter suggested a 

time period of measurement set at the 

first anniversary of enrollment and each 

year thereafter. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered whether a 

minimum time threshold should be 

incorporated into the measurable skill 

gains indicator. The Departments have 

concluded that, given the diversity of 

participant needs and program services, 

imposing a time period by which 

progress is to be documented would be 

somewhat arbitrary and difficult. Such 

practice could result in excluding a 

number of participants from 

performance accountability reporting 

requirements, even if those participants 

would achieve a gain under one of the 

measures of progress. The Departments 

recognize that participants enrolling late 

in the program year may not have 

enough time to achieve a measurable 

skill gain prior to the end of the first 

program year, and the Departments 

recognize this could be perceived as 

negatively impacting performance. 

However, the negotiation process can 

and should take into account enrollment 

patterns and lower baseline data when 

setting targets for the measurable skill 

gains indicator. The Departments are 

concerned about incentivizing behavior 

that discourages service providers from 

enrolling disconnected youth in 

particular when they first approach 

programs, or that purposefully attempts 

to focus service on individuals who are 

more likely to obtain a positive 

outcome. The Departments emphasize 

that programs must not delay 

enrollment or prohibit participants from 

entering a program late in the program 

year. All participant outcomes, 

regardless if achieved at the end of the 

reporting period in which they enrolled 

or in the next reporting period, count as 

positive outcomes for the program. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

The Departments will define, through 

program guidance, the types of services 

and trainings that constitute ‘‘an 

education or training program that leads 

to a recognized postsecondary 

credential or employment,’’ applicable 

for each of the core programs. All 

participants who enrolled during a 

program year in an education or training 

program that leads to a recognized 

postsecondary credential or 

employment are counted each time the 

participant exits the program during a 

program year. 

Comments: In the preamble of the 

NPRM, the Departments also asked for 

comments on whether the negotiated 

levels of performance for this indicator 

should be set at the indicator level or 

the discrete documented progress 

measure (e.g., attainment of high school 

diploma) level. Setting the negotiated 

levels of performance at the indicator 

level would aggregate results for all 

documented progress measures (i.e., 

achieving any or several of measurable 

skill gains would be recorded as a 

success). Setting the negotiated levels of 

performance based on discrete 

documented progress measures would 

separately set targets for each indicator 

and each measurable skill gains. The 

vast majority of these commenters 

preferred that the performance targets 

for this indicator be set at the indicator 

level rather than at the documented 

progress level. Other commenters, 

however, suggested that standardization 

is more easily achieved by linking the 

target to a documented progress 

measure level, stating that targets based 

on documented progress, versus an 

indicator, may be easier to collect. 

Another commenter suggested that 

performance targets should include both 

indicator and documented progress 

measures. 

Departments’ Response: After 

considering the comments received, the 

Departments agree with the majority of 

commenters that supported setting the 

target (or the adjusted level of 

performance) at the indicator level. The 

Departments have concluded this will 

provide a more streamlined and userfriendly approach to using progress 

measures and will result in a more 

uniform application of the measurable 

skill gains indicator. Guidance on 

negotiating adjusted levels of 

performance that contains specific 

information about setting targets for 

Measurable Skill Gains will be issued by 

the Departments. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Section 677.155(a)(1)(vi) implements 

the sixth statutory indicator as 

described in sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(VI) of 

WIOA, subject to sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(iv). 

This indicator measures program 

effectiveness in serving employers. 

Under WIOA, the Departments must 

consult with stakeholders and receive 

public comment on proposed 

approaches to defining the indicator. As 

part of this requirement, in addition to 

seeking public comment through the 

NPRM and the WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR, the Departments previously sought 

public input on performance indicators 

generally and on the business indicators 

specifically through several avenues, 

including a town-hall meeting that 

addressed all of the primary indicators, 

a town-hall meeting convened with 

employers, and additional town-halls 

and webinars on WIOA across the 

country as well as consultations with 

State Administrators for AEFLA 

programs and VR stakeholders. As 

described more fully below, the 

Departments received many comments 

regarding the three proposed definitions 

of this indicator. After considering the 

responses received through all venues, 

the Departments are initially 

implementing this indicator in the form 

of a pilot program to test the rigor and 

feasibility of the three proposed 

approaches, and to develop a 

standardized indicator. The 

performance indicator for effectiveness 

in serving employers will not be 

included in sanctions determinations 

until the standardized indicator is 

developed. 

Proposed Approaches to Measuring 

Employer Satisfaction 

Comments: The preamble to the 

NPRM described three approaches to 

measure employer satisfaction (i.e., 

effectiveness in serving employers). In 

the first approach, States would use 

wage records to identify whether or not 

a participant matched the same FEIN in 

the second and fourth quarters. Many 

commenters opposed this approach 

because participants may have 

relocated, joined the military, or found 

a better job, although these 

circumstances do not mean the 

employer was not satisfied. They also 

opposed this approach because the mere 

fact that an individual is employed with 

the same employer does not mean that 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55846 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

the employer is satisfied. Many other 

commenters, however, favored the 

approach because it would be the least 

disruptive to employers. A commenter 

agreed that employee retention can be 

measured, but that measure does not 

take into account the quality of the 

placement. Commenters suggested 

piloting a limited demonstration using 

existing data to determine if the 

variability in the types of occupations in 

a particular local area has a more 

profound impact on retention than the 

value added by the services provided 

under a WIOA program, and to 

determine whether there is a correlation 

between retention and effectiveness. 

The second approach to define this 

indicator would measure the repeated 

use rate for employers’ use of the core 

programs. Many commenters did not 

support this approach because some 

employers may not have many hiring 

needs during a program year, or an 

employer may have a need but the 

program has no students who are ready 

to graduate and go to work. Also, this 

approach would encourage programs to 

protect their individual employer 

relationships rather than working 

collaboratively through sector 

partnerships. Several commenters 

recommended use of this measure along 

with the number of workers employed 

by businesses participating in sector 

partnerships. Other commenters 

supported the approach because it 

represents increased use, retention, or 

growth of business engagement, 

although some commenters would use 

the number of workers employed, not 

the number of businesses served. The 

preamble to the NPRM specifically 

sought comments on how States could 

capture this data, the feasibility of 

capturing and reporting this data, and 

queried whether this indicator would 

measure the efficacy of services 

provided to employers. The 

Departments received both positive and 

negative comments regarding this 

approach. 

The third approach would use the 

number or percent of employers that are 

using the core program services out of 

all employers represented in an area or 

State served by the system (i.e., 

employers served). A large proportion of 

commenters opposed this approach and 

warned that this saturation method only 

would work if all participants come 

from the local market area; for a number 

of programs, it is usually not the case 

that most of the participants come from 

the local market area. Also, the 

commenters asserted that this option 

would focus too much on the breadth of 

employer involvement, rather than the 

depth or quality. Some commenters 

supported this approach when used 

with another approach. The preamble to 

the NPRM specifically sought comments 

on how States could capture this data, 

the feasibility of capturing and reporting 

this data, and queried whether this 

indicator would measure the efficacy of 

services provided to employers. The 

Departments received both positive and 

negative comments regarding this 

approach. 

Departments’ Response: After further 

review, analysis, and consideration of 

public response, the Departments have 

concluded that too little is known with 

regard to the validity and reliability of 

each of the proposed approaches. In 

concurrence with multiple commenters, 

the Departments have concluded that 

the retention method, using wage record 

FEIN matches to be the least 

burdensome method to employers for 

measuring the quality of service 

provided to employers given that the 

outcome is concluded solely by the use 

of wage-match data, which prevents 

outside factors from influencing the way 

success is measured within the 

reporting system. The Departments 

concluded, however, that there was not 

enough evidence that this point of 

measurement would encompass the 

intent of this indicator. Therefore, the 

Departments have proposed a pilot 

allowing all three approaches, and any 

additional measure that the Governor 

may establish relating to services for 

employers, with the intent of assessing 

each approach for its efficacy in 

measuring the effectiveness in serving 

employers. 

The Departments have included these 

approaches in the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR and will require each 

State to choose two of the three 

approaches set out in the NPRM as well 

as any additional measure that the 

Governor may establish related to 

services to employers, with results to be 

included in the first WIOA annual 

report due in October 2017. This 

approach provides States flexibility in 

selecting the measures that best suit 

their needs, while providing partner 

Agencies the opportunity to evaluate 

States’ experiences in using these 

measures during PY 2016 and PY 2017, 

and additionally allows the 

Departments to obtain employer 

feedback regarding the extent to which 

these indicators measure effectiveness 

in serving employers. The Departments 

will evaluate State experiences with the 

various indicator approaches and plan 

to use the results of that evaluation to 

identify a standardized indicator that 

we anticipate will be implemented no 

later than the beginning of PY 2019. In 

this process, the Departments intend to 

engage the National Association of State 

Workforce Agencies (NASWA) and the 

States to inform the evaluation design; 

communicate how States fare in 

operationalizing the measures; and 

contribute to the development of 

technical assistance activities and tools. 

The Departments acknowledge the 

dissatisfaction expressed by 

commenters with using each of the 

NPRM proposed measures as a sole 

indicator of successful service to 

employers and agree with comments 

discussing the utility of piloting 

multiple alternative measures to ensure 

that States are being required to report 

on employer satisfaction in the most 

effective manner. As such, the 

Departments will work to implement a 

pilot program, the details of which will 

be further delineated in joint 

Departmental guidance. The 

Departments have opted to implement a 

pilot program using all of the 

approaches in order to assess the States’ 

experiences with these and evaluate the 

efficacy of such approaches in 

measuring this construct. Further 

guidance regarding the pilot program 

will be provided. 

Effectiveness in Serving Employers 

across Programs 

Comments: The NPRM also sought 

comment on using effectiveness in 

serving employers as a shared indicator 

across programs, as many employers are 

served by multiple programs. Many 

commenters supported using 

effectiveness in serving employers as a 

shared indicator across programs 

because it would foster collaboration 

rather than competition among the core 

programs. One commenter stated that 

using effectiveness in serving employers 

as a shared indicator would mitigate 

concerns regarding measuring 

effectiveness in serving employers for 

the Wagner-Peyser Act program. 

Commenters stated that there are too 

many indicators already and a single 

metric should suffice. Commenters also 

suggested that the Departments should 

engage the employer community, such 

as using a short survey or task force, to 

discover methods of measuring 

effectiveness. One commenter, however, 

opposed employer surveys and 

burdensome employer contacts. A group 

of commenters recommended that 

agency directors conduct a study on 

how effectively workforce development 

aligns with business needs. Others 

favored having States create and submit 

for approval an indicator that meets the 

State’s current needs, including targeted 

sectors and partner collaboration. A 

commenter suggested that the workforce 

system offer one point of contact or 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55847 

‘‘account executive’’ to each employer. 

However, one commenter opposed the 

use of a shared indicator, and 

recommended measuring at an 

individual program level in order to 

measure the impact on each core 

program. 

One commenter developed a novel 

approach for measuring effectiveness 

and provided details in a concept paper, 

which was expressly supported by some 

commenters. The approach includes a 

customizable point-menu system that 

would award varying levels of points to 

WDBs based on the degree of intensity 

and the value of services provided. 

Services earning high points would 

clearly reflect deeper relationships with 

employers and activities that are the 

result of longer-term relationships. The 

Departments will consider this 

approach in the course of the pilot 

program. A separate commenter 

suggested using tiers to measure 

employer engagement with concrete 

examples. The Departments also will 

further consider this suggestion of a 

tiered approach. 

The preamble to the NPRM also 

requested feedback regarding whether a 

single metric for this indicator would 

sufficiently capture effectiveness in 

serving employers or if this indicator 

should encompass a combination of 

metrics, as well as how these metrics 

could most effectively be combined. A 

number of commenters expressed 

concern or disinterest with using a 

single metric to measure effectiveness in 

serving employers. 

A few other commenters who 

expressed support for using multiple 

metrics for this indicator recommended 

a list of core functions to indicate the 

effectiveness in serving employers, with 

the list of core functions including 

strategic planning with business to 

identify business needs; outreach and 

recruitment; hiring; retention; training, 

consultation services, and other 

customized services; and business 

customer satisfaction with services 

provided. One commenter added 

preparing workers for in-demand 

industries and occupations and the 

percentage of participants who earn an 

industry credential. Some commenters 

also mentioned fill rate—the number of 

job seekers placed against the number of 

open job orders in the system—and 

employer referrals. A few commenters 

stated that there is insufficient clarity on 

the employer satisfaction indicator and 

the meaning of effectiveness. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have concluded that 

implementing the effectiveness in 

serving employers indicator as a shared 

indicator across all core programs to be 

the most useful approach based on the 

collaborative nature of this method and 

the overwhelming majority of 

commenters who were in favor of this 

option. In doing so, States and local 

areas are better positioned to provide a 

single point of contact to each employer, 

making it easier for the differences 

between specific core programs to 

become invisible and enable the 

programs to serve together as a unified 

front. Measurement at the program level 

would be contrary to WIOA’s efforts to 

streamline reporting across programs, 

reduce burden on employers, and 

decrease the likelihood of duplicated 

employer counts. In keeping with such 

efforts, the Departments have opted not 

to require employers to fill out any 

additional surveys. The Departments 

had, however, prior to the publication of 

the NPRM, engaged in multiple 

meaningful exchanges with the 

employer community to receive 

feedback on the most appropriate ways 

to assess the utility of the public 

workforce system for businesses. 

In addition, through the 

implementation of the previously 

mentioned pilot program, the 

Departments will seek to discover the 

best methods for assessing how well 

workforce development aligns with 

business needs. There were a number of 

noteworthy measures suggested by State 

workforce agencies and nonprofit 

organizations, some of which will be 

included in the pilot, giving the 

Departments an opportunity to review 

some of the alternative methods that 

would help States to improve current 

relationships and establish strong future 

relationships with local employers, such 

as using the fill rate, employer referrals, 

the level of employer engagement, 

allowing any additional measure that 

the Governor may establish relating to 

services for employers, participation in 

targeted sector partnerships, the 

inclusion of recruitment, training, and 

other pre-hire services as part of the 

performance metric, using tiers to 

measure employer engagement, and the 

use of already existing electronic, or 

wage record data along with a myriad of 

other valuable recommendations. The 

Departments acknowledge the value of 

using a combination of metrics as 

pointed out by a number of commenters 

and will seek to delve further into the 

benefits of such an option through the 

use of the upcoming pilot program. No 

change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that the provision is not applicable to 

the INA program because it is not a core 

program. Another commenter requested 

that the measurement of effectiveness of 

serving employers be eliminated as a 

measure for Adult Education and 

Literacy because the program already 

works closely with Career and 

Technical Education, the workforce 

system, and industry to ensure that it is 

providing programs and services to meet 

the needs of employers. A commenter 

recommended that any finalized 

measure not allow a program to be 

penalized because of factors beyond its 

control. Another commenter requested 

information about feedback obtained at 

the stakeholder meetings that involved 

employer partners. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize that the INA 

program is not a core program. 

However, WIOA sec. 116(e)(5) requires 

that the performance accountability 

indicators (which include effectiveness 

in serving employers) be used to assess 

performance, and WIOA sec. 116(h)(2) 

requires agreement on the adjusted 

levels of performance for all of the 

primary indicators be reached between 

the Secretary of Labor and the entity 

carrying out activities under this 

section. 

In response to the comment 

requesting that the measurement of 

effectiveness of serving employers be 

eliminated as an indicator for the 

AEFLA program, the Departments have 

no authority to exempt AEFLA 

programs from the indicator regarding 

effectiveness in serving employers. 

WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A) explicitly 

requires that the State primary 

indicators of performance for the 

AEFLA activities authorized under title 

II, as well as for other specified 

programs and activities, shall include 

indicators of effectiveness in serving 

employers. In response to concerns 

about programs being required to 

account for factors beyond their control, 

the Departments refer to § 677.170 and 

the associated discussions regarding 

factors to be considered when coming to 

agreement on negotiated levels of 

performance, including the objective 

statistical model. The Departments have 

provided a summary of comments 

raised at stakeholder meetings and 

during the regulatory process above. No 

change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: Commenters expressed a 

great deal of concern regarding the 

implementation of an indicator that 

would likely cause undue penalty. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that this concern 

weighed heavily in the decision to allow 

employee retention to serve as a means 

of measuring employer satisfaction. The 

Departments also note that concerns 

regarding penalties are an issue that will 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55848 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

be greatly ameliorated with the use of 

benchmark target setting via the 

statistical adjustment model. The 

statistical adjustment model also will 

address issues such as size 

discrepancies across States and local 

areas, labor shortages, and other 

external factors and provide objective, 

realistic goals for improvement. 

Application of the statistical model to 

both set targets and apply sanctions is 

most effective when assessing 

quantitative metrics, with the use of 

qualitative metrics making both efforts 

exponentially more complex. It is for 

this reason that, although the 

Departments understand the 

significance of using such methods to 

evaluate quality service to employers, 

more qualitative metrics were not 

included as part of the effectiveness in 

serving employers indicator. 

As previously stated, a great deal of 

discussion regarding these and other 

proposed methods for measuring this 

indicator took place during previous 

webinars and town halls with State 

workforce agencies, members of the 

employer community, and other 

stakeholders. The outcome of these 

discussions was the three options listed 

within the NPRM. Understanding the 

importance of receiving extensive 

feedback on this issue, the Departments 

requested further input via the NPRM 

and the proposed WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR, the responses for 

which can be found on regulations.gov. 

No change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to these comments. 

Section 677.155(a)(2). The 

Departments added a new paragraph 

§ 677.155(a)(2) after considering public 

comments received in response to the 

proposed WIOA Joint Performance ICR, 

particularly with regard to discrete 

populations that would be excluded 

from performance calculations. As 

noted in both the preamble to the NPRM 

and the supporting statement to the 

proposed WIOA Joint Performance ICR, 

because of the close relationship 

between the two documents, the 

Departments informed the public that 

comments on either the NPRM or the 

proposed WIOA Joint Performance ICR 

would be used to form the basis for 

necessary changes in both the Joint 

WIOA Final Rule and the finalized 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR. After 

reviewing WIOA sec. 116, the 

Departments have concluded that the 

purpose of the performance 

accountability system is to measure a 

program’s performance with respect to 

the populations served and the services 

provided. A program’s performance 

should be measured in terms of 

populations it is designed to serve or 

services it is designed to provide. In so 

doing, the performance accountability 

system will measure a program’s 

performance more precisely. Given that 

sec. 116(f) of WIOA imposes sanctions 

for poor performance, it is critical that 

the Departments receive data that 

accurately reflect a program’s 

performance. Explicitly defining which 

participants will be included in 

performance indicator calculations will 

allow a program’s performance to be 

assessed appropriately. It is for this 

reason that the Departments proposed 

certain ‘‘exclusions’’ in the proposed 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR. 

The Departments have added 

language in the Joint WIOA Final Rule 

at § 677.150(a)(2)(i) to exclude 

individuals receiving services under 

sec. 225 of WIOA from all primary 

performance indicators for purposes of 

performance accountability, except the 

measurable skill gains indicator 

(§ 677.155(a)(1)(v)). This is because the 

measurable skill gains indicator is the 

only performance indicator applicable 

to this population. In so doing, the 

Departments ensure programs serving 

these individuals will not be 

inadvertently subject to low 

performance levels with regard to those 

indicators not applicable to sec. 225 

participants. 

Section 677.150(a)(2)(ii) allows the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education to 

make further decisions as to the 

participants to be included in 

calculating program performance levels 

for other purposes that are necessary 

with regard to any of the primary 

performance indicators. Further 

information about those exclusions is 

provided through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR and related guidance. 

Section 677.155(b)—Indicators for the 

Employment Service Programs 

Paragraph (b) of § 677.155 remains 

unchanged from that proposed in the 

NPRM. The Departments did not receive 

any comments regarding this provision. 

Section 677.155(c)—Indicators for the 

Youth Program 

Paragraph (c) of § 677.155 implements 

the primary indicators for the WIOA 

title I youth program, as described in 

sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(ii) of WIOA. No change 

to the regulatory text is being made in 

response to public comments. 

Comments: A few commenters 

supported the fact that the common 

performance indicators for youth 

programs apply only to WIOA title I 

youth programs. Some commenters 

remarked that employment rate 

measures are different for youth and 

adults because the youth measure 

allows enrollment in education and 

training to be included in the indicator, 

that this difference is likely to work 

against co-enrollment. These 

commenters suggested that 18 to 24 year 

old individuals co-enrolled in the WIOA 

title I youth program and other WIOA 

programs only be included in the youth 

indicators. 

Departments’ Response: Although the 

Departments recognize that subjecting 

such youth to adult and youth 

employment rate indicators could serve 

as a barrier to co-enrollment, WIOA 

only authorizes the youth indicators for 

the WIOA title I youth program and 

does not authorize these indicators for 

any other WIOA core program. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that the following outcomes count 

toward the first two youth statutory 

indicators as successful outcomes: (1) 

Unsubsidized employment, (2) military 

employment, (3) education (secondary 

or postsecondary), (4) advanced training 

(long-term licensed or credentialed, for 

example, registered nurse training), and 

(5) occupational skills training. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that these suggested 

outcomes, and additionally registered 

apprenticeships, are among the 

successful outcomes for the first two 

statutory indicators, but do not think 

that any change to the regulatory text is 

necessary to accommodate such 

outcomes as successful. Specific 

references to particular successful 

outcomes will be included in the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that supplemental data be allowed to 

measure employment in the second and 

fourth quarters after exit because UI 

wage record data alone do not capture 

the full spectrum of employment 

options. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree and have chosen to 

permit the States to use non-wage 

record matches (supplemental 

information) in calculating the 

performance indicators, subject to use 

consistent with the Departments’ 

guidance on this issue. More 

information can be read about this in 

the preamble to § 677.175 below. That 

guidance regarding the use of 

supplemental wage data will be relevant 

to the use of supplemental data to 

determine employment status. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended consideration of planned 

short-term employment by youth as a 

positive outcome, such as internships. 

Another commenter requested that 

service programs such as AmeriCorps, 

NCCC, and Public Allies be counted as 

‘‘unsubsidized employment.’’ A 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55849 

commenter recommended that 

placement in unsubsidized employment 

or postsecondary education count as a 

success regardless of the quarter in 

which it occurs, rather than focusing 

only on the second and fourth quarters 

after exit. Similarly, one commenter 

asked that attainment of initial 

employment count as a successful 

outcome (i.e., a placement rate). 

Departments’ Response: As required 

by sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) and (II) of 

WIOA, only unsubsidized employment 

will count as a positive outcome for 

employment in the first and second 

indicators. Internships that are 

subsidized would not count as a 

positive employment outcome, but they 

are an important service in preparing 

youth for unsubsidized employment. 

However, service programs, such as 

AmeriCorps, would count as a positive 

outcome in the first and second primary 

youth indicators because these service 

programs are considered training for the 

purposes of those youth indicators. The 

Departments will clarify the 

categorization of service programs in the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR. The first 

and second primary youth indicators 

measure the percentage of participants 

in unsubsidized employment, or in 

education or training activities, during 

the second and fourth quarters after exit. 

The Departments do not have the 

authority to deviate from the WIOA 

statute by counting participants’ status 

in the first and third quarters after exit, 

or by counting participants as successful 

simply upon attainment of initial 

employment. 

Comments: A few commenters 

expressed concern that the requirement 

to track educational attainment up to a 

year after exit may prove infeasible. One 

commenter favored alignment of 

reporting that is required on post-school 

outcomes. 

Departments’ Response: Although the 

Departments recognize that tracking 

attainment up to a year after exit is 

difficult for an often-transient youth 

population, the WIOA title I youth 

program includes a follow-up services 

program element that is required to last 

not less than 12 months after 

completion of participation. The 

requirement to capture program 

outcomes 1 year after exit is consistent 

with the follow-up services program 

element. In addition, follow-up services 

help ensure youth receive the support 

they need as they transition to the world 

of work or postsecondary education. 

Regarding alignment of reporting on 

post-school outcomes, WIOA requires 

the specific indicators for youth 

programs identified in WIOA sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(ii). No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: A number of commenters 

stated that the Departments only should 

measure status of employment or 

education in the second quarter after 

exit, rather than an entered employment 

or education rate that includes only 

those not employed or not in education 

prior to program enrollment. This 

commenter also asked for a clarification 

of the definition of education and 

training activities related to the two 

youth indicators that measure the 

percentage of participants in 

unsubsidized employment or in 

education or training activities. One 

commenter suggested that any type of 

education should count in the two 

youth indicators related to employment 

or education or training. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that the first two 

indicators only should measure status of 

employment or education in the second 

and fourth quarter after exit, 

respectively, regardless of employment 

or education status at enrollment. The 

definition of education and training 

activities related to the two youth 

indicators will be included in the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR. Both secondary 

and postsecondary education will count 

as successful outcomes for the two 

youth indicators related to employment 

or education or training. No change to 

the regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: Many commenters 

addressed the third primary 

performance indicator, which measures 

median earnings in the second quarter 

after exit. The commenters reasoned 

that areas that are highly successful in 

exiting youth to postsecondary 

education and training should not be 

penalized; therefore, youth who are 

working part-time and are also in 

education or training activities should 

be excluded from the calculation of 

median earnings. In addition, a 

commenter suggested that the focus of 

services to youth is education and 

training and, therefore, a measure of 

median earnings does not seem 

appropriate. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA 

requires all participants with earnings 

in the second quarter after exit to be 

included in the earnings indicator, 

including participants engaged in 

education or training programs. 

Therefore, youth who are working part 

time while in education or training 

activities will be included in the 

calculation of median earnings. Those 

engaged in both employment and 

education and training will be taken 

into account in both the statistical 

adjustment model and through target 

setting. No change to the regulatory text 

is being made in response to these 

comments. 

The fourth primary indicator for 

youth measures attainment of a 

recognized postsecondary credential, or 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent, by participants 

who are enrolled in an education or 

training program (excluding those in onthe-job training or incumbent worker 

training), subject to the caveat that such 

participants only are measured as 

successes if the participant is also 

employed or enrolled in an education or 

training program leading to a recognized 

postsecondary credential within 1 year 

from program exit. The language of this 

indicator is the same as the indicator in 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(iv). The Departments 

have provided an in-depth explanation 

of this in the preamble for 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(iv) above and refer 

readers to this section for more 

information on this indicator. No 

particular comments were received 

regarding the implementation of the 

fourth primary youth indicator, other 

than discussed above. The Departments 

are implementing § 677.155(c)(4) as 

revised. 

The fifth primary indicator 

documents measurable skill gains. The 

language of this indicator is the same as 

the indicator in § 677.155(a)(1)(v). The 

Departments have provided an in-depth 

explanation of these changes in the 

preamble for § 677.155(a)(1)(v) above. 

No particular comments were received 

regarding the implementation of the 

fifth primary youth indicator, other than 

discussed above. The Departments are 

implementing § 677.155(c)(5) as revised 

and discussed in more detail above with 

respect to § 677.155(a)(1)(v). 

The sixth primary indicator measures 

effectiveness in serving employers. The 

Departments’ approach for measuring 

this indicator and the resulting changes 

to the regulatory text are discussed in 

significant detail in the preamble 

discussion for § 677.155(a)(1)(vi) above 

and that approach is applicable for this 

indicator for purposes of calculating 

performance under the title I youth 

program. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that the proposed youth indicators in 

§ 677.155(d)(1) and (2) sufficiently 

measure employer satisfaction and that, 

to the extent that those measures do not 

sufficiently measure employer 

satisfaction, a brief survey could be 

developed and administered to measure 

employer satisfaction. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have concluded that the 

effectiveness in serving employers 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55850 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

indicator is statutorily required as a 

separate indicator from percentage of 

participants in education or training 

activities, or in unsubsidized 

employment, during the second and 

fourth quarters after exit from the 

program. The Departments will be 

implementing a pilot program, as 

discussed above, to assess measures of 

effectiveness in serving employers. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that the introductory description 

provided under this proposed section is 

confusing regarding the primary 

indicators, particularly when 

distinguishing between the adult and 

youth indicators. The commenter 

suggested that the indicators of 

performance for adults and youth be 

separately described so there is no 

confusion in the field as to which 

indicators apply to each population 

group. 

Departments’ Response: As suggested, 

the Joint WIOA Final Rule separates 

adult and youth indicators to avoid 

confusion. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that the VR program report youth 

performance separately just as title I 

youth programs. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

§ 677.155(d) of the NPRM contained the 

performance indicators set forth in sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(ii) of WIOA, which applies 

only to the title I youth program. These 

youth performance indicators are now 

found in the final regulatory text at 

§ 677.155(c). WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i) 

requires all other core programs, 

including the VR program, to comply 

with the primary performance 

indicators set forth in sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(i) of WIOA and 

§ 677.155(a)(1). Therefore, there is no 

statutory authority for the Departments 

to do as the commenter suggests. 

The Departments understand that the 

VR program pays for training and 

education needed for individuals, 

including youth, to obtain employment. 

Because the youth indicators in 

§ 677.155(c) are not applicable to the VR 

program, State VR programs are not 

required to report outcomes under the 

youth indicators. Adult and youth 

performance outcomes can be 

differentiated in the RSA–911 data, as 

has always been the case, with no need 

for additional reporting burden. 

Section 677.160 What information is 

required for State performance reports? 

Section 677.160, which implements 

sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA, identifies the 

information States are statutorily 

required to report in the State 

performance report, including levels 

achieved for the primary indicators of 

performance. No substantive changes 

have been made to this section. 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed concern that in many States 

and tribal nations it will be timeconsuming and costly to collect the data 

and produce a report for all core 

programs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments understand the concerns 

expressed by some of the commenters 

regarding the collection of data needed 

to produce the annual reports and have 

made every effort to minimize the 

burden and cost to States by 

incorporating only necessary data 

elements in the Departments’ data 

collection instrument provided through 

the WIOA Joint Performance ICR. Prior 

to amending each Department’s data 

collection instrument, considerable time 

was taken to ensure the required data 

elements collected would be consistent 

across all core programs and that the 

only elements added would be 

necessary to meet the requirements 

under sec. 116 of WIOA, thereby 

minimizing the burden as much as 

possible. Each core program will be 

responsible for submitting performance 

reports to their respective Federal 

agency, just as has been done prior to 

WIOA. Further, the Departments clarify 

in this response that there is no 

requirement in WIOA or the Joint WIOA 

Final Rule that data reporting be 

integrated among all core programs. As 

discussed in more detail with respect to 

the issue of ‘‘common exit’’ in the 

preamble for § 677.150(c) above, DOL 

intends to work towards developing an 

integrated reporting mechanism for the 

core programs it administers. The 

Departments are open to States wishing 

to submit integrated performance 

reports, but a single report submission 

across core programs is not required. If 

a State were to do this, it must ensure 

that it reports on all required reporting 

elements—both for the common 

performance accountability system 

under sec. 116 of WIOA and for each of 

the program-specific reporting elements. 

Comments: Commenters 

recommended that the Departments 

develop guidance, technical assistance, 

or an integrated set of reporting 

specifications that will allow States to 

submit customer data in the same 

format for each of the six core programs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the need for, and 

will develop and disseminate, guidance 

and associated technical assistance 

related to the preparation and 

submission of joint and WIOA titlespecific performance reporting, and the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that the Departments, working with 

State and local systems, should consider 

how core programs can collect and 

provide information on the amount of 

training provided to program 

participants. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the comment 

and have concluded that data that will 

be collected through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR associated with this 

Joint WIOA Final Rule are sufficient to 

meet the requirements of sec. 116(d)(2) 

of WIOA. Prior to imposing additional 

information collection requirements, the 

Departments must consider them in the 

context of associated burden and cost. 

The Departments have concluded that 

the final information collections meet 

the statutory requirement while 

minimizing reporting burden to the 

extent possible. 

Comments: Commenters urged the 

Departments to allow the State and local 

agencies that administer the core 

programs to have access to the data they 

need, such as UI wage record data. A 

commenter added that in some States, a 

release of information form must be 

signed by the participant. Another 

commenter recommended that States 

should be given the option to await the 

results of the national data integration 

workgroup before creating their State 

interoperable system. 

Departments’ Response: With regard 

to the commenters’ concerns about the 

availability of quarterly wage record 

information and the need for, in some 

cases, informed consent for the 

disclosures required under applicable 

privacy and confidentiality laws and 

regulations for all programs, the 

Departments did not modify this 

regulation. The Departments are 

developing, and will disseminate, 

guidance that covers the allowable 

disclosures and processes through 

which disclosures can be made under 

20 CFR part 603, 20 U.S.C. 1232g and 

34 CFR part 99 and 34 CFR 361.38. 

Additionally, work is underway to renegotiate the Wage Record Interchange 

System Data Sharing Agreements to 

establish pathways to the wage record 

matching required for all core programs 

to meet their performance reporting 

requirements. 

Paragraph (a)(1) of § 677.160 requires 

the total number of participants served 

and total number of participants exited, 

disaggregated by the number of 

individuals with barriers to employment 

and by numbers of participants coenrolled in core programs. No change to 

the regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55851 

Comments: Commenters supported 

the provision in § 677.160(a)(1)(i) that 

would require reporting to be 

disaggregated by categories for 

individuals with barriers to 

employment. Commenters also urged 

that the requirement apply to 

‘‘reportable individuals’’ as well as 

‘‘participants.’’ Those commenters 

generally suggested that the information 

in the reporting requirements should be 

disaggregated based on each disability 

subset and not the entire group. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the identified 

potential benefits for State reporting of 

disaggregated data for ‘‘reportable 

individuals’’ in addition to 

‘‘participants.’’ For the purpose of 

§ 677.160, the Departments are 

addressing only the requirements for 

States’ annual performance report as 

required under sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA, 

which requires reports on only 

participants. It should be noted that the 

different core programs already collect 

and report information pertaining to 

‘‘reportable individuals’’ through their 

separate individual reporting vehicles. 

With regard to the discrete disability 

categories, RSA currently collects a 

number of data elements, including the 

primary and secondary disability type, 

for individuals who have been 

determined eligible for VR services and 

would be considered a ‘‘reportable 

individual.’’ The data can be 

disaggregated in different categories, 

including by disability type. The final 

RSA–911, which is published 

concurrently with this Joint WIOA Final 

Rule, has been revised to align with the 

additional WIOA requirements. No 

change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended that the requirement to 

collect information on barriers to 

employment be tied to the point at 

which the initial IPE is signed. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize that different 

State programs have a number of 

questions regarding how each of the 

core programs will collect the required 

data elements, including at what point 

required demographic information will 

be collected to produce the most reliable 

information and how the current 

consumer information will be updated 

to meet the new WIOA requirements. 

These issues will be addressed through 

guidance related to the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR or the Departmentspecific ICRs. The Departments also 

note that § 677.150(a)(1) defines 

participants for the VR program as an 

individual who has an approved and 

signed IPE, and who has begun to 

receive services. Therefore, data 

elements required on ‘‘participants’’ 

must comply with the definition 

applicable to that term for the VR 

program. No change to the regulatory 

text is being made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: Commenters inquired 

about implementing a count of total 

participants and total exiters, 

disaggregated by co-enrollment in any of 

the core programs. A commenter 

expressed concern about being able to 

obtain the information. For 

disaggregated counts for those who 

participated by co-enrollment as 

required by § 677.160(a)(1)(ii), 

commenters warned that integrated case 

management and reporting systems 

would need to be in place, and the 

commenters requested technical 

assistance regarding how core programs 

housed in different agencies can share 

and compare participant data to meet 

reporting requirements. One 

commenter, however, supported the 

requirement to report data disaggregated 

for co-enrollment in any of the core 

programs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge that the 

absence of integrated case management 

or integrated reporting systems poses 

challenges to ensuring uniform and easy 

access to data across programs. The 

Departments have concluded that 

integrated data systems would allow for 

unified and streamlined intake, and case 

management and service delivery, and 

would overcome many such challenges. 

The Departments also note that such 

systems are not widely used or in place 

currently at the State level, and 

encourage States to examine ways in 

which this may be developed or 

implemented across core programs. The 

Departments note that data system 

integration ranges from data sharing 

between existing systems to employing 

consolidated systems. However, in the 

absence of such systems, the 

Departments encourage all programs to 

ensure strong partnerships and 

collaborative workspaces in which to 

ensure all programs can meet their 

reporting requirements. In addition to 

planning and conducting training and 

technical assistance on data sharing, the 

Departments will issue joint guidance 

for matching education and wage 

records in order to assist States in 

providing performance information 

required under WIOA. Additionally, the 

Departments will work with State and 

Local WDBs, one-stop center operators, 

and partners to achieve an integrated 

data system for the core programs and 

other programs to ensure 

interoperability and the accurate and 

standardized collection of program and 

participant information. No change to 

the regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Paragraph (a)(2) of § 677.160 requires 

disaggregated performance levels based 

on barriers to employment, age, sex, 

race, and ethnicity. Certain commenters 

favored this provision. No substantive 

change was made to this section. 

Paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(7) of 

§ 677.160 require information on 

participants who received career 

services and training services. The 

Departments have revised 

§ 677.160(a)(3), (4), (6) and (7) to specify 

that career services and training services 

are two different services, not one type 

of service. No change was made to 

§ 677.160(a)(5). 

Comments: Several commenters 

stated that tracking these detailed costs 

would be overly burdensome and 

exceed the value of the information 

gained. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the concerns 

identified by the commenters about the 

States’ ability to collect data pertaining 

to career services and training services, 

including expenditures. However, the 

data elements contained in the State 

performance report, including the data 

elements on career services and training 

services, are required by statute. No 

change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: A few commenters 

recommended that reporting begin with 

a 1 year period and work up to 3 years. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have concluded that these 

provisions are prospective provisions 

that do not require retroactive collection 

of information. Reporting begins in PY 

2016, and by PY 2018 States will have 

reported 3 years of data. No change to 

the regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: Commenters asked for a 

definition of ‘‘career and training 

service’’ and the relationship to 

‘‘vocational and training services’’ in the 

VR program regulations. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA 

defines both career services and training 

services in sec. 134(c)(2) and (c)(3)(D), 

respectively. Additionally, further 

information is provided in § 678.430 of 

this Joint WIOA Final Rule about career 

services in the one-stop delivery system. 

Although the definitions are contained 

in statutory provisions relevant only to 

the title I core programs, sec. 121 of 

WIOA (which applies to all core 

programs) requires each of the core 

programs to provide career services and 

training services, as applicable to the 

program, thereby making those 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55852 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

definitions relevant to all core programs, 

including the VR program. Furthermore, 

these services are consistent with the 

types of services provided by the VR 

program and with the data collected 

through the VR program’s RSA–911 

collection instrument. 

With respect to § 677.160(a)(3) (4), (6), 

and (7), the Departments have revised 

the regulatory text to address 

commenter requests for clarity. The 

previous language at § 677.160(a)(3) 

referred to ‘‘the total number of 

participants and exiters who received 

career and training services for the most 

recent program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program.’’ This has been revised to refer 

to ‘‘the total number of participants who 

received career services and the total 

number of participants who exited from 

career services for the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, and the total number of 

participants who received training 

services and the total number of 

participants who exited from training 

services for the most recent program 

year and the 3 preceding program years 

as applicable to the program.’’ In so 

doing, the Departments make clear that 

career services and training services are 

two different types of services, not one 

type of service. The revised language is 

also more consistent with the statutory 

provision by referring to ‘‘participants 

who exited’’ rather than ‘‘exiters’’ since 

these final regulations define ‘‘exit,’’ not 

‘‘exiter.’’ A similar revision was made to 

§ 677.160(a)(4). Likewise, proposed 

§ 677.160(a)(6) previously referred to 

‘‘the amount of funds spent on each 

type of career and training service for 

the most recent program year and the 3 

preceding program years.’’ This 

language has been revised to refer to 

‘‘the amount of funds spent on career 

services and the amount of funds spent 

on training services for the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program.’’ A similar revision was made 

to § 677.160(a)(7). These changes clarify 

that the Departments interpret sec. 

116(d)(2)(D) to require the collection 

and reporting on participants who 

receive career services and participants 

who receive training services, as well as 

participants who exited from career 

services and training services, as a 

single point of collection and thus does 

not require an itemized collection and 

reporting on each of the various career 

services or each of the various training 

services that a program provides. 

Instead, the amount to be reported is the 

total amount spent on career services 

and the total amount spent on training 

services. 

Comments: Paragraph (a)(3) of 

§ 677.160 requires reporting on the 

number of participants and exiters who 

received career services and training 

services. A number of comments were 

received regarding the difficulty of 

tracking costs associated with 

expenditures of funds on such services, 

as required in paragraph (a)(6). 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments will provide technical 

assistance or guidance in regard to 

tracking costs associated with 

expenditures of funds on career and 

training services. 

No particular comments were 

received in regard to § 677.160(a)(4). 

Paragraph (a)(5) of § 677.160 requires 

reporting on the percentage of 

participants who obtained trainingrelated employment through WIOA title 

I, subtitle B programs. 

Comments: Some commenters warned 

that determining what constitutes 

training-related employment under 

paragraph (a)(5) is highly subjective and 

requires clarification. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments will provide more 

information regarding what constitutes 

training-related employment services 

through the WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR and through guidance. No change to 

the regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) of 

§ 677.160 require reporting on the 

amount of funds spent on career 

services and training services, and the 

average cost per participant for 

participants receiving career services 

and training services. 

Comments: Commenters requested 

guidance on whether the average cost 

per participant for career and training 

services refers to the cost to serve the 

individual or the costs of the career and 

training services, and whether 

administrative costs are included. 

Separately, one of these commenters 

also asked for the meaning of ‘‘type’’ of 

service needed for disaggregation in 

reporting under paragraph (a)(6). 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments will provide guidance 

regarding calculations of costs in the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR. The 

Departments have revised 

§ 677.160(a)(6) to reflect the statutory 

language, as WIOA did not require 

reports on the amount of funds spent on 

career services and training services to 

be disaggregated by the type of career 

service or training service. The language 

of the regulation no longer refers to the 

‘‘type’’ of service. 

Paragraph (a)(8) of § 677.160 requires 

that States report on the percent of the 

State’s annual WIOA allotment 

expended on administrative costs. 

Comments: A commenter sought 

clarification on whether this means the 

percentage of each core program’s 

annual allotment spent on 

administrative cost, or the State as a 

whole. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments want to clarify that 

§ 677.160(a)(8) applies only with respect 

to the allotment under WIOA sec. 132(b) 

and not with respect to allotments 

under other core programs. No change 

to the regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Paragraph (a)(9) of § 677.160 requires 

information that facilitates comparisons 

with programs in other States. 

Comments: Some commenters 

opposed a requirement for additional 

data collection and preferred, for 

example, development of shared tools/ 

surveys for measuring the quality of 

services to one-stop center customers. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that WIOA allows 

consideration of information that is 

necessary to facilitate comparison of 

programs across States, which could 

potentially include the development of 

shared tools or surveys. No change to 

the regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. Further, 

the Departments note that 

implementation of this provision would 

be accomplished through the 

information collection request process. 

Comments: The Departments also 

sought comments on the potential 

inclusion of a supplemental customer 

service measure, including suggestions 

on how to structure such a measure and 

whether the inclusion of such a measure 

would be valuable. Commenters did not 

favor developing a universal access 

point for customer feedback to be 

provided with regard to the one-stop 

centers, though other commenters 

expressed support for State or local 

measures of customer satisfaction. One 

commenter asserted that such 

information would serve as a foundation 

for substantive strategic planning, 

continuous improvement, program 

research and evaluation, and the 

dissemination of best practices 

nationwide. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments are considering various 

mechanisms available to produce a 

national measure of customer 

satisfaction, with particular interest in a 

measure akin to the net promoter score 

used commonly in business and 

industry. Additionally, the Departments 

intend to collect information on 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55853 

customer satisfaction efforts used by the 

State and local areas through the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR as well as 

information on what States are doing to 

leverage such information in the 

management of their programs. The 

Departments continue to welcome input 

and participation from States and local 

areas on how to capture customer 

satisfaction as it pertains to usage of the 

public workforce system. 

Comments: Other commenters also 

supported the provision and suggested 

customer service measures to assess the 

quality of services, but warned that 

guidance is needed. A few commenters 

reasoned that a customer service 

measure is valuable only if the local 

area receives the information and has a 

mechanism to reach out to the customer 

and make the experience better. 

A few commenters warned that 

obtaining the data would be difficult 

and suggested that the measure should 

be left to the discretion of the State or 

local government. Commenters 

recommended that the provision should 

be part of the continuous improvement 

process at the local level. In addition to 

the approach described above, the 

Departments also are interested in the 

work that has been developed and used 

at the State and local levels with regard 

to customer satisfaction, as well as what 

actions States and Local areas have and 

will take in response to such feedback. 

Departments’ Response: At this time, 

the Departments are not modifying the 

regulatory text to regulate such 

activities. As discussed above, the 

Departments recognize that, a national, 

State or local customer satisfaction 

measure would require guidance and 

technical assistance that will be 

provided through the mechanisms 

available such as the information 

collection request process, which allows 

for notice and public comment, program 

guidance, and technical assistance. The 

Departments reiterate their intent to 

implement a uniform, national customer 

satisfaction survey, applicable to both 

participants and reportable individuals. 

While this customer satisfaction survey 

will not be tied to accountability 

provisions, and the survey results will 

not be factored into determinations of 

sanctions, customer satisfaction will be 

a factor considered in the certification of 

one-stop centers. The Departments 

anticipate the survey will encompass 

two elements: A national net-promoter 

score-type indicator will be issued 

through the amended WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR with a standard 

methodology; and a State-based 

methodology that States will develop 

and States and Local WDBs will use for 

one-stop center accountability and 

customer service improvement. A focus 

from the Federal level will be on 

understanding what States and local 

WDBs did with the results, which is 

critical to using the data and 

information gathered towards the 

betterment of service delivery and 

design. When the Departments collect 

information on these activities, such 

actions and instructions will be 

conveyed through the information 

collection process that is also subject to 

notice and public comment. 

Comments: Paragraph (a)(10) of 

§ 677.160 requires a State narrative 

report regarding pay-for-performance 

contracting. A local government 

recommended that the Departments 

provide a clear definition of pay-forperformance contracts. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments did not introduce a 

definition of pay-for-performance 

contracts under this section of the 

regulation. The Departments refer to 20 

CFR part 683, subpart E, where the 

allowance and guidelines for pay-forperformance activities is more fully 

described (see DOL WIOA Final Rule, 

published in this issue of the Federal 

Register). Paragraph (a)(10) of § 677.160 

remains unchanged from that proposed 

in the NPRM. 

Paragraph (b) of § 677.160 prohibits 

the disaggregation of data for a category 

in the State performance report if the 

number of participants in that category 

is insufficient to yield statistically 

reliable information. 

Comments: Commenters suggested 

that States are likely to have several 

‘‘cell sizes’’ that do not meet the 

standard of statistical reliability; 

therefore, reporting requirements should 

include alternative methods for 

summarizing data into larger aggregates. 

A commenter requested guidance on an 

acceptable level of disaggregation of 

data. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize that 

disaggregation can produce certain cell 

sizes that fall below the aggregation 

levels that are allowed in order to 

protect the data from yielding PII. 

The Departments did not impose a 

minimum disaggregation level in this 

section of the NPRM or this Joint WIOA 

Final Rule and will provide additional 

clarity through guidance regarding 

aggregation that is statistically 

significant and reliable yet protects the 

identity of individuals served through 

the programs. In developing such 

guidelines and guidance, the 

Departments have considered industry 

standards such as those established by 

the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

(FERPA), the confidentiality regulations 

for the VR program at 34 CFR 361.38, 

the UC confidentiality regulations found 

at 20 CFR part 603, the Social Security 

Act sec. 1137(a)(5) as well as State laws 

that govern aggregation levels and 

factors that can be used to affect the 

level of suppression required to 

maintain the privacy and confidentiality 

of participant data. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Furthermore, the Departments reiterate 

their interpretation of this statutory 

provision of WIOA, as noted in the 

NPRM at 80 FR 20474, 20589 (April. 16, 

2015). As written, WIOA sec. 116(d)(2) 

requires the performance report to be 

subject to WIOA sec. 116(d)(5)(C). 

However, this section refers to Data 

Validation, and the Departments 

interpret this reference to requires States 

to comply with sec. 116(d)(6)(C), which 

ensures the Departments receive 

statistically reliable information and 

protects participants’ privacy. The 

Departments are implementing this 

regulation as proposed. 

Paragraph (c) of § 677.160 requires 

that the State performance report 

include a mechanism of electronic 

access to the State’s local area and ETP 

performance reports. This provision 

does not require a State to submit the 

actual local area and ETP performance 

reports with its State report. Failure to 

provide a mechanism of electronic 

access to the State’s local area and ETP 

performance reports will constitute an 

incomplete State performance report 

submission, and thus trigger sanctions. 

No comments were received regarding 

this electronic access reporting 

requirement. This section remains 

unchanged from that proposed in the 

NPRM. 

Paragraph (d) of § 677.160 states that 

States and local areas must comply with 

the requirements in sec. 116 of WIOA as 

explained through joint guidance that 

the Departments will promulgate. This 

section remains unchanged from that 

proposed in the NPRM. 

Section 677.165 May a State establish 

additional indicators of performance? 

Section 677.165 reflects the WIOA 

provisions in sec. 116(b)(2)(B) that a 

State may identify in the Unified or 

Combined State Plan additional 

performance accountability indicators. 

For example, a State could add an 

indicator for attaining U.S. citizenship, 

work readiness, completion of workbased learning, or any other indicator of 

State significance. This provision of 

additional performance indicators 

proposed by the State remains 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55854 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

unchanged from WIA. There were no 

comments on proposed § 677.165. There 

were no substantive changes made to 

this section. 

Section 677.170 How are State levels 

of performance for primary indicators 

established? 

Section 677.170 outlines the process 

that will be followed and the factors that 

will be considered in determining 

adjusted levels of performance. WIOA 

uses the term ‘‘adjusted levels’’ to refer 

to both the levels agreed to prior to the 

start of a program year, as well as the 

adjustment done using the objective 

statistical model at the close of the 

program year. In order to distinguish 

between the two adjustment processes 

described in statute, this section was 

revised to use two different terms for 

each process, specifically ‘‘negotiated 

levels of performance’’ and ‘‘adjusted 

levels of performance.’’ Section 677.170 

was revised to provide specific 

distinctions among expected levels, 

negotiated levels, and adjusted levels of 

performance. The section explains the 

process under which levels of 

performance are negotiated, adjusted, 

and then calculated. 

Section 677.170(a)(1) implements the 

requirement in sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(iii) that 

States provide expected levels of 

performance in the initial submission of 

the Unified or Combined State Plan for 

the first 2 years of the plan. In addition, 

the Departments are requiring in 

§ 677.170(a)(2) that the States submit 

expected levels of performance for the 

third and fourth years before the start of 

the third program year covered by the 

Unified or Combined State Plan 

consistent with §§ 676.135 and 676.145, 

as part of the State Plan modifications 

under sec. 102(c)(3)(A) of WIOA. 

Comments: One commenter 

questioned whether performance levels 

required in the State Plans are the 

proposed standards or the negotiated 

standards since the term ‘‘expected’’ is 

used. The commenter also 

recommended that the State WDB 

coordinate and participate in 

performance negotiations for each 

partner and that the negotiations be 

completed with States at least 45 days 

before the statutory deadlines for 

submission of the 4-year plans and the 

2-year plan modifications. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

116(b)(3)(A)(iii) of WIOA requires that 

each State identify expected levels of 

performance for each of the 

corresponding primary indicators of 

performance for each of the core 

programs for the first 2 program years 

covered by the Unified or Combined 

State Plan. The expected levels of 

performance are those submitted by the 

State in the initial submission of the 

State Plan prior to negotiation. The 

expected levels of performance will be 

used to reach agreement with the 

Departments on State negotiated levels 

of performance. Therefore, the expected 

performance levels are similar to 

proposed goals, reflecting the State’s 

expectations for its performance. These 

expected levels, however, will be 

adjusted through negotiations between 

the State and the Departments in 

accordance with sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(iv) of 

WIOA. Once the negotiated levels of 

performance are agreed upon, these 

levels will be incorporated into the 

approved Unified or Combined State 

Plan. Section 677.170(a) reflects this 

statutory requirement. The Departments 

did not modify the regulation to require 

coordination across core programs with 

regard to the negotiations process, as 

recommended by the commenter. The 

Departments agree that the commenter’s 

suggestions are important for the 

purposes and priorities of WIOA and 

strongly encourage coordination across 

the core programs and other partner 

programs with respect to negotiating 

performance levels for all programs 

operating in a State. This section is 

consistent with the statutory 

requirements; the timing of the 

negotiation is connected to the approval 

of the State Plan. The Departments will 

provide guidance about the negotiation 

process. 

Section 677.170(b) requires that the 

State reach agreement with the 

Secretaries on negotiated levels of 

performance based on the factors in 

WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(v). The 

Departments reiterate that WIOA uses 

the term ‘‘adjusted levels’’ to refer to 

both the levels agreed to prior to the 

start of a program year, as well as the 

adjustment done using the objective 

statistical model at the close of the 

program year. This paragraph was 

revised to use the term ‘‘negotiated 

levels’’ as appropriate, to distinguish 

between the two processes. 

The Departments sought comments on 

whether any additional factors, beyond 

those identified in the proposed 

regulation, should be considered in 

developing the statistical adjustment 

model, and the best approach to 

updating the model as necessary. 

Comments: Several commenters 

requested clarification of the 

requirement for promoting continuous 

improvement, as set forth in paragraph 

(b)(3) of § 677.170. One commenter 

recommended that the Departments 

consider embracing the full concept of 

continuous improvement or eliminate 

the term from the regulations because a 

true continuous improvement measure 

may have nothing to do with increasing 

a performance measure and may seek to 

improve a process. Another commented 

that continuous improvement can be 

defined in a variety of ways, including 

as improvements in efficiency. 

Commenters also requested that 

continuous improvement be defined in 

the regulation. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments want to make clear that 

sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(v) of WIOA requires 

the negotiated levels of performance 

take into account four factors, including, 

among other things, how the levels of 

performance promote continuous 

improvement. The Departments 

recognize the complexities involved in 

using a continuous improvement factor 

in performance negotiations. However, 

the Departments are unable to remove 

the continuous improvement factor from 

the regulation because it is a statutory 

requirement. The Departments will 

issue guidance on the performance 

negotiations process that will provide 

additional information regarding how 

the factor will be applied. No change to 

the regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Section 677.170(c) provides that the 

Secretaries will disseminate an objective 

statistical adjustment model that will be 

used both to reach agreement on the 

State negotiated levels of performance 

and to revise the negotiated levels at the 

end of a program year, to establish the 

adjusted levels of performance. The 

objective statistical adjustment model 

will account for actual economic 

conditions and characteristics of 

participants, including the factors 

required by WIOA sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(v)(II). The Departments will 

consider identified statutory factors and 

other factors, which through empirical 

support are established to have an effect 

on employment or skill outcomes and 

are consistent with the factors identified 

in WIOA. The Departments also will 

publish guidance that includes how the 

model was developed, what factors were 

considered, and how the results are 

interpreted. 

The regulation reflects the statutory 

requirement that the objective statistical 

model consider certain factors. The 

differences among States in actual 

economic conditions, as set forth in 

§ 677.170(c)(1) for required inclusion in 

the statistical adjustment model, 

include the same economic conditions 

identified in WIOA sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(v)(II)(aa). The 

characteristics of participants, as set 

forth in § 677.170(c)(2) for required 

inclusion in the statistical adjustment 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55855 

model, include the factors identified in 

WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(v)(II)(bb). 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

concern that including participants’ 

disability status as a factor in the 

objective statistical model could 

unintentionally undermine the goal of 

increasing the number of participants 

with disabilities in integrated and 

competitive employment settings. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that disability status 

is a statutorily required factor for the 

objective statistical model. The 

Departments also note that continuous 

improvement is a factor in establishing 

the negotiated levels of performance. 

Comments: In the preamble to the 

NPRM, the Departments requested 

comments specifically concerning 

additional factors to consider in 

developing the statistical adjustment 

model. Many commenters supported the 

commitment to use a statistical model 

and offered additional factors, including 

race, Hispanic ethnicity, age, gender, 

veterans in the area, severity of 

disability (e.g., receiving Social Security 

disability benefits), seasonal 

employment, self-employment, 

minimum wage and other economic 

data applicable to the local area, nature 

of predominant employers in the area, 

quality of educational and training 

facilities in the area, crime rate in the 

area, public transportation and 

geographic barriers in the area, 

unemployment rate applicable to young 

people, lack of a high school diploma, 

individuals not in the workforce, and 

ratio of earnings at program entry to 

child support arrearages. 

Departments’ Response: Upon 

consideration of comments regarding 

additional factors to be included in the 

model, the Departments concluded 

additional regulation is not required to 

include additional factors. The 

Departments intend, in accordance with 

the statutory requirements for the use of 

an objective statistical model, to 

consider those identified statutory 

factors along with any other factors 

either established within WIOA or 

through empirical support (and which 

are consistent with the factors in the 

statute) to have an effect on employment 

or skill outcomes as measured by the 

primary indicators of performance 

established in § 677.155. Factors that are 

included in the model will be based on 

the application of empirically supported 

statistical analyses used to determine 

the effect of a particular factor on 

participant outcomes. The statistical 

adjustment model will be reviewed 

periodically and may be revised with 

appropriate consultation to ensure its 

accuracy and utility. 

Comments: A commenter asserted 

that adjusted performance levels should 

include a factor for small States, singlearea States, and areas of generally lower 

population. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments are considering all 

potential factors in an effort to establish 

a model that is evidence-based and 

supported by the literature. Having 

conducted a review of the existing 

literature, the Departments have 

concluded that small States and singlearea State structures would be 

accounted for by those variables that 

capture industrial structures, 

unemployment rates, and shares of the 

population represented by race and 

educational levels. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that the Departments be mindful of the 

potential burden that requiring 

additional data collection would create 

and urged reducing reporting burdens 

and simplifying reporting requirements. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments are mindful of the 

reporting burden that would result from 

requiring additional information on 

participants. In this case, the 

Departments aim to work with States as 

well as other agencies that may have 

administrative data that could be used 

to populate the model based on 

established, empirical evidence that 

such information is shown to have an 

effect on the outcomes being measured. 

Comments: A few of the commenters 

suggested that the Secretaries may need 

to establish separate statistical models 

for different programs, such as those for 

youth and for adults, and suggested that 

the models should be tested over a trial 

period and re-examined. Commenters 

also recommended regular updates to 

the models. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

116(b)(3)(A)(v)(II) of WIOA requires that 

adjustments be made using ‘‘the 

objective statistical model,’’ which the 

Departments will build on a common 

framework for all core programs to 

allow for programmatic differences 

between programs. The model will be 

examined and revised as necessary. No 

change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: One commenter raised 

concerns about the title II program not 

collecting individual records at the 

Federal level and stated that such 

records are absolutely necessary to 

develop and operate statistical models. 

The commenter urged the Departments 

to develop a common reporting 

mechanism. Other commenters noted 

that title II programs lack experience 

using adjustment models and requested 

additional guidance and technical 

assistance. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge that the use 

of aggregate data for the title II AEFLA 

program creates shortcomings for 

developing an adjustment model 

because, among other things, the results 

only can be used to adjust performance 

at the aggregate level (i.e., State) and 

results from these models cannot be 

applied to any sub-level (e.g., city, 

county). However, the Departments 

disagree that individual data are 

absolutely necessary to develop a 

statistical adjustment model for Statelevel adjustments. Aggregate data may 

be used in statistical adjustment models 

when individual records are not 

available. The Departments have already 

developed statistical models for other 

program purposes that produce accurate 

results using aggregated data and show 

that results are comparable for State 

level adjustments, regardless of whether 

individual data (i.e., disaggregated data) 

or aggregate data are used. The 

Departments note that for the AEFLA 

program under title II, ED will provide 

technical assistance to States in 

applying the statistical adjustment 

model. The Departments will develop 

procedures to minimize burden to States 

when using the model to generate 

adjusted levels of performance. No 

change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: A few commenters 

warned that there is limited or no 

statistical tribal data available that 

captures economic circumstances for 

the various Indian and Native American 

geographic service areas. One of these 

commenters added that a regression 

model that factors in local economic 

conditions will need to be developed for 

the INA program. 

Departments’ Response: In response 

to the commenter’s concern about 

developing an accurate regression 

model to establish levels of performance 

for INA program grantees, the 

Departments recognize that labor market 

information (LMI) for American Indian 

geographic service areas may not be as 

reliable as that for other areas. However, 

the regression model also factors in the 

characteristics of participants served by 

the grantee and is, therefore, not totally 

dependent on LMI. Despite the potential 

for inaccurate LMI data for American 

Indian geographic service areas, the 

Departments are confident a regression 

model can be developed that establishes 

fair and attainable levels of performance 

for each INA program grantee’s service 

area. The Departments envision 

developing further guidance regarding 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55856 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

INA adult performance indicators. No 

change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: Some commenters did not 

support the use of an adjustment model, 

or express concerns about the design of 

the State performance accountability 

systems, because of the temptation to 

serve those individuals who are more 

likely to achieve positive outcomes. 

This commenter also noted that the fact 

that the State has sufficient tools to 

evaluate current and projected 

performance to identify intervening 

occurrences that would trigger reevaluation of performance. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments understand the concerns 

expressed, sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(v)(II) of 

WIOA requires the use of an objective 

statistical model to adjust the State 

levels of performance based on actual 

economic conditions and characteristics 

of participants. The Departments 

caution that any service provider 

tempted to utilize the tactics described 

by the commenter should consider the 

impact on future performance levels, 

which may be affected because of 

relatively lower numbers or percentages 

of hard-to-serve populations and other 

populations with barriers to 

employment. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: Commenters added that 

the model will need to account for 

varying levels of impact of a particular 

demographic or local economic 

condition in different parts of the 

country, in particular race and ethnicity, 

offender status, dependence on public 

assistance, local minimum wage, and 

the local unemployment rates for young 

adults. Some commenters recommended 

these factors be explicitly mentioned in 

the regulation. One such commenter 

suggested that select CEOs participate in 

the selection of factors in different parts 

of the country. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments are considering a State 

fixed effect variable. Such a variable 

would account, in essence, for the 

quality of the programs and their 

services. The Departments, after 

consulting with various stakeholders 

and particularly in consultation with 

expert reviewers, identified that the 

most important piece of information 

that is not directly included within the 

statistical adjustment model for the 

purposes of the performance 

accountability system, is the quality of 

the programs and services. The model is 

being developed with consideration of 

all participant and student variables 

required by WIOA and the potential 

State specific factors that could be 

accounted for through a State fixed 

effect variable. This variable ultimately 

could serve the same purpose 

statistically as including additional 

individual characteristics and any other 

State characteristic not included in the 

model. With regard to participation of 

select CEOs in the selection of factors to 

be included within the statistical 

adjustment model, the Departments note 

that the methodology, including the 

factors in the model, will be available 

for public comment and review. 

Moreover, WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(viii) 

requires the Departments to develop an 

objective statistical model in 

consultation with a variety of 

stakeholders identified in sec. 

116(b)(4)(B), who would include CEOs. 

No change to the regulatory text is being 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: Some commenters also 

suggested that States should be allowed 

to provide additional information 

specific to the State that may not be 

fully accounted for in the national 

statistical models when setting 

performance targets. Some commenters 

suggested that State and local areas 

should be able to document this 

information and use it in performance 

negotiations. Others stated that 

additional State information is critical 

because it is not feasible to develop a 

single statistical model with one set of 

demographic and economic variables 

that is equally accurate for all States and 

all boards. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that States are 

permitted to provide additional 

information concerning factors listed in 

sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(v) of WIOA during the 

negotiations process. The States may 

provide relevant documentation and 

research concerning these factors during 

the negotiation process. The 

Departments will ensure that each 

programs’ data, its availability, and its 

specificity will be considered in 

developing the methodology and 

framework for the application of the 

model to each program. The 

Departments intend to continue to 

assess the quality and robustness of the 

statistical adjustment model since it 

plays such a key part in the adjusted 

levels of performance under this 

section. No change to the regulatory text 

is being made in response to these 

comments. 

Section 677.170(d) requires the 

statistical adjustment model to be used 

before the beginning of a program year 

as a consideration in establishing levels 

of performance, and then used to adjust 

levels of performance at the end of a 

program year. The Departments reiterate 

that WIOA uses the term ‘‘adjusted 

levels’’ to refer to both the levels agreed 

to prior to the start of a program year, 

as well as the adjustment done using the 

objective statistical model at the close of 

the program year. This paragraph was 

revised to use the term ‘‘negotiated 

levels’’ as appropriate to the process. 

Comments: Several commenters 

opposed having the goals adjusted twice 

a year, because it would make building 

strategic plans difficult, add additional 

burden, and create a moving target. 

Another commenter requested that the 

margin of error be published with the 

statistical models. A few commenters 

asserted that applying the formula at the 

end of the year creates the possibility of 

targets higher than planned outcomes, 

which could lead to local areas failing 

performance. The commenters stated 

that this approach does not lend itself 

to a strategic planning process. An 

individual suggested that the year-end 

adjustment process needs to allow room 

for additional factors that were not 

anticipated to be significant at the start 

of the year, and another commenter 

asked whether States will be able or 

required to negotiate the final targets or 

if the results of the model will be 

applied without discussion. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

677.170(d) implements sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(iv) and (vii) of WIOA and 

requires the objective statistical model 

to be applied before the beginning of the 

program year as a consideration in 

establishing State levels of performance 

for the upcoming program year and be 

used again at the end of the program 

year based on actual circumstances. 

Therefore, there is no statutory authority 

to delete the requirement to use the 

objective statistical model at the end of 

the program year. The concern about 

margin of error is important in 

evaluating the results from the model. 

Consequently, the Departments will 

provide confidence intervals along with 

the adjusted performance measures for 

each State. The Departments also 

recognize that the effects of variables 

used in the adjustment model may 

change over time. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: Commenters requested 

that the model be made available for the 

States to install within their own 

information systems so that it can be 

made available to the local areas. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the 

commenters’ interest in incorporating 

the model within their own systems. As 

required by WIOA, the Departments 

intend to make the statistical adjustment 

model available to States, local areas, 

and the public. No change to the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55857 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: Commenters sought 

guidance and technical assistance, 

including guidance on how to ensure 

that disadvantaged populations receive 

comparable services throughout the 

program with expectations that they 

will achieve outcomes leading to 

successful exits similar to all 

participants in the program. A 

commenter favored development of a 

common reporting mechanism, so that 

model development would not be 

delayed by claims that the necessary 

data are not available. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments intend to publish guidance 

that includes how the model was 

developed, what factors were 

considered, and how the results are 

interpreted. The Departments also share 

the commenters’ concerns regarding 

comparable service for disadvantaged 

participants and commit to providing 

technical assistance and guidance on 

how to ensure an equal distribution of 

services. No change to the regulatory 

text is being made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: Many commenters 

suggested that, because data are lacking 

to set benchmarks for the new outcome 

measures, FY2017 should be a 

benchmarking year, or implementation 

should be lagged for 2 to 4 years to 

establish accurate levels of performance. 

A commenter expressed concern about 

the comparability of data across core 

programs and across States. Another 

commenter asked for clarification on 

whether there will be sanctions for low 

performance prior to the establishment 

of benchmarks and baselines. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have revised § 677.190(c) 

in response to these comments; more 

information about the Departments’ 

approach is set out below in the 

preamble to that section. 

Section 677.170(e). The Departments 

added a new paragraph (e) to § 677.170, 

and renumbered the previous paragraph 

(e) as § 677.170(f). The new paragraph 

(e) specifies that the previously 

discussed negotiated levels, after being 

revised at the end of the program year 

based on the statistical adjustment 

model, are the adjusted levels of 

performance. 

Section 677.170(f) requires States to 

comply with the requirements in sec. 

116 of WIOA. The Departments intend 

to issue guidance, which may include 

information on reportable individuals as 

established by the Secretaries. No 

comments were received regarding this 

reporting requirement and no changes 

have been made to this section. 

Section 677.175 What responsibility 

do States have to use quarterly wage 

record information for performance 

accountability? 

Section 677.175 implements the 

requirement that States must, consistent 

with State laws, use quarterly wage 

record information to measure progress 

on State and local performance 

accountability measures, as required by 

sec. 116(i)(2) of WIOA. Such 

information includes the intrastate and 

interstate wages paid to an individual, 

the individual’s SSN, and information 

about the employer paying the wages to 

the individual. 

After further review of this provision, 

the Departments recognize that some 

participants may not be included in 

quarterly wage records held by the 

State, such as those participants who 

refuse to provide a SSN to the program 

or who may be self-employed. In light 

of this fact, the Departments have 

revised § 677.175(a) to make clear that 

States must use quarterly wage records 

to the extent they are available; 

however, States may use other 

information when such records are not 

available. In so doing, the Departments 

ensure that programs may track the 

participants for performance 

accountability purposes even if their 

information is not contained in the 

State’s quarterly wage record system. 

The Departments have revised 

§ 677.175(c) to provide that the State 

agency or appropriate State entity 

designated to assist in carrying out the 

performance requirements is 

responsible for preventing 

disaggregation that would violate 

applicable privacy standards. The 

Departments added the words 

‘‘applicable’’ and ‘‘standards’’ to 

§ 677.175(c)(3) to require that the States 

must consider the privacy standards 

that apply to them. 

Comments: A significant number of 

commenters raised concerns about the 

difficulty in matching wage records, 

citing concerns over FERPA privacy 

rules, that students often refuse to 

provide SSNs (for reasons such as 

concern about consumer fraud and 

uncertain residency status), some 

students do not have SSNs, and several 

States do not allow programs to collect 

SSNs. Some of these commenters 

asserted that there are other data 

matching mechanisms by which to track 

employee outcomes. Other commenters 

suggested not including participants 

without SSNs in the measure for 

computing the percentage for the 

performance target. Many commenters 

also urged the Departments to provide 

guidance on how to collect 

employment-related data without use of 

SSNs, acceptable forms of SSN 

validation, and on alternatives to using 

wage records. Many commenters added 

that data from the UI wage record 

system often do not present a complete 

picture of employment because it 

excludes the self-employed, those 

outside of an individual State, and risks 

over-representing Limited English 

Proficient individuals in the nonmatching group. Some of these 

commenters recommended that States 

be given supplemental options such as 

follow-up calls or emails to verify 

employment status. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered the 

commenters’ concerns about the 

obstacles to using wage record 

information and agree there are limited 

circumstances in which such 

information may not be available. The 

Departments want to make clear that 

sec. 116(i)(2) of WIOA requires that 

States use quarterly wage records when 

determining performance under the 

primary performance indicators that 

measure employment status and median 

earnings. Using its authority under sec. 

189 of WIOA, the Secretaries are 

allowing States to use other information 

to verify performance of those 

individuals for whom quarterly wage 

records are not available, such as those 

who are self-employed. This flexibility 

is necessary to carry out the 

requirements of WIOA and its 

performance accountability system. To 

do otherwise would potentially result in 

programs not able to report on 

participants as required under WIOA. 

Therefore, where available and possible, 

States must use wage records to fulfill 

reporting requirements. Furthermore, 

the Departments understand that wage 

record information may not provide a 

complete representation of the 

employment outcomes. For all the 

reasons discussed here, the Departments 

will allow the collection and 

verification of supplemental wage 

information to demonstrate employment 

outcomes in the second and fourth 

quarters after exit in those instances 

where wage records are not available. 

However, if a State uses supplemental 

information to report on the 

employment rate indicators, the State 

also must use supplemental information 

to report on the median earnings 

indicators. The Departments will 

provide guidance on acceptable 

supplemental information to verify 

performance outcomes. Section 

677.175(a) has been revised to reflect 

the changes described here. 

With regard to acceptable forms of 

SSN validation, the Departments note 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55858 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

that WIOA sec. 116(d)(5) requires the 

Departments to issue data validation 

guidelines, which the States must use to 

ensure that the information in the 

reports is valid and reliable. See the 

preamble to § 677.240 below for further 

discussion on this requirement. 

In the NPRM, the Departments 

expressed the intent to engage in a 

renegotiation of the WRIS data sharing 

agreements with States, which will 

allow States to conduct interstate wage 

matches for all WIOA core programs. 

Like WIA, WIOA similarly provides 

authority for the Departments to 

facilitate data matching between the 

States. 

Comments: Several commenters 

approved of this commitment and 

encouraged the Departments to clarify 

that all the core programs may use the 

Federal Employment Data Exchange 

System (FEDES) for WIOA performance 

reporting. 

Departments’ Response: Under WIA, 

DOL’s Employment and Training 

Administration aided in the 

establishment and management of a 

system through which participating, 

signed States could access Federal 

employment records from the 

participating government agencies. The 

Departments have concluded that the 

authorities established in WIOA allow 

for the continuation of such an 

agreement to facilitate wage matching 

for Federal employment for States that 

become signatories to the established 

data sharing agreement. The 

Departments have concluded that such 

agreements should be entered into and 

conducted at the State level based on 

the language of WIOA sec. 116(i)(2), 

which requires that the use of wage 

records must be consistent with State 

law. Moreover, WIOA sec. 116(i)(2) 

requires the Secretary of Labor to 

facilitate such arrangements between 

States. Therefore, the Departments 

continue in their commitment to review 

and renegotiate the appropriate 

agreements with State government 

entities that provide the necessary wage 

data for complete and robust 

performance reporting across all core 

programs under WIOA. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that, for private training 

providers who cannot access wage 

record information, regulations should 

provide that the data these entities 

submitted for training participants not 

found in the UI wage records be 

returned to the provider, indicating that 

the records do not match UI records. 

Departments’ Response: ETP access to 

wage records is governed by the UC 

Confidentiality and Disclosure 

regulations at 20 CFR part 603. 

Therefore, training providers seeking 

access to wage records must comply 

with these provisions. Because ETP 

access is governed by 20 CFR part 603, 

the Departments have not changed 

§ 677.175 in response to this comment. 

However, the Departments will issue 

guidance regarding the process of 

matching wage records. No change to 

the regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: Another commenter 

favored allowing performance to 

be reported disaggregated by 

industry. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments consider additional 

disaggregation, when it is not required 

by statute, to pose an additional and 

unnecessary burden on the States. 

Moreover, many States do not require 

the inclusion of the North American 

Industry Classification System codes 

within wage records. Therefore, its 

inconsistent availability makes 

requiring this kind of reporting 

infeasible. No change to the regulatory 

text is being made in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that WDBs and AEFLA providers are 

entitled to know whether a participant 

they served was employed in a given 

quarter. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments reiterate that an entity’s 

ability to obtain this information 

depends on their compliance with the 

confidentiality requirements of 20 CFR 

part 603 (covering UC records), 34 CFR 

part 99 (covering educational records 

protected by FERPA), and 34 CFR 

361.38 (covering VR records), as well as 

any applicable State laws. However, the 

Departments want to make clear that 

States are responsible for ensuring the 

appropriate entities have access to the 

information required for reporting 

purposes under WIOA sec. 116 and 

these regulations. 

Comments: The Departments received 

several comments related to the use of 

wage record information and the VR 

program. Another commenter asked 

whether the wage record provision 

will be tracked in the VR program 

differently than in the other core 

programs. A commenter requested that 

additional guidance on VR access to 

WRIS be issued so that States may plan 

any necessary changes to their IT 

systems. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the unique 

disclosure requirements that have to be 

navigated by various entities. Because of 

the importance of protecting PII while 

also obtaining the necessary information 

needed for States to comply with the 

performance accountability system 

requirements, the Departments will 

issue guidance to assist States in regard 

to accessing wage record information. 

The Departments also refer these 

commenters to the UC Confidentiality 

and Disclosure regulations at 20 CFR 

part 603, which govern the 

confidentiality and disclosure of, wage 

record information. It should be noted 

that the confidentiality provisions apply 

to PII contained within a wage record 

and this extends to the absence of data 

for an individual level as well. The 

tracking of employment outcomes 

through wage record matching is subject 

to 20 CFR part 603 and any applicable 

Federal and State laws; therefore, there 

may be some variation in the 

mechanisms for matching wage record 

data via the State UC agencies and the 

process through which any core 

program enters into and engages under 

those agreements. Furthermore, 

regulating access to wage record 

information is beyond the scope of this 

part. No change to the regulatory text is 

being made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: A commenter asserted 

that if the VR program is to track 

progress on wages, then it would need 

ready access to longer-range 

employment data. 

Departments’ Response: The VR 

program is subject to the same outcome 

reporting requirements as the other core 

programs under WIOA. Thus the 

Departments have concluded that access 

to a different duration of employment 

data is not necessary. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: Another commenter 

requested clarification on how 

participants who are seeking to better 

themselves without entering the 

workforce or postsecondary education 

should be treated in the performance 

accountability system. This population 

includes retirees, the non-working 

disabled, and English language learners 

who are seeking to improve their 

language skills but are not in the labor 

force. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments interpret WIOA sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(i) to require all participants 

to be included in the primary 

performance indicators, with very 

limited exceptions, regardless of their 

employment status at program entry. 

No change to the regulatory text is 

being made in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: A commenter requested 

clarification about whether the wage 

record information refers to wages paid 

or wages earned. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55859 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments clarify that the wage record 

information held by State UC agencies, 

from which wage record information is 

drawn, only contain the wages paid to 

an individual. See 20 CFR 603.2(k)(1). 

Moreover, sec. 1137(a)(3) of the Social 

Security Act, which creates the 

requirement that States provide 

quarterly wage reports, only requires 

that employers report wage information. 

Similarly, sec. 3306(b) of the Federal 

Unemployment Tax Act defines wages 

as all remuneration for employment. 

Because the records only include wages 

paid, the Departments interpret WIOA 

sec. 116(i)(2)’s requirement to use State 

UI wage records to mean that the States 

only are required to report on wages 

paid. No change to the regulatory text is 

being made in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: Some commenters favored 

data sharing and record matching across 

departments and programs. Another 

commenter said that the Indian and 

Native American programs (INAP) do 

not have a mechanism to match 

participant SSNs with UI wage records. 

One commenter recommended that the 

Departments, in renegotiating the Wage 

Record Interchange System (WRIS) 

agreements, make it possible for States 

to access readily both intra- and 

interstate UI data beyond the fourth 

quarter after exit for longer-term 

program impact evaluations. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the variety of 

structures that exist for programs under 

WIOA; some programs are run through 

the States and others are run through 

sub-State level grantees. The 

Departments recognize the challenges 

faced by the INA programs in complying 

with WIOA performance reporting 

requirements and will be issuing 

guidance for and providing technical 

assistance to those programs. Under 

WIA the Secretary of Labor, working 

with States, established the WRIS to 

facilitate access to interstate wage data 

for State workforce agencies to fulfill 

their performance reporting 

requirements. In addition, DOL 

established the Common Reporting 

Information System (CRIS) in order to 

provide access to the aggregate wage 

data necessary for performance 

reporting, to those workforce programs 

that were not operated by State 

workforce agencies. These programs 

included the WIA national programs, 

such as INAP and NFJP, as well as 

competitive and discretionary grant 

programs operated under the 

jurisdiction of DOL. 

Under WIOA, the WRIS, WRIS2, and 

CRIS are being reviewed and 

renegotiated to establish the 

mechanisms for programs, including 

those under the jurisdiction of ED, 

where applicable, to access the quarterly 

wage data necessary for grantees to 

fulfill their WIOA performance 

reporting requirements. 

The Departments considered these 

comments and made no changes to the 

regulatory text. First, WIOA sec. 

116(i)(2) already requires that the wage 

records of any State receiving program 

funds are available to any other State to 

the extent that such wage records are 

required by the other State in carrying 

out performance accountability for its 

State Plan. While the Departments are 

working to facilitate applicable 

programs’ access to intra- and interstate 

UI data, the Departments have 

determined that the conditions and 

availability of the records outlined 

within these agreements are not 

appropriately included in this 

regulation. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that DOL look at wage record pilots to 

research gaps in wage record use. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments will continue to give 

consideration to activities that identify 

gaps and improve on the usage of wage 

record information for the purposes of 

performance reporting. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: Several commenters 

suggested that Local WDBs have access 

to data that is timely and pertinent, 

citing surveys in which participants say 

that their job is unrelated to the training 

received. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the need for 

local areas to gain access to timely and 

accurate data and the Departments 

strongly urge States to provide the subState level local area reporting outcomes 

to their local areas along with the 

reporting that they submit to the 

Departments. No change to the 

regulatory has been made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: Commenters suggested 

that the wages should include all 

program participant wages, pre- and 

post-exit. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have concluded that it is 

not necessary to include this level of 

specificity in the regulatory text. Such 

information and its required collection 

are handled through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

4. Sanctions for State Performance and 

the Provision of Technical Assistance 

(20 CFR part 677, subpart B; 34 CFR 

361.180 through 361.200; 34 CFR 

463.180 through 463.200) 

Section 677.180 When is a State 

subject to a financial sanction under the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act? 

Section 677.180 outlines performance 

and reporting requirements that are 

subject to sanctions under sec. 116(f) of 

WIOA. Section 677.180 provides that 

the failure to submit the State annual 

performance report required under sec. 

116(d)(2) of WIOA is sanctionable, and 

that sanctions for performance failure 

are based on the primary indicators of 

performance. The Departments have 

revised § 677.180 to correct a statutory 

citation error in the introductory 

paragraph (to change WIOA sec. 116(d) 

to sec. 116(f)). WIOA sec. 116(d) 

outlines the requirements for 

performance reports. The correct 

reference should be to sec. 116(f), which 

governs sanctions for State failure to 

meet State performance accountability 

indicators. No other substantive changes 

were made to this section. 

Comments: Commenters expressed 

support for the imposition of sanctions 

for failure to report as well as for failure 

to meet a performance standard. 

A few commenters stated that funding 

and sanctions should be tied to 

individual programs to ensure that a 

core program’s poor performance does 

not negatively impact the funding of 

other core programs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the commenters’ 

concerns regarding funding and 

sanctions being tied to individual 

programs; however, WIOA sec. 

116(f)(1)(B) makes clear that the 

sanctions are imposed against the 

Governor’s Reserve for statewide 

activities under the title I adult, 

dislocated worker, and youth formula 

programs regardless of which of the six 

core program’s performance constitutes 

a failure giving rise to the sanction. 

Therefore, given the explicit statutory 

requirement, the Departments do not 

have the authority to do as these 

commenters suggested. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: Another commenter 

requested clarification regarding how 

individual core programs will be held 

accountable if they reside in different 

agencies. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that accountability for 

the State’s performance rests with the 

Governor and State WDB, through 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55860 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

which all core programs are 

represented. Therefore, even if the core 

programs are located in different 

agencies, there is no difference in how 

the States and core programs are treated. 

The Departments encourage and expect 

the core programs to work closely 

together regardless of the State agency 

in which they are located. No change to 

the regulatory text was made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter sought 

clarification concerning the process for 

submitting the State annual 

performance report and the manner in 

which sanctions will be enforced. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments consider the process of 

submitting State annual performance 

reports to fall under the purview of subregulatory guidance as it is 

implementation of the regulatory 

requirements. Therefore, the 

Departments will issue guidance clearly 

explaining how to carry out the annual 

reporting process. The Departments will 

impose financial sanctions consistent 

with WIOA sec. 116(f)(1)(B), which 

provides for a five percent reduction of 

the State Governor’s Reserve for 

Statewide Activities from the amount 

allocated in the immediately succeeding 

program year. The Departments 

consider the logistics of how the 

financial sanction will work to fall 

under the purview of sub-regulatory 

guidance as it is implementation of the 

statutory and regulatory requirement. 

Moreover, the financial sanctions will 

be carried out consistent with financial 

management and rules already in place. 

Therefore, the Departments will issue 

further guidance on how this process 

will be conducted. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: One commenter requested 

clarification about whether WIOA or 

Perkins indicators of performance 

would take precedence in a Combined 

State Plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments clarify here that the 

Perkins program is subject to its 

authorizing statute’s requirements on 

performance measurement. Should a 

grantee receive both Perkins and WIOA 

funds, it must report on both programs 

accordingly. 

Section 677.185 When are sanctions 

applied for a State’s failure to submit an 

annual performance report? 

Section 677.185 outlines the 

circumstances under which a State may 

be sanctioned for failure to report under 

sec. 116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA. No 

substantive changes were made to this 

section. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

the 30-day deadline to request an 

extension should be removed as it does 

not allow for exceptional circumstances, 

such as a natural disaster, that may 

occur closer to the deadline. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments refer the commenter to 

§ 677.185(c)(2) which allows for 

unexpected events within the 30-day 

period and provides a process by which 

exceptional circumstances may be 

addressed in less than 30 days. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to this comment. 

Comments: A few commenters 

supported the enforcement of sanctions 

for failure to report. 

A few other commenters requested 

clarification regarding what the 

Departments consider exceptional 

circumstances under which a State 

would be exempt from sanctions for 

failure to report. 

Departments’ Response: In response 

to the comments on enforcement of 

sanctions for failure to report, the 

Departments note that a State annual 

performance report is considered 

complete only when it provides a 

mechanism of electronic access to local 

area and ETP performance reports. 

Thus, the submission of a State annual 

performance report that does not 

provide a mechanism of electronic 

access to local area and ETP 

performance reports is a sanctionable 

offense. Section 677.185(b) provides a 

non-exhaustive list of examples that 

may qualify as an exceptional 

circumstance. The listed exceptional 

circumstances include natural disasters, 

unexpected personnel transitions, and 

unexpected technology related impacts. 

These are not the only circumstances 

that may be justified, but rather are 

examples of the types of circumstances 

the Departments would consider 

exceptional. The Departments expect 

that any request for delay or any failure 

to report timely information would not 

be based on a routine or predictable 

situation. The Departments interpret 

§ 677.185(c) to require these exceptional 

circumstances to be fully documented 

by the States, supported by clear 

rationale, and include an estimation of 

when the performance reports will be 

made available. The Departments will 

determine the merits of each request 

based on exceptional circumstances in 

consultations with the States, and their 

respective regional offices. The 

Departments plan to issue guidance to 

provide further clarity with regard to 

exceptional circumstances. No change 

to the regulatory text is being made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter expressed 

concern that the guidance regarding 

exceptional circumstances is to be 

issued without public comment and at 

a point at which States may already 

incur sanctions. 

Departments’ Response: Any 

guidance issued by the Departments 

regarding exceptional circumstances 

would be interpretive and thus, is 

exempt from the notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The Departments 

intend to issue guidance prior to 

applying sanctions. No change to the 

regulatory text has been made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter requested 

the Departments focus on incentivizing 

timely submission of State annual 

performance reports rather than 

sanctions. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

116(f) requires that financial sanctions 

apply with regard to the timely 

submission of performance reports and 

does not provide for incentives within 

this context. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to this 

comment. 

Section 677.190 When are sanctions 

applied for failure to achieve adjusted 

levels of performance? 

Section 677.190 governs how States 

will be assessed for performance failure 

and when such failure will result in a 

financial sanction. Although the 

Departments have referenced other noncore programs in previous sections of 

this preamble for part 677, consistent 

with WIOA sec. 116(b)(2) and 

116(f)(1)(B), performance success or 

failure will be based solely on the 

performance of the six core programs of 

WIOA—not other partner programs in 

the public workforce development 

system. The Departments have added 

two new provisions to § 677.190(c) to 

reflect a phased-in approach for 

applying sanctions for failure to achieve 

adjusted levels of performance. In 

addition, the Departments reiterate that 

WIOA uses the term ‘‘adjusted levels’’ to 

refer to both the levels agreed to prior 

to the start of a program year, as well as 

the adjustment done using the objective 

statistical model at the close of the 

program year. Paragraph (c) was revised 

to make clear that performance 

accountability will be based on a 

comparison of the State’s performance 

with that determined to be the ‘‘adjusted 

levels of performance,’’ as appropriate. 

These revisions resulted in renumbering 

the subsequent paragraphs. Section 

677.190(c)(2) provides that, until at least 

2 years of complete data are available 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55861 

for each of the indicators, the 

Departments will assess the State’s 

performance on the overall program 

score based on the indicators for which 

there are at least 2 years of data 

available. Section 677.190(c)(4) 

similarly provides that until at least 2 

years of complete data are available for 

each of the indicators, the Departments 

will assess the States’ performance on 

the overall indicator score, based on the 

indicators for which there are at least 2 

years of data available. The Departments 

consider complete data to consist of, at 

a minimum, 2 full program years of 

performance data. 

Comments: Many commenters 

discussed the timeline for implementing 

the full accountability system, with the 

majority of commenters supporting a 2- 

year benchmarking period to allow for 

the collection of baseline data to be used 

to assess performance moving forward. 

Other suggestions included a 1-year 

baseline period, a 3-year baseline 

period, and a 4-year baseline period. 

Still, other commenters supported a 

baseline period, but did not provide a 

specific timeline for implementing the 

full performance accountability system. 

Commenters supported using the PY 

2016, PY 2017, and PY 2018 annual 

report as the first years to report on 

State adjusted levels of performance. A 

commenter suggested the PY 2016 

annual report be the first used for all of 

the performance indicators except 

credential attainment and measurable 

skill gains. Some commenters asserted 

that a 2-year delay in the 

implementation of sanctions would 

allow for further calibration of the 

statistical adjustment model. Some 

commenters requested a 2-year 

transition period that would allow 

States to adapt to the new performance 

standards before sanctions are 

implemented. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

677.190(c)(1) and (3) govern how 

performance on the overall State 

indicator score and the overall State 

program score will be assessed. As 

explained above, the Departments have 

revised the regulatory text in 

§ 677.190(c) to reflect a phased-in 

approach for applying sanctions for 

failure to achieve adjusted levels of 

performance. Paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) 

of § 677.190 govern how performance on 

the overall State indicator score and the 

overall State program score will be 

assessed. Section 677.190(c)(2) provides 

that, until at least 2 years of complete 

data are available for each of the 

indicators, the Departments will assess 

the State’s performance on the overall 

program score based on the indicators 

for which there are at least 2 years of 

data available. Section 677.190(c)(4) 

similarly provides that until at least 2 

years of complete data are available for 

each of the indicators, the Departments 

will assess the States’ performance on 

the overall indicator score, based on the 

indicators for which there are at least 2 

years of data available. Pursuant to these 

provisions, the Departments consider 

complete data to consist of, at a 

minimum, 2 full program years of 

performance data. 

The Departments acknowledge that, 

given the lag in reporting data and the 

amount of time needed for each 

indicator to be measured, 2 program 

years’ worth of data for each of the 

indicators will occur at different times. 

However, the Departments consider it 

vital that performance accountability 

take effect as soon as possible to align 

with the vision and requirements of 

WIOA. These revisions provide for an 

assessment of the overall State program 

and indicator score when the States 

have reported at least 2 years of 

complete data for the indicators. For 

performance accountability 

determinations, including the 

determination of failure to achieve 

adjusted levels of performance, the 

Departments will not use data reported 

prior to July 1, 2016. The Departments 

note that where historical data that were 

reported under WIA provide a proxy for 

the new indicators (at least 2 years of 

data), it is possible to establish a 

statistical adjustment model for 

negotiation of those indicators. Such 

indicators will be included in the 

overall State program or overall State 

indicator score for performance 

assessment when States have reported 2 

years of outcomes under WIOA. The 

States are still subject to a performance 

risk plan under § 677.200(b). 

Comments: Several commenters urged 

the Departments to delay 

implementation of the full performance 

accountability system for reasons other 

than the collection of baseline data, 

including that the first annual State 

report should be coordinated with the 

development of data systems. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the challenges in 

unified reporting across the core 

programs. For this reason the 

Departments are exercising the 

transition authority in sec. 503 of WIOA 

to implement the requirements in a 

manner that allows for an orderly 

transition from the requirements of WIA 

to the requirements of WIOA. To the 

extent that data are available, States 

must comply by submitting the requisite 

data. Moreover, the Departments 

recognize that some States have the 

capability to currently report all of the 

data in one system and upload reports 

to the Departments, whereas other 

States may not have that capability. The 

Departments plan to provide guidance 

on the submission process for WIOA 

State annual reports through the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR. 

Comments: Several commenters 

stated that sanctions should not be 

implemented until the third consecutive 

year of performance failure, rather than 

the second, in order to allow 

improvement measures to be effective. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA provides that 

performance is assessed and sanctions 

are applied in the second consecutive 

year of failure. Therefore, the 

Departments cannot implement the 

commenters’ suggestion. 

Comments: Several commenters 

remarked that a definition of second 

year failure should be added to the 

regulatory text in order to prevent a 

State from incurring sanctions without 

adequate time to improve performance. 

Another commenter stated that 

sanctions should not be applied until a 

State has demonstrated that it is able to 

implement their performance 

improvement plan. While 

acknowledging the existing statutory 

constraints, a commenter expressed 

concern about the lack of time to 

intervene and allow program 

adjustments to demonstrate 

improvement. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA is clear that 

sanctions apply after 2 program years of 

consecutive performance failure; the 

statutory language does not permit the 

Departments to delay sanctions because 

the State has not been able to implement 

its performance improvement plan. The 

Departments encourage States to use 

their quarterly data to monitor progress 

on their performance improvement plan 

benchmarks without waiting until they 

submit their annual performance report. 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: Concerning the timing of 

performance outcome reporting, several 

commenters stated that performance 

outcomes for core programs should be 

reported by December 31 of each year. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have concluded that the 

timing of reporting performance 

outcomes will be announced through 

joint guidance clarifying when and how 

States should provide their respective 

program performance reports. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter asserted 

that to evaluate performance effectively, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55862 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

indicators should be reported on a 

quarterly basis. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that § 677.235 

requires quarterly reporting for the 

WIOA title I, Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service, and VR programs. 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: Commenters also 

addressed the limited availability of and 

timely access to data, which can 

significantly hinder a State’s ability to 

identify areas of improvement and make 

the necessary program adjustments to 

avoid failing. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the 

commenters’ concern regarding the 

limited availability of timely data that 

may assist in identifying areas of 

program improvement. The 

Departments have clarified the 

regulations regarding data availability 

and sanctions in § 677.190(c), above. 

Additionally, the Departments note that 

all States have access to their program 

data and can use it to assess at intervals 

of their own choosing to best manage 

their performance, without the 

Departments having to require such 

action. 

Comments: Some commenters 

suggested using only the State average 

measure of the performance indicators 

rather than the average program scores 

for each State in order to incentivize 

partnerships among programs. 

Departments’ Response: Under these 

regulations, failure is determined by 

both individual program performance as 

well as overall State performance in the 

overall State indicator score. The 

Departments’ approach is premised on 

ensuring accountability for the 

individual core programs while 

incentivizing the partnerships that the 

Departments have concluded are critical 

to WIOA’s long-term success. No change 

to the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: Several commenters 

suggested that the Departments award 

monetary incentives and public 

recognition in order to emphasize the 

importance of performance success, 

rather than setting unrealistic goals. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that WIOA, unlike 

WIA, does not authorize the use of 

incentives for successful performance. 

However, States may continue to utilize 

incentives to recognize successful local 

performance under WIOA sec. 

134(a)(3)(A)(xi). Finally, requests for 

guidance concerning performance 

metrics were made in order to allow for 

proper administration of programs. The 

Departments intend to issue further 

details on performance accountability 

through the WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR, guidance, and technical assistance. 

Comments: In addition to soliciting 

public comments on the NPRM text, the 

Departments posed several questions 

regarding the application of sanctions 

for failure to achieve adjusted levels of 

performance. Many commenters 

responded to the question about using a 

weighted average or a straight average 

for calculating State overall indicator 

scores. Some commenters supported the 

use of an unweighted average in order 

to support the goal of shared 

accountability among core programs. A 

commenter stated that performance 

measures should not be weighted until 

it is clear how weighted averages would 

be determined. Other commenters stated 

that a weighted average would take into 

account differences among programs 

and would prevent the 

misrepresentation of particular 

programs. Citing the enhanced accuracy 

of the system of performance, a 

commenter suggested that program 

performance be weighted by the number 

of participants served to avoid giving 

unequal weight to smaller core 

programs. Other commenters urged the 

Departments to weight the indicators in 

order to maintain the emphasis on job 

placement and employer partnerships as 

established in WIOA. A few 

commenters suggested that local areas 

be weighted less due to their lesser 

impact on wages paid within the area. 

A commenter supported the use of a 

weighted average if performance is to be 

determined regionally, in order to take 

into account the relative size of regional 

WDBs. In addition, several commenters 

stated that if a weighted average is 

pursued, a draft weighted average 

should be published for public 

comment. Similarly, a commenter 

suggested that the weights assigned to 

each program should be determined or 

agreed to by all partners. A few 

commenters suggested that, in addition 

to a public comment period, the weights 

should be reviewed at the end of each 

program year and adjusted as needed. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered the comments 

regarding the use of a weighted or 

unweighted average for the 

determination of performance outcomes 

across programs and individual 

indicators. The Departments have 

decided that using unweighted 

measures across the programs and 

indicators still ensures performance 

accountability across all core programs 

and individual indicators. The 

Departments conclude this, in part, 

because an average performance number 

weighted by the number of participants 

would essentially cause each State’s 

performance under Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service programs to have a 

disproportionate impact. The WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service 

program served more than 14 million 

participants in PY 2014, which 

surpasses the number of participants 

served in all other core programs 

combined. Using a weighted formula 

would mean that the Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service program’s 

outcomes would be determinative of a 

State’s failure to achieve performance 

requirements. The Departments do not 

consider this to be consistent with the 

performance accountability goal of 

WIOA, which provides for shared 

accountability across the core programs. 

The Departments have concluded that 

using unweighted outcomes across the 

programs and indicators properly 

implements WIOA in recognizing the 

importance of both employment-related 

and education outcomes of the 

participants. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: Additionally, some 

commenters suggested the Departments 

weight the employment indicators more 

heavily than the credential and 

measureable skill gains indicators. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered these 

comments, but decided not to alter the 

regulation as the three employmentrelated indicators make up half of all of 

the WIOA performance indicators. The 

three employment related indicators are 

the second and fourth quarter 

employment rate and the second quarter 

median earnings indicator. Because 

these measures make up half of all 

WIOA performance indicators, the 

Departments concluded they already 

have a sufficient impact on a State’s 

performance. 

Comments: Many commenters 

addressed the proposed thresholds for 

performance failure of 90 percent for 

each of the State overall program scores 

and the overall State indicator scores, 

and 50 percent of the individual 

indicator scores. Numerous commenters 

opposed the 90 percent threshold, citing 

the current lack of core program 

performance data, the unrealistic nature 

of a 90 percent threshold, and the 

seemingly arbitrary assignment of the 

threshold. A few commenters stated that 

the 90 and 50 percent threshold for 

performance failure should not be 

established without the required 

statistical adjustment models. Many 

other commenters responded to the 

Departments’ solicitation regarding the 

potential increase of the 90 percent 

threshold to emphasize the importance 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55863 

of performance success stating that the 

90 percent threshold should not be 

increased. Other commenters urged the 

Departments to adopt alternate 

thresholds, ranging from 70 to 80 

percent, with the majority supporting an 

80 percent threshold. A number of 

commenters urged the Departments to 

establish thresholds in guidance rather 

than regulation so that they could be 

more easily adjusted in the future, as 

necessary. Many commenters stated that 

the Departments should establish a 

lower threshold than 90 percent to 

allow for a phased-in approach that 

gradually increases the threshold for 

performance failure over time. One 

commenter supported a tiered approach 

in order to promote continuous 

improvement. Although the vast 

majority of commenters supported 

maintaining or decreasing the proposed 

thresholds, one commenter stated that 

the 50 percent threshold for individual 

performance indicators should be 

increased because, as proposed, it 

would weaken the requirements of 

States and was not Congress’s intent in 

WIOA. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered the comments 

regarding the overall 90 percent 

threshold and the 50 percent threshold 

for individual indicators for a program 

year. The Departments considered the 

various commenter-proposed threshold 

levels in light of historical performance 

data and historical thresholds for each 

of the core programs and have decided 

to maintain the thresholds as proposed. 

The new thresholds are an increase from 

the 80 percent threshold familiar to the 

title I programs and a decrease from the 

100 percent threshold for title II 

programs under WIA. The Departments 

consider these thresholds to be 

reasonable due to the use and 

application of an objective statistical 

model to account for actual conditions 

experienced by a program. Previously, 

the title I and title II thresholds were 

applied to a negotiated performance 

level and performance was assessed in 

the absence of weighting for actual 

economic conditions or participant 

characteristics. With the structure of the 

performance accountability system in 

sec. 116 of WIOA, the Departments 

consider a 90 percent overall threshold 

to strike the appropriate balance 

between maintaining flexibility for 

unknown mitigating variables and the 

newer precision introduced by utilizing 

an objective statistical model. The 50 

percent performance threshold ensures 

that significant performance failure on a 

single indicator cannot be compensated 

for by successful performance in any 

other indicator or set of indicators. The 

introduction of an overall State score 

across programs and indicators ensures 

that the performance accountability 

system as articulated in sec. 116 of 

WIOA maintains alignment and 

integration across all of the core 

programs. This overall score paradigm, 

which is set at the 90 percent threshold, 

and balanced with a 50 percent 

threshold on any single indicator, 

allows a State to account for mitigating 

factors that prevent it from achieving 

100 percent of its adjusted levels of 

performance. It also provides that a 

State has not failed to achieve its 

negotiated levels of performance unless 

its average performance across all 

programs for one indicator or its 

performance for all indicators in one 

program falls below 90 percent of the 

State’s adjusted targets. No change to 

the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

concern that a program could 

potentially pass the threshold for all of 

the individual indicators, but not meet 

the overall program or overall indicator 

threshold, which would send a mixed 

message to a program. 

Departments’ Response: In order to 

‘‘pass’’ the threshold, each State must 

meet or exceed the 90 percent threshold 

for the overall State program score for 

each program and the overall State 

indicator score for each indicator. 

Furthermore, under § 677.190(d)(2), the 

State must not fall below 50 percent on 

any individual indicator. This is an 

additional safeguard against egregious 

failure by one indicator being 

outweighed by high scores elsewhere. 

Thus, there is no possibility of what the 

commenter suggested occurring. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to this comment. 

Comments: Some commenters raised 

potential alternative metrics for 

evaluating success including: the use of 

statistical variation metrics instead of 

the proposed threshold framework; 

standard deviation units or variation 

against regression predictions; and 

confidence intervals rather than a point 

estimate. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered utilizing these 

methods, but concluded that a 

consistent threshold, which does not 

change from year to year based on the 

size of the dataset, is the most 

appropriate way to account for 

variations in the core programs or the 

indicators and the varying availability of 

data. By creating a consistent threshold, 

expected levels of performance will be 

easier for program staff to understand 

and allows for comparisons across 

program years. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Section 677.195 What should States 

expect when a sanction is applied to the 

Governor’s Reserve Allotment? 

Section 677.195 governs what will 

occur when a sanction is applied to the 

Governor’s Reserve for failure to report 

or failure to meet adjusted levels of 

performance. It clarifies that the 

sanction will be five percent of the 

amount that could otherwise be 

reserved by the Governor. 

Section 677.195(a)(3) was added so 

that this section contains the causes of 

failure as defined in § 677.190(e) by 

noting that States also are subject to a 

5 percent reduction of the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment for the immediately 

succeeding program year if the State’s 

score for the same indicator in the same 

program falls below 50 percent for the 

second consecutive year. A conforming 

edit was made to § 677.195(b). 

Comments: Several commenters 

expressed general support for the 

Departments’ interpretation of WIOA 

sec. 116(f) and the approach proposed. 

However, numerous commenters 

opposed this approach and requested 

clarification regarding the 

implementation of financial sanctions 

only on WIOA title I programs funded 

by the Governor’s Reserve allotment. A 

commenter suggested that the burden of 

financial sanctions be applied to the 

specific programs not meeting the 

performance requirements. A few 

commenters requested clarification from 

the Departments concerning allocation 

of funding lost via sanctions. A number 

of commenters urged the Departments to 

permit the restoration of funds once the 

State meets its reporting 

responsibilities. Commenters also 

remarked that sanctioned funds should 

be spent on the Technical Assistance 

and Performance Improvement Plan. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA does not provide 

authority for the Departments to use, for 

other purposes, funds that are reduced 

as a sanction from the Governor’s 

Reserve. Therefore, the funds may not 

be used for technical assistance, 

performance improvement plans, the 

restoration of the Governor’s Reserve 

funding, or any other activity. In 

contrast, WIA provided that funds 

reduced due to sanctions were to be 

used by the Secretary for performance 

incentive grants to the States under sec. 

503 of WIA, which was not carried over 

to WIOA. 

The Departments considered the 

comments regarding the sanctions to 

WIOA title I programs being based on 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55864 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

any program’s failure. WIOA sec. 

116(f)(1)(B) clearly requires that any 

performance sanction must apply to the 

Governor’s Reserve allotment under title 

I for any core program or indicator 

failure. Therefore, the Departments do 

not have the authority to sanction the 

specific program not meeting its 

adjusted levels of performance. The 

Departments strongly encourage high 

levels of alignment and coordination to 

ensure all core partners are engaged at 

all levels. The Departments emphasize 

the role of State and local planning to 

ensure alignment and common goals in 

attaining integration and service 

delivery. Regarding the commenters’ 

request for clarification concerning the 

allocation of funding lost via sanctions, 

the Governor’s Reserve for the next 

program year will be reduced by five 

percentage points and money lost via 

sanction will not be reallocated. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: Commenters also 

supported the elimination of proposed 

§ 677.195(b) because a State could fail to 

meet 2 different indicators for 2 

consecutive years and receive a 5 

percent sanction, but if the State fails to 

meet one indicator for 2 consecutive 

years and fails to report one time, the 

State would receive a 10 percent 

sanction. These commenters stated that 

the latter scenario is a less significant 

infraction and should not prompt the 

imposition of a 10 percent sanction. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered the comments 

on imposing sanctions when in the 

same year the State fails to submit a 

performance report and is in its second 

year of failure to meet adjusted levels of 

performance. The Departments are 

maintaining the language in § 677.195(b) 

because the Departments conclude that 

failure to submit a State annual 

performance report is a serious 

compliance issue and should result in 

sanctions. Because the regulations 

provide for a 10 percent sanction on 

States that fail to submit performance 

reports as well as fail to meet the 

adjusted levels of performance for 2 

consecutive years (5 percent for failure 

to submit report plus 5 percent for 

failure to meet adjusted levels of 

performance), States will have an 

incentive to report to the Departments 

even if they fail the adjusted levels of 

performance for 2 consecutive years 

because by doing so, they would receive 

only a 5 percent sanction for failure to 

meet adjusted levels of performance 

rather than the 10 percent sanction. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: Several commenters 

addressed concerns regarding the 

insufficient funding of the Governor’s 

Reserve allotment and stated that 

sanctions should be lessened or not 

implemented until the allotment is fully 

funded, as is statutorily required. One 

commenter suggested that the 

Departments scale sanctions according 

to the funding available in the 

Governor’s Reserve allotment. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered the comments 

regarding the funding of the Governor’s 

Reserve allotment and the use of 

sanctions. Statutorily, the Governor’s 

Reserve is set at 15 percent of the WIOA 

adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

formula allocations to the States. For 

several years, the Governor’s Reserve 

levels were restricted below 15 percent 

through the congressional 

appropriation, but were restored in the 

FY 2016 Consolidated Appropriations 

Act. The Departments support the full 

funding of the Governor’s Reserve at 15 

percent as envisioned in WIOA. The 

Departments note that if the Governor’s 

Reserve amount is not fully funded, the 

amount of funds subject to sanctions 

will be proportionately less because the 

sanction is either 5 or 10 percent of the 

Reserve amount no matter how much 

the Reserve amount is. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

the sanctions for failure to report and 

failure to meet a State’s adjusted levels 

of performance should be separated. 

Another commenter requested that the 

Departments provide guidelines for a 

process allowing for minor corrections 

to annual reports without incurring 

sanctions for failure to report. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered the comments 

regarding the separation of sanctions for 

failure to report and for failure to 

achieve performance. The Departments 

note that these two sanctions are 

applied separately. When a State fails to 

meet 90 percent of its adjusted levels of 

performance or fails to submit a report 

in the same year, the State would incur 

2 separate 5 percent sanctions totaling 

10 percent. Otherwise, a State may 

receive a sanction for failure to report 

based on the criteria described in 

§ 677.185 or a State may receive a 

sanction for failure to achieve adjusted 

levels of performance per § 677.190. 

Regarding a process to allow for minor 

corrections to annual reports, the 

Departments will provide a process for 

this and details on the process in 

guidance. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: A commenter urged the 

Departments to allow States flexibility 

in imposing sanctions on the State 

agencies responsible for the late 

submission. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that ultimately the 

Governor and State Workforce Board, 

which consists of representatives from 

all core programs, are responsible for 

the submission of the annual report. The 

Departments expect the State agencies 

to work together to ensure timely 

reporting and, if there are expected 

delays due to exceptional 

circumstances, that the State provides 

timely communication to the 

Departments. The Departments note the 

flexibility provided to States under 

§ 677.185(b) and will work with States 

that are struggling to submit timely 

reports through guidance and technical 

assistance. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to these 

comments. 

Section 677.200 What other 

administrative actions will be applied to 

States’ performance requirements? 

Section 677.200 outlines the 

circumstances under which a State will 

be subject to additional administrative 

actions when determined to be at risk 

due to low performance on an 

individual primary indicator, the overall 

State indicator score, and the overall 

State program score. No substantive 

change was made to this section. 

Comments: A few commenters 

remarked that language in the NPRM 

indicated that the Departments would 

each issue their own guidance regarding 

performance risk or performance 

improvement plans. These commenters 

were concerned that the development of 

separate guidance documents signals a 

lack of long-term coordination between 

the Departments regarding performance 

accountability and reporting. A 

commenter urged DOL and WDBs to 

become familiar with setting measurable 

objectives, defining activities to meet 

the objectives, and determining if the 

objectives were achieved. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA 

provides a unique opportunity for the 

core programs to work together in new 

ways, and to the extent practical the 

Departments will use joint guidance so 

that all core programs are provided a 

clear and consistent message. 

Regarding comments about DOL and 

WDBs setting measurable objectives, 

defining activities to meet objectives, 

and determining if objectives were 

achieved for purposes of the DOLadministered core programs, this will be 

communicated generally. WIOA 

articulates certain performance 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55865 

requirements, the Joint WIOA Final 

Rule operationalizes the provisions of 

WIOA, and the Departments will 

provide guidance and technical 

assistance to assist States and Local 

WDBs in achieving their performance 

goals. 

5. Local Performance Accountability for 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act Title I Programs (20 CFR Part 677, 

Subpart C; 34 CFR 361.205 Through 

361.210; 34 CFR 463.205 Through 

463.210) 

Section 677.205 What performance 

indicators apply to local areas and what 

information must be included in local 

area performance reports? 

This section governs which 

performance indicators apply to local 

areas and the information that must be 

included in the local area performance 

reports. While the arrangement of this 

section was revised no substantive 

changes were made to the regulatory 

text. 

Comments: One commenter noted 

that the title did not fully convey what 

was contained within this section of the 

regulation. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments concur and modified the 

title of this section to clarify that this 

section also governs what information 

the local area must include in its local 

area performance reports. 

Proposed § 677.205(a), (b), and (c) are 

implemented as proposed. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended removing section 

§ 677.205(d) of the NPRM as 

unnecessary and duplicative of the 

requirements of § 677.175. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that this section is 

duplicative, and is removing it. As a 

result, the Departments are renumbering 

subsequent sections to conform to this 

deletion. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended revising proposed 

§ 677.205(e)(2) to clarify that in addition 

to reporting on the performance 

indicators, the local area report must 

also include the other program 

information required in the State annual 

performance report, such as average cost 

information. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that further 

clarification would assist States and 

local areas in complying with their 

reporting requirements. The 

Departments note that as finalized, this 

has been renumbered as § 677.205(d)(1). 

Since § 677.205(d)(1) includes all of the 

information previously in 

§ 677.205(e)(1) and (2), the Departments 

removed proposed § 677.205(e)(2) from 

this Final Rule and have renumbered 

the remainder of § 677.205(d). 

Comments: One commenter 

encouraged adding a parallel provision 

to the one that is included in 

§ 677.160(b) to clarify that the 

disaggregation of data in the local area 

performance report is also subject to 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(C). 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have added a parallel 

provision at § 677.205(e). 

The Departments made a technical 

edit to proposed § 677.205(f) to state 

that States must comply with any 

requirements from sec. 116(d)(3) of 

WIOA as explained in guidance. The 

Departments made this revision to 

clarify our expectations that, to the 

extent that either Department’s guidance 

merely explains in plain terms the 

requirements that stem directly from 

WIOA, the Departments expect States to 

comply with those statutory 

requirements. 

Comments: Several commenters from 

various stakeholder entities questioned 

the applicability of local performance 

indicators to core programs outside of 

WIOA title I. Many of these commenters 

specifically requested clarification on 

whether other core programs were 

exempt from local reporting 

requirements. One commenter also 

acknowledged some confusion 

regarding local-level requirements and 

offered several suggestions on 

reorganizing this subpart to enhance 

clarity. Additionally, the Departments 

received a number of comments 

pertaining to additional indicators of 

performance, with commenters 

suggesting that language be added to the 

Final Rule requiring States to develop 

any additional indicators of 

performance only in consultation with 

Local WDBs and CEOs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge that there 

may be some confusion across the core 

programs regarding local-level 

performance-related requirements and 

are taking this opportunity to specify 

that local-level accountability 

requirements contained in WIOA sec. 

116 pertain solely to title I adult, 

dislocated worker, and youth programs. 

As provided by WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(B) 

and § 677.165 of this regulation, the 

Governor has discretion to add 

additional indicators of performance. 

The Departments recognize that Local 

WDBs and CEOs are critical partners in 

the establishment of additional 

indicators of performance and strongly 

encourage States to engage and consult 

with Local WDBs and CEOs in their 

development. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Section 677.210 How are local 

performance levels established? 

Section 677.210 explains how the 

local performance levels are established. 

This section has been revised and 

renumbered in accordance with the 

distinctions among expected, 

negotiated, and adjusted levels of 

performance as described in the 

preamble to § 677.170. This has resulted 

in the introduction of the terms 

‘‘negotiated levels’’ and ‘‘adjusted 

levels’’ as it applies appropriately 

within the process. Additionally, the 

Departments have added language to 

mirror provisions in § 677.190 that 

require 2 years of complete data for any 

local core program before applying the 

objective statistical model and 

establishing adjusted levels of 

performance. 

Comments: Several comments 

pertained to the negotiations process in 

response to proposed § 677.210(b). A 

few commenters were unclear why 

Local WDBs are included in the 

negotiations process described in sec. 

116(c) of WIOA but are not included in 

the negotiations process described in 

sec. 116(b). Many commenters also 

expressed a desire that the negotiations 

process be meaningful, with one 

commenter noting that the negotiations 

process under WIA was often subjective 

with performance standards dictated on 

a take it or leave it basis. Similarly, a 

commenter emphasized that the process 

should not simply be a matter of setting 

a target independently and passing it 

down to Local WDBs. Another 

commenter also suggested that the 

overall negotiations process would be 

enhanced if local areas were allowed to 

provide additional information not 

accounted for in the statistical models. 

One commenter suggested that the 

regulations contain an appeal 

mechanism for Local WDBs in cases 

where the State does not negotiate 

performance with the Local WDB and 

CEO as required by WIOA. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that local areas are 

permitted to provide additional 

information during the negotiations 

process. This allows the negotiations 

process to take into account other 

information that local areas consider 

important when establishing the 

negotiated levels of performance. The 

Departments also note that under WIOA 

sec. 116(g)(2)(B), the local areas may 

appeal the Governor’s decision to 

impose a reorganization plan under 

WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(B)(i). Therefore, if 

the Governor fails to negotiate with the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55866 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Local WDBs, the Local WDB fails to 

meet its local performance 

accountability indicators as described in 

WIOA sec. 116(g), and the Governor 

imposes a reorganization plan, then the 

Local WDB may exercise its right to 

appeal under WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(B). 

For further discussion, the Departments 

refer readers to the preamble to 20 CFR 

679.130 on the functions of the State 

WDB (see DOL WIOA Final Rule 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register). 

WIOA sec. 116(c)(2) requires the 

Local WDB, CEO, and the Governor to 

negotiate and reach agreement on local 

levels of performance. The Local WDBs 

are not included in the process outlined 

in sec. 116(b) because that process 

pertains to State accountability, with 

negotiations occurring between the State 

and the cognizant Federal agency for the 

core program. The Departments agree 

that WIOA requires a meaningful 

negotiation. The Departments encourage 

the parties to negotiate which the 

Departments interpret as requiring 

open-communication between the 

parties for the purpose of reaching an 

agreement on the local performance 

targets. The Departments emphasize that 

the purpose of the statistical adjustment 

model required under sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(viii) is to enhance 

objectivity in the development of 

performance targets as part of the 

negotiations process. However, because 

the Departments have concluded that 

the requirement to negotiate is already 

conveyed through WIOA and the 

regulation, the Departments do not 

consider additional regulatory text 

necessary to ensure States comply with 

the requirements contained in sec. 

116(c) that pertain to inclusion in the 

negotiations process. Therefore, no 

change to the regulatory text has been 

made in response to this comment. 

The Departments also agree that the 

statistical adjustment model may not 

adequately account for all of the 

economic and demographic variables 

that may affect a local area’s 

performance. Section 677.210(c) 

requires the negotiations between the 

Governor, Local WDB, and CEO to 

include a discussion of the 

circumstances not accounted for in the 

model. Because this is already required 

by the regulation, the Departments did 

not make a change to the regulatory text 

in response to this comment. 

Comments: Another commenter 

recommended that local areas have 

access to the models in order to run 

local targets. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that it will publish 

the methodology of the statistical 

adjustment model, and the Departments 

invite the public, including local areas, 

to review, and access the model, as 

appropriate. 

Comments: The Departments received 

a number of comments on the statistical 

adjustment model. Some commenters 

expressed concern that using the model 

as proposed at the end of the program 

year would result in targets being 

applied retroactively. Similarly, 

commenters expressed concern that 

targets set through the model may not 

reflect service to hard-to-serve 

populations, such as foreign-born 

participants often served by title II 

programs or other populations with 

barriers to employment. Some 

commenters suggested that the model 

needed to be updated on a regular basis 

in order to reflect the barriers of 

enrolled participants and the 

participants actually served. 

Departments’ Response: With respect 

to the utilization of the model at the end 

of program year in order to account for 

actual circumstances, this would not be 

a retroactive application of a 

performance target, but rather an 

adjustment to an already established 

target based on what actually transpired 

during the program year. This would 

take into account, as a commenter 

suggested, service to hard-to-serve 

populations, such as those with barriers 

to employment. In other words, the 

model will increase the performance 

levels required if a State or local area 

were to serve lower-than-anticipated 

percentages of hard-to-serve populations 

with barriers to employment because it 

would presumably be easier to serve 

these individuals. Similarly, 

performance levels (or targets) would be 

decreased if a State or local area were 

to serve a higher-than-anticipated 

percentage of individuals with barriers, 

because these individuals are harder to 

serve. Given the importance both 

Departments place on consistent 

understanding, application, and 

implementation of these complex yet 

critical requirements, the Departments 

are committed to providing joint and 

substantive technical assistance in 

addition to detailed policy guidance. 

Furthermore, commenters’ expressed 

need to update the model to reflect the 

participants who are actually being 

served is one of the hallmarks of the 

statistical adjustment models as 

envisioned. Because the model 

addresses the commenters’ concerns, no 

changes to the regulatory text were 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended a national workgroup 

with broad participation across core 

programs and other WIOA stakeholders 

in order to address the statistical model, 

as well as other aspects of WIOA 

performance accountability because of 

the significance and impact of this Joint 

WIOA Final Rule. One commenter 

recommended that local areas be given 

an opportunity to review any detailed 

methodology utilized for setting 

performance targets prior to 

implementation. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments understand the 

significance of these joint regulations on 

performance accountability that 

implement sec. 116 of WIOA. It is for 

this reason that the Departments have 

convened multiple stakeholder 

dialogues to address the intricacies of 

the statistical adjustment models as they 

are developed, consistent with, and as 

required by WIOA sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(viii). In addition, once the 

statistical adjustment methodology has 

been approved, there will be a comment 

period to ensure broad stakeholder 

input into its finalization. 

Comments: Another commenter 

remarked that CEOs of each local area 

in a planning region should be 

permitted to choose to develop, rather 

than be required to develop, regional 

performance measures in addition to 

local area measures and recommended a 

revision to 20 CFR 679.510 to reflect 

this suggested flexibility, remarking that 

Local WDBs and CEOs already have a 

significant responsibility regarding their 

own local area performance targets; 

requiring regional targets in addition to 

local area targets would be unduly 

burdensome. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

108(b)(1) requires the CEOs to develop 

the regional performance indicators and 

the Departments’ regulations are 

consistent with this statutory 

requirement. Therefore, the regulatory 

text has not been changed in response 

to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter requested 

that the Departments provide additional 

information regarding the requirement 

to promote continuous improvement 

through performance target setting, 

adding that neither the Preamble nor the 

NPRM text discuss the requirement 

beyond the fact that it exists. The 

commenter opined that the Departments 

seemed to interpret continuous 

improvement under WIA as requiring 

improvement on every measure, every 

year, and offered their own 

interpretation of continuous 

improvement, which could be defined 

as achieving the same results with fewer 

resources or serving a population with 

more barriers (or simply a larger 

population) with the same resources 

(i.e., increased efficiency). A commenter 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55867 

recommended, based on the context of 

an optimal return on investment in 

Federal funds, that setting targets 

focusing on improvement of measures 

with lower performance, while setting 

targets consistent with existing 

performance levels on measures with 

higher performance, is consistent with 

the requirement to set targets that 

promote continuous improvement and 

an optimal return on investment of 

Federal funds. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that continuous 

improvement can be defined in multiple 

ways based on the circumstances and 

context. Because the meaning of this 

term varies significantly based on the 

circumstances and context in which it is 

used, the Departments do not think it is 

appropriate for inclusion in the 

regulation and will be providing 

additional information on continuous 

improvement during guidance 

development. Therefore, no change was 

made to the regulatory text in response 

to this comment. 

6. Incentives and Sanctions for Local 

Performance for Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act Title I Programs 

(20 CFR Part 677, Subpart D; 34 CFR 

361.215 Through 361.225; 34 CFR 

463.215 Through 463.225) 

Section 677.215 Under what 

circumstances are local areas eligible for 

State Incentive Grants? 

This section of the regulation governs 

when local areas are eligible for 

incentive grants. 

Comments: The Departments received 

a comment asking under what 

circumstances local areas are eligible for 

State incentive grants. Another 

commenter remarked that the question 

posed by the rule regarding possible 

circumstances for eligibility is not 

actually answered by the rule, which 

instead goes on to discuss pay-forperformance strategies. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that the regulatory 

text in this paragraph should be revised 

to ensure understanding and consistent 

application. Therefore, paragraph (a) has 

been revised to specify that Governors 

are not required to award incentive 

funds based on local performance on the 

primary indicators, although they have 

the flexibility to do so using State setaside funds based on WIOA at sec. 

134(a)(3)(A)(xi). Paragraph (b) has been 

revised to clarify that Governors also 

have the flexibility to create incentives 

for the Local WDBs to implement payfor-performance contract strategies to 

provide training services as described in 

sec. 134(c)(3) or youth activities as 

described in sec. 129(c)(2). However, 

these incentives must be paid for with 

non-Federal funds. 

The Departments have chosen not to 

regulate under what specific 

circumstances a local area be eligible for 

incentive grants using WIOA funds 

given that this is at the discretion of the 

Governor. However, the Departments 

are considering providing guidance on 

this topic. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: Other commenters 

remarked that separate funds should be 

made available for States as an incentive 

for meeting or exceeding statewide 

performance targets as was the case 

under WIA, with commenters 

expressing concern that the dedicated 

incentive grants to States were utilized 

to leverage other funds and programs 

and the lack of this provision in WIOA 

presents a funding gap. These 

commenters requested further clarity on 

the issue and recommended that funds 

be made available to target system 

development needs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

requirement under WIA that highperforming States be rewarded with 

State incentive grants within specified 

Federal parameters no longer exists 

under WIOA. Rather, sec. 

134(a)(3)(A)(xi) provides States with the 

flexibility to utilize Governor’s Reserve 

funds to provide incentive grants to 

local areas for performance by the local 

areas on local performance 

accountability indicators. Further, the 

Departments would like to emphasize 

that, in addition to the statewide 

capacity building efforts that are a 

required use of the funds allotted to 

States, both Departments are committed 

to providing substantive technical 

assistance on a national, regional, and 

statewide basis in order to target 

specific development needs, including 

needs around performance 

accountability. No change to the 

regulatory text is being made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

confusion about the programs included 

in pay-for-performance contract 

strategies and inquired as to whether the 

provision applies to title II providers, 

which the commenter recommended. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments interpret the statutory 

provision for pay-for-performance 

contract strategy incentives at WIOA 

sec. 116(h) as only permitted for WIOA 

title I programs because of the specific 

reference to title I training services for 

adults and dislocated workers as well as 

the reference to title I youth services. 

Moreover, WIOA references Local 

WDBs, which are responsible for title I 

programs and providers, as the other 

programs do not have Local WDBs. 

However, there is nothing prohibiting 

the adoption of pay-for-performance 

contract strategies by other programs 

that is consistent with other Federal, 

State, and local policies. No change to 

the regulatory text has been made in 

response to this comment. 

Section 677.220 Under what 

circumstances may a corrective action 

or sanction be applied to local areas for 

poor performance? 

This section explains when a 

corrective action plan or sanction may 

be applied to a local area. This section 

has been revised and renumbered in 

accordance with the distinctions among 

expected, negotiated, and adjusted 

levels of performance as described in 

the preamble to § 677.170. This has 

resulted in the introduction of the terms 

‘‘negotiated levels’’ and ‘‘adjusted 

levels’’ as it applies appropriately 

within the process. Additionally, the 

Departments have added language to 

mirror provisions in § 677.190 that 

require 2 years of complete data for any 

local core program before applying the 

objective statistical model and 

establishing adjusted levels of 

performance. The Departments also 

have revised § 677.220(b) to specify that 

failure occurs when a local area fails to 

meet the adjusted levels of performance 

for the same indicator for the same core 

program authorized under WIOA title I 

for the third consecutive program year. 

Comments: Several commenters 

indicated that more clarity is needed 

regarding how sanctions would apply 

locally to other programs and funding 

streams besides WIOA title I. One 

commenter remarked that the impact of 

local sanctions should be spread across 

the other core programs. Another 

commenter noted that all potential 

sanctions would be placed squarely on 

the shoulders of the Local WDB 

regardless of fault, creating a situation it 

viewed as inequitable. 

Departments’ Response: Any financial 

sanction applied to the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment is based on State 

performance across the core programs, 

and not local performance. This is 

governed by WIOA sec. 116(f) and 

subpart B of this part. Specifically, 

§§ 677.180 through 677.200 govern 

when the Departments will sanction a 

State. The Departments note that the 

local area provisions under WIOA sec. 

116(c) only apply to WIOA title I 

programs. The other core programs may 

participate, partner, and provide 

services in a local area, but, there is no 

local area performance accountability 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55868 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

provision for those programs. However, 

local areas are held accountable for 

performance on the primary 

performance indicators for title I 

programs. Local-level accountability 

and any sanctions imposed are 

determined by the State, consistent with 

WIOA sec. 116(g) and subpart D of this 

part. Therefore, the Departments are not 

changing the regulatory text in response 

to these comments. 

Comments: Several commenters 

responded to the Departments’ request 

for feedback regarding what other 

actions in addition to those already in 

statute should be considered by the 

Governor for local areas that continue to 

fail to meet performance for 3 

consecutive years. Many commenters 

offered suggestions but stated the need 

for clarification first on what is meant 

by ‘‘failure to meet adjusted levels of 

performance on required indicators for 

a third consecutive year,’’ 

recommending that local area failure for 

a third consecutive year be based on the 

same indicator and not any indicator. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have defined ‘‘failure to 

meet’’ adjusted levels of performance at 

the State level across the core programs 

based on the primary indicators of 

performance and criteria delineated in 

§ 677.190 of these regulations. 

Determining what is meant by ‘‘failure 

to meet adjusted levels of performance 

on required indicators for a third 

consecutive year’’ at the local level is 

within the Governor’s discretion per 

§ 677.220(a)(1), which is similar to the 

historical requirements that existed 

under WIA. Because defining these 

terms is within the Governor’s 

discretion, the Departments think this is 

not appropriate to be addressed in these 

regulations. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: One commenter proposed 

another reason for the Departments to 

define ‘‘failure to meet adjusted levels of 

performance’’ arguing that a local area 

could be making significant progress 

towards improving performance but 

could potentially miss the required level 

by a fraction of a point. The commenter 

added that the lagged performance data 

complicates matters further and that 

some systemic performance issues may 

take more than 3 years to correct. For 

these reasons, this commenter suggested 

changing the regulatory language of 

‘‘fails to meet’’ to ‘‘fails to make 

satisfactory progress.’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments’ requirement to determine 

when a corrective action or sanction can 

be applied to a local area is based on 

statutory language and the Departments 

will not modify this requirement. 

Therefore, no change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: Several commenters 

offered suggestions for additional 

actions that might be taken by the 

Governor in addition to those already 

specified in regulatory text. Some 

commenters suggested that the Governor 

should be authorized to apply a 

financial sanction, with one commenter 

adding that the Governor should be 

authorized to dissolve a local area for 

continued failure, and other 

commenters recommended that the 

Governor also be authorized to 

consolidate local areas. Another 

commenter supported the Governor’s 

flexibility, noting that redesignation of a 

local area is an inequitable penalty 

when compared to the penalties WIOA 

prescribes for State workforce agencies 

that fail to meet required performance 

levels. Other commenters, including a 

number of Local WDBs, expressed 

concern that the language in the 

regulatory text allowing Governors to 

take significant actions as deemed 

appropriate was too broad in scope and 

could be used to redesignate or 

eliminate local areas, suggesting at a 

minimum that parameters be specified 

at the Federal level. These commenters 

also stated that any additional actions 

taken by the Governor should be 

required to include consultation with 

the local elected official, although one 

commenter suggested the mandatory 

consultation with local elected officials 

should extend to any actions related to 

technical assistance. One commenter 

also inquired about the absence of any 

reference to failing performance for 2 

consecutive years, stating it was clear 

that technical assistance was required 

after the first year, and it was clear a 

reorganization plan was needed after the 

third consecutive year, but the 

regulations were silent on what would 

take place after the second consecutive 

year of failure. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered the comments 

regarding additional significant actions 

that might be taken by a Governor for 

continued local performance failure and 

concluded that there is nothing 

prohibiting a State from considering 

financial sanctions as a potential 

‘‘significant action’’ as part of the 

reorganization plan. Therefore, no 

Federal action is needed to permit this. 

The Departments also agree that 

significant actions taken by the 

Governor pursuant to § 677.220(b)(3) 

would be most effective if they included 

a consultation with the local elected 

official and other local stakeholders, 

and therefore, recommend the Governor 

do so. However, the Departments do not 

think a change in regulatory text is 

necessary as WIOA and regulation do 

not preclude the Governor from doing 

this. The Departments do not agree that 

regulatory text is necessary requiring 

consultation with local elected officials 

occur prior to the provision of any 

technical assistance as this is not 

required by WIOA and the process for 

providing technical assistance is at the 

Governor’s discretion. Therefore, the 

Departments have chosen not to regulate 

this. Regarding the comment pertaining 

to failure for a second consecutive year, 

WIOA sec. 116(g)(1) makes clear that 

failure ‘‘for any program year’’ will 

trigger the provision of technical 

assistance; therefore, if failure occurs in 

the second consecutive year, the 

Governor is obligated to provide 

technical assistance, or request the 

Secretary of Labor to do so. In response 

to comments that the Governor could 

consolidate, redesignate, or dissolve a 

local area through the reorganization 

plan, the Departments note that WIOA 

sec. 116(g)(2) leaves what actions are 

most appropriate to take when a local 

area fails to meet its local performance 

accountability indicators, to the 

Governor’s discretion. Therefore, the 

Departments will not change regulatory 

text in response to these comments. 

Comments: One commenter requested 

clarification on § 677.220(b)(2), which 

allows the Governor to prohibit the use 

of eligible providers and one-stop 

partners that have been identified as 

achieving poor levels of performance as 

an action that may be taken as part of 

a reorganization plan. The commenter 

pointed out that neither WIOA nor 

proposed regulations addressed poor 

performance levels of one-stop partners, 

such as TANF, and suggested that the 

NPRM was referring to a competitively 

procured contractor or one-stop center 

operator. 

Departments’ Response: The language 

in the regulation is statutory language 

from WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(A)(ii), and the 

Departments do not have authority to 

change the requirements of WIOA. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to this comment. 

Comments: The Departments also 

received a number of general comments 

pertaining to this paragraph. One 

commenter wanted to ensure that any 

technical assistance for youth programs 

be developed by experienced youth 

experts that also could include youth 

who have successfully navigated the 

system and who are now employed. 

This commenter also cautioned against 

assumptions that a particular youth 

program may be causing the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55869 

performance failure. Another 

commenter strongly recommended that 

the Departments delay enforcement of 

the sanctions provisions for at least 2 

years to further calibrate the statistical 

adjustment model, during which time 

States could approach implementation 

in a methodical manner that allowed for 

the application of lessons learned 

without strict penalties. Other 

commenters offered a similar 

suggestion, recommending that an 

additional 2 years was needed to 

implement these requirements, during 

which time the Departments should 

launch an intensive and nationwide 

technical assistance effort. Another 

commenter recommended transitional 

implementation in conjunction with the 

development of a national workgroup of 

broad stakeholders and experts to tackle 

each aspect of performance 

accountability, including the imposition 

of sanctions. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments expect the technical 

assistance the Governor provides 

pursuant to § 677.220(a) will be wellinformed and developed with input 

from subject matter experts and agrees 

that former youth participants can offer 

a valuable perspective on technical 

assistance needs based on their own 

experience. In response to comments 

requesting delayed implementation of 

performance at the local level, the 

Departments received similar comments 

on the State-level performance 

accountability. In response to those 

comments, the Departments have 

revised § 677.190(c) to provide that the 

Departments expect full implementation 

of the performance accountability 

requirements to take some years, given 

the complexity of WIOA’s requirements 

and the timing of the availability of data 

necessary to populate the statistical 

adjustment models, for instance. At the 

local level, the decisions on 

performance implementation are at the 

Governor’s discretion and subject to the 

requirements of 20 CFR part 679 (see 

DOL WIOA Final Rule, published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register). Therefore, no change to the 

regulatory text is being made in this part 

in response to this comment. Additional 

information on implementation will be 

provided by the Departments in 

guidance. 

Section 677.225 Under what 

circumstances may local areas appeal a 

reorganization plan? 

This section of the regulation governs 

the process for an appeal if the local 

area wishes to appeal a reorganization 

plan. The Departments received few 

comments on the proposed text for this 

paragraph of the regulations. The 

Departments are implementing this 

regulation as proposed, except for a 

revision to § 677.225(d) which is 

described below. 

The Departments revised paragraph 

(d) of § 677.225, replacing ‘‘to impose a 

reorganization plan’’ with ‘‘on the 

appeal’’ for consistency with the 

relevant WIOA provision. WIOA sec. 

116(g) governs the consequences for a 

local area’s failure to meet local 

performance accountability indicators 

for the youth, adult, or dislocated 

worker programs. WIOA sec. 116(g)(2) 

requires the Governor to develop a 

corrective action plan if the local area’s 

failure continues for a third consecutive 

year. The local area and CEO of the local 

area may appeal this decision to the 

Governor. The Local WDB and CEO may 

appeal the Governor’s decision on the 

appeal to the Secretary of Labor. The 

proposed version of this paragraph 

stated that the Governor’s decision to 

impose a reorganization plan becomes 

effective at the time it is issued. 

However, WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(C) 

provides that it is the Governor’s 

decision on the appeal, not the 

reorganization plan, that becomes 

effective unless the Secretary of Labor 

rescinds or revises the plan. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended a revision to the 

regulatory text to clarify that if the 

Secretary of Labor does not respond to 

a joint appeal pursuant to § 677.225(c) 

within 30 days, then the Governor’s 

decision to impose a reorganization plan 

automatically results in the 

reorganization plan becoming effective. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

677.225(c) clearly requires the 

Departments to respond within the 

specified timeframe. The statutory text 

does not provide for automatic 

effectiveness of the plan if the Secretary 

of Labor does not respond within the 

30-day timeframe. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

7. Eligible Training Provider 

Performance for Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act Title I Programs 

(20 CFR Part 677, Subpart E; 34 CFR 

361.230; 34 CFR 463.230) 

Section 677.230 What information is 

required for the eligible training 

provider performance reports? 

Section 677.230 implements the 

requirements of sec. 116(d)(4) of WIOA, 

which requires annual ETP performance 

reports. The ETP performance reports 

provide critical information, including 

the employment, earnings, and 

credentials obtained by individuals in 

the program of study eligible to receive 

funding under the adult and dislocated 

worker formula programs under title I of 

WIOA. This information will be of 

significant benefit in assisting WIOA 

participants and members of the general 

public in identifying effective training 

programs and providers. The 

information will also benefit providers 

by widely disseminating information 

about their programs increasing 

awareness of the program and 

potentially as a tool to enhance their 

programs. 

Section 677.230(b) has been revised to 

specify that the registered 

apprenticeships programs referred to are 

those registered under the National 

Apprenticeship Act. This section, in 

conjunction with 20 CFR 680.400 

through 680.530, establishes the 

minimum requirements for performance 

information to be provided in the ETP 

performance reports. Additional 

information on these requirements and 

the data to be collected is provided 

through the WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR. The Departments inserted 

‘‘mechanism of’’ into § 677.230(c) to 

clarify that the State must provide a 

mechanism of electronic access to the 

public ETP performance report in its 

annual State performance report. This 

edit was made for consistency with 

§ 677.160(c). 

Comments: The Departments sought 

specific input on how the Departments 

could best support ETPs in meeting the 

requirements of this section as well as 

on how to make the ETP reports a useful 

tool for WIOA participants, ETPs, 

interested stakeholders, and the general 

public. Multiple commenters suggested 

the Departments could support ETPs in 

meeting the requirements of subpart E 

by providing reporting formats and 

instructions in order to establish the 

basis for data collection. A commenter 

remarked that guidance to States would 

help streamline performance reporting 

for training providers and minimize the 

associated burden. 

However, other comments suggested 

the Departments avoid being too 

prescriptive in order to maximize the 

accessibility of the reported data. A few 

commenters suggested that the 

increased volume of data collection 

necessitates technical assistance and 

funding support from DOL. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize that in many 

cases the ETP reporting provisions will 

be different from what was standard 

under WIA. In recognition of this, the 

Departments are issuing definitions on 

the elements required under this 

provision through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR in accordance with the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55870 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

PRA. The Departments crafted the 

definitions as they pertain to ETP 

reporting with consideration of 

commenter suggestions, industry 

standards, and statutory requirements 

while balancing the need for clarity and 

flexibility. Although the Departments 

agree these definitions are needed, they 

are appropriately handled through the 

aforementioned WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR. 

Comments: Several commenters 

asserted that the Departments must 

permit an alternate definition of 

‘‘participant’’ and/or ‘‘exit’’ for use in 

ETP reporting. These commenters noted 

that they would require considerable 

local flexibility in the application of 

these definitions. Commenters further 

articulated a need for technical 

assistance around the data collections 

associated with these definitions. 

Departments’ Response: As 

mentioned above, through the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR, the Departments 

are issuing definitions of how these 

terms are used in ETP reporting. These 

definitions balance the needs for 

consistency and flexibility. No change 

to the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: A few commenters 

suggested that the performance metrics, 

which are required to be reported for all 

individuals in a program of study, be 

waived for non-WIOA participants for 

the first 2 years to provide sufficient 

time to establish the required data 

systems to collect and report on these 

elements. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have given consideration 

to the systems readiness to implement 

these provisions and understand that 

implementation will require guidance 

and technical assistance in order to 

assist States in this implementation. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

data collected should align with existing 

data collected on educational programs 

from other sources in order to maximize 

its usefulness to consumers. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered this concern, 

however, the data being collected are 

required by WIOA sec. 116(d)(4). 

Therefore no change to the regulatory 

text has been made in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that since many training providers serve 

small populations, the data they report 

would not be statistically reliable 

indicators of performance. Similarly, a 

commenter requested clarification 

regarding the application of the 

disaggregation requirements to 

individual ETPs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the contribution 

of ETPs that may serve smaller 

populations. The Departments note that 

the data disaggregation requirement in 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(C) also applies to 

the ETP performance reports. The 

Departments will provide additional 

information on the parameters of the 

collection and reporting of this 

information through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR and program-specific 

guidance. This information is required 

to be collected under WIOA sec. 

116(d)(4); therefore, no change to the 

regulatory text has been made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter urged the 

Departments to provide States 

maximum flexibility in displaying 

provider performance data in order to 

allow for State experimentation and to 

ensure compatibility with technology 

platforms. Another commenter 

suggested that the ‘‘scorecards’’ already 

developed by Local WDBs should be 

considered as a model. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

116(d)(1) and (4) require the use of ‘a 

template’ developed by the Departments 

to report on outcomes for eligible 

training providers and this template 

must be used consistent with the 

requirements of WIOA sec. 116 and this 

regulation. However, the use of this 

template does not preclude the States 

from additionally displaying 

performance data in a manner of their 

choosing and the Departments welcome 

innovative approaches to displaying this 

information in a user-friendly manner. 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter stated that if 

this data were a Federal requirement 

collected through ED, there would be a 

more consistent national approach. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

116(d)(4) requires the collection and 

reporting of this information on eligible 

training providers therefore no change 

to the regulatory text has been made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: A few commenters 

suggested that the possible barriers to 

employment be standardized for the 

purpose of the ETP performance report. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the importance 

of standardized and uniform definitions 

to provide data that are comparable 

across programs and States. The 

Departments note that specific 

calculations, definitions, and reporting 

parameters will be provided through the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR; therefore, 

no change has been made with respect 

to defining barriers to employment in 

this section. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: A commenter identified 

the most important data to be reported 

as training program completion rates, 

wage rates, and job placement rates. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the 

suggestions raised regarding information 

that is valuable to understanding the 

outcomes of training programs. WIOA 

provides specific collection 

requirements at sec. 116(d)(4), which 

includes much of the data suggested by 

the commenter, and further information 

as it pertains to the reporting 

requirements for these programs can be 

found in the WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR. No changes to the regulatory text 

were made in response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

the performance outcomes only should 

be collected on those participants 

receiving services under WIOA title I, 

subtitle B. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

116(d)(4)(a) requires reporting on the 

primary indicators of performance for 

all students in the program of study, 

therefore no change has been made in 

response to this suggestion. No change 

to the regulatory text was made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter asserted 

that the ETP reporting requirements 

should be kept flexible to provide local 

providers the greatest choice in training 

providers. Commenters urged the 

Departments to allow ETP eligibility to 

last more than 1 year in order to 

generate enough participants and exits 

to provide a useful outcome 

measurement. A commenter remarked 

that WIOA authorizes Governors to 

establish a transition period for ETPs 

under WIA to remain on the list through 

2015. A commenter suggested that the 

Departments require States to list 

credentialing programs on ETP lists 

(ETPLs) in order to provide the most 

comprehensive information. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

122 governs this process; therefore, the 

Departments refer readers to the 

discussion of 20 CFR part 680 in the 

DOL WIOA Final Rule (published in 

this issue of the Federal Register) for 

responses to these comments and more 

information regarding these issues. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: The Departments received 

numerous comments requesting clarity 

and further information on the 

interaction between the provisions in 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(4) Eligible Training 

Provider performance report and the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55871 

performance reporting required for 

training provider eligibility under 

WIOA sec. 122 (20 CFR part 680, see 

DOL WIOA Final Rule). 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

116(d)(4) requires that the ETP 

performance report must be prepared 

annually and the States must provide 

electronic access to this report in their 

State annual performance report 

pursuant to § 677.160(c). WIOA sec. 122 

governs the process for determining 

training provider eligibility; this process 

requires calculation of certain 

performance information. As many 

commenters noted, there is significant 

overlap in what must be included in the 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(4) report and the 

information providers must provide for 

the eligibility determination under 

WIOA sec. 122. The Departments 

recognize this overlap may provide 

opportunities for States to collect this 

information for both purposes. Further 

information concerning ETP reporting 

requirements and performance reporting 

requirements is available through the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR. The 

Departments will also be providing 

technical assistance in regard to these 

reporting requirements. No change to 

the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Under 20 CFR 681.550, DOL allows 

the use of individual training accounts 

(ITAs) for out-of-school youth ages 16 to 

24. The parameters for this allowance 

are discussed in the preamble to that 

section. The Departments clarify here 

how youth are reported on in the WIOA 

sec. 116(d)(4) eligible training provider 

performance reports. The Departments 

clarify that such out-of-school youth are 

reported on in both the eligible training 

provider performance report as well as 

in the State and Local annual reports. 

Because WIOA sec. 116(d)(4) does not 

describe such youth, the Departments 

are clarifying here as well as in the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR how these 

youth program participants are reported 

on in these reports. When such youth 

are reported on in the eligible training 

provider performance reports, their 

performance is reported using the same 

performance indicators as prescribed for 

WIOA adult and dislocated worker 

participants. Using the same metrics 

minimizes the burden on ETPs. The 

Departments note that such youth are 

excluded from the required reporting 

identified at § 677.230(a)(1)(i) through 

(iii) but are included in the counts 

required by § 677.230(a)(2) through 

(a)(4). The Departments further note that 

such youth are additionally reported on 

in the State and Local annual reports in 

accordance with §§ 677.155(d), 677.160, 

and 677.205, as described in those 

sections. The Departments will provide 

additional guidance on the treatment of 

these individuals through the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR and in guidance. 

Comments: A number of commenters 

responded to the Departments’ request 

for comments regarding support for 

registered apprenticeship programs 

interested in providing performance 

information. A few commenters 

suggested that registered apprenticeship 

programs should report on the same 

performance outcomes as other training 

programs. Another commenter urged the 

Departments to require registered 

apprenticeships to publish performance 

data. Other commenters suggested there 

is value in having a comprehensive list 

of registered apprenticeship providers, 

but opposed additional reporting 

requirements for these programs. A 

commenter stated that if preapprenticeship programs are to be 

included in the ETP system, they will 

likely require separate criteria. Another 

commenter stated that performance 

information for registered 

apprenticeship programs should be 

clearly described. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have concluded that WIOA 

sec. 116(d)(4) does not require registered 

apprenticeship programs to provide 

performance information for the ETP 

report. However, the Departments note 

that including information for a 

registered apprenticeship in these 

reports would provide a benefit to those 

individual seeking training through 

registered apprenticeships in that they 

will gain visibility and access to a 

broader applicant pool by voluntarily 

participating in this reporting. 

Therefore, the Departments are 

implementing § 677.230(b) as proposed 

to allow for the voluntary submission of 

performance information from 

registered apprenticeship program 

sponsors and their providers of related 

technical instruction. Any such 

information must be published in the 

State’s annual ETP performance reports. 

With regard to the creation of a 

comprehensive list of registered 

apprenticeships the Departments note 

that such a requirement is beyond the 

scope of this regulation. No change to 

the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter supported 

the creation of incentives for registered 

apprenticeship programs to submit 

performance information. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments are not creating additional 

incentives but notes that incentive for 

reporting already exists as explained 

above. No change to the regulatory text 

was made in response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter encouraged 

the Departments to account for positive 

outcomes from registered 

apprenticeship programs, even if the 

outcome is not necessarily completion 

of the program because programs could 

be several years in length. 

Departments’ Response: To the extent 

that the registered apprenticeship is 

actively reporting the information 

required under these provisions 

includes such information as 

measureable skill gains, which accounts 

for progress made during participation 

of a registered apprenticeship. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to this comment. 

Comments: The Departments received 

multiple comments on how to calculate 

the average cost per participant for those 

who received training services for the 

most recent program year and the 3 

preceding program years as required by 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(4)(E) and 

§ 677.230(a)(3). One commenter noted 

that this metric is not currently 

collected. Such suggestions included: 

Calculating at the education or training 

program level, rather than the 

participant level; aligning calculations 

with existing national reporting 

standards, such as the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System; 

calculating based on the tuition plus 

any support services (e.g., books, 

supplies, transportation) necessary to 

succeed in the training; calculating 

based on actual training costs for a 

student, including portions paid for 

with government subsidies; and 

calculating based on the direct cost paid 

under WIOA title I funding. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered these 

proposals; however, the Departments 

have concluded that the cost per 

participant is more appropriately 

addressed in the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR, which provides more 

specificity around what underlying data 

are necessary and how such data will be 

used in calculating this information. 

The Departments will provide 

additional information on how this 

metric is calculated through the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR, guidance, and 

technical assistance. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: Commenters expressed 

concern that the ETP performance 

report does not provide sufficient cost 

information because it does not take 

into account other factors such as, 

textbooks, supplies, transportation, etc. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

116(d)(4) and § 677.230 mandate the 

collection of specific information for 

each program of study for each eligible 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55872 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

provider of training services under title 

I as outlined in § 677.230(a). The 

Departments are cognizant of the 

reporting burden the ETP performance 

report places on ETPs and do not want 

to place additional burden on these 

entities. However, WIOA sec. 122 and 

20 CFR part 680 require States to 

develop procedures for determining the 

eligibility of training providers and 

programs and to make information 

about the provider and program 

available to participants and members of 

the public. The WIOA sec. 116(d)(4) 

ETP performance report is only one 

component of an overall consumer 

product. States are not precluded from 

developing additional resources for 

consumers and the Departments 

encourage States to identify additional 

information that would be most helpful 

for students to have as they are 

evaluating a program or provider. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: Numerous commenters 

raised issues on the burden posed for 

training providers. Such as: 

• A commenter asserted that many 

small training providers, particularly 

those in rural areas, would be unable to 

comply with ETP performance reporting 

requirements, which would limit 

available trainings. 

• A commenter expressed concern 

regarding the burden associated with 

collecting data reliant on SSNs, stating 

that many community colleges do not 

collect student SSNs. 

• A commenter described the 

increased data collection burden 

associated with obtaining the SSNs for 

all enrolled students, and, if deemed 

necessary, establishing data sharing 

agreements with each of the individual 

ETPs. 

• A commenter asserted that the costs 

associated with collecting, maintaining, 

and reporting out data are unknown and 

will vary depending on the entity 

responsible for these processes. 

• This commenter also suggested that 

entities applying for inclusion on the 

State ETPL may not capture the required 

demographic and programmatic data 

that would allow for the production of 

the performance report. 

• A few commenters suggested that 

many of the reporting elements would 

not be valuable and would impose a 

significant burden at the State and local 

level. 

Multiple commenters suggested that 

many training providers do not have the 

capability or desire to report the 

proposed level of data on a regular 

basis, and this will lead to a decrease in 

training provider participation. 

Departments’ Response: The 

information required to be reported is 

required by WIOA sec. 116(d)(4). The 

Departments reiterate that the ETP 

performance reports provide critical 

information, including the employment, 

earnings, and credentials obtained by 

individuals in the program of study 

eligible to receive funding under the 

adult and dislocated worker formula 

programs under title I of WIOA. This 

information will be of significant benefit 

in assisting WIOA participants and 

members of the general public in 

identifying effective training programs 

and providers. The information will also 

benefit providers by widely 

disseminating information about their 

programs and potentially as a tool to 

enhance their programs. No change to 

the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: Many commenters 

addressed § 677.230(e)(3) which 

contains the provisions allowing the 

Governor to designate one or more State 

agencies such as a State Education 

Agency or State Educational Authority 

to assist in overseeing the eligible 

training provider performance. Several 

commenters suggested designating the 

State as responsible for ETP data 

collection, coordination, and 

dissemination. These commenters 

suggested that their proposed approach 

would ensure local staff time is spent 

serving participants and that the data 

are consistently collected and reported 

across the State. A few commenters also 

stated that the burden on training 

providers would be minimized by not 

requiring collection of any data the State 

already has. A few commenters 

suggested aligning the ETP eligibility 

determination process with the data 

reporting process in order to minimize 

burden. A commenter sought 

clarification regarding the role of 

training providers in generating ETP 

performance reports and collecting data 

on participants. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note that § 677.230(e) 

allows many such actions as 

recommended by the commenters. 

Additionally, the Departments reiterate 

that to the extent that there is overlap 

between data collected to meet 

requirements under WIOA sec. 122 and 

WIOA sec. 116 this overlap may provide 

opportunities for efficiency in collection 

and reporting of this information for 

both purposes. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: Commenters expressed 

concern regarding the level of burden to 

eligible training providers for collecting 

the required data. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the need to 

identify the most effective data 

collection strategies and have reviewed 

the comments received through the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR. Based on 

comments received, the Departments 

have concluded that State grantees are 

best situated to make the ETP 

performance reports available to ETA 

given their existing familiarity with the 

reporting structure. Grantees are 

required to establish a process to collect 

the data from the eligible training 

providers. The Departments will 

provide additional guidance on the ETP 

performance report. 

Comments: In order to facilitate the 

reporting process, a commenter 

suggested that all training providers 

should report outcomes in the same 

format to facilitate cross-program 

comparisons and identify 

underperforming vendors. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that reporting data in 

the same format would facilitate crossprogram comparisons and WIOA sec. 

116(d)(1) requires the Departments to 

develop a template for the annual ETP 

performance report. This section of 

WIOA requires the ETPs to use this 

report; therefore, all annual ETP 

performance reports will have outcomes 

listed in the same report to facilitate 

cross-program comparisons. Because 

this is already accomplished through 

WIOA and the regulation, the 

Departments did not make any changes 

to the regulatory text based on this 

comment. 

Comments: Another commenter 

suggested that each program of study 

that a provider wants to be eligible to 

serve WIOA-funded students should be 

required to report. 

Departments’ Response: Under WIOA 

sec. 116(d)(4), the required reporting on 

a program of study only applies to those 

eligible training providers who are 

already on the State list of Eligible 

training providers and programs. 

Additional information on eligibility 

requirements is found in 20 CFR part 

680, subpart D. The Departments also 

note, however, there is nothing in WIOA 

that precludes a State or an Eligible 

Training provider from providing or 

publishing similar information. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter pointed out 

that entrepreneurship training would 

not score well on the performance 

indicators unless a recognized 

credential is developed. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge concerns 

raised with regard to training that is 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55873 

targeted at self-employment and 

recognizes that individuals who are selfemployed would not be accounted for in 

State UI wage records. However, the 

Departments note that WIOA sec. 

116(d)(4) identifies more than just 

employment or credential based 

outcomes. Such indicators as 

measurable skill gains combined with 

the allowance to collect and verify 

employment information through 

supplemental means as described more 

fully in the preamble to § 677.175 

provides alternative points of 

information on outcomes associated 

with such trainings. The Departments 

have not made any revisions to this 

section with regard to this comment. 

Further clarification on the allowed 

sources of data and calculations for 

these provisions will be provided 

through the WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR. No change to the regulatory text 

was made in response to this comment. 

8. Performance Reporting 

Administrative Requirements (20 CFR 

Part 677, Subpart F; 34 CFR 361.235 

Through 361.240; 34 CFR 463.235 

Through 463.240) 

Section 677.235 What are the reporting 

requirements for individual records for 

core Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) title I 

programs; the Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service program, as 

amended by WIOA title III; and the 

Vocational Rehabilitation program 

authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by WIOA title IV? 

This section of the regulations 

requires all of the core programs— 

except for the title II program—to report 

using individual records, as opposed to 

aggregate data. While the NPRM would 

have required that records submitted to 

DOL must be submitted in one record 

that is integrated across all core DOLadministered programs, the regulatory 

text has been revised to read that such 

records ‘‘may’’ be submitted in an 

integrated format. 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed a range of concerns regarding 

the proposed reporting requirements 

that appear to be based on incorrect or 

incomplete information. For instance, 

one commenter asserted that WIA 

required an SSN for program 

participation, whereas the WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service 

program did not, thereby resulting in 

data deficiencies regarding the matching 

of wage records, which should be 

addressed under WIOA. 

Departments’ Response: The 

provision of a SSN is strongly 

encouraged to facilitate objective 

performance measurement through the 

use of wage records; however, requiring 

an SSN as a condition of program 

participation has been and remains a 

violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 

U.S.C. 552a Note, which DOL has 

previously clarified in policy guidance. 

See TEGL No. 5–08, ‘‘Policy for 

Collection and Use of Workforce System 

Participants’ Social Security Numbers.’’ 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: Another commenter 

suggested that, because one integrated 

record was required for each participant 

across all core programs, sufficient time 

should be provided to implement this 

paragraph, and it should be 

implemented no earlier than July 1, 

2018. One commenter noted that State 

VR agencies are not part of the 

Workforce Investment Streamlined 

Performance Reporting (WISPR) system 

and suggested that States should be 

allowed to file separate reports for the 

VR program. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments want to make clear that 

there is no requirement that 

performance reporting for the 

Departments of Labor and Education be 

integrated, the Departments encourage 

moving in that direction. For States that 

have integrated reporting of WIOA title 

I core programs and Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service programs, DOL 

strongly encourages those States to 

submit an integrated report. This 

provision regarding the submission of 

integrated reports does not extend to the 

AEFLA and VR programs administered 

by ED. However, the Departments note 

that as previously discussed, DOL 

intends to work towards developing an 

integrated reporting mechanism. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to this comment. 

Comments: Another commenter 

disagreed with the Departments’ 

intention to have States integrate and 

submit their performance reporting as a 

single, comprehensive, aggregate report 

because it would incur an undue and 

unrealistic burden. 

Departments’ Response: As explained 

above, this is not a current requirement. 

The Departments understand that there 

would be a burden with submitting a 

single, aggregate report to be submitted 

by one State agency when the different 

programs may currently be housed in 

different departments or agencies. 

Comments: Several commenters were 

also under the impression that all of the 

core programs currently utilize 

individual records, with one commenter 

asserting that the comment had been 

validated by WIOA staff across multiple 

States. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments also would like to clarify 

that five of the six core programs 

currently transmit individual records to 

their respective Departments. The ED’s 

OCTAE, which administers title II 

programs, does not receive individual 

records from State Adult Education 

Agencies. It is noted that for title II, 

State eligible agencies are required to 

collect individual records on a quarterly 

basis and submit annually aggregated 

data using individual records. The 

Departments acknowledge the need for 

guidance on program reporting as well 

as technical assistance needed to ensure 

consistent understanding for 

implementation. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed opposition to the exclusion of 

title II programs from the individual 

records reporting requirements. Several 

articulated that the expectations for 

system alignment through integrated 

reporting discussed in the NPRM would 

be undercut by the proposal to exclude 

title II from the same quarterly reporting 

requirements as the other five core 

programs. One commenter remarked 

that title II programs should be included 

in these reporting requirements in the 

spirit of true integration. And, and as 

previously noted, some commenters 

were under the impression that all of 

the core programs already use 

individual records, thereby making the 

exclusion of title II unwarranted. 

Departments’ Response: Although 

ED’s Office of Career, Technical, and 

Adult Education does not collect 

individual records at the Federal level, 

States are required to maintain 

individual record systems that meet 

strict standards. States are required to 

collect such data quarterly and aggregate 

the data to meet performance 

requirements in an annual submission. 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: Several commenters 

suggested that the burden for the 

proposed reporting requirements was 

considerably underestimated and 

should reside at the Federal level, with 

some suggesting the additional 

requirements constitute an unfunded 

mandate, particularly for the VR 

program, which must incur the 

significant cost and staff training needed 

to transition from annual reporting of 

the RSA 911 to the proposed quarterly 

reporting of the RSA 911. Many of these 

commenters recommended that a 

currently available tool be utilized to 

validate RSA 911 data on a quarterly 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55874 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

basis without the requirement for full 

quarterly report submission. 

Additionally, there were concerns 

raised regarding data that are collected 

through the VR program, which falls 

under the confidentiality requirements 

under 34 CFR 361.38 that may prohibit 

the release of social security 

information. 

Departments’ Response: The ED’s 

RSA acknowledges that additional time 

and resources as well as staff training 

will be needed to accomplish statutory 

requirement while ensuring consistent 

understanding and nationwide 

implementation. There is no provision 

in 34 CFR 361.38 that prohibits the 

release of SSNs for reporting purposes 

since the reporting requirements are 

necessary for the administration of the 

VR program. Therefore 34 CFR 361.38(b) 

does not require informed written 

consent for the release of PII for this 

purpose. However, there may be other 

Federal or State laws that would govern 

such releases. Further, the Departments 

refer to the VR Performance ICR for the 

RSA–911 form where burden for 

collection and reporting this 

information in the RSA 911 are further 

addressed. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: The Departments received 

comments on aspects of this part related 

to calculations for indicators and 

performance information, structure and 

compilation of individual records, and 

formatting for the collection of 

underlying data for the reports. 

Departments’ Response: Because of 

the level of detail these comments 

sought on the more specific technical 

aspects of this part, the Departments, as 

discussed throughout this regulation, 

reiterate that such information will be 

provided through the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR or Department-specific 

ICRs, as well as associated program 

guidance. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to these 

comments. 

Section 677.240 What are the 

requirements for data validation of State 

annual performance reports? 

Section 677.240 provides the 

requirements for data validation of State 

annual performance reports. It has been 

revised to specify that performance 

reports should be consistent with the 

requirement for data validation in 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(5). 

Comments: Several commenters 

requested guidance for conducting data 

validation across core programs. 

Commenters specifically asked for 

guidance concerning where the 

responsibility for data validation lies 

when participants are co-enrolled in 

two or more partner programs. 

Commenters also asked for clarification 

regarding the distinction between State 

and local roles in annual reporting. 

Multiple commenters supported either 

the postponement of the effective date 

for data validation requirements until 

July 2017 or the gradual implementation 

of data validation requirements, 

particularly if the validation pertains to 

new data that are required to be 

collected. Some of these commenters 

expressed concern regarding potentially 

retroactive data validation requirements 

whereby States would have to go back 

in order to capture newly required data 

elements on periods of participation 

that began before the new requirements 

were implemented. Several commenters 

also suggested that the starting point for 

data validation guidance be based on 

existing data validation methods and 

procedures used under WIA, with one 

commenter specifically suggesting that a 

comprehensive review of the data 

elements currently included in WIA 

data validation be undertaken to ensure 

the appropriate data are being validated, 

eliminating those elements that are 

either duplicative or no longer 

necessary. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments concur that joint guidance 

for conducting data validation across 

the core programs is necessary in order 

to provide the level of detail and 

specificity required to implement these 

provisions. As noted above, § 677.240(a) 

has been revised to specify that 

reporting should be consistent with 

guidance issued pursuant to WIOA sec. 

116(d)(5) concerning data validation. 

The guidance to be developed will be 

based on a comprehensive review of the 

methodology, data elements, and source 

documentation that have been utilized 

under WIA. It will clarify State and 

local roles in annual reporting and the 

associated validation process, and the 

co-enrollment of participants across two 

or more core programs will be 

addressed. The Departments do not 

expect to issue guidance that includes 

the need for retroactive data collection. 

In terms of implementation timeframes, 

the Departments anticipate a phased-in 

approach, which is particularly 

important for those programs that have 

not conducted data validation under 

WIA. Expectations will be articulated 

through the Departments’ joint policy 

guidance, and technical assistance will 

be provided to ensure consistency in 

understanding and implementation. No 

change to the regulatory text has been 

made in response to these comments. 

Comments: Commenters shared 

specific suggestions for source 

documentation to be used to validate 

personal identity, with one commenter 

arguing that applicant and counselor 

statements should be acceptable for SSN 

validation to eliminate the need to copy 

social security cards, thereby 

minimizing the risk of file breach. 

Another commenter requested 

clarification on accuracy standards, 

inquiring as to whether the Departments 

will follow the ‘‘five percent rule’’ used 

for WIA data validation. 

Departments’ Response: Source 

documentation requirements will be 

clarified in policy guidance to be issued 

jointly by the Departments, including 

documentation to validate personal 

identity. The Departments agree with 

one commenter who suggested that 

allowing staff verification is not 

consistent with data quality standards. 

The Departments acknowledge the 

proposed suggestions by commenters 

and will further clarify such procedures 

through the guidelines. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

The ‘‘five percent rule’’ referenced in 

the comment pertains to an accuracy 

standard utilized under WIA by DOL for 

its programs whereby critical data 

elements with an error rate exceeding 

five percent were flagged as potentially 

symptomatic of larger reporting and 

data quality issues. This will be 

addressed in guidance. 

In addition to the regulatory text 

changes discussed above, various nonsubstantive changes have been made for 

purposes of correcting typographical 

errors and improving clarity that have 

not been necessary to note elsewhere. 

C. Description of the One-Stop System 

Under Title I of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 

CFR Part 678; 34 CFR Part 361, Subpart 

F; 34 CFR Part 463, Subpart J) 

1. Introduction 

In the section-by-section discussions 

of each one-stop system provision 

below, the heading references the DOL 

CFR part and section number. However, 

ED has identical provisions at 34 CFR 

part 361, subpart F (under its State VR 

program regulations) and at 34 CFR part 

463, subpart J (under a new CFR part for 

AEFLA regulations). For purposes of 

brevity, the section-by-section 

discussions for each Department’s 

provisions appear only once—in 

conjunction with the DOL section 

number—and constitute the 

Departments’ collective explanation and 

rationale for each provision. When the 

regulations are published in the CFR, 

these joint one-stop regulations will 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55875 

appear in each of the CFR parts 

identified above. 

2. General Description of the One-Stop 

Delivery System (20 CFR Part 678, 

Subpart A; 34 CFR 361.300 Through 

361.320; 34 CFR 463.300 Through 

463.320) 

WIOA reaffirms the role of the onestop delivery system, a cornerstone of 

the public workforce development 

system, and subpart A describes the 

one-stop delivery system. Although 

there are many similarities to the system 

established under WIA, there are also 

significant changes under WIOA. This 

subpart, therefore, restates WIA 

requirements governing one-stop 

centers, to the extent they are still 

applicable under WIOA, and embodies 

a set of reforms that, when implemented 

effectively, are intended to make 

significant improvements to the public 

workforce delivery system. These 

regulations set forth requirements of the 

one-stop delivery system as established 

under WIOA, requiring partners to 

collaborate to support a seamless 

customer-focused service delivery 

network. The regulations require that 

programs and providers colocate, 

coordinate, and integrate activities and 

information, so that the system as a 

whole is cohesive and accessible for 

individuals and employers alike. These 

regulations provide a detailed 

framework for implementation; 

however, the Departments acknowledge 

additional written guidance and 

technical assistance to the public 

workforce system is needed to 

implement the provisions and 

intentions of WIOA fully. Such 

guidance and technical assistance was 

provided during PY 2015 and will 

continue to be provided and updated 

with the future development of policies 

regarding the one-stop delivery system. 

The ultimate goal is to increase the longterm employment outcomes for 

individuals seeking services, especially 

those with significant barriers to 

employment, and to improve services to 

employers. 

Subpart A describes the one-stop 

delivery system. It establishes the 

different types of one-stop centers 

allowable in each local area, the need 

for both physical and programmatic 

accessibility in the one-stop delivery 

system, and also addresses the use of 

technology to provide services through 

the one-stop delivery system. As 

discussed in §§ 678.305 and 678.310, a 

local area’s one-stop delivery system 

may be made up of a combination of a 

comprehensive one-stop center and a 

network of affiliated sites. When 

designing the one-stop delivery system, 

States and Local WDBs must ensure that 

information on the availability of career 

services is available at all one-stop 

center physical locations and access 

points, including electronic access 

points, regardless of where individuals 

initially enter the local one-stop 

delivery system. The Departments 

acknowledge that some comments of 

support were included among 

comments in this subpart. No changes to 

the regulatory text were made in 

response to these comments. 

The Departments made several 

changes to regulatory text in response to 

comments on subpart A. Most notably, 

changes were made to § 678.305(d) that 

clarify what it means to make available 

a ‘‘direct linkage’’ through technology to 

provide access to program services and 

information for those partner programs 

not physically located in a 

comprehensive one-stop center. 

Section 678.300 What is the one-stop 

delivery system? 

This section provides that there are 

responsibilities at the local, State, and 

Federal levels relative to the 

establishment and maintenance of the 

one-stop delivery system. 

Comments: Several commenters 

addressed the accessibility provisions in 

this subpart. A few commenters stated 

that VR agencies must work closely with 

workforce systems to ensure 

accessibility for individuals with 

disabilities. Another commenter said 

that each local area must have at least 

one comprehensive one-stop center that 

is accessible. A few commenters said 

that there are one-stop centers located in 

buildings that are not fully accessible, 

and the regulations should emphasize in 

this section that full accessibility is 

required. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with commenters 

that accessibility to one-stop centers and 

the program and services provided at 

those centers is of the utmost 

importance. Section 188 of WIOA, the 

corresponding regulations at 29 CFR 

part 38, and the regulations in this part 

at §§ 678.305, 678.310, and 678.800 

require that all one-stop centers and 

affiliated sites be physically and 

programmatically accessible to disabled 

individuals. The Departments have 

concluded that the numerous instances 

of directly addressing this or crossreferencing another section of regulation 

or WIOA throughout part 678 is 

sufficient emphasis on this point. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: One commenter asked 

which entity is responsible for ensuring 

one-stop center accessibility. 

Departments’ Response: The decision 

as to which entity will be responsible 

for ensuring accessibility at a one-stop 

center is ultimately the Local WDB’s to 

make, appropriately specified in the 

MOU. 

Comments: Another commenter said 

this subpart should describe the 

procedure for when a one-stop center is 

found not to be physically and 

programmatically accessible. 

Departments’ Response: The 

procedures that must be followed when 

a one-stop center is found not to be 

physically or programmatically 

accessible are described in 29 CFR part 

38. The Departments have added cross 

references to those regulations in 

§§ 678.305 and 678.310 to clarify that 

these are the controlling regulations in 

such instances, replacing references to 

§ 678.800. 

Comments: A commenter asked, given 

the long-standing separation between 

one-stop centers and adult education 

programs, how soon the Departments 

expect these entities to fulfill the 

requirement to provide a ‘‘seamless 

customer-facing service delivery 

network.’’ 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments understand that adapting 

to the new one-stop delivery system 

structure will take time for all partners 

involved, partner programs are expected 

to work as expeditiously as possible to 

reach the goal of providing a ‘‘seamless 

customer-facing service delivery 

network.’’ 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested guidance on how certain 

partners, like libraries, are expected to 

measure enrollment. 

Departments’ Response: A WIOA 

program carries the responsibility for 

reporting and ensuring such data are 

available to fulfill their reporting 

requirements. In the case where a 

partner program is receiving WIOA 

funds to provide services for any 

program, a mechanism for tracking and 

reporting such services and individuals 

will need to be established between the 

local one-stop partner and the program 

responsible for making such reports. 

Where a local one-stop partner is 

providing services beyond those funded 

under WIOA, reporting requirements 

would not extend to such services. In 

the case of a local one-stop partner, such 

as a local library, who may only be 

providing space for a program or 

programs to operate within, or 

providing access to public computers by 

which participants access programs, 

reporting is the responsibility of the 

program operator. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55876 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Comments: A few commenters said 

that this section will require the UI 

program to change its business model. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments do not agree that the UI 

program will require a change to its 

business model, and see the program as 

completely adaptable to the new 

regulations’ plan and vision for the onestop delivery system. New 

requirements, such as the requirement 

to provide ‘‘meaningful assistance’’ to 

claimants who need help filing a claim, 

do not translate into a move away from 

primarily on-line or phone claims filing. 

They simply assure that claimants who 

need assistance accessing the program 

receive it. 

Section 678.305 What is a 

comprehensive one-stop center and 

what must be provided there? 

Access and Direct Linkage 

Providing one-stop center participants 

with access to program activities and 

services is the keystone of the one-stop 

delivery system. ‘‘Access’’ is defined in 

§ 678.305(d), which provides three ways 

each partner program may meet this 

requirement: (1) Having a program staff 

member physically present at the onestop center; (2) having a staff member 

from a different partner program 

physically present at the one-stop center 

appropriately trained to provide 

information to customers about the 

programs, services, and activities 

available through partner programs; or 

(3) making available a direct linkage 

through technology to program staff 

who can provide meaningful 

information or services. Options two 

and three offer a wide range of 

possibilities to partners. Option two 

could require varying levels of 

assistance depending on the program’s 

needs, but this could be as simple as 

providing a hardcopy TANF benefit 

application to a participant or directing 

them to an online form. Direct linkage 

can take many forms as well, and the 

Departments received many comments 

on the definition of this term, as 

discussed below. 

Comments: A few commenters 

disagreed with the definition of ‘‘direct 

linkage,’’ specifically because it does 

not include providing a phone number 

or Web site that individuals can use at 

home. These commenters said this is an 

unnecessary restraint on how States can 

serve customers and does not take into 

account the usage of mobile apps and 

other technology. The commenters also 

said that the definition of ‘‘direct 

linkage’’ exceeds what is required in 

WIOA. Further, the commenters stated 

that proposed technologies, such as live 

Web chat systems, are expensive. 

Departments’ Response: Maintaining 

the option of connecting to a welltrained program staff member at the 

one-stop center is extremely important 

to the success of the one-stop delivery 

system. The Departments recognize that 

the language defining ‘‘access’’ and 

‘‘direct linkage’’ may have been too 

restrictive and also could make it appear 

that every interaction required a human 

component, not just the availability of 

the option to speak with a person. Many 

one-stop customers may only require 

services provided electronically or may 

not be ready for a direct interaction with 

a staff member. For these reasons, the 

Departments have changed the 

regulatory text in paragraph (d)(3) of 

this section, replacing ‘‘providing direct 

linkage . . .’’ with ‘‘making available a 

direct linkage . . .,’’ in order to reflect 

that communicating with an individual 

must remain an option, but is not 

required for every one-stop customer 

interaction. 

Comments: Several of the previously 

mentioned commenters joined other 

commenters who said that it is not 

realistic to expect that every customer 

can receive services at the time of 

arrival at the one-stop center, and 

suggested that the regulation should not 

prohibit arranging for customers to 

receive services at a later time. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that the proposed 

regulation was not intended to prohibit 

arrangements to serve customers at a 

later time. Accordingly, the 

Departments have deleted the language 

prohibiting arranging for customers to 

receive services at a later time, thereby 

providing what the Departments see as 

more flexible service delivery options. 

Specifically, paragraph (d)(2) was 

changed by striking the phrase ‘‘or 

making arrangements for the customer 

to receive services at a later time or on 

a different day.’’ 

Comments: A few commenters 

commented that the definition of ‘‘direct 

linkage’’ implies that all customers 

entering a one-stop center have a 

computer with Internet access at home. 

The commenters recommended revising 

this section to indicate that providing a 

computer with access to enrollment or 

eligibility services does qualify as a 

direct linkage. 

Departments’ Response: While 

providing such a service is of value and 

should be encouraged, a ‘‘direct 

linkage,’’ pursuant to these final 

regulations, must be the availability of 

a direct connection to a program staff 

member by phone or through real-time 

Web-based communication, an element 

seen by the Departments as critical to 

the service. As mentioned above, 

however, not all one-stop customer 

interactions require the use of a ‘‘direct 

linkage;’’ rather, the regulations require 

only that a ‘‘direct linkage’’ remains 

available to the customer. The language 

of paragraph (d)(2) was changed from 

‘‘[a] ‘direct linkage’ does not include 

providing a phone number or computer 

Web site that can be used at an 

individual’s home . . .’’ to ‘‘[a] ‘direct 

linkage’ cannot exclusively be providing 

a phone number or computer Web site 

. . . .’’ This means that providing a 

phone number or Web site, as 

mentioned by the commenters, would 

still be considered serving an 

individual, as long as more involved 

access was available to that customer if 

desired. 

Comments: Another commenter also 

disagreed with the NPRM, saying that 

States should have flexibility to 

determine how and when to deliver 

virtual services. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have concluded that, with 

the above-mentioned changes to the 

definitions of ‘‘accessibility’’ and 

‘‘direct linkage,’’ States and local areas 

are provided a reasonable amount of 

flexibility to determine how and when 

to deliver virtual services, as long as the 

option of a ‘‘direct linkage’’ remains 

open to customers if another form of 

‘‘access’’ is not available. The 

Departments have not made further 

changes to the regulatory text in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested clarification on the definition 

of ‘‘timely manner’’ and ‘‘within a 

reasonable time.’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to define ‘‘within a 

reasonable time’’ in this section. The 

Departments consider what is 

‘‘reasonable’’ will fluctuate based on 

demand and resources in a specific local 

area. However, to ensure quality 

customer service, the Departments 

encourage States and local areas to 

minimize the time during which an 

individual must await a direct linkage to 

services and to coordinate direct 

services effectively. 

One-Stop Center Partner Staffing 

Comments: A commenter asked 

whether the title I program staff person 

needs to be present full-time or may be 

present on a part-time basis. Another 

commenter asked whether there must 

also be at least a part-time title II staff 

presence. Additionally, one commenter 

said that electronic linkage should be 

permissible instead of requiring a 

physical staff presence. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55877 

Departments’ Response: At least one 

title I staff person must be present when 

the one-stop center is open for 

operations, although this requirement 

does not have to be met by a full-time 

staff person and can be met by the 

physical presence of different staff 

trading off throughout the one-stop 

center’s times of operation. 

No such requirement exists for the 

physical presence of a title II staff 

person at the one-stop center. However, 

such physical presence may be 

appropriate as a means to provide 

access to the title II program, depending 

upon the particular local area’s needs. 

Lastly, as long as there is a physical 

presence of at least one title I program 

staff member at all times of operation, 

all other programs have the option to 

provide ‘‘access’’ through a ‘‘direct 

linkage’’ that leverages available 

technologies according to the 

definitions provided in this section. The 

Departments, however, encourage 

partners to strive for a physical presence 

at one-stop centers to serve customers’ 

needs better. 

Comments: A few commenters asked 

if it is the intent of the regulations to 

have all required partners colocated in 

the one-stop centers. 

Departments’ Response: As stated in 

§ 678.305(a), ‘‘[a] comprehensive onestop center is a physical location where 

job seeker and employer customers can 

access the programs, services, and 

activities of all required one-stop 

partners.’’ As providing services 

through ‘‘direct linkage’’ is an allowable 

form of ‘‘access,’’ as defined in 

§ 678.305(d), not all required partners 

must be physically present at a 

comprehensive one-stop center as long 

as ‘‘access’’ to their services, programs, 

and activities is provided. However, the 

Departments encourage as much 

physical presence of partner staff 

persons that is feasible. 

Comments: Another commenter said 

that it will be logistically difficult to 

ensure that 50 percent of required 

partners are located in the one-stop 

centers, particularly with regard to adult 

education programs and the volume of 

customers that they serve. 

Departments’ Response: This 

comment seems to stem from a 

misunderstanding of the colocation 

requirements. While all required onestop partners must provide ‘‘access’’ to 

their programs and activities through a 

comprehensive one-stop center, at least 

one title I program staff person must be 

physically present. However, the 

Departments encourage as much 

physical presence of other one-stop 

partners’ program staff persons as is 

feasible. States and local areas should be 

aware of the requirement in § 678.315 

that, if Wagner-Peyser Act services are 

provided at an affiliated site, at least one 

or more other one-stop partner programs 

must be located in the affiliated site, 

and there must be a physical presence 

of combined staff from the other 

program(s) over 50 percent of the time 

that the site is open. 

Comments: Another commenter said 

that the ability of the VR program to 

participate through technology instead 

of through a physical presence will 

greatly expand the VR program’s 

participation in the one-stop delivery 

system. 

Departments’ Response: As stated 

above, as long as this technology meets 

the definition of ‘‘direct linkage’’ as 

stated in § 678.305(d), the VR agencies 

are able to substitute this for a physical 

presence at a comprehensive one-stop 

center. 

Comments: One commenter asked if it 

is the intent of the regulations to require 

NFJP grantees to be located in the same 

one-stop center as other entities that 

provide one-stop services. The 

commenter said that colocating these 

grantees would be logistically very 

difficult. A couple of commenters stated 

that the decision to colocate services 

can be beneficial but should consider 

financial viability. If it is more 

beneficial to locate NFJP programs 

outside of a one-stop center, these 

commenters reasoned that grantees 

should be given the flexibility to do so, 

and commented that the grantee can 

still develop a close partnership with 

the one-stop delivery system without 

necessarily being colocated. 

Departments’ Response: Because NFJP 

is an entity that administers a program 

authorized by title I of WIOA, sec. 

121(b)(1)(B) and § 678.400(b)(1) require 

NFJP to be a comprehensive one-stop 

center partner. This does not necessarily 

mean, however, that NFJP staff must be 

physically present at the one-stop 

center. There are multiple examples in 

the regulations for providing access to a 

program and its services through the 

one-stop center (such as providing a 

‘‘direct linkage’’), as discussed in 

paragraph (d) of this section. It should 

be noted, however, that an NFJP staff 

member placed at the local area’s 

comprehensive one-stop center could 

serve as the required title I staff member 

when present. 

Comments: Another commenter 

remarked that, traditionally, there has 

been a cost increase associated with 

operating NFJP services in conjunction 

with a one-stop delivery system that 

leaves less funding available for training 

programs and participant services. This 

commenter said that the increase in 

operating costs would be due to high 

rent, assignment of personnel to other 

duties in the one-stop delivery system, 

and cooperative spending. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments determined that while 

there may be cost increases in some 

areas, there may be savings in others 

due to the infrastructure cost 

contribution plan laid out in the local 

area’s MOU in accordance with 

§§ 678.700 through 678.755. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that one-stop centers should receive 

guidance about how to calculate cooccupancy rates so that partners are 

aware if there is inadequate space to 

provide colocated services. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the importance 

of quality facilities, including adequate 

physical space, to deliver services 

across one-stop partner programs. 

However, the Departments do not 

consider this level of detail necessary in 

regulations and have not made changes 

to the regulatory text in response to this 

comment. The Departments encourage 

the use of State and local administrative 

data to guide negotiations regarding 

colocation and shared infrastructure 

costs. 

Comments: Some commenters said 

that the regulation implies that 

operating one-stop centers beyond 

normal business hours will lead to a 

higher evaluation during the 

certification process. These commenters 

expressed concern about the fairness of 

this practice, stating that some one-stop 

centers many not be able to stay open 

past normal business hours due to lease 

agreements or security concerns (e.g., 

needing to hire an additional security 

guard). 

Departments’ Response: Providing 

nontraditional hours of operation, such 

as on Saturdays or after 5 p.m. on 

weekdays, is seen as a critical element 

in servicing difficult to reach 

populations, such as low-wage, lowskill, and other employed workers, and 

homeless individuals. Therefore, this 

will remain one of the required 

elements to be taken into account when 

evaluating the effectiveness of one-stop 

centers. The Departments have revised 

the regulatory text at § 678.800(b) to 

reflect that such hours should be 

provided where there is such a need by 

the workforce population, as identified 

by the Local WDB. It should be noted 

that this is only one factor to take into 

consideration when evaluating a onestop center for certification, and while 

operating a one-stop center beyond 

normal business hours will count 

positively toward a center’s evaluation, 

this will in no way negatively affect the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55878 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

evaluations of other one-stop centers in 

the State that may not be able to offer 

such services. 

Comments: Another commenter 

asserted that the regulation’s emphasis 

on expanding operating hours would 

require additional staff and relocations 

to larger facilities to accommodate these 

staff. 

Departments’ Response: In some 

instances, this may be true, but the 

Departments encourage creative ways of 

implementing these nontraditional 

hours with the resources the one-stop 

centers and Local WDBs have available 

to them. Innovation is one of the driving 

principles behind WIOA, including in 

how services are delivered to difficult to 

reach populations and individuals with 

barriers to employment. 

Other Comments 

Comments: Another commenter said 

that States should determine standards 

for one-stop centers with input from 

Local WDBs. 

Departments’ Response: Under sec. 

101(d)(6) of WIOA, State WDBs are 

responsible for assisting the Governor in 

developing statewide policies affecting 

the coordinated provision of services 

through the one-stop delivery system, 

including developing objective criteria 

and procedures that Local WDBs will 

use to assess the effectiveness and 

continuous improvement of one-stop 

centers. In addition, one-stop centers 

must adhere to the requirements in sec. 

121 of WIOA and these implementing 

regulations. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

amending this section to encourage 

States to develop technology-based 

strategies to ensure that wraparound, or 

comprehensive, services are available 

outside of normal business hours. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments encourage the 

development of technology-based 

strategies to deliver services to 

customers in innovative and 

comprehensive ways, both during 

normal business hours and 

nontraditional hours, and the 

Departments have concluded that the 

regulations support such activity as 

written. No changes to the regulatory 

text were made in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: Another commenter said 

that the NPRM does not provide enough 

guidance on how to decide the number 

and location of comprehensive one-stop 

centers, explaining that these decisions 

require significant collaboration among 

several stakeholders. 

Departments’ Response: While sec. 

121(e) of WIOA and § 678.300(c) require 

that at least one comprehensive onestop center be established in a local 

area, many local areas will require the 

establishment of multiple centers to 

serve their populations properly. This is 

highly dependent on individualized 

factors in each local area. This 

determination is best carried out at the 

State and local planning level. WIOA 

sec. 121(a) requires the establishment of 

the one-stop delivery system, consistent 

with the approved Unified or Combined 

State Plan, through the Local WDB for 

a local area and with the agreement of 

CEO for the local area. It is these entities 

that should determine the proper 

number and location of one-stop 

centers, by drawing on their knowledge 

of the area’s needs. The Departments 

made no change to the regulatory text in 

response to the comment. 

Section 678.310 What is an affiliated 

site and what must be provided there? 

In addition to the requirement for a 

physical center in each local area where 

all required one-stop partners must 

provide access to their programs, 

services and activities, consistent with 

sec. 121(e)(2)(B) of WIOA,,§§ 678.310 

and 678.320 provide that the one-stop 

delivery system may also provide 

partner programs, services, and 

activities through affiliated sites or 

through a network of eligible one-stop 

partners that provide at least one or 

more of the programs, services, and 

activities at a physical location or 

through an electronically or 

technologically linked access point, 

such as a library. The Departments 

added a reference to 29 CFR part 38, the 

implementing regulations of WIOA sec. 

188. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended that affiliated sites not be 

required to have operators; however, the 

commenter also said that the entities 

delivering services at these sites should 

be signatories to the MOU. 

Departments’ Response: As required 

by sec. 121(c) of WIOA, an MOU is an 

agreement among the one-stop partner 

programs and the Local WDB; therefore, 

the entities delivering services—i.e., the 

partner programs—will be signatories to 

the MOU. A local area’s one-stop 

operator may be in charge of running 

affiliated sites as well as the 

comprehensive one-stop center. In other 

cases, other arrangements for operations 

of the affiliate sites may be specified in 

the MOU. The operator may be assigned 

different responsibilities, which are 

dependent on the terms of the selection 

process and the operator agreement(s) 

reached between the operator(s) and the 

Local WDB. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that affiliated sites should not have to 

provide access to all required partners, 

since physical staffing is determined 

locally. 

Departments’ Response: Since 

affiliated sites are not required to 

provide access to all partner programs, 

as stated in § 678.310(a), no change to 

the regulatory text is necessary. 

Comments: Another commenter asked 

whether VR agencies are required to 

participate in affiliated sites. 

Departments’ Response: To clarify, 

neither the VR program, nor any other 

partner program, is required to 

participate in affiliated sites by these 

regulations or by statute; partner 

programs are required only to 

participate in the operation of the onestop delivery system and must provide 

access to their programs through the 

comprehensive one-stop centers. The 

Departments encourage the use of 

affiliated sites to serve a local area’s 

population better, but decisions 

concerning this implementation are 

ultimately made by the local areas. 

These affiliated sites should, first and 

foremost, supplement and enhance 

customer access to services, and should 

be seen as access points that are in 

addition to the local area’s 

comprehensive one-stop centers. 

Comments: One commenter asked 

whether an adult education provider in 

a CBO is considered an affiliated site. 

Departments’ Response: Yes, an adult 

education provider, or any other partner 

program, located in a CBO, may be 

considered an affiliated site. If any 

partner program in a CBO is considered 

an affiliated site, that program must 

follow all of the requirements of this 

section. 

Section 678.315 Can a stand-alone 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service 

office be designated as an affiliated onestop site? 

This section sets forth the prohibition 

against standalone Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Services offices. WIOA 

requires that the Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service program be 

colocated with one-stop centers. A 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service 

office cannot, by itself, constitute an 

affiliated site. In those cases where the 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service 

program is located in an affiliated site, 

there must be staff of at least one other 

partner in that affiliated site that is 

physically present more than 50 percent 

of the time the center is open. 

Comments: A commenter asked 

whether one partner agency that 

administers multiple partner programs 

can satisfy the 50 percent presence 

requirement. This commenter reasoned 

that multiple partners should be able to 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55879 

meet the 50 percent requirement 

collectively. 

Departments’ Response: In light of the 

comments and upon considering the 

requirement for physical presence of 

non-Wagner Peyser program staff more 

than 50 percent of the time, the 

Departments have concluded that it is 

appropriate to allow a combination of 

partner program staff members to meet 

this requirement, and the Departments 

have revised the regulatory text to 

reflect this. 

If there is only one qualifying partner 

program (i.e., partner programs other 

than local veterans’ employment 

representatives, disabled veterans’ 

outreach program specialists, or UC 

programs) in addition to the WagnerPeyser Act program at an affiliated site, 

then that partner program alone must 

meet the more than 50 percent 

threshold. If there is more than one 

qualifying partner program in the 

affiliated site, such programs together 

must have staff present to provide 

coverage more than 50 percent of the 

time the site is open. 

Comments: A commenter also 

recommended that electronic access 

should be included to meet the more 

than 50 percent requirement. Another 

commenter agreed, and also added that 

it may not be financially feasible to have 

staff in affiliated sites more than 50 

percent of the time. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments appreciate and encourage 

partners’ use of technology to better, 

and more comprehensively, serve 

customers of the one-stop delivery 

system, the Departments have not 

revised the regulatory text to permit 

such activities in order to meet the more 

than 50 percent physical presence 

requirement for non-Wagner-Peyser Act 

partner programs. Doing so would 

defeat the purpose of this requirement, 

which is to have staff other than 

Wagner-Peyser Act staff physically 

present for a majority of the time that an 

affiliated site is open. 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested flexibility in determining 

staffing at affiliated sites to meet local 

needs best, stating that the 50 percent 

threshold may result in some programs 

being overstaffed while Wagner-Peyser 

Act services are understaffed. Another 

commenter agreed that this requirement 

is burdensome and does not take into 

account existing long-term lease 

agreements. 

Departments’ Response: In 

determining the number and placement 

of affiliated sites, Local WDBs should 

consider how their one-stop delivery 

system could deliver services most 

effectively across the local area with the 

resources that are available. In making 

these adjustments, Local WDBs should 

consider the services that are needed in 

each location, how services are 

delivered in the comprehensive onestop center, where the one-stop center is 

located, and where current affiliated 

sites are located. This may require the 

opening of new affiliated sites, or the 

consolidation of existing offices that 

would be considered affiliated sites 

under WIOA. The Departments 

recognize that such adjustments take 

time, but the Departments expect this 

process to begin as soon as possible. 

Comments: Another commenter asked 

how this requirement would affect 

existing standalone Wagner-Peyser Act 

offices. 

Departments’ Response: This 

requirement will mean that either a nonWagner-Peyser Act partner program will 

need to colocate at the formerly 

standalone Wagner-Peyser Act office; 

the Wagner-Peyser Act program will 

need to move to another space that can 

support colocation with a non-WagnerPeyser Act partner program; or the 

Wagner-Peyser Act program will need to 

shift operations to a comprehensive onestop center, of which the program is a 

required member, or to another 

affiliated site. As stated in § 678.315, 

Wagner-Peyser Act programs may no 

longer exist in standalone offices. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended strengthening the 

language about how required partners 

are to operate in integrated partnerships 

with Wagner-Peyser Act services. The 

commenter stated that many local areas 

have flexibility to determine whether to 

colocate with Wagner-Peyser Act 

services. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments are not altering the 

regulatory text to address the language 

concerning how required partners are to 

operate in partnership with WagnerPeyser Act services. WIOA recognizes 

the Wagner-Peyser Act program’s role in 

the one-stop delivery system and has 

made Wagner-Peyser Act one of the core 

programs. The Departments have 

determined that Wagner-Peyser Act 

services are vital to the successful 

operation of one-stop centers, and have, 

through administrative guidance, 

strongly encouraged access to these 

services throughout the public 

workforce system. 

Comments: A few commenters 

expressed concern about the lack of 

specific instructions for how State 

workforce agencies are supposed to 

fund the colocation of Wagner-Peyser 

Act services. The commenters 

recommended that States do not need to 

use their Wagner-Peyser Act program 

allocations for this action. 

Departments’ Response: Given the 

diversity in how States have structured 

their Wagner-Peyser Act employment 

services, the regulation provides States 

with discretion in developing an 

appropriate plan for relocation. Any 

plan, including the identification of 

funding to be used to carry out 

relocation, must comply with applicable 

Federal cost principles. The 

Departments did not make changes to 

the regulatory text in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that States be required to 

have a conflict-resolution process in 

place for on-site staff disputes, which 

may help alleviate one of the major 

challenges of program colocation. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments recognize the utility of 

such a process and may recommend the 

implementation of such a process in 

many instances, the Departments have 

decided it is best to provide Local WDBs 

with flexibility in determining how to 

operationalize the colocation of 

programs, as well as integrated service 

delivery. For this reason, the 

Departments will not require a conflictresolution process for on-site staff 

disputes, and have made no changes to 

the regulatory text. 

Section 678.320 Are there any 

requirements for networks of eligible 

one-stop partners or specialized centers? 

The Departments received no 

comments for this section and made no 

substantive changes to the regulatory 

text. However, the Departments have 

rephrased the first sentence of the 

paragraph to improve clarity and 

readability. The phrase ‘‘such as having 

in place processes to make referrals to’’ 

was stricken from its original position; 

‘‘one-stop center’’ was added after 

‘‘comprehensive;’’ and the phrase ‘‘for 

example, by having processes in place 

to make referrals to these centers and 

the partner programs located in them’’ 

was inserted at the end of the first 

sentence. The new sentence reads as 

follows: ‘‘Any network of one-stop 

partner or specialized centers must be 

connected to the comprehensive onestop center and any appropriate affiliate 

one-stop centers, for example, by having 

processes in place to make referrals to 

these centers and the partner programs 

located in them.’’ The Departments have 

made these changes to make this 

sentence more understandable than 

originally phrased and do not intend to 

change the meaning of the sentence or 

paragraph. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55880 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

3. One-Stop Partners and the 

Responsibilities of Partners (20 CFR Part 

678, Subpart B; 34 CFR 361.400 

Through 361.440; 34 CFR 463.400 

Through 463.440) 

The public workforce system 

envisioned by WIOA seeks to provide 

all participants with access to highquality one-stop centers that connect 

them with the full range of services 

available in their communities, whether 

they are looking to find jobs, build 

educational or occupational skills, earn 

a postsecondary certificate or degree, 

obtain guidance on how to chart careers, 

or are employers seeking skilled 

workers. A genuinely seamless, one-stop 

experience requires strong partnerships 

across programs that are able to 

streamline service delivery and align 

program requirements. In this subpart of 

the regulation, the Departments describe 

requirements relating to such one-stop 

partnerships. Specifically, this subpart 

identifies the programs that are required 

partners and their roles and 

responsibilities, the other entities that 

may serve as partners, and the types of 

services provided. 

The Departments changed several 

sections of this subpart in response to 

comments. While small changes to the 

regulatory text were made in § 678.410, 

much more significant changes were 

made to § 678.415(e), which changed 

the default one-stop partner under the 

Perkins Act from the State agency 

administering that program to a local 

postsecondary recipient of Perkins 

funds. Changes to the requirements for 

local TANF partners have also been 

made in § 678.430(a)(2) and (d). Two 

additions were also made to the human 

services that may be provided as 

business services in § 678.435(b)(4). 

Section 678.400 Who are the required 

one-stop partners? 

This section lists the one-stop 

partners required under sec. 121(b)(1)(B) 

of WIOA. Beyond the partners 

previously required under WIA, WIOA 

adds the TANF program, administered 

by HHS, and the Ex-Offender program, 

administered by DOL under sec. 212 of 

the Second Chance Act of 2007, to the 

list of required partners. 

Comments: A commenter requested 

clarification on participation for career 

and technical education programs and 

also a clearer definition of employment 

and training programs. The commenter 

expressed concern that without a clear 

definition of these terms, nearly any 

entity can claim to be an employment 

and training program. Further, the 

commenter requested that States be able 

to define these terms. 

Departments’ Response: Within the 

context of these regulations, these terms 

are used in reference to programs 

authorized under specific Federal 

statutes. The ‘‘career and technical 

education programs’’ referred to in 

§ 678.400(b)(6) are those authorized by 

the Perkins Act at the postsecondary 

level. The ‘‘employment and training 

activities’’ listed in this section are 

either those carried out under the CSBG 

or those carried out by HUD, as 

provided in § 678.400(b)(9) and (10), 

respectively. Under these categorical 

restrictions, the Departments are not 

concerned that nearly any entity could 

claim to be an employment and training 

program. Section 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA, 

as implemented by § 678.400, lists 

intentionally broad categories of 

required partners so as to bring more 

local partner programs into the 

comprehensive one-stop center and the 

broader one-stop delivery system to 

provide more comprehensive services 

for the one-stop centers’ customers. For 

this reason, the Departments are not 

changing the regulatory text concerning 

these terms. The Departments have 

determined that it is within the best 

interests of the one-stop delivery system 

and its customers for States to adhere to 

these broad categorical definitions. 

Furthermore, narrowing these 

definitions would exclude some 

programs explicitly included by 

Congress as the regulatory language 

mirrors the statutory text in WIOA secs. 

121(b)(1)(B)(vi), (ix), and (x). 

Comments: A commenter asked 

whether CSBG programs have to be 

physically located at the one-stop 

center. 

Departments’ Response: If a CSBG 

program carries out employment and 

training activities, then these activities 

must be accessible at the comprehensive 

one-stop center, either through a 

physical presence or through another 

means of ‘‘access’’ as defined by the 

regulations in § 678.305(d), because 

these programs are required one-stop 

partners under sec. 121(b)(1)(B) of 

WIOA. Section 678.305(c) specifically 

requires customers to have access to 

one-stop partner programs in a 

comprehensive one-stop center, 

including employment and training 

activities carried out under the CSBG 

program. Furthermore, § 678.305(d) 

defines ‘‘access’’ as including, but not 

limited to, having partner program staff 

physically present at the one-stop 

center. That is, one-stop partner 

programs do not need to be physically 

present in a comprehensive one-stop 

center, but they must provide access to 

their services in the ways described in 

§ 678.305(d). 

Comments: One commenter said that 

the Perkins program needs to determine 

who the Perkins one-stop partner will 

be. Another commenter stated that 

§ 678.400 needs to be reconciled with 

the Perkins Act and asserted that career 

and technical education programs do 

not have authority to enter into an 

MOU, although a postsecondary entity 

does have such authority. 

Departments’ Response: The NPRM 

specified that the State Eligible Agency 

serves as the one-stop partner for the 

Perkins program. As discussed below in 

this preamble, the Departments have 

determined that an eligible recipient at 

the postsecondary level, or a consortium 

of eligible recipients at the 

postsecondary level in the local area is 

the most appropriate entity to serve as 

the one-stop partner in a local area. This 

change is reflected in § 678.415(e) and is 

discussed in the corresponding 

preamble section below. 

Comments: Another commenter 

recommended that all Federal grantees 

that have employment and training 

components in their grant should be 

required one-stop partners. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments encourage the inclusion of 

such entities as additional one-stop 

partners, the list of required partners in 

§ 678.400(b) is the statutorily mandated 

list of required partners. The 

Departments do not have authority to 

require additional programs to be onestop partners. However, several entities 

such as those mentioned by the 

commenter are explicitly listed in sec. 

121(b)(2)(B) of WIOA and § 678.410 as 

acceptable additional one-stop partners, 

subject to approval of the Local WDB 

and CEO. 

Section 678.405 Is temporary 

assistance for needy families a required 

one-stop partner? 

This section provides further 

clarification that the Governor may 

determine that TANF will not be a 

required one-stop partner in a local 

area(s), but must notify the Secretaries 

of Labor and HHS in writing of this 

determination. This implements sec. 

121(b)(1)(C) of WIOA. It should be noted 

that the Governor’s decision to exclude 

TANF from being a required one-stop 

partner is distinct and separate from the 

decision to include or not to include 

TANF in a Combined State Plan. TANF 

remains one of the many options of 

programs to be included in a Combined 

State Plan. Its status as a required onestop partner does not mean it is required 

to be included in a Combined State 

Plan. For all sections regarding TANF, 

the HHS, which administers the 

program, was consulted extensively. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55881 

Comments: A few commenters 

expressed support for TANF being a 

required one-stop partner. Other 

commenters remarked that adding 

TANF as a one-stop partner will lead to 

improved services for job seekers. 

However, one commenter recommended 

that the Departments include stronger 

language about including TANF as a 

required one-stop partner. This 

commenter said that if TANF is such an 

important partner, it should not be so 

easy for Governors to opt out. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments agree that TANF is an 

important partner in the one-stop 

delivery system, WIOA requires—at sec. 

121(b)(1)(C)—that Governors be able to 

determine that TANF will not be a 

required one-stop partner through 

written notice to both the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of HHS. It 

should be noted, however, that even if 

the Governor decides not to require 

TANF to be a one-stop partner, local 

TANF programs may still work in 

collaboration or partnership with the 

local one-stop centers to deliver 

employment and training services to the 

TANF population, unless inconsistent 

with the Governor’s direction. 

Additionally, the local TANF program 

also may find other avenues of 

providing TANF services to one-stop 

customers that may not reach ‘‘partner’’ 

status. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that the regulations 

should clarify that TANF employment 

and training activities must be offered at 

one-stop centers, with other TANFfunded activities included at the 

discretion of the local TANF agency and 

Local WDB. This commenter reasoned 

that requiring all TANF activities at onestop centers would be a substantial cost 

and administrative burden. 

Departments’ Response: Access 

through the one-stop delivery system is 

required only for TANF activities 

related to work, education or training, 

the initiation of an application, and 

career services as specified in 

§ 678.430(a)(2). TANF is a required onestop partner unless the Governor opts 

not to require TANF participation in 

either a specific local area or the entire 

State. The cost of the various activities 

associated with the one-stop operators 

should be one of the factors considered 

by the Governor in making this 

decision. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

even if the Governor opts out, local 

TANF programs might still be required 

to be one-stop partners. Other 

commenters expressed support for local 

TANF programs to be permitted to opt 

in as one-stop partners, even if the 

Governor opts out. Another commenter 

expressed concern that the proposed 

regulations would permit a local TANF 

agency official to defy a Governor’s 

decision not to include TANF as a 

required one-stop partner. The 

commenter recommended that this 

clause should be deleted, stating that a 

Governor’s decision regarding TANF as 

a required one-stop partner must be 

respected. 

Departments’ Response: While local 

TANF programs are allowed to be onestop partners, they cannot be required to 

do so if the Governor has determined 

that TANF is not required to be a 

partner. However, the Departments 

agree that local TANF programs should 

be permitted to work in collaboration 

and partnership with the local one-stop 

centers and have determined that 

allowing local TANF programs to make 

this decision, in conjunction with Local 

WDBs, is in the best interest of serving 

one-stop customers to the fullest extent 

possible, unless doing so is inconsistent 

with the Governor’s direction. The 

Departments recognize the importance 

of increasing access to TANF programs, 

and have determined that allowing 

these programs’ voluntary inclusion, 

when not required by a Governor and 

when not prohibited by the Governor’s 

direction, is consistent with the spirit of 

WIOA. The Departments have modified 

the regulatory text to indicate that local 

TANF programs may become partners at 

the local one-stop centers unless the 

Governor directs or orders otherwise. 

While a Governor may choose not to 

require TANF programs to be one-stop 

partners, the Departments do not want 

to create barriers to local TANF 

programs becoming partners in the local 

one-stop center when there is a mutual 

desire to do so. The Departments have 

concluded that the availability of TANF 

services to one-stop customers is an 

important element of the one-stop 

vision. Furthermore, the Departments 

have interpreted WIOA sec. 121(b) as 

providing separate authority to local 

areas to include additional one-stop 

partners, including TANF, which is not 

overridden by a Governor electing to 

exclude TANF from being a required 

partner. However, as administrator of 

the State TANF program, the Governor 

is empowered under the Social Security 

Administration (SSA) to direct the 

actions of local TANF programs and 

may choose to limit a local program’s 

ability to opt in. It should be noted here 

that any additional partners not 

required by sec. 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA, 

but permitted by sec. 121(b)(2)(B), can 

participate as a one-stop partner only 

with the agreement of the CEO and 

Local WDB. 

Comments: A commenter urged the 

Departments to ensure that a decision 

regarding whether TANF is a required 

one-stop partner should be separate 

from the decision regarding including 

TANF in a Combined State Plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Governor’s decision to exclude TANF as 

a required one-stop partner must be 

made through direct written notification 

of such a decision from the State’s 

Governor to the Secretaries of Labor and 

HHS. By contrast, at any time, a 

Governor can opt to include or not 

include TANF in a Combined State 

Plan, whether or not TANF is a required 

one-stop partner in the State. 

Comments: Another commenter asked 

how TANF being a required partner 

instead of a core partner translates into 

level of service delivery for clients. 

Departments’ Response: The 

regulations do not differentiate between 

core programs and required one-stop 

partners with respect to level of service 

delivery. All required one-stop partners 

are expected to provide comparable 

levels of service delivery to one-stop 

customers, regardless of whether they 

are core programs under WIOA. No 

changes to the regulatory text were 

made in response to this comment. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that this is an opportunity for the TANF 

program to partner with schools. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

TANF program’s inclusion in a State’s 

one-stop delivery system may, in fact, 

provide an opportunity for TANF 

programs to partner with schools, this is 

a decision that should be made at the 

local level and will not be required by 

the Departments. As such, no changes to 

the regulatory text were made in 

response to this comment. 

Section 678.410 What other entities 

may serve as one-stop partners? 

Partnerships across programs are 

critical to supporting the one-stop 

vision for service delivery. Section 

678.410 reinforces sec. 121(b)(2)(B)(vii) 

of WIOA, which states that other 

Federal, State, local, or private sector 

entities that carry out workforce 

development programs may serve as 

additional one-stop partners if the Local 

WDB and CEOs approve. 

Comments: A few commenters 

recommended that the regulations 

should strongly encourage partnerships 

with disability service providers, as 

increasing the employment of persons 

with disabilities is a key goal of WIOA. 

Another commenter stated that SNAP 

employment and training programs 

would include the Basic Food 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55882 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Employment and Training (BFET) and 

Able-Bodied Adults Without 

Dependents (ABAWD) programs. The 

commenter also asked whether 

§ 678.410(b)(6) includes programs 

funded by the Office of Refugee 

Resettlement (ORR). Another 

commenter urged one-stop centers that 

have youth services to partner with 

Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY) 

providers. The commenter explained 

that RHY providers have best practices 

for dealing with traumatized youth. One 

commenter looked forward to working 

with refugee English language training 

organizations and other organizations as 

potential one-stop partners. 

Departments’ Response: Each one of 

the comments above suggests including 

programs as one-stop center partners. 

Local partners representing any one of 

these programs that provides services or 

serves participants who are in need of 

the career development or job 

placement services of the one-stop 

delivery system would be appropriate 

additions to the one-stop delivery 

system in a given local area and could 

be added as additional partners under 

§ 678.410(b)(6). Inclusion in the onestop center of these and other programs 

is outlined in the local area strategic 

plan, and in the specifications for the 

selection of one-stop operators and 

service providers in the local areas. In 

response to these and other comments, 

which are addressed below, wording 

has been added to this section to clarify 

that the list of optional one-stop 

partners is not exhaustive. The 

Departments have determined that no 

additional specific regulatory language 

is needed. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended that the Departments add 

a reference to local or regional labor 

market information, which should be 

used to drive strategic planning and 

one-stop partner decisions regarding the 

appropriate mix of services required in 

local areas. 

Departments’ Response: Many factors, 

including labor market information, can 

inform what local partners should 

include in a one-stop center. The 

Departments have not changed the 

examples of optional one-stop partners 

in the regulation, but have clarified that 

the list in § 678.410 is not exhaustive, 

by changing ‘‘including’’ to ‘‘including, 

but not limited to’’ in the catch-all 

provision of paragraph (b)(6). It should 

be noted that the term ‘‘including’’ is, by 

definition, nonexclusive, and that this 

addition is made for the sake of 

emphasis and should not to be 

interpreted as suggesting that any other 

use of the term ‘‘including’’ in these or 

any other regulations denotes 

exclusivity. The Departments agree that 

partners suggested by commenters can 

be appropriate and useful one-stop 

partners but have concluded that it is 

easier to communicate this flexibility by 

clarifying that the list is not exhaustive, 

rather than trying to list every potential 

partner. 

Section 678.415 What entity serves as 

the one-stop partner for a particular 

program in the local area? 

This section provides a general 

definition of the entities that carry out 

the programs identified in §§ 678.400 

and 678.410 and serve as the one-stop 

partners. The regulation defines an 

entity as the grant recipient, 

administrative entity, or other 

organization responsible for 

administering the funds of the specified 

program in the local area. The term 

‘‘entity’’ does not include service 

providers that contract with, or are 

subrecipients of, the local 

administrative entity. The regulation 

notes that for programs that do not have 

local administrative entities, the 

responsible State agency should be the 

one-stop partner. 

Section 678.410(d) lists the entity that 

acts as the WIOA title I one-stop partner 

for national programs in any particular 

local area. While YouthBuild was listed 

in the NPRM as one of these national 

programs, the paragraph failed to list 

which entity would serve as the onestop partner. Just as for the Indian and 

Native American and Migrant and 

Seasonal Farmworker programs, the 

grantee of the YouthBuild program is 

the entity that will serve as the one-stop 

partner in a local area. The regulatory 

text has been amended to convey this 

and correct the omission in the NPRM. 

Comments: A commenter asserted 

that proposed § 678.415(e), which 

designates the Perkins State eligible 

agency as the local one-stop partner for 

purposes of negotiating the MOU, ‘‘lacks 

any support in the text of the law and 

would make an already complicated 

negotiation process that much more 

complex.’’ Several commenters 

recommended revising the paragraph to 

state that the entity that carries out the 

program is the local area’s Perkins 

eligible institution, rather than the State 

eligible agency. Further, this commenter 

recommended that the Departments 

remove the clause about the State 

eligible agency delegating its 

responsibilities. 

Departments’ Response: In response 

to these comments, the Departments 

agree that the local eligible recipient is 

a more appropriate one-stop partner for 

the Perkins program and have changed 

the regulatory text in § 678.415(e) to 

provide that the Perkins one-stop 

partner is the eligible recipient at the 

postsecondary level, or a consortium of 

eligible recipients at the postsecondary 

level in the local area. This change is 

aligned to the statutory text in WIOA 

sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(vi). The regulatory text 

also has been revised to state that the 

Perkins one-stop partner may request 

assistance from the State eligible agency 

in completing its responsibilities as a 

one-stop partner. 

Comments: A few commenters 

interpreted proposed § 678.415(c) to 

mean that if the State’s VR program is 

under an umbrella agency that is not 

primarily concerned with vocational 

rehabilitation, the designated VR 

partner will be the director of the 

designated State unit. 

Departments’ Response: Under 

§ 678.415(c), if the designated State 

agency—which these commenters refer 

to as an ‘‘umbrella agency’’—is not 

primarily concerned with VR, then the 

designated State unit for the VR 

program would be the local partner. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that it is unclear from this section 

whether the Local WDB or its chosen 

title I provider is the entity that serves 

as the one-stop partner and 

recommended that the Local WDB not 

be considered the one-stop partner in 

this case. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with the commenter 

that the Local WDB is not a one-stop 

partner, unless it is a specific program 

provider as well. The Departments have 

concluded that the proposed regulatory 

text is clear on this issue and have made 

no changes to the regulatory text. 

Comments: Another commenter 

agreed with the Job Corps center being 

the one-stop partner, but suggested also 

including the providers who conduct 

recruitment for the Job Corps program. 

Departments’ Response: 

Determination of such an inclusion in 

the local one-stop delivery system is 

best left to the Local WDB. These 

providers will remain permissible onestop partners but will not be required, 

and the Departments decline to change 

the regulatory text in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

allowing the State TANF agency to 

delegate its responsibilities under 

§ 678.415(a), as other mandatory 

partners are permitted to do. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments’ interpretation of WIOA is 

that the local TANF program is the 

required one-stop partner that, 

therefore, holds the responsibilities 

mentioned by this commenter. Matters 

concerning the roles of entities in 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55883 

carrying out TANF must be addressed 

under the TANF authorizing statute. 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed support for not requiring the 

one-stop partner to have responsibilities 

in local areas where that program or 

activity is not carried out. 

Departments’ Response: The final 

regulation continues to reflect this 

policy. 

Section 678.420 What are the roles and 

responsibilities of the required one-stop 

partners? 

This section describes and elaborates 

upon the statutory responsibilities of the 

one-stop partners. These responsibilities 

and corresponding WIOA provisions are 

identified and summarized in 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of § 678.420. 

Jointly funding services is a necessary 

foundation for an integrated service 

delivery system. All partner 

contributions to the costs of operating 

and providing services within the onestop delivery system must be 

proportionate to the benefits received 

and also must adhere to the partner 

program’s Federal authorizing statute 

and to Federal cost principles requiring 

that costs are reasonable, necessary, and 

allocable. The requirement in 

§ 678.420(e), to provide representation 

on State and Local WDBs, is new in 

WIOA and is required only of core 

programs; WIA only required one-stop 

partner representation on Local WDBs, 

and required it for all one-stop partner 

programs. The Departments have begun 

issuing guidance and providing the 

system with technical assistance on 

matters related to this section and will 

continue to do so. 

Responsibilities Related to 

Infrastructure Cost Contributions 

Comments: A commenter asked 

whether the statement in this section 

that references Federal laws on 

administrative costs refers to the 

established ceilings on the 

infrastructure contributions that can be 

expected from certain programs, such as 

VR. 

Departments’ Response: This is the 

intent of the rule and, as such, the 

Departments have made no changes to 

the regulatory text in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

partner programs would be more likely 

to contribute to infrastructure costs if 

the individual programs’ authorization 

were amended to include that 

expectation. 

Departments’ Response: Revisions to 

the authorizing statutes and regulations 

of individual programs are beyond the 

scope of this regulation. 

Comments: Another commenter stated 

that it would be very challenging to 

establish equitable funding to support a 

one-stop delivery system without 

stronger language and guidance 

governing the required one-stop 

partners. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have released, and will 

continue to release, guidance relating to 

this and many other issues. The 

Departments concluded that the 

guidance will be sufficient in assisting 

one-stop partners in supporting a onestop delivery system and decline to 

make a change to the regulatory text. 

Comments: A few commenters said 

that § 678.420(b) can be construed to 

mean that YouthBuild programs must 

contribute money to their local one-stop 

delivery system. The commenters 

expressed concern that YouthBuild 

programs would have to pay into the 

one-stop delivery system for 

infrastructure support when the money 

is needed to operate the program. 

Departments’ Response: As a 

statutorily required one-stop partner 

program, YouthBuild is required by sec. 

121(b)(1)(A)(ii) of WIOA to contribute to 

the infrastructure costs of any one-stop 

center in which it participates, based on 

proportionate use and relative benefit 

received. The Departments do not have 

authority to change this requirement 

and have made no changes to the 

regulatory text in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: A commenter requested 

additional guidance on proportional 

benefits received and also on costs 

associated with title II providers 

contributing to one-stop infrastructure. 

Departments’ Response: The portion 

of this preamble addressing public 

comments and changes made to the 

provisions in subpart E relating to ‘‘OneStop Operating Costs’’ also addresses 

many of these issues. 

Other Comments 

A few commenters recommended 

rewording this section to state that not 

all one-stop partners are required to be 

members of the State and Local WDBs. 

Departments’ Response: After 

considering this comment, the 

Departments have concluded that the 

language of the proposed regulatory text 

is clear that not all one-stop partners are 

required to be members of the State and 

Local WDBs. No changes to the 

regulatory text were made in response to 

this comment. 

Comments: One commenter asked 

what recourse a Local WDB would have 

if States allocate the majority of their 

program funding to more populous 

areas, leaving rural areas underfunded. 

Departments’ Response: The 

allocation of funds by programs is 

beyond the scope of this regulation and 

WIOA. As such, the Departments have 

no ability or authority to create such a 

recourse mechanism. As good faith 

partners in the one-stop delivery 

system, however, the Departments 

expect that programs will operate in a 

manner that best serves the needs of a 

State. 

Section 678.425 What are the 

applicable career services that must be 

provided through the one-stop delivery 

system by required one-stop partners? 

WIOA requires one-stop partners to 

deliver applicable program-specific 

career services. This regulation clarifies 

that an applicable career service is a 

service identified in § 678.430 and is an 

authorized program activity. 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested clarification on what services 

must be physically available in one-stop 

centers. Another commenter said that 

proposed § 678.425 does not describe 

how or where these services must be 

provided and suggested that customers 

should be able to receive in-person 

assistance with the required partners. 

Another commenter expressed support 

for eliminating the sequence of services, 

as this would provide staff with greater 

flexibility to serve customers. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have not made changes to 

§ 678.425. Section 678.305(b)(1) 

specifically states that comprehensive 

one-stop centers must provide career 

services described in § 678.430. The 

language is not qualified by the phrase 

‘‘access to,’’ meaning that career 

services must actually be provided in 

the comprehensive one-stop centers. 

With respect to programs and activities 

to which the one-stop partners must 

provide access, as set forth in 

§ 678.305(b)(2) through (4), the 

regulations describe requirements 

concerning physical presence of staff 

and in-person assistance in § 678.305(a), 

(c), and (d). Paragraph (a) of § 678.305 

requires that at least one title I staff 

person be physically present in a 

comprehensive one-stop center. 

Paragraph (c) of § 678.305 requires 

customers to have access to one-stop 

partner programs in a comprehensive 

one-stop center, and paragraph (d) 

defines ‘‘access’’ as including, but not 

limited to, physical presence of partner 

program staff appropriately trained to 

provide information to customers about 

the programs, services, and activities 

available through partner programs. 

That is, one-stop partner programs do 

not need to be physically present in a 

comprehensive one-stop center, but they 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55884 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

must provide access to their services in 

the ways described in § 678.305(d). 

Section 678.430 What are career 

services? 

Unemployment Insurance Claims 

Filing and Assistance. Section 678.430 

specifies the career services that onestop partners must provide through the 

one-stop delivery system. Paragraph 

(a)(10) provides that core services 

include providing meaningful assistance 

to individuals seeking assistance in 

filing a claim for unemployment 

compensation. 

Comments: Several commenters 

addressed the proposed definition of 

‘‘meaningful assistance.’’ In particular, 

one commenter expressed support for 

the definition as it allows for technology 

to be used to provide the assistance. 

However, this commenter joined many 

others in expressing strong 

disagreement with the discussion in the 

preamble to the NPRM that one-stop 

customers referred to a phone-based 

service for UI claims be sent to a 

dedicated phone line for one-stop 

customers, rather than the general State 

UI queue. These commenters asserted 

that this requirement is not in WIOA; 

would be costly and difficult to 

maintain during times of high call 

volume; fails to take advantage of 

existing UI claims filing and assistance 

technology infrastructure in many 

States; and gives priority to individuals 

who are able to travel to one-stop 

centers, thereby disproportionately 

affecting individuals who are unable to 

travel to one-stop centers due to 

distance, lack of transportation options, 

or disability. A few commenters also 

stated that this requirement conflicts 

with the fact that most UI claims are 

done remotely through self-service 

options, including mobile applications 

and Web sites. One commenter asked 

for the definition of ‘‘within a 

reasonable time.’’ Another commenter 

said that the definition of ‘‘meaningful 

assistance’’ is not clear. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments disagree with the 

comments regarding a dedicated phone 

line for one-stop customers using UI 

services. States are not required to have 

a dedicated phone line for one-stop 

customers, but a phone line would 

provide a direct linkage for providing 

services remotely as required by 

§ 678.305(d). More importantly, simply 

referring one-stop customers to the 

general UI queue, without otherwise 

making trained staff available does not 

qualify as ‘‘meaningful assistance.’’ 

Therefore, if local areas choose to 

provide meaningful assistance through 

technological means, trained staff must 

be available such as through a dedicated 

phone line. 

In response to the comments 

regarding concerns that the ‘‘meaningful 

assistance’’ requirement to help 

individuals file UI claims is overly 

burdensome, the Departments note that 

§ 678.430(a)(10)(i) provides flexibility to 

States regarding implementation by 

providing a menu of options for States 

to meet the requirement. The regulation 

does not mandate the service delivery 

methodology. Options include the 

ability to provide the service remotely 

as long as it is provided by trained and 

available staff within a reasonable time. 

The Departments also note that this 

requirement is targeted to individuals 

who need assistance and is not intended 

to replace State processes for taking 

claims remotely, either online or by 

phone. The Departments have not 

provided a definition of reasonable time 

because that varies by circumstances. 

The Departments have made no changes 

to the regulatory text in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: Many commenters raised 

concerns about private entities or 

contractors providing assistance with 

filing UI claims, asserting that this 

should be considered an inherently 

governmental function that must be 

conducted by State merit staff. These 

commenters said that if UI staff is not 

present in one-stops to fulfill this 

function, Employment Services staff 

could do so. A few commenters also 

recommended that ‘‘State merit’’ be 

inserted before ‘‘staff’’ in proposed 

§ 678.430(a)(10)(i)(A) and (B). A 

commenter expressed concern regarding 

the definition of ‘‘filing,’’ suggesting that 

it should not be the function of one-stop 

or Wagner-Peyser Act staff to file UI 

applications. 

Another commenter asked for 

guidance on defining ‘‘and assistance’’ 

in the requirement to provide 

‘‘information and assistance regarding 

filing claims for unemployment 

compensation.’’ Another commenter 

expressed support for the proposed 

expanded definition of ‘‘enhanced 

career services’’ including UI claims 

filing assistance and eligibility 

assessments. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to make changes to 

§ 678.430(a)(10) to refer to State merit 

staff. The assistance requirement only 

encompasses helping the individual 

navigate the State’s claims filing process 

and providing the individual with 

general information on their 

responsibilities as a claimant. These 

functions are informational in nature 

and not directly connected to 

determining the claimant’s eligibility for 

benefits. The requirement does not 

encompass speaking specifically to the 

individual’s potential eligibility for 

benefits or making any determinations 

regarding the individual’s eligibility for 

benefits, which are inherently 

governmental functions that must be 

provided by UI merit staff. The 

Departments note that it has been 

permissible for non-State merit staff to 

carry out similar functions, for example, 

reviewing compliance with State work 

search requirements as part of the 

Reemployment and Eligibility 

Assessment program for many years. 

The Departments reiterate the 

importance that, if these functions are 

carried out by non-UI staff, States must 

ensure that the staff is well trained. The 

Departments expect to provide 

additional guidance and technical 

assistance to States on the 

implementation of these provisions. For 

the reasons stated above, the 

Departments are not revising the 

regulatory text in response to these 

comments. For more information about 

the impact of WIOA implementation 

merit staffing for the Wagner-Peyser Act, 

see 20 CFR 652.215. 

Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families 

Comments: Several commenters 

addressed the Departments’ request for 

comment regarding the identification 

and inclusion of TANF employment, 

related supported services, and TANF 

intake functions as career services that 

must be provided in one-stop centers. 

For example, some commenters 

suggested that because there are so 

many ways of delivering TANF intake 

services (e.g., electronically), States 

should have flexibility in determining 

whether TANF intake services should 

be physically located in the one-stop 

centers. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the need, and 

utility, of providing States flexibility in 

implementing TANF intake services and 

have added two paragraphs to § 678.430. 

Paragraph (a)(2) of § 678.430 states, in 

pertinent part, that ‘‘[f]or the TANF 

program, States must provide 

individuals with the opportunity to 

initiate an application for TANF 

assistance and non-assistance benefits 

and services . . .’’ This provides States 

with flexibility as to how this is 

achieved. As a required partner, 

however, TANF must still provide 

access (as defined by § 678.305(d)) to 

employment services and related 

support services. To this end, paragraph 

(d) has been added to § 678.430, stating 

that ‘‘[i]n addition to the requirements 

in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, TANF 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55885 

agencies must identify employment 

services and related support being 

provided by the TANF program (within 

the local area) that qualify as career 

services and ensure access to them via 

the local one-stop delivery system.’’ 

Comments: Another commenter 

suggested that required partners should 

be required to provide TANF outreach 

and intake at one-stop centers. 

Departments’ Response: As TANF is a 

required one-stop partner by default, 

and only is excluded from the one-stop 

delivery system through a decision by 

the Governor, TANF outreach and 

intake services must be provided at any 

one-stop center for which TANF is a 

partner. 

Comments: One commenter asserted 

that including TANF intake functions as 

career services would require significant 

cross training of other program staff in 

their State. For these reasons, the 

commenter supported the continuation 

of the colocation/co-enrollment model 

for TANF services at one-stop centers. 

Another commenter asked whether 

State agency staff were properly cross 

trained to conduct TANF intake. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize that some 

services come at higher costs than 

others, and this is one of the many 

factors that must be weighed in 

determining how best to deliver 

services. In addition, the question of 

what constitutes ‘‘proper’’ training on 

the TANF program for local one-stop 

workforce staff will depend on the 

TANF benefits and services that are 

offered at the local one-stop center. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that requiring one-stop centers to 

process TANF applications that are not 

related to employment is unhelpful and 

should not be considered career 

services. 

Departments’ Response: As 

mentioned above, the Departments’ 

review and consideration of comments 

made on the NPRM, particularly the 

language regarding intake, application 

processing, and initial eligibility 

determinations for TANF assistance and 

non-assistance benefits at one-stop 

centers, prompted the Departments to 

modify the requirement from how it was 

proposed in the NPRM. This modified 

requirement, found in final 

§ 678.430(a)(2), requires that, at a 

minimum, the one-stop centers must 

enable a family to initiate an application 

(as defined by the State agency) for 

TANF assistance and non-assistance 

benefits and services. One-stop centers 

could accomplish this by having paper 

application forms available at the onestop center or by having information or 

links to the application on the one-stop 

center’s Web site. 

The Departments have determined 

that allowing customers in need of 

career services to have the opportunity 

to initiate an application for TANF 

benefits at one-stop centers is not 

counterproductive or unhelpful. On the 

contrary, providing for a family’s unmet 

needs via a TANF benefit is crucial to 

ensuring progress and success in 

meeting career service objectives. 

The Departments affirm the NPRM 

preamble explanation on the 

identification and delivery of career 

services (restated below) absent a 

definition of career services in the 

TANF statute. 

The TANF statute does not include a 

definition for career services. 

Accordingly, the TANF State grantees 

must identify any employment and 

related support services that the TANF 

program provides (within the particular 

local area) that are comparable with the 

career services as described in this 

section. 

Comments: A few commenters 

remarked that there is no universal 

English as a Second Language (ESL) test 

under TANF or other employment and 

training programs and suggested that 

ESL providers are better at conducting 

language proficiency testing than 

employment service providers. Another 

commenter suggested that one-stop 

providers should be expected to provide 

services to linguistically and culturally 

diverse populations. 

Departments’ Response: The 

regulations do not require a specific ESL 

test as part of the initial assessment of 

skills, or to gain meaningful access to 

TANF or other Federal programs. They 

leave the selection and use of 

assessment tools, and qualified 

administrators of such tools, up to the 

partner program or service provider, as 

appropriate to individual participants. If 

any one-stop partner or service provider 

receives funds directly or indirectly 

from HHS or other Federal agencies, it 

is required under title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing 

regulations, to take reasonable steps to 

ensure meaningful access to its 

programs by persons with limited 

English proficiency. Title VI also 

prohibits Federal grant recipients from 

utilizing methods of administration that 

have the effect of discriminating against 

persons based on their race, color, or 

national origin. In some cases, a 

provider’s failure to provide language 

assistance to linguistically or culturally 

diverse populations could be a violation 

of title VI. However, the title VI 

requirement to take reasonable steps to 

ensure meaningful access does not mean 

that jurisdictions are required to provide 

universal ESL training. While 

individual jurisdictions may need to 

provide ESL training and testing to 

TANF family members in some cases, 

universal ESL training is not a 

statutorily mandated requirement. 

Other Career Services 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that career services also should include 

a pre-screening for eligibility for 

supportive services such as the 

Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(CHIP), SNAP, the Earned Income Tax 

Credit, TANF, and transportation 

services alongside the initial assessment 

of skill levels. 

Departments’ Response: Paragraph 

(a)(2) of § 678.430 requires that, along 

with intake, an orientation to the other 

services and programs provided at the 

one-stop center must be given to 

participants, and paragraph (a)(5) 

requires referrals to, and coordination 

of, activities with other programs and 

services. The Departments have 

determined that this strikes a balance 

between the burden on one program’s 

staff to be knowledgeable about other 

partner programs and the benefit that 

this knowledge can be to participants. 

Requiring all staff to do pre-screening 

for the programs identified by the 

commenter would take time away from 

providing actual programmatic 

assistance to participants, as well as 

delay other participants from receiving 

services. 

Comments: Other commenters 

requested additional guidance on the 

initial assessment process. The 

commenters asked whether there is a 

specific point in service delivery when 

initial assessments should be provided 

to customers, what the vision and intent 

is of this assessment, and how the 

assessment is to be used. Another 

commenter asked whether there are any 

standardized tools to be used to conduct 

this assessment. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments intend to issue joint 

guidance on this subject in the near 

future. 

Comments: One commenter said that 

the assessment should be tailored to 

include an evaluation of women’s 

‘‘interest and aptitude for higher-wage, 

nontraditional careers.’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have decided not to change 

the regulatory text in response to this 

comment. The Departments recognize 

the importance of placing women in 

higher-wage, nontraditional careers, but 

note that local areas have discretion to 

undertake such an evaluation as part of 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55886 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

the initial assessment of skill levels 

required in § 678.430(a)(3). 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended rewording paragraph 

(b)(1) of § 678.430 to state, 

‘‘Comprehensive and specialized 

assessments of the skill levels, interests, 

values, aptitudes, and service needs of 

adults and dislocated workers . . .’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have decided not to change 

the regulatory text in response to this 

comment. The assessment of skill levels 

could very well include these elements, 

but the Departments had determined 

that the inclusion of such elements is 

best left up to the Local WDB and 

partners to decide, given that they are in 

a position to adapt these processes to 

local area needs. 

Comments: Another commenter 

suggested that these assessments should 

include disability-related barriers to 

employment and the development of an 

action plan to reduce these barriers, as 

well as information on how to access 

common disability-related services. This 

commenter also recommended that 

when to disclose a disability and how 

to request a reasonable accommodation 

should be part of career counseling. 

Departments’ Response: Disabilityrelated barriers to employment and 

information on how to access disabilityrelated services are elements of the 

assessment process that the 

Departments encourage Local WDBs and 

partner programs to implement, but the 

Departments have decided not to change 

§ 678.430(b)(1) in response to the 

comment at this time. The assessment 

process is meant to be molded to best 

fit a local area’s employment 

environment and the needs of the 

participants, potential employers, and 

the community. Moreover, as written, 

§ 678.430(b)(1)(ii) specifically indicates 

that assessments may include in-depth 

interviewing and evaluation to identify 

employment barriers, which could 

include disability-related barriers. 

Comments: A commenter expressed 

support for the inclusion of financial 

literacy as an allowable activity. The 

commenter stated that bundling 

financial education with workforce 

development leads to improved 

employment and financial outcomes. 

Another commenter suggested that there 

should be financial literacy programs 

specifically targeting individuals with 

disabilities. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with the 

commenter’s statements about the 

bundling of financial education with 

workforce development. While the 

Departments have chosen not to change 

§ 678.430(b)(9) to specifically include 

financial literacy programs targeting 

individuals with disabilities, the 

Departments encourage Local WDBs to 

implement such plans as they determine 

are necessary to meet the needs of a 

local area. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that one-stop center 

partners should work with local 

institutions to ensure that one-stop 

customers are banked (e.g., have 

banking accounts) to reduce reliance on 

predatory lending. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the need to 

combat predatory lending and 

encourage Local WDBs to make such 

partnerships a part of their financial 

literacy services programs. However, the 

Departments decline to change the 

regulatory text to mandate such 

relationships because they may not be 

appropriate for every local area. The 

Local WDB is in the best position to 

determine if such a service is needed in 

a particular local area. 

Comments: Another commenter 

recommended that transportation 

should be put in a separate paragraph to 

emphasize that transportation for youth 

includes transportation to one-stop 

centers and work sites. The commenter 

also suggested that referrals to 

organizations that assist with housing, 

food, and obtaining identification 

documents should be provided at onestop centers. 

Departments’ Response: The 

provision of information about the 

availability of, and the referral to, 

transportation provided through TANF 

are included in WIOA 

sec.134(c)(2)(A)(1)(ix) and in 

§ 678.430(a)(9) as a career service. The 

commenter’s recommendation about 

transportation is adequately addressed 

in the regulatory provision as drafted, 

and the Departments have decided that 

it is not necessary to include it in a 

separate paragraph. The Departments 

have also determined that 

§ 678.430(a)(9), requiring information 

and referrals to be provided for other 

supportive services and assistance, 

would encompass referrals to other 

services as suggested by the commenter. 

While the list in the regulation does not 

specifically mention some of these 

services, it is a non-exhaustive list. 

Local WDBs are free to provide 

information and referrals to any 

supportive services that they determine 

would benefit one-stop participants in a 

local area. 

Comments: Another commenter said 

that it might be confusing to 

differentiate between basic and 

individualized career services. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have decided to make a 

distinction and separation between 

these terms. Basic services are those 

made available to each individual who 

accesses a one-stop center, while 

individualized services are those that 

are tailored to each participant to best 

meet his or her needs. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that if career services are classified as 

‘‘pre-enrollment’’ and ‘‘required 

enrollment,’’ Local WDBs could 

determine the customer flow without 

having to worry about cost issues. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments have determined that some 

career services are more appropriate for 

those in pre-enrollment or those 

enrolled in a program, the Departments 

have determined that it is best to leave 

this distinction to the Local WDBs, as 

they are in better positions to recognize 

and respond to the needs of the local 

area. 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

stated that § 678.430(a) potentially 

conflicts with § 678.305, and suggested 

that the Departments rephrase it to read: 

‘‘Basic career services must be made 

available in accordance with the 

methods outlined in § 678.305, at a 

minimum. . .’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments disagree, having found, 

after examination of the text, no 

conflicting language or intent in these 

two sections. No changes to the 

regulatory were made text in response to 

this comment. 

Comments: Another commenter 

suggested adding ‘‘and recognized 

postsecondary credentials’’ to 

§ 678.430(a)(4)(i)(A) to place additional 

emphasis on the benefits of such 

credentials. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have not made such a 

change in the regulatory text, but 

postsecondary credentials and their 

importance in the employment 

environment of a local area will be 

emphasized by title II and other 

educational programs. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

disagreement with § 678.430, asserting 

that it restricts what WIOA allows. The 

commenter recommended that States 

should be permitted to develop 

guidelines to help local areas determine 

how to deliver services. 

Departments’ Response: After 

consideration, the Departments have not 

found this section to restrict WIOA’s 

allowances and, in fact, the Departments 

have determined that § 678.430 is 

unrestrictive regarding what services a 

one-stop center may provide to a local 

area. The list of career services here are 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55887 

required, but the list should not be read 

as excluding additional career services 

that a Local WDB may decide the local 

area needs. Nothing in this regulation 

prohibits States from developing 

guidelines on the deliverance of 

services, and the Departments 

encourage States to do so. 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested guidance on how to deliver 

career services when multiple one-stop 

partners might provide similar services. 

Departments’ Response: The 

coordination among partners over 

which partner or partners will provide 

a service at any particular one-stop 

center or affiliated site is a subject that 

must be agreed upon and described in 

the MOU. 

Comments: A commenter asked for 

clarification on the definitions of ‘‘group 

counseling’’ and ‘‘individual 

counseling.’’ 

Departments’ Response: ‘‘Group 

counseling’’ involves two or more 

participants addressing certain issues, 

problems, or situations that may be 

shared by the group members, while 

‘‘individual counseling’’ is a one-on-one 

session that may go into greater detail 

about a particular participant’s needs. 

Comments: A few commenters 

recommended that States be given 

flexibility in determining follow-up 

time frames and whether follow-up 

services are appropriate. 

Departments’ Response: The 12- 

month time frame requirement for 

follow-up services to be conducted is 

established by WIOA sec. 

134(c)(2)(A)(iii). No change to the 

regulatory text was made in this section 

in response to the comments. 

Section 678.435 What are the business 

services provided through the one-stop 

delivery system, and how are they 

provided? 

The one-stop delivery system is 

intended to serve both job seekers and 

businesses. Similar to job seekers, 

businesses should have access to a truly 

one-stop experience in which high 

quality and professional services are 

provided across partner programs in a 

seamless manner. Labor markets are 

typically regional, but programs often 

design service delivery strategies around 

State and local geographic boundaries. 

Effective business services must be 

developed in a manner that supports 

engagement of employers of all sizes in 

the context of both regional and local 

economies, but should avoid burdening 

employers, for example, with multiple 

uncoordinated points of contact. Section 

678.435(a) lists required business 

services. Section 678.435(b) States that 

local areas have flexibility to provide 

services that meet the needs of area 

businesses and must carry out these 

activities in accordance with relevant 

statutory provisions. 

Comments: A commenter encouraged 

the Departments to improve the 

marketing of one-stop services to 

employers, because many employers 

that could benefit substantially from 

these services are not aware that there 

are one-stop services available to them. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments encourage Local WDBs and 

one-stop operators to increase efforts to 

reach out to local business industries 

and sectors, and to form and foster these 

relationships and partnerships is 

required by both the regulations in the 

section and WIOA, the Departments 

have determined this is a decision best 

left up to the Local WDBs. This will 

ensure that these efforts can be 

customized to fit the particular 

employment environment of the local 

area and remain malleable to the 

changing employment landscape. 

Comments: Several commenters 

recommended that employers be 

provided with an individual liaison at 

the one-stop center. 

Departments’ Response: Individual 

liaisons can be an effective mechanism 

for serving employers. However, each 

local one-stop center should structure 

business services to best meet the needs 

of the employers that they serve; the 

Departments decline to require that all 

one-stop centers use this structure, 

although it may be a best practice that 

should be encouraged. The Departments 

also note that the duties of the one-stop 

operator under § 678.620(a) may include 

the coordination of service delivery by 

required one-stop partners and service 

providers. This could reasonably 

include interacting with employers on a 

regular basis to ensure that appropriate 

service providers are meeting the 

employers’ needs. For these reasons, no 

change was made to the regulatory text 

concerning this topic. However, the 

Departments will continue to engage 

with business customers to determine 

the best ways to determine effectiveness 

in serving employers and to improve 

those services continuously. 

Comments: Several commenters 

recommended eliminating references to 

sector partnerships in this section. The 

commenters asserted that it is important 

to distinguish between developing and 

implementing sector partnerships and 

simply providing career or training 

services to employers in a particular 

industry. Further, the commenters said 

that while sector partnerships are 

described as a required activity in 

§ 678.435(a), paragraph (c) describes 

sector partnerships as one of several 

permissible activities that Local WDBs 

may undertake. The commenters 

suggested that the Departments should 

revise the language to state that Local 

WDBs should ensure that business 

services provided at one-stop centers 

can support sector partnerships in local 

areas. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments view the development of 

industry and sector partnerships as a 

critical business service that local areas 

must explicitly provide as required by 

WIOA sec. 134(c)(1)(A)(v). Regarding 

the commenters’ statements about 

§ 678.435(a) and (c), these paragraphs do 

not describe the same services. 

Paragraph (a) refers to ‘‘industry or 

sector partnerships,’’ while paragraph 

(c)(1) refers to ‘‘industry sector 

strategies,’’ which, as is noted in the 

regulatory text, could include strategies 

involving industry partnerships. 

Because these are separate services and 

not references to the same or duplicative 

services, the Departments have 

concluded that no change to the 

regulatory text is necessary. Moreover, 

while it is important for business 

services provided through one-stop 

centers to properly support industry 

sector partnerships, to change the 

regulatory text to specify this could 

have the unintended consequence of 

making this appear as a priority above 

providing these services to non-partner 

employers that seek them out. 

Comments: One commenter requested 

additional guidance regarding the 

implementation of sector partnerships, 

particularly the role of the convener 

(e.g., Local WDBs). Another commenter 

said that the limited instructions in the 

NPRM regarding sector partnerships 

might indicate that they are not a high 

priority and result in delayed 

implementation. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have concluded that the 

regulatory text does not indicate these 

sector partnerships are a low priority, 

but rather the regulatory text indicates 

that the details of how these 

partnerships are structured and operate 

are best left to Local WDBs with agency 

guidance, as they are in a better position 

to know the individual needs of a local 

area. 

Comments: The Departments received 

a number of comments that discussed 

the types of services that should be 

available to employers. One commenter 

suggested that one-stop centers should 

be able to provide services for 

employers interested in hiring 

individuals with disabilities. Another 

commenter said that the list of services 

to employers should be expanded to 

include services that are important for 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55888 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

hiring and retaining employees with 

disabilities, including ‘‘information on 

work experience options and tax credits, 

assistance and information on job 

accommodations and assistive 

technologies, and disability awareness 

training.’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have considered the 

suggestions regarding the types of 

services that should be available to 

employers, and have decided to amend 

the regulatory text to include some, but 

not all, of the suggestions. 

Business services related to job 

accommodations and assistive 

technology for individuals with 

disabilities have been included at 

§ 678.435(b)(4)(vi) to encourage not only 

these specific practices, but also the 

provision of other disability hiring 

services and general disability 

awareness. Information on local, State, 

and Federal tax credits is already listed 

as a possible business service to be 

provided under § 678.435(c)(6). The 

Departments do not consider 

information on work experience 

options, suggested by the commenter, as 

a business service and have not added 

this to § 678.435(c). 

Comments: Another commenter also 

suggested including individuals with 

disabilities in job fairs and customized 

recruitment events and expanding the 

list of services to include assistance on 

legal requirements and best practices 

around accommodating individuals 

with disabilities. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the need to 

provide access to these services. 

However, the Departments have 

concluded not to make this addition to 

this section of the regulation because 

the Departments have determined that 

this level of detail is not necessary. All 

WIOA services are subject to the 

nondiscrimination requirements of 

WIOA sec. 188 and its implementing 

regulations at 29 CFR part 38. 

Additionally, the Departments have 

made technical assistance on holding 

effective and inclusive job fairs 

available and will continue to provide 

guidance and resources regarding 

appropriate accommodations. 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

expressed support for § 678.435 and 

suggested additional services to 

employers including metrics, 

recordkeeping, and data analysis; 

affirmative action planning and 

assistance with goal attainment; 

assessment of employer needs; 

accessibility reviews; cultural awareness 

of specific disabilities; mentoring; onthe-job evaluation; and disability 

management for existing workforces. 

Another commenter said that businesses 

could use assistance developing 

‘‘position descriptions’’ to better define 

the skills required for positions, as well 

as assistance locating information on 

where certifications are awarded. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments recognize the advantages 

of providing these and other services, 

the Departments also recognize that 

providing an all-encompassing list of 

possible business services is an 

impossibility and would restrict creative 

thinking about methods of service 

provision, the encouragement of which 

is at the heart of WIOA. Because of this, 

the list of possible business services in 

the regulation will remain a nonexhaustive list and the Departments 

made no changes to the regulatory text 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that the Departments 

should clarify their use of the phrase 

‘‘labor laws’’ to ensure that it is clear 

this includes all Federal employment 

discrimination laws. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize the need for 

clarity in this language and have revised 

the regulatory text to include 

employment and discrimination laws in 

§ 678.435(b)(4)(vii). 

Comments: Another commenter 

suggested that Job Corps should be a 

required partner in the sector 

partnerships required in § 678.435(a). 

Departments’ Response: To fully 

support the development of sector-based 

strategies, the Departments are 

providing States, local areas, and 

regions with flexibility. The 

Departments strongly encourage that 

sector partnerships include a variety of 

entities, including training and 

education programs like Job Corps. 

Given the range of potential partners 

and the variety of industries and career 

pathways that may be included in a 

sector strategy, the Departments are not 

placing further regulatory requirements 

around partnerships, but will encourage 

such partnerships through guidance and 

technical assistance. 

Comments: One commenter asked 

whether the services provided in 

§ 678.435(b) but conducted by business 

intermediaries need to be located in the 

one-stop centers. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

134(d)(1)(A) requires that business 

services, which are listed as a 

permissible local employment and 

training activity at WIOA sec. 

134(d)(1)(A)(ix), be provided through 

the one-stop delivery system. No change 

to the regulatory text was made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: Another commenter 

recommended that the Departments 

clarify in the regulations that it is an 

allowable activity for local areas to 

provide business services and develop 

relationships with the business 

community that will last beyond a 

change in one-stop operator or career 

services provider. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments encourage Local WDBs to 

develop strategies to establish and 

sustain lasting partnerships and 

provision of business services. These 

business services may be provided by 

the Local WDB or through effective 

business intermediaries working in 

conjunction with the Local WDB, or 

through other public and private entities 

in a manner determined appropriate by 

the Local WDB and in cooperation with 

the State, consistent with § 678.435(c). 

No change has been made to this 

portion of the regulatory text in 

response to the comment. 

Section 678.440 When may a fee be 

charged for the business services in this 

subpart? 

WIOA allows customized employerrelated services to be provided on a feefor-service basis. Section 678.440 

clarifies that there is no requirement 

that a fee-for-service be charged to 

employers. The Local WDBs, however, 

should examine available resources and 

assets to determine an appropriate cost 

structure. These Boards may also 

provide such services for no fee. The 

regulatory text was revised to add 

paragraph (d) to explain that fees earned 

are program income. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

support for this section as proposed. 

Another commenter said that each 

program should be permitted to 

determine whether to charge a fee, 

instead of the Local WDB making that 

decision. 

Departments’ Response: After 

considering this comment, the 

Departments have concluded that Local 

WDBs are in the best position to 

determine what business services are 

needed in a local area and what fee, if 

any, should be associated with the 

provision of these services. The 

Departments encourage Local WDBs to 

consult with partner programs when 

making such decisions, keeping in mind 

that any fees collected by partners are 

program income allocable to partner 

programs in proportion to the partner 

programs’ participation in the activity. 

In this case, program income must be 

expended by the partner in accordance 

with the partner program’s authorizing 

statute, implementing regulations, and 

Federal cost principles identified in 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55889 

Uniform Guidance to ensure 

consistency with program income 

disbursement requirements. 

Additionally, the partner must consult 

its program statute and grant 

requirements to determine which 

method to use when disbursing program 

income as described in the Uniform 

Guidance at 2 CFR 200.307(e). 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

concern that employer services beyond 

the provision of no-charge services 

under the Wagner-Peyser Act have not 

been discussed. 

Departments’ Response: Local WDBs 

are not limited to only those business 

services discussed in this and other 

sections. They may also provide other 

business services that meet the 

workforce investment needs of area 

employers. If the Wagner-Peyser Act 

program provides funds for a business 

service, a fee cannot be charged. The 

Departments have concluded that the 

regulations sufficiently address business 

services and will not modify the 

regulatory text in response to this 

comment. Further joint guidance, 

however, will be released on this topic. 

Comments: A few commenters 

expressed concern about the prohibition 

on charging a fee for certain services. 

These commenters asked whether 

‘‘appropriate recruitment and other 

business services on behalf of 

employers’’ includes activities such as 

career expos, job fairs, and sector 

convening events. The commenters said 

that these events can be quite costly, 

and suggested that this section state that 

no fee, above a cost recovery fee, may 

be charged for services described in 

§ 678.435(a). 

Departments’ Response: Events such 

as career expos, job fairs, and sector 

convening events are not subject to the 

prohibition on charging fees as they are 

services provided under § 678.435(b) 

and (c). For example, Wagner-Peyser 

Act funds are used for general labor 

exchanges, but these are limited to 

situations such as the use of a job board. 

These larger events are more tailored for 

employers, for which fee-for-service is 

allowed. WIOA sec. 134(d)(1)(A)(ix) 

discusses activities to promote business 

services and strategies to meet 

workforce needs of employers, which 

may be provided on a fee-for-service 

basis. 

4. Memorandum of Understanding for 

the One-Stop Delivery System (20 CFR 

Part 678, Subpart C; 34 CFR 361.500 

Through 361.510; 34 CFR 463.500 

Through 463.510) 

This subpart describes the 

requirements for the MOU between the 

Local WDB, CEO, and the one-stop 

partners relating to the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system in the local 

area. The Local WDB acts as the 

convener of MOU negotiations and 

shapes how local one-stop services are 

delivered. One comment concerning the 

extension of existing MOUs to cover 

one-stop operations in PY 2016 was 

very pertinent and, as explained below, 

helped inform the Departments’ 

decision on the implementation of the 

State funding mechanism, although this 

decision did not affect the regulatory 

language in subpart C. As explained in 

greater detail below, the Departments 

promulgate this subpart with no 

substantive changes. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that Governors should be permitted to 

opt out of the MOU requirement if a 

comparable mechanism already exists 

and achieves the desired results. 

Departments’ Response: While the 

Departments recognize that existing 

mechanisms may already be in place in 

many States and local areas, bypassing 

the WIOA MOU process is not an 

option, because partner participation in 

the MOU is required by WIOA sec. 

121(b)(1)(A)(iii). Any existing 

mechanisms will need to be supplanted 

by the WIOA MOU mechanism. 

Section 678.500 What is the 

Memorandum of Understanding for the 

one-stop delivery system and what must 

be included in the Memorandum of 

Understanding? 

Section 678.500 describes what must 

be included in the MOU executed 

between the Local WDB, with the 

agreement of the CEO, and the one-stop 

partners relating to the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system in the local 

area. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended allowing existing MOUs 

in place under WIA to extend for the 

first program year of WIOA to 

acknowledge the unlikelihood of 

negotiating MOUs before the deadline. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note the first year of 

implementation for WIOA MOU 

provisions was PY 2015 (July 1, 2015 to 

June 30, 2016), which concluded prior 

to the effective date of these regulations. 

Comments: A commenter asked who 

specifically is supposed to write the 

MOU and wondered whether they can 

trust Local WDBs to write their own 

agreements. 

Departments’ Response: Neither 

WIOA nor the regulations address 

which entity writes the MOU, but 

§ 678.500(a) specifies that the MOU 

must be a ‘‘product of local discussion 

and negotiation’’ among the Local WDB, 

chief elected official, and the one-stop 

partners,’’ who all must sign it, 

according to paragraph (d), and which 

must include procedures for amending 

and reviewing it, according to 

paragraphs (b)(5) and (6). The 

Departments have determined that these 

provisions, and those in § 678.510, 

include adequate safeguards for the 

drafting of the MOUs, and that 

specifying a single entity to draft the 

MOU would be too prescriptive. 

Comments: A commenter asked, for 

single-area States, if the State WDB 

assumes the MOU negotiation 

responsibilities, or whether the 

Governor/mayor assumes these 

responsibilities. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA and 

the regulations do not assign negotiation 

responsibilities to a single party, and the 

regulations specify the joint nature of 

the responsibility among the parties. 

Therefore, no specific governmental 

entity is required by these regulations to 

assume MOU negotiation 

responsibilities, in single-area States. 

Comments: A few commenters 

supported the inclusion of provisions in 

this section that would allow one-stop 

partners to share client data through 

MOUs and confidentiality agreements. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA and 

the regulations are silent on the 

inclusion of data sharing agreements in 

the MOU, but the Departments have 

concluded that the MOU may include 

such agreements, consistent with all 

applicable laws and regulations 

including 34 CFR 361.38 (covering VR 

program privacy safeguards). No change 

to the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter said that the 

regulations should clarify that MOUs 

must be in accordance with 34 CFR 

361.38. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree; MOUs must not 

contain any provisions that violate the 

requirements of 34 CFR 361.38, which 

covers the protection, use, and release of 

personal information within the VR 

program. This applies specifically to 

§ 678.500(b)(3), which requires that 

MOUs include methods for referring 

individuals between the one-stop 

operators and partners for appropriate 

services and activities, as there are 

specific guidelines to be followed in 34 

CFR 361.38(e) regarding the release of 

participating individuals’ information. 

As there are no specific requirements 

applying to the sharing of information, 

but rather only a requirement that the 

MOU provide the method of referrals 

from one partner program to another 

partner program, the Departments are 

not referencing the requirements of 34 

CFR 361.38 in the regulatory text, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55890 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

although such requirements will be 

mentioned in guidance released to aid 

in the implementation of the one-stop 

delivery system. 

Comments: Another commenter said 

that the MOU should include a specific 

process to ensure individuals are 

screened to determine the best set of 

services to receive at the one-stop 

center. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that individuals 

should receive the services that best 

meet their needs, but do not agree that 

the regulations should prescribe a 

screening process, especially given 

WIOA’s movement away from the 

sequential delivery of services provided 

under WIA. The Departments will 

address this issue in guidance, if 

necessary, and through technical 

assistance. 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested additional guidance on MOU 

requirements, including whether the 

MOU should address partnerships that 

do not involve financial commitments, 

like housing agencies. 

Departments’ Response: All one-stop 

partners must be signatories to an MOU, 

and all must use a portion of their funds 

to maintain the one-stop delivery 

system including their proportionate 

share of one-stop infrastructure costs, 

whether this is through cash 

contributions, non-cash contributions, 

or third-party in-kind contributions. 

These requirements are covered in 

much greater detail in subpart E of this 

part. 

Section 678.505 Is there a single 

Memorandum of Understanding for the 

local area, or must there be different 

Memoranda of Understanding between 

the Local Workforce Development Board 

and each partner? 

Section 678.505 establishes that a 

Local WDB and one-stop partners may 

develop a single ‘‘umbrella’’ MOU that 

applies to all partners, or develop 

separate agreements between the Local 

WDB and each partner or groups of 

partners. Under either approach, the 

MOU requirements described in 

§ 678.500 apply. The Departments 

encourage States and local areas to use 

‘‘umbrella’’ MOUs to facilitate 

transparent, flexible agreements that are 

not burdensome so that partners may 

focus upon service delivery. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

support for the option to utilize an 

umbrella MOU or individual MOUs 

with each partner. Another commenter 

agreed that the umbrella MOU is the 

best approach, and said that MOUs for 

all local areas should be in a consistent 

format. In addition, a commenter 

asserted that WIOA sec. 121(c)(1) 

requires each Local WDB to enter into 

one MOU with all of the partners. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments interpret sec. 121(c)(1) as 

permitting a single umbrella MOU that 

encompasses all partner programs, and 

the Departments encourage the use of 

such MOUs, but they are not required. 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to this comment. The 

Departments will provide suggestions 

about the MOU in guidance and through 

technical assistance. However, because 

the MOU is the product of local 

discussion and negotiation developed 

by the Local WDB, with the agreement 

of the chief elected official and the local 

one-stop partners, which relates solely 

to the operation of the one-stop delivery 

system in that particular local area, the 

determination of an MOU’s format is 

best left to the Local WDBs, as long as 

the MOU meets the requirements 

outlined in § 678.500 and any 

requirements mandated by the State. 

Comments: A different commenter 

expressed opposition to umbrella 

MOUs, saying that they will result in 

inaccurate cost allocations and 

inappropriate service delivery 

decisions. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have determined that there 

is no reason why umbrella MOUs will 

be less effective than multiple MOUs in 

addressing cost allocation and service 

delivery decisions in most situations. 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter remarked 

that statewide organizations, such as 

VR, could have to enter into several 

dozen MOUs to cover all local areas. 

Departments’ Response: This is 

correct. Any program that is a partner in 

a one-stop center, whether they are a 

partner in one or more, must sign an 

MOU with the appropriate Local WDB. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that the State WDB and any statewide 

partners negotiate on a ‘‘mandatory 

agreement template’’ that can be used by 

Local WDBs in their MOUs with these 

statewide agencies. Another commenter 

agreed and supported the development 

of a standard MOU for use with all 

Local WDBs. 

Departments’ Response: While there 

is nothing to preclude the use of such 

a strategy, the Departments have 

determined not to require, encourage, or 

discourage such a method in order to 

leave the MOU mechanism as flexible 

and adaptable to local area situations as 

possible. 

Comments: A commenter said that 

partner programs operating outside of 

the workforce area (e.g., INA programs, 

Job Corps) should not be required to 

sign MOUs. Rather, the commenter said, 

these programs should commit to taking 

referrals from local areas and vice versa. 

Departments’ Response: If a program 

is a required one-stop partner under 

WIOA sec. 121(b)(1) and the 

corresponding regulations found in 

subpart B of this part, then that program 

must sign an MOU with the Local WDB 

for each local area where it is a partner. 

According to WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A), 

required partners are limited to those 

entities that carry out programs or 

activities in a local area. Likewise, if a 

program is not required to be a partner 

but is approved by the Local WDB and 

CEO as an additional partner, that 

partner program must sign the 

respective MOU. The Departments have 

determined that, as this is required by 

WIOA, no changes to the regulatory text 

regarding what entities are required to 

sign MOUs are necessary. 

Section 678.510 How must the 

Memorandum of Understanding be 

negotiated? 

Section 678.510 describes the 

collaborative and good-faith approach 

Local WDBs and partners are expected 

to use to negotiate MOUs. ‘‘Good-faith’’ 

negotiations may include fully and 

repeatedly engaging partners, 

transparently sharing information, and 

maintaining a shared focus on the needs 

of the customer. Section 678.510(a) 

allows Local WDBs, CEOs, and partners 

to request assistance from a State agency 

responsible for the program, the 

Governor, State WDB, or other 

appropriate parties when negotiating the 

MOU. The Departments acknowledge 

that additional guidance and technical 

assistance will be needed on MOU 

requirements and negotiating 

infrastructure funding agreements. The 

Departments will issue guidance on this 

topic. Ongoing technical assistance will 

be made available to the public 

workforce system as well. 

5. One-Stop Operators (20 CFR Part 678, 

Subpart D; 34 CFR 361.600 Through 

361.635; 34 CFR 463.600 Through 

463.635) 

This subpart addresses the role and 

selection of one-stop operators. Unlike 

the other subparts in this Joint WIOA 

Final Rule, this subpart is administered 

primarily by DOL. DOL and ED agreed 

that the subpart should remain in this 

part of the Joint Rule, so that all of the 

subparts having to do with one-stop 

requirements are together. However, 

unlike the rest of part 678, this portion 

of the preamble refers mainly to DOL. 

For this reason, any reference to ‘‘the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55891 

Department’’ throughout this subpart D 

discussion is a reference to DOL. 

Comments: As noted, the Department 

received and evaluated numerous 

public comments on this topic. Several 

commenters expressed support for the 

Department’s proposal to require 

competition for one-stop operators, 

primarily on the grounds that 

competition leads to better services and 

outcomes for job seekers. Others raised 

concerns, as detailed below. 

Department’s Response: It is the 

conclusion of the Department that the 

requirement to use a competitive 

process for the selection of the one-stop 

operator is required by statute, as is the 

requirement for continuous 

improvement through evaluation of 

operator performance and regularly 

scheduled competitions. Competition is 

intended to promote efficiency and 

effectiveness of the one-stop operator by 

regularly examining performance and 

costs. The Department recognizes the 

challenges associated with competitive 

selection, including the additional costs 

such a process carries with it, the 

statutory requirement for a competitive 

process is clear. Additionally, 

competitive procurement processes are 

not uncommon in State and local 

government, and the Department 

encourages the consideration of 

methods used by other State and local 

government entities in streamlining 

their own process, as well as 

consideration of State and local 

procurement laws and the Uniform 

Guidance. Even with such a reference, 

however, additional guidance and 

technical assistance will be needed on 

MOU requirements and negotiating 

infrastructure funding agreements. 

Ongoing guidance and technical 

assistance will be made available to all 

parts of the public workforce system as 

well. 

Section 121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA only 

allows for selection of a one-stop 

operator through a competitive process. 

This subpart uses the term ‘‘selection’’ 

of one-stop operator through a 

competitive process, rather than 

‘‘designation’’ or ‘‘certification’’ to avoid 

confusion. The competitive process 

established by this subpart requires 

States to follow the same policies and 

procedures they use for procurement 

from non-Federal funds as allowed 

under the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 

200.317. All other non-Federal entities, 

including subrecipients of a State (such 

as local areas), are required to use a 

competitive process based on the 

procurement standards in the Uniform 

Guidance set out at 2 CFR 200.318 

through 200.326. 

Unlike under WIA, there is no 

‘‘designation’’ or ‘‘certification,’’ 

separate from the competitive selection 

requirements, of any entity as a one-stop 

operator, including a Local WDB. For 

Local WDBs, WIOA imposes an 

additional step beyond the competitive 

selection. Section 107(g)(2) of WIOA 

states that a Local WDB may be 

designated or certified as a one-stop 

operator only with the agreement of the 

CEO in the local area and the Governor. 

DOL interprets this provision to create 

an additional requirement for situations 

in which a Local WDB is selected to be 

a one-stop operator through the 

competitive process as required under 

WIOA sec. 121(d)(2)(A) and as 

described in this subpart at § 678.605(c). 

In situations in which the outcome of 

the competitive selection process is the 

selection of the Local WDB itself as the 

one-stop operator, WIOA sec.107(g)(2) 

requires that the Governor and CEO 

approve the selection. 

The DOL received many public 

comments regarding the impact of 

competition on local services. In 

response to these comments, changes 

were made to § 678.605, simplifying the 

language regarding the procedures to be 

followed in conducting a one-stop 

operator selection competition. Some 

minor changes were also made to 

§§ 678.620 and 678.635 for clarity and 

consistency. 

Section 678.600 Who may operate onestop centers? 

Sections 678.600(a) through (d) 

describe who may operate a one-stop 

center. As stated in paragraph (a), WIOA 

allows a one-stop operator to be a single 

eligible entity or a consortium of 

entities. Consortia, like single entities, 

must be selected through a competitive 

process. Eligible entities identified in 

WIOA sec. 121(d)(2)(B). Section 

678.600(c)(6) clarifies that a Local WDB, 

with the approval of the chief elected 

official and the Governor, may serve as 

the one-stop operator. Section 

678.600(c)(7) clarifies that another 

interested organization or entity, which 

is capable of carrying out the duties of 

the one-stop operator, may serve as the 

one-stop operator. Section 678.600(d) 

repeats the requirement in sec. 121(d)(3) 

of WIOA that elementary schools and 

secondary schools are not eligible to be 

one-stop operators; however, 

nontraditional public secondary schools 

such as night schools, adult schools, or 

area career and technical education 

schools are eligible to be operators. 

Section 678.600 states that a one-stop 

operator may be a single entity or a 

consortium of entities, and that if a 

consortium consists of one-stop 

partners, it must include a minimum of 

three of the one-stop partners described 

in § 678.400. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that these two provisions of 

§ 678.600(a), when taken together, do 

not make clear whether a single onestop partner may be a one-stop operator. 

The commenter further stated that a 

one-stop operator may be a single onestop partner, based on WIOA’s intent 

and current practice, but requested that 

the regulations clarify this point. 

Department’s Response: The 

commenter is correct in that a single 

one-stop partner may serve as a one-stop 

operator. Paragraph (c) of § 678.600 lists 

the types of entities that may be selected 

as the one-stop operator. This repeats 

the eligible entities from WIOA sec. 

121(d)(2)(B), adding paragraph (c)(6) 

which states that a Local WDB, with the 

approval of the CEO and the Governor, 

may serve as a one-stop operator. 

Paragraph (c)(7) states that an interested 

organization of any other type that is 

capable of carrying out the duties of 

one-stop operator may serve as the 

operator. A single entity that is also a 

one-stop partner may serve as operator, 

but in cases where more than one 

partner form a consortia to serve as 

operator, WIOA requires that the 

consortia contain a minimum of at least 

three one-stop partners. The Department 

declines to make any substantive change 

to the regulatory text and will be issuing 

guidance on this topic, as well as for 

competition for one-stop operators. 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested clarification on the phrase, 

‘‘practices that create disincentives to 

providing services to individuals with 

barriers to employment that may require 

longer-term career and training 

services.’’ Paragraph (e)(2) requires that 

State and Local WDBs ensure that onestop operators do not establish practices 

that create disincentives to providing 

services to individuals with barriers to 

employment who may require longerterm career and training services. One 

commenter specifically recommended 

that one such practice that should be 

‘‘barred’’ is sending older workers to 

self-service or the Senior Community 

Services Employment Program, both of 

which would prevent those workers 

from being counted in performance 

evaluations. 

Department’s Response: The 

Departments have reiterated throughout 

the proposed regulations that all 

individuals with barriers to employment 

must be fairly evaluated for services, 

and services are to be made available 

and accessible in an equitable manner 

throughout the one-stop delivery 

system. Local WDBs must ensure that 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55892 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

one-stop operators do not create barriers 

that limit services to such individuals. 

WIOA sec. 188 and the corresponding 

regulations provide guidance on such 

issues for protected classes. 

Comments: A few commenters 

expressed concern about the selection of 

certain entities as one-stop operators. 

For example, one commenter expressed 

concern that private entity management 

would not be efficient or cost-effective 

for rural areas. Further, the commenter 

stated that a private entity could have 

difficulty providing quality service to 

rural areas due to inadequate expertise, 

models, or knowledge of living and 

working in such areas. 

Department’s Response: The final 

regulations guard against the concerns 

expressed by the commenters. Section 

678.605 requires that the Local WDB is 

to make the ultimate selection of the 

one-stop operator based on the 

principles of full and open competition. 

A sound competitive process will 

objectively evaluate bidders’ proposals 

on factors that may consider costs and 

the ability to meet the needs of the local 

area. 

Comments: A commenter expressed 

concern that partner infrastructure and 

one-stop operating costs could be 

impacted by the profit motivation of a 

private for-profit entity acting as a onestop operator. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department does not share this concern. 

Procurement standards under the 

Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.323(b), 

require that profit must be negotiated 

separately from the price in addition to 

a cost analysis and/or price analysis. 

Records documenting or detailing the 

procurement history including the 

negotiation and analysis of profit must 

be maintained by all entities (2 CFR 

300.318(h)(i)). This provides 

transparency in the actual operating 

costs versus profits for any entity, 

including for-profit entities, selected 

under a competitive procurement. 

Section 683.295 of the DOL WIOA Final 

Rule addresses the earning of profit. 

WIOA allows private for-profit entities 

to be one-stop operators (sec. 

121(d)(2)(B)(iv)); therefore, the 

regulations are consistent with WIOA. 

Private for-profit entities also are 

required to adhere to the Uniform 

Guidance at 2 CFR part 200. DOL’s 

adoption of the Uniform Guidance at 2 

CFR 2900.2 expands the definition of 

‘non-Federal entity’ to include ‘forprofit’ and ‘foreign’ entities. As such, 

any private for-profit entity that is a 

direct grant recipient or subrecipient of 

a DOL award must adhere to the 

Uniform Guidance. 

Comments: A commenter urged the 

Departments to provide maximum 

flexibility and more defined authority to 

State WDBs to select the one-stop 

operator. Additionally, the commenter 

asked what it means to be an operator, 

how the operator will be paid, and how 

firewalls and conflicts of interest are 

defined. 

Department’s Response: These final 

regulations provide maximum flexibility 

to States and local areas in selecting 

one-stop operators for the one-stop 

delivery system as long as the 

competitive process is consistent with 

the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200 

and/or with State procurement policies. 

WIOA sec. 121(d)(1) states that Local 

WDBs select the one-stop operator, but 

they must have the agreement of the 

CEO. Governors and CEOs must concur 

in cases where the Local WDB acts as 

the operator itself. In single-area States, 

the State WDB fulfills the requirements 

of a Local WDB by selecting the onestop operator. A competitive selection 

process creates a level playing field 

where applicants must propose how to 

respond to the unique needs and 

requirements set forth by the Local 

WDB. Competition is the most effective 

way to ensure that providers can 

effectively and efficiently serve as onestop operators. No changes to the 

regulatory text were made in response to 

this comment. 

Regarding the role of a one-stop 

operator, § 678.620(a) only requires that 

the one-stop operator must coordinate 

the service delivery of required one-stop 

partners and service providers. A 

nonexclusive list of other roles that can 

be assigned to the one-stop operator also 

exists in paragraph (a) of § 678.620, but 

the assignment of these or other roles is 

always at the discretion of the Local 

WDB. 

Comments: One commenter requested 

clarity regarding who may approve the 

Local WDB serving as the one-stop 

operator when the CEO and the 

Governor are the same individual. 

Department’s Response: The comment 

appears to be addressing concerns about 

the treatment of single-area States. In 

single-area States and outlying areas 

where the CEO and Governor are the 

same individual, the Governor approves 

the designation of the Local WDB as 

one-stop operator after the completion 

of a competitive process. Single area 

States will follow their own 

procurement policies per the Uniform 

Guidance at 2 CFR 200.317. State 

procurement policies may include 

additional procurement methods 

beyond those included in the Uniform 

Guidance or may allow for a noncompetitive selection of a government 

entity. In cases where there is no 

competition, the State and State WDB 

must work together to establish 

necessary internal controls and firewalls 

to provide the public with assurances 

that although a competitive process is 

not conducted, there is no conflict of 

interest. The Department will be issuing 

guidance on this topic and will follow 

the issuance of guidance with technical 

assistance. 

As stated above, the competitive 

process applies to both State and locally 

operated one-stop delivery systems; 

WIOA is clear that neither Governors 

nor State WDBs have the sole authority 

to designate one-stop operators, except 

under the conditions of a sole source 

method of procurement as stated in 

WIOA sec. 123(b). States are expected to 

conduct a competitive process for the 

selection of a one-stop operator, with 

appropriate protections from conflict of 

interest, per the State’s own 

procurement policies and procedures. 

Section 678.605 How is the one-stop 

operator selected? 

Comments on the Proposed Competition 

Process 

DOL examined the comments 

received and reviewed the statutory 

provisions upon which this section is 

based. WIOA made significant changes 

to the requirements regarding the 

selection of one-stop operators. As 

noted in the preamble to the NPRM, 

unlike the situation under WIA, WIOA 

sec. 121(d)(2)(A) only allows selection 

of a one-stop operation to be made 

through a competitive process. 

Comments: A number of commenters 

generally questioned the complexities 

and specificities of the process 

described in the NPRM. 

Department’s Response: After 

considering those comments, the 

Department has revised the regulatory 

text by deleting much of the specific 

contract-related language in the 

proposed regulations as applied to nonFederal entities other than States. The 

language now more generally requires 

that those entities follow the 

competitive process in accordance with 

local policies and procedures and the 

principles of competitive procurement 

in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 

200.318 through 200.326. This provides 

maximum flexibility in implementing 

the competition requirement. 

Furthermore, as noted in revised 

paragraph (c) of § 678.605, any reference 

to ‘‘noncompetitive proposals’’ in the 

Uniform Guidance should be read as 

‘‘sole source selection’’ for the purposes 

of § 678.605(c). 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55893 

The competitive selection process 

permits more than one method of 

procurement, and procurement options 

are outlined in the Uniform Guidance at 

2 CFR 300.320. Discussions based on 

comments made evident that there are 

many different methods of procurement 

used appropriately throughout the 

public workforce system. Moreover, 

such methods are generally based on the 

Uniform Guidance when Federal funds 

are involved. The Department has 

determined that it is unnecessary to be 

overly prescriptive in defining the 

methods of procurement in these 

regulations. It is the intention of the 

Department to provide extensive 

guidance and technical assistance on 

acceptable methods of procurement, 

using the Uniform Guidance as a basis. 

The Department responds to specific 

substantive public comments on this 

topic in the remainder of this Final Rule 

preamble section. 

Comments: Many commenters 

suggested that existing one-stop 

operators that are performing well 

should be grandfathered into WIOA and 

permitted to continue operating without 

competitive procurement, which would 

reduce the burden of the competitive 

process and ensure continued system 

stability during the transition to WIOA. 

Some of the commenters further 

recommended that Local WDBs and 

CEOs should have the authority to 

waive the competitive procurement 

process after 4 years based on 

performance and accountability and 

only conduct a competitive 

procurement if their evaluations 

determine it is warranted. 

Department’s Response: The 

requirement in WIOA to use a 

competitive process for the selection of 

the one-stop operator is an unequivocal 

statutory requirement, which is clearly 

set out in WIOA sec. 121(d)(2)(A). 

Because of this statutory requirement, 

the competitive selection process for 

one-stop operators in all local areas 

cannot be waived. No changes to the 

regulatory text were made in response to 

these comments. Past performance, 

however, is an evaluation factor that 

may be considered in the competitive 

process, potentially giving weight to 

those bidders demonstrating successful 

performance as a one-stop operator. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

requiring competitive procurement for 

its one-stop operators would be 

detrimental to the State’s workforce 

because any new operator would have 

to invest in new infrastructure, which 

would take time and money away from 

implementing programs. Further, this 

commenter stated that the existing State 

employees, who are unionized, could be 

laid off if new operators were selected. 

Department’s Response: Costs and 

burdens placed on the one-stop delivery 

system by the selection of a new onestop operator is one of many factors that 

may be taken into account by a Local 

WDB or State WDB under the terms of 

the competitive selection process. Other 

factors may include, but are not limited 

to, performance results, performance 

results by targeted population, 

certification results, and price. Singlearea States will follow their own 

procurement process per the Uniform 

Guidance at 2 CFR 200.317. State 

procurement policies may include 

additional procurement methods 

beyond those included in the Uniform 

Guidance, including sole source 

procurement. In appropriate instances, 

the State and State WDB must work 

together to establish necessary internal 

controls and firewalls to provide the 

public with assurances that there are no 

conflicts of interest. Further, the 

Department hopes that any disruption to 

existing public workforce system 

employees will be limited under the 

new competitive procurement policies. 

However, the Department is also 

confident that the intent of Congress in 

these provisions was to increase 

competition among the publicly funded 

WIOA programs. The implications of 

collective bargaining agreements will 

have to be taken into consideration 

within the provisions of State or Federal 

procurement and other legal 

requirements. As such, no changes were 

made to the regulatory text in response 

to this comment. 

Comments: A few commenters 

suggested that sole sourcing should be 

permitted when a public agency is 

selected as the one-stop operator, 

reasoning that a competitive process 

would disrupt delivery of workforce 

services to job seekers and employers. 

Another commenter urged that rural 

areas should be exempt from the 

competitive process, while a different 

commenter recommended that singlearea States should be exempt from the 

competitive process. 

Department’s Response: As stated 

above, sole source selection is allowable 

as long as the situation falls within the 

guidelines and requisite conditions of 

State and local procurement policies 

and procedures and the conditions 

outlined in the Uniform Guidance. The 

Local WDB must be able to demonstrate 

that it conducted sufficient market 

research and outreach to justify sole 

source selection. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: Some commenters stated 

that requiring a competitive process 

would divert resources away from 

delivery of services. 

Department’s Response: While the 

Department recognizes the challenges 

associated with competitive selection, 

including the additional costs, the 

statutory requirement for a competitive 

process for selection of a one-stop 

operator is clear. Additionally, 

competitive procurement processes are 

not uncommon in State and local 

government, and the Department 

encourages the consideration of 

methods used by other State and local 

government entities in streamlining 

their own processes, as well as State and 

local procurement laws and the Uniform 

Guidance. No change was made to the 

regulatory text in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended that the regulations 

permit Local WDB personnel to staff 

one-stop operators and service 

providers, with the agreement of the 

CEO and Governor, which would 

provide more flexibility to the CEO to 

determine the most efficient and 

effective one-stop delivery system for 

their area. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department has determined that such 

staffing is allowable, as long as the Local 

WDB is selected in accordance with the 

requirements of the regulations and 

proper firewalls are in place. As the 

commenter noted, in such 

circumstances the agreement of the 

Governor and CEO is required as an 

additional step in the approval of the 

Board as the one-stop operator. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that if there is no cost 

associated with the selection of a 

consortium as a one-stop operator, there 

should be no competition. 

Department’s Response: As noted, 

WIOA imposes the requirement of a 

competitive process. The fact that a 

particular entity, such as the consortium 

mentioned by the commenter, would be 

at no cost, however, might be taken into 

account by the Local WDB under the 

terms of the selection. 

Comments: Several commenters 

disagreed with the Department’s 

interpretation of the relationship 

between WIOA secs. 107(g)(2) and 

121(d)(2)(A). The commenters asserted 

that WIOA sec. 107(g)(2), which states 

that a Local WDB may be designated or 

certified as a one-stop operator only 

with the agreement of the CEO and the 

Governor, is a separate and unrelated 

provision from WIOA sec. 121(d)(2)(A), 

which requires a competitive selection 

process for the one-stop operator. They 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55894 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

suggested that a Local WDB can be 

designated as a one-stop operator solely 

under WIOA sec. 107(g)(2), without 

having to undergo the competitive 

process described in WIOA sec. 

121(d)(2)(A). 

Department’s Response: The 

Departments received and evaluated 

numerous public comments on this 

topic. It is the conclusion of the 

Departments that the requirement to use 

a competitive process for the selection 

of the one-stop operator is required by 

statute, as is the requirement for 

continuous improvement through 

evaluation of operator performance and 

regularly scheduled competitions. 

Competition is intended to promote 

efficiency and effectiveness of the onestop operator by regularly examining 

performance and costs. 

The relationship between these two 

provisions of WIOA was duly noted and 

considered by the Departments. After 

extensive consideration, the 

Departments have not changed their 

interpretation of the relationship 

between WIOA secs. 107(g)(2) and 

121(d)(2)(A) as providing that a Local 

WDB may be designated or certified as 

a one-stop operator, with the agreement 

of the CEO and the Governor, only after 

being selected through a competitive 

process for the one-stop operator. In the 

Departments’ view, the two provisions 

read together implement Congress’ 

emphasis on increasing competition 

among the publicly funded WIOA 

programs, while also giving the CEO 

and the Governor the flexibility to 

approve the competitive selection of a 

Local WDB as a one-stop operator. The 

Departments read sec. 121(d)(2)(A) as 

establishing the governing requirement 

for competitive selection of one-stop 

operators with sec. 107(g)(2) imposing 

an additional requirement when the 

competitive process results in the 

selection of the Local WDB. No change 

to the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: A few commenters also 

stated that the Governor should have the 

authority to designate the one-stop 

operator in single-area States or States 

that have a statewide planning region. 

Department’s Response: All areas, 

even single-area States, must use a 

competitive process to determine the 

one-stop operator by following the 

Uniform Guidance and State 

procurement procedures. Sole source 

selection is available but only if the 

applicable conditions exist under the 

State procurement policies and 

procedures. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: One commenter also 

recommended that the Department 

establish a workgroup of single-area 

States to provide advice for the Final 

Rule. 

Department’s Response: Because of 

the extensive participation of 

stakeholders, including single-area 

States and representatives of State 

governments in the development of the 

NPRM and in the opportunity to 

comment on the NPRM before issuance 

of this Final Rule, the Department 

determined that it is not necessary to 

establish a separate workgroup, 

although workgroups aimed at serving 

other purposes may still be established. 

Comments: Several commenters 

described potential issues that could 

arise from a mandate for competitive 

procurements. They said that there 

could be: (1) Issues with organized labor 

representing local workers; (2) delays in 

service due to staff time being spent on 

the procurement process; (3) CEOs, who 

have liability for funding who are 

unable to choose the best solution for 

their local area; and (4) loss of local 

control. A few commenters suggested 

that requiring competition would 

increase the liability of the CEO, 

contribute to loss of local control, and 

increase the overall cost of operation by 

dismantling existing, efficient systems 

that utilize leveraged funding. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department is required by WIOA sec. 

121(d)(2)(A) to mandate competitive 

selection of one-stop operators and 

cannot waive that requirement. Local 

WDBs should evaluate risk during all 

stages of the competitive selection 

process. Leveraged funding or a pledge 

for matching funds may be considered 

as a scoring factor when evaluating 

bidders’ proposals for one-stop operator 

selection, if the solicitation describes 

how such scoring will be awarded. By 

following the Uniform Guidance, any 

such liability of CEOs is mitigated by 

corresponding protections in the 

eventual contract. Additionally, the 

Department encourages Local WDBs to 

work with local partners and one-stop 

operators to use innovative and creative 

ways of mitigating these issues. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter remarked 

that while there are likely situations in 

which there is cause to procure one-stop 

operators competitively, it is not always 

the case that Local WDBs are unable to 

oversee the local workforce system 

while also serving as the one-stop 

operator. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department agrees, as did Congress. 

WIOA allows Local WDBs to serve as a 

one-stop operator with the concurrence 

of the CEO and the Governor, if the 

Board is selected under a competitive 

process as provided in the Final Rule. 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to this comment. 

Comments: A few commenters asked 

for clarification on whether the rule for 

competitive bidding is applied only at 

the regional or State sub-area level (such 

as a workforce development area), or if 

it also applies to operators who are site 

managers of one-stop sites. 

Department’s Response: The 

requirements for the competitive 

selection of one-stop operators under 

WIOA would apply only to those 

procurements carried out by State or 

Local WDBs. All direct grant recipients 

and subrecipients of a Federal award 

must adhere to the procurement 

standards found in the Uniform 

Guidance. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: Several commenters 

expressed concerns about the financial 

impact of requiring Local WDBs to 

conduct competitive procurements, as 

this would be a new cost that could 

significantly impact limits on 

administrative costs. A few commenters 

also asserted that the proposed process 

of essentially vetting possible 

candidates prior to issuing a RFP is 

costly and repetitive. Some commenters 

said that having a one-stop operator at 

all is not cost effective. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department recognizes that there is a 

cost burden associated with conducting 

competitive procurements. Both WIOA 

and the Uniform Guidance encourage 

efficiencies in administrative operations 

through streamlining of services or 

building from an existing network of 

services. To the maximum extent 

practical, the Department encourages 

States and local areas to leverage their 

administrative support for procurement 

to reduce burden. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that Congress was intentional in 

requiring one-stop operators to be 

selected through a competitive process. 

These commenters suggested that the 

Final Rule should not allow contracts to 

be awarded to entities who then 

subcontract the work back to State or 

local agencies on a noncompetitive 

basis. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department agrees that the requirement 

of using a competitive process for the 

selection of the one-stop operator 

cannot be subverted by subcontracting 

the position of one-stop operator on a 

noncompetitive basis. By aligning the 

one-stop operator competitive process 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55895 

with the procurement requirements in 

the Uniform Guidance, there are 

stringent conflicts of interest and 

documentation requirements that will 

also apply to one-stop operator 

competitions. The Uniform Guidance 

requirements also apply to the award of 

subcontracts. Application of the 

Uniform Guidance requirements will 

ensure the integrity of the process. For 

this reason, the Department sees no 

need to change the regulatory language 

in response to this comment. 

Comments: A few commenters also 

said that the regulations should clarify 

that one-stop service providers must 

also be competitively procured. One 

commenter recommended that the final 

regulations should ensure that either the 

adult and dislocated worker service 

provider is also required to perform the 

responsibilities of the one-stop operator, 

and the Local WDB must hold a 

competition to procure a provider to fill 

this mixed role; or, if operator and 

service provider contracts are bid 

separately, an entity must be allowed to 

compete for and perform both roles. The 

commenter went on to recommend that 

Local WDBs should be required to bid 

every contract competitively, or request 

letters of intent at a minimum, and only 

select an operator through a 

noncompetitive method if there are no 

qualified candidates. 

Department’s Response: The 

competitive processes outlined in the 

Uniform Guidance are applicable to 

procurement transactions with a 

contractor and not to a sub-awardee 

such as an adult or dislocated workers 

service provider. It is when WIOA 

requires competitive procurement 

process such as with the one-stop 

operators and youth service providers 

that States and Local WDBs must adhere 

to such requirements. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

there are competitive selection 

processes available other than those 

listed in the proposed regulations. The 

commenter suggested that invitations to 

negotiate, professional services 

solicitations, and other approaches that 

emphasize performance over price 

should be considered. Another 

commenter requested clarity regarding 

whether ‘‘competitive process’’ requires 

an RFP. They recommended that 

‘‘competitive process’’ be defined to 

include all methods permitted under 

State procurement laws. 

Department’s Response: The 

commenters are correct in stating that a 

variety of competitive selection 

processes exist within approved 

procurement practices. As a result, the 

regulatory text has been changed from 

what was proposed in the NPRM to 

allow for greater flexibility in defining 

the competitive process to be followed 

by non-Federal entities other than 

States. The regulations now state that 

where States are engaging in a 

competitive process, competitions 

should be based on the State 

procurement policies as defined in State 

administrative procedures and should 

be the same process used for 

procurement with non-Federal funds. 

The policies and procedures may 

encompass many of the areas suggested 

by the commenters. The regulations also 

state that where local areas or Local 

WDBs are engaging in a competitive 

process, competitions should be based 

on the local procurement policies as 

defined in local administrative 

procedures that must be consistent with 

all provisions of the Uniform Guidance. 

The policies and procedures may 

encompass many of the areas suggested 

by the commenters. All other entity 

types follow the Uniform Guidance 

requirements for procurement, which 

also contain flexibility in procurement 

methods, as well as the type of contract 

vehicle used. For example, the Uniform 

Guidance does permit sole source as a 

method of procurement under certain 

conditions. It was determined to be 

unnecessary for the Department to be 

overly prescriptive in defining the 

methods of procurement in these 

regulations. 

The Department has determined that 

this approach provides sufficient 

flexibility to enable a range of operators, 

including current one-stop operators, 

State agencies, Local WDBs, or consortia 

of required partners to be selected under 

a competitive process as one-stop 

operators. 

Comments: Another commenter asked 

for clarification on whether ‘‘selection’’ 

is the same as ‘‘procurement,’’ and 

whether the selection of a one-stop 

operator is always ‘‘procurement,’’ and 

which parts of the Uniform Guidance 

apply to such a selection process. 

Department’s Response: While 

selection is typically understood as 

being a part of the procurement 

process—which typically goes through a 

series of phases that may include 

planning, evaluation, negotiation, 

selection, implementation and 

closeout—when discussing WIOA onestop operators in this Final Rule, 

selection refers to the competitive 

process by which one-stop operators are 

chosen. This process may involve a 

number of methods of procurement as 

they are described in the Uniform 

Guidance. The Uniform Guidance 

describes the process and methods that 

must be followed to conduct 

procurement. 

Comments: The commenter further 

stated that the solicitation 

announcements need to reach a 

minimum number of vendors to ensure 

a variety of capable vendors have the 

ability to bid. In addition, the 

commenter suggested that selection of 

one-stop operators should include the 

ability to serve linguistically and 

culturally diverse participants. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department declines to change the 

regulatory text in response to this 

comment. Determining the number of 

vendors is best left to the Local WDB, 

based on the needs identified in the 

local area. Typically, two or more 

vendors or bidders would be adequate 

in meeting the minimum requirement of 

competition, which may already be 

specified in the State procurement 

process. 

Comments: Another commenter asked 

how providers of career services are 

selected. The commenter also asked 

whether this must involve a competitive 

process. 

Department’s Response: Career 

services are provided by the various 

partner programs participating in the 

one-stop center, the details of which are 

set out and agreed upon in the MOU. As 

mentioned above, these partners are not 

required to be procured in a competitive 

process under WIOA, but they may be 

under State or local procurement 

policies. 

Comments: Other commenters stated 

that the Governor should be allowed to 

recommend the RFP process for their 

State. 

Department’s Response: The 

Governor, in consultation with the State 

WDB and chief elected official does 

have the authority under these 

regulations to choose the type of RFP 

process for their State that is consistent 

with State policy and the Uniform 

Guidance. No change to the regulatory 

was made text in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested additional guidance on how a 

WDB could compete in the procurement 

process, either alone or as part of a 

consortium. Another commenter asked 

if, in single-area States, the State WDB 

assumes the responsibilities in WIOA 

sec. 107(d)(10)(A), or if the Governor is 

authorized to identify a State entity to 

conduct the competition. 

Department’s Response: As noted, the 

Department has revised the regulatory 

text to allow greater flexibility in 

defining the competition process for 

non-Federal entities other than a State, 

deleting much of the language related to 

specific procurement methods in the 

proposed regulations. The Department 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55896 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

provides this flexibility because, as it 

became apparent through the discussion 

of comments, there are many different 

methods of procurement throughout the 

public workforce system, which are 

generally based on the Uniform 

Guidance when Federal funds are 

involved and which the Department 

would consider sufficient to meet the 

requirement for competitive selection of 

the one-stop operator. It was 

unnecessary for the Department to be 

overly prescriptive in defining the 

methods of procurement in these 

regulations, and provisions of proposed 

§ 678.605(c) prescribing certain methods 

have been removed. 

Length of Time Required Between 

Competitions 

Comments: A few commenters 

addressed the Department’s question 

seeking comments regarding the length 

of time required between competitions 

for one-stop operators. In particular, a 

few commenters recommended that the 

timelines should be determined by 

States. Other commenters stated that 4 

years, as proposed in the NPRM, is 

appropriate. A few commenters agreed 

that 4 years between competitions is 

appropriate, but they suggested that 

there be an option to extend additional 

years if performance expectations are 

met or exceeded. A few commenters 

suggested allowing more flexibility for 

States regarding the length of contracts, 

such as providing guidance that 

recommends contracts of 3 to 5 years, or 

allowing the award of 5-year contracts 

that have an initial base year followed 

by 4 option years that can be executed 

if the operator is performing well. A few 

commenters recommended 6 years 

between competitions, as that timeline 

would align with two 3-year 

certification periods for one-stop 

operators. Another commenter 

suggested that local areas should be 

permitted to extend an operator’s 

contract once by 2 years to reward high 

performance. 

Department’s Response: After 

considering these comments and 

recommendations, the Department 

decided to retain the period of 4 years 

as it is consistent with the other time 

periods contained in WIOA for 

resubmission of State Plans as well as 

re-certification of one-stop centers. The 

Department has determined that there is 

not a sufficient reason to shorten this 

period to 3 years, extend it beyond 4 

years, or to leave the timeline 

determination to individual States. 

Instead, maintaining the proposed 4 

years between competitions is 

consistent with WIOA’s goals of a 

periodic reexamination of local plans 

and supporting successfully performing 

one-stop centers. 

Comments: A commenter remarked 

that, given the timelines for competitive 

procurement and certification criteria 

updates, both processes will be 

conducted simultaneously every 12th 

year. The commenter suggested that the 

Department adjust these timelines to be 

event-driven, rather than simply time 

dependent. 

Department’s Response: While the 

Department recognizes the difficulties 

that the timing may cause, after 

considering the comments and 

suggested changes, the Department 

concluded that leaving these processes 

on set timelines, as opposed to eventdriven timelines, is the best way to 

insure integrity in the process and will 

reap the best outcomes for the one-stop 

delivery system. As such, the 

Department has made no changes to the 

regulatory text in response to this 

comment. Guidance and technical 

assistance on this section regarding 

competition will be made available to 

all parts of the public workforce system. 

Section 678.610 When is the solesource selection of one-stop operators 

appropriate, and how is it conducted? 

Section 678.610 explains when and 

how sole-source selection of one-stop 

operators is appropriate as a part of a 

competitive procurement process. The 

text has been changed from the NPRM 

to delete the references to the specific 

acceptable processes in proposed 

§ 678.605(d)(3) and to indicate that State 

and local entities must follow their own 

procurement rules in addition to the 

Uniform Guidance, as appropriate. It 

also includes requirements about 

maintaining written documentation 

regarding the entire selection process, 

and developing appropriate conflict of 

interest policies. It states that a Local 

WDB may be selected as one-stop 

operator through sole source 

procurement only with the agreement of 

the CEO in the local area and the 

Governor. The Governor must approve 

the conflict of interest policies and 

procedures the Local WDB has in place 

when also serving as the one-stop 

operator. This is consistent with the 

Departments’ interpretation of sec. 

107(g)(2) of WIOA—the section adds an 

additional check in situations where a 

Local WDB is selected to be operator. 

Comments: Several commenters 

recommended allowing the Governor to 

designate the one-stop operator when 

the State is a single-area State, 

particularly if the State has a history of 

meeting performance standards. Several 

commenters also recommended 

allowing CEOs to designate the one-stop 

operator without a competitive process 

so as not to interrupt program 

continuity, particularly if the operator is 

already performing well. 

Department’s Response: WIOA 

requires the selection of one-stop 

operators through a competitive process. 

The Governor or CEOs may not 

designate an operator without a 

competitive process. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. It is possible for the 

Governor to select an organization, such 

as the State WDB, by sole source 

selection after a competitive process. 

Otherwise, Local WDBs are responsible 

for conducting a competitive process to 

select a one-stop operator, which must 

also be consistent with the Uniform 

Guidance. The Department encourages 

Local WDBs to plan for the competitive 

process and allow for transition time to 

minimize any disruption and ensure 

program continuity. Local WDBs can be 

selected as one-stop operator through 

sole source procurement only with the 

agreement of the CEO in the local area 

and the Governor. Under § 678.610(d), 

the Governor must approve the conflict 

of interest policies and procedures that 

the Local WDB has in place when also 

serving as one-stop operator. This is 

consistent with DOL’s interpretation of 

WIOA sec. 107(g)(2)—the section adds 

an additional check in the situations 

where a Local WDB is selected to be 

operator. 

Comments: One commenter also 

suggested that local areas already 

operating under a consortia model with 

demonstrated success be permitted to be 

sole sourced. Another commenter stated 

that very large, complex local areas 

should be able to sole source a ‘‘system 

operator’’ provided that the individual 

one-stop operators are procured through 

a competitive process. 

Department’s Response: While WIOA 

requires selection of the one-stop 

operator through a competitive process, 

under the Uniform Guidance there is the 

flexibility for sole source as a method of 

procurement; however, there are 

conditions that must be met to allow for 

sole source selection. The Local WDB 

must be able to demonstrate it 

conducted sufficient market research 

and outreach to make that 

determination. Additionally, 

§ 678.615(b) and (c) require robust 

conflict of interest policies and 

procedures as well as internal firewalls 

within the State agency to address the 

real and perceived conflicts of interest 

that could arise for a State or local 

agency applying to a competition run by 

a Local WDB. 

The Department notes that this 

section is particularly relevant to the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55897 

first competitions that are conducted 

after these regulations are promulgated 

for one-stop operators. With appropriate 

firewalls and conflict of interest policies 

and procedures to provide a fair and 

open competitive process, entities 

serving as one-stop operators at the time 

these regulations are promulgated, 

including Local WDBs and other current 

one-stop operators, may compete and be 

selected as operator under the 

competition requirements in this 

subpart if they are able to do so under 

applicable procurement policies and 

procedures. However, appropriate 

firewalls must be in place to ensure that 

the current operator is not involved in 

conducting the competitive process, as 

that would be an inherent conflict of 

interest. No change to the regulatory text 

was made in response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

the Department should reconcile 

§§ 678.610 through 678.625 with 20 CFR 

679.410 to ensure that both one-stop 

operations and career services are 

awarded competitively. The commenter 

provided one exception to this rule: that 

the Governor and CEO agree that there 

are insufficient providers available for a 

competition. 

Department’s Response: WIOA does 

not link one-stop operator competition 

with competition for career services 

providers. That decision is left to the 

State and/or Local WDB, and the 

Department declines to require this by 

regulation. Competitions for certain 

types of services are neither expressly 

prohibited nor required by WIOA. State 

and Local WDBs are in the best position 

to determine how extensively to require 

service provider competitions in their 

respective areas. 

Section 678.615 May an entity 

currently serving as one-stop operator 

compete to be a one-stop operator under 

the procurement requirements of this 

subpart? 

Section 678.615(a) states that Local 

Boards may compete for and be selected 

as one-stop operators, as long as 

appropriate firewalls and conflict of 

interest policies and procedures are in 

place. Section 678.615(b) allows State or 

local agencies to compete for, and be 

selected as, one-stop operators. 

However, there must also be strong 

firewalls, internal controls, and conflict 

of interest policies and procedures in 

place. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that they interpret the Uniform 

Guidance on conflict of interest to mean 

simply that the specifications and 

requirements for the procurement must 

be drawn up by a neutral third-party, 

and that Local and State WDB members 

can take part in the selection, award, or 

administration of the one-stop operator 

contract so long as no member will see 

an increase in pay or benefits upon 

award of the contract. 

Department’s Response: Competitions 

must be undertaken pursuant to 

§ 678.605. States are required to follow 

the same policies and procedures used 

for procurement with non-Federal funds 

while other non-Federal entities are 

required to follow local procurement 

policies and procedures and the 

requirements in the Uniform Guidance 

at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326. 

These policies and procedures may 

allow or require many of the 

commenter’s suggestions. For example, 

the Uniform Guidance does permit sole 

source as a method of procurement 

under certain conditions. The Local 

WDB must be able to demonstrate it 

conducted sufficient market research 

and outreach to make that 

determination. With appropriate 

firewalls and conflict of interest policies 

and procedures to provide a fair and 

open competitive process, entities 

serving as one-stop operators at the time 

these regulations are promulgated, 

including Local WDBs and other current 

one-stop operators, may compete and be 

selected as operator under the 

competition requirements in this 

subpart if they are able to do so under 

the relevant procurement policies and 

procedures. In the alternative, they may 

be selected under appropriate sole 

source processes. However, appropriate 

firewalls must be in place to provide 

that the current operator is not involved 

in conducting the competitive process, 

as that would be an inherent conflict of 

interest. 

The Department wants to make clear 

that this approach provides sufficient 

flexibility to enable a range of operators 

to compete and be selected, including 

current one-stop operators, State 

agencies, Local WDBs, or consortia of 

required partners. 

Comments: Several commenters also 

asserted that effective firewalls, internal 

controls, and conflict of interest policies 

already exist in the workforce 

development system and have been 

reviewed by the States and DOL. 

Department’s Response: While the 

Department agrees that some effective 

firewalls, internal controls, and conflict 

of interest policies already exist in the 

workforce development system, no 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to this comment. The 

procurement standard in the Uniform 

Guidance provides guidance on written 

codes of conduct covering real, 

apparent, and organizational conflicts of 

interest for persons involved in the 

procurement process. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that one-stop operators can be staffed by 

Local WDBs as long as firewalls and 

conflict of interest policies are in place, 

which can include a WDB/CEO 

agreement with organizational charts. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department agrees that, as long as the 

requisite firewalls and conflict of 

interest policies and procedures are in 

place, a Local WDB can compete to fill 

the one-stop operator position. To be 

placed in this position, of course, the 

Local WDB must win the competition 

and then be approved by the Governor 

and CEO. While such agreements and 

organizational charts are a useful tool to 

define firewalls, proper firewalls must 

go beyond these tools. 

Comments: One commenter asked the 

Department to define the term 

‘‘firewall’’ as it relates to this section. A 

group of Federal elected officials urged 

the Departments to establish strong 

organizational conflict of interest 

provisions in the Final Rule to ensure 

fair competition. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department has determined that the 

Uniform Guidance, used in concert with 

State procurement procedures, 

establishes adequate standards for 

conflict of interest policies. Also, 

§ 678.615(b) and (c) require robust 

conflict of interest policies, as well as 

internal firewalls within the State 

agency, to address the real and apparent 

conflicts of interest that could arise for 

a State or local agency applying to a 

competition run by a Local WDB. In 

order to ensure flexibility for State and 

local entities in designing one-stop 

delivery systems, the Department 

declines to define these terms further in 

the final regulations. 

Comments: A few commenters said 

that they do not believe it is possible for 

a sufficient firewall to be established to 

eliminate a real or apparent conflict of 

interest when a Local WDB competes to 

be a one-stop operator. Even if an 

alternate entity were involved in 

developing the procurement 

requirements, according to these 

commenters, the Local WDB would still 

need to be involved in developing and 

approving them. Other commenters 

agreed and requested that single-area 

States be granted flexibility on, and 

waivers of, this provision. Two 

commenters asserted that in small States 

where there is very little competition 

(e.g., a one-stop operator may also be a 

service provider), it is not cost effective 

to implement firewalls. 

Department’s Response: While the 

Uniform Guidance does provide 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55898 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

flexibility, some State and local 

procurement policies may prevent a 

Local WDB from competing under an 

RFP if it is not possible to establish a 

sufficient firewall to avoid a real or 

apparent conflict of interest. The 

Department declines to revise § 678.615 

to provide for a waiver or other 

flexibility concerning the requirement 

for firewalls and conflict of interest 

policies and procedures because 

avoiding a real or apparent conflict of 

interest is essential to a fair competitive 

process. The Department encourages 

States and local areas to review their 

procurement policies and procedures to 

ensure that they are consistent and 

contain appropriate firewalls and 

conflict of interest policies and 

procedures to provide a fair and open 

competitive process. 

Comments: A few commenters 

suggested that because the Governor has 

the authority, in agreement with the 

CEO, to select the Local WDB as the 

one-stop operator, firewalls and conflict 

of interest policies are not necessary. 

Another commenter agreed with this 

suggestion, adding that firewalls and 

conflict of interest policies are not 

necessary because the CEO would have 

oversight responsibilities. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department disagrees. The Uniform 

Guidance, where applicable, calls for a 

written code of conduct policy that 

includes real, apparent, and 

organizational conflict of interest 

procedures to provide a fair and open 

competitive process. Entities serving as 

one-stop operators at the time these 

regulations are promulgated, including 

States, Local WDBs, and other current 

one-stop operators, may compete and be 

selected as the operator under the 

competition requirements in this 

subpart, if allowable under applicable 

procurement policies and procedures. 

Appropriate firewalls, however, must be 

in place to ensure that the current 

operator is not involved in conducting 

the competitive process, as that would 

be an inherent conflict of interest. Such 

firewalls pertain to the elected 

leadership of the State or local area as 

well as to the Boards. The Uniform 

Guidance, where applicable, and 

§ 678.615(b) and (c) require robust 

conflict of interest policies that will 

create internal firewalls within the State 

agency to address the real and perceived 

conflicts of interest that could arise 

when a State or local agency applies to 

a competition run by a Local WDB. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

support for the Department’s 

requirement to establish appropriate 

firewalls and internal controls. 

Section 678.620 What is the one-stop 

operator’s role? 

Section 678.620(a) describes the role 

of the one-stop operator without 

prescribing a specific and uniform role 

across the system. The minimum role 

that an operator must perform is 

coordination of all one-stop partners 

and service providers. 

A change was made to this section for 

clarity. The regulatory text was revised 

to modify the list of potential roles for 

the one-stop operator, as chosen by the 

Local WDB, changing it from 

‘‘coordinating service providers within 

the center and across the one-stop 

system . . .’’ to ‘‘coordinating service 

providers across the one-stop delivery 

system.’’ 

Comments: Several commenters 

addressed the Department’s question 

regarding whether all of the functions 

listed in proposed § 678.620(b) are 

accurately described as inherently the 

responsibility of the Local WDB. Some 

commenters agreed that all of these 

items are inherently the responsibility 

of the Local WDB. One commenter 

stated that some of the Local WDB 

responsibilities may have changed or 

been devolved to the operator or fiscal 

agent as the one-stop delivery system 

has evolved under WIA. A Local WDB 

recommended that the Department 

remove this paragraph because it adds 

confusion, particularly when the Local 

WDB or fiscal agent is also the one-stop 

operator. The commenter suggested that 

CEOs should be responsible for 

determining who is responsible for each 

function. Another commenter also 

stated that, rather than prohibiting 

certain actions, the NPRM should 

provide guidance to operators regarding 

how to deal with conflicting 

responsibilities. The commenter stated 

that this is particularly necessary for 

small States and single area States 

where agencies serve multiple roles in 

the system. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department considers these provisions 

necessary and consistent with WIOA. 

The Department is aware that the 

requirements related to formally 

procuring the one-stop operator may be 

new in many areas, and that the roles 

and responsibilities for Boards, 

operators, and service providers under 

WIOA may differ from those under 

WIA. Some roles will continue and 

others will be modified in response to 

the new requirements and vision 

presented by WIOA. Transitioning to a 

new, more integrated system of service 

under WIOA will take time and 

technical assistance from all agencies 

involved. Some guidance is already 

available to the system in the form of 

TEGLs on a variety of subjects, such as 

‘‘Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act Transition Authority for Immediate 

Implementation of Governance 

Provisions’’ (TEGL No. 27–14), ‘‘Vision 

for the Workforce System and Initial 

Implementation of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act’’ (TEGL 

No. 4–15), ‘‘Guidance on Services 

Provided through the Adult and 

Dislocated Worker Program under the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA or Opportunity Act) and 

Wagner Peyser, as Amended by WIOA, 

and Guidance for the Transition to 

WIOA Services’’ (TEGL No. 3–15), and 

‘‘Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA) Youth Program Transition’’ 

(TEGL Nos. 23–14 and 8–15), among 

others, which can be found at http://

wdr.doleta.gov/directives/All_WIOA_

Related_Advisories.cfm. 

Furthermore, WIOA does not permit 

CEOs to be solely responsible for 

selecting who carries out each function 

of a one-stop center; this is something 

to be set forth in the MOU, as agreed 

upon by all the local partners and the 

Local WDB. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: Several commenters 

stated that the requirement in 

§ 678.620(b) that one-stop operators 

establish firewalls and conflict of 

interest policies if they are also a service 

provider implies that the organization’s 

head would need to establish firewalls 

between himself and his own staff who 

are delivering services. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department would like to stress that 

there must be appropriate firewalls 

between staff providing services and 

staff responsible for oversight and 

monitoring of services. The same person 

or department cannot both provide 

services and oversee the provision of 

those services. This may require 

examination of the organizational 

structure of a State or local system to 

ensure that adequate firewalls are in 

place to ensure appropriate oversight 

and monitoring of services. Because the 

WIA system operated under similar 

internal controls for nearly 2 decades, 

the Department does not anticipate that 

the WIOA requirements regarding 

firewalls, conflict of interest policies, 

and procurement procedures will be 

major obstacles to WIOA 

implementation. The Department also 

has determined that the provisions of 

the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200 

sufficiently address these issues. No 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55899 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: Commenters also asked 

whether, if the organization that wins 

the one-stop operator competition is not 

also the WIOA title I service provider, 

there would have to be another 

competition for this service provider 

and thus another level of 

administration. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department has concluded that State 

and Local WDBs are in the best position 

to determine how extensively to require 

service provider competitions in their 

respective areas, and the Department 

encourages States and local areas to 

review their procurement policies and 

procedures against the Uniform 

Guidance to ensure that they are 

consistent and contain appropriate 

conflict of interest policies and 

procedures to provide a fair and open 

competitive process. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that when there is a potential conflict of 

interest, the State WDB should be 

required to certify those one-stop 

centers. Another commenter asked how 

one-stop operators will be audited to 

ensure that internal controls are 

utilized. 

Department’s Response: The State sets 

the criteria for certification of one-stop 

centers, and Federal representatives and 

State agencies will continue to monitor 

the entire public workforce system 

under WIOA. As part of such 

monitoring and oversight 

responsibilities, States and Federal 

representatives will review an entity’s 

compliance with the Uniform Guidance, 

the soundness of its internal controls, 

and its internal control framework. 

Further, States and local agencies are 

audited either independently or under a 

State’s comprehensive audit on an 

annual or biannual basis, which 

includes an examination of the State 

and local agencies’ internal controls and 

internal controls framework. No change 

to the regulatory text was made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: One commenter said that 

there was not enough clarity regarding 

staff oversight in one-stop centers. The 

commenter asked who is responsible for 

performance outcomes and operations 

when there are Combined Plan partners, 

and also, that CEOs be permitted to 

make this determination. Another 

commenter agreed that Governors 

should be able to determine appropriate 

roles for one-stop operators and Boards. 

Department’s Response: Some 

operating guidance on this subject has 

already been released in TEGL No. 27– 

14 (‘‘Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act Transition Authority 

for Immediate Implementation of 

Governance Provisions’’), and much 

more is in development, especially 

around performance outcomes of 

Combined State Plan partners. The 

Department presumes that staff 

oversight and other roles and 

responsibilities of WDBs and operators 

will be set in each State and local area 

by the WDB, in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Department, 

the Governor, and the provisions of the 

Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200 

regarding the use of Federal funds. 

There must be appropriate firewalls 

between staff providing services and 

staff responsible for oversight and 

monitoring of services; however to 

ensure this, the Department has 

concluded that additional regulatory 

language is not required. Having proper 

firewalls in place will ensure that the 

same person or department does not 

oversee its own provision of services. 

This may require examination of the 

organizational structure of an 

organization to ensure that adequate 

firewalls are in place to ensure 

appropriate oversight and monitoring of 

services. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested clarification of the term 

‘‘another capacity’’ in § 678.620(b). 

Department’s Response: The text from 

§ 678.620(b) in the NPRM reads, in part, 

‘‘[a]n entity serving as a one-stop 

operator may perform some or all of 

these functions if it also serves in 

another capacity, if it has established 

sufficient firewalls and conflict of 

interest policies. The policies must 

conform to the specifications in 20 CFR 

679.430 of this chapter for 

demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflict of interest.’’ The 

Department has clarified this language, 

which now refers to ‘‘acting in its other 

role,’’ instead of ‘‘serves in another 

capacity.’’ As revised, § 678.620(b) now 

reads, ‘‘An entity serving as a one-stop 

operator, that also serves a different role 

within the one-stop delivery system, 

may perform some or all of these 

functions when it is acting in its other 

role, if it has established sufficient 

firewalls and conflict of interest policies 

and procedures. The policies and 

procedures must conform to the 

specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 of this 

chapter for demonstrating internal 

controls and preventing conflict of 

interest.’’ The Department has 

determined that the term ‘‘other roles’’ 

is more readily understood. These could 

include such roles as service providers, 

State agencies, or Local WDBs. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that the Department should define the 

role of a ‘‘system coordinator,’’ which 

would unify a network of one-stop 

operators in large local areas into a more 

cohesive local system. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department has declined to revise the 

regulatory text to define such a role, as 

this is a function of the Local WDB. 

WIOA does not identify a system 

coordinator role. Local areas have the 

ability to coordinate regionally and 

develop local or regional plans. Any 

coordination would be established as 

part of the local planning process. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that one-stop operators should be 

allowed to participate in the local plan 

development only if there are 

appropriate firewalls and conflict of 

interest policies in place. 

Department’s Response: The one-stop 

operator will be a contractor under the 

Local WDB. The Local WDB is tasked 

with oversight and monitoring of the 

one-stop operator. Therefore, if the 

operator participates in the 

development of the local plan, there 

must be adequate conflict of interest 

policies and firewalls in place to ensure 

the one-stop operator staff who are 

participating do not provide input on 

any policies associated with oversight 

and monitoring of their own actions. 

The Department has determined that 

this does not require the addition of 

regulatory language to this section, as 

§§ 678.615, 678.620, and 678.625 

require firewalls and conflict of interest 

policies to prevent conflicts of interest 

in the selection of a one-stop operators, 

in the one-stop operator’s role, and in 

the functioning of the State and Local 

WDBs. 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that the regulations 

should clarify that the one-stop operator 

chosen through the competitive 

procurement process is responsible for 

carrying out the required activities of 

WIOA sec. 134(c)(1)(A), both directly 

and through the one-stop required 

partners. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department has determined that it is 

important to provide flexibility to local 

areas to define the role of one-stop 

operator to meet the needs of the local 

area and that § 678.620 provides this 

flexibility. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in regard to this 

comment. 

Section 678.625 Can a one-stop 

operator also be a service provider? 

Section 678.625 allows a one-stop 

operator to also be a service provider. 

However, the section clarifies that there 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55900 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

must be firewalls in place to ensure that 

the operator is not conducting oversight 

of itself as a service provider. There also 

must be proper internal controls and 

firewalls in place to ensure that the 

entity, in its role as operator, does not 

conflict with its role as a service 

provider. 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed that the process described in 

the NPRM for the grant recipient to 

operate the one-stop center and/or 

provide career services is difficult to 

follow. They expressed concern that the 

process as described could lead to 

‘‘unintended, questionable 

procurements.’’ 

Department’s Response: After 

considering these comments and 

examining the language of WIOA sec. 

121(d), the Departments have 

determined that the process for 

separating the functions of operator and 

service provider is clear. A one-stop 

operator cannot participate in the 

selection of a provider to perform 

services in which the operator intends 

to compete. Specifically, the operator 

cannot participate in the planning, 

development, review, negotiation, and 

selection phases of the competitive 

procurement process and then also 

submit its own proposal. Moreover, 

proper firewalls must be in place, as 

well as internal controls, to separate the 

functions of oversight, monitoring, and 

evaluation of its role as service provider 

in order for a one-stop operator to also 

serve as a service provider. The 

Department will continue to provide 

guidance and technical assistance to the 

public workforce system in this regard. 

Comments: One commenter asserted 

that Congress could not have intended 

for the WIOA competition provision to 

be the catalyst for a regulatory structure 

that would entrench service providers 

and insulate them from competition 

while competing out only the more 

tangential oversight position of one-stop 

operator, which typically has a much 

smaller total impact on the quality of 

services delivered to one-stop users. The 

commenter remarked that the one-stop 

operator and service provider roles have 

been ‘‘substantially intertwined’’ over 

the years, with WIA sec. 117(d)(2)(D) 

even suggesting that operators were also 

expected to be service providers. The 

commenter stated that it has been 

common practice at many one-stop 

centers for the roles of operator and 

service provider to be bid concurrently, 

and common practice in other one-stop 

centers for service providers to be 

assigned various operator duties as part 

of their service provider role. 

Department’s Response: The 

Departments encourage Local WDBs to 

review current service providers 

strategically and plan for the 

competitive process, allowing for a 

period of transition to minimize any 

disruption and ensure program 

continuity. WIOA does not link onestop operator competition with 

competition of providers of services in 

the one-stop. That decision is left to the 

State and/or Local WDB. No change to 

the regulatory text was made in 

response to this comment. 

Section 678.630 Can State merit staff 

still work in a one-stop center where the 

operator is not a governmental entity? 

Section 678.630 addresses the 

concern about whether State merit staff 

can continue to work in a one-stop 

center where the operator is an entity 

other than the State. State merit staff 

support numerous programs at the onestop center, including Wagner-Peyser 

Act programs, VR, UI, and the JVSG 

program. Section 678.630 clarifies that 

State merit staff may continue to work 

in the one-stop center so long as a 

system for the management of merit staff 

in accordance with State policies and 

procedures is established. Similar to 

State merit staff, nothing would prevent 

local government staff from being 

employees in the one-stop center, 

although the Department recognizes that 

local government employees are not 

equivalent to the State merit staff, as 

State merit staff are governed by the 

requirements attached to specific 

programs that must be in the one-stop 

center regardless of operator. 

In response to concerns about staffing, 

the last sentence of § 678.630 has been 

revised to clarify that continued use of 

State merit staff for the provision of 

Wagner-Peyser Act services or services 

from other programs with merit staffing 

requirements must be included in the 

competition for and final contract with 

the one-stop operator when WagnerPeyser Act services or services from 

other programs with merit staffing 

requirements are being provided. 

Comments: Several commenters 

remarked that local staff do not have the 

same protections as State merit staff, 

and new contractors often bring in their 

own staff when taking over programs. 

Additionally, these commenters 

asserted that it would be costprohibitive for potential applicants to 

retain many public employees because 

they are typically fully vested and may 

be unionized. 

Department’s Response: DOL 

acknowledges the concerns and points 

regarding the State merit staffing 

requirement. The benefits of merit 

staffing in promoting greater 

consistency, efficiency, accountability, 

and transparency have been well 

established, and the Department intends 

to continue the respective UI, WagnerPeyser Act, and VR merit staffing 

requirements under WIOA. While there 

is no merit staffing requirement under 

other WIOA core programs, the 

Department has determined, consistent 

with 20 CFR 652.215 that WagnerPeyser Act and VR staff must meet the 

requirements of merit staff. A revision to 

the regulatory text, as discussed above, 

has been made to § 678.630 to respond 

to concerns about staff. 

Comments: Some commenters, 

including a few unions, urged the 

Department to require that UI and ES 

agencies be parties and agree to the 

establishment of the NPRM’s ‘‘system 

for management of merit staff.’’ 

Department’s Response: UI and 

Wagner-Peyser Act programs will be 

party to the establishment of such a 

system through their participation and 

decision-making on State or Local 

WDBs as required partners, and through 

their good-faith negotiations during the 

MOU process. The Department has 

made no changes to the regulatory text 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: Some of these 

commenters also suggested that the 

Department should revise § 678.630 to 

require UI and ES agencies to agree to 

inclusion of local merit staff in the 

competition and final contract, to be 

consistent with proposed 20 CFR 

652.216. 

Department’s Response: The 

Departments decline to make revisions 

to policies regarding local merit staffing. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that the NPRM, which includes VR in 

the list of State merit staff, conflicts 

with the responsibility of the designated 

State agency (DSA) or designated State 

unit (DSU) in sec. 101(a)(2) of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ‘‘by inferring 

that the State Board and one-stop 

operator may establish State policies 

regarding the management of’’ VR staff. 

The commenter also stated that the 

NPRM may conflict with RSA Technical 

Assistance Circulars 12–03 and 13–02. 

Another commenter expressed support 

for including VR as State merit staff, as 

this will provide flexibility for States to 

integrate VR staff within one-stop 

centers. 

Department’s Response: In 

accordance with this section, State VR 

personnel are permitted to perform 

functions and activities in a one-stop 

center where the one-stop operator is a 

non-governmental entity. 

This section does not circumvent the 

requirements governing the State VR 

Program at 34 CFR part 361. In 

particular, if State VR personnel are 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55901 

performing functions and activities in a 

one-stop center operated by a nongovernmental entity, the requirements 

related to the responsibility for 

administration and the non-delegable 

functions of the designated State unit at 

34 CFR 361.13(c) remain in place. 

Contrary to the commenter’s 

suggestion, neither the State WDB nor 

the one-stop operator would assume 

sole management of State VR personnel 

employed by the designated State unit 

responsible for the administration of the 

VR services program, because such 

responsibility rests fully with the 

designated State unit for the VR 

program. Rather, the State WDB and the 

one-stop operator would establish a 

system for management of State VR 

personnel in accordance with State 

policies and procedures, consistent with 

program specific requirements such as 

that described in 34 CFR 361.13(c). 

Comments: A few commenters 

recommended that CEOs or Local WDBs 

should be permitted to determine the 

best staffing mix for their local areas. 

Department’s Response: WIOA sec. 

107(f) and 20 CFR 679.400 of the DOL 

Final Rule describe the Local WDB’s 

authority to hire and the appropriate 

roles for Board staff and § 678.620 

describes the role of the one-stop 

operator in comparison to Local WDB 

functions. Local WDBs may establish 

appropriate staffing within the confines 

of these requirements, but nothing in 

these provisions would change staffing 

requirements established pursuant to 

other laws, such as the Wagner-Peyser 

Act merit-staffing requirement. The 

Department made no changes to the 

regulatory text in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: One commenter asserted 

that, because WIOA does not 

specifically amend, address, or rescind 

the Employment Services merit staff 

exemption granted to Colorado, 

Massachusetts, and Michigan under the 

Wagner-Peyser Act, this exemption 

remains in full effect. 

Department’s Response: The benefits 

of merit staffing in promoting greater 

consistency, efficiency, accountability, 

and transparency have been well 

established and DOL has proposed 

continuing Wagner-Peyser Act merit 

staffing requirements under WIOA. 

Nonetheless, WIOA is silent on the 

continuation of this exemption, and 

there is no need to address it in these 

regulations. However, to prevent 

significant disruptions in service 

delivery and to help facilitate 

implementation of WIOA, the Secretary 

of Labor has elected to continue all 

current exemptions to the WagnerPeyser Act merit staffing requirement. 

This continuation applies only to the 

current exemptions; the Department has 

no immediate plans to expand this 

authority within States that have been 

granted this administrative flexibility or 

to additional States, and such grants 

could be subject to termination in the 

future at the discretion of future DOL 

leadership. 

Section 678.635 What is the 

compliance date of the provisions of 

this subpart? 

While no significant policy changes 

have been made to this section, the date 

by which Local WDBs must demonstrate 

they are preparing for the one-stop 

operator competition process has been 

changed from June 30, 2016 to [90 days 

from publication of this Final Rule], in 

order to give Local WDBs an adequate 

amount of time to actively respond to 

the requirements of these regulations. 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested flexibility to delay 

competitive selection if a State 

determines that breaking a lease in 

existence prior to PY 2014 exceeds the 

three percent funding cap for that local 

area’s title I or Wagner-Peyser Act 

funding for PY 2016. The commenters 

requested guidance or technical 

assistance if the cost of maintaining 

current programming in existing onestop centers exceeds the caps. 

Department’s Response: DOL has 

issued operational guidance on the 

continuation of contracts during the 

WIA to WIOA transition, and depending 

on the State or local interpretation of a 

lease agreement, this guidance may be 

relevant. Please see TEGL No. 38–14, 

‘‘Operational Guidance to Support the 

Orderly Transition of Workforce 

Investment Act Participants, Funds, and 

Subrecipient Contracts to the WIOA,’’ 

which can be found at http://

wdr.doleta.gov/directives/All_WIOA_

Related_Advisories.cfm. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

DOL should adjust the implementation 

date of this provision to July 1, 2017 

from June 30, 2017 to coincide with the 

beginning of the new program year, 

instead of the last day of the previous 

program year. 

Department’s Response: After 

considering this comment, the 

Department has adjusted the date in 

§ 678.635(a) to July 1, 2017 in order to 

be consistent with the program year. 

Comments: A few commenters 

expressed support for regulatory 

language that would allow Local WDBs 

to continue competitively procured onestop operator contracts that are executed 

before the June 30, 2017 effective date. 

Department’s Response: No regulatory 

text changes were made in response to 

these comments. The Department 

recommends following the guidance 

that has been released for continuing, 

adapting, and terminating (if necessary) 

one-stop services contracts that can be 

applied to one-stop operator contracts, 

which can be found in TEGL No. 38–14, 

‘‘Operational Guidance to Support the 

Orderly Transition of Workforce 

Investment Act Participants, Funds, and 

Subrecipient Contracts to the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act,’’ 

which can be found at http://

wdr.doleta.gov/directives/All_WIOA_

Related_Advisories.cfm. 

Other Comments on One-Stop Operators 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that neither WIOA nor the NPRM state 

that the Local WDB is required to pay 

the one-stop operators. They also 

recommended that Governors be able to 

set policies for one-stop operators. 

Department’s Response: A 

competitive process is required for the 

selection of the one-stop operator by the 

Local WDB, and it is expected that a 

sizable portion of the bid-on costs 

would be the salary of the one-stop 

operator’s staff. One-stop operator roles 

and responsibilities are defined in 

WIOA and these regulations, and 

existing and future operational guidance 

and rules will delineate how these 

policies are set at the local level. WIOA 

sec. 121(d)(1) delegates the majority of 

the authority to set these policies to the 

Local WDB. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended making this section more 

collaborative with ED, to be consistent 

with the rest of the NPRM. The 

commenter expressed concern that this 

topic is only under DOL’s auspices 

when both Departments oversee the 

entities involved in the one-stop 

delivery system. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department agrees; this is a joint 

regulation and the comment responses, 

in addition to most existing operational 

policies, have been developed through 

collaboration between the Departments 

of Labor and Education. It is the 

intention of the Departments to 

continue to provide joint guidance and 

training to our respective systems of 

service in a collaborative manner. 

Comments: Another commenter 

suggested that the Department should 

establish labor standards for staff 

working in the one-stop delivery 

system. 

Department’s Response: The 

Department appreciates the concerns 

giving rise to this suggestion, but the 

establishment of labor standards for 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55902 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

occupations in State or local 

governmental entities carrying out the 

provisions of WIOA is outside the scope 

of these regulations, as well as the 

Departments’ administrative authority. 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to this comment. 

6. One-Stop Operating Costs (20 CFR 

Part 678, Subpart E; 34 CFR 361.700 

Through 361.760; 34 CFR 463.700 

Through 463.760) 

The regulations governing one-stop 

partner funding of infrastructure costs 

and other shared costs are intended to: 

(1) Maintain the one-stop delivery 

system to meet the needs of the local 

areas; 

(2) Reduce duplication by improving 

program effectiveness through the 

sharing of services, resources and 

technologies among partners; 

(3) Reduce overhead by streamlining 

and sharing financial, procurement, and 

facilities costs; 

(4) Encourage efficient use of 

information technology to include, 

where possible, the use of machine 

readable forms and shared management 

systems; 

(5) Ensure that costs are appropriately 

shared by one-stop partners by basing 

contributions on proportionate use of 

the one-stop centers and relative benefit 

received, and requiring that all funds 

are spent solely for allowable purposes 

in a manner consistent with the 

applicable authorizing statute and all 

other applicable legal requirements, 

including the OMB’s Uniform Guidance 

set forth in 2 CFR chapter II, part 200 

(Uniform Guidance); and 

(6) Ensure that services provided by 

the one-stop partners to reduce 

duplication or to increase financial 

efficiency at the one-stop centers are 

allowable under the partner’s program. 

Infrastructure costs are the 

responsibility of all one-stop partner 

programs, whether they are physically 

located in the one-stop center or not. 

Each partner’s contribution to these 

costs, however, may vary, as these 

contributions are to be based on the 

proportionate use and relative benefit 

received by each program, consistent 

with the partner programs’ authorizing 

laws and regulations and the Uniform 

Guidance at 2 CFR part 200. Section 

121(h)(1)(A) of WIOA establishes two 

funding mechanisms—a local funding 

mechanism and a State funding 

mechanism. Under WIOA sec. 121(c), 

the Local WDBs must enter into MOUs 

that cover, in part, the amount each 

partner will contribute toward the onestop center’s infrastructure costs. The 

Departments strongly encourage Local 

WDBs to reach agreement. If the Local 

WDB fails to reach agreement with each 

of the partners with regard to the 

amount each partner will contribute to 

the one-stop delivery system’s 

infrastructure costs pursuant to WIOA 

sec. 121(h)(1)(A)(i)(I), the local area is 

considered to be at an impasse. When a 

local area fails to reach such agreement, 

the State funding mechanism is 

triggered pursuant to WIOA sec. 

121(h)(1)(A)(ii). 

As discussed in more detail in the 

analysis of comments regarding 

§ 678.725, the State funding mechanism, 

in the event a local area fails to reach 

agreement with the one-stop partners, 

will not be triggered prior to PY 2017. 

In other words, the failure of a local area 

to reach an agreement with regard to the 

funding of the one-stop centers’ 

infrastructure costs for PY 2017 (which 

begins July 1, 2017), would trigger the 

State funding mechanism, in order to 

provide that funds are available to pay 

for the one-stop delivery system’s 

infrastructure costs in PY 2017. In 

specific instances, the triggering of the 

State funding mechanism will be based 

on the guidance developed by the 

Governor under § 678.705(b)(3) as to the 

timeline for notifying the Governor that 

the local area was unable to reach 

agreement. The same would be true for 

each subsequent program year. States 

and local areas may continue to 

negotiate local funding agreements as 

they have under WIA for the purposes 

of PY 2016. 

The Departments have determined 

this interpretation is most consistent 

with the plain meaning of the statutory 

provision, because all negotiations for 

purposes of the one-stop delivery 

system’s infrastructure costs for PY 

2016, which begins on July 1, 2016, as 

well as the implementation of a State 

funding mechanism, would need to 

occur well before the start of PY 2016 

in order to provide funding for the onestop delivery system in PY 2016. 

However, sec. 121(h)(1)(A)(ii) makes 

clear that the State funding mechanism 

does not apply until negotiations fail to 

result in an agreement after the start of 

PY 2016, which, by necessity, would 

make it applicable beginning with PY 

2017, and then for all subsequent 

program years. 

For PY 2017 and all subsequent 

program years, when a local area fails to 

reach an agreement, thereby triggering 

the implementation of the State funding 

mechanism pursuant to sec. 

121(h)(1)(A)(ii), the Governor, or in 

some cases other officials as described 

in § 678.730(c)(2) and in more detail 

below, after consultation with State and 

Local WDBs and CEOs, will determine 

the amount each partner must 

contribute to assist in paying the 

infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. 

The Governor, or other official in 

consultation with the Governor, as 

appropriate, must calculate amounts 

based on the proportionate use of the 

one-stop centers and relative benefit 

received by each partner and other 

factors stated in § 678.737(b). The 

amounts contributed by each one-stop 

partner in a local area will be based on 

an infrastructure cost budget 

determined either by local agreement, as 

stated in § 678.735(a), or by formula, as 

stated in § 678.735(b)(3) and in 

accordance with the remainder of 

§ 678.745 and sec. 121(h)(3)(B) of 

WIOA. Section 678.738(c) sets forth the 

limitation for one-stop partners’ 

contributions under the State funding 

mechanism, based on a percentage of 

their statewide funding allocation, in 

accordance with WIOA 

sec.121(h)(2)(D)(ii). 

Comments: A commenter expressed 

support for the proposed regulations in 

this subpart. Another commenter 

requested technical assistance and 

additional clarity on these provisions. 

One commenter asked that the 

Departments describe the expectations 

in this subpart and in subpart C for each 

one-stop partner program, individually 

and separately, because each program 

has its own requirements for 

administrative costs and infrastructure 

contributions based on its authorizing 

statute. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have issued operating 

guidance that describes the 

Departments’ views on how these 

provisions will work. The expectations 

for each partner program will be further 

defined in guidance on one-stop 

infrastructure negotiations, and 

technical assistance will be provided to 

the public workforce system following 

publication of these regulations. To 

describe these details in regulatory 

language would be overly prescriptive; 

the Departments decline to change the 

regulatory text in response to this 

comment. Required Federal partner 

programs often operate under different 

authorizing statutes in addition to 

WIOA. Those administering agencies 

will issue program-specific guidance 

and technical assistance on 

infrastructure costs and negotiating 

MOUs in addition to any joint guidance 

regarding WIOA implementation. The 

costs of the one-stop delivery system are 

not only supported by infrastructure 

funding, but also by the payment of 

other shared costs that may be part of 

the MOU. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

this subpart would have the effect of 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55903 

worsening or reducing collaboration 

between local programs. The commenter 

went on to say that partners do not 

know how to implement WIOA’s 

options for sharing local infrastructure 

costs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments disagree with this general 

assessment, and the Departments are 

aware of many States and local areas 

where infrastructure and cost sharing 

agreements have been working well for 

some time. The intent of WIOA is to 

continue and enhance the collaboration 

of partners, with more specific 

guidelines, and the Departments intend 

to provide further guidance and 

technical assistance regarding the 

sharing of local infrastructure costs and 

other shared costs. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

this comment. 

Comments: A few commenters 

expressed support for a separate funding 

line item for one-stop infrastructure 

costs. 

Departments’ Response: Since a 

separate line item was not authorized in 

WIOA, nor included in any of the 

Departments’ appropriations, the 

Departments are not authorized to 

implement separate funding for 

infrastructure costs. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Section 678.700 What are the one-stop 

infrastructure costs? 

Section 678.700 provides the 

definition for infrastructure costs based 

on sec. 121(h)(4) of WIOA. In addition, 

the section adds common one-stop 

delivery system identifier costs. These 

costs are those associated with signage 

and other expenses related to the onestop common identifier, as required by 

subpart G of this part. 

Jointly funding services is a necessary 

foundation for an integrated service 

delivery system. Section 678.700(c) 

explains that a partner’s contributions to 

the costs of operating and providing 

services within the one-stop delivery 

system must adhere to the partner 

program’s Federal authorizing statute, 

and to all other applicable legal 

requirements, including the Federal cost 

principles that require that costs must 

be allowable, reasonable, necessary and 

allocable. These requirements and 

principles will help one-stop partners 

identify an appropriate cost allocation 

methodology for determining partner 

contributions. There are a variety of 

methods to allocate costs, for instance: 

based on the proportion of a partner 

program’s occupancy percentage of the 

one-stop center (square footage); the 

proportion of a partner program’s 

customers compared to all customers 

served by the one-stop; the proportion 

of partner program’s staff compared to 

all staff at the one-stop; or based on a 

partner program’s use of equipment or 

other items that support the local onestop delivery system. A detailed 

discussion of the Departments’ 

responses to public comments received 

on this section follows immediately 

below. 

Comments: One commenter asked 

whether infrastructure costs are 

applicable only to partners physically 

located in the one-stop centers or to all 

partners. 

Departments’ Response: Infrastructure 

costs are applicable to all one-stop 

partner programs, whether they are 

physically located in the one-stop center 

or not. Each partner’s contribution to 

these costs, however, may vary, as these 

contributions are based on the 

proportionate use and relative benefit 

received, consistent with the partner 

programs’ authorizing laws and 

regulations and the Uniform Guidance 

at 2 CFR part 200. 

Comments: Another commenter said 

that the Departments need to provide 

sufficient guidance on the expectations 

for certain programs to ensure that cost 

negotiations take place and 

contributions occur. 

Departments’ Response: Since the 

issuance of the NPRM, infrastructure 

funding guidance has been released by 

the Departments, and more guidance 

and technical assistance documents will 

be released throughout the operational 

lifetime of the regulations. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that because the NPRM essentially 

requires title I programs to police the 

participation of other programs 

regarding infrastructure costs, they 

would discourage optional one-stop 

partners from participating at all. 

Departments’ Response: Governors 

and State WDBs must create the 

framework for funding and required 

partner programs must operate within 

that framework, both at the State and 

local levels. Local WDBs will follow this 

framework, which must be inclusive of 

required partner programs as well as 

other programs that are additional 

partners in the one-stop centers in that 

local area. Once negotiated MOUs are in 

place, the State will monitor their 

operations, along with the other fiscal 

procedures of local areas, as they do 

now. The Local WDBs will be 

responsible for ensuring that all of the 

one-stop infrastructure costs are paid 

according to the provisions of the MOU, 

as they are the entity with which the 

partner programs will be signing the 

MOU. No change to the regulatory text 

was made in response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter said that 

proposed § 678.700(c) should begin, 

‘‘Each entity described in . . .’’ to 

clearly indicate that partners must 

contribute funds for infrastructure, 

regardless of whether a partner wants to 

have a service delivery mechanism 

separate from the one-stop center. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have determined that the 

regulation is clear as proposed, and 

have concluded that this change is not 

needed and would cause unnecessary 

confusion. 

Comments: Another commenter 

suggested that Perkins Act funds should 

not be shifted to infrastructure support. 

Departments’ Response: As a 

statutorily required partner of the onestop center under WIOA, a Perkins 

eligible recipient at the postsecondary 

level, or a consortium of eligible 

recipients at the postsecondary level in 

a local area, will now be involved in the 

development of local MOUs, which 

spell out the services to be provided 

through the one-stop centers. All 

partners must contribute to the one-stop 

infrastructure costs according to WIOA, 

as is described in more detail in 

§ 678.720(a). No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

this comment. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

concern that, given the ‘‘proportionate 

use by or benefit to the partner 

program’’ clause in this part, TANF or 

Basic Food Employment and Training 

could incur a significant cost due to the 

volume of clients served by these 

programs. The commenter also asked if 

this funding is in addition to the funds 

already provided for employment 

services. 

Departments’ Response: With regard 

to the TANF program, only those funds 

used for the provision or administration 

of employment and training programs 

are considered in infrastructure and 

MOU negotiations under WIOA. The 

Departments wish to clarify that there 

are numerous methods for allocating 

costs, of which a proportion of 

customers is only one. One-stop 

partners will negotiate MOU’s and 

infrastructure funding agreements that 

meet the needs of the local areas and the 

partner programs. 

Comments: A few commenters 

objected to the funding structure 

described in the NPRM, stating that 

there is a discrepancy in how 

contributions are calculated and how 

funds are reallocated. Specifically, the 

commenter suggested that the State 

WDB formula—as discussed in 

§ 678.745—redistribute funds under 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55904 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

what was proposed as the State funding 

mechanism in the NPRM using different 

factors than what is used to calculate 

proportionate share. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have determined that the 

referenced discrepancy does not exist. 

There will be differences in the 

application of the framework for 

infrastructure funding used among local 

areas, but required partner programs 

will have consistent requirements across 

all programs. As the commenter 

suggested, however, the use of the State 

WDB formula as proposed in the NPRM 

created ambiguities in determining what 

local partner programs should 

contribute. Because of this and other 

comments, the formula has been 

reworked to provide a more stable, and 

practicable tool for the Governor to use. 

These changes are detailed in § 678.745 

and the associated Preamble discussion. 

Comments: A few commenters said 

that contributions from partner 

programs must be consistent with their 

authorizing statutes and all other legal 

requirements under WIOA. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that all required 

partner programs must also comply with 

the provisions of their own authorizing 

statutes, in addition to WIOA, and have 

determined that the regulations reflect 

this requirement. 

Comments: A few commenters asked 

if only partners colocated within the 

one-stop must contribute, or if all 

partners that benefit from the centers 

must also contribute. 

Departments’ Response: As 

mentioned above, all one-stop partners 

must contribute to infrastructure 

funding, but will do so based upon a 

reasonable cost allocation methodology 

whereby infrastructure costs are charged 

based on each partner’s proportionate 

use of the one-stop centers and relative 

benefit received. This would still apply 

even if the program is not located at the 

one-stop center, if it is a required 

partner. 

Comments: A commenter asked why 

the UI system is not a mandatory 

funding partner. 

Departments’ Response: This is an 

incorrect assumption. As a required 

one-stop partner under WIOA sec. 

121(b)(1)(B)(xi), a partner providing UI 

services must contribute its 

proportionate share of the infrastructure 

costs, as is required by WIOA sec. 

121(b)(1)(A)(ii). 

Comments: Another commenter 

recommended that TANF should not be 

required to pay infrastructure costs. 

Departments’ Response: As a one-stop 

partner, a TANF program must provide 

infrastructure cost funding according to 

its proportionate use of the one-stop 

centers and relative benefit received, as 

is required by WIOA, unless the 

Governor exercises the option not to 

include TANF as a required partner. See 

WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(C). If the Governor 

has exercised the option so that an 

entity carrying out a TANF program is 

not a required one-stop partner, but it 

chooses to become one voluntarily, the 

program must provide its share of 

infrastructure costs as do all required 

partners. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: A few commenters said 

that the Departments should make it 

clear that title I funds can support title 

II based on the definition of ‘‘training’’ 

in WIOA sec. 134(c)(3). 

Departments’ Response: Program 

funds are for the benefit of the 

participants enrolled in training 

authorized in that particular title. Funds 

provided by partners to support 

infrastructure and shared costs of the 

one-stop delivery system are intended to 

benefit the participants of all programs. 

Guidance also has been released on the 

subject in both TEGL No. 2–15, 

‘‘Operational Guidance for National 

Dislocated Worker Grants pursuant to 

the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act,’’ and TEGL No. 04–15 

‘‘Vision for the One-Stop Delivery 

System under WIOA,’’ among others, as 

well as corresponding ED documents, 

such as TAC–15–01 and Program 

Memorandum OCTAE 15–3, which are 

associated with TEGL No. 04–15. All 

DOL WIOA operating guidance can be 

found at http://wdr.doleta.gov/

directives/All_WIOA_Related_

Advisories.cfm, and all associated ED 

documents may be found at 

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/

rsa/wioa-reauthorization.html and 

www2.ed.gov/policy/adulted/guid/

memoranda.html. 

Furthermore, an additional section of 

regulatory text on this subject was 

added to the DOL WIOA Final Rule at 

20 CFR 680.350. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

urged the elimination of the one-stop 

delivery system proposed infrastructure 

payments, and some remarked that the 

NFJP should be exempt from this 

requirement because NFJP grantees 

often operate in satellite locations in 

rural areas where the communities face 

transportation barriers. Some of these 

commenters discussed the extensive 

outreach necessary in these 

communities and remarked that NFJP 

grantees would not have to sacrifice 

their identity or their close partnerships 

with one-stop delivery systems if the 

Departments allow them this 

exemption. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments cannot eliminate the onestop delivery system infrastructure 

payments for any of the required partner 

programs, as the infrastructure cost 

contributions are required by sec. 

121(b)(1)(A)(ii) of WIOA. While NFJP 

grantees are required partners and are 

required to provide infrastructure 

funding for the one-stop centers, they 

will contribute amounts in direct 

proportion to their use in accordance 

with the provisions of these regulations 

and Departmental guidance. No change 

to the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: Several commenters 

stated that, if deemed necessary, 

infrastructure payments should be no 

greater than the value received by NFJP 

programs, and some commenters 

suggested that in-kind contributions 

should be considered as a valid form of 

payment. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA 

requires partners to contribute 

infrastructure funds according to the 

partners’ proportionate use and relative 

benefit received. The regulations allow 

noncash and third-party in-kind 

contributions as valid forms of payment 

for infrastructure costs. The Uniform 

Guidance related to in-kind 

contributions applies here, and 

additional guidance regarding noncash 

and in-kind contributions and shared 

costs has been released by the 

Departments. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that NFJP grantees should continue to 

be required partners on State and Local 

WDBs if NFJP is forced to make a 

financial contribution. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize that many 

important system partners with 

experience with specific populations— 

such as certain required one-stop 

partner programs, tribal organizations, 

other Department program grantees, and 

those serving the disadvantaged and 

disabled populations—are no longer 

required members of WDBs. However, 

20 CFR 679.320(c) of the DOL-only 

Final Rule requires that the Local WDB 

must be comprised of workforce 

representatives that can include one or 

more representatives of communitybased organizations that have 

demonstrated experience and expertise 

in addressing the employment, training, 

or education needs of individuals with 

barriers to employment. Further, 20 CFR 

679.320(e)(4) says the CEO has the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55905 

flexibility to appoint ‘‘other appropriate 

individuals,’’ which does not preclude 

any organization that the CEO deems 

appropriate. The Departments 

encourage the CEO to ensure that Local 

WDB members represent the diversity of 

job seekers and employers in their local 

areas, which includes ensuring adequate 

representation on the Local WDB. 

Section 679.320 in the DOL WIOA Final 

Rule implements the WIOA sec. 107(b) 

Local WDB membership requirements. 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to this comment. 

Comments: Several commenters 

addressed the Departments’ request for 

comment on the types of costs that 

should be included as infrastructure 

costs. One commenter reasoned that 

staff development and training is an 

appropriate use of funds to maintain the 

one-stop delivery system as described in 

§ 678.700(c). The commenter also asked 

if the Departments are acknowledging 

that costs described in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) are allowed by the required 

program authorizing statutes. Another 

commenter asked if infrastructure costs 

include personnel costs such as facility 

maintenance, and one commenter asked 

if they include copy machine leases. A 

different commenter suggested that 

infrastructure costs should include onestop marketing, IT and communication 

costs, and administrative costs of 

operating one-stop centers. A couple of 

commenters suggested that certain onestop operation personnel costs, such as 

receptionist, IT support, building 

security, and manager, should be 

funded from infrastructure costs. 

Another commenter agreed, reasoning 

that if they are not, such costs would 

fall on WIOA title I–B funds. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

121(h)(4) of WIOA defines one-stop 

infrastructure costs as ‘‘the 

nonpersonnel costs that are necessary 

for the general operation of the one-stop 

center, including rental costs of the 

facilities, the costs of utilities and 

maintenance, equipment (including 

assessment-related products and 

assistive technology for individuals 

with disabilities), and technology to 

facilitate access to the one-stop center, 

including the center’s planning and 

outreach activities.’’ This definition is 

also in § 678.700(a). The Departments 

will provide additional guidance 

regarding infrastructure costs, but 

addressing all potential specific items of 

cost that could be included or excluded 

from infrastructure costs, based on this 

definition, is beyond the scope of these 

regulations. 

WIOA allocates equitably the cost 

responsibility for operating the one-stop 

delivery system across partner 

programs; therefore, it is not the 

intention that any one partner bear a 

disproportionate share of the costs. The 

Departments do not agree with the 

conclusion that if the costs identified by 

the commenters are not included in 

infrastructure costs they will fall on 

WIOA title I funds. Costs that are related 

to services shared by partners that do 

not fall into the definition of 

infrastructure costs should be treated as 

other shared costs according to WIOA 

sec. 121(i)(2) and § 678.760 of these 

regulations. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that infrastructure costs should be 

aggregated and addressed at the State 

level. 

Departments’ Response: It is not 

possible to accomplish this by Federal 

regulation. Funds are separately 

appropriated to States under a variety of 

authorizing statutes. The Governor, in 

working with the State WDB, will 

develop guidance that, among other 

things, outlines a framework for 

identifying infrastructure contribution 

from each required partner, as discussed 

in § 678.705 of these regulations. If 

consensus cannot be reached on an 

infrastructure funding agreement 

locally, the Governor will implement 

the State funding mechanism to 

determine one-stop partner 

contributions, as discussed in 

§§ 678.725 through 678.745. No change 

to the regulatory text was made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter expressed 

support for including assistive 

technology as a required infrastructure 

cost. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

121(h)(4) and § 678.700(a)(3) provide 

that equipment, including assistive 

technology for individuals with 

disabilities, is an infrastructure cost. 

However, neither of these provisions 

describes assistive technology as a 

required infrastructure cost, and the 

Departments have determined that 

designating any particular cost as a 

required infrastructure cost is beyond 

the scope of these regulations. As 

previously indicated in this Preamble, 

the Departments intend to issue 

guidance regarding specific items of 

allowable infrastructure costs and will 

address one-stop center accessibility 

costs in that guidance. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

this comment. 

Comments: A few commenters 

recommended that costs associated with 

adopting the common identifier should 

be funded by the Departments, not from 

infrastructure costs. One commenter 

asked for examples of common 

identifier costs. Another commenter 

agreed that common identifier costs 

should be included as common 

infrastructure costs. 

Departments’ Response: Costs 

associated with the common identifier 

may be included as infrastructure as 

well, however there is no separate 

source of funding to allocate from the 

Federal level for common identifier 

costs. Examples of common identifier 

costs would be the cost of new signage, 

changing material templates, and 

changing electronic resources, but it 

would not include any sort of 

advertising campaign promoting the 

one-stop center under the new common 

identifier. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to these 

comments. 

Comments: Several commenters 

stated that infrastructure cost levels 

should be set at the State level for adult 

education programs, rather than 

requiring local negotiations between 

each adult education program and each 

one-stop partner. 

Departments’ Response: Section 

678.415(b) of the regulation specifies 

that the appropriate entity to serve as a 

partner for the adult education program 

is the State eligible agency or entity and 

the State eligible agency or entity for 

AEFLA may delegate its responsibilities 

to act as a local one-stop partner to one 

or more eligible providers or consortium 

of eligible providers. As part of these 

delegated responsibilities to serve as a 

one-stop partner, a local adult education 

entity would assume the roles and 

responsibilities of one-stop partners 

under sec. 121(b)(1)(A), which would 

include contributing to infrastructure 

costs. No change to the regulatory text 

was made in response to these 

comments. 

Section 678.705 What guidance must 

the Governor issue regarding one-stop 

infrastructure funding? 

Section 678.705 includes certain 

requirements for the Governor’s 

guidance, including establishing roles, 

defining equitable and efficient methods 

for negotiating around infrastructure 

costs, and establishing timelines for 

local areas. These requirements are 

essential to ensuring a consistent 

approach to the Governors’ guidance 

across States. This allows for one-stop 

certification, competition of the onestop operator, and inclusion of 

infrastructure funding agreement terms 

into the local State Plan in appropriate 

timeframes. Based on comments 

received, the Departments have 

concluded that the Governor’s guidance 

and technical assistance will be of 

greatest value to the public workforce 

system in implementing the provisions 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55906 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

of the sections that follow. A detailed 

discussion of the Departments’ 

responses to public comments received 

on this section follows immediately 

below. 

Comments: A commenter asked 

whether the Governor may dictate the 

cost categories and allocation methods, 

or whether the Governor may provide 

flexibility to local partners in these 

areas. Another commenter said that the 

Departments should issue guidance on 

cost sharing, allocation, and allowable 

costs. One commenter recommended 

that in cases where the Governor needs 

to intervene to establish local 

contributions, the contributions should 

be supported with similar funding 

sources for all contributors. Another 

commenter said that guidance on 

funding should allow for flexible 

contributions from required partners. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have determined that the 

language in § 678.705 is consistent with 

the cost principles contained in the 

Uniform Guidance and those of the 

authorizing statutes and, thus, provides 

sufficient parameters within which to 

define costs, cost allocation, and other 

principles of cost sharing. For purposes 

of clarity, specific references to the 

Uniform Guidance have been added to 

§ 678.705. Furthermore, paragraph (b)(2) 

also has been revised to clarify that cost 

allocation should be based on 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

centers and relative benefit received. 

The Governor may not dictate cost 

categories or allocation methods that are 

not consistent with the Uniform 

Guidance. There are a variety of 

methods to allocate costs that are 

consistent with the Uniform Guidance, 

for instance, based on: The proportion 

of a partner program’s occupancy 

percentage of the one-stop center 

(square footage); the proportion of a 

partner program’s customers benefitting 

by coming to the one-stop; the 

proportion of partner program’s staff 

among all staff at the one-stop center; or 

the percentage of a partner program’s 

use of equipment at the one-stop center. 

This portion of the regulation can be 

complex, and the Departments will 

continue to issue guidance and provide 

technical assistance to the public 

workforce system. 

The DOL’s previous Financial 

Management Technical Assistance 

Guide published for WIA remains useful 

for an overview of cost allocation 

methodologies. See http://

www.doleta.gov/grants/pdf/TAG_

PartI.pdf and http://www.doleta.gov/

grants/pdf/TAG_PartII_July2011.pdf. 

The Departments jointly will work to 

update this guide and provide technical 

assistance on cost allocation in the 

future. 

Comments: A few commenters said 

there needs to be guidance for local 

partners to contribute to the one-stop 

infrastructure costs. The commenter 

said that these costs need to be defined 

as program costs. 

Departments’ Response: In addition to 

the provisions of these regulations, 

guidance for local partner contributions 

will be available from Departmental 

policy guidance documents, and from 

the State agencies administering partner 

funds. However, local required partners 

and their CEOs also must recognize that 

funds must be used in accordance with 

the related authorizing statutes, and 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Uniform Guidance. While infrastructure 

costs may be considered as program 

costs for DOL WIOA programs—which 

are primarily WIOA title I programs— 

this is not the case for all local area 

partner programs. Other authorizing 

statutes may have differing 

interpretations. Further guidance and 

technical assistance is forthcoming on 

this issue. 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested additional guidance for the 

Governor to assist in establishing roles 

and defining equitable and efficient 

methods for negotiation. A commenter 

said that the rule should give guidance 

on what roles the Departments envision 

to ensure that the Governors’ 

recommendations are appropriate. 

Departments’ Response: Since the 

issuance of the NPRM, the Departments 

have released infrastructure funding 

guidance that includes roles and 

responsibilities, and more guidance and 

technical assistance documents will be 

released throughout the operational 

lifetime of the regulations. No change to 

the regulatory text was made in 

response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter said that 

this section should refer to WIOA sec. 

121, concerning infrastructure spending 

ceilings for certain programs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to adopt this 

recommendation. While the 

infrastructure funding caps for certain 

programs under the State funding 

mechanism are covered in § 678.738(c), 

they do not apply to contributions of 

local programs pursuant to the local 

funding mechanism. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

this comment. 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

said that the regulations need to provide 

a ‘‘fail safe’’ for local areas in case the 

State is not negotiating in good faith or 

fails to meet the requirements of the 

MOU. The commenter recommended 

that this would be a plan consisting of 

MOU terms and cost allocation plans 

that would go into effect if either 

condition above occurs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments are not authorized by 

WIOA to implement a ‘‘fail safe’’ plan 

as the commenter suggested. WIOA and 

this Joint WIOA Final Rule (at 

§ 678.750) require that the Governor 

have an appeals process for the State 

funding mechanism that would allow 

one-stop partners to appeal a Governor’s 

funding determination. In addition, 20 

CFR 683.600 of the DOL WIOA Final 

Rule would include Local WDBs and 

CEOs as ‘‘other interested parties’’ that 

may file grievances under the State 

established procedures required by 

WIOA sec. 181(c)(1). No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Section 678.710 How are 

infrastructure costs funded? 

Section 678.710 indicates that sec. 

121(h)(1)(A) of WIOA establishes two 

methods for funding the infrastructure 

costs of one-stop centers: A local 

funding mechanism and a State funding 

mechanism. Both methods utilize the 

funds provided to one-stop partners by 

their authorizing statutes. There is no 

separate funding source for one-stop 

infrastructure costs. The Departments 

received no comments on this section 

and made no changes to the regulatory 

text. 

Section 678.715 How are one-stop 

infrastructure costs funded in the local 

funding mechanism? 

To use the local funding mechanism, 

Local WDBs, in consultation with CEOs, 

must engage one-stop partners early in 

discussions about one-stop center 

locations, costs, and other services, so 

that all parties can make decisions 

cooperatively and reach consensus 

about funding infrastructure costs. 

WIOA does not place any limitations on 

contributions under the local 

mechanism; however, partner programs’ 

contributions must be in compliance 

with their Federal authorizing statutes 

and other applicable legal requirements, 

including administrative cost 

limitations, and represent each partner’s 

proportionate share, consistent with the 

Uniform Guidance. Under this section, 

agreement is achieved when all of the 

one-stop partners sign an MOU with the 

Local WDB, which includes a final 

agreement regarding funding of 

infrastructure that includes the elements 

listed in § 678.755, or an interim 

funding agreement that includes as 

many of these elements as possible. A 

detailed discussion of the Departments’ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55907 

responses to public comments received 

on this section follows immediately 

below. 

Comments: One commenter said that 

partners should pay an equitable share 

of the infrastructure costs, not a 

proportionate share based on relative 

benefits. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

121(h)(1)(B)(i) and sec. 121(h)(2)(C) 

specifically require funding allocations 

under both the local or State funding 

options to be based on proportionate use 

and relative benefit received. The first 

and preferred option is through methods 

agreed on by the Local WDB, CEOs, and 

one-stop partners. If no agreement can 

be made, then the State funding 

mechanism applies. Both mechanisms 

are based upon Federal cost principles 

contained in the Uniform Guidance. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

the regulations should clarify that the 

Local WDB has the responsibility for 

maintaining and preparing the records 

necessary to periodically review and 

reconcile partner shares of 

infrastructure costs against actual 

expenditures to ensure equity. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments disagree; specifics of the 

roles and responsibilities of local 

entities is something to be worked out 

in the MOU, not in Federal regulation. 

Additionally, MOUs are required to be 

reviewed no less than once every 3 

years as required by WIOA sec. 

121(c)(2)(A)(v). No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

this comment. 

Comments: Another commenter asked 

for a definition of ‘‘proportionate 

share.’’ One commenter said that the 

Governor should set policy regarding 

‘‘proportionate benefit.’’ Another 

commenter requested guidance on 

calculating proportionate use. 

Departments’ Response: There is no 

specific Federal definition of 

proportionate share, proportionate 

benefit, or proportionate use, and none 

of these terms are defined in WIOA. In 

a general sense, proportionate share is 

the share of each partner program’s 

infrastructure costs based upon its 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

centers and relative benefit received 

from that use. The concept of 

proportionate share, consistent with the 

partner programs’ authorizing statutes 

and regulations and the Uniform 

Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, is used by 

Federal cost principles in the Uniform 

Guidance, among others. The 

Departments are aware of the complex 

nature of arriving at a generally 

accepted method of calculating 

proportionate share in a given State or 

local area and will address this issue 

through additional fiscal guidance and 

training. No additional regulatory text is 

required. 

Comments: Several commenters in the 

adult education field asked for guidance 

regarding the duties and functions of the 

Local and State WDBs in small States 

and single-area States. 

Departments’ Response: Because 

WIOA is an evolving system, there is no 

standard list of all of the possible duties 

and functions of Local and State WDBs. 

While WIOA establishes required duties 

and functions for State and Local WDBs, 

discussed further in this subpart, each 

State and Local WDB will develop State 

and local plans that define their visions 

and roles and may expand upon these 

duties and functions. Pursuant to 

WIOA’s Sunshine Provisions, the State 

and local plans are available for public 

inspection and Board meetings must be 

open to the public, which ensures 

transparency and accountability for all 

State and Local WDBs. 

Comments: A few commenters said 

that the Departments should issue 

guidance on simply bypassing the local 

infrastructure funding process and using 

the State funding process instead. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA does 

not provide authority for bypassing the 

local funding mechanism. The State 

funding mechanism is only triggered 

after the Governor is informed that 

consensus could not be reached at the 

local level. 

Comments: Many commenters said 

that the Departments should clarify that 

both cash and in-kind contributions are 

permitted in both the local and State 

funding mechanisms. One commenter 

asked for clarification on how in-kind 

contributions should be calculated as an 

alternative to direct payments. A few 

commenters asked for clarification of 

the phrase ‘‘fairly evaluated in-kind 

contributions’’ and also asked to know 

who makes this determination. Another 

commenter said that infrastructure 

funding should be cash-only. One 

commenter said that the Departments 

should update their guidance for inkind contributions to ensure that such 

contributions are weighted 

appropriately. A few other commenters 

said that provision of alternative 

communication services (e.g., Braille, 

deaf interpreters) should be considered 

an in-kind contribution for the VR 

program. 

Departments’ Response: These 

comments assisted the Departments in 

making certain adjustments in this part 

of the regulations. WIOA sec. 121(c)(2) 

outlines the required content of the 

local MOU. This includes a description 

of how the costs of operation of the onestop delivery system will be funded. 

Operating budgets for one-stop centers 

encompass two types of costs that are 

specifically outlined in the law: 

Infrastructure costs, defined in WIOA 

sec. 121(h)(4), and additional costs 

relating to the operation of the one-stop 

delivery system that do not constitute 

infrastructure costs, described in WIOA 

sec. 121(i)(1), which includes the cost of 

career services under WIOA sec. 

134(c)(2) and may include shared 

services, defined in WIOA sec. 121(i)(2). 

WIOA sec. 121(c)(2)(A)(ii)(I) establishes 

in-kind contributions as valid forms of 

payment for operations. 

The regulatory text in § 678.715 has 

been revised to clarify that cash, noncash, and third-party in-kind 

contributions may be provided by, or on 

behalf of, one-stop partners to cover 

their proportionate share of 

infrastructure costs and to provide 

further agreement on the terms with 

definitions provided in the Uniform 

Guidance. These terms are further 

defined in § 678.720(c). 

Non-cash contributions, which are 

separate from third-party in-kind 

contributions, are comprised of receipts 

for current expenditures incurred by 

one-stop partners on behalf of the onestop center and non-cash resources such 

as goods or services, or the 

documentation of supporting costs for 

items owned by the partner’s program 

and used by the one-stop center. 

For example, imagine a partner’s 

proportionate share of the one-stop 

operating costs is $15,000. The partner 

does not have sufficient cash or other 

resources to fund its share fully, and 

wishes to donate (not for its own 

individual use) gently used surplus 

computer equipment. The computers at 

the time of the donation have a value 

determined in accordance with the 

requirements of 2 CFR 200.306 of 

$10,000. The partner would be able to 

use the $10,000 value as part of the 

resources provided to fund the shared 

costs. 

Third-party in-kind contributions are 

contributions of space, equipment, 

technology, nonpersonnel services, or 

other like items to support the 

infrastructure costs associated with onestop center operations, by a non-onestop partner to support the one-stop 

center in general (rather than a specific 

partner), or contributions by a non-onestop partner of space, equipment, 

technology, nonpersonnel services, or 

other like items to support the 

infrastructure costs associated with onestop center operations, to a one-stop 

partner to support its proportionate 

share of one-stop infrastructure costs. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55908 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

There are two types of third-party inkind contributions: General 

contributions to one-stop operations 

(i.e., those not connected to any 

individual one-stop partner) and 

specific contributions made to a 

particular one-stop partner program. 

For example, a general in-kind 

contribution could be a city government 

allowing the one-stop to use city space 

rent-free. These in-kind contributions 

would not be associated with one 

specific partner, but rather would go to 

support the one-stop generally and 

would be factored into the underlying 

budget and cost pools used to determine 

proportionate share. The result would 

be a decrease in amount of funds each 

partner contributes, as the overall 

budget will have been reduced. 

The second type of in-kind 

contribution could be a third-party 

contribution to a specific partner to 

support one-stop infrastructure. For 

example, an employer partner provides 

assistive technology to a VR program 

that then gives it to the one-stop center. 

So long as assistive technology was in 

the one-stop operating budget’s 

infrastructure costs, the partner could 

then value the assistive technology in 

accordance with the Uniform Guidance 

and use the value to count towards its 

proportionate share. Prior to accepting 

in-kind contributions from a partner (via 

a third-party donor), there would need 

to be agreement among the partners on 

cost allocation methodology to ensure 

that other infrastructure operating costs 

are sufficiently covered through cash 

and noncash contributions. 

Both non-cash and in-kind 

contributions must be valued consistent 

with 2 CFR 200.306 and reconciled on 

a regular basis to ensure that they are 

fairly evaluated and meeting the 

partners’ proportionate share. 

All partner contributions, regardless 

of the type, must be reconciled on a 

regular basis (i.e., monthly or quarterly) 

to ensure each partner program is 

contributing no more than its 

proportionate share, in accordance with 

the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 

200. No other change to the regulatory 

text is made in response to these 

comments. 

Section 678.720 What funds are used 

to pay for infrastructure costs in the 

local one-stop infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

Section 678.720 explains the funds 

that one-stop partners may use to pay 

for one-stop infrastructure costs. In 

funding the one-stop infrastructure 

costs, partner programs must satisfy the 

requirements of their authorizing 

statutes and regulations. Further, all 

one-stop partners must work together to 

administer the partner programs and the 

one-stop and other activities of the core 

programs under WIOA as efficiently and 

effectively as possible. This will ensure 

that, as recipients and stewards of 

Federal funds for all of these programs, 

the partners and their subrecipients, 

when allowable under a partner 

program’s authorizing statute, 

administer these programs and activities 

to meet all applicable legal requirements 

and goals. It is important to note that the 

different Federal statutes and 

regulations of partner programs define 

administrative costs slightly differently. 

Some programs’ statutes and regulations 

define all of the infrastructure costs 

listed in § 678.700 as administrative 

costs, while other programs’ statutes 

and regulations define some of the 

infrastructure costs as administrative 

costs, and some as program costs. Under 

§ 678.720 of these final regulations, onestop partner programs must adhere to 

the administrative and program cost 

limitations and requirements to which 

they are subject. 

Several changes were made to this 

section in response to public comments 

received by the Departments on the 

NPRM. In § 678.720(a), language was 

added clarifying that, for WIOA title I 

programs, infrastructure costs may be 

considered program costs. Also in 

paragraph (a), a distinction was made 

between title II programs and programs 

authorized under the Perkins Act. 

Because the proposed Joint Final Rule 

had designated the State eligible agency 

under the Perkins Act as the required 

one-stop partner, it consequently 

required that infrastructure costs be 

paid from the funds reserved by the 

State eligible agency for State 

administrative expenses. The joint Final 

Rule, instead, designates that the 

Perkins one-stop partner is the eligible 

recipient at the postsecondary level, or 

a consortium of eligible recipients at the 

postsecondary level in a local area. 

Consequently, the joint Final Rule 

requires that infrastructure costs under 

the Perkins Act be paid from funds 

available for Perkins postsecondary 

recipients’ local administrative 

expenses, or from other funds made 

available by the State. The Joint Final 

Rule also changes the source of 

infrastructure funding for the title II 

program, specifying that these costs be 

paid from the funds available for local 

administrative expenses or from nonFederal resources that are cash, in-kind 

or third-party contributions. 

Also the Departments added a new 

paragraph (c) and associated 

subparagraphs to § 678.720 in response 

to requests for further clarification, 

which cover the distinctions between 

and definitions of cash, non-cash, and 

third-party in-kind contributions to 

meet partner programs’ infrastructure 

costs contribution obligations. In 

addition, the Departments provided 

operating guidance and technical 

assistance to the public workforce 

system, and will continue to provide 

such assistance, as needed. A detailed 

discussion of the Departments’ 

responses to public comments received 

on this section follows immediately 

below. 

Comments: A commenter indicated 

that this section ‘‘is in error in its 

implication of Perkins State 

administration funding to support local 

one-stop infrastructure.’’ This 

commenter asserted that directing 

Perkins Act State administration is a 

violation of the uses of funds for such 

dollars as articulated in Perkins Act sec. 

112(a)(3). The commenter recommended 

revising § 678.720(a) to read: ‘‘In the 

case of partners administering the Carl 

D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006, these funds shall 

include local administrative funds 

available to local eligible institutions or 

consortia of such institutions.’’ The 

commenter further stated that Perkins 

Act funds are not divided among 

secondary and postsecondary career and 

technical education programs; the 

distribution between the eligible 

recipients only takes place at the local 

level, and this section and § 678.740(d) 

should be revised to apply only to locallevel funding instead of the Perkins 

eligible agency and the State’s 

administrative dollars. Another 

commenter agreed, stating that the 

regulations appear to require duplicate 

Perkins funds, including both State and 

local Perkins administrative funds. The 

commenter similarly indicated that this 

is a new use of Perkins State 

administrative funds. Another 

commenter interpreted the intent of this 

section to mean that when the Perkins 

State eligible agency delegates authority 

to local entities to serve as one-stop 

partners, the State agency may require 

the use of local administrative funds in 

lieu of State administrative funds. 

Departments’ Response: The Joint 

WIOA NPRM designated the State 

eligible agency under the Perkins Act as 

the required one-stop partner, and 

consequently required that 

infrastructure costs be paid from the 

funds reserved by the State eligible 

agency for State administrative 

expenses. The Final Rule instead 

designates that the Perkins one-stop 

partner is the eligible recipient at the 

postsecondary level, or a consortium of 

eligible recipients at the postsecondary 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55909 

level in the local area. The Departments 

have determined that this change is 

consistent with WIOA sec. 

121(b)(1)(B)(iv) which designates local 

one-stop Perkins partners as the entity 

that carries out career and technical 

education programs at the 

postsecondary level, authorized under 

the Perkins Act, in a local area. 

However, the Departments have 

concluded the State’s involvement 

could be valuable at the negotiation 

stage and have modified §§ 678.415(e) 

and 678.720(a) to provide that the local 

recipients at the postsecondary level 

may request assistance from the State 

eligible agency in completing its 

responsibilities in negotiating local 

MOUs. To meet their obligations to 

cover their proportionate share of 

infrastructure costs, Perkins 

postsecondary recipients may use funds 

available for local administrative costs 

under the Perkins Act, or draw from 

other funds made available by the State, 

at the State’s discretion. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

Perkins funds are not divided among 

secondary and postsecondary career and 

technical education programs; rather, 

the distribution between the eligible 

recipients only takes place at the local 

level, and §§ 678.720 and 678.740(d) of 

the NPRM should be revised to apply 

only to local-level funding instead of the 

Perkins eligible agency and the State’s 

administrative dollars. 

Departments’ Response: As stated 

above, this comment was taken into 

consideration in making the final 

regulatory text changes indicating that 

the Perkins one-stop partner is the 

eligible recipient at the postsecondary 

level, or a consortium of eligible 

recipients at the postsecondary level in 

the local area. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

the regulations appear to require 

duplicate Perkins funding, including 

both State and local Perkins 

administrative funds. The commenter 

said that this is a new use of Perkins 

State administrative funds. 

Departments’ Response: Perkins State 

funds are no longer required to be used 

to pay for infrastructure costs, as 

outlined above, but may be made 

available by the State, at the State’s 

discretion. 

Comments: A commenter said that 

§ 678.720(a) of the NPRM limits title II 

contributions to no more than five 

percent of the Federal AEFLA funds 

received by the State. The commenter 

said that the Departments should direct 

States to distribute a share of other title 

II funds to local partners to pay for 

infrastructure costs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments do not have the authority 

to direct the States to do this. Section 

233(a)(2) of WIOA specifically provides 

that up to five percent of the AEFLA 

funds allocated to local eligible 

providers shall be used for 

administrative costs, including costs 

related to the one-stop partner 

responsibilities in sec. 121(b)(1)(A). 

These responsibilities include 

contributing to infrastructure costs. 

Under sec. 233(a)(1), 95 percent of the 

funds allocated to local eligible 

providers must be used for carrying out 

adult education and literacy activities. 

However, under sec. 233(b), if the five 

percent cost limit is too restrictive to 

permit the local eligible provider to 

cover the local administrative costs, 

including the payment of infrastructure 

costs, the local eligible provider 

negotiates with the State eligible agency 

to determine an adequate amount to be 

used for non-instructional purposes. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to this comment. 

Comments: A few commenters asked 

if the approach described in § 678.720(a) 

would allow ‘‘the Federal funding 

stream to sidestep its responsibility to 

cover costs relative to the benefit 

received by the program.’’ 

Departments’ Response: As described 

at the beginning of this section, changes 

have been made to the local funding 

mechanism to explain partner 

responsibilities and make clear that 

programs must contribute their 

proportionate share based on 

proportionate use and relative benefit 

received. 

Comments: Some commenters stated 

that because WIOA sec. 121 does place 

a cap on infrastructure funding for the 

VR program, § 678.720 should not state 

that there is no cap on the funding a 

one-stop partner may contribute. 

Departments’ Response: The caps on 

infrastructure funding, which are 

addressed in § 678.738, apply to what 

the Governor can require partner 

programs to contribute under the State 

funding mechanism, triggered when 

local partners cannot reach consensus 

on the local-funding mechanism. If a 

partner program chooses to contribute 

more than the cap for its program under 

the State funding mechanism, it can do 

so, as long as such contributions reflect 

its proportionate share, consistent with 

the Uniform Guidance. On the other 

hand, if the State funding mechanism is 

not triggered, neither WIOA sec. 121 nor 

§ 678.720 of these final regulations 

impose a limitation on how much a core 

program may contribute for 

infrastructure costs. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: A commenter said that 

infrastructure costs should use only a 

portion of the available administrative 

cost amount, otherwise there will be no 

funds available for other administrative 

costs associated with operating the 

program. 

Departments’ Response: A one-stop 

partner program’s contributions to 

infrastructure costs under the local 

funding mechanism is limited in that 

contributions for administrative costs 

may not exceed the amount available for 

administrative costs under the 

authorizing statute of the partner 

program. In addition, the amounts 

contributed for infrastructure costs must 

be allowable and based on proportionate 

use of the one-stop centers and relative 

benefit received by the partner program, 

and must be consistent with 2 CFR part 

200, including the Federal cost 

principles. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: Another commenter 

requested additional clarification on the 

process and role of adult education 

programs in contributing to 

infrastructure costs. 

Departments’ Response: Upon further 

review, the Departments note that sec. 

233(a)(2) of WIOA specifically provides 

that adult education program local 

administrative funds, rather than the 

State administration funds referenced in 

the NPRM, are to be used for one-stop 

partner responsibilities under WIOA 

sec. 121(b)(1)(A). These responsibilities 

include contributing toward one-stop 

infrastructure costs. Further, while 

AEFLA caps the amount that may be 

used for local administrative expenses 

at five percent under sec. 233(a)(2) of 

WIOA, the State adult education agency 

may increase the amount that can be 

spent on local administration in cases 

where the cost limits are too restrictive 

to allow for specified activities. This 

may include funding one-stop center 

infrastructure that would be part of the 

one-stop partner responsibilities to be 

carried out by the eligible provider in a 

local area. 

The NPRM permitted the State 

eligible agency to use non-Federal funds 

that it contributes to meeting the 

program’s matching or maintenance of 

effort requirements for infrastructure 

costs under both the local and Statelevel infrastructure funding 

mechanisms. Upon further review, the 

Departments have determined that 

providing States and local entities even 

greater flexibility to leverage nonFederal resources to pay infrastructure 

costs is appropriate. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55910 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

The text of §§ 678.720 and 678.740 

have been revised to provide that funds 

for infrastructure costs for the adult 

education programs under the local 

funding mechanism and State funding 

mechanisms, respectively, must include 

Federal funds available for local 

administration of the programs and nonFederal resources that are cash, noncash, or in-kind or third-party 

contributions. 

Comments: A few commenters said 

that in times of limited resources, 

requiring one-stop partners to pay for 

infrastructure costs out of 

administrative funds could have the 

effect of limiting their participation in 

the one-stop delivery system. 

Departments’ Response: Each onestop partner will enter negotiations 

around the MOU and infrastructure 

funding agreement with the knowledge 

of their budgets and the requirements of 

their program statutes. The Departments 

hope that all partners find that 

developing a truly integrated one-stop 

center system results in efficiencies and 

enables partners to provide services in 

a cost effective manner that allows them 

to support the infrastructure costs of the 

one-stop center. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: A commenter expressed 

support for the flexibility provided to 

partners to use State or local funding 

options as long as there is minimal 

administrative burden. A couple of 

commenters expressed support for State 

and Local WDBs to have flexibility to 

determine how to meet their cost 

sharing requirements. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that these final 

regulations provide flexibility to onestop partners in determining 

infrastructure funding contributions. 

Comments: A commenter asked if 

there is a difference between 

administrative and overall funding for 

one-stop partners. 

Departments’ Response: As discussed 

above, the Federal statutes and 

regulations governing each of the 

partner programs define ‘‘administrative 

costs’’ differently; therefore, partners 

must comply with program-specific 

requirements governing the expenditure 

of funds for such purpose. 

Comments: A commenter supported 

only administrative funds being used for 

one-stop infrastructure costs. Another 

commenter suggested that workforce 

development funds should not be comingled with career and technical 

education funds for purposes of funding 

and allocating one-stop infrastructure 

costs. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA does 

not require or authorize blending or comingling of partner funds. Rather, the 

local MOU and infrastructure funding 

agreement will identify the 

infrastructure and operating costs of the 

one-stop center and develop a cost 

allocation methodology to determine 

each partner’s proportionate share for 

both types of costs, consistent with the 

Uniform Guidance set forth in 2 CFR 

part 200. This process is similar to what 

has been done by one-stop partners for 

several years and it has been working 

well among one-stop centers in many 

local areas. Partners can contribute cash, 

noncash, or third-party in-kind 

contributions to the Local WDB to 

satisfy their share. However, 

infrastructure costs, unlike other shared 

operating costs, do not include 

personnel costs and therefore may not 

be paid for with in-kind personnel time. 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to these comments. 

Section 678.725 What happens if 

consensus on infrastructure funding is 

not reached at the local level between 

the Local Workforce Development 

Board, chief elected officials, and onestop partners? 

The Departments have concluded that 

WIOA sec. 121(h)(1)(A)(i) requires that 

consensus agreement on the methods of 

sufficiently funding the costs of 

infrastructure be reached in 

negotiations, beginning July 1, 2016. 

The Departments informed the public 

and all relevant parties that this section 

of the WIOA regulations will not be 

implemented for PY 2016. The 

workforce development system was 

informed of this decision through the 

issuance of a Frequently Asked 

Question (FAQ) that was posted on 

agency Web sites on January 28, 2016 

(see https://www.doleta.gov/wioa/

FAQs.cfm). The regulatory text of this 

section has been revised to further 

clarify these provisions and to provide 

that the provisions outlined in this 

section on the State funding mechanism 

will be applicable to program years 

beginning with PY 2017. Before that 

time, State agencies of the Governor will 

have issued the mechanism to follow if 

a local area fails to reach a local 

infrastructure funding agreement 

through the process of negotiating 

MOUs with the required programs. 

Section 678.725 states that failure to 

sign the MOU containing the final 

infrastructure funding agreement or 

interim agreement by the beginning of 

each program year would trigger the 

State funding mechanism. This section 

states that Local WDBs must notify the 

Governor by the deadline established by 

the Governor’s infrastructure guidance 

developed under § 678.705(b)(3) if the 

local partners cannot reach consensus. 

The State will monitor the local areas to 

address violations of the Governor’s 

guidance. The Governor’s guidance 

might establish an earlier date for 

notification of a lack of consensus to the 

State, or of milestones or decision 

points in the negotiation process, to 

ensure the uninterrupted services of the 

one-stop services in the local area. A 

detailed discussion of the Departments’ 

responses to public comments received 

on this section follows immediately 

below. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that the regulations should state that if 

the Governor has to intervene to 

establish local contributions, that the 

contribution will be supported with 

similar funding sources for all 

contributors. 

Departments’ Response: The State 

funding mechanism will be made public 

prior to application in any local area, 

and the framework used to determine 

contributions is the same for all 

contributors (see § 678.730). There is no 

statutory requirement in WIOA sec. 

121(h) that partners contribute funds for 

one-stop infrastructure costs under the 

State funding mechanism from similar 

sources, as the commenter recommends. 

The State funding mechanism is 

developed at the State—not the 

Federal—level; it would not be 

appropriate to accept the commenter’s 

suggestion. The Departments decline to 

do so. 

The framework used to determine 

contributions, however, would be the 

same for all contributors statewide (see 

§ 678.730). It also should be noted that, 

while under the local funding 

mechanism partner programs may 

contribute through any funds allowed 

by their authorizing statutes, under the 

State funding mechanism, infrastructure 

funds must come from administrative 

funds for the majority of partner 

programs. 

Section 678.730 What is the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

This section—as well as §§ 678.735 

and 678.740—has undergone significant 

changes from the NPRM in both content 

and structure, although the core 

principles of the State funding 

mechanism remain the same. Several 

sections have been added to both break 

the previous section into more concise 

parts and to provide further clarity and 

structure to the State funding 

mechanism regulations, including 

§ 678.731, which outlines the steps to 

implement the State mechanism. The 

Departments recognize that the State 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55911 

funding mechanism is still complex, 

and further guidance regarding its 

design and implementation will be 

released. 

As outlined in § 678.730(b)(1) through 

(3) of this section, the framework for the 

State funding mechanism consists of 

three essential steps to be performed by 

the Governor once the State mechanism 

has been triggered by the submission of 

a notice by the Local WDB that no 

consensus could be reached in the MOU 

negotiations: 

(1) A budget must be determined for 

the infrastructure costs for one-stop 

centers in the local area (§ 678.735). 

(2) Each partner’s proportionate share 

must be determined (§§ 678.736 and 

678.737). 

(3) The calculation of the required 

funding caps must be made, along with 

any associated reconsiderations and 

adjustments to the budget or partner’s 

proportionate share (§ 678.738). 

These steps are detailed in §§ 678.731 

and 678.735 through 678.738 of the 

regulatory text and the associated 

discussion sections below, which 

include an example scenario. A detailed 

discussion of the Departments’ 

responses to public comments received 

on this section follows immediately 

below. Minor changes were made to 

NPRM § 678.735(b), which covered 

instances in which the Governor does 

not determine the infrastructure funding 

contribution for certain partners, and 

this section was moved to § 678.730(c) 

of the Final Rule. 

Comments: One commenter remarked 

that the requirements in this section are 

complex, onerous, and will be costly to 

administer. Specifically, the commenter 

expressed concern with (1) the annual 

identification of each partner’s required 

share based on proportionate use, in the 

absence of a data collection system to 

accurately track program participants 

for each partner; (2) collecting and 

accounting for the funds; (3) ongoing 

administration, including tracking each 

partner’s contributions; and (4) 

periodically reviewing costs charged to 

each partner to ensure they are still in 

line with proportionate use and benefit. 

Departments’ Response: As 

mentioned above, the Departments 

recognize the complexities of the State 

funding mechanism and have taken 

steps to address this. While there will be 

a cost associated with implementing the 

State funding mechanism, this cost will 

be mitigated by the provision of all 

negotiation materials and documents 

from the local area to the Governor, as 

is required by § 678.735(a). 

As to the collecting and accounting 

for funds, the Governor never actually 

takes possession of any funds, but 

instead determines a local budget in 

accordance with § 678.735, as well as 

partner contributions, and directs 

partners to pay for their share of 

infrastructure costs from the individual 

partner program’s funds, as is specified 

by §§ 678.736 and 678.737. 

Furthermore, the Governor will not be 

managing the local plans; the Local 

WDB and one-stop operator will carry 

on their duties as under any locally 

reached agreement. The only difference 

in the State funding mechanism is that 

the Governor determines what the 

infrastructure funding agreement 

portion of the MOU looks like. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

confusion over how the State funding 

mechanism will operate. The 

commenter stated that in some 

provisions, it seems that the Governor 

would assemble a single statewide fund 

consisting of local contributions, and 

then distribute them to local areas using 

the formula established by the State 

WDB. In other provisions, according to 

the commenter, it appears that the 

Governor would decide on an area-byarea basis what the contributions from 

each partner should be, and collect and 

allocate those funds to that local area 

only. Another commenter requested 

additional clarity on how this 

mechanism would work, particularly 

when there is potential for conflict 

between the partners. A Local WDB 

requested examples of creating and 

implementing the one-stop funding 

provisions. 

Departments’ Response: The Governor 

and the State WDB are required to 

develop and issue guidance to be used 

by the local areas in negotiating 

agreements for the funding of the onestop delivery system, particularly 

guidance about the roles of one-stop 

partners and approaches to facilitate 

equitable and efficient cost allocation 

for infrastructure costs. The guidance, as 

required by § 678.705, also would 

include the development of a State 

funding mechanism that will be used 

only in the event that a local area fails 

to reach an agreement. As to the 

collecting and accounting for funds, the 

Governor never actually takes 

possession of any funds, but they 

instead determine a local budget in 

accordance with § 678.735, as well as 

partner contributions, and direct 

partners to pay for their share of 

infrastructure costs from the individual 

partner program’s funds, as is stated by 

§§ 678.736 and 678.737. 

Section 678.731 What are the steps to 

determine the amount to be paid under 

the State one-stop infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

This section was not in the NPRM; 

and therefore, the Departments did not 

receive any comments on it directly, but 

it was created in response to comments 

that said the State funding mechanism 

was confusing and overly complex. This 

section lists the individual steps that 

must be taken by the Local WDB and the 

Governor in order to implement the 

State funding mechanism in order to 

clarify this process. 

Section 678.735 How are 

infrastructure cost budgets for the onestop centers in a local area determined 

in the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism? 

In response to comments pointing out 

the complexity of the State funding 

mechanism regulations, the original 

§ 678.735 (‘‘How are partner 

contributions determined in the State 

one-stop funding mechanism?’’) was 

broken up into four separate sections 

and considerably expanded to provide 

more assistance in explaining how this 

process will work. Section 678.735 now 

covers the Governor’s determination of 

the one-stop infrastructure budget under 

the State funding mechanism. This 

includes a requirement for the Local 

WDB to provide the Governor with all 

pertinent materials from the failed local 

negotiations (§ 678.735(a)), and 

provisions for a Governor adopting a 

budget that was agreed upon at the local 

level (§ 678.735(b)(1) and (2)), as well as 

for situations when the adoption of such 

a budget would not be appropriate or is 

impossible because one was never 

locally agreed upon (§ 678.735(b)(3)). In 

the case of the later situation, the 

Governor must use the formula created 

by the State WDB for determining the 

budget, as is described in § 678.745. A 

detailed discussion of the Departments’ 

responses to public comments received 

on proposed § 678.735 follows 

immediately below. 

In this section of the NPRM preamble, 

the Departments stated that Native 

American programs must contribute to 

infrastructure funding as required onestop partners and must negotiate with 

the Local WDB on that contribution 

amount. Upon further review, the 

Departments have determined that 

Native American programs are not 

required to contribute to infrastructure 

funding, but as required one-stop 

partners they are encouraged to 

contribute. Any agreement regarding the 

contribution or non-contribution to 

infrastructure funding by Native 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55912 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

American programs must be recorded in 

the signed MOU (see WIOA sec. 

121(h)(2)(D)(iv)). The Departments have 

determined that the regulatory text 

proposed in the NPRM is supported by 

WIOA and the revised statement above 

properly reflects both the regulatory text 

and WIOA. As such, no change to the 

regulatory text was necessary to address 

this issue. 

Comments: Many commenters 

requested clarification on whether the 

1.5 percent cap on funding one-stop 

infrastructure funds for title II is 

calculated from the State administration 

funds, or from the total adult education 

grant. The commenters stated that if it 

is 1.5 percent of the total grant, and the 

funds must be taken from the State 

administration funds within the grant, 

that would require 30 percent of the 

State administration funds to be used 

for one-stop infrastructure. The 

commenters asked the Departments to 

clarify that the cap is 1.5 percent of 

State administration funds, not the total 

grant. 

Departments’ Response: The 

calculation of the percentage of funds to 

be used for infrastructure is from the 

total State grant award. The 1.5 percent 

cap on contributions of funds from the 

adult education program is a statewide 

cap, as implemented in § 678.738. In 

accordance with § 678.738(b)(1), the 

Governor must ensure that the funds 

required to be contributed by each 

partner program in the local areas in the 

State under the State funding 

mechanism, in aggregate, do not exceed 

the statewide cap for each program. 

Thus, the amount of funds contributed 

by each AEFLA partner program in the 

local areas in the State, in aggregate, 

cannot exceed the 1.5 percent statewide 

cap for the AEFLA program, as 

calculated under § 678.738(a). The 

funds that the local AEFLA partners 

contribute toward infrastructure costs 

must be paid from funds that are 

available for local administration or 

from State or other non-Federal 

resources that are cash, in-kind, or 

third-party contributions. 

Comments: Many of these 

commenters also stated that it is not 

fiscally practical for programs such as 

adult education and NFJP that cover 

multiple Local WDB regions to give 1.5 

percent to each Local WDB. These 

commenters asked the Departments to 

clarify that a local program only needs 

to provide a maximum of 1.5 percent of 

its administration funds to 

infrastructure costs. 

Departments’ Response: For the State 

funding mechanism, infrastructure costs 

for the adult education program 

authorized by title II of WIOA must be 

paid from funds that are available for 

local administration or from State or 

other non-Federal resources that are 

cash, in-kind, or third-party 

contributions. No matter the program, 

be it NFJP, adult education, or other, the 

percentage cap mentioned in the 

comment does not apply at the local 

level or to areas under the local funding 

mechanism, but to the aggregate amount 

of funds for local partners of a particular 

program across the entire State which 

are in local areas operating under the 

State funding mechanism. 

Comments: A commenter said that 

because only postsecondary Perkins is a 

mandatory partner, the 1.5 percent cap 

is the amount used for administration of 

postsecondary programs and activities. 

Another commenter agreed but also said 

that at the State level there is no 

distinction between funds available for 

postsecondary programs and those 

available for secondary programs. 

Another commenter asked whether the 

predetermined amounts are in addition 

to the ‘‘fair share’’ allocation formulas in 

§ 678.730. 

Departments’ Response: To clarify, 

because only local postsecondary 

Perkins programs are mandatory onestop partners, the 1.5 percent cap is 

calculated based upon the amount made 

available by the State for postsecondary 

level programs and activities under sec. 

132 of the Perkins Act (distribution of 

Perkins funds for postsecondary 

education programs) and the amount of 

funds used by the State under Perkins 

Act sec. 112(a)(3) during the prior year 

to administer postsecondary level 

programs and activities, as applicable. 

The Departments have clarified the 

regulatory text to reflect this. As a 

reminder, the Final Rule designates that 

the Perkins one-stop partner is the 

eligible recipient at the postsecondary 

level, or a consortium of eligible 

recipients at the postsecondary level in 

the local area. To meet their obligations 

to pay infrastructure costs, Perkins 

postsecondary recipients may use funds 

available for local administrative costs 

under the Perkins Act, or draw from 

other funds made available by the State. 

Comments: Some commenters 

expressed support for the cap for the VR 

contribution. 

A few commenters stated that the 

Wagner-Peyser Act and VR program do 

not distinguish between administrative 

and programmatic funds, resulting in 

Wagner-Peyser Act programs in 

particular providing a disproportionate 

share of infrastructure costs. The 

commenters recommended the 

Departments study the allocation 

percentages no later than WIOA 

reauthorization in 2020. 

Departments’ Response: The 

commenters are correct that the WagnerPeyser Act program does not make a 

distinction between the program funds 

that must be used for the provision of 

services and those funds that must be 

used for administrative costs. 

WIOA requires partner contributions 

determined through the State funding 

mechanism to come from administrative 

sources. The ED’s Rehabilitation 

Services Administration (RSA) has 

revised 34 CFR 361.5(c)(2)(viii) to 

clarify that the definition of 

‘‘administrative costs’’ includes those 

costs associated with the infrastructure 

of the one-stop delivery system, 

regardless of whether the VR partner 

contribution is determined through the 

local or State funding mechanism (see 

ED Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services Final Rule, RIN 

1820–AB70, Docket No. ED–2015– 

OSERS–0001). Historically, 

infrastructure costs were considered 

administrative based upon the statutory 

and regulatory provisions of the VR 

program. This clarification will ensure 

one-stop costs are treated in accordance 

with long-standing practices in the VR 

program and will ensure that similar 

costs are not treated differently based 

upon which funding mechanism is 

utilized to determine the VR partner 

infrastructure contribution. 

The Departments want to make clear, 

however, that each program may 

contribute only an amount that does not 

exceed its proportionate share in 

accordance with the Uniform Guidance 

set forth in 2 CFR part 200 and an 

agreed-upon cost allocation 

methodology developed by the one-stop 

partners. In so doing, neither partner 

should be paying a disproportionate 

share because it would not be an 

allowable cost under the Uniform 

Guidance and could not be allocable to 

the program. The question of studying 

the allocation percentages in advance of 

the WIOA reauthorization is not 

pertinent to these regulations. 

Comments: A few commenters said 

that there is an inherent inequity among 

the caps for various programs such that 

some programs’ contributions to 

infrastructure costs, when spread across 

multiple local areas and one-stop 

centers, would be negligible. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments want to clarify that the 

statutory caps on administrative funds 

apply only when the State funding 

mechanism is triggered due to the 

inability of one or more Local WDBs in 

a State to reach consensus regarding the 

funding of local one-stop centers. The 

Departments encourage Local WDBs to 

develop MOUs among each of the oneVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:01 Aug 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19AUR5.SGM 19AUR5

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55913 

stop partners that sufficiently fund the 

one-stop delivery system so that the 

State funding mechanism, and hence 

the funding caps, are not needed. 

Because the administrative caps apply 

only when the State funding mechanism 

is triggered, partner programs may 

contribute more than the cap amount 

under the local funding mechanism. 

The partners’ shares may be contributed 

in cash, non-cash, and, in certain 

aforementioned circumstances, in-kind 

contributions. However, the partners 

may not contribute more than their 

proportionate share. 

Comments: A commenter remarked 

that the Departments should provide a 

more clear definition of ‘‘proportionate 

benefit,’’ as some partners may claim no 

benefit from the one-stop delivery 

system and therefore not contribute to 

infrastructure costs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

allocation of infrastructure costs by 

partner program must be based on 

methodologies that are driven by 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

centers and relative benefit received, as 

determined by the Uniform Guidance 

principles at 2 CFR part 200. The benefit 

is not subjective, as the commenter 

suggests, but rather the benefit is based 

on a cost allocation methodology that 

determines the proportion of the costs 

that are allocable to the use of the 

partner program at the one-stop center. 

Comments: Another commenter urged 

the Departments to recognize that the 

Perkins Act funds systems and programs 

instead of individuals, so the 

proportionality determination will be 

difficult to implement because there are 

no data to determine relative benefit on 

a per-student basis. 

Departments’ Response: The 

allocation of infrastructure costs by 

partner program must be based on 

methodologies that are driven by 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

centers and relative benefit received, as 

determined by the Uniform Guidance 

principles at 2 CFR part 200. When 

making this determination, the 

calculation is per-program, rather than 

per-individual. The Departments do not 

conclude that the fact that Perkins funds 

systems and programs, rather than 

individuals, will present an issue for 

Governors when making this 

determination. In addition, the 

Governor has discretion to determine a 

reasonable cost allocation methodology 

provided that the calculation of 

proportionate share is consistent with 

the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 

200, particularly that all costs charged 

to partners, including Perkins partners, 

are in proportion to use of the one-stop 

center, and constitute allowable, 

reasonable, necessary and allocable 

costs. No change to the regulatory text 

was made in response to this comment. 

Comments: One commenter hoped the 

funding obligations for a particular 

program are determined in the context 

of program resources and any in-kind 

support the one-stop receives from 

program participants. 

Departments’ Response: Infrastructure 

funding contributions are either 

determined using the local or State 

mechanism. Under each, the 

proportionate share principle is key; the 

partners should be contributing an 

amount proportionate to their use of the 

one-stop center. Determining this under 

the local mechanism is completely left 

up to the local partners and Local WDB 

to work out in the MOU, as long as it 

follows the Federal cost principles of 

the Uniform Guidance. Under the State 

mechanism, specific language in 

§ 678.737(b)(2) requires the Governor to 

take into consideration program 

resources in determining proportionate 

share. Under both mechanisms, thirdparty in-kind contributions are 

acceptable contributions to 

infrastructure funding, as is detailed in 

§ 678.720. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: One commenter asserted 

that there would be many 

administrative difficulties for WagnerPeyser Act contributions if they are 

required to be calculated on a fiscal year 

basis, because Wagner-Peyser Act funds 

are provided on a program year basis. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments want to make clear that 

there is no requirement in WIOA or 

these final regulations that the one-stop 

delivery system be funded on a fiscal 

year, as the commenter seems to 

suggest. Many of the required partners 

are funded on different fiscal periods 

(e.g., some are funded on a program year 

basis while others are funded on a 

Federal fiscal year basis); so, accounting 

methodologies will have to be employed 

to resolve such differences. 

Comments: A commenter encouraged 

the Departments to clarify their 

guidelines for infrastructure cost 

sharing, including in-kind 

contributions, and the use of 

administrative vs. program funds. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge that guidance 

will assist stakeholders in the public 

workforce system with understanding 

how to negotiate infrastructure cost 

sharing agreements and understand 

other aspects of funding the one-stop 

delivery system, such as in-kind 

contributions and the allocation of 

costs. Some of this guidance is currently 

available in the form of TEGLs on a 

variety of subjects, such as, the 

‘‘Operational Guidance to Support the 

Orderly Transition of Workforce 

Investment Act Participants, Funds, and 

Subrecipient Contracts to the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act’’ (TEGL 

No. 38–14), ‘‘Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act Transition Authority 

for Immediate Implementation of 

Governance Provisions’’ (TEGL No. 27– 

14), ‘‘Vision for the One-Stop Delivery 

System under the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act (WIOA)’’ (TEGL 

No. 4–15), ‘‘Guidance on Services 

Provided through the Adult and 

Dislocated Worker Program under the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA or Opportunity Act) and 

Wagner Peyser, as Amended by WIOA, 

and Guidance for the Transition to 

WIOA Services’’ (TEGL No. 3–15), 

‘‘Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA) Youth Program Transition’’ 

(TEGL Nos. 23–14 and 8–15), among 

others. All DOL WIOA operating 

guidance can be located at 

www.doleta.gov/wioa, and all associated 

ED documents may be found at 

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/

rsa/wioa-reauthorization.html and 

www2.ed.gov/policy/adulted/guid/

memoranda.html. 

In addition, cost principle guidance is 

provided in the Uniform Guidance at 2 

CFR part 200 on the use of Federal 

funds, and in the existing financial 

Technical Assistance Guide (TAG) 

handbooks previously issued by DOL, 

which are still applicable to WIOA (see 

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/All_

WIOA_Related_Advisories.cfm). 

Nevertheless, the Departments’ 

intention is to continue to provide 

system guidance and technical 

assistance on all aspects of WIOA 

throughout the life of this authorizing 

legislation. 

Comments: A commenter said that for 

the TANF program, the cap of 1.5 

percent of the Federal funds provided to 

‘‘carry out that education program or 

employment and training program’’ 

should instead state ‘‘education program 

or employment and training activities.’’ 

The commenter also urged the 

Departments to clarify that ‘‘education 

program’’ only refers to the TANF funds 

used to serve adults or teen heads of 

households in needy families, not 

dependent children in low-income 

households. 

Departments’ Response: The addition 

of § 678.738(c)(5) provides that for 

purposes of TANF, the cap on 

contributions is determined based on 

total Federal TANF funds expended by 

the State for ‘‘work, education, and 

training activities’’ during the prior 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55914 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal fiscal year as reported by States 

to HHS on the Quarterly TANF 

Financial Report form (and associated 

administrative expenditures). 

Section 678.736 How does the 

Governor establish a cost allocation 

methodology used to determine the onestop partner programs’ proportionate 

shares of infrastructure costs under the 

State one-stop infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

This new section was created from 

portions of proposed § 678.735 in the 

NPRM in response to comments 

regarding the complexity of the State 

funding mechanism. The new § 678.736 

details how the Governor is to establish 

a cost allocation methodology for 

determining partner programs’ 

proportionate shares of one-stop 

infrastructure costs. The idea that 

partner programs should make 

contributions to infrastructure costs that 

are proportionate to the benefit they 

receive from one-stop centers is central 

to the funding of the one-stop delivery 

system under WIOA. There are a variety 

of methods that may be used—e.g., 

square footage occupied, number of staff 

present, number of people served—to 

make the determination of partner 

programs’ proportionate share. It is 

important that the Governor choose a 

methodology that is consistent with the 

requirements of the Uniform Guidance 

found at 2 CFR part 200. 

Section 678.737 How are one-stop 

partner programs’ proportionate shares 

of infrastructure costs determined under 

the State one-stop infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

This new section is another created 

from the NPRM’s proposed § 678.735 in 

response to comments regarding the 

complexity of the State funding 

mechanism, and details the steps that 

should be taken by the Governor to 

determine partner programs’ 

proportionate share of the one-stop 

infrastructure costs. In addition to the 

methodology determined in § 678.736, 

§ 678.737(b)(2) states that the Governor 

must take into account a number of 

factors, including the costs of 

administration of the one-stop delivery 

system for purposes not related to onestop centers for each partner, costs 

associated with maintaining the Local 

WDB or information technology 

systems, as well as the statutory 

requirements for each partner program, 

all other applicable legal requirements, 

and the partner program’s ability to 

fulfill such requirements. The Governor 

may also take into account the extent to 

which proportionate shares were agreed 

upon in the failed local negotiations, as 

well as any other elements of the 

negotiation process provided to the 

Governor per § 678.735(a). 

Section 678.738 How are statewide 

caps on the contributions for one-stop 

infrastructure funding determined in the 

State one-stop infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

This is the final new section created 

from proposed § 678.735 in response to 

comments regarding the complexity of 

the State funding mechanism, covering 

the caps that apply to program funding 

that can be designated by the Governor 

as one-stop infrastructure funding. 

Paragraph (a) of § 678.738 is a step-bystep instruction on how the Governor is 

to calculate the cap for each program. 

First, the Governor determines the 

maximum potential cap amount in the 

State by determining the amount of 

Federal funds provided to the State to 

carry out a one-stop partner program for 

the applicable fiscal year multiplied by 

the cap percentage applicable to that 

program under paragraph (c) of 

§ 678.738. Second, the Governor selects 

a factor or factors that reasonably 

indicates the use of one-stop centers in 

the State (such as the total population). 

The Governor then determines the 

percentage of that factor applicable to 

the local areas that reached consensus 

under the local funding mechanism (for 

example, 70 percent of the State 

population resides in those areas). This 

percentage is applied to the amount of 

the maximum potential cap. The 

resulting amount (70 percent of the 

maximum potential amount) is then 

deducted from the maximum potential 

cap amount to produce the applicable 

cap amount for the local areas subject to 

the State funding mechanism. This 

approach recognizes that the statewide 

caps only apply to those local areas that 

do not reach consensus, and are not 

applicable to the local areas that reach 

agreement. Therefore, the actual 

amounts of infrastructure agreed to in 

those local areas that reach agreement 

should not affect the cap amounts 

available to those local areas that do not 

reach agreement. Instead, the applicable 

cap is determined by selection and 

application of a factor or factors that 

would reflect the relative expected use 

of one-stop centers in the local areas 

subject to the cap. 

Paragraph (b) details the requirement 

that, in aggregate, a program statewide 

does not exceed the caps, including 

only those local partner programs in 

areas under the State funding 

mechanism (§ 678.738(b)(1)), as well as 

the steps to be taken in the event that 

the proportionate share of a partner 

causes a program’s aggregate 

infrastructure funding to exceed the cap 

(§ 678.738(b)(1) through (4)). 

Paragraph (c) of § 678.738 sets out the 

specific limitations put on infrastructure 

funding from each program, and 

§ 678.738(d) gives instructions on 

calculating the caps for programs for 

which it is not feasible to determine the 

amount of Federal funding used by the 

program until the end of the fiscal or 

programmatic year. While the 

methodologies of these programs 

somewhat differ in application, the 

methodologies for the CSBG and TANF 

programs are similar to that used for the 

Perkins program because in each case 

the State is asked to make a 

determination regarding the amount of 

administrative costs that are related to 

relevant education, employment, and 

training activities carried out within the 

respective program. 

The following is an example scenario 

to determine one partner program’s cap: 

Partner Program A (a WIOA formula 

program) receives [x]—in this example, 

$30 million—to carry out its program in 

the State in the applicable year. There 

are seven local areas in the State, two of 

which have not been able to reach 

consensus through the local funding 

mechanism. Because Partner Program A 

is a WIOA formula program, the 

limitation percentage [p] given in 

§ 678.738(c)(1) is applied to the Federal 

dollars received in total by the program 

statewide. The example below uses 

three percent for [p], resulting in a 

maximum potential cap of $900,000 [y]. 

The maximum potential cap [y] is 

calculated by multiplying the program 

dollars [x] by the percentage [p], in this 

example yielding $900,000. 

px = y 

.03 × 30,000,000 = 900,000 

The Governor then selects a factor [f] 

that reasonably indicates the use of onestop centers in the State—such as total 

population. The Governor then 

determines the percentage of the total 

population that resides in the local areas 

that have reached agreement. In this 

example, local areas that have reached 

agreement represent 70 percent of the 

State’s total population. Next the 

Governor applies this percentage to the 

maximum potential cap [y], $900,000, 

giving the amount of these dollars 

represented by the local areas in 

agreement [z]: $630,000. 

fy = z 

0.7 × 900,000 = 630,000 

Finally, the Governor subtracts this 

amount [z], $630,000, from maximum 

potential cap [y], $900,000, giving the 

amount of the cap to be used for those 

two areas under the State funding 

mechanism [c], $270,000. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55915 

y ¥ z = c 

900,000 ¥ 630,000 = 270,000 

This means that the aggregate of the 

infrastructure contributions made by the 

two local partner programs in local 

areas operating under the State funding 

mechanism must not exceed $270,000. 

This calculation must then be done for 

all the other partner programs in those 

local areas. 

For the VR program, WIOA sec. 

121(h)(2)(D)(ii)(III) and § 678.738(c)(3) 

establishes the limitations for the 

amount the VR program can be required 

to contribute toward the funding of the 

one-stop delivery system’s 

infrastructure costs. In the first year that 

the State funding mechanism could be 

applicable—e.g., PY 2017 beginning July 

1, 2017 (see explanation above)—the VR 

program may contribute no more than 

0.75 percent of the State’s FY 2016 VR 

allotment (see sec. 

121(h)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa)). If a local area 

fails to reach an agreement for purposes 

of PY 2018, the VR program cannot be 

required to pay more than one percent 

of its FY 2017 VR allotment (see sec. 

121(h)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(bb) of WIOA). If a 

local area fails to reach agreement for 

purposes of PY 2019, the VR program 

cannot be required to contribute more 

than 1.25 percent of its FY 2018 VR 

allotment (WIOA sec. 

121(2)(D)(ii)(III)(cc)). Finally, if a local 

area fails to reach an agreement for PY 

2020 and all subsequent years, the VR 

program cannot be required to 

contribute more than 1.5 percent of its 

FY 2019 or, as appropriate, any 

subsequent year’s VR allotment (WIOA 

sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(dd)). In States 

where there are two VR agencies (a 

general agency and a blind agency), the 

combined contribution from these 

programs cannot be required to exceed 

the cap, which is based on the total VR 

allotment to the State. In addition to this 

specific funding limitation, each 

program, including the VR program, 

must comply with the requirements of 

the program’s authorizing statute, all 

other applicable legal requirements, and 

the requirements in this subpart when 

contributing funds to cover one-stop 

center infrastructure costs. 

In determining the maximum amount 

that a VR program could contribute 

toward the one-stop infrastructure costs 

under the State funding mechanism, the 

Governor would first have to determine 

the amount of the VR allotment to the 

State for the applicable year as 

described above. Because the allotment 

amount to any given State could change 

throughout a Federal fiscal year due to 

reductions made for maintenance of 

effort deficits, funds returned for 

reallotment to other States, and 

additional funds received by a State in 

reallotment, a Governor should base the 

limitations for infrastructure costs on 

the final VR allotment amount for the 

State for the applicable Federal fiscal 

year (WIOA sec. 110 and 111 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, as amended by title 

IV of WIOA). The final VR allotment for 

any Federal fiscal year may not be 

determined until September 30 of that 

fiscal year. Prior to that time and for 

planning purposes, the Governor can 

use historical data to estimate or project 

its contributions. However, these 

fluctuations of the VR allotment in any 

particular Federal fiscal year should not 

affect the VR program’s percentage that 

can be attributed to the infrastructure 

costs under the State funding 

mechanism because the final VR 

allotment for any year would be known 

well before the implementation of the 

State funding mechanism for any 

applicable program year. 

It is important to note that WIOA sec. 

121(h)(2)(D)(ii)(III) refers to a program 

year (July 1 through June 30), not a 

Federal fiscal year (October 1 through 

September 30). However, because the 

VR program funds are provided to a 

State on a Federal fiscal year basis, the 

Departments have interpreted ‘‘program 

year’’ in this context, for purposes of 

determining the VR program’s funding 

limitations, as meaning the funds 

provided to the State to operate the VR 

program in a Federal fiscal year. 

As this section did not exist in the 

NPRM, the Departments did not receive 

any comments that directly refer to it, 

but did receive comments referring to 

some of the contributing material, 

which are discussed under § 678.635 of 

the Final Rule part 678 discussion. 

Section 678.740 What funds are used 

to pay for infrastructure costs in the 

State one-stop infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

This section describes the funding 

sources that are used under the State 

funding mechanism by WIOA title I 

programs, adult education programs, the 

Carl D. Perkins program, and other 

WIOA authorized programs. Changes 

were made in response to comments to 

§ 678.740(d), which addresses Carl D. 

Perkins program infrastructure funding 

sources. Because the State is no longer 

the default Perkins program partner, the 

Departments’ modified this section to 

state that Perkins postsecondary 

recipient one-stop partners may use 

funds available for administrative 

expenses to pay infrastructure costs and 

that these funds may be supplemented 

by any additional funds the State 

chooses to make available. A detailed 

discussion of the Departments’ 

responses to public comments received 

on this section follows immediately 

below. 

Comments: A commenter expressed 

concern that § 678.740(d) implies an 

incentive for local areas to fail to 

develop a local MOU, as defaulting to 

the State funding mechanism could 

result in local areas gaining access to 

State administrative funds. The 

commenter suggested that the 

Departments should revise this 

paragraph to clarify that this is not the 

case, particularly with regard to Perkins 

funds, and also revise other paragraphs 

in the State funding mechanism sections 

to emphasize local contributions. 

Departments’ Response: As stated 

above, § 678.740(d) has been reworded, 

which has taken the emphasis away 

from State funds and put more on local 

entities funding infrastructure costs. No 

further change to the regulatory text is 

being made in response to this 

comment. 

Comments: Another commenter made 

the opposite argument, saying that 

because this section is about a State 

funding mechanism, State funds should 

be used. The commenter also said that 

in cases where the local Perkins partner 

is entering into an MOU in the local 

funding mechanism option, the 

regulations should clarify that no local 

recipient is required to contribute more 

than the cap percentage (e.g., 1.5 

percent) in local administrative funds if 

other partners in that local area are 

unable to negotiate an MOU and the 

State process is used for those partners. 

Departments’ Response: As the State 

is no longer the default Perkins partner, 

the suggested course of action no longer 

applies to the situation. No change to 

the regulatory text was made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: A commenter said that 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

such as TANF would be limited to the 

administrative funds at their disposal. 

Another commenter said that as long as 

the costs of Senior Community Service 

Employment Program (SCSEP) funds 

spent on participants and enrollees 

assigned to the one-stop is counted 

toward the cost allocation, the 

regulations will minimize the impact on 

this program. 

Departments’ Response: The TANF 

program is not a Combined State Plan 

partner program in the one-stop delivery 

system, but rather it is a required 

partner pursuant to WIOA sec. 121(b) 

unless exempted per sec. 121(b)(1)(C). 

The SCSEP program is a required 

partner and must contribute to the 

infrastructure costs of the local one-stop 

delivery system. The allocation 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55916 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

methodology agreed upon by the partner 

programs or the Governor may include 

participant counts served by the onestop center. No change to the regulatory 

text was made in response to this 

comment. 

Section 678.745 What factors does the 

State Workforce Development Board use 

to develop the formula described in 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act sec. 121(h)(3)(B), which is used by 

the Governor to determine the 

appropriate one-stop infrastructure 

budget for each local area operating 

under the State infrastructure funding 

mechanism, if no reasonably 

implementable locally negotiated 

budget exists? 

This section also underwent 

significant changes in response to 

public comments received that stated 

that the State WDB formula provisions 

were confusing, overly complicated, and 

could violate authorizing statutes. In 

order to reduce the confusion centered 

around the formula, step-by-step 

instructions are provided on how to 

apply the formula when a locally 

negotiated budget does not exist. The 

new provisions only require the use of 

the formula in specific situations 

regarding the determination of the onestop budget by the Governor (i.e., when 

the Governor cannot, or has chosen not 

to, accept a locally agreed upon onestop budget). The formula is to identify 

factors and the associated weights of 

these factors that the Governor must 

consider when determining the one-stop 

budget under these situations. Included 

in these factors are those statutorily 

required by WIOA and any other factors 

related to the operation of the one-stop 

delivery system that the State WDB sees 

as appropriate. A detailed discussion of 

the Departments’ responses to public 

comments received on this section 

follows immediately below. 

Comments: A commenter asked how 

‘‘a redirection of Federal funds from one 

program to another will not negatively 

impact the calculation of the Perkins 

Act’s ‘maintenance of effort’ provisions 

or Federal ‘supplement not supplant’ 

provisions.’’ The commenter said that 

these provisions would likely be 

violated if any Perkins State 

administrative funds are redirected to 

one-stop infrastructure. 

Departments’ Response: Because of 

changes to this provision, the 

commenter’s concerns regarding Perkins 

State administrative funds are no longer 

applicable. Additionally, partner 

contributions must not exceed the 

partner’s proportionate share. 

Comments: Likewise, the commenter 

stated that the Departments need to 

ensure that the reallocation formula in 

this part ensures that local Perkins 

funds return to the local area from 

which they were derived in order to 

adhere to the within-State allocation 

formula of the Perkins Act, sec. 

132(a)(2). 

Departments’ Response: Again, 

because of the changes to the formula 

provision, that is that the Governor will 

never actually collect and re-allocate 

funds, this commenter’s concerns are no 

longer applicable. 

Comments: A commenter said that 

§ 678.745 should include a descriptor of 

the type of one-stop center (e.g., 

comprehensive, affiliate, satellite) in the 

funding formula policy. 

Departments’ Response: The formula 

applies to all one-stop center and 

affiliated sites under the State 

mechanism where the Governor has not 

accepted a locally agreed upon budget. 

Therefore, it is not necessary to specify 

the type of one-stop center. 

Section 678.755 What are the required 

elements regarding infrastructure 

funding that must be included in the 

one-stop Memorandum of 

Understanding? 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

urged the Departments to encourage 

shared staffing for similar partner 

positions (e.g., business development). 

These commenters said that 

encouraging partnerships beyond 

infrastructure could avoid duplication 

of efforts, particularly with respond to 

employer services. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments encourage the partners to 

consider all available means of 

integration at the one-stop centers, 

thereby improving the effectiveness and 

efficiency of the partner programs in the 

one-stop delivery system. There is 

nothing in WIOA or these final 

regulations that prohibit partner 

programs in sharing certain key staff 

positions. However, the Departments 

caution that such sharing of staff would 

necessitate the retention of adequate 

records supporting the allocation of 

personnel costs between the programs, 

which also must be consistent with the 

Uniform Guidance. Furthermore, the 

Departments reiterate that the sharing of 

staff will not be considered an 

infrastructure cost, but it may be paid 

with other funds in accordance with 

WIOA sec. 121(i). 

Section 678.760 How do one-stop 

partners jointly fund other shared costs 

under the Memorandum of 

Understanding? 

The Departments added paragraph (c) 

to explain that contributions to the 

additional costs related to operation of 

the one-stop delivery system may be 

cash, non-cash, or third-party in-kind 

contributions. This addition is 

consistent with the changes made in 

§ 678.720(c). As a result the remaining 

paragraphs were renumbered. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

expressed confusion about whether the 

1.5 percent spending cap for 

infrastructure costs for the title II 

program includes the joint contribution 

to funding the costs of career services. 

One commenter recommended that it 

include the cost of career services so 

that more funds are available to provide 

AEFLA services. 

Departments’ Response: Contribution 

to shared cost including career services 

are separate from contributions for 

infrastructure cost and thus the 1.5 

percent cap on contributions does not 

apply to shared cost. 

Comments: Two commenters 

requested a definition of ‘‘additional 

costs relating to the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system.’’ Another 

commenter asked whether this phrase 

includes the cost for the one-stop 

operator. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments will not define additional 

costs. By allowing States to define 

additional costs, they will be in a better 

position of assisting their local areas in 

meeting the demand and challenges of 

operating a one-stop delivery system. 

No change to the regulatory text was 

made in response to these comments. 

7. One-Stop Certification (20 CFR Part 

678, Subpart F [678.800]; 34 CFR 

361.800; 34 CFR 463.800) 

Subpart F of part 678 implements the 

requirements in WIOA sec. 121(g) that 

the Local WDB certify the one-stop 

center every 3 years. The certification 

process is important to setting a 

minimum level of quality and 

consistency of services in one-stop 

centers across a State. The certification 

criteria allow States to set standard 

expectations for customer-focused 

seamless services from a network of 

employment, training, and related 

services that help individuals overcome 

barriers to becoming and staying 

employed. 

The one major change to this section 

from what was published in the NPRM 

was made in response to comments 

regarding the use of the provision of 

services beyond regular business hours 

as a certification factor for one-stop 

centers. While the Departments have 

retained this as a certification criterion, 

the language has been changed at 

§ 678.800(b) to make the consideration 

of this factor conditional on the Local 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55917 

WDB determining that there is a need in 

the local area for such an extension of 

service hours. The Departments also 

would like to assure readers that it is 

highly unlikely that a one-stop center’s 

certification would hinge on such a 

factor, as there are many criteria that 

must be taken into account in the 

certification process. 

Section 678.800 How are one-stop 

centers and one-stop delivery systems 

certified for effectiveness, physical and 

programmatic accessibility, and 

continuous improvement? 

General Comments About One-Stop 

Certification 

Comments: Several commenters 

addressed the proposed timelines for 

one-stop certification and updates to the 

evaluation criteria. A commenter stated 

that the proposed timelines could 

conflict or overlap. A few commenters 

suggested that all reviews should be on 

a 4-year cycle. A few State and Local 

WDBs recommended that the 

certification criteria be updated every 3 

years to match the certification process. 

A few commenters asserted that it is 

impractical for all Local WDBs to 

update the local additional certification 

criteria every 2 years as part of the local 

plan update process. Another 

commenter suggested that both 

timelines should be event-dependent. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have made no substantive 

changes to this section other than the 

changes to § 678.800(a)(1) and (b) 

discussed below. The timelines related 

to one-stop certification are statutory: 

Certification every 3 years from WIOA 

sec. 121(g)(1) and updated criteria every 

2 years from WIOA sec. 121(g)(5). 

However, the regulations require 

certification ‘‘at least’’ every 3 years, 

and Local WDBs may certify more often 

if it helps align timelines with other 

efforts. No change to the regulatory text 

was made in response to this comment. 

Comments: One commenter asserted 

that giving Local WDBs the authority to 

certify one-stop centers creates a 

conflict of interest. Another commenter 

stated that Local WDBs that are one-stop 

operators are currently permitted to 

certify themselves. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that Local WDBs 

should not certify themselves but have 

not made changes to this section as 

§ 678.800(a)(3) already stated that State 

WDBs must certify one-stop centers 

when the Local WDB is the one-stop 

operator. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that the Departments should provide 

guidance to State WDBs on developing 

objective criteria and training or 

assistance the State WDBs can share 

with Local WDBs on implementing 

certification procedures. 

Departments’ Response: On August 

13, 2015, the Departments issued a joint 

vision for the implementation of 

American Job Centers as TEGL No. 04– 

15, and have released other technical 

assistance materials since then as well. 

All of these guidance documents and 

other pieces of guidance relating to 

WIOA may be found at http://

wdr.doleta.gov/directives/All_WIOA_

Related_Advisories.cfm, www2.ed.gov/

about/offices/list/osers/rsa/wioareauthorization.html, and www2.ed.gov/ 

policy/adulted/guid/memoranda.html. 

The Departments’ staffs continue to 

remain available for technical 

assistance. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

the State Plan should define the 

certification process for the one-stop 

delivery system. 

Departments’ Response: The State 

Plan may include the one-stop 

certification process if a State wishes to 

include it, but the Departments do not 

consider it appropriate or necessary to 

require such an inclusion in the State 

Plan. No change to the regulatory text 

was made in response to this comment. 

Comments: Another commenter 

recommended that certification criteria 

focus on system performance instead of 

program performance; effective 

communication and data sharing across 

systems while safeguarding information; 

and availability of diverse and necessary 

resources at one-stops. 

Departments’ Response: States that 

wish to focus on certain aspects of onestop center quality can establish criteria 

for those aspects, but the statutorily 

required criteria at WIOA sec. 121(g)(2) 

must be included. The State WDBestablished criteria create a baseline of 

consistency across the State, and States 

can establish policies about processes 

and methods. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

this comment. 

Comments: A few commenters 

suggested that the State WDB should 

consult with Local WDBs when 

updating certification criteria. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree and have revised 

§ 678.800(a)(1) to clarify that the State 

WDB must consult with chief elected 

officials and Local WDBs when it 

reviews and updates criteria, not only 

when it establishes criteria. 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested flexibility for States to 

determine the certification method, 

while other commenters stated that all 

Local WDBs should use the same 

process to certify one-stops. 

Departments’ Response: While all 

Local WDBs within a State must use the 

State required certification criteria, 

WIOA sec. 121(g)(3) allows Local WDBs 

to establish additional criteria to be 

used in that local area as well. The 

Departments have concluded that Local 

WDBs should be able to choose the 

process for certifying one-stop centers 

that works best for each local area. No 

change to the regulatory text was made 

in response to these comments. 

Comments: A commenter asked 

whether the State WDB has discretion to 

determine the method of certification, 

and whether the State WDB can delegate 

the certification process. 

Departments’ Response: The State 

WDB does not certify, but it must set the 

certification criteria. The Departments 

have determined that this responsibility 

is an important strategy to establish 

quality one-stop centers and have not 

incorporated the suggestion to allow the 

State WDB to delegate it. The State WDB 

must approve the final certification 

criteria. 

Comments: Another commenter asked 

whether the intent is to certify each onestop center or the local area one-stop 

delivery system. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

121(g)(4) and this section of the 

regulation state that the Local WDB 

must certify one-stop centers, not the 

one-stop delivery system. Although the 

same criteria used to make this 

certification are to be used in evaluating 

a local area’s one-stop delivery system, 

there is no certification process for the 

one-stop delivery systems themselves, 

only the one-stop centers that together 

make up the one-stop delivery system. 

Comments: A few commenters asked 

what would happen if the one-stop 

center does not meet the evaluation 

criteria or get certified. 

Departments’ Response: Paragraph (d) 

of § 678.800 and WIOA sec. 121(g)(4) 

state that local areas that do not certify 

their one-stop centers are not eligible to 

use infrastructure funding under the 

State infrastructure option until such 

certification is complete. Local WDBs 

can consider ramifications for failing 

one-stop certifications in their one-stop 

operator contracts. 

Comments: One commenter asked 

whether technical assistance will be 

provided to one-stop centers that fail 

certification. 

Departments’ Response: States may 

provide technical assistance to one-stop 

centers that fail certification or to any 

other one-stop center that may require 

or ask for it. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55918 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Evaluations of Effectiveness 

Comments: Several commenters 

expressed concern regarding the 

requirement to include the provision of 

service outside of regular business hours 

as a factor to be considered when 

evaluating one-stop center effectiveness, 

stating that many one-stop centers may 

not be able to provide such services and 

that an inability to do so should not 

count against them. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered these concerns, 

and have determined that this should 

still remain one of the many factors to 

be considered in evaluating one-stop 

center effectiveness. Paragraph (b) of 

§ 678.800, however, was revised to 

include that the consideration of this 

factor is conditional on whether the 

applicable Local WDB has determined 

there is a workforce need for the 

provision of service outside of regular 

business hours. The Departments stress 

that this is one of many factors to be 

taken into account when evaluating 

effectiveness, and that it is very unlikely 

that a one-stop center will fail to qualify 

for certification solely for not providing 

services outside of regular business 

hours. 

Comments: Several commenters 

remarked that the NPRM’s inclusion of 

customer satisfaction in the evaluation 

of a one-stop center’s effectiveness goes 

beyond what is included in WIOA. The 

commenters stated that, while this is an 

important measure, it is not necessarily 

a measure of effectiveness, and it is also 

subjective. 

Departments’ Response: This 

provision is supported by the statutory 

requirement to consider how well a onestop center meets the workforce 

development needs of local employers 

and participants in WIOA sec. 

121(g)(2)(B)(iii). The Departments have 

determined that reviewing customer 

satisfaction is an important part of 

knowing whether services to employers 

and participants are effective and meet 

their needs, and will aid one-stop 

operators, Local WDBs, and State WDBs 

in the continued improvement of the 

one-stop delivery system required by 

WIOA. For this reason, the Departments 

have not removed this requirement from 

the regulations. No change to the 

regulatory text was made in response to 

these comments. 

Comments: Another commenter stated 

that Local WDBs could assess customer 

satisfaction through surveys centered on 

the one-stop center’s responsiveness to 

the needs of employers and customers, 

the availability and quality of 

workshops, and the repeat usage over a 

period of time. 

Departments’ Response: The 

regulations are not specific on how 

customer satisfaction must be measured 

and the Departments have concluded 

that State WDBs and Local WDBs can 

determine how best to include it as a 

component of a one-stop certification 

criteria. 

Comments: Two commenters said that 

the proposed performance 

accountability metrics already address 

customer satisfaction. 

Departments’ Response: To clarify, 

the proposed accountability metrics 

concerning customer satisfaction and 

the requirements in § 678.800 related to 

customer satisfaction are referring to the 

same mechanism. This section gives the 

requirement to review and apply the 

customer satisfaction data to measure 

the effectiveness of one-stop centers; the 

actual measure, its technical aspects, 

and the timing of the data collection are 

outlined in § 677.160 (see Joint WIOA 

Final Rule). 

Comments: A few commenters 

asserted that the most efficient and 

effective systems are where the Local 

WDB is the one-stop operator. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have determined that 

regular measurements of effectiveness 

and efficiency will assist States in 

determining the most effective one-stop 

operator, including whether it is 

effective and efficient for a Local WDB 

to be the operator. 

Evaluations of Accessibility 

Comments: Several commenters 

expressed support for the Departments’ 

dedication to ensuring accessibility to 

individuals with disabilities. A few 

commenters also stated that the 

requirement for one-stop centers to be 

programmatically and physically 

accessible should be reiterated in this 

part. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree and have updated 

§ 678.800(e) to clarify that all one-stop 

centers must be programmatically, as 

well as physically, accessible. 

Comments: A few commenters also 

suggested that the language on programs 

being in integrated settings should be 

stronger and use the phrase ‘‘in an 

integrated setting’’ rather than ‘‘in the 

most integrated setting appropriate.’’ 

The commenters also stated that 

programs should be in communitybased settings. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have retained the phrase 

‘‘in the most integrated setting 

appropriate’’ to describe our 

expectations for integrated and 

community-based settings in order to 

remain consistent with WIOA sec. 188 

and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that the Departments should provide 

full accessibility and be in full 

compliance with civil rights laws, the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, and 

secs. 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation 

Act. The commenter further stated that 

one-stop operators should have 

additional training on the importance of 

full accessibility to individuals with 

disabilities for all services. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments are fully committed to 

accessibility and adhering to civil rights 

laws. The regulation reiterates the 

requirement for full accessibility in 

§§ 678.800(e), 678.305, and 678.310. 

The Departments have provided, and 

will continue to provide, technical 

assistance on accessibility. No change to 

the regulatory text was made in 

response to this comment. 

Comments: Another commenter stated 

that there should be transparency in 

reporting States’ performance in 

physical and programmatic access. 

Departments’ Response: The DOL 

currently is conducting a study of 

accessibility in one-stop centers, which 

will be published and made available to 

the public when completed in the 

summer of 2016. Potential violations of 

civil rights laws, including the 

inadequate provision of programmatic 

and physical accessibility, are 

investigated by DOL’s Civil Rights 

Center, which may share major findings 

with the public. States also can improve 

transparency by making certification 

results public. 

Comments: One commenter expressed 

concern that accessibility evaluation 

criteria and guidelines will be 

determined by the State and Local 

WDBs. The commenter recommended 

the Departments establish general 

guidelines for minimum standards, 

targets, and metrics. 

Departments’ Response: The 

regulations keep the determination of 

accessibility criteria as a responsibility 

of the State and Local WDBs, as 

required by statute, but such criteria 

must meet, at a minimum, the legal 

standards established by the regulations 

implementing WIOA sec. 188, set forth 

at 29 CFR part 38. DOL has issued best 

practices in how recipients can comply 

with accessibility laws in a guide shared 

in Training and Employment Notice No. 

01–15, ‘‘Promising Practices in 

Achieving Universal Access and Equal 

Opportunity: A Section 188 Disability 

Reference Guide.’’ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55919 

Evaluations of Continuous Improvement 

Comments: A commenter expressed 

concern about the use of performance 

outcome data in evaluations of 

continuous improvement because it may 

not be timely enough to identify and 

resolve issues. 

Departments’ Response: States have 

the flexibility to add additional data to 

the criteria that are more timely if they 

wish, but the Departments have 

determined that no additional data other 

than that which is already included in 

the regulations should be required. 

8. Common Identifier (20 CFR part 678, 

subpart G [678.900]; 34 CFR 361.900; 34 

CFR 463.900) 

The regulations in 20 CFR part 678, 

subpart G and 34 CFR 361.900 and 

463.900 promote increased public 

identification of the one-stop delivery 

system through use of a common 

identifier across the nation, consistent 

with WIOA sec. 121(e)(4). Section 

678.900 designates the name ‘‘American 

Job Center’’ as the common identifier for 

the one-stop delivery system. This 

designation was made by the Secretaries 

after consulting with the heads of other 

appropriate departments and agencies, 

representatives of State WDBs and Local 

WDBs, and other stakeholders in the 

one-stop delivery system through 

various means. This was a process 

started under WIA, and many one-stop 

centers are already incorporating use of 

either the ‘‘American Job Center’’ title or 

the associated tag line ‘‘proud partner of 

the American Job Center network’’ into 

their branding. 

The major changes in this section in 

response to comments relate to the date 

by which rebranding of the one-stop 

centers is to be complete. The date by 

which one-stop centers are required to 

rebrand all of their primary electronic 

resources, such as Web sites has been 

changed to [90 days from the 

publication of this Final Rule] instead of 

July 1, 2016, which will provide a 

reasonable time to effectuate this 

provision. Additionally, any new 

products and materials printed, 

purchased or created after [90 days from 

the publication of this Final Rule] must 

comply with the new branding 

requirements. However the Departments 

have determined that extending the 

deadline to July 1, 2017 for other 

branding, including activities, physical 

products and signage, would allow an 

appropriate amount of time for the 

rebranding to be completed. 

Additionally, the Departments will not 

object if the one-stop centers continue to 

use materials not using the ‘‘American 

Job Center’’ branding which are created 

before [90 days from the publication of 

this Final Rule] until those supplies are 

exhausted. 

Section 678.900 What is the common 

identifier to be used by each one-stop 

delivery system? 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed opposition to the use of 

American Job Center as a common 

identifier. Several commenters said that 

they already have a common brand used 

in their State, and it would be confusing 

to the public to discontinue the use of 

an existing brand and begin utilizing 

new logos and branding. A few Local 

WDBs asked that States have flexibility 

in branding, such as by utilizing 

‘‘American Job Centers of [State name].’’ 

Another commenter suggested that 

centers should be permitted to utilize 

their program name, followed by ‘‘a 

partner in America’s Workforce 

System.’’ One commenter requested a 

waiver for States that already have a 

widely known brand. Another Local 

WDB commented that the Departments 

should allow States with approved 

names under WIA be able to continue to 

use those names. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments are not requiring that any 

State or local area discontinue use of 

their existing name or brand. The 

Departments recognize that many States 

and local areas use their own brand, 

some of which are well known. The 

requirement in § 678.900(c) to use either 

the ‘‘American Job Center’’ identifier or 

‘‘a proud partner of the American Job 

Center network’’ as a tag line already 

allows the usage of other identifiers or 

brands or logos. One-stop centers that 

want to use their existing name 

followed by a tagline may use their 

name along with ‘‘a proud partner of the 

American Job Center network;’’ the use 

of ‘‘a partner in America’s Workforce 

System’’ alone would not meet the 

requirement. The Departments have 

concluded that this section adequately 

states that the use of additional 

identifiers is permitted, and what the 

tagline requirement is, and so have not 

made changes in response to these 

comments. States that wish to use 

‘‘American Job Center of [State name]’’ 

would be including the American Job 

Center identifier, and thus in 

compliance with this regulation. While 

the Departments did not make a change 

to list different permutations that would 

be allowed, the Departments will issue 

guidance on the usage of the identifier. 

Comments: Some commenters 

suggested that the identifier use 

‘‘career’’ instead of ‘‘jobs.’’ Some 

commenters also stated that American 

Job Center implies that only citizens can 

be served. One commenter asked what 

‘‘American’’ means in this context. 

Another commenter stated that 

American Job Center implies that only 

one service—job placement assistance— 

is available, and does not address the 

other services available at one-stop 

centers. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered the concerns 

about ‘‘Job’’ and ‘‘American’’ shared by 

commenters but have maintained the 

name American Job Center. The 

Departments see value in both ‘‘Job’’ for 

its simplicity, directness, and 

description of the end goal of virtually 

all services; the Departments also see 

value in ‘‘Career’’ for its emphasis on 

growth. In deciding between the two, 

the Departments have chosen to 

continue to use ‘‘job’’ because many 

States and local areas have already 

adopted ‘‘American Job Center’’ or have 

incorporated the ‘‘proud partner of the 

American Job Center network’’ tag line 

into their established branding. 

Additionally, ‘‘American’’ is not meant 

to imply that only citizens can be 

served, but used to communicate that 

the centers are part of a nation-wide 

system. 

Comments: A few commenters asked 

the Departments what the logo is for the 

common identifier. Some commenters 

asked that the new logo or icon be 

something simple that can be added to 

existing signage without changing the 

names of existing centers. Some 

commenters stated that they needed 

clearer expectations to implement the 

common identifier. 

One commenter expressed support for 

the proposed common identifier. A few 

commenters expressed support for the 

flexibility provided by the use of ‘‘a 

proud partner of the American Job 

Center network’’ alongside existing 

brands. Another commenter supported 

the use of a common identifier, but 

cautioned that improper use of the logo, 

brand, or tagline could dilute the brand 

or mislead the public. This commenter 

stated that American Job Center should 

be utilized only for comprehensive onestop centers, with ‘‘A proud partner of 

the American Job Center Network’’ 

permitted to be used at other sites. The 

commenter also recommended that the 

Departments trademark the common 

identifier. 

Departments’ Response: The logo for 

American Job Center is available at 

www.dol.gov/ajc and its use, 

implementation expectations, and 

suggestions for adoption at various price 

points will be released in upcoming 

guidance and technical assistance. In 

order to allow job seekers and 

employers to find all the locations that 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55920 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

could assist them, the Departments are 

continuing to allow all one-stop centers, 

comprehensive and affiliate, to use 

‘‘American Job Center’’ or the tagline ‘‘a 

proud partner of the American Job 

Center network.’’ The DOL has 

trademarked the identifier American Job 

Center, as a commenter suggested. 

Comments: A few commenters 

asserted that this will be an expensive 

unfunded mandate for most States, and 

requested that the Departments provide 

funding to States to help pay for the cost 

to print new materials and change 

signage, or else make this requirement 

optional. One commenter also asked 

that the Departments phase in the 

change more slowly. Other commenters 

urged the Departments to allow one-stop 

centers to phase in the change as they 

print new materials. 

A few commenters requested 

clarification regarding the deadline for 

implementation. They stated that the 

NPRM regulatory text indicated onestop centers must utilize the new 

identifier by July 1, 2016, but the NPRM 

preamble stated that the identifier be in 

place during PY 2016, or by June 30, 

2017. The commenter requested the 

later date, reasoning that changing 

signage and materials by July 1, 2016 

would be cost prohibitive. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize that there is a 

cost associated with adopting the 

common identifier, and has extended 

the timeframe in which one-stop centers 

must include the identifier, to require 

that one-stop centers use it on Web sites 

and online materials by [90 days from 

the publication of this Final Rule], on 

new products and materials purchased 

or created after July 1, 2016 and on all 

other activities, materials, buildings, 

and signs by July 1, 2017. These changes 

are reflected in § 678.900(b) and (c). 

Implementing the identifier is an 

allowable use of WIOA title I funds. The 

Departments will release suggestions for 

adopting the identifier at various price 

points in upcoming guidance and 

technical assistance. 

While one-stop centers will be 

expected to provide the ‘‘American Job 

Center’’ or ‘‘proud partner of the 

American Job Center network’’ branding 

on any newly printed, purchased or 

created materials after [90 days from the 

publication of this Final Rule], this does 

not require one-stop centers to discard 

previously obtained materials. The 

Departments will not object to use of 

any materials lacking the branding that 

were printed, purchased, or created 

before this initial deadline until 

supplies are exhausted, regardless of the 

final implementation date of July 1, 

2017. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 678.900 

have been modified to reflect the 

revision of the date when this policy 

goes into effect. 

In addition to the regulatory text 

changes discussed above, various nonsubstantive changes have been made for 

purposes of correcting typographical 

errors and improving clarity that have 

not been necessary to note elsewhere. 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 directs 

agencies, in deciding whether and how 

to regulate, to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives, including the alternative of 

not regulating. E.O. 13563 is 

supplemental to and reaffirms E.O. 

12866. It emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying current and future costs and 

benefits; directs that regulations be 

developed with public participation; 

and, where relevant and feasible, directs 

that regulatory approaches be 

considered that reduce burdens, 

harmonize rules across agencies, and 

maintain flexibility and freedom of 

choice for the public. Costs and benefits 

should include both quantifiable 

measures and qualitative assessments of 

possible impacts that are difficult to 

quantify. If regulation is necessary, 

agencies should select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

The OMB determines whether a 

regulatory action is significant and, 

therefore, is subject to review. 

Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as any 

action that is likely to result in a rule 

that could: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising from legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in E.O. 12866. 

The Final Rule is a significant 

regulatory action under sec. 3(f) of E.O. 

12866. The economic effects of the costs 

that will result from the changes in this 

Final Rule are economically significant. 

Outline of the Analysis 

Section V.A.1 describes the need for 

the Joint WIOA Final Rule and section 

V.A.2 describes the alternatives that 

were considered in this rule’s NPRM. 

Section V.A.3 summarizes the public 

comments received related to the 

NPRM, and comments received related 

to the VR program-specific requirements 

set forth in the NPRM on ‘‘State 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

Program; State Supported Employment 

Services Program; Limitations on Use of 

Subminimum Wage.’’ Section V.A.3 also 

provides the Departments’ responses to 

the comments. Section V.A.4 describes 

the process used to estimate the costs of 

this Final Rule and the general inputs 

used, such as wages and number of 

affected entities. Section V.A.5 explains 

updates made to the assumptions and 

inputs used in the analysis of this Final 

Rule relative to the assumptions and 

inputs used in the analysis of the 

NPRM. Section V.A.5 also describes 

how these changes affected the costs of 

this Final Rule. Section V.A.6 describes 

how the provisions of this Final Rule 

will result in quantifiable costs and 

presents the calculations the 

Departments used to estimate them. 

Finally, section V.A.7 summarizes the 

estimated first-year and 10-year total 

costs and describes the benefits and 

transfers that may result from this Final 

Rule. 

Summary of the Analysis 

The DOL and ED, hereafter 

collectively referred to as ‘‘the 

Departments,’’ provide the following 

summary of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA): 

(1) This Final Rule is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under sec. 3(f)(4) of 

E.O. 12866 and, accordingly, OMB has 

reviewed the Final Rule. 

(2) This Final Rule is not expected to 

have a significant cost impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Departments estimate that this 

Final Rule will generate benefits 

(including some that take the form of 

cost reductions). Because of the nature 

of these benefits, the Departments are 

not able to quantify them, but rather 

describe them qualitatively in the 

‘‘Regulatory Benefits’’ section. As 

shown in Exhibit 1, over the 10-year 

period, this Final Rule is estimated to 

have an undiscounted total cost of 

$626.8 million. This is equivalent to an 

estimated annual cost of $62.7 million. 

With 7-percent discounting over the 10- 

year period, the Final Rule will result in 

an estimated total cost of $495.2 

million. This is equivalent to an 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55921 

estimated annualized cost of $70.5 

million (with 7-percent discounting). 

EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED MONETIZED

COSTS OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF

LABOR AND EDUCATION FINAL RULE

(2015 DOLLARS) ($ MIL) 

Undiscounted 10-Year Total ............. $626.8 

10-Year Total with 3% Discounting .. 558.9 

10-Year Total with 7% Discounting .. 495.2 

10-Year Average .............................. 62.7 

Annualized with 3% Discounting ...... 65.5 

Annualized with 7% Discounting ...... 70.5 

The largest contributor to the total 

cost of the rule is the implementation of 

performance accountability 

requirements contained in sec. 116 of 

WIOA. The largest of these costs include 

the development and updating of State 

performance accountability systems, 

followed by performance reporting 

requirements, and adjusting levels of 

performance. See section V.A.6 

(Subject-by-Subject Cost-Benefit 

Analysis) for a detailed explanation. 

The Departments were unable to 

quantify several important benefits to 

society due to data limitations and lack 

of existing data or evaluation findings. 

We qualitatively describe the benefits 

related to increased alignment of 

training with local labor markets using 

economic, education, and workforce 

data. In addition, based on a review of 

empirical studies (primarily studies 

published in peer-reviewed academic 

publications and studies we sponsored), 

we identified the following societal 

benefits: (1) Training services increase 

job placement rates; (2) participants in 

occupational training experience higher 

reemployment rates; (3) training is 

associated with higher earnings; and (4) 

State performance accountability 

measures, combined with the Board 

membership provision requiring 

employer/business representation, can 

be expected to improve the quality of 

the training and, ultimately, the number 

and caliber of job placements. We 

identified several channels through 

which these benefits might be achieved, 

including: (1) Better information about 

training providers enables workers to 

make more informed choices about 

programs to pursue; and (2) enhanced 

services for dislocated workers, selfemployed individuals, and workers 

with disabilities will lead to the benefits 

discussed above. 

In addition, the Departments 

qualitatively describe an ancillary 

benefit to the DOL-administered core 

programs that is expected to result from 

the integration of DOL program 

participant records. While the 

integration of these participant records 

is not required by WIOA or these 

implementing regulations, it is highly 

encouraged. For a detailed description 

of the regulatory and ancillary benefits 

of the Final Rule, see section V.A.7 

(Summary of Analysis). 

1. Need for Regulation 

Section 503(f)(1) of WIOA requires 

publication of implementing 

regulations. These regulations will 

ensure that States implement 

requirements under WIOA efficiently 

and effectively. In addition, such 

regulations will provide Congress and 

others with uniform information 

necessary to evaluate the outcomes of 

WIOA. 

2. Alternatives to the Required 

Publication of Regulations 

OMB Circular A–4, which outlines 

best practices in regulatory analysis, 

directs agencies to analyze alternatives 

outside the scope of their current legal 

authority if such alternatives best satisfy 

the philosophy and principles of E.O. 

12866. Although WIOA provides little 

regulatory discretion, the Departments 

assessed, to the extent feasible, 

alternatives to the regulations. 

As described in the NPRM, the 

Departments considered alternatives to 

accomplish the objectives of WIOA, 

which also would minimize any 

significant economic impact on small 

entities. This analysis considered the 

extent to which WIOA’s prescriptive 

language presented regulatory options 

that also would allow for achieving 

WIOA’s programmatic goals. In many 

instances, we have reiterated WIOA’s 

language in the regulatory text, and have 

expanded some language to provide 

clarification and guidance. The 

additional regulatory guidance should 

result in more efficient program 

administration by reducing ambiguities 

caused by unclear statutory language. 

In addition, the Departments 

considered the issuance of subregulatory guidance in lieu of additional 

regulations. This policy option has two 

primary benefits to the regulated 

community. First, sub-regulatory 

guidance will be issued following 

publication of the Final Rule, thereby 

allowing States and local areas 

additional time to adhere to additional 

guidance. Second, sub-regulatory 

guidance is more flexible, allowing for 

faster modifications and any subsequent 

issuances, as necessary. 

The Departments considered three 

possible alternatives in the NPRM: 

(1) Implement the legislative changes 

prescribed in WIOA, as noted in this 

Final Rule, thereby satisfying the 

legislative mandate; 

(2) Take no action, that is, attempt to 

implement WIOA using existing 

regulations promulgated under WIA; or 

(3) Publish no regulation and rescind 

existing WIA regulations, which would 

result in non-compliance with the 

WIOA requirement to publish 

implementing regulations. 

The Departments considered these 

three options in accordance with the 

provisions of E.O. 12866 and concluded 

that publishing the WIOA Final Rule— 

that is, the first alternative—was the 

only appropriate option. We considered 

the second alternative—retaining 

existing WIA regulations as the guide 

for WIOA implementation—but WIOA 

has changed WIA’s requirements 

substantially enough that new 

implementing regulations are necessary 

for the public workforce system to 

achieve compliance. We considered, but 

rejected, the third alternative—not to 

publish implementing regulations and 

rescind existing WIA regulations— 

because this option, inherently, does not 

provide sufficient detailed guidance to 

implement the statutory requirements 

effectively. 

In addition to the regulatory 

alternatives noted above, the 

Departments also considered phasing in 

certain elements of WIOA over time 

(different compliance dates), thereby 

allowing States and localities more time 

for planning and successful 

implementation. As a policy option, this 

alternative appears appealing in a broad 

theoretical sense and, where feasible, 

we have recognized and made 

allowances for different implementation 

schedules. However, with the exception 

of these allowances, we are not 

implementing an alternative that delays 

certain requirements for the following 

two reasons: (1) Implementation delays 

are not operationally feasible because 

many critical WIOA elements depend 

on the implementation of other 

provisions, and (2) the costs associated 

with additional implementation delays 

beyond those noted in this Final Rule 

could outweigh the benefits of 

alternative starting dates. 

3. General Comments Received on the 

Economic Analysis in the NPRM 

The Departments received several 

public comments regarding the 

economic analysis, presented RIA in the 

NPRM for this rule, and a few other 

comments regarding the economic 

analysis related to the VR program 

specifically as set forth in the NPRM on 

‘‘State Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services Program; State Supported 

Employment Services Program; 

Limitations on Use of Subminimum 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55922 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1The NPRM for ‘‘State Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services Program; State Supported Employment 

Services Program; Limitations on Use of 

Subminimum Wage’’ was published at 80 FR 21059 

on April 16, 2015. It can be accessed at http://

regulations.gov. 

2U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration. (2015). Archive of State 

Statutory Formula Funding. Retrieved from: 

https://www.doleta.gov/budget/py01_py09_arra_

archive.cfm. The Departments used data from the 

following files to estimate the average annual WIA 

budget: WIA Adult Activities Program (Program 

Years [PYs] 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014); WIA 

Dislocated Worker Activities Program (PYs 2011, 

2012, 2013, and 2014); and WIA Youth Activities 

(PYs 2012, 2013, and 2014). Note that for the adult 

and dislocated worker activities programs, each 

fiscal year’s funding is calculated as the sum of the 

program year’s July funding and the previous 

program year’s October funding. The youth 

activities funding is obligated to States in April and 

corresponds to the fiscal year in which it is 

obligated. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). 

Department of Education Budget Tables. Retrieved 

from: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/

tables.html?src=ct. The Departments used data from 

the following files to estimate the average annual 

WIA budget: Congressional Action (FYs 2012, 2013, 

and 2014). 

Wage’’ (80 FR 21059 (April 16, 2015)).1

We considered all comments received. 

The significant comments and 

summaries of the Departments’ analyses 

of those comments are discussed in the 

following two sections, depending on 

whether the comments relate to jointly 

administered requirements set forth in 

the NPRM for this Final Rule or the 

comments relate to VR program-specific 

requirements as set forth in the NPRM 

on ‘‘State Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services Program; State Supported 

Employment Services Program; 

Limitations on Use of Subminimum 

Wage.’’ Comments that pertain only to 

the VR program, and not jointly 

administered requirements, will be 

summarized here, but ED will address 

them directly in the Final Rule for 

‘‘State Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services Program; State Supported 

Employment Services Program; 

Limitations on Use of Subminimum 

Wage,’’ which is published in this 

edition of the Federal Register. 

a. Discussion of Public Comments 

Related to This Rule’s NPRM 

i. Contextualizing the Costs of WIOA 

To provide context for the costs of the 

NPRM in the RIA, the Departments 

expressed the annual cost of the NPRM 

relative to the average annual amount 

made available to the six core programs 

in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2012, 2013, and 

2014 under WIA.2 Based on an average 

annual total Federal appropriation of 

$6.4 billion for the 3 fiscal years for 

these programs, the proportional annual 

cost of the NPRM was between 2.6 

percent and 2.7 percent (using 3-percent 

and 7-percent discounting, 

respectively). 

Comments: A commenter asserted 

that the incremental cost burden should 

not be compared to the total funds made 

available for these six programs under 

WIA, but instead should be compared to 

the administrative funds available to the 

States because this will be the funding 

source for a majority of the new 

requirements. 

Departments’ Response: In section 

V.A.7 (Summary of Analysis) of this 

Final Rule, the Departments present the 

incremental burden of WIOA both as a 

proportion of the average annual 

appropriation for carrying out these 

programs under WIA and as a 

proportion of the administrative and 

transition funds that might be used for 

WIOA implementation. 

ii. The Value of Common Exit 

In the NPRM, the Departments sought 

public comments on the value of a 

cross-program definition of exit (i.e., a 

‘‘common exit’’) that is based on the last 

date of service (other than self-service or 

information only activities) from all core 

programs, rather than a program-specific 

exit as proposed in the NPRM. Under a 

common exit, an individual would have 

to complete services from all core 

programs from which he or she received 

services to exit from the system. 

Comments: Several commenters 

stated that a common exit approach 

would be costly. Specifically, some of 

these commenters asserted that a 

requirement to report a common exit 

would be prohibitive to States because 

a single Management Information 

System (MIS) does not exist for all core 

programs. Another commenter indicated 

that, in addition to the very large costs 

that would result from the interfaces 

that would need to be built across 

programs, additional labor hours would 

be required to track the exit dates of 

other programs. Other commenters 

indicated that some of their clients who 

cannot complete instructional services 

might continue to use their services for 

years if other options are not developed. 

These commenters further stated that 

data systems would need to have the 

capacity to hold clients’ data for years, 

which could result in significant costs. 

On the other hand, one commenter 

remarked that the lack of a common exit 

would result in the need for more 

information technology (IT) resources, 

such as increased storage space. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have revised these final 

regulations to permit—but not require— 

WIOA title I and Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service DOL programs to 

collect and report common exit data. 

Common exit data collection and 

reporting will not be permitted or 

required for core programs under titles 

II and IV of WIOA. 

Although the Departments have 

concluded an integrated system that 

would track common exits for an 

individual is a vision for the workforce 

development system, an integrated 

system is not a requirement under 

WIOA or these final regulations. 

Furthermore, because the common exit 

approach is optional, we have not 

concluded that it would cause providers 

to extend the duration of program 

services artificially. In addition, we 

have no way to anticipate how many, if 

any, States will implement the common 

exit approach. For these reasons, no 

costs are included in this analysis 

related to the implementation of the 

optional common exit approach, 

including the cost of developing 

integrated systems or artificially 

extending the duration of services. 

iii. Primary Indicators of Performance 

Several commenters addressed the 

costs of implementing proposed 

requirements related to some of the 

primary indicators of performance. 

Comments: A few commenters 

indicated concerns about tracking 

program participants to determine if 

they had attained a postsecondary 

credential or a secondary school 

diploma within 1 year after exiting the 

program. These commenters stated that 

no system is in place to collect and track 

such information and asserted that 

doing so would be very staff intensive 

and costly. Commenters also expressed 

concern that major changes would be 

needed to their MISs to track data on 

individuals who had exited the 

program. 

Departments’ Response: Although the 

Departments understand the concerns 

expressed by commenters, we want to 

make clear that the performance 

indicators proposed in the NPRM and 

contained in these final regulations are 

consistent with the statutory 

requirements set forth in sec. 

116(b)(2)(A) of WIOA. Moreover, we 

have concluded that these requirements 

will not lead to a burden increase for 

most core programs because similar— 

although not identical—information was 

tracked by these programs for 

performance purposes under WIA. We 

acknowledge that for some programs, 

such as the VR program, post-exit data, 

including credential attainment, is not 

collected under the current data system. 

Consequently, States will have to collect 

such data with the informed written 

consent of the participant through 

follow-up with the exited participant or 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55923 

the educational institution or entity 

where the individual was receiving 

training. We have concluded this 

process will not be overly burdensome 

to the VR program, as suggested by the 

commenters, however, because the VR 

program provides postsecondary 

education and training only as a 

necessary service to support an 

employment goal on the individualized 

plan for employment. As a result, in the 

vast majority of cases, a credential will 

be obtained prior to employment and 

prior to exit from the VR program. Very 

few individuals will obtain 

postsecondary credentials after exiting 

the VR program. Hence, only a small 

percentage of cases will need to be 

tracked manually. 

Comments: In response to the 

Departments seeking comments on 

clarifications that might be needed to 

implement the credential attainment 

rate performance indicator, one 

commenter indicated that implementing 

and tracking the time frames would be 

an immense reporting burden on States. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments did not establish a time 

frame for obtaining a credential for 

purposes of the performance indicator 

required by sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(IV) of 

WIOA, except for that required by 

WIOA—specifically that the credential 

be attained during the participant’s 

participation in the program or within 1 

year after exit from the program. Given 

that WIOA requires this particular time 

frame, there is no statutory authority to 

eliminate it from these final regulations 

or eliminate any burden estimate related 

to its implementation. Therefore, the 

estimated burden related to 

implementing the statutorily required 

time frame is maintained. During the 

development of the NPRM, the 

Departments considered the extent of 

the work required for data collection 

and reporting on this indicator and 

incorporated the level of effort for those 

follow-up activities in the burden 

estimates that were published in the 

NPRM. These costs will not be 

substantial because the time frame for 

participants to obtain a credential was 

lengthened from only 3 quarters from 

exit under WIA to 4 quarters under 

WIOA. 

Comments: The NPRM proposed that 

States would be required to report 

information on the career and training 

services provided by title I core 

programs, as well as the percentage of 

those participants who obtain trainingrelated employment. One commenter 

said that the States’ administrative data 

do not indicate whether employment is 

related to training. The commenter 

asserted that such data would be costly 

to collect directly from each participant 

on a case-by-case basis. 

Departments’ Response: Although the 

Departments understand the 

commenter’s concern, we want to make 

clear that the requirement to collect and 

report this information is required by 

sec. 116(d)(2)(G) of WIOA. We do not 

agree that collecting and reporting the 

required data will be as costly or 

burdensome as the commenter suggests. 

Currently, State (UI) agencies provide 

wage data that, at a minimum, include 

a North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code that 

generally provides an indication of 

whether employment outcomes were 

training related. In addition, costs for 

follow-ups to determine if training was 

related to employment were already 

accounted for in the baseline because 

they were collected under WIA. The 

other core programs are not required to 

collect and report such data. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that some of the performance measures 

proposed for INA supplemental youth 

service programs are burdensome— 

particularly given the disparity in 

funding between the INA youth grants 

and State grants. The commenter 

remarked that it would cost $1 million 

to update its Bear Tracks performance 

reporting system, which is currently 

used by INA grantees to collect data for 

performance measures. The 

performance reporting system would 

have to be upgraded because: (1) It is 

not a Web-based application; (2) it does 

not provide an adequate level of data 

security; and (3) it soon could be 

incompatible with the Departments’ 

new technology. In addition, training 

would be required for the INA grantees 

across the United States. Furthermore, 

the commenter warned that its program 

only might be able to handle the 

additional reporting burden by keeping 

participants as ‘‘active participants’’ by 

not exiting them from the program until 

they graduate from high school. The 

commenter stated that this would create 

a significant burden because grantees 

would have to provide qualified followup service every 90 days to keep the 

participants active. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge that some 

grantees, including grantees awarded 

funding under WIOA, title I, subtitle 

D—National Programs, could experience 

higher burdens than other entities. We 

want to make clear that the cost 

estimates presented in the NPRM and 

these final regulations represent the cost 

for a single representative State, not 

potential cost burden that could be 

realized by individual grantees because 

such effects are based on a variety of 

factors specific to each program. 

Furthermore, we point out that data for 

a credential attainment measure are 

currently being collected by the INA 

program (under WIA) that is similar to 

the education and credential indicators 

under WIOA and, therefore, the burden 

associated with such requirements is 

not new but rather is burden already 

accounted for in the baseline presented 

in the RIA for the NPRM and these final 

regulations. 

iv. Additional State Performance 

Indicators 

Comments: A commenter questioned 

why the NPRM’s RIA projected burdens 

for only five States with regard to 

establishing additional performance 

accountability indicators and asked for 

clarification on which five States were 

expected to submit these data. The 

commenter asserted that if all States 

were expected to submit data, by 

accounting only for five, the 

Departments were significantly 

underestimating the cost of this 

requirement in the NPRM. 

Departments’ Response: Under WIA, 

States were permitted to establish 

performance indicators in addition to 

the required indicators. No State, 

however, established additional 

performance indicators under WIA. 

Based on this past practice, the 

Departments estimate that very few 

States, if any, will establish additional 

performance indicators and report 

related data under WIOA. In an effort to 

estimate all potential costs where 

quantifiable, however, we provided 

burden estimates based on as many as 

five States choosing to establish 

additional performance indicators. To 

be clear, the five States referenced in the 

NPRM’s RIA were intended as an upperlevel estimate of the number of States 

expected to establish additional State 

performance indicators, and were not 

intended to mean that we knew which 

States, if any, would choose to do so. 

Burden estimates associated with 

collection and reporting of data for the 

primary indicators of performance 

include all States and are accounted for 

elsewhere in provision (c) Performance 

Accountability System of the RIA for 

these final regulations. For the foregoing 

reasons, we have concluded the burden 

estimates proposed in the NPRM, and 

revised for these final regulations, 

reflect an accurate representation of the 

expected cost burden of WIOA in the 

event that as many as five States decide 

to implement and report on additional 

performance indicators. 

Comments: In the NPRM, the 

Departments estimated that seven VR 

agencies each would experience $5,000 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55924 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

in one-time software and IT systems 

costs and annual labor costs for 60 

technical staff members at 9 hours each 

to obtain additional information for new 

data fields for those States, if any, 

choosing to establish additional 

performance indicators under WIOA. A 

commenter noted that the $35,000 firstyear software and IT systems costs 

associated with programming 

designated State unit systems (i.e., VR 

agencies) accounted for only 7 VR 

agencies not 80. In addition, the 

commenter indicated that the 

Departments underestimated the level of 

effort per entity to modify the Statedeveloped case management system 

(CMS) so that designated State agencies 

and VR agencies could report on the 

required performance measures. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments want to make clear that the 

estimates referenced by the commenter 

reflect the increased burden to the VR 

program should a few States adopt 

additional performance indicators. As 

stated in the response to another 

commenter, no State established 

additional performance indicators under 

WIA, even though each was permitted 

to do so. To avoid underestimating 

costs, however, the NPRM estimated the 

burden to the State if up to five States— 

two of which have a separate agency for 

the individuals who are blind (i.e., 

seven VR agencies)—choose to adopt 

additional performance indicators. After 

further Departmental review of the 

proposed burden estimate, we have 

reduced the estimated number of 

affected entities from seven to five VR 

agencies and reduced the estimated 

labor cost per entity, as indicated in 

Exhibit 33. 

In response to public comments and 

based on additional information 

received, the Departments have also 

eliminated the estimated burden for the 

revision of existing CMSs to 

accommodate the collection of data to 

support additional State indicators. We 

have concluded that such indicators 

likely would not require the collection 

of additional new data. In addition, any 

changes needed to State CMSs for such 

measures already would be subsumed 

by the one-time costs of revising their 

existing systems to collect required data 

to support the primary indicators of 

performance, reported under the 

Development and Updating of State 

Performance Accountability Systems 

subsection of provision (c) 

‘‘Performance Accountability System’’ 

displayed in Exhibit 18. 

iv. State Performance Reports 

Comments: In the NPRM, the 

Departments proposed that States would 

be required to submit a State 

performance report, which would 

describe, among other things, the 

amount of funds spent on career and 

training services, respectively, for the 

current program year and the 3 

preceding program years. Several 

commenters asserted that breaking out 

the funds spent by service would be too 

costly. 

One commenter expressed opposition 

to tracking and reporting the amount of 

funds spent on each type of career and 

training service. The commenter stated 

that the NPRM did not take into account 

the expense of doing so. Citing their 

own experiences, multiple commenters 

noted that costs incurred for 

programming in addition to the ongoing 

administrative costs related to IT 

systems would be prohibitive. 

Another commenter stated that the 

existing CMSs do not track funds spent 

on each type of career and training 

service. The commenter indicated that 

this would require the costly and timeintensive integration of the State’s CMS 

with the financial systems in place in 

each of the local areas. 

A commenter expressed that, in 

addition to tracking specific payments 

to training providers, it would have to 

track indirect costs such as benefits paid 

to staff, building space, and the cost of 

devices used in delivering services (e.g., 

computers). The commenter concluded 

that the effort to determine these 

specific cost breakouts greatly would 

exceed the value gained from this 

information. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments want to make clear that the 

statutory requirement and these final 

regulations are less burdensome than 

the commenters appear to believe. 

Section 116(d)(2)(D) of WIOA requires 

the State to report on the amount of 

funds spent on ‘‘each type of service,’’ 

which we have interpreted to mean 

career services, as one type, and training 

services, as the other type—not each 

individual type of career or training 

services, provided to participants. 

Therefore, the NPRM’s RIA did not 

account for burden associated with 

tracking each individual type of career 

service and training service provided 

because such tracking is not required by 

WIOA or these final regulations. 

Moreover, the cost estimates in the 

NPRM and these final regulations do not 

account for IT system integration 

because the Departments concluded that 

States are unlikely to update their IT 

systems to allow for the integration of 

fiscal, case management, and 

performance data. 

The Departments agree with the 

commenters that such micro-level 

reporting would be burdensome to the 

States. Before publishing the NPRM, we 

consulted with States and concluded 

that this type of tracking would be 

extremely burdensome. Therefore, we 

have concluded that affected entities are 

likely to use a model that divides the 

total cost spent on career services or 

training services by the total number of 

participants who received career 

services or training services to 

determine the cost per participant. 

v. Underestimated Burden for 

Development of Strategies for Aligning 

Technology and Data Systems Across 

One-Stop Partner Programs To Enhance 

Service Delivery and Improved 

Efficiencies 

In the NPRM, the Departments 

estimated that State WDBs would incur 

a one-time cost of $1.2 million and that 

State- and local-level AEFLA programs 

and VR agencies would incur annual 

costs of $35.5 million related to the 

development of strategies for aligning 

technology and data systems across onestop partner programs. This includes 

costs for design implementation of 

common intake, data collection, case 

management information, performance 

accountability measurement, reporting 

processes, and incorporation of local 

input into design and implementation to 

improve coordination of services across 

one-stop partner programs. 

Comments: A few commenters 

asserted that the cost of aligning data 

and data systems to collect data on 

performance measures across programs 

was understated in the NPRM. One of 

these commenters stated that the 

Departments underestimated the burden 

for coordinating service delivery across 

all of the relevant programs given the 

large array of data systems, software 

platforms, and partners involved. 

Another commenter suggested that 

aligning technology and data systems 

might prove expensive for State 

agencies due to changing or integrated 

data system and collection methods. 

The commenter concluded that full 

integration of technology and data 

systems would be a costly and timeconsuming process. 

Departments’ Response: First, the 

Departments want to make clear that 

WIOA has no statutory requirement that 

data systems be integrated across all 

core programs, as some of the 

commenters appear to believe. State 

WDBs are required to assist Governors 

in developing strategies to align 

technology and data systems across onestop partner programs to enhance 

service delivery. Therefore, the NPRM 

and these final regulations reflect the 

estimated burden for the DOLVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:01 Aug 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19AUR5.SGM 19AUR5

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55925 

administered and VR programs 

associated with the future 

implementation of integrated IT systems 

across core programs and the burden for 

State agencies to enhance their AEFLA 

program participation in the Statewide 

Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) Grant 

Program. Because States are at varying 

stages in the data alignment process, the 

cost estimates for DOL-administered 

and VR programs presented in the 

NPRM represent the national average 

costs for ‘‘low-’’ and ‘‘high-effort’’ 

States, while the cost estimates for the 

AEFLA program do not adopt such a 

classification of States and, instead, use 

a standard cost estimate for all States. 

The Departments understand that some 

States could experience higher actual 

costs, while actual costs could be lower 

for others. 

vi. Integrating Record Collection and 

Performance Reporting 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that the Departments underestimated 

the cost of integrating record collection 

across ED and between DOL and ED in 

terms of time and resources. In 

particular, the commenter indicated that 

the costs would be greater for the VR 

program because the VR program has 

the most disparate system (i.e., WISPR 

is a DOL-specific platform), according to 

the commenter. Furthermore, the 

commenter suggested that the burden 

for integrating data for performance 

reporting across core programs belongs 

at the Federal level because DOL and ED 

receive records from each State for their 

respective programs. To have Federal 

agencies work out the integration of data 

elements and then push this integration 

to the States that are integrating their 

systems based on Federal 

recommendations would be more 

efficient. In addition, the commenter 

stated that costs are associated with the 

guidance and technical assistance that 

would be needed to bridge the gap 

between workforce partners’ current 

systems and the Final Rule 

requirements before the data could be 

integrated. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge that some 

affected entities would experience 

higher burdens than other entities. 

Following additional consultation with 

program experts in the affected DOL and 

ED program areas, and based on the best 

available evidence, we calculated the 

compliance costs of each component of 

this Final Rule based on a range of 

burden estimates by States, a standard 

burden estimate per State, or an 

estimate for a single representative State 

that was used as a proxy for the average 

cost per State in the analysis. Please 

note, however, that this Final Rule does 

not require the integration of data 

collection and reporting systems across 

DOL and ED programs. Under WIOA, 

State VR programs will continue to 

submit RSA–911 data to RSA, except 

that data will be submitted quarterly on 

open and closed service records instead 

of annually on closed service records as 

had been done historically. RSA will 

use these four quarterly reports to 

generate the annual WIOA performance 

report, which will be sent to the State 

agencies, reducing the burden on State 

VR agencies. 

Concerning the comment about 

burden for integrated reporting 

belonging at the Federal level, as part of 

the implementation of this rule, DOL 

and ED jointly are proposing an 

Information Collection for the WIOA 

Performance Management, Information, 

and Reporting System (OMB Control 

Number 1205–0526). This ICR (WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR) and associated 

documents, including the WIOA 

Participant Individual Record Layout 

(PIRL), provides a standardized set of 

data elements, definitions, and reporting 

instructions that will be used to 

describe the characteristics, activities, 

and outcomes of WIOA participants. 

vii. Reductions in State VR Agency 

Resources and the Impact of WIOA 

Implementation 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that the cost estimates for the VR 

program in the NPRM did not appear to 

account for the current reductions in 

agency staff and State funding. 

Departments’ Response: Although the 

Departments understand the concern 

expressed by the commenter, we want 

to make clear that the burden estimates 

are based on the estimation of what 

implementing new requirements under 

WIOA, including both jointly 

administered requirements and 

program-specific requirements, will cost 

States. The burden estimates do not 

account for circumstances individual 

States face at the State level, such as 

reductions in staff or reductions in State 

funds for match purposes. 

viii. Benefits Due To Reduced Youth 

Unemployment 

Comments: One commenter said that 

WIOA includes improvements that 

would ensure low-income workers have 

the skills and support needed for full 

participation in the workforce. 

Specifically, the commenter expressed 

that provisions that increase the focus 

on comprehensive programming for outof-school youth should reduce the effect 

youth unemployment has on Federal 

and State governments. The commenter 

cited a 2014 report, which found that 

the average unemployed 18- to 24-yearold costs taxpayers over $4,000 annually 

and the average unemployed 25- to 34- 

year-old costs taxpayers approximately 

$9,000 annually. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA 

provides additional opportunities to 

coordinate education and employment 

services for youth across the core 

programs. The Departments will 

continue to encourage these 

partnerships and the benefits that result 

from their implementation. The study 

cited by the commenter evaluates 

impacts resulting from reduced welfare 

and unemployment benefits being paid 

out, as well as increased tax revenue. 

The Departments considered these 

outcomes in evaluating the impact of 

WIOA, and described these and other 

impacts resulting from training and 

employment services, such as reengagement of dislocated workers, in 

the Regulatory Benefits discussion and 

the Transfers discussion in section 

V.A.7 (Summary of Analysis) of this 

RIA. 

ix. Inability to Quantify Benefits 

In the NPRM, the Departments stated 

that they were unable to quantify the 

benefits associated with the NPRM 

because of data limitations and a lack of 

operational WIOA data or evaluation 

findings on the provisions of the NPRM. 

The Departments invited comments 

regarding how the benefits described 

qualitatively in the NPRM could be 

estimated. 

Comments: Several commenters 

stated that State workforce and business 

agencies have developed a set of 

performance measures designed to 

capture the financial impact of services 

delivered at the local community, 

workforce area, regional, and State 

levels. The measures also allow for the 

calculation of return on investment. The 

commenters remarked that the measures 

would allow the economic value of 

services delivered to local communities 

to be expressed, attainable goals that 

align with staff activities to be set, and 

staff to understand the value of their 

work. These tools are in the initial 

stages of development and 

implementation. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge that the tools 

described by the commenters are 

currently being developed and tested. 

We understand, however, that these 

tools were developed for use at the 

State, local, and regional levels and 

have not been applied for similar 

purposes at the national level. 

Therefore, modifying these tools to 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55926 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

3For simplicity, the Departments’ use of the term 

‘‘States’’ in this Final Rule RIA refers to the 50 

States; the District of Columbia; the U.S. territories 

of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; and the 

Republic of Palau, a country in free association with 

the United States. In the NPRM, the number of 

States for the DOL program was 56 and 57 for the 

AEFLA and RSA programs because DOL did not 

include the Republic of Palau. 

4Based on internal DOL data. 

5 DOL estimate. 

6 DOL estimate. 

7Based on internal ED data. 

8ED estimate. 

9Local AEFLA providers include local education 

agencies; community-based organizations; faithbased organizations; libraries; community, junior, 

and technical colleges; 4-year colleges and 

universities; correctional institutions; and other 

agencies and institutions. 

10Based on internal ED data. 

11Pursuant to sec. 7(34) of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended, this figure includes the 50 

States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, 

Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands. Twenty-four States have two DSAs 

for the VR program; therefore, the total number of 

VR agencies is 80. The Departments note 

particularly that we have sought to avoid 

duplication of costs, given the fact that some States 

have two VR agencies. 

12Based on internal ED data. 

obtain information in the limited time 

frame for this analysis was not feasible. 

b. Discussion of Public Comments 

Related to the Proposed ProgramSpecific Rules for the VR Program 

i. Underestimated Costs to the VR 

Program 

Comments: The Departments received 

a few comments related to one of ED’s 

three WIOA-related NPRMs, which, 

among other things, covered VR 

program-specific requirements. 

Departments’ Response: The public 

comments pertaining to estimates 

provided in the NPRM specific to the 

VR program will be responded to 

directly by ED in the Final Rule 

governing, among other things, the VR 

program published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register. 

4. Analysis Considerations 

The Departments estimated the 

additional costs, benefits, and transfers 

associated with implementing this 

WIOA-required Final Rule from the 

existing baseline, that is, the practices 

complying with, at a minimum, the 

2000 WIA Final Rule (65 FR 49294, 

Aug. 11, 2000). 

The Departments explain how the 

required actions of States, Local WDBs, 

employers and training entities, 

government agencies, and other related 

entities were linked to the estimated 

costs and expected benefits. We also 

consider, when appropriate, the 

unintended consequences of the 

regulations introduced by this Final 

Rule. We have made every effort to 

quantify and monetize the costs and 

benefits of the Final Rule. We were 

unable to quantify benefits associated 

with the Final Rule because of data 

limitations and a lack of operational 

data or evaluation findings on the 

provisions of the Final Rule or WIOA in 

general. Therefore, we describe some 

benefits qualitatively. 

The Departments have made every 

effort to quantify all incremental costs 

associated with the implementation of 

WIOA’s requirements as distinct from 

those that already exist under WIA, 

WIOA’s predecessor statute. Despite our 

best efforts, however, we might be 

double counting some activities that 

occurred under WIA. Thus, the costs 

itemized below represent an upper 

bound for the potential cost of 

implementing WIOA. 

In addition to this Final Rule, the 

Departments are publishing separate 

final rules to implement programspecific requirements of WIOA that fall 

under each Department’s purview; see 

section I of this Joint WIOA Final Rule 

(Executive Summary). We acknowledge 

that these final rules and their 

associated impacts might not be fully 

independent from one another, but we 

are unaware of a reliable method to 

quantify the effects of this 

interdependence. Therefore, this 

analysis does not capture the correlated 

impacts of the costs and benefits of this 

Final Rule and those associated with the 

other Final Rules. We have made an 

effort to ensure no duplication of 

benefits and costs between this and the 

other Final Rules. 

In accordance with the regulatory 

analysis guidance articulated in Circular 

A–4, and consistent with the 

Departments’ practices in previous 

rulemakings, this regulatory analysis 

focuses on the likely consequences (i.e., 

costs and benefits that accrue to citizens 

and residents of the United States) of 

this WIOA-required Final Rule. The 

analysis covers 10 years (2016 through 

2025) to ensure it captures major 

additional costs and benefits that accrue 

over time. The Departments express all 

quantifiable impacts in 2015 dollars and 

use 3-percent and 7-percent discounting 

following Circular A–4. 

Exhibit 2 presents the estimated 

number of entities expected to 

experience a change in level of effort 

(workload) due to the regulations 

included in this Final Rule. The 

Departments provide these estimates 

and use them extensively throughout 

this analysis to estimate the cost of each 

provision, where feasible. 

EXHIBIT 2—NUMBER OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY TYPE

Entity type Number of 

entities 

DOL Program: 

States 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 57 

States establishing additional performance indicators ................................................................................................................. 5 5 

Local WDBs .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 580 

AEFLA Program: 

States ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 57 

States establishing additional performance indicators ................................................................................................................. 8 5 

Local AEFLA providers ................................................................................................................................................................. 9 2,396 

Local AEFLA providers establishing additional performance indicators ...................................................................................... 10 200 

RSA Program: 

VR agencies ................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 80 

VR agencies establishing additional performance indicators ...................................................................................................... 12 5 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55927 

13Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). May 2015 

national industry-specific occupational 

employment and wage estimates: NAICS 999200— 

State government, excluding schools and hospitals 

(OES designation). Retrieved from: http://

www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999200.htm. 

14Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). May 2015 

national industry-specific occupational 

employment and wage estimates: NAICS 999300— 

Local government, excluding schools and hospitals 

(OES designation). Retrieved from: http://

www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999300.htm. 

15The wage rate for Federal employees is based 

on Step 5 of the General Schedule (source: OPM, 

2015, ‘‘Salary Table for the 2015 General 

Schedule’’). Retrieved from: https://www.opm.gov/

policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/

salary-tables/pdf/2015/GS_h.pdf. 

16Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). 2015 

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. 

Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/schedule/

archives/ecec_nr.htm. The Departments calculated 

this value using data from Table 3. ‘‘Employer Costs 

per Hour Worked for Employee Compensation and 

Costs as a Percent of Total Compensation: State and 

Local Government Workers, by Major Occupational 

and Industry Group.’’ Total compensation for all 

workers. To calculate the average total 

compensation in 2015 of $44.53, we averaged the 

total compensation for all workers provided in 

March, June, September, and December releases. 

17Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). 2015 

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. 

Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/schedule/

archives/ecec_nr.htm. The Departments calculated 

this value using data from Table 3. ‘‘Employer Costs 

per Hour Worked for Employee Compensation and 

Costs as a Percent of Total Compensation: State and 

Local Government Workers, by Major Occupational 

and Industry Group.’’ Wages and salaries for all 

workers. To calculate the average wage and salary 

in 2015 of $28.41, we averaged the wage and 

salaries for all workers provided in March, June, 

September, and December releases. 

18The State and local loaded wage factor was 

applied to all non-Federal employees. Discerning 

the number of State and local-sector employees and 

private-sector employees at the local level is 

difficult; therefore, the Departments used the State 

and local-sector loaded wage factor (1.57) instead of 

the private-sector wage factor (1.44) for all nonFederal employees to avoid underestimating the 

costs. 

19Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). 2015 

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. 

Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/schedule/

archives/ecec_nr.htm. The Departments calculated 

this value using data from Table 5. ‘‘Employer Costs 

per Hour Worked for Employee Compensation and 

Costs as a Percent of Total Compensation: Private 

Industry Workers, by Major Occupational Group 

and Bargaining Unit Status.’’ Total compensation 

for all workers. To calculate the average total 

compensation in 2015 of $31.57, we averaged the 

total compensation for all workers provided in 

March, June, September, and December releases. 

20Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). 2015 

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. 

Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/schedule/

archives/ecec_nr.htm. The Departments calculated 

this value using data from Table 5. ‘‘Employer Costs 

per Hour Worked for Employee Compensation and 

Costs as a Percent of Total Compensation: Private 

Industry Workers, by Major Occupational Group 

and Bargaining Unit Status.’’ Wages and salaries for 

all workers. To calculate the average wage and 

salary in 2015 of $21.97, we averaged the wage and 

salaries for all workers provided in March, June, 

September, and December releases. 

21Congressional Budget Office. (2012). 

Comparing the compensation of federal and 

private-sector employees. Tables 2 and 4. Retrieved 

from: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112thcongress-2011-2012/reports/01-30-FedPay_0.pdf. 

The Departments calculated the loaded wage rate 

for Federal workers of all education levels of 1.63 

by dividing total compensation by wages (1.63 = 

$52.50/$32.30). We then calculated the loaded wage 

rate for private sector workers of all education 

levels of 1.44 by dividing total compensation by 

wages (1.44 = $ 45.40/$31.60). Finally, we 

calculated the ratio of the loaded wage factors for 

Federal to private sector workers of 1.13 (1.13 = 

1.63/1.44). 

22The Departments conclude that the overhead 

costs associated with this Final Rule are small 

because the additional activities required by the 

Final Rule will be performed by existing employees 

whose overhead costs are already covered. 

However, acknowledging that there might be 

additional overhead costs, as a sensitivity analysis 

of results, we calculate the impact of more 

significant overhead costs by including an overhead 

rate of 17 percent. This rate has been used by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its final 

rules (see for example, EPA Electronic Reporting 

under the Toxic Substances Control Act Final Rule, 

Supporting & Related Material), and is based on a 

Chemical Manufacturers Association study. An 

overhead rate from chemical manufacturing may 

not be appropriate for all industries, so there may 

be substantial uncertainty concerning the estimates 

based on this illustrative example. (By contrast, 

DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration 

(EBSA) includes overhead costs that are 

substantially higher and more variable across 

employee types than EPA’s—between 39 and 138 

percent of base wages for compensation and 

benefits managers, lawyers, paralegals and other 

legal assistants, and computer systems analysts—as 

presented in detail at www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/laborcost-inputs-used-in-ebsa-opr-ria-and-pra-burdencalculations-march-2016.pdf.) Using an overhead 

rate of 17 percent would increase the total cost of 

the Final Rule by 4.7 percent, from $135.2 million 

in Year 1 to $141.5 million. Over the 10-year 

period, using an overhead rate of 17 percent would 

increase the total undiscounted cost of the Final 

Rule from $620.4 million to $650.2 million, or 4.8 

percent. 

Estimated Number of Workers and Level 

of Effort 

The Departments present the 

estimated average number of workers 

and the estimated average level of effort 

required per worker for each activity in 

the subject-by-subject analysis. Where 

possible, Federal program experts 

consulted with State programs to 

estimate the average levels of effort and 

the average number of workers needed 

for each activity to meet the 

requirements relative to the baseline 

(i.e., the current practice under WIA) to 

derive these estimates. These estimates 

are the national averages for all States; 

thus, some States could experience 

higher actual costs, while actual costs 

could be lower for other States. 

Compensation Rates 

In the subject-by-subject analysis, the 

Departments present the additional 

labor and other costs associated with the 

implementation of the provisions in this 

Final Rule. Exhibit 3 presents the 

compensation rates for the occupational 

categories expected to experience an 

increase in level of effort (workload) due 

to the Final Rule. We use the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics’ (BLS) mean hourly 

wage rate for State and local 

employees.13 14 We also use wage rates 

from the Office of Personnel 

Management’s Salary Table for the 2015 

General Schedule for Federal 

employees.15 We adjust the wage rates 

using a loaded wage factor to reflect 

total compensation, which includes 

non-wage factors such as health and 

retirement benefits. For the State and 

local sectors, we use a loaded wage 

factor of 1.57, which represents the ratio 

of average total compensation 16 to 

average wages for State and local 

government workers in 2015.17 18 For 

Federal employees, we use a loaded 

wage factor of 1.63, which was 

estimated using a two-step process. 

First, we calculated a loaded wage rate 

of 1.44 for private industry workers, 

which is the ratio of average total 

compensation 19 to average wages 20 for 

private industry workers in 2015. We 

then multiplied the 2015 loaded wage 

rate for private workers (1.44) by the 

ratio of the loaded wage factors for 

Federal workers to private workers 

(1.13) using data from a Congressional 

Budget Office report 21 to estimate the 

2015 loaded wage rate for Federal 

workers of 1.63.22 We then multiply the 

loaded wage factor by each occupational 

category’s wage rate to calculate an 

hourly compensation rate. 

The Departments use the hourly 

compensation rates presented in Exhibit 

3 throughout this analysis to estimate 

the labor costs for each provision. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55928 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

23Based on the BLS mean hourly wage for social 

and community service managers. 

24Based on the BLS mean hourly wage rate for 

management analysts. 

EXHIBIT 3—COMPENSATION RATES

[2015 dollars] 

Position Grade level 

Average 

hourly 

wage rate 

Loaded 

wage 

factor 

Hourly 

compensation 

rate 

a b c = a × b 

Local Employees 

Computer systems analysts .......................................................................... N/A ................... $38.70 1.57 $60.76 

Database administrators ............................................................................... ........................... 37.96 ........................ 59.60 

Management analysts ................................................................................... ........................... 38.60 ........................ 60.60 

Management occupations staff ..................................................................... ........................... 40.53 ........................ 63.63 

Office and administrative support occupations ............................................. ........................... 18.70 ........................ 29.36 

Social and community service managers ..................................................... ........................... 38.86 ........................ 61.01 

State Employees 

Computer systems analysts .......................................................................... N/A ................... 35.78 1.57 56.17 

Database administrators ............................................................................... ........................... 36.32 ........................ 57.02 

Lawyers ......................................................................................................... ........................... 41.71 ........................ 65.48 

Management analysts ................................................................................... ........................... 29.22 ........................ 45.88 

Management occupations staff ..................................................................... ........................... 41.65 ........................ 65.39 

Office and administrative support occupations ............................................. ........................... 19.47 ........................ 30.57 

Rehabilitation counselors .............................................................................. ........................... 23.35 ........................ 36.66 

Social and community service managers ..................................................... ........................... 34.53 ........................ 54.21 

Social workers ............................................................................................... ........................... 22.43 ........................ 35.22 

Staff trainers 23 .............................................................................................. ........................... 34.53 ........................ 54.21 

State Rehabilitation Council Board members 24 ........................................... ........................... 29.22 ........................ 45.88 

Federal Employees 

Federal positions ........................................................................................... GS–12, Step 5 .. 33.39 1.63 54.43 

GS–13, Step 5 .. 39.70 ........................ 64.71 

GS–14, Step 5 .. 46.92 ........................ 76.48 

The subject-by-subject analysis 

presents the total incremental costs of 

the Final Rule relative to the baseline— 

that is, requirements applicable to core 

programs prior to the enactment of 

WIOA. This analysis estimates these 

incremental costs, which affected 

entities will incur in complying with 

the Final Rule. The equation below 

shows the method the Departments use 

to calculate the incremental total cost 

for each provision over the 10-year 

analysis period. 

Where, 

Al Number of affected entities that will 

incur labor costs, 

Ni Number of staff of occupational category 

i, 

Hi Hours required per staff of occupational 

category i, 

Wi Mean hourly wage rate of staff of 

occupational category i, 

Li Loaded wage factor of staff of 

occupational category i, 

Aj Number of affected entities incurring 

non-labor costs of type j, 

Cj Non-labor cost of type j, 

i Occupational category, 

n Number of occupational categories, 

j Non-labor cost type, 

m Number of non-labor cost types, 

T Year. 

The total cost of each provision is 

calculated as the sum of the total labor 

cost and total non-labor cost incurred 

each year over the 10-year period (see 

Exhibit 50 for a summary of the average 

annual cost of the Final Rule by 

provision). The total labor cost is the 

sum of the labor costs for each 

occupational category i (e.g., computer 

systems analysts, database 

administrators, and lawyers) multiplied 

by the number of affected entities that 

will incur labor costs, Al. The labor cost 

for each occupational category i is 

calculated by multiplying the number of 

staff members required to perform the 

activity, Ni; the hours required per staff 

member to perform the activity, Hi; the 

mean hourly wage rate of staff of 

occupational category i, Wi; and the 

loaded wage factor of staff of 

occupational category i, Li. The total 

non-labor cost is the sum of the nonlabor costs for each non-labor cost type 

j (e.g., consulting costs) multiplied by 

the number of affected entities that will 

incur non-labor costs, Aj. 

Transfer Payments 

The Departments provide an 

assessment of transfer payments 

associated with transitioning the 

Nation’s public workforce system from 

the requirements of WIA to the new 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULESER19AU16.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55929 

25States may elect to change the distribution of 

funds at the local level and appropriately document 

such changes in the State Plans. Because small 

entities are fully funded by the States, which are 

not small entities, however, the Departments do not 

anticipate any impact on small entities. 

26This column maps the requirements from the 

RIA of the NPRM to the RIA of the Final Rule, and 

is not a comprehensive list of all Final Rule 

requirements. 

requirements of WIOA. In accordance 

with Circular A–4, we consider transfer 

payments as payments from one group 

to another that do not affect total 

resources available to society. For 

example, under both WIA and WIOA, 

financial transfers via formula grants 

will be made from the Federal 

government to the States and from the 

States to Local WDBs, as appropriate. In 

accordance with the State allotment 

provisions required by WIOA sec. 127, 

the interstate funding formula 

methodology is not significantly 

different from that used for the 

distribution of funds under WIA.25

One example of where impacts are 

discussed qualitatively, rather than 

quantified, is the expectation that 

available U.S. workers trained and hired 

who were previously unemployed will 

no longer seek new or continued UI 

benefits. Assuming other factors remain 

constant, the Departments expect State 

UI expenditures to decline because of 

the hiring of U.S. workers following 

WIOA implementation. We cannot 

quantify these transfer payments, 

however, due to a lack of adequate data. 

5. Updates to the Cost-Benefit Analysis 

for the Final Rule 

In total, the Departments estimate that 

this Final Rule will result in a 10-year 

undiscounted cost of $626.8 million (in 

2015 dollars). We estimated that the 

NPRM would result in $1.5 billion in 

undiscounted costs (in 2013 dollars). As 

discussed below, after reviewing public 

comments and with further consultation 

with program experts in the DOL and 

ED program areas, we updated the cost 

analysis and made changes to specific 

provisions in the NPRM that affected 

costs. 

General Updates 

In the Final Rule economic analysis, 

the Departments update all costs to 2015 

dollars from 2013 dollars in the NPRM. 

This update increases the estimated cost 

of the Final Rule relative to the cost 

presented in the NPRM. 

In addition, the Departments have 

made several updates to the labor cost 

estimates. First, we use more 

appropriate occupational categories 

than those used in the NPRM (i.e., 

administrative staff, Board members, 

counsel staff, local stakeholders, 

managers, and technical staff). In this 

Final Rule, the occupational categories 

include: computer systems analysts, 

database administrators, lawyers, 

management analysts, management 

occupations staff (hereafter referred to 

as ‘‘managers’’), office and 

administrative support occupations staff 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘office and 

administrative support staff’’), 

rehabilitation counselors, social and 

community service managers, social 

workers, staff trainers, and State 

Rehabilitation Council (SRC) Board 

members. Due to the numerous changes 

made to each provision in the analysis, 

which are described in detail below, 

these occupational categories add more 

specificity to the labor costs, but it is 

unclear whether they had a positive or 

negative effect on costs as a whole. 

Second, the Departments have 

updated labor costs, including wage 

rates and loaded wage factors, to reflect 

2015 BLS data. Furthermore, instead of 

using State government employee wage 

rates for workers at both the State and 

local level as in the NPRM, we applied 

wage rates for State government 

employees and local government 

employees to workers at the State and 

local levels, respectively. Depending on 

the occupational category, the Statelevel wage rate could be higher or lower 

than the corresponding local-level wage 

rate; thus, it is unclear whether this had 

a positive or negative effect on costs as 

a whole. 

Third, based on further discussion 

with DOL program experts, the 

Departments have increased the overall 

number of States affected by DOL 

program requirements from 56 to 57 in 

the Final Rule because we concluded 

that the WIOA requirements also will 

affect the Republic of Palau. 

In the Final Rule, the Departments 

have made several changes to the 

provisions presented in the NPRM. 

Exhibit 4 presents a summary of the 

updates made to the NPRM provisions 

in the Final Rule. To simplify the 

analysis and combine related 

requirements, we merge the following 

provisions: 

• Provision (b) ‘‘New Elements to 

State and Local Plans’’ and provision (f) 

‘‘Unified or Combined State Plans’’ are 

combined to form provision (b) ‘‘Unified 

or Combined State Plan: Expanded 

Content, Biennial Development and 

Modification Process, and Submission 

Coordination Requirements.’’ 

• Provision (c) ‘‘Development and 

Updating of State Performance 

Accountability Measures,’’ provision (e) 

‘‘Development of Strategies for Aligning 

Technology and Data Systems across 

One-Stop Partner Programs,’’ provision 

(h) ‘‘State Performance Accountability 

Measures,’’ provision (i) ‘‘Performance 

Reports,’’ and provision (j) ‘‘Evaluation 

of State Programs’’ are combined to form 

provision (c) ‘‘Performance 

Accountability System.’’ 

In addition, the Departments have 

decided that the following two 

provisions are more appropriate in the 

DOL WIOA Final Rule RIA: Provision 

(d) ‘‘Identification and Dissemination of 

Best Practices’’ and provision (g) ‘‘Local 

Plan Revisions.’’ Although the updates 

made to each provision (i.e., changes 

from the NPRM estimates) are discussed 

under the relevant headings below, a 

detailed description of each cost 

provision remains in section V.A.6 

(Subject-by-Subject Cost-Benefit 

Analysis). 

EXHIBIT 4—UPDATES TO COST PROVISIONS IN THE NPRM 

NPRM Final rule Required activities in NPRM 26

(a) Time to Review the New Rule ...................... (a) Time to Review the New Rule ................... • Learn about new regulations and plan for 

compliance. 

(b) New Elements to State and Local Plans ...... (b) Unified or Combined State Plans: Expanded Content, Biennial Development and 

Modification Process, and Submission Coordination Requirements.

• Develop new 4-year Unified or Combined 

State Plans; and 

• Review and modify 4-year Unified or Combined State Plans. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55930 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

27This variance in cost is mainly a result of the 

decrease in the estimated number of staff and level 

of effort required for this activity for the State- and 

local-level AEFLA program. 

EXHIBIT 4—UPDATES TO COST PROVISIONS IN THE NPRM—Continued 

NPRM Final rule Required activities in NPRM 26

(c) Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Measures.(c) Performance Accountability System ........... • Develop and update the State performance 

accountability systems; 

• Implement measures for data collection and 

reporting on the effectiveness in serving 

employers; 

• Negotiate levels of performance; 

• Run statistical adjustment model to adjust 

levels of performance based on actual economic conditions and characteristics of participants; 

• Provide technical assistance to States; 

• Obtain UI wage data; and 

• Purchase data analytic software and perform training. 

(d) Identification and Dissemination of Best 

Practices.

Moved to the DOL WIOA Final Rule (see provision (c) ‘‘Identification and Dissemination 

of Best Practices’’).

N/A. 

(e) Development of Strategies for Aligning 

Technology and Data Systems across OneStop Partner Programs.

(c) Performance Accountability System ........... • Align technology and data systems across 

one-stop partner programs. 

(f) Unified or Combined State Plan .................... (b) Unified or Combined State Plans: Expanded Content, Biennial Development and 

Modification Process, and Submission Coordination Requirements.

• Review and develop new 4-year Unified or 

Combined State Plans to ensure they satisfy the new content requirements; and 

• Coordinate actions for developing a new 4- 

year Unified or Combined State Plan 

among the core programs administered by 

the Departments. 

(g) Local Plan Revisions .................................... Moved to the DOL WIOA Final Rule: (See 

provision (m) ‘‘Local and Regional Plan 

Modification’’).

N/A. 

(h) State Performance Accountability Measures (c) Performance Accountability System ........... • Collect data to report on additional State 

performance accountability measures. 

(i) Performance Reports ..................................... (c) Performance Accountability System ........... • Develop a performance report template that 

reports outcomes via the new WIOA performance accountability metrics; 

• Develop, update, and submit eligible training provider (ETP) reports; 

• Collect, analyze, and report performance 

data; and 

• Provide training on data collection. 

(j) Evaluation of State Programs ........................ (d) State Evaluation Responsibilities ............... • Coordinate any evaluation activities to cooperate in the provision of various forms of 

data for evaluation activities; and 

• Coordinate in designing and developing 

evaluations carried out under sec. 116(e) of 

WIOA. 

Time To Review the New Rule 

This section describes the updates to 

the NPRM’s provision (a) ‘‘Time to 

Review the New Rule.’’ In this Final 

Rule’s subject-by-subject analysis, costs 

related to this provision are found in 

provision (a) ‘‘Time to Review the New 

Rule.’’ The cost of this provision reflects 

the cost for individuals in the regulated 

community to learn about the new 

regulations and plan for compliance. 

Each core program has different staffing 

and WIOA affects them differently, 

which would result in different labor 

categories and level of effort for them to 

read and understand the Joint WIOA 

Final Rule. The total undiscounted 10- 

year cost of this provision decreased 

from $17.7 million for the NPRM to $3.3 

million for this Final Rule.27

At the State level for the DOL 

programs, the Departments made the 

following changes, which are presented 

in Exhibit 5. Following additional 

discussions with program experts, we 

decreased the number of DOL 

management staff from two to one. We 

added four lawyers who will review the 

new requirements in the Final Rule. 

Finally, we replaced the technical staff 

in our previous estimate with the more 

appropriate occupational category of 

social and community service manager. 

Although the number of personnel in 

this last category was reduced from four 

to two, the level of effort was increased 

from 20 to 40 hours; hence, the overall 

level of effort (80 hours) remained the 

same. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55931 

28The Departments used the occupations 

category of ‘‘management occupations staff’’ to 

estimate the compensation rate for the State 

Director. 

EXHIBIT 5—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL DOL PROGRAMS—TIME TO REVIEW THE NEW RULE

NPRM Final rule 

(a) Time to review the new rule (a) Time to review the new rule 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 2 20 One time ........ 56 States ........ Management occupations staff.1 20 One time ........ 57 States. 

Technical 

staff.

4 20 Lawyer .......................... 4 20 

Social & community 

service manager.

2 40 

Exhibit 6 presents the updates to the 

State-level AEFLA program. The 

Departments consulted with experts at 

the State-level AEFLA program and 

decided to reduce the number of 

managers from five to four after 

concluding that the number needed to 

reflect an average staffing level across 

all States and outlying areas was less 

than expected. Three of the four 

managers are categorized as social and 

community service managers and will 

have a level of effort of 20 hours rather 

than 40 hours because we concluded 

that associate staff will not spend as 

much time on this activity as the State 

director.28 We reduced the level of effort 

required from the lawyer from 40 to 20 

hours because we concluded that the 

lawyer, whose role is largely advisory, 

will not spend as much time on this 

activity as the State director, who will 

be responsible for implementation. We 

also excluded the two technical and five 

administrative staff included in our 

previous estimate because those 

occupational categories generally are 

not involved in reviewing regulations. 

EXHIBIT 6—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—TIME TO REVIEW THE NEW RULE

NPRM Final rule 

(a) Time to review the new rule (a) Time to review the new rule 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 5 40 One time ........ 57 States ........ Management occupations staff.1 40 One time ........ 57 States. 

Counsel 

staff.

1 40 Lawyer .......................... 1 20 

Technical 

staff.

2 40 Social & community 

service manager.

3 20 

Admin. staff 5 40 

The Departments made the following 

updates to the State VR program, which 

are shown in Exhibit 7. We consulted 

with VR program experts and decided to 

increase the number of managers from 

three to four. Three of these four 

managers are categorized as social and 

community service managers. In 

addition, we increased the level of effort 

per manager from 20 to 40 hours to 

reflect the greater complexity of the new 

rule. We replaced the counsel and 

technical staff members with three 

rehabilitation counselors to review the 

new requirements of the Final Rule. 

This change was made to better reflect 

the VR agency staff who will be 

performing this task. 

EXHIBIT 7—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—TIME TO REVIEW THE NEW RULE

NPRM Final rule 

(a) Time to review the new rule (a) Time to review the new rule 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 3 20 One time ........ 80 VR agencies.Management occupations staff.1 40 One time ........ 80 VR 

agencies. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55932 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

29The variance in cost is due to changes to the 

assumptions used to estimate costs (e.g., number of 

staff, occupational categories, level of effort, and 

frequency.) More specifically, this variance in cost 

is mainly due to AEFLA omitting biennial Statelevel consulting costs and biennial local-level labor 

costs and the Departments’ assumption that the 

level of effort to undertake the biennial 

development and modification process will 

decrease over time rather than remain constant. The 

Final Rule does not implement any policy changes 

over the NPRM that impact this cost. 

EXHIBIT 7—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—TIME TO REVIEW THE NEW RULE—Continued 

NPRM Final rule 

(a) Time to review the new rule (a) Time to review the new rule 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Counsel 

staff.

1 20 Social & community 

service manager.

3 40 

Technical 

staff.

1 20 Rehabilitation counselor 3 40 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments made the 

following changes, which are presented 

in Exhibit 8. We concluded that local 

involvement in reviewing the new rule 

generally will require participation in a 

statewide meeting convened by the 

State office to present the new rule and 

address questions raised by local staff. 

We added one social and community 

service manager who will review the 

new requirements of the Final Rule. 

Based on conversations with additional 

program experts, we excluded the 

technical and administrative staff 

included in our previous estimate, 

because those occupational categories 

generally are not involved in reviewing 

regulations. Note that, instead of 

presenting the costs at the State level as 

in the NPRM, we are presenting costs at 

the program, or local, level. 

EXHIBIT 8—UPDATES TO COSTS OF LOCAL-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—TIME TO REVIEW THE NEW RULE

NPRM Final rule 

(a) Time to review the new rule (a) Time to review the new rule 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 40 40 One time ........ 57 States ........ Management occupations staff.1 4 One time ........ 2,396 local 

programs. 

Technical 

staff.

40 40 Social & community 

service manager.

1 4 

Admin. staff 40 40 

New Elements to State and Local Plans 

This section describes the updates to 

the NPRM’s provision (b) ‘‘New 

Elements to State and Local Plans.’’ In 

this Final Rule’s subject-by-subject 

analysis, this cost provision is included 

in provision (b) ‘‘Unified or Combined 

State Plans: Expanded Content, Biennial 

Development and Modification Process, 

and Submission Coordination 

Requirements’’ and it captures the cost 

of developing new 4-year Unified or 

Combined State Plans, performing a 

review of each State Plan, and 

modifying it 2 years after it is submitted. 

For this activity, the total 10-year cost 

(undiscounted) decreased from $53.9 

million in the NPRM to $1.9 million in 

the Final Rule.29 These revised cost 

estimates can be found under the 

subsections ‘‘Four-Year Plan 

Modification—Third Year,’’ 

‘‘Development of New 4-Year Plan— 

Fifth Year,’’ ‘‘Four-Year Plan 

Modification—Seventh Year,’’ and 

‘‘Development of New 4-Year Plan— 

Ninth Year,’’ in provision (b) of this 

Final Rule. 

At the State level for the DOL 

programs, the Departments made the 

following changes, which are presented 

in Exhibit 9. In the Final Rule, required 

compliance activities are measured 

biennially and instead of assuming a 

constant level of effort for each biennial 

activity, we assumed that the level of 

effort will be slightly higher for 

managers and management analysts to 

modify the first 4-year State Plan and 

develop the second State Plan than it 

will be to produce new State Plans and 

modifications in subsequent years. The 

Departments expect that more effort 

initially will be expended to build 

relationships between new partners and 

to acquire experience drafting State 

Plans in a format that might be new to 

some partners. In addition, we added 

managers and lawyers and we replaced 

the technical staff in our previous 

estimate with the more appropriate 

occupational category of management 

analyst. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55933 

EXHIBIT 9—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL DOL PROGRAMS—NEW ELEMENTS TO STATE AND LOCAL PLANS

NPRM Final rule 

(b) New elements to state and local plans (b) Unified or combined state plans: expanded content, biennial development and 

modification process, and submission coordination Requirements 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Technical 

staff.

2 16 Annual ............ 56 States ........ Four-Year Plan Modification—Third Year 

Admin. staff 1 16 Management occupations staff.1 12 3rd year .......... 57 States. 

Lawyer .......................... 1 4 

Management analyst .... 2 12 

Office & admin. support 

staff.

1 4 

Development of New 4-Year Plans—Fifth Year 

Management occupations staff.1 12 5th year .......... 57 States. 

Lawyer .......................... 1 4 

Management analyst .... 2 12 

Office & admin. support 

staff.

1 4 

Four-Year Plan Modification—Seventh Year 

Management occupations staff.1 8 7th year .......... 57 States. 

Lawyer .......................... 1 4 

Management analyst .... 2 8 

Office & admin. support 

staff.

1 4 

Development of New 4-Year Plans—Ninth Year 

Management occupations staff.1 10 9th year .......... 57 States. 

Lawyer .......................... 1 4 

Management analyst .... 2 10 

Office & admin. support 

staff.

1 4 

Exhibit 10 presents the changes made 

by the Departments at the State level for 

the AEFLA program. The Departments 

considered the State office’s historical 

level of effort for State Plan 

development. The Departments expect 

that it will take more effort initially to 

build relationships between new 

partners and to acquire experience 

drafting State Plans in a format that may 

be new to some partners. We concluded 

that the AEFLA State office could 

leverage economies of scale for the 

biennial State Plan development and 

modification process required under 

WIOA. That is, established procedures 

and experienced staff already will be in 

place from previous State Plan efforts to 

gather, refine, and incorporate input for 

modification of the new elements. In 

addition, we anticipate that the extent of 

necessary plan modifications will 

decrease over time as the elements are 

improved with each revision cycle. 

Burdens will be higher in the fifth and 

ninth years to account for the additional 

burden involved with developing new 

State Plans. Furthermore, we reduced 

the number of managers from five to 

four (three of which are categorized as 

social and community service 

managers). We removed technical and 

administrative staff because we 

concluded that those occupational 

categories are not typically involved in 

State Plan development. In addition, we 

removed the consultant cost because we 

concluded that consultants are not 

commonly engaged in State Plan 

development. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55934 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 10—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—NEW ELEMENTS TO STATE AND LOCAL PLANS

NPRM Final rule 

(b) New elements to state and local plans (b) Unified or combined state plans: Expanded content, biennial development and 

modification process, and submission coordination requirements 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ......... 5 40 Biennial ........ 57 States ..... Four-Year Plan Modification—Third Year 

Counsel staff ... 1 20 Management occupations 

staff.

1 10 3rd year ........ 57 States. 

Technical staff 2 40 Lawyer ............................. 1 10 

Admin. staff .... 5 20 Social & community service manager.3 10 

Consultant cost $25,000 Development of New 4-Year Plans—Fifth Year 

Management occupations 

staff.

1 15 5th year ........ 57 States. 

Lawyer ............................. 1 15 

Social & community service manager.3 15 

Four-Year Plan Modification—Seventh Year 

Management occupations 

staff.

1 5 7th year ........ 57 States. 

Lawyer ............................. 1 5 

Social & community service manager.3 5 

Development of New 4-Year Plan—Ninth Year 

Management occupations 

staff.

1 10 9th year ........ 57 States. 

Lawyer ............................. 1 10 

Social & community service manager.3 10 

The Departments made the following 

updates to the State VR program, which 

are shown in Exhibit 11. Instead of 

assuming a constant level of effort for 

each biennial activity, we assumed the 

level of effort will be highest for 

modifying the first new 4-year State 

Plan in the third year, will decrease 

slightly for developing the second 4- 

year State Plan in the fifth year, and will 

remain at a slightly lower level for the 

subsequent development and 

modification process. Again, this 

decrease over time reflects the initial 

effort to build relationships between 

new partners and to acquire experience 

drafting State Plans in a format that 

might be new to some partners. In 

addition, we replaced the technical staff 

in our previous estimate with the more 

appropriate occupational category of 

social and community service manager. 

EXHIBIT 11—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—NEW ELEMENTS TO STATE AND LOCAL PLANS

NPRM Final rule 

(b) New elements to state and local plans (b) Unified or combined state plans: Expanded content, biennial development and 

modification process, and submission coordination requirements 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ......... 1 5 Biennial ........ 80 VR agencies.Four-Year Plan Modification—Third Year 

Technical staff 1 5 Management occupations 

staff.

2 14 3rd year ........ 80 VR agencies. 

Social & community service manager.2 14 

Development of New 4-Year Plan—Fifth Year 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55935 

30A portion of the $320.0 million in costs 

accounts for software and IT systems costs from 

provision (e) ‘‘Development of Strategies for 

Aligning Technology and Data Systems across OneStop Partner Programs,’’ provision (i) ‘‘Performance 

Reports,’’ and provision (j) ‘‘Evaluation of State 

Programs.’’ Thus, this value overstates how much 

costs have increased in this Final Rule relative to 

the NPRM. 

31This variance in cost is mainly due to new 

burdens for negotiating levels of performance and 

running statistical adjustment models to adjust 

levels of performance and to new Federal-level 

burdens for the VR program to develop and update 

the State performance accountability systems. 

EXHIBIT 11—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—NEW ELEMENTS TO STATE AND LOCAL PLANS— 

Continued 

NPRM Final rule 

(b) New elements to state and local plans (b) Unified or combined state plans: Expanded content, biennial development and 

modification process, and submission coordination requirements 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Management occupations 

staff.

2 10 5th year ........ 80 VR agencies. 

Social & community service manager.2 10 

Four-Year Plan Modification—Seventh Year 

Management occupations 

staff.

2 7 7th year ........ 80 VR agencies. 

Social & community service manager.2 7 

Development of New 4-Year Plan—Ninth Year 

Management occupations 

staff.

2 7 9th year ........ 80 VR agencies. 

Social & community service manager.2 7 

For the AEFLA program at the local 

level, the Departments made the 

following changes, which are presented 

in Exhibit 12. We have concluded that 

local AEFLA staff will not bear the 

burden for reviewing State and Local 

Plans because we have concluded that 

reviewing State and Local Plans is not 

the role of local AEFLA staff. Therefore, 

we removed all cost inputs at the local 

level related to this provision. 

EXHIBIT 12—UPDATES TO COSTS OF LOCAL-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—NEW ELEMENTS TO STATE AND LOCAL PLANS

NPRM Final rule 

(b) New elements to state and local plans NA 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ......... 40 40 Biennial ........ 57 States ..... N/A 

Admin. staff .... 40 20 

Development and Updating of State 

Performance Accountability Measures 

This section describes the updates to 

the NPRM’s provision (c) ‘‘Development 

and Updating of State Performance 

Accountability Measures.’’ In this Final 

Rule, this cost provision has been 

included in provision (c) ‘‘Performance 

Accountability System,’’ and it captures 

the cost of: (1) Developing and updating 

the State performance accountability 

system; (2) implementing measures for 

data collection and reporting on the 

effectiveness in serving employers; (3) 

negotiating levels of performance; (4) 

running the statistical adjustment model 

to adjust levels of performance based on 

actual economic conditions and 

characteristics of participants; (5) 

providing technical assistance to States; 

(6) obtaining UI wage data; and (7) 

purchasing data analytic software and 

performing training. For these activities, 

the total 10-year cost (undiscounted) 

increased from $128.9 million in the 

NPRM to $320.0 million in this Final 

Rule.30 31 These revised cost estimates 

can be found under the subsections 

‘‘Development and Updating of State 

Performance Accountability Systems,’’ 

‘‘Negotiation of Levels of Performance,’’ 

‘‘Running Statistical Adjustment Model 

to Adjust Levels of Performance Based 

on Actual Economic Conditions and 

Characteristics of Participants,’’ 

‘‘Technical Assistance to States,’’ 

‘‘Obtain UI Wage Data,’’ and ‘‘Data 

Analytic Software and Training,’’ in 

provision (c) of this Final Rule. 

At the Federal level for the DOL 

programs, the Departments made the 

following changes, which are presented 

in Exhibit 13. We added a one-time 

Federal software and IT systems cost of 

$750,000 to upgrade the system to meet 

the requirements of WIOA. Following 

discussions with additional program 

experts, we accounted for the effort 

related to negotiating levels of 

performance and adjusting levels of 

performance based on economic 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55936 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

conditions and the characteristics of 

participants. For negotiations, we added 

one manager and two management 

analysts. The biennial level of effort is 

estimated at 8 hours for both 

occupational categories. This additional 

level of effort is required for existing 

staff to compile new inputs that were 

not required under WIA. For adjusting 

levels of performance, we also added 

one manager and two computer systems 

analysts to account for running the 

regression model twice per year as 

required under WIOA rather than only 

once per year as required under WIA. 

The annual level of effort is estimated 

at 250 hours for managers and 1,000 

hours for computer systems analysts. 

Furthermore, licensing fees of $10,000 

will be incurred to purchase the 

statistical software used to perform the 

regression analysis and modeling. 

EXHIBIT 13—UPDATES TO COSTS OF FEDERAL-LEVEL DOL PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT AND UPDATING OF STATE

PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

NPRM Final rule 

(c) Development and updating of state performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

N/A Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Systems 

Software/IT systems 

cost.

$750,000 One time ....... 1 

Negotiation of Levels of Performance 

Management occupations staff (GS–14, 

Step 5).

1 8 1st year, then 

every 2 

years.

1 

Management analyst 

(GS–12, Step 5).

2 8 

Running Statistical Adjustment Model to Adjust Levels of Performance Based on Actual Economic Conditions and Characteristics of Participants 

Management occupations staff (GS–14, 

Step 5).

1 250 Annual .......... 1 

Computer systems analysts (GS–13, Step 5).2 1,000 

Licensing fee ................ $10,000 

The Departments made the following 

updates to the Federal-level AEFLA 

program, which are presented in Exhibit 

14. We accounted for the additional 

burden for Federal staff to negotiate 

levels of performance for the new 

performance indicators under WIOA. 

We added four managers and four social 

community service managers to perform 

these activities. The biennial level of 

effort for each occupational category is 

estimated at 24 hours for each staff 

member. 

The Departments also revised the 

estimates from the NPRM to include an 

important source of Federal burden for 

running the new statistical adjustment 

model. In the NPRM, we originally 

estimated no hours for this activity. 

After further review and consideration, 

however, we concluded that Federal 

staff hours will be required annually to 

account for running the statistical 

adjustment model twice per year as 

required under WIOA. We added two 

managers at 40 hours each and two 

management analysts at 80 hours each 

to perform these tasks annually. 

In addition, the Departments added a 

one-time Federal consultant cost of $1 

million in the second year to provide 

technical assistance to States in the 

collection of data to comply with the 

new requirements relating to the WIOA 

performance accountability indicators. 

EXHIBIT 14—UPDATES TO COSTS OF FEDERAL-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT AND UPDATING OF STATE

PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

NPRM Final rule 

(c) Development and updating of state performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

N/A Negotiation of Levels of Performance 

Management occupations staff (GS–14, 

Step 5).

4 24 1st year, then 

every 2 

years.

1 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55937 

EXHIBIT 14—UPDATES TO COSTS OF FEDERAL-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT AND UPDATING OF STATE

PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES—Continued 

NPRM Final rule 

(c) Development and updating of state performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Social & community 

service manager 

(GS–13, Step 5).

4 24 

Running Statistical Adjustment Model to Adjust Levels of Performance Based on Actual Economic Conditions and Characteristics of Participants 

Management occupations staff (GS–14, 

Step 5).

2 40 Annual .......... 1 

Management analysts 

(GS–12, Step 5).

2 80 

Technical Assistance to States 

Consultant cost ............. $1,000,000 2nd year ....... 1 

Exhibit 15 presents the following 

changes made by the Departments to the 

Federal level for the VR program. After 

consulting with additional program 

experts, we accounted for and revised 

the level of effort needed to develop and 

update State performance accountability 

systems, negotiate levels of 

performance, and run the statistical 

adjustment model to adjust levels of 

performance based on actual economic 

conditions and characteristics of 

participants. 

For developing and updating State 

performance accountability systems, the 

Departments added two data 

management specialists positions, one 

of which will be General Schedule (GS)- 

level 14 and the other GS-level 13. Both 

specialists will devote 768.63 hours in 

the first year of the rule to program the 

database and perform related software 

development tasks. For negotiations, we 

added four managers to reflect the 

analysis and review of State and Federal 

data during the negotiation process. The 

level of effort for the managers is 

estimated at 12 hours each biennially. 

For adjusting levels of performance, we 

added two managers and two database 

administrators to review the State and 

Federal data relative to the adjustments 

made to the levels of performance by the 

final run of the model. The level of 

effort for managers is estimated at 52 

hours each annually, while the level of 

effort for database administrators is 

estimated at 156 hours each annually. 

EXHIBIT 15—UPDATES TO COSTS OF FEDERAL-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT AND UPDATING OF STATE

PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

NPRM Final rule 

(c) Development and updating of state performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

N/A Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Systems 

Data Management Specialist (GS–14, Step 

5).

1 768.63 One time ....... 1. 

Data Management Specialist (GS–13, Step 

5).

1 768.63 One time ....... 1. 

Negotiation of Levels of Performance 

Management occupations staff (GS–14, 

Step 5).

4 12 1st year, then 

every 2 

years.

1. 

Running Statistical Adjustment Model to Adjust Levels of Performance Based on Actual Economic Conditions and Characteristics of Participants 

Management occupations staff (GS–14, 

Step 5).

2 52 Annual .......... 1. 

Database admin. (GS– 

13, Step 5).

2 156 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55938 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

At the State level for the DOL 

programs, the Departments made the 

following updates, which are presented 

in Exhibit 16. We replaced the technical 

staff in our previous estimate with the 

more appropriate occupational category 

of computer systems analyst. Following 

discussions with program experts, we 

increased the level of effort for each 

administrative staff member from 32 to 

72 hours, and we decided that costs 

related to the work performed by staff 

and the software and IT systems will be 

incurred only once rather than annually. 

In addition, we accounted for the effort 

related to negotiating levels of 

performance and adjusting levels of 

performance. For negotiations, we 

added one manager and two office and 

administrative support staff members. 

The estimated level of effort for each 

staff member in both occupational 

categories is 8 hours biennially. For 

adjusting levels of performance, we 

added one manager, two computer 

systems analysts, and two office and 

administrative support staff members. 

These staff members will gather and 

input various data points to the tool, 

which then will create statewide levels 

of performance for each WIOA 

performance indicator. The estimated 

annual level of effort for each manager, 

computer systems analyst, and office 

and administrative support staff 

member is 10 hours, 40 hours, and 20 

hours, respectively. 

EXHIBIT 16—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL DOL PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT AND UPDATING OF STATE

PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

NPRM Final rule 

(c) Development and updating of state performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ........ 1 32 Annual ......... 56 States ..... Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Systems 

Technical 

Staff.

3 80 Management occupations staff.1 32 One time ....... 57 SWAs. 

Admin. staff ... 1 32 Computer systems analyst.3 80 

Software/IT 

systems 

cost.

$100,000 Office & admin. support 

staff.

1 72 

Licensing fee $50,000 Software/IT systems 

cost.

$100,000 

Consultant 

cost.

$75,000 One time ...... Licensing fee ................ $50,000 Annual.

Consultant cost ............. $75,000 One time.

Negotiation of Levels of Performance 

Management occupations staff.1 8 1st year, then 

every 2 

years.

57 States. 

Office & admin. support 

staff.

2 8 

Running Statistical Adjustment Model to Adjust Levels of Performance Based on Actual Economic Conditions and Characteristics of Participants 

Management occupations staff.1 10 Annual .......... 57 States. 

Computer systems analysts.2 40 

Office & admin. support 

staff.

2 20 

The Departments made the following 

updates to the State-level AEFLA 

program, which are presented in Exhibit 

17. For the costs related to developing 

and updating State performance 

accountability systems, we reduced the 

number of managers from five to four 

after determining that this number will 

reflect more accurately the staffing level 

needed across all States and outlying 

areas. Three of these staff members are 

categorized as social and community 

service managers, and we decreased the 

level of effort per staff member from 80 

hours to 60 hours. We replaced the two 

technical staff in our previous estimate 

with the more appropriate occupational 

categories of database administrator and 

computer systems analyst. After 

consideration, we revised the 

calculation to exclude the five 

administrative staff members included 

in our previous estimate, because those 

occupational categories are generally 

not involved in these tasks. We 

eliminated a one-time consultant cost 

because we have concluded that 

consultants are typically not engaged in 

this task. We added an annual $350,000 

software and IT systems cost for the 

State AEFLA data system. This annual 

$350,000 software and IT systems cost 

replaces one-time and annual State 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55939 

software and IT systems costs that were 

previously attributed in the NPRM to 

provisions (i) ‘‘Performance Reports’’ 

and (j) ‘‘Evaluation of State Programs.’’ 

We have concluded that using annual 

State software and IT systems costs, 

rather than one-time software and IT 

systems costs, more accurately reflects 

the typical IT funding pattern of the 

State-level AEFLA program. 

These changes also are based on the 

review of public comments, which 

resulted in a decision by the 

Departments that each exit by a 

participant during a program year will 

count as a separate response to be used 

for data collection and outcome 

reporting for the performance 

indicators. Prior to WIOA, the AEFLA 

program reported only unduplicated 

counts of participant outcomes. Making 

the change to an accountability 

structure that is based on reporting 

outcomes for each exit by a participant 

during a program year represents a 

significant operational change for the 

AEFLA program and will require a 

commensurate increase in the level of 

effort needed for implementation. 

In addition, after discussions with 

program experts, the Departments 

accounted for additional burden for 

State staff to negotiate levels of 

performance for the new indicators 

under WIOA. We added one manager 

and one social community service 

manager to perform these activities. The 

biennial level of effort per staff member 

is estimated at 12 hours. 

The Departments eliminated the State 

burden for running the statistical 

adjustment model, after consulting with 

statistical experts and determining that 

the model will only be run in the 

Federal office using aggregate State data. 

EXHIBIT 17—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT AND UPDATING OF STATE

PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

NPRM Final rule 

(c) Development and updating of state performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 5 80 One time ........ 57 States ........ Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Systems 

Technical 

staff.

2 80 Management occupations staff.1 60 One time ........ 57 States. 

Admin. staff 5 80 Computer systems analyst.1 80 

Consultant 

cost.

$25,000 Social & community 

service manager.

3 60 

Database administrator 1 80 

Software/IT systems 

cost.

$350,000 Annual.

Negotiation of Levels of Performance 

Management occupations staff.1 12 1st year, then 

every 2 

years.

57 States. 

Social & community 

service manager.

1 12 

Note: Under the ‘‘Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Systems,’’ the software and IT systems costs are a combination of inputs that 

were previously accounted for under provisions (i) ‘‘Performance Reports’’ and (j) ‘‘Evaluation of State Programs.’’ 

Exhibit 18 presents the updates to the 

State VR program. Based on public 

comment and further deliberation, the 

Departments significantly revised the 

estimated State-level burden associated 

with the development and updating of 

State VR agency performance 

accountability systems. First, to more 

appropriately account for the burden 

associated with the establishment of 

State performance goals and the State’s 

evaluation and analysis of progress 

toward such goals, the Departments 

reduced the number of managers from 

six to four, three of which are 

categorized as social and community 

service managers, and replaced the four 

technical staff with two database 

administrators. However, this decrease 

in the number of staff is offset by the 

increase in the level of effort from 10 to 

80 hours for managers and 10 to 100 

hours for database administrators. We 

also included SRC members because 

they will need to play an advisory role 

in developing and updating levels of 

performance for the State VR agency. 

These costs will occur biennially. 

Although the Departments estimate 

that each VR agency will require 

computer systems analysts for this onetime task, the related burden for 

changing a State’s CMS has been broken 

down to reflect the variation among the 

80 State VR agencies with respect to 

their size and whether they contract for 

outside assistance for developing and 

maintaining their CMS. For example, 

the level of effort for the 30 VR agencies 

that have a maintenance contract with a 

CMS vendor to make system updates 

will be less than the 50 agencies that are 

without vendor support. The burden 

hours shown in Exhibit 18 for tasks to 

be carried out by computer systems 

analysts has been adjusted to reflect 

only those hours we attribute to new 

requirements under sec. 116 in title I of 

WIOA. The remaining hours related to 

this new burden are accounted for in the 

RIA accompanying the final regulations 

for ‘‘State Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services Program; State Supported 

Employment Services Program; 

Limitations on Use of Subminimum 

Wage,’’ which is published in this 

edition of the Federal Register. We also 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55940 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

added the proportional cost of annual 

licensing fees of $6,930 for 48 VR 

agencies for vendor-supplied CMS 

software. 

In addition, following discussions 

with program experts, the Departments 

accounted for and revised the level of 

effort needed to negotiate and adjust 

levels of performance and we are adding 

one manager, two social and community 

service managers, and two management 

analysts to accommodate the increased 

level of effort. Similarly, we used input 

from public comment and program 

experts to revise the level of effort 

needed to apply the statistical 

adjustment model and we are adding 

one manager, one computer systems 

analyst, one database administrator, and 

one management analyst to account for 

the effort needed to integrate the 

statistical adjustment model into the 

process of establishing expected levels 

of performance and negotiated levels of 

performance. 

In response to public comment and 

discussions with program experts, the 

Departments have included the 

estimated burden for obtaining UI Wage 

Data by VR Agencies. The estimates 

reflect that VR agencies will incur new 

costs for obtaining UI wage data on 

participants that exit the program after 

receiving services and will incur 

different levels of annual data query 

costs related to obtaining UI wage data, 

depending on the size of the agency. 

State VR agencies operating under the 

increased data and performance 

requirements of WIOA will also need 

the capability to analyze their program 

performance data more effectively. In 

response to public comment, we added 

a new software and IT systems cost for 

data analytic software and related 

training. The amount of the software 

and IT systems costs varies, depending 

on the size of the agency. 

EXHIBIT 18—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT AND UPDATING OF STATE

PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

NPRM Final rule 

(c) Development and updating of state performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 6 10 One time ........ 80 VR agencies.Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Systems 

Technical 

staff.

4 10 Management occupations staff.1 80 1st year, then 

every 2 

years.

80 VR 

agencies. 

Social & community 

service manager.

3 80 

Database administrator 2 100 

SRC Board members ... 12 3 

Computer systems analyst.5 360 One time ........ 5 (large) 

VR 

agencies 

w/o vendor support. 

2 360 45 (small & 

med.) 

VR 

agencies 

w/o vendor support. 

2 54 30 VR 

agencies 

w/CMS 

vendor 

contracts. 

Licensing fee ................ $6,930 Annual ............ 48 VR 

agencies. 

Negotiation of Levels of Performance 

Management occupations staff.1 12 1st year, then 

every 2 

years.

80 VR 

agencies. 

Social & community 

service manager.

2 12 

Management analyst .... 2 12 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55941 

EXHIBIT 18—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT AND UPDATING OF STATE

PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES—Continued 

NPRM Final rule 

(c) Development and updating of state performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Running Statistical Adjustment Model to Adjust Levels of Performance Based on Actual Economic Conditions and Characteristics of Participants 

Management occupations staff.1 4 Annual ............ 80 VR 

agencies. 

Computer systems analyst.1 4 

Database administrator 1 20 

Management analyst .... 1 4 

Obtain UI Wage Data 

Data query cost ............ $20,000 Annual ............ 10 (large) 

VR 

agencies. 

$8,000 42 (med.) 

VR 

agencies. 

$4,000 28 (small) 

VR 

agencies. 

Data Analytic Software and Training 

Software/IT systems 

cost.

$25,000 One time ........ 10 (large) 

VR 

agencies. 

$15,000 42 (med.) 

VR 

agencies. 

$10,000 28 (small) 

VR 

agencies. 

At the local level for the DOL 

programs, the Departments made the 

following updates, which are presented 

in Exhibit 19. Based on discussions with 

program experts, we added one manager 

and two office and administrative 

support staff members to account for the 

effort needed to negotiate levels of 

performance biennially. The biennial 

level of effort per staff member for both 

occupational categories is estimated at 8 

hours. We also added one manager, two 

computer systems analysts, and two 

office and administrative support staff 

members to account for the effort 

needed to run the statistical adjustment 

model annually. The estimated annual 

level of effort per staff member for the 

manager, computer systems analysts, 

and administrative staff members is 10 

hours, 40 hours, and 20 hours, 

respectively. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55942 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 19—UPDATES TO COSTS OF LOCAL-LEVEL DOL PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT AND UPDATING OF STATE

PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

NPRM Final rule 

(c) Development and updating of state performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

N/A Negotiation of Levels of Performance 

Management occupations staff.1 8 1st year then 

every 2 

years.

580 Local 

WDBs. 

Office & admin. occupations staff.2 8 

Running Statistical Adjustment Model to Adjust Levels of Performance Based on Actual Economic Conditions and Characteristics of Participants 

Management occupations staff.1 10 Annual ............ 580 Local 

WDBs. 

Computer systems analysts.2 40 

Office & admin. support 

staff.

2 20 

Exhibit 20 presents the updates to the 

local-level AEFLA program. The 

Departments considered the typical 

experience of local involvement and 

concluded that local staff will 

participate in statewide stakeholder 

meetings, convened by the State AEFLA 

office, to develop and update State 

performance accountability measures. 

We found that the level of effort for 

local AEFLA programs will be 

significantly less than previously 

expected because their role would be 

limited to those stakeholder meetings. 

Note that instead of presenting the costs 

at the State level as in the NPRM, we are 

presenting costs at the program, or local, 

level using the total number of local 

AEFLA programs reflected in actual 

program data submitted by States for the 

most recent reporting year. 

EXHIBIT 20—UPDATES TO COSTS OF LOCAL-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT AND UPDATING OF STATE

PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

NPRM Final rule 

(c) Development and updating of state performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 40 80 One-time ........ 57 States ........ Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Systems 

Technical 

staff.

40 80 Management occupations staff.1 4 One-time ........ 2,396 local 

programs. 

Database administrator 1 4 

Identification and Dissemination of Best 

Practices 

After further consideration, the 

Departments decided that the costs 

associated with provision (d) 

‘‘Identification and Dissemination of 

Best Practices’’ in the NPRM are more 

appropriate in the DOL WIOA Final 

Rule because the requirements affect 

only State WDBs. This provision now 

can be found as provision (c) in the DOL 

WIOA Final Rule. Therefore, this 

provision and its costs that result from 

the inputs presented in Exhibit 21 ($2.9 

million) are no longer included in the 

economic analysis for this Final Rule. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55943 

32The variance in cost is due to changes to the 

assumptions used to estimate costs (e.g., number of 

staff, occupational categories, level of effort, and 

frequency.) More specifically, this variance in cost 

is due to the reduction in annual software and IT 

systems cost for the State-level AEFLA program and 

the removal of the local-level AEFLA program costs. 

The Final Rule does not implement any policy 

changes over the NPRM that impact this cost. 

EXHIBIT 21—UPDATES TO COSTS OF LOCAL-LEVEL DOL STATE WDBS—IDENTIFICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF BEST

PRACTICES

NPRM Final rule 

(d) Identification and dissemination of best practices Moved to DOL WIOA final rule 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 1 20 One-time ........ 40 States ........ N/A. See DOL WIOA Final Rule 

Technical 

staff.

2 40 

Admin. staff 1 20 

Development of Strategies for Aligning 

Technology and Data Systems Across 

One-Stop Partner Programs To Enhance 

Service Delivery and Improve 

Efficiencies 

This section describes the updates to 

the NPRM’s provision (e) ‘‘Development 

of Strategies for Aligning Technology 

and Data Systems across One-Stop 

Partner Programs to Enhance Service 

Delivery and Improve Efficiencies.’’ In 

the Final Rule’s subject-by-subject 

analysis, this cost provision is combined 

into provision (c) ‘‘Performance 

Accountability System,’’ and it captures 

the cost of aligning technology and data 

systems across one-stop partner 

programs. For this activity, the total 10- 

year cost (undiscounted) decreased from 

$356.6 million in the NPRM to $166.5 

million in the Final Rule.32 These 

revised cost estimates can be found 

under the subsection ‘‘Development and 

Updating of State Performance 

Accountability Systems’’ in provision 

(c) of the Final Rule. 

Exhibit 22 presents the changes made 

by the Departments for the State 

Workforce Agencies (SWAs) State-level 

program. After further consideration, we 

removed the manager and technical staff 

members and replaced them with 

consultant and software and IT systems 

costs. We estimated that the 23 SWAs 

that are farther in the process of aligning 

their technology and data systems will 

incur $100,000 in first-year consultant 

costs for designing the new systems, 

$200,000 in first-year software and IT 

systems costs for purchasing hardware 

and implementing the new systems, and 

$100,000 in software and IT systems 

costs in the following 2 years for system 

maintenance. We estimate that the 34 

SWAs that use legacy systems will 

require more effort to align their 

technology and data systems. These 

SWAs will incur $200,000 in first-year 

consultant and software and IT system 

costs; $100,000 and $200,000 in secondyear consultant and software and IT 

system costs, respectively; and $100,000 

in software and IT systems costs for 

maintenance in the third through fifth 

years. 

EXHIBIT 22—UPDATES TO COSTS OF SWA—DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES FOR ALIGNING TECHNOLOGY AND DATA

SYSTEMS ACROSS ONE-STOP PARTNER PROGRAMS

NPRM Final rule 

(e) Development of strategies for aligning technology and data systems 

across one-stop partner programs 

(c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 1 80 One time ........ 56 States ........ Aligning Technology and Data Systems across One-stop Partner Programs 

Technical 

staff.

2 120 Consultant cost (‘‘LowEffort’’ SWAs).$100,000 One time ........ 23 SWAs. 

Software and IT systems cost (‘‘Low-Effort’’ SWAs).$200,000 One time.

Software and IT systems cost (‘‘Low-Effort’’ SWAs).$100,000 2nd & 3rd 

years.

Consultant cost (‘‘HighEffort’’ SWAs).$200,000 One time ........ 34 SWAs. 

Consultant cost (‘‘HighEffort’’ SWAs).$100,000 2nd year.

Software and IT systems cost (‘‘High-Effort’’ SWAs).$200,000 1st & 2nd 

years.


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55944 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

33For more information on the SLDS Grant 

Program, see the U.S. Department of Education, 

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics’ Web site: https://nces.ed.gov/ 

programs/slds/about_SLDS.asp. 

EXHIBIT 22—UPDATES TO COSTS OF SWA—DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES FOR ALIGNING TECHNOLOGY AND DATA

SYSTEMS ACROSS ONE-STOP PARTNER PROGRAMS—Continued 

NPRM Final rule 

(e) Development of strategies for aligning technology and data systems 

across one-stop partner programs 

(c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Software and IT systems cost (‘‘High-Effort’’ SWAs).$100,000 3rd–5th years.

For the AEFLA State-level program, 

the Departments made the following 

updates, which are shown in Exhibit 23. 

We removed the labor costs because 

these occupational categories are not 

generally involved in aligning 

technology and data systems. The 

annual software and IT systems cost 

decreased from $150,000 to $100,000 

because we were initially accounting for 

some costs that are now accounted for 

in the costs for performance reports 

under provision (c) of the Final Rule. As 

a result of the opportunities created for 

greater program coordination under 

WIOA, we estimate that AEFLA State 

agencies will enhance their 

participation in the SLDS Grant 

Program, which supports the design, 

development, implementation, and 

expansion of P–20W (early learning 

through the workforce) longitudinal 

data systems.33 The annual IT systems 

cost of $100,000 estimated in Exhibit 23 

accounts for this work. 

EXHIBIT 23—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES FOR ALIGNING

TECHNOLOGY AND DATA SYSTEMS ACROSS ONE-STOP PARTNER PROGRAMS

NPRM Final rule 

(e) Development of strategies for aligning technology and data systems 

across one-stop partner programs 

(c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 5 40 Annual ............ 57 States ........ Aligning Technology and Data Systems across One-stop Partner Programs 

Technical 

staff.

2 120 Software/IT systems 

cost.

$100,000 Annual ............ 57 States. 

Admin. staff 5 40 

Software/IT 

systems 

cost.

$150,000 

The Departments made the following 

changes to the VR program cost burden 

at the State level, which are presented 

in Exhibit 24. After further 

consideration, we removed the 

managers as well as the counsel and 

technical staff members and replaced 

them with consultant and software and 

IT systems costs. We estimated that the 

32 VR agencies that are further in the 

process of aligning their technology and 

data systems will incur $100,000 in 

first-year consultant costs for designing 

the new systems, $200,000 in first-year 

software and IT systems costs for 

purchasing hardware and implementing 

the new systems, and $100,000 in 

software and IT systems costs in each of 

the following 2 years for system 

maintenance. We estimate that the 48 

VR agencies that use legacy systems will 

require more effort to align their 

technology and data systems. These VR 

agencies will incur $200,000 in firstyear consultant and software and IT 

system costs; $100,000 and $200,000 in 

second-year consultant and software 

and IT system costs, respectively; and 

$100,000 in software and IT systems 

costs for maintenance in each year from 

the third through fifth years. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55945 

34This variance in cost is mainly due to the 

reduction in the number and types of workers 

expected to incur incremental cost for the locallevel AEFLA program and a reduction in their level 

of effort. 

EXHIBIT 24—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES FOR ALIGNING

TECHNOLOGY AND DATA SYSTEMS ACROSS ONE-STOP PARTNER PROGRAMS

NPRM Final rule 

(e) Development of strategies for aligning technology and data systems 

across one-stop partner programs 

(c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 1 8 Annual ............ 80 VR agencies.Aligning Technology and Data Systems across One-Stop Partner Programs 

Counsel 

staff.

1 4 Consultant cost (‘‘LowEffort’’ VR agencies).$100,000 One time ........ 32 VR 

agencies. 

Technical 

staff.

1 16 Software and IT systems cost (‘‘Low-Effort’’ VR agencies).$200,000 One time.

Software and IT systems cost (‘‘Low-Effort’’ VR agencies).$100,000 2nd & 3rd 

years.

Consultant cost (‘‘HighEffort’’ VR agencies).$200,000 One time ........ 48 VR 

agencies. 

Consultant cost (‘‘HighEffort’’ VR agencies).$100,000 2nd year.

Software and IT systems cost (‘‘High-Effort’’ VR agencies).$200,000 1st & 2nd 

years.

Software and IT systems cost (‘‘High-Effort’’ VR agencies).$100,000 3rd–5th years.

For the AEFLA program at the local 

level, the Departments made the 

following changes, which are shown in 

Exhibit 25. We have concluded that 

local AEFLA staff will not bear the 

burden for aligning technology and data 

systems because AEFLA data are 

collected and maintained at the State 

level in each State and outlying area. 

Therefore, we removed all cost inputs at 

the local level related to this provision. 

EXHIBIT 25—UPDATES TO COSTS OF LOCAL-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES FOR ALIGNING

TECHNOLOGY AND DATA SYSTEMS ACROSS ONE-STOP PARTNER PROGRAMS

NPRM Final rule 

(e) Development of strategies for aligning technology and data systems 

across one-stop partner programs 

N/A 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 40 40 Annual ............. 57 States ........ N/A 

Technical 

staff.

40 120 

Unified or Combined State Plan 

This section describes the updates to 

the NPRM’s provision (f) ‘‘Unified or 

Combined State Plans.’’ In this Final 

Rule’s subject-by-subject analysis, this 

cost provision has been included in 

provision (b) ‘‘Unified or Combined 

State Plans: Expanded Content, Biennial 

Development and Modification Process, 

and Submission Coordination 

Requirements,’’ and it captures the cost 

of (1) reviewing and developing new 4- 

year Unified or Combined State Plans to 

ensure they satisfy the new content 

requirements and (2) coordinating 

actions for developing new 4-year 

Unified or Combined State Plans among 

the core programs administered by the 

Departments. For these activities, the 

total 10-year cost (undiscounted) 

decreased from $17.2 million in the 

NPRM to $9.6 million in this Final 

Rule.34 These revised cost estimates can 

be found under the subsections 

‘‘Expanded Content’’ and ‘‘Coordinating 

Submission of State Plans’’ in provision 

(b) of this Final Rule. 

At the State level for the DOL 

programs, the Departments made the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55946 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

following updates, which are presented 

in Exhibit 26: (1) We added a one-time 

cost to review and revise existing plans 

to ensure they include the new 

elements; (2) we concluded the costs 

will be incurred biennially rather than 

only in the second and sixth years of the 

analysis period; (3) we reduced the 

number of managers from two to one 

along with their level of effort; (4) we 

removed the lawyers; (5) we replaced 

the four technical staff members in our 

previous estimate with the more 

appropriate management analyst 

occupational category; and (6) we 

reduced the level of effort per analyst 

from 20 to 8 hours. 

EXHIBIT 26—UPDATES TO COSTS OF LOCAL-LEVEL DOL STATE WDBS—UNIFIED OR COMBINED STATE PLAN

NPRM Final rule 

(f) Unified or Combined State Plan (b) Unified or Combined State Plans: Expanded Content, Biennial Development and 

Modification Process, and Submission Coordination Requirements 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 2 20 2nd & 6th years 56 States ........ Expanded Content 

Counsel staff 1 8 Management occupations 

staff.

4 20 One time ........ 57 states. 

Technical 

staff.

4 20 Lawyer ............................ 1 8 

Admin. staff 1 8 Social & community service manager.2 20 

Office & admin. support 

staff.

1 8 

Coordinating Submission of State Plans 

Management occupations 

staff.

1 8 1st year, then 

every 2 

years.

57 states. 

Management analyst ...... 2 8 

Office & admin. support 

staff.

1 8 

The Departments made the following 

updates to the State-level AEFLA 

program, which are presented in Exhibit 

27. After consulting with additional 

program experts, we added a one-time 

cost to review and revise existing plans 

to ensure that they include the new 

elements. We concluded that the costs 

for coordinating submissions will be 

incurred biennially rather than only 

once. We reduced the number of 

managers from five to one, which is a 

more accurate reflection of typical 

staffing in a State adult education office, 

and reduced the level of effort because 

we have concluded that the process of 

coordinating the submission of the State 

Plan does not require the level of effort 

we initially estimated. We decreased the 

lawyer’s level of effort from 8 to 4 hours 

because we have concluded that the 

process of coordinating the submission 

the State Plan does not require the level 

of effort we initially estimated. We 

clarified that the work done by the two 

technical staff will be done by three 

social and community service managers 

because we have concluded that 

technical staff members are typically not 

involved in the process of coordinating 

the submission of the State Plan. We 

also decreased the number of 

administrative staff from five to one, 

which is a more accurate reflection of 

typical staffing in a State adult 

education office, and halved the level of 

effort for the staff member because we 

have concluded that the process of 

coordinating the submission of the State 

Plan does not cumulatively require 

more than 1 full day of work for the 

administrative staff member. Finally, we 

removed the $25,000 consultant cost 

because we have concluded that a 

consultant is not required for the 

submission of the State Plan. 

EXHIBIT 27—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—UNIFIED OR COMBINED STATE PLAN

NPRM Final rule 

(f) Unified or Combined State Plan (b) Unified or Combined State Plans: Expanded Content, Biennial Development and 

Modification Process, and Submission Coordination Requirements 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 5 24 One time ......... 57 states ........ Expanded Content 

Counsel staff 1 8 Management occupations 

staff.

1 20 One time ........ 57 States. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55947 

EXHIBIT 27—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—UNIFIED OR COMBINED STATE PLAN—Continued 

NPRM Final rule 

(f) Unified or Combined State Plan (b) Unified or Combined State Plans: Expanded Content, Biennial Development and 

Modification Process, and Submission Coordination Requirements 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Technical 

staff.

2 24 Lawyer ............................ 1 20 

Admin. staff 5 16 Social & community service manager.3 20 

Consultant 

cost.

$25,000 Coordinating Submission of State Plans 

Management occupations 

staff.

1 8 1st year, then 

every 2 

years.

57 States. 

Lawyer ............................ 1 4 

Social & community service.3 8 

Office & admin. support 

staff.

1 8 

Exhibit 28 presents the changes made 

by the Departments to the State level for 

the VR program. After further 

consideration, we added a one-time cost 

to review and revise existing plans to 

ensure they include the new elements. 

We concluded that these costs for 

coordinating submissions will be 

incurred biennially rather than annually 

and we doubled the level of effort per 

manager and social and community 

service manager. We replaced the 

technical staff in our previous estimate 

with the more appropriate occupational 

category of social and community 

service manager. 

EXHIBIT 28—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—UNIFIED OR COMBINED STATE PLAN

NPRM Final rule 

(f) Unified or Combined State Plan (b) Unified or Combined State Plans: Expanded Content, Biennial Development and 

Modification Process, and Submission Coordination Requirements 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 2 7 Annual ............. 80 VR agencies.Expanded Content 

Technical 

staff.

2 7 Management occupations 

staff.

2 21 One time ........ 80 VR 

agencies. 

Social & community service manager.2 21 

Coordinating Submission of State Plans 

Management occupations 

staff.

2 14 1st year, then 

every 2 

years.

80 VR 

agencies. 

Social & community service manager.2 14 

The Departments made the following 

changes to the local-level AEFLA 

program, which are presented in Exhibit 

29. We considered the typical 

experience of local involvement and 

concluded that local staff will 

participate in statewide stakeholder 

meetings, convened by the State AEFLA 

office, to examine State Plan elements in 

need of modification and to gather input 

for those revisions. Therefore, we 

reduced the number of managers and 

removed the lawyers, technical and 

administrative staff, and local 

stakeholders and replaced them with 

social and community service managers. 

Note that instead of presenting the costs 

at the State level as in the NPRM, we are 

presenting costs at the program level. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55948 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

35The variance in cost is mainly due to changes 

for State-level DOL programs including: a reduction 

in the level of effort per worker; costs incurred once 

rather than annually; and the removal of annual 

software and IT systems costs and licensing fees 

and one-time consultant costs. 

EXHIBIT 29—UPDATES TO COSTS OF LOCAL-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—UNIFIED OR COMBINED STATE PLAN

NPRM Final rule 

(f) Unified or combined state plan (c) Unified or combined state plans: Expanded content, biennial development and 

modification process, and submission coordination requirements 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 40 24 One time ........ 57 States ........ Coordinating Submission of State Plans 

Counsel 

staff.

3 8 Management occupations staff.1 4 1st year, then 

every 2 

years.

2,396 local 

programs. 

Technical 

staff.

40 24 Social & community 

service manager.

1 4 

Admin. staff 40 16 

Local stakeholder.100 8 

Local Plan Revisions 

After further consideration, the 

Departments decided that the costs 

associated with provision (g) ‘‘Local 

Plan Revisions’’ in the NPRM are more 

appropriate in the DOL WIOA Final 

Rule. The costs associated with this 

provision now can be found under 

provision (m) ‘‘Local and Regional Plan 

Modification’’ in the DOL WIOA Final 

Rule. Therefore, this provision and its 

costs that result from the inputs 

presented in Exhibit 30 ($22.6 million) 

are no longer included in this Final Rule 

economic analysis. 

EXHIBIT 30—UPDATES TO COSTS OF LOCAL-LEVEL PROGRAMS—LOCAL PLAN REVISIONS

NPRM Final rule 

(g) Local plan revisions Moved to the DOL WIOA final rule 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Workforce Development Board Costs 

Manager ..... 2 20 2nd & 6th 

years.

580 Local 

WDBs.

N/A. See DOL WIOA Final Rule 

Counsel 

staff.

1 8 

Technical 

staff.

4 20 

Admin. staff 1 8 

AEFLA Program Costs 

Manager ..... 40 24 One time ........ 57 States ........ N/A. See DOL WIOA Final Rule 

Technical 

staff.

40 24 

Admin. staff 40 16 

Local stakeholders.100 8 

State Performance Accountability 

Measures 

This section describes the updates to 

the NPRM’s provision (h) ‘‘State 

Performance Accountability Measures,’’ 

which in this Final Rule’s subject-bysubject analysis is included in provision 

(c) ‘‘Performance Accountability 

System.’’ This provision captures the 

cost of collecting data to report on any 

additional State performance 

accountability indicators established by 

a State pursuant to WIOA sec. 

116(b)(2)(B). For this activity, the total 

10-year cost (undiscounted) decreased 

from $11.7 million in the NPRM to 

$170,000 in the Final Rule.35 These 

revised cost estimates can be found 

under the subsections ‘‘Additional State 

Performance Accountability Indicators 

(Beyond Required Performance 

Indicators)’’ in provision (c) of the Final 

Rule. 

At the State level for the DOL 

programs, the Departments made the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55949 

following updates, which are presented 

in Exhibit 31. After discussions with 

additional program experts, we made 

the following updates: (1) We concluded 

that costs will be incurred only once 

rather than annually; (2) we halved the 

level of effort for managers; (3) we 

replaced the technical staff in our 

previous estimate with the more 

appropriate occupational category of 

computer systems analyst and halved 

their level of effort; (4) we increased the 

level of effort from 32 to 36 hours; and 

(5) we removed the software and IT 

systems cost, licensing fees, and 

consultant cost. 

EXHIBIT 31—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL DOL PROGRAMS—STATE PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

NPRM Final rule 

(h) State performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability measures 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 1 32 Annual ............ 5 States .......... Additional State Performance Accountability Indicators (Beyond Required Performance Indicators) 

Technical 

staff.

3 80 Management occupations staff.1 16 One time ........ 5 States 

Admin. staff 1 32 Computer systems analyst.3 40 

Software/IT 

systems 

cost.

$100,000 Office & admin. support 

staff.

1 36 

Licensing 

fee.

$50,000 

Consultant 

cost.

$75,000 One time 

The Departments made the following 

updates at the State level for the AEFLA 

program, which are presented in Exhibit 

32. We increased the hours for all State 

staff and reduced the number of 

management staff members from five to 

four after determining the number 

needed to reflect a staffing level that is 

more representative of the States and 

outlying areas. Three of these managers 

are categorized as social and community 

service managers. We replaced the two 

technical staff members in our previous 

estimate with the more appropriate 

occupational categories of database 

administrators and computer systems 

analysts. We revised the calculation to 

exclude the five administrative staff 

members included in our previous 

estimate, because those occupational 

categories generally would not be 

involved in the development of 

additional State performance 

accountability measures. 

EXHIBIT 32—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—STATE PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY

MEASURES

NPRM Final rule 

(h) State performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability measures 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 5 7 One time ........ 5 States .......... Additional State Performance Accountability Indicators (Beyond Required Performance Indicators) 

Technical 

staff.

2 7 Management occupations staff.1 8 One time ........ 5 States. 

Admin. staff 5 7 Computer systems analyst.1 8 

Social & community 

service manager.

3 8 

Database administrator 1 8 

Exhibit 33 presents the changes made 

by Departments for the State-level VR 

program. After additional discussion 

with our program experts, we became 

aware that the estimated burden for 

obtaining UI wage data in the NPRM 

was not related to the additional State 

performance indicators. In this Final 

Rule, the burden will be for 80 State VR 

agencies to obtain UI wage data for the 

reporting on the primary indicators of 

performance, which is included in 

Exhibit 18. In addition, due to public 

comment and additional consultation 

with program experts, we reduced the 

number of VR agencies that will incur 

costs related to the additional State 

performance accountability indicators 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55950 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

36A portion of the $295.4 million in costs 

accounts for software and IT systems costs from 

provision (e) ‘‘Development of Strategies for 

Aligning Technology and One-Stop Partner 

Programs’’ and provision (j) ‘‘Evaluation of State 

Programs.’’ Thus, this value overstates how much 

costs have increased in this Final Rule relative to 

the NPRM. 

37This variance in cost is due to new annual and 

one-time software and IT systems costs for Federal 

AEFLA programs, new annual labor costs for the 

State-level DOL program, and new one-time and 

annual labor costs for the State-level VR program. 

from seven to five and decreased the 

level of effort from 9 to 8 hours for each 

occupational category. We removed the 

software and IT systems costs from the 

subsection on ‘‘Additional State 

Performance Accountability Indicators 

(Beyond Required Performance 

Indicators)’’ because upon further 

consideration, we concluded that this 

software cost applies only to data 

collection for the primary indicators of 

performance. 

EXHIBIT 33—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—STATE PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

NPRM Final rule 

(h) State performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability measures 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Obtain Quarterly State UI Wage Data Additional State Performance Accountability Indicators (Beyond Required Performance Indicators) 

Manager ..... 2 20 One time ........ 7 VR agencies Management occupations staff.1 8 One time ........ 5 VR agencies. 

Counsel 

staff.

1 20 Computer systems analyst.1 8 

Technical 

staff.

2 20 Social & community 

service manager.

3 8 

Obtain Additional Information for New Data Fields Database administrator 1 8 

Technical 

staff.

60 9 Annual ............ 7 VR agencies.

Software/IT 

systems 

cost.

$5,000 One time.

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments made the 

following changes, which are presented 

in Exhibit 34. We considered the typical 

experience of local involvement and 

concluded that local staff will 

participate in statewide stakeholder 

meetings, convened by the State AEFLA 

office, to develop and update the 

additional State performance 

accountability measures. Therefore, we 

reduced the level of effort from 7 to 4 

hours. Note that instead of presenting 

the costs at the State level as in the 

NPRM, we are presenting costs at the 

program, or local, level. 

EXHIBIT 34—UPDATES TO COSTS OF LOCAL-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—STATE PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY

MEASURES

NPRM Final rule 

(h) State performance accountability measures (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 40 7 One time ........ 5 States .......... Additional State Performance Accountability Indicators (Beyond Required Performance Indicators) 

Technical 

staff.

40 7 Management occupations staff.1 4 One time ........ 200 local 

programs. 

Database administrator 1 4 

Performance Reports 

This section describes the updates to 

the NPRM’s provision (i) ‘‘Performance 

Reports.’’ In the Final Rule, this cost 

provision has been included in 

provision (c) ‘‘Performance 

Accountability System’’ and it captures 

the costs of developing a performance 

template that reports outcomes via the 

new WIOA performance accountability 

metrics; developing, updating, and 

submitting ETP reports; and collecting, 

analyzing, and reporting performance 

data. For this activity, the total 10-year 

cost (undiscounted) increased from 

$121.9 million in the NPRM to $295.4 

million in the Final Rule.36 37 These 

revised cost estimates can be found 

under the subsections ‘‘Development 

and Updating State Performance 

Accountability Systems’’ and 

‘‘Performance Reports’’ in provision (c) 

of this Final Rule. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55951 

At the Federal level for the DOL 

programs, the Departments made the 

following updates, which are shown in 

Exhibit 35. After consultation with 

additional program experts, we added 

annual burden hours for one manager, 

one computer systems analyst, and one 

management analyst to implement and 

review the new ETP performance 

reporting template. We also added an 

estimated annual software and IT 

systems cost of $250,000 for ETP 

reporting. 

EXHIBIT 35—UPDATES TO COSTS OF FEDERAL-LEVEL DOL PROGRAMS—PERFORMANCE REPORTS

NPRM Final rule 

(i) Performance reports (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

N/A Performance Report 

Management occupations staff (GS–14, 

Step 5).

1 8 Annual ............ 1 

Computer systems analysts (GS–13, Step 5).1 5 

Management analyst 

(GS–12, Step 5).

1 16 

Software/IT systems 

cost.

$250,000 

The Departments made the following 

updates for the Federal-level AEFLA 

program, which are presented in Exhibit 

36. We concluded that updating and 

maintaining the Federal data system for 

compliance with the new requirements 

of WIOA will be performed annually 

rather than once because Federal data 

system costs have been historically 

incurred annually. We reduced the 

number of Federal staff members and 

clarified that the work will be 

performed by one manager, one social 

and community service manager, and 

one database administrator. We reduced 

the level of effort per manager from 60 

to 8 hours, because most of this work 

will be performed by the database 

administrator. The managers will direct 

and oversee the modernization process 

and the database administrator will 

manage the new system. Finally, we 

revised our estimate to add a one-time 

Federal cost of $5 million for IT systems 

development, modernization, and 

enhancement to build the data 

infrastructure and increase the capacity 

of the adult education data collection 

system at the Federal, State, and local 

levels to comply with the new 

performance reporting requirements 

under WIOA. An annual software and 

IT cost of $250,000 also has been 

included to maintain the data 

infrastructure in steady state. 

EXHIBIT 36—UPDATES TO COSTS OF FEDERAL-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—PERFORMANCE REPORTS

NPRM Final rule 

(i) Performance reports (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager 

(GS–13, 

Step 5).

1 60 One time ........ 1 ..................... Performance Report 

Federal staff 

(GS–13, 

Step 5).

10 15 Management occupations staff (GS–14, 

Step 5).

1 8 Annual ............ 1 

Social & community 

service manager 

(GS–13, Step 5).

1 16 

Database administrator 

(GS–13, Step 5).

1 40 

Software/IT systems 

cost.

$250,000 

Software/IT systems 

cost.

$5,000,000 One time ........ 1 

The Departments made the following 

updates for the Federal-level VR 

program, which are presented in Exhibit 

37. We added a one-time software and 

IT cost of $68,925 to support the VR 

program’s ability to compile quarterly 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55952 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

data reported by VR agencies into the 

annual reports required under WIOA. 

The ED will be developing and 

submitting the annual reports based on 

quarterly data submitted by the VR 

agencies. This cost was not included in 

the NPRM because at the time the 

NPRM was published, the PIRL and 

RSA–911 had not been finalized. Since 

that time, ED has completed a more 

comprehensive analysis of the data 

structure required to meet the WIOA 

requirements and found that additional 

software is necessary to support the 

development of the annual reports for 

VR agencies by ED. 

EXHIBIT 37—UPDATES TO COSTS OF FEDERAL-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—PERFORMANCE REPORTS

NPRM Final rule 

(i) Performance reports (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

N/A Performance Reports 

Software/IT systems 

cost.

$68,925 One-time ........ 1 

Exhibit 38 presents updates to the 

State-level DOL program. The 

Departments added one manager, one 

computer systems analyst, one 

management analyst, and one office and 

administrative support staff member to 

account for the annual effort related to 

ETP reporting. 

EXHIBIT 38—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL DOL PROGRAMS—PERFORMANCE REPORTS

NPRM Final rule 

(i) Performance reports (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

N/A Performance Reports 

Management occupations staff.1 8 Annual ............ 57 States. 

Computer systems analyst.1 40 

Management analyst .... 1 60 

Office & admin. support 

staff.

4 20 

The Departments made the following 

changes for the AEFLA program at the 

State level, which are presented in 

Exhibit 39. We concluded that the effort 

from all relevant staff members will 

occur on an annual basis rather than 

once. We reduced the number of 

managers from five to four after 

determining that this number will 

reflect more accurately the staffing level 

needed across all States and outlying 

areas. Three of these staff members are 

categorized as social and community 

service managers. We replaced the two 

technical staff members in our previous 

estimate with the more appropriate 

occupational categories of database 

administrator and computer systems 

analyst. We also revised the calculation 

to exclude the five administrative staff 

members included in our previous 

estimate because those occupational 

categories are generally not involved 

with performance reports. In addition, 

we moved the State data system costs to 

the subsection under provision (c) on 

‘‘Development and Updating of State 

Performance Accountability Systems’’ 

where more realistic costs will be 

captured that States will incur in 

establishing the capabilities to collect 

the data necessary to calculate the 

newly required performance measures 

(see Exhibit 17). We have concluded 

that the one-time cost estimate for the 

State-level software and IT systems cost 

needed to be aligned with actual 

funding patterns across all States and 

outlying areas and will occur annually. 

In addition, we eliminated the recurring 

licensing fee, since we accounted for 

such fees in the annual cost estimate for 

the State data system under the 

subsection ‘‘Development and Updating 

of State Performance Accountability 

Systems.’’ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55953 

EXHIBIT 39—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—PERFORMANCE REPORTS

NPRM Final rule 

(i) Performance reports (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 5 40 One time ........ 56 States ........ Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Systems 

Technical 

staff.

2 40 Software/IT systems 

cost.

$350,000 Annual ............ 57 States. 

Admin. staff 5 40 Performance Reports 

Management occupations staff.1 40 Annual ............ 57 States. 

Software/IT 

cost.

$1,750,000 57 States ........ Computer systems analyst.1 40 

Licensing 

fee.

$25,000 Annual ............ Social & community 

service manager.

3 40 

Database administrator 1 40 

At the State level for the VR program, 

the Departments made the following 

changes, which are presented in Exhibit 

40. We added one manager, one 

computer systems analyst, two social 

and community service managers, and 

one database administrator to address 

the State-level effort involved in 

reviewing and verifying the annual 

performance report that RSA will 

assemble from the quarterly RSA–911 

data the States have previously 

reported. 

In response to comments, the 

Departments have included the burden 

associated with the training of VR staff 

on the collection of new data and 

related data collection requirements. 

Based on information from the RSA–2 

Cost Report, we use an average of 62 

rehabilitation counselors per VR agency 

in calculating this burden and have 

added labor burden of 6 hours for one 

staff trainer and 3 hours for each of the 

62 rehabilitation counselors to 

participate in the training. 

Finally, Exhibit 40 includes the 

annual labor for 62 rehabilitation 

counselors per VR agency to collect the 

new data. The data collection related 

labor burden included in this analysis is 

limited to the hours the Departments 

have attributed to the requirements 

under sec. 116 of title I of WIOA 

implemented in these joint regulations. 

We estimate that approximately 36 

percent of all new data elements 

required by WIOA are related to 

requirements under sec. 116 of title I of 

WIOA and have prorated the total 

additional data collection burden 

accordingly. For the first year of data 

collection, VR agencies will incur a 

greater data collection burden than in 

subsequent years. All VR participants 

who are still receiving services (i.e., 

have not exited) by the start of PY 2016 

(July 1, 2016) become WIOA 

participants and will be counted and 

tracked in accordance with the WIOA 

performance requirements set forth in 

sec. 116 of WIOA. Based on Statereported RSA data for FY 2015, we 

estimate that each VR agency will incur 

an additional 3,600 hours in labor 

burden to collect sec. 116 performance 

data for current and new participants in 

the first year of data collection, or 58 

additional hours per VR counselor. 

However, for the second and subsequent 

years of data collection under these final 

regulations, we estimate that each VR 

agency will incur an additional 945 

hours per year in labor burden to collect 

joint performance data, or 15 hours per 

year per counselor. The data collection 

burden associated with the 

implementation of amendments to the 

VR program under title IV of WIOA is 

included in the RIA section of the final 

regulations for the ‘‘State Vocational 

Rehabilitation Services Program; State 

Supported Employment Services 

Program; Limitations on Use of 

Subminimum Wage’’ also published in 

this edition of the Federal Register. 

EXHIBIT 40—UPDATES TO THE FINAL RULE ANALYSIS COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—PERFORMANCE REPORTS

NPRM Final rule 

(i) Performance reports (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

N/A Performance Reports—Review and Verify Annual Performance Reports 

Management occupations staff.1 5 Annual ............ 80 VR 

agencies. 

Computer systems analyst.1 5 

Social & community 

service manager.

2 10 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55954 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

38A small portion of State-level software and IT 

systems costs for the AEFLA program was moved 

to provision (c) ‘‘Performance Accountability 

System.’’ 

39A portion of the $222.5 million in costs 

accounts for software and IT systems costs from 

provision (e) ‘‘Development of Strategies for 

Aligning Technology and One-Stop Partner 

Programs’’ and provision (i) ‘‘Performance Reports.’’ 

Thus, this value understates how much costs have 

decreased in this Final Rule relative to the NPRM. 

40This variance in cost is due to the reduction in 

software and IT systems costs for State-level DOL 

programs and the removal of costs for local-level 

AEFLA programs. 

EXHIBIT 40—UPDATES TO THE FINAL RULE ANALYSIS COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—PERFORMANCE

REPORTS—Continued 

NPRM Final rule 

(i) Performance reports (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Database administrator 1 25 

Performance Reports—Training on New Data Collection 

Staff trainer ................... 1 6 One time ........ 80 VR 

agencies. 

Rehabilitation counselor 62 3 

Performance Reports –Data Collection 

Rehabilitation counselor 62 58 First year ........ 80 VR 

agencies. 

Rehabilitation counselor 62 15 Second and 

subsequent 

years.

80 VR 

agencies. 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments made the 

following updates, which are presented 

in Exhibit 41. We considered the extent 

of actual local involvement in 

performance reporting and additional 

burden under WIOA. Instead of 

presenting the costs at the State level as 

in the NPRM, we are presenting annual 

costs at the program, or local, level. As 

a result, we reduced the number of 

managers and the hours per local 

manager and increased the number of 

entities to reflect local programs for this 

provision. In addition, we added one 

database administrator for data 

collection, analysis, and entry. 

EXHIBIT 41—UPDATES TO COSTS OF LOCAL-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—PERFORMANCE REPORTS

NPRM Final rule 

(i) Performance reports (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 40 40 One time ........ 57 States ........ Performance Reports 

Management occupations staff.1 8 Annual ............ 2,396 local 

programs. 

Social & community 

service manager.

1 8 

Database administrator 1 8 

Evaluation of State Programs 

This section describes the updates to 

the NPRM’s provision (j) ‘‘Evaluation of 

State Programs.’’ In the Final Rule’s 

subject-by-subject analysis, costs related 

to this provision can be found primarily 

in provision (d) ‘‘State Evaluation 

Responsibilities.’’ 38 The cost of this 

provision of the Final Rule reflects the 

cost for affected entities to conduct 

evaluations of title I activities over 

multiple years to provide various forms 

of data for Federal evaluations, and for 

SWAs and other State agencies to 

coordinate in designing and developing 

evaluations carried out under sec. 116(e) 

of WIOA. For this provision, the total 

10-year cost (undiscounted) decreased 

from $737.9 million in the NPRM to 

$222.5 million in this Final Rule.39 40

At the Federal level for the DOL 

programs, the Departments made the 

following updates, which are presented 

in Exhibit 42. We added two managers, 

one computer system analyst, and two 

management analysts to account for 

Federal effort related to SWA evaluation 

activities under sec. 116(e) of WIOA. We 

added these Federal staff costs to 

support all aspects of State evaluation 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55955 

activities, including technical assistance, monitoring, and 

dissemination. 

EXHIBIT 42—UPDATES TO COSTS OF FEDERAL-LEVEL DOL PROGRAMS—EVALUATION OF STATE PROGRAMS

NPRM Final rule 

(j) Evaluation of state programs (d) State evaluation responsibilities 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

N/A Management occupations staff (GS–14, 

Step 5).

2 25 Annual ............ 1. 

Computer systems analysts (GS–13, Step 5).1 3 

Management analyst 

(GS–12, Step 5).

2 30 

Exhibit 43 presents the changes made 

by the Departments to reflect the cost of 

Federal AEFLA program staff in 

providing technical assistance and 

promoting State adult education agency 

participation in the coordination 

process, and possibly in the design and 

development of State evaluation 

activities under WIOA sec. 116(e). 

These Federal staff costs were added to 

support all aspects of State evaluation 

activities, including technical 

assistance, monitoring, and 

dissemination. 

EXHIBIT 43—UPDATES TO COSTS OF FEDERAL-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—EVALUATION OF STATE PROGRAMS

NPRM Final rule 

(j) Evaluation of state programs (d) State evaluation responsibilities 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

N/A Management occupations staff (GS–14, 

Step 5).

4 10 Annual ............ 1. 

Computer systems analysts (GS–13, Step 5).1 5 

Management analyst 

(GS–12, Step 5).

2 30 

Exhibit 44 presents the changes made 

by the Departments to reflect the cost of 

Federal staff responsible for the VR 

program in providing technical 

assistance and promoting State VR 

agency participation and coordination 

in carrying out State evaluations under 

sec. 116(e) of WIOA, including possible 

involvement in the design and 

development of such evaluations. We 

added these Federal staff costs to 

support all aspects of State evaluation 

activities such as technical assistance, 

monitoring, and dissemination. 

EXHIBIT 44—UPDATES TO COSTS OF FEDERAL-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—EVALUATION OF STATE PROGRAMS

NPRM Final rule 

(j) Evaluation of state programs (d) State evaluation responsibilities 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

N/A Management occupations staff (GS–14, 

Step 5).

2 5 Annual ............ 1. 

Social & community 

service manager 

(GS–13, Step 5).

2 10 

Management analyst 

(GS–12, Step 5).

2 15 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55956 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

The Departments made the following 

updates to the State-level DOL 

programs, which are presented in 

Exhibit 45. After consultation with 

additional program experts, we made 

the following updates: (1) We replaced 

the manager in our previous estimate 

with the more appropriate occupational 

category of social and community 

service manager; (2) we replaced the 

two technical staff members in the 

previous estimate with the more 

appropriate occupational category of 

computer systems analyst and reduced 

the annual level of effort per staff 

member from 20 hours to 15 hours; (3) 

we added a management analyst with an 

annual level of effort of 10 hours; (4) we 

reduced the annual software and IT 

systems costs from $200,000 and $1 

million for 20 ‘‘low-effort’’ States and 15 

‘‘high-effort’’ States, respectively, to 

$10,000 for all 57 SWAs; and (5) we 

added an annual consultant cost of 

$21,400. In the NPRM, we assumed that 

full cooperation would occur. 

Realistically, cooperation will be 

difficult to achieve because there is an 

overall lack of funding for evaluations; 

therefore, a reduced cost estimate is 

appropriate. 

EXHIBIT 45—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL DOL PROGRAMS—EVALUATION OF STATE PROGRAMS

NPRM Final rule 

(j) Evaluation of state programs (d) State evaluation responsibilities 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 1 20 Annual ............ 56 States ........ Computer systems analyst.2 15 Annual ............ 57 SWAs. 

Technical 

staff.

2 20 Social & community 

service manager.

1 20 

Admin. staff 1 10 Management analyst .... 1 10 

Software/IT 

systems 

cost 

(‘‘Low-Effort’’ 

States).

$200,000 20 States ........ Office & admin. support 

staff.

1 10 

Software/IT 

systems 

cost 

(‘‘High-Effort’’ 

States).

$1,000,000 15 States ........ Software/IT systems 

cost.

$10,000 

Consultant cost ............. $21,400 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments made the 

following changes, which are presented 

in Exhibit 46. We reduced the number 

of managers from five to two after 

determining that the number needed to 

reflect an average staffing level for this 

activity across all States and outlying 

areas. One of these managers is 

categorized as a social and community 

service manager. We replaced the two 

technical staff members in the previous 

estimate with the more appropriate 

occupational categories of computer 

systems analysts and management 

analysts. We also revised the calculation 

to exclude the five administrative staff 

members included in the previous 

estimate, because those occupational 

categories are generally not involved in 

the evaluation of State programs. We 

reduced the level of effort for the staff 

because we have concluded that this 

work does not require the level of effort 

we initially estimated. In addition, we 

eliminated the annual IT systems costs 

from this provision and accounted for 

them under subsection ‘‘Development 

and Updating of State Performance 

Accountability Systems’’ in provision 

(c) of this Final Rule because they were 

more appropriately placed there (see 

Exhibit 17). 

EXHIBIT 46—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—EVALUATION OF STATE PROGRAMS

NPRM Final rule 

(j) Evaluation of state programs (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 5 120 Annual ............ 57 States ........ Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Systems 

Technical 

staff.

2 80 Software/IT systems 

cost.

$350,000 Annual ............ 57 States. 

Admin. staff 5 80 (d) State Evaluation Responsibilities 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55957 

EXHIBIT 46—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—EVALUATION OF STATE PROGRAMS—Continued 

NPRM Final rule 

(j) Evaluation of state programs (c) Performance accountability system 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Software/IT 

systems 

cost.

$250,000 Management occupations staff.1 10 Annual ............ 57 SWAs. 

Computer systems analyst.1 20 

Social & community 

service manager.

1 10 

Management analyst .... 1 20 

For the State VR program, the 

Departments replaced the technical staff 

member in the previous estimate with 

the more appropriate occupational 

category of computer systems analysts, 

as shown in Exhibit 47. In addition, we 

added one social community service 

manager and one management analyst. 

EXHIBIT 47—UPDATES TO COSTS OF STATE-LEVEL VR PROGRAMS—EVALUATION OF STATE PROGRAMS

NPRM Final rule 

(j) Evaluation of state programs (d) State evaluation responsibilities 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 1 1 Annual ............ 80 VR agencies.Management occupations staff.1 1 Annual ............ 80 VR 

agencies. 

Technical 

staff.

1 13 Computer systems analyst.1 13 

Admin. staff 1 2 Social & community 

service managers.

1 5 

Management analyst .... 1 5 

Office and admin. support staff.1 2 

The Departments made the following 

changes for the local-level AEFLA 

program, which are presented in Exhibit 

48. We reconsidered the extent of local 

involvement in the evaluation of State 

programs. As a result, we concluded 

that hours for local staff should be 

eliminated for this provision. 

EXHIBIT 48—UPDATES TO COSTS OF LOCAL-LEVEL AEFLA PROGRAMS—EVALUATION OF STATE PROGRAMS

NPRM Final rule 

(j) Evaluation of state programs (d) State evaluation responsibilities 

Labor 

category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Labor category 

Average 

number of 

workers 

Average 

level 

of effort 

(hrs.) 

Frequency 

Number of 

affected 

entities 

Manager ..... 40 120 Annual ............ 57 States ........ N/A 

Technical 

staff.

40 80 

Admin. staff 40 80 

Effectiveness in Serving Employers 

This section describes the updates to 

the rule’s cost analysis. In the NPRM, 

the Departments did not include costs 

for States to implement effectiveness in 

serving employer approaches because, 

at the time of the NPRM’s publication, 

policy decisions had not yet been made 

on whether these measures would be 

added to the rule. In the Final Rule, the 

Departments estimated the cost of the 

pilot program and the implementation 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55958 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

of the effectiveness in serving employers 

measures, which amounted to a total 

undiscounted 10-year cost of $6.4 

million. See the cost subsection of 

section V.A.6 (Subject-by-Subject 

Analysis) below for details on this 

estimate. 

6. Subject-by-Subject Cost-Benefit 

Analysis 

The Departments’ analysis below 

covers the expected costs of 

implementing the requirements of the 

Final Rule against the baseline cost 

under WIA, especially with regard to 

the following four expected costs: (a) 

‘‘Time to Review the New Rule;’’ (b) 

‘‘Unified or Combined State Plans: 

Expanded Content, Biennial 

Development and Modification Process, 

and Submission Coordination 

Requirements;’’ (c) ‘‘Performance 

Accountability System;’’ and (d) ‘‘State 

Evaluation Responsibilities.’’ 

The Departments emphasize that 

many of the requirements in this Final 

Rule are not new, for DOL programs, but 

rather were requirements under WIA. 

For example, States were required to 

‘‘prepare performance reports’’ under 

title I of WIA and other authorizing 

statutes amended by WIA required 

States to submit performance 

information. Similarly, many of the 

requirements governing the one-stop 

system’s infrastructure and operations 

under WIA are carried forward under 

WIOA. Therefore, these and other such 

costs are not considered ‘‘new’’ cost 

burdens under this Final Rule for some 

of the core programs, but rather are 

included in the ‘‘baseline costs’’ used as 

a comparison for the new burden costs. 

Accordingly, this regulatory analysis 

focuses on new costs that can be 

attributed exclusively to new 

requirements under title I of WIOA as 

addressed in this Final Rule. 

a. Time To Review the New Rule 

Upon publication of this Final Rule, 

the regulated community will need to 

learn about the new regulations and 

plan for compliance. 

Affected entities will incur costs 

based primarily on the level of effort 

needed by relevant individuals to 

review and understand the Final Rule. 

This includes interpretation and 

learning how to navigate the Final Rule, 

but it does not include any steps beyond 

what is included in the baseline related 

to running a Federal program. Costs for 

developing a detailed action plan for 

compliance would not be included in 

the new cost burden because they will 

be accounted for in other burden 

estimate discussions. In addition, 

affected entities will incur relatively 

minor costs for the first steps needed to 

comply, such as notifying relevant 

personnel of the rule. The Departments 

estimate that learning about the new 

regulations and planning for compliance 

with those regulations will involve onetime labor costs for State-level DOL 

programs, State- and local-level AEFLA 

programs, and State VR agencies in the 

first analysis year. Local WDBs might 

incur limited costs under this provision, 

which are not accounted for below, 

because the costs for relevant 

individuals to comply are accounted for 

in the DOL, AEFLA, and VR agency 

estimates. DOL expects that the States 

will carefully review and interpret the 

Final Rule before passing along any 

necessary information to Local WDBs. 

Although Local WDBs are not required 

to review the Final Rule, those that do 

are likely to limit their review to a few 

paragraphs or sections most relevant to 

them. 

i. Costs 

At the State level for DOL’s core 

programs (see Exhibit 5), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (4) by the time 

required to read and review the new 

rule (20 hours each), and then by the 

applicable hourly compensation rate 

($65.48/hour). We performed the same 

calculation for the following 

occupational categories: Managers (1 

manager at $65.39/hour for 20 hours) 

and social and community service 

managers (2 managers at $54.21/hour for 

40 hours each). We summed the labor 

cost for all three categories ($10,883) 

and multiplied the result by the number 

of States (57) to estimate this one-time 

cost of $620,331. Over the 10-year 

period, this calculation yields an 

average annual cost of $62,033. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 6), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (1) by the time 

required to read and review the new 

rule (20 hours) and then by the 

applicable hourly compensation rate 

($65.48/hour). We performed the same 

calculation for the following 

occupational categories: Managers (1 

manager at $65.39/hour for 40 hours) 

and social and community service 

managers (3 managers at $54.21/hour for 

20 hours each). We summed the labor 

cost for all three categories ($7,178) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States (57). This calculation resulted in 

a one-time cost of $409,135, which is 

equal to an average annual cost of 

$40,913. 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 8), the 

Departments multiplied the estimated 

number of managers (1) by the time 

required to read and review the new 

rule (4 hours) and then by the hourly 

compensation rate ($63.63/hour). We 

repeated the calculation for social and 

community service managers (1 

manager at $61.01/hour for 4 hours). We 

did not estimate lawyer hours for locallevel AEFLA programs because our 

experience indicates that this 

occupational category is typically 

engaged only at the State level. We 

summed the labor cost for both 

occupational categories ($499) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

local AEFLA providers (2,396). This 

calculation yields $1.2 million 

($1,194,550) in labor costs in the first 

year of the rule. Over the 10-year period, 

this calculation yields an average 

annual cost of $119,455. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 7), 

the Departments multiplied the 

estimated number of managers per VR 

agency (1) by the time required to read 

and review the new rule (40 hours) and 

then by the hourly compensation rate 

($65.39/hour). We performed the same 

calculation for the following 

occupational categories: Social and 

community service managers (3 

managers at $54.21/hour for 40 hours 

each) and rehabilitation counselors (3 

counselors at $36.66/hour for 40 hours 

each). We summed the labor cost for all 

three categories ($13,520) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

VR agencies (80). This calculation 

resulted in a one-time labor cost of $1.1 

million ($1,081,600), which is equal to 

an average annual cost of $108,160 over 

the 10-year period. 

The sum of these costs yields a total 

one-time labor cost of $3.3 million 

($3,305,615) for individuals from Statelevel DOL programs, State- and locallevel AEFLA programs, and State VR 

agencies to read and review the new 

rule. Over the 10-year period of 

analysis, these one-time costs result in 

an average annual cost of $330,562. 

b. Unified or Combined State Plans: 

Expanded Content, Biennial 

Development and Modification Process, 

and Submission Coordination 

Requirements 

Under WIOA title I, each State must 

develop and submit a 4-year Unified 

State Plan that covers the following six 

core programs: The adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth formula programs 

(WIOA title I); the AEFLA program 

(WIOA title II); the Employment Service 

program authorized under the WagnerPeyser Act, as amended by WIOA title 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55959 

41WIOA sec. 102(b)(1) requires: 

(1) Strategic Planning Elements.—The Unified 

State Plan shall include strategic planning elements 

consisting of a strategic vision and goals for 

preparing an educated and skilled workforce, that 

include— 

(A) an analysis of the economic conditions in the 

State, including— 

(i) existing and emerging in-demand industry 

sectors and occupations; and 

(ii) the employment needs of employers, 

including a description of the knowledge, skills, 

and abilities, needed in those industries and 

occupations; 

(B) an analysis of the current workforce, 

employment and unemployment data, labor market 

trends, and the educational and skill levels of the 

workforce, including individuals with barriers to 

employment (including individuals with 

disabilities), in the State; 

(C) an analysis of the workforce development 

activities (including education and training) in the 

State, including an analysis of the strengths and 

weaknesses of such activities, and the capacity of 

State entities to provide such activities, in order to 

address the identified education and skill needs of 

the workforce and the employment needs of 

employers in the State; 

(D) a description of the State’s strategic vision 

and goals for preparing an educated and skilled 

work-force (including preparing youth and 

individuals with barriers to employment) and for 

meeting the skilled work-force needs of employers, 

including goals relating to performance 

accountability measures based on primary 

indicators of performance described in section 

116(b)(2)(A), in order to support economic growth 

and economic self-sufficiency, and of how the State 

will assess the overall effectiveness of the workforce 

investment system in the State; and 

(E) taking into account analyses described in 

subparagraphs (A) through (C), a strategy for 

aligning the core programs, as well as other 

resources available to the State, to achieve the 

strategic vision and goals described in subparagraph 

(D). 

WIA sec. 112(b)(4) required: 

(b) Contents.—The State plan shall include— 

* * * * * 

(4) information describing— 

(A) the needs of the State with regard to current 

and projected employment opportunities, by 

occupation; 

(B) the job skills necessary to obtain such 

employment opportunities; 

(C) the skills and economic development needs 

of the State; and 

(D) the type and availability of workforce 

investment activities in the State; 

III; and the VR program as authorized by 

title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

as amended by WIOA title IV. In the 

alternative, a State may submit a 4-year 

Combined State Plan that covers the six 

core programs plus one or more 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

identified in sec. 103(a)(2) of WIOA. 

Section 103(b)(1) of WIOA requires the 

portion of a Combined State Plan 

covering the core programs to meet the 

same requirements as for a Unified State 

Plan under sec. 102 of WIOA. States 

must have an approved Unified or 

Combined State Plan in place to receive 

funding for the six core programs. 

Under WIA, States were required to 

submit separate State Plans that 

covered: (1) The title I and WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service DOL 

programs; (2) the AEFLA program; and 

(3) the VR program. Because States, 

under WIOA, must integrate what had 

historically been stand-alone State Plans 

for the AEFLA and VR programs into a 

single Unified or Combined State Plan 

with the title I and Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service DOL programs, the 

Departments anticipate added cost 

burdens for the States as they work 

together to strategize alignment of all six 

core programs into one Unified or 

Combined State Plan. Thus, the 

requirement that the Unified or 

Combined State Plan must include the 

ED-administered programs is new under 

WIOA. 

Affected entities will incur costs to (1) 

review and develop new 4-year Unified 

or Combined State Plans to ensure that 

they satisfy the new content 

requirements; (2) perform the 

development and modification process 

for the plans; and (3) coordinate on 

developing a Unified or Combined State 

Plan that covers all six core programs. 

i. Expanded Content 

WIOA sec. 102(b) expands the content 

requirements for Unified and Combined 

State Plans, many of which are new to 

all core programs, such as strategic and 

operational planning elements. Strategic 

planning elements include State 

analyses of economic and workforce 

conditions, an assessment of workforce 

development activities (including 

education and training) in the State, and 

formulation of the State’s vision and 

goals for preparing an educated and 

skilled workforce that meets the needs 

of employers and a strategy to achieve 

the vision and goals. Operational 

planning elements include State strategy 

implementation, State operating systems 

and policies, program-specific 

requirements, assurances, and 

additional requirements imposed by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education, or 

other Secretaries (for Combined State 

Plan purposes), as appropriate. Most of 

the WIOA operational planning 

elements are functionally equivalent to 

State Plan content requirements that 

were required by DOL’s core programs 

under WIA sec. 112(b). The WIOA 

strategic planning elements, however, 

constitute new or expanded State 

planning requirements for all core 

programs that were not required under 

WIA. For example, WIOA requires that 

more economic, education, and 

workforce data be included in the State 

Plan than was required under WIA.41

Therefore, this will be an expansion 

of a State planning requirement for 

DOL’s core programs under WIOA and 

will be new requirements for the AEFLA 

and VR programs. Because DOL core 

programs were already analyzing and 

using economic, education, and 

workforce data under WIA, those 

programs will not experience as much 

in incremental costs associated with 

that particular requirement as will the 

AEFLA and VR programs. The 

Departments anticipate that any costs 

incurred by the States with regard to 

new or expanded State planning content 

requirements will constitute one-time 

incremental costs for all core programs 

to ensure that all Unified or Combined 

State Plans satisfy the new content 

requirements. 

Costs 

At the State level for the DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 26), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (1) by the time 

required to review and develop new 

Unified or Combined State Plans to 

ensure that the new elements are 

included (8 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

Managers (4 managers at $65.39/hour 

for 20 hours each), social and 

community service managers (2 

managers at $54.21/hour for 20 hours 

each), and office and administrative 

support staff members (1 staff member 

at $30.57/hour for 8 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for all four categories 

($8,168) and multiplied the result by the 

number of States (57) to estimate this 

one-time cost of $465,576. Over the 10- 

year period, this calculation yields an 

average annual cost of $46,558. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 27), the 

Departments estimated this cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (1) by the time 

required to review and develop new 

Unified or Combined State Plans to 

ensure that the new elements are 

included (20 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

Managers (1 manager at $65.39/hour for 

20 hours) and social and community 

service managers (3 managers at $54.21/ 

hour for 20 hours each). We summed 

the labor cost for the three occupational 

categories ($5,870) and multiplied the 

result by the number of States (57). This 

calculation yields $334,590 in one-time 

labor costs, which is equal to an average 

annual cost of $33,459 over the 10-year 

period. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 28), 

the Departments estimated this cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55960 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

of managers per VR agency (2) by the 

time required to review and develop 

new Unified or Combined State Plans to 

ensure that the new elements are 

included (21 hours each) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($65.39/hour). 

We performed the same calculation for 

social and community service managers 

(2 managers at $54.21/hour for 21 hours 

each). Summing the labor cost for both 

categories ($5,023) and multiplying the 

result by the number of VR agencies (80) 

will result in a one-time cost of 

$401,856. Over the 10-year period, this 

calculation yields an average annual 

cost of $40,186. 

The sum of these costs yields a total 

one-time cost of $1.2 million 

($1,202,022) for individuals from the 

State-level DOL core programs, AEFLA 

program, and VR agencies to review and 

develop new Unified or Combined State 

Plans to ensure that the new elements 

are included. Over the 10-year period of 

analysis, these one-time costs result in 

an average annual cost of $120,202. 

ii. New 4-Year State Plan Development 

and Modification 

Under WIA sec. 112(d), modifications 

to a State Plan covering the DOL core 

programs were permitted but not 

required. For the AEFLA program under 

WIA sec. 224, States submitted 5-year 

State Plans, and revisions to plans were 

required only if those revisions were 

substantial. Upon the expiration of 

authorization of the program, and 

pending reauthorization, States 

submitted annual State Plan extensions 

containing revisions that were updated 

sections of their original 5-year plans. 

For the VR program under title IV of 

WIA (sec. 101 of the Rehabilitation Act), 

States were required to update specified 

State Plan attachments annually and 

modifications to State Plan assurances 

and other attachments were required 

only if substantive changes occurred. 

Under WIOA sec. 102(c)(3)(A), States 

must submit modifications to the 

Unified or Combined State Plan, at a 

minimum, at the end of the first 2-year 

period of any 4-year Plan. The 

modifications must reflect changes in 

labor market and economic conditions 

or other factors affecting 

implementation of the 4-year Unified or 

Combined State Plan. This mandatory 

biennial review and modification of a 4- 

year Unified or Combined State Plan is 

a new cost under WIOA for all six core 

programs. 

State-level DOL programs, AEFLA 

programs, and VR agencies will incur 

biennial labor costs to review and 

modify the Unified or Combined State 

Plan at the end of the 2-year period after 

any 4-year plan. In the absence of 

significant economic or administration 

changes within a State, most costs 

resulting from the State Plan 

modification requirements will occur 

during the first and second submissions 

because the unified State planning 

process is new for all core programs and 

States will just be learning the new 

requirements of WIOA and how to 

coordinate among all core programs so 

that they become more aligned to 

promote an integrated workforce 

development system. The Departments 

anticipate that new Unified or 

Combined State Plans submitted in 2020 

and thereafter, and the 2-year 

modifications of those Plans, will be 

easier for States to develop. For this 

reason, we present the costs by year of 

submission of either the development of 

a 4-year Unified or Combined State Plan 

or the 2-year modification of that Plan. 

Costs 

Four-Year Plan Modification—Third 

Year 

At the State level for the DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 9), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (1) by the time 

required to review and modify the 4- 

year Unified or Combined State Plan (4 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($65.48/hour). We performed the 

same calculation for the following 

occupational categories: Managers (1 

manager at $65.39/hour for 12 hours), 

management analysts (2 analysts at 

$45.88/hour for 12 hours each), and 

office and administrative support staff 

members (1 staff member at $30.57/hour 

for 4 hours). We summed the labor cost 

for all four categories ($2,270) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States (57) to estimate this one-time cost 

of $129,390, occurring in 2018. Over the 

10-year period, this calculation yields 

an average annual cost of $12,939. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 10), the 

Departments estimated this cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (1) by the time 

required to review and modify the 4- 

year Unified or Combined State Plan (10 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($65.48/hour). We performed the 

same calculation for the following 

occupational categories: Managers (1 

manager at $65.39/hour for 10 hours) 

and social and community service 

managers (3 managers $54.21/hour for 

10 hours each). We summed the labor 

cost for the three occupational 

categories ($2,935) and multiplied the 

result by the number of States (57). This 

results in a one-time cost of $167,295, 

occurring in 2018. Over the 10-year 

period of the analysis, this one-time cost 

results in an average annual cost of 

$16,730. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 11), 

the Departments estimated this cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per VR agency (2) by the 

time required to review and modify the 

4-year Unified or Combined State Plan 

(14 hours each) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.39/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for 

social and community service managers 

(2 managers at $54.21/hour for 14 hours 

each). Summing the labor cost for both 

categories ($3,349) and multiplying the 

result by the number of VR agencies 

(80), we estimate this one-time cost at 

$267,904, occurring in 2018. This 

calculation yields an average annual 

cost of $26,790 over the 10-year period. 

The sum of these costs yields a total 

one-time cost of $564,589, occurring in 

2018, for individuals from the Statelevel DOL core programs, AEFLA 

program, and VR agencies to review and 

modify the 4-year Unified or Combined 

State Plan. Over the 10-year period of 

analysis, these one-time costs result in 

an average annual cost of $56,459. 

Development of 4-Year State Plan—Fifth 

Year 

At the State level for the DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 9), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (1) by the time 

required to review and develop a new 

4-year Unified or Combined State Plan 

(4 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

Managers (1 manager at $65.39/hour for 

12 hours), management analysts (2 

analysts at $45.88/hour for 12 hours 

each), and office and administrative 

support staff members (1 staff member 

at $30.57/hour for 4 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for all four categories 

($2,270) and multiplied the result by the 

number of States (57) to estimate this 

one-time cost of $129,390, occurring in 

2020. This one-time cost results in an 

average annual cost of $12,939 over the 

10-year period. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 10), the 

Departments estimated this cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (1) by the time 

required to review and develop a new 

4-year Unified or Combined State Plan 

(15 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55961 

Managers (1 manager at $65.39/hour for 

15 hours) and social and community 

service managers (3 managers at $54.21/ 

hour for 15 hours each). We summed 

the labor cost for the three occupational 

categories ($4,403) and multiplied the 

result by the number of States (57). This 

will result in a one-time cost of 

$250,943, occurring in 2020. Over the 

10-year period, this calculation yields 

an average annual cost of $25,094. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 11), 

the Departments estimated this cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per VR agency (2) by the 

time required to review and develop a 

new 4-year Unified or Combined State 

Plan (10 hours each) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.39/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for 

social and community service managers 

(2 managers at $54.21/hour for 10 hours 

each). We summed the labor cost for 

both categories ($2,392) and multiplied 

the result by the number of VR agencies 

(80). This calculation yields $191,360 in 

one-time labor costs, occurring in 2020. 

This one-time cost results in an average 

annual cost of $19,136 over the 10-year 

period. 

The sum of these costs yields a total 

one-time cost of $571,693, occurring in 

2020, for individuals from the Statelevel DOL core programs, AEFLA 

program, and VR agencies to review and 

develop a new 4-year Unified or 

Combined State Plan. Over the 10-year 

period of analysis, the sum of these onetime costs results in an average annual 

cost of $57,169. 

Four-Year State Plan Modification— 

Seventh Year 

At the State level for the DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 9), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (1) by the time 

required to review and modify the 4- 

year Unified or Combined State Plan (4 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($65.48/hour). We performed the 

same calculation for the following 

occupational categories: Managers (1 

manager at $65.39/hour for 8 hours), 

management analysts (2 analysts at 

$45.88/hour for 8 hours each), and 

office and administrative support staff 

members (1 staff member at $30.57/hour 

for 4 hours). We summed the labor cost 

for all four categories ($1,641) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States (57) to estimate this cost of 

$93,560, occurring in 2022. This is 

equal to an average annual cost of 

$9,356. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 10), the 

Departments estimated this cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (1) by the time 

required to review and modify the 4- 

year Unified or Combined State Plan (5 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($65.48/hour). We performed the 

same calculation for the following 

occupational categories: Managers (1 

manager at $65.39/hour for 5 hours) and 

social and community service managers 

(3 managers at $54.21/hour for 5 hours 

each). We summed the labor cost for the 

three occupational categories ($1,468) 

and multiplied the result by the number 

of States (57). This results in a one-time 

cost of $83,648, occurring in 2022. This 

is equal to an average annual cost of 

$8,365. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 11), 

the Departments estimated this cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per VR agency (2) by the 

time required to review and modify the 

4-year Unified or Combined State Plan 

(7 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.39/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for 

social and community service managers 

(2 managers at $54.21/hour for 7 hours 

each). Summing the labor cost for both 

categories ($1,674) and multiplying the 

result by the number of VR agencies 

(80), we estimate this one-time cost of 

$133,952, occurring in 2022. This is 

equal to an average annual cost of 

$13,395. 

The sum of these costs for the 

modification process occurring for new 

4-year Unified or Combined State Plans 

yields a total cost of $311,159, occurring 

in 2022, for individuals from the Statelevel DOL core programs, AEFLA 

program, and VR agencies. Over the 10- 

year period of analysis, this results in an 

average annual cost of $31,116. 

Development of 4-Year State Plan— 

Ninth Year 

At the State level for the DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 9), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (1) by the time 

required to review and develop a new 

4-year Unified or Combined State Plan 

(4 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

Managers (1 manager at $65.39/hour for 

10 hours), management analysts (2 

analysts at $45.88/hour for 10 hours 

each), and office and administrative 

support staff members (1 staff member 

at $30.57/hour for 4 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for all four categories 

($1,956) and multiplied the result by the 

number of States (57) to estimate this 

one-time cost of $111,475, occurring in 

2024. This one-time cost results in an 

average annual cost of $11,147 over the 

10-year period. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 10), the 

Departments estimated this cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (1) by the time 

required to review and develop a new 

4-year Unified or Combined State Plan 

(10 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

Managers (1 manager at $65.39/hour for 

10 hours) and social and community 

service managers (3 managers at $54.21/ 

hour for 10 hours each). We summed 

the labor cost for the three occupational 

categories ($2,935) and multiplied the 

result by the number of States (57). This 

will result in a one-time cost of 

$167,295, occurring in 2024. Over the 

10-year period, this calculation yields 

an average annual cost of $16,730. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 11), 

the Departments estimated this cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per VR agency (2) by the 

time required to review and develop a 

new 4-year Unified or Combined State 

Plan (7 hours each) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.39/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for 

social and community service managers 

(2 managers at $54.21/hour for 7 hours 

each). We summed the labor cost for 

both categories ($1,674) and multiplied 

the result by the number of VR agencies 

(80). This calculation yields $133,952 in 

one-time labor costs, occurring in 2024. 

This one-time cost results in an average 

annual cost of $13,395 over the 10-year 

period. 

The sum of these costs yields a total 

one-time cost of $412,722, occurring in 

2024, for individuals from the Statelevel DOL core programs, AEFLA 

program, and VR agencies to review and 

develop a new 4-year Unified or 

Combined State Plan. Over the 10-year 

period of analysis, the sum of these onetime costs results in an average annual 

cost of $41,272. 

In total, the cost for the biennial 

development and modification process 

over the 10-year period is $1.9 million 

($1,860,163). This estimated total 10- 

year cost results in an average annual 

cost of $186,016. 

iii. Coordinating Submissions 

Affected entities will incur costs 

associated with coordinating actions 

among the core programs administered 

by DOL and ED because, as explained 

above, under WIA, only the DOL core 

programs were covered by a single State 

Plan; the AEFLA and VR programs each 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55962 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

had stand-alone State Plans under WIA. 

For State WDBs, the Departments 

estimate that costs will be associated 

with State planning attributed to the 

extra effort to coordinate and develop a 

plan that covers all six core programs, 

which is a new requirement under 

WIOA. 

The Departments estimate that the 

AEFLA and VR programs will incur 

one-time costs associated with 

coordinating and participating in 

statewide stakeholder meetings and 

other activities to coordinate, develop, 

and review their first-time State Plan 

submissions. We anticipate that the 

AEFLA and VR programs will incur a 

larger cost than the DOL core programs 

because, under WIA, neither the AEFLA 

nor VR program were required to 

coordinate with other partner programs 

in developing a State Plan. We also 

anticipate that the DOL core programs 

will experience an incremental increase 

in their coordination costs because this 

will be the first time that DOL core 

programs must coordinate with the 

AEFLA and VR programs for State 

planning purposes. Although the DOL 

core programs have had to coordinate 

with each other under WIA, because 

new relationships will need to be 

formed with the AEFLA and VR 

partners, their costs will increase. 

In addition, in some States, different 

agencies that previously have not 

worked together will have to build 

infrastructure to form partnerships. 

Working together might take the form of 

‘‘shaking hands’’ and following a 

‘‘model agreement’’ involving State 

councils. 

Compliance with this provision will 

increase biennial labor costs—in 

connection with the development of a 4- 

year Unified or Combined State Plan or 

the 2-year modifications of each of those 

plans—for State-level DOL core 

programs, State- and local-level AEFLA 

programs, and State-level VR agencies. 

Costs 

At the State level for the DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 26), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

managers per State (1) by the time 

required to coordinate on developing a 

Unified or Combined State Plan among 

all six core programs (8 hours) and by 

the hourly compensation rate ($65.39/

hour). We performed the same 

calculation for the following 

occupational categories: Management 

analysts (2 analysts at $45.88/hour for 8 

hours each) and office and 

administrative support staff members (1 

staff member at $30.57/hour for 8 

hours). We summed the labor cost for all 

three categories ($1,502) and multiplied 

the result by the number of States (57) 

to estimate this biennial cost of $85,600. 

Over the 10-year period, this calculation 

yields a total cost of $428,002, which is 

equal to an average annual cost of 

$42,800. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 27), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

lawyers per State (1) by the time 

required to coordinate on developing 

the Unified or Combined State Plan 

submission (4 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

Managers (1 manager at $65.39/hour for 

8 hours), social and community service 

managers (3 managers at $54.21/hour for 

8 hours each), and office and 

administrative support staff members (1 

staff member at $30.57/hour for 8 

hours). We summed the labor cost for all 

four categories ($2,331) and multiplied 

the result by the number of States (57). 

This calculation yields a biennial cost of 

$132,846. Over the 10-year period, this 

calculation results in a total cost of 

$664,232, which is equal to an average 

annual cost of $66,423. 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 29), the 

Departments estimated this cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

managers per local AEFLA provider (1) 

by the time required to coordinate on 

developing the Unified or Combined 

State Plan submission (4 hours) and by 

the hourly compensation rate ($63.63/

hour). We repeated the calculation for 

social and community service managers 

(1 manager at $61.01/hour for 4 hours). 

We summed the labor cost for the two 

occupational categories ($499) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

local AEFLA providers (2,396). The 

biennial cost at the local level for the 

AEFLA program is estimated to be $1.2 

million ($1,194,550). Over the 10-year 

period, this calculation results in a total 

cost of $6.0 million ($5,972,749), which 

is equal to an average annual cost of 

$597,275. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 28), 

the Departments estimated this cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per VR agency (2) by the 

time required to coordinate and develop 

the Unified or Combined State Plan 

submission (14 hours each) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($65.39/hour). 

We performed the same calculation for 

social and community service managers 

(2 managers at $54.21/hour for 14 hours 

each). Summing the labor cost for both 

categories ($3,349) and multiplying the 

result by the number of VR agencies (80) 

results in a biennial cost of $267,904 for 

State VR agencies. Over the 10-year 

period, this calculation yields a total 

cost of $1.3 million ($1,339,520), which 

is equal to an average annual cost of 

$133,952. 

The sum of these costs yields a 

biennial cost of $1.7 million 

($1,680,901). Over the 10-year period, 

this calculation results in a total cost of 

$8.4 million ($8,404,503), which is 

equal to an average annual cost of 

$840,450, for individuals from Statelevel DOL core programs, State- and 

local-level AEFLA programs, and Statelevel VR agencies to coordinate actions 

among all six core programs. 

The sum of the costs for the Unified 

or Combined State Plans: Expanded 

Content, Biennial Development and 

Modification Process, and Submission 

Coordination requirements, which 

includes the costs to expand content 

requirements, develop and modify State 

Plans, and coordinate the submission of 

State Plans results in a 10-year total cost 

of $11.5 million ($11,466,688), which 

results in an average annual cost of $1.1 

million ($1,146,669). 

c. Performance Accountability System 

WIOA sec. 116 establishes 

performance accountability indicators 

and performance reporting requirements 

to assess the effectiveness of States and 

local areas in achieving positive 

outcomes for individuals served by the 

six core programs (WIOA sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(ii)). With few exceptions, 

including the local accountability 

system under WIOA sec. 116(c), the 

performance accountability 

requirements apply across all six core 

programs. 

Affected entities will incur costs to (1) 

develop and update their State 

performance accountability system; (2) 

implement measures for data collection 

and reporting on effectiveness of serving 

employers; (3) negotiate levels of 

performance; (4) run statistical 

adjustment model to adjust levels of 

performance based on actual economic 

conditions and characteristics of 

participants; (5) collect data to report on 

any additional State performance 

accountability indicators; (6) provide 

technical assistance to States; (7) 

develop a performance report template 

that reports outcomes via the new 

WIOA performance accountability 

metrics; develop, update, and submit 

ETP reports; and collect, analyze, and 

report performance data; (8) obtain UI 

wage data; and (9) purchase data 

analytic software and perform training. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55963 

42WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(iv) requires DOL and 

ED to develop one or more indicators of 

performance to measure the effectiveness of the 

core programs in serving employers. 

43WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(ii) establishes the 

following youth performance indicators in place of 

the first and second indicators applicable to the 

other core programs: (1) The percentage of program 

participants who are in education or training 

activities, or in unsubsidized employment, during 

the second quarter after exit from the program; and 

(2) the percentage of program participants who are 

in education or training activities, or in 

unsubsidized employment, during the fourth 

quarter after exit from the program. 

i. Development and Updating of State 

Performance Accountability Systems 

Under WIOA sec. 101(d)(8), States 

must help Governors develop strategies 

for aligning technology and data 

systems across one-stop partner 

programs to enhance service delivery 

and improve efficiencies in reporting on 

performance accountability measures. 

This WIOA provision specifies that such 

strategies must include design and 

implementation of common intake, data 

collection, case management 

information, and performance 

accountability measurement and 

reporting processes. The strategies also 

must incorporate local input to such 

design and implementation to improve 

coordination of services across one-stop 

partner programs. 

Although this State WDB requirement 

is implemented in the DOL WIOA Final 

Rule, one-stop partner programs will 

have to contribute to the development of 

the data system alignment strategies 

required by WIOA. Moreover, the 

implementation of these data system 

alignment strategies developed by the 

State WDBs—the actual alignment of 

technology and data systems across onestop partner programs—would impose 

costs on one-stop partners. For these 

reasons, the Departments consider the 

costs imposed on State WDBs and the 

potential future costs to one-stop 

partner programs by this WIOA 

requirement a cost of this Final Rule. 

WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i) establishes 

six primary indicators of performance 

for measuring the effectiveness of 

activities provided for under each of the 

core programs: 

(1) Percentage of program participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exit from 

the program; 

(2) Percentage of program participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the fourth quarter after exit from 

the program; 

(3) Median earnings of program 

participants who are in unsubsidized 

employment during the second quarter 

after exit from the program; 

(4) Percentage of program participants 

who obtain a recognized postsecondary 

credential, or a secondary school 

diploma or its recognized equivalent, 

during participation in or within 1 year 

after exit from the program; 

(5) Percentage of program participants 

who, during a program year, are in an 

education or training program that leads 

to a recognized postsecondary 

credential or employment and who are 

achieving measurable skill gains toward 

such a credential or employment; and 

(6) Indicator(s) of effectiveness in 

serving employers.42

Under WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i), 

however, the fourth and fifth indicators 

are not applicable to the Wagner-Peyser 

Act Employment Service program 

because that program provides no 

education or training services, which 

are measured by those performance 

indicators. Additionally, for youth 

activities authorized under WIOA title I, 

subtitle B, WIOA specifies slightly 

modified versions of the first two 

primary indicators of performance.43

Under WIA sec. 136, the performance 

indicators differed and applied only to 

activities under the adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth formula programs 

administered by DOL. Under WIA sec. 

212, the AEFLA program was subject to 

indicators of performance that applied 

specifically to that program. The VR 

program was subject to standards and 

indicators of performance established 

under the Rehabilitation Act. Thus, the 

task of measuring program effectiveness 

through the calculation and updating of 

levels of performance as indicated by 

the specific performance indicator 

metrics established in WIOA is 

somewhat new for all six core programs. 

The Departments assume that the 

potential implementation of the 

strategies for aligning technology and 

data systems across one-stop partner 

programs would involve consulting and 

software and IT systems for State-level 

DOL programs and VR agencies. There 

would be larger upfront consulting costs 

to design the system and software and 

IT systems costs to purchase hardware 

and implement the system. Subsequent 

software and IT systems costs would 

also be incurred for maintaining the 

systems. Some States are already 

working to better align technology and 

data systems where feasible and are at 

varying points in the alignment process. 

States that are farther in the process will 

require less effort for alignment than 

those using legacy systems. We estimate 

that 40 percent of State-level DOL 

programs (i.e., SWAs) (23 SWAs) and 

VR agencies (32 agencies) will be ‘‘loweffort’’ SWAs and VR agencies, and 60 

percent will be ‘‘high-effort’’ SWAs (34 

SWAs) and VR agencies (48 agencies). 

These estimates are based on the 

Departments’ experience with WIA 

programs and information received from 

SWAs, and represent costs for average 

SWAs and VR agencies within each 

effort classification. We understand that 

some SWAs and VR agencies will 

experience costs far exceeding those we 

account for in ‘‘high-effort’’ entities and 

far below those estimated for ‘‘loweffort’’ entities. In addition, the 

Departments anticipate that the Statelevel AEFLA programs will incur 

annual software and IT systems costs to 

enhance their participation in the SLDS 

Grant Program, which supports the 

design, development, implementation, 

and expansion of P–20W (early learning 

through the workforce) longitudinal 

data systems. 

The affected entities will incur costs 

to develop and update their 

performance accountability systems, 

which involves establishing the 

capabilities to collect and regularly 

update the relevant performance data. 

State-level DOL core programs, Stateand local-level AEFLA programs, and 

Federal- and State-level VR agencies 

will incur labor costs related to 

complying with this provision’s 

requirements in the first year of the 

Final Rule. Furthermore, compliance 

will result in a one-time non-labor cost 

for software and IT systems for the 

Federal DOL program. For State-level 

DOL core programs, compliance will 

result in one-time non-labor costs for 

software and IT systems and consultants 

and annual non-labor costs for licensing 

fees. In addition, compliance will result 

in annual software and IT systems costs 

for the AEFLA program at the State 

level. 

Costs 

Aligning Technology and Data Systems 

Across One-Stop Partner Programs 

For the future costs associated with 

implementing strategies for aligning 

technology and data systems across onestop partner programs (see Exhibit 22), 

the Departments estimated costs for 

‘‘low-’’ and ‘‘high-effort’’ SWAs for DOL 

core programs. We estimated the 

consultant cost for ‘‘low-effort’’ SWAs 

by multiplying the one-time consultant 

cost ($100,000) by the number of ‘‘loweffort’’ SWAs (23). This calculation 

yields a one-time cost of $2.3 million 

($2,300,000) in the first year of the Final 

Rule, which is equal to an average 

annual cost of $230,000 over the 10-year 

period. 

The Departments estimated the 

consultant cost for ‘‘high-effort’’ SWAs 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55964 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

44This provision will be a joint effort between 

State and local AEFLA staff. 

by multiplying the sum of the 

consultant cost for the first year of the 

rule ($200,000) and for the second year 

($100,000) by the number of ‘‘higheffort’’ SWAs (34). This results in a 10- 

year total cost of $10.2 million 

($10,200,000), which is equal to an 

average annual cost of $1.0 million 

($1,020,000). 

The Departments estimated the 

software and IT systems cost for ‘‘loweffort’’ SWAs by multiplying the sum of 

the cost for the first year of the rule 

($200,000) and the cost for the second 

and third years ($100,000 per year) by 

the number of ‘‘low-effort’’ SWAs (23). 

This calculation yields a total 10-year 

cost of $9.2 million ($9,200,000), which 

is equal to an average annual cost of 

$920,000. 

The Departments estimated the 

software and IT systems cost for ‘‘higheffort’’ SWAs by multiplying the sum of 

the cost for the first and second years of 

the rule ($200,000 per year) and the cost 

in for the third year through the fifth 

year ($100,000 per year) by the number 

of ‘‘high-effort’’ SWAs (34). This 

calculation results in an average annual 

cost of $2.4 million ($2,380,000), which 

is equal to a total cost of $23.8 million 

($23,800,000) over the 10-year period. 

For the State-level AEFLA program 

(see Exhibit 23), the Departments 

estimated the software and IT systems 

cost for States to enhance their 

participation in the SLDS Grant Program 

by multiplying the annual software and 

IT cost ($100,000) by the number of 

States (57). This calculation results in a 

total 10-year cost of $57.0 million 

($57,000,000), which is equal to an 

average annual cost of $5.7 million 

($5,700,000). 

The Departments estimated 

implementation and future alignment 

costs for ‘‘low-’’ and ‘‘high-effort’’ VR 

agencies (see Exhibit 24). We estimated 

the consultant cost for ‘‘low-effort’’ VR 

agencies by multiplying the one-time 

consultant cost ($100,000) by the 

number of ‘‘low-effort’’ VR agencies 

(32). This calculation yields a one-time 

cost of $3.2 million ($3,200,000) in the 

first year of the rule, which is equal to 

an average annual cost of $320,000 over 

the 10-year period. 

The Departments estimated the 

consultant cost for ‘‘high-effort’’ VR 

agencies by multiplying the sum of the 

consultant cost for the first year of the 

rule ($200,000) and the second year 

($100,000) by the number of ‘‘higheffort’’ VR agencies (48). This results in 

a total 10-year cost of $14.4 million 

($14,400,000), which is equal to an 

average annual cost of $1.4 million 

($1,440,000) over the 10-year period. 

The Departments estimated the 

software and IT systems cost for ‘‘loweffort’’ VR agencies by multiplying the 

sum of the cost for the first year of the 

rule ($200,000) and the cost for the 

second and third years ($100,000 per 

year) by the number of ‘‘low-effort’’ VR 

agencies (32). This calculation yields a 

total 10-year cost of $12.8 million 

($12,800,000), which is equal to an 

average annual cost of $1.3 million 

($1,280,000). 

The Departments estimated the 

software and IT systems cost for ‘‘higheffort’’ VR agencies by multiplying the 

sum of the cost for the first and second 

years of the rule ($200,000 per year) and 

the cost for the third year through the 

fifth year ($100,000 per year) by the 

number of ‘‘high-effort’’ VR agencies 

(48). This calculation results in a total 

10-year cost of $33.6 million 

($33,600,000), which is equal to an 

average annual cost of $3.4 million 

($3,360,000). 

The sum of these potential costs for 

aligning technologies and data systems 

across one-stop partner programs yields 

a total cost of $166.5 million 

($166,500,000) in non-labor costs from 

the SWAs, the State-level AEFLA 

program, and VR agencies. Over the 10- 

year analysis, these costs result in an 

average annual cost of $16.7 million 

($16,650,000). 

Development and Updating of State 

Performance Accountability Systems 

For the costs related to developing 

and updating State performance 

accountability systems (see Exhibit 13), 

the Departments estimated the one-time 

Federal software and IT systems cost for 

DOL to be $750,000 in the first year of 

the Final Rule. This is equivalent to an 

average annual cost of $75,000. 

At the State level for DOL core 

programs (i.e., SWAs) (see Exhibit 16), 

the Departments estimated this labor 

cost by first multiplying the estimated 

number of managers per SWA (1) by the 

time required to develop and update the 

performance accountability system (32 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($65.39/hour). We performed the 

same calculation for computer systems 

analysts (3 analysts at $56.17/hour for 

80 hours each) and office and 

administrative support staff members (1 

staff member at $30.57/hour for 72 

hours). We summed the labor cost for all 

three categories ($17,774) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

SWAs (57) to estimate a one-time cost 

of $1.0 million ($1,013,136). Over the 

10-year period, this calculation yields 

an average annual cost of $101,314. 

The Departments estimated the 

software and IT systems cost for SWAs 

by multiplying the software and IT 

systems cost per SWA ($100,000) by the 

number of SWAs (57). This calculation 

yields a one-time cost of $5.7 million 

($5,700,000) in the first year of the rule, 

which results in an average annual cost 

of $570,000 over the 10-year period. 

The Departments estimated the 

licensing fees for SWAs by multiplying 

the annual licensing fee per SWA 

($50,000) by the number of SWAs (57). 

This calculation results in an annual 

cost of $2.9 million ($2,850,000), which 

is equal to a 10-year total cost of $28.5 

million. 

The Departments estimated the 

consultant cost for SWAs by 

multiplying the consultant cost per 

SWA ($75,000) by the number of SWAs 

(57). This calculation yields a one-time 

cost of $4.3 million ($4,275,000) in the 

first year of the rule, which is equal to 

an average annual cost of $427,500 over 

the 10-year period. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 17), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per State (1) by the time 

required to develop and update the 

performance accountability system (60 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($65.39/hour). We repeated the 

calculation for computer systems 

analysts (1 analyst at $56.17/hour for 80 

hours), social and community service 

managers (3 managers at $54.21/hour for 

60 hours each), and database 

administrators (1 administrator at 

$57.02/hour for 80 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for all four categories 

($22,736) and multiplied the result by 

the number of States (57), resulting in 

an estimated one-time cost of $1.3 

million ($1,295,975).44 Over the 10-year 

period, this calculation yields an 

average annual cost of $129,597. 

The Departments estimated the 

software and IT systems cost for the 

State-level AEFLA program by 

multiplying the software and IT systems 

cost per State ($350,000) by the number 

of States (57). This calculation yields an 

annual cost of $20.0 million 

($19,950,000), which is equal to a total 

10-year cost of $199.5 million 

($199,500,000). 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 20), the 

Departments estimated this cost by first 

multiplying the estimated number of 

managers per local AEFLA provider (1) 

by the time required to develop and 

update the performance accountability 

system (4 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($63.63/hour). We 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55965 

performed the same calculation for 

database administrators (1 administrator 

at $59.60/hour for 4 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for the two occupational 

categories ($493) and multiplied the 

result by the number of local AEFLA 

providers (2,396), resulting in a onetime cost of $1.2 million ($1,181,036). 

Over the 10-year period, this calculation 

yields an average annual cost of 

$118,104. 

At the Federal level for the VR 

program (see Exhibit 15), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of GS–14 level, Step 5 data management 

specialists (1) by the time required to 

program the database and perform 

related software development tasks 

(768.63 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($76.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for GS– 

13 level, Step 5 data management 

specialists (1 specialist at $64.71/hour 

for 768.63 hours). We summed the labor 

cost for both categories to estimate this 

one-time cost of $108,523, which is 

equal to an average annualized cost of 

$10,852. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 18), 

the Departments estimated the cost 

associated with the establishment of 

State performance goals and the State’s 

evaluation and analysis of progress 

toward such goals by first multiplying 

the estimated number of managers per 

VR agency (1) by the time required to 

develop and update the performance 

accountability system (80 hours) and by 

the hourly compensation rate ($65.39/

hour). We repeated the calculation for 

the following occupational categories: 

Social and community service managers 

(3 managers at $54.21/hour for 80 hours 

each), database administrators (2 

administrators at $57.02/hour for 100 

hours each), and SRC Board members 

(12 members at $45.88/hour for 3 hours 

each). We summed the labor cost for the 

four categories ($31,297) and multiplied 

the result by the number of VR agencies 

(80) to estimate the biennial cost as $2.5 

million ($2,503,782). In addition, to 

estimate the cost of updating and 

modifying VR agency case management 

systems we multiplied the estimated 

number of computer systems analysts 

per large VR agency that is updating 

case management and reporting systems 

using in-house staff (5) by the time 

required to make system changes (360) 

and by the hourly compensation rate 

($56.17/hour). We multiplied the result 

($101,106) by the number of large VR 

agencies updating systems using inhouse staff (5) to estimate this one-time 

cost of $505,530. We then multiplied 

the estimated number of computer 

systems analysts per small or medium 

VR agency that is updating case 

management and reporting systems 

using in-house staff (2) by the time 

required to make system changes (360 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($56.17/hour). We multiplied the 

result ($40,442) by the number of small 

and medium VR agencies updating 

systems using in-house staff (45) to 

estimate this one-time cost of $1.8 

million ($1,819,908). Finally, we 

multiplied the estimated number of 

computer systems analysts per VR 

agency that has a maintenance contract 

with a single CMS vendor (2) by the 

time required to make system changes 

(54 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($56.17/hour). We 

multiplied the result ($6,066) by the 

number of VR agencies with a 

maintenance contract (30) to estimate 

this one-time cost of $181,991. In total, 

the sum of these calculations yields a 

total 10-year cost of $15.0 million 

($15,026,341), which results in an 

average annual cost of $1.5 million 

($1,502,634) over the 10-year period. 

The Departments estimated the 

annual licensing fees cost for State VR 

agencies by multiplying the annual 

licensing fee per VR agency ($6,930) by 

the number of VR agencies that receive 

vendor-supplied CMS software (48). 

This calculation results in an annual 

cost of $332,640, which is equal to a 10- 

year total cost of $3.3 million 

($3,326,400). 

The sum of these costs for the 

development and updating of State 

performance accountability systems 

yields a total 10-year cost of $260.7 

million ($260,676,411) in costs from the 

SWAs, AEFLA program, and VR 

program. Over the 10-year analysis 

period, these costs result in an average 

annual cost of $26.1 million 

($26,067,641). 

The sum of the costs for individuals 

from the Federal- and State-level DOL 

core programs, State- and local-level 

AEFLA programs, and Federal- and 

State-level VR agencies to implement 

strategies for aligning technology and 

data systems across one-stop partners 

and to develop and update the 

performance accountability measures 

yields a total 10-year cost of $427.2 

million ($427,176,411) and an average 

annual cost of $42.7 million 

($42,717,641). 

ii. Effectiveness in Serving Employers 

WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(VI) 

provides that the sixth primary 

indicator of performance will be an 

indicator of effectiveness in serving 

employers, which will be established 

pursuant to WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(iv). 

This indicator will measure program 

effectiveness in serving employers. 

Under WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(iv), the 

Departments must consult with 

stakeholders on proposed approaches to 

defining this indicator. The NPRM 

described three approaches to measure 

employer satisfaction. In the first 

approach, States would use wage 

records to identify whether a 

participant’s identification matches the 

same FEIN in the second and fourth 

quarters. The second approach to define 

this performance indicator would use 

the number or percentage of employers 

that are using the core program services 

out of all employers represented in an 

area or State served by the system (i.e., 

employers served). The third approach 

would measure the repeated use rate for 

employers’ use of the core programs. 

Both the market penetration and repeat 

business measure should come from 

already existing data sources. For 

market penetration, States will have to 

produce the total number of business 

customers, as well as the total number 

of businesses, which is readily available 

through BLS. For repeat businesses, 

these figures will also come from the 

business customer database and will be 

shown as a sum within the reporting 

period. 

In this Final Rule, the Departments 

are initially implementing the 

performance indicator of effectiveness 

in serving employers in the form of a 

pilot program to test the rigor and 

feasibility of the three proposed 

approaches and to develop a 

standardized indicator. The 

performance indicator for effectiveness 

in serving employers will not be 

included in sanctions determinations 

until the standardized indicator is 

developed in accordance with 

rulemaking requirements. The WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR and the DOL 

Performance ICR include the data 

elements and specifications to calculate 

all three measures proposed in the 

NPRM (employee retention with the 

same employer, market penetration, and 

repeat business). States will be required 

to choose two of the three measures of 

effectiveness in serving employers for 

data collection and reporting for PYs 

2016 and 2017 with results to be 

included in the WIOA annual reports 

due in October. 

The Departments cannot anticipate 

which of the three approaches States 

will select, limiting our ability to 

estimate the cost of these activities. Due 

to this uncertainty, the Departments 

estimated the costs of the pilot program 

in 2016 and 2017 using the assumption 

that the realized cost will be the 

midpoint of the range of the total costs 

if on the low end, all States choose the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55966 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

two lowest-cost approaches; if on the 

high end, all States choose the two 

highest-cost approaches. The 

Departments similarly estimated the 

cost of the implementation beginning in 

2019 using the assumption that this cost 

will be the midpoint of the range of the 

total costs if on the low end, all States 

choose the lowest-cost approach; on the 

high end, all States choose the highestcost approach. Below we discuss the 

estimated costs for each approach in the 

pilot program if all States were to 

choose that approach. We then use these 

values to estimate the cost of this 

provision as discussed. 

Costs 

Approach 1—Retention With the Same 

Employer 

At the Federal level for the DOL core 

programs, the Departments estimated 

the one-time labor cost associated with 

the first approach by multiplying the 

estimated number of GS–14, Step 5 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for technical assistance 

development (8 hours) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($76.48/hour). 

This calculation would result in a onetime labor cost of $612. 

The Departments estimated DOL’s 

annual labor costs for the first approach 

by multiplying the estimated number of 

GS–14, Step 5 management analysts (1) 

by the time required for technical 

assistance delivery (4 hours) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($76.48/hour). 

This calculation would result in an 

annual labor cost of $306. 

At the State level for the DOL core 

programs, the Departments estimated 

the first approach’s one-time labor cost 

by multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for programming and data 

collection (8 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($45.88/hour). We 

multiplied the labor cost ($367) by the 

number of States (57) to estimate this 

one-time cost of $20,921. 

The Departments estimated the Statelevel DOL core programs’ annual labor 

cost associated with the first approach 

in the pilot program by multiplying the 

estimated number of management 

analysts (1) by the sum of time required 

for data collection (4 hours) and for 

Federal reporting (4 hours) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($45.88/hour). 

We multiplied the labor cost ($367) by 

the number of States (57) to estimate 

this annual cost of $20,291. 

At the Federal level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated the 

one-time labor cost associated with the 

first approach in the pilot program by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

GS–14, Step 5 management analysts (1) 

by the time required for technical 

assistance development (8 hours) and by 

the hourly compensation rate ($76.48/

hour). This calculation would result in 

a one-time labor cost of $612. 

The Departments estimated AEFLA’s 

annual labor cost for the first approach 

by multiplying the estimated number of 

GS–14, Step 5 management analysts (1) 

by the time required for technical 

assistance delivery (4 hours) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($76.48/hour). 

This calculation would result in an 

annual labor cost of $306. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated the 

first approach’s one-time labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for programming and data 

collection (8 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($45.88/hour). We 

multiplied the labor cost ($367) by the 

number of States (57) to estimate this 

one-time cost of $20,921. 

The Departments estimated the Statelevel AEFLA program’s annual labor 

cost associated with the first approach 

by multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the sum of 

time required for data collection (4 

hours) and for Federal reporting (4 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($45.88/hour). We multiplied the 

labor cost ($367) by the number of 

States (57) to estimate this annual cost 

of $20,921. 

At the Federal level for the VR 

program, the Departments estimated the 

one-time labor cost associated with the 

first approach in the pilot program by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

GS–14, Step 5 management analysts (1) 

by the time required for technical 

assistance development (8 hours) and by 

the hourly compensation rate ($76.48/

hour). This calculation would result in 

a one-time labor cost of $612. 

The Departments estimated the 

annual labor costs for the VR program 

associated with the first approach by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

GS–14, Step 5 management analysts (1) 

by the time required for technical 

assistance delivery (4 hours) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($76.48/hour). 

This calculation would result in an 

annual labor cost of $306. 

At the State level for the VR program, 

the Departments estimated the first 

approach’s one-time labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for programming and data 

collection (8 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($45.88/hour). We 

multiplied the labor cost ($367) by the 

number of VR agencies (80) to estimate 

this one-time cost of $29,363. 

The Departments estimated the Statelevel AEFLA program’s annual labor 

cost associated with the first approach 

by multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the sum of 

time required for data collection (4 

hours) and for Federal reporting (4 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($45.88/hour). We multiplied the 

labor cost ($367) by the number of VR 

agencies (80) to estimate this annual 

cost of $29,363. 

In total, Approach 1 would result in 

one-time costs of $73,041 for 

individuals from the Federal- and Statelevel DOL core programs, AEFLA 

program, and VR program. In addition, 

Approach 1 would result in $72,123 in 

annual costs for these entities. 

Approach 2—Percentage of Employers 

Using Services Out of All Employers in 

the State 

At the Federal level for the DOL core 

programs, the Departments estimated 

the one-time labor cost associated with 

the second approach in the pilot 

program by multiplying the estimated 

number of GS–14, Step 5 management 

analysts (1) by the time required for 

technical assistance development (8 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($76.48/hour). This calculation 

would result in a one-time labor cost of 

$612. 

The Departments estimated DOL’s 

annual labor cost associated with the 

second approach by multiplying the 

estimated number of GS–14, Step 5 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for technical assistance 

delivery (4 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($76.48/hour). This 

calculation would result in an annual 

labor cost of $306. 

At the State level for the DOL core 

programs, the Departments estimated 

the second approach’s annual labor cost 

by multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the sum of 

time required for data collection (4 

hours), providing training and technical 

assistance to Local WDBs (3 hours), and 

Federal reporting (4 hours) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($45.88/hour). 

We multiplied the labor cost ($505) by 

the number of States (57) to estimate 

this annual cost of $28,767. 

For local-level DOL core programs, 

the Departments estimated the annual 

labor cost for the second approach by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for data collection (4 hours) 

and by the hourly compensation rate 

($60.60/hour). We multiplied the labor 

cost ($242) by the number of Local 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55967 

WDBs (580) to estimate this annual cost 

of $140,592. 

At the Federal level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated the 

one-time labor cost associated with the 

second approach in the pilot program by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

GS–14, Step 5 management analysts (1) 

by the time required for technical 

assistance development (8 hours) and by 

the hourly compensation rate ($76.48/

hour). This calculation would result in 

a one-time labor cost of $612. 

The Departments estimated AEFLA’s 

annual labor cost associated with the 

second approach by multiplying the 

estimated number of GS–14, Step 5 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for technical assistance 

delivery (4 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($76.48/hour). This 

calculation would result in an annual 

labor cost of $306. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated the 

second approach’s annual labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the sum of 

time required for data collection (4 

hours), providing training and technical 

assistance to local AEFLA providers (3 

hours), and Federal reporting (4 hours) 

and by the hourly compensation rate 

($45.88/hour). We multiplied the labor 

cost ($505) by the number of States (57) 

to estimate this annual cost of $28,767. 

For the local-level AEFLA program, 

the Departments estimated the annual 

labor cost for the second approach by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for data collection (4 hours) 

and by the hourly compensation rate 

($60.60/hour). We multiplied the labor 

cost ($242) by the number of local 

AEFLA providers (2,396) to estimate 

this annual cost of $580,790. 

At the Federal level for the VR 

program, the Departments estimated the 

one-time labor cost associated with the 

second approach in the pilot program by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

GS–14, Step 5 management analysts (1) 

by the time required for technical 

assistance development (8 hours) and by 

the hourly compensation rate ($76.48/

hour). This calculation would result in 

a one-time labor cost of $612. 

The Departments estimated the VR 

program’s annual labor cost associated 

with the second approach by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

GS–14, Step 5 management analysts (1) 

by the time required for technical 

assistance delivery (4 hours) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($76.48/hour). 

This calculation would result in an 

annual labor cost of $306. 

At the State level for the VR program, 

the Departments estimated the second 

approach’s one-time labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

staff trainers (1) by the time required for 

training of rehabilitation counselors (4 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($54.21/hour). We repeated the 

calculation for the rehabilitation 

counselors (62 assistants at $36.66/hour 

for 1 hour each). We summed the labor 

cost for both categories ($2,490) and 

multiplied it by the number of VR 

agencies (80) to estimate this one-time 

cost of $199,181. 

The Departments estimated the Statelevel VR program’s annual labor cost 

associated with the second approach by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for Federal reporting (4 hours) 

and by the hourly compensation rate 

($45.88/hour). In addition, we added the 

estimated number of rehabilitation 

counselors (62 assistants) by the time 

required for data collection (1 hour 

each) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($36.66/hour). We summed the 

labor cost for both categories ($2,456) 

and multiplied it by the number of VR 

agencies (80) to estimate this annual 

cost of $196,515. 

In total, Approach 2 would result in 

one-time costs of $201,016 for 

individuals from the Federal-level DOL 

core programs, AEFLA program, and VR 

program and the State-level VR 

program. In addition, Approach 2 would 

result in $976,349 in annual costs for 

the Federal-, State-, and local-level DOL 

core programs and AEFLA program and 

the State-level VR program. 

Approach 3—Percentage of Repeat 

Employers Using Services Within the 

Previous 3 Years 

At the Federal level for the DOL core 

programs, the Departments estimated 

the one-time labor cost associated with 

the third approach in the pilot program 

by multiplying the estimated number of 

GS–14, Step 5 management analysts (1) 

by the time required for technical 

assistance development (8 hours) and by 

the hourly compensation rate ($76.48/

hour). This calculation would result in 

a one-time labor cost of $612. 

The Departments estimated DOL’s 

annual labor cost associated with the 

third approach by multiplying the 

estimated number of GS–14, Step 5 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for technical assistance 

delivery (4 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($76.48/hour). This 

calculation would result in an annual 

labor cost of $306. 

At the State level for the DOL core 

programs, the Departments estimated 

the third approach’s annual labor cost 

by multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the sum of 

time required for data collection (4 

hours), providing training and technical 

assistance to Local WDBs (3 hours), and 

Federal reporting (4 hours) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($45.88/hour). 

We multiplied the labor cost ($505) by 

the number of States (57) to estimate 

this annual cost of $28,767. 

For the local-level DOL core 

programs, the Departments estimated 

the annual labor cost for third approach 

in the pilot program by multiplying the 

estimated number of management 

analysts (1) by the time required for data 

collection (6 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($60.60/hour). We 

multiplied the labor cost ($364) by the 

number of Local WDBs (580) to estimate 

this annual cost of $210,888. 

At the Federal level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated the 

one-time labor cost associated with the 

third approach in the pilot program by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

GS–14, Step 5 management analysts (1) 

by the time required for technical 

assistance development (8 hours) and by 

the hourly compensation rate ($76.48/

hour). This calculation would result in 

a one-time labor cost of $612. 

The Departments estimated AEFLA’s 

annual labor cost associated with the 

third approach by multiplying the 

estimated number of GS–14, Step 5 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for technical assistance 

delivery (4 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($76.48/hour). This 

calculation would result in an annual 

labor cost of $306. 

At the State level for the DOL core 

programs, the Departments estimated 

the third approach’s annual labor cost 

by multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the sum of 

time required for data collection (4 

hours), providing training and technical 

assistance to local AEFLA providers (3 

hours), and Federal reporting (4 hours) 

and by the hourly compensation rate 

($45.88/hour). We multiplied the labor 

cost ($505) by the number of States (57) 

to estimate this annual cost of $28,767. 

For the local-level AEFLA program, 

the Departments estimated the annual 

labor cost for the third approach by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for data collection (6 hours) 

and by the hourly compensation rate 

($60.60/hour). We multiplied the labor 

cost ($364) by the number of local 

AEFLA providers (2,396) to estimate 

this annual cost of $871,186. 

At the Federal level for the VR 

program, the Departments estimated the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55968 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

one-time labor cost associated with the 

third approach in the pilot program by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

GS–14, Step 5 management analysts (1) 

by the time required for technical 

assistance development (8 hours) and by 

the hourly compensation rate ($76.48/

hour). This calculation would result in 

a one-time labor cost of $612. 

The Departments estimate the VR 

program’s annual labor cost associated 

with the third approach by multiplying 

the estimated number of GS–14, Step 5 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for technical assistance 

delivery (4 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($76.48/hour). This 

calculation would result in an annual 

labor cost of $306. 

At the State level for the VR program, 

the Departments estimated the third 

approach’s one-time labor cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

staff trainers (1) by the time required for 

training of rehabilitation counselors (4 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($54.21/hour). We repeated the 

calculation for the rehabilitation 

counselors (62 counselors at $36.66/

hour for 1 hour each). We summed the 

labor cost for both categories ($2,490) 

and multiplied it by the number of VR 

agencies (80) to estimate this one-time 

cost of $199,181. 

The Departments estimated the Statelevel VR program annual labor cost 

associated with the third approach by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

management analysts (1) by the time 

required for Federal reporting (4 hours) 

and by the hourly compensation rate 

($45.88/hour). In addition, we added the 

estimated number of rehabilitation 

counselors (62 counselors) by the time 

required for data collection (1 hour 

each) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($36.66/hour). We summed the 

labor cost for both categories ($2,456) 

and multiplied it by the number of VR 

agencies (80) to estimate this annual 

cost of $196,515. 

In total, Approach 3 would result in 

one-time costs of $201,016 for 

individuals from the Federal-level DOL 

core programs, AEFLA program, and VR 

program and the State-level VR 

program. In addition, Approach 3 would 

result in $1.3 million (1,337,040) in 

annual costs for the Federal-, State-, and 

local-level DOL core programs and 

AEFLA program and the State-level VR 

program. 

As presented in Exhibit 49, Approach 

1 is the lowest-cost approach with 

$73,041 in one-time costs and $72,124 

in annual costs for Federal- and Statelevel costs for DOL, AEFLA, and the VR 

program. Approach 3 is the highest-cost 

approach with $201,016 in one-time 

costs and $1.3 million ($1,337,040) in 

annual costs for Federal-, State-, and 

local-level costs for DOL and AEFLA 

and Federal- and State-level costs for 

the VR program. 

EXHIBIT 49—ESTIMATED COST OF THE PILOT PROGRAM BY APPROACH

Approach One-time cost Annual cost 

Approach 1—Retention with the Same Employer ................................................................................................... $73,041 $72,124 

Approach 2—Percentage of Employers Using Services Out of All Employers in the State .................................. 201,016 976,349 

Approach 3—Percentage of Repeat Employers Using Services within the Previous 3 Years .............................. 201,016 1,337,040 

The Departments estimated the onetime labor cost for the pilot program to 

be incurred in 2016 and the annual 

labor cost to be incurred in 2017 by 

taking the average of the low-end range 

of costs (i.e., if all States were to choose 

the two lowest-cost approaches) and the 

high-end range of costs (i.e., if all States 

were to choose the two highest-cost 

approaches). If all States chose the two 

lowest-cost approaches (i.e., 

Approaches 1 and 2), the one-time cost 

to the States would be $274,057 

($73,041 + $201,016). If all States chose 

the two highest-cost approaches (i.e., 

Approaches 2 and 3), the one-time cost 

to the States would be $402,032 

($201,016 + $201,016). We took the 

average of this range to estimate the onetime cost of the pilot program of 

$338,045 to be incurred in 2016. We 

repeated this calculation to estimate the 

annual cost for the pilot program. If all 

States chose the two lowest-cost 

approaches, the annual cost to the States 

would be $1.0 million ($1,048,473) 

($72,124 + $976,349). If all States chose 

the two highest-cost approaches, the 

annual cost to the States would be $2.0 

million ($2,313,389) ($976,349 + 

$1,337,040). We took the average of this 

range to estimate the annual cost of the 

pilot program of $1.7 million 

($1,680,931) to be incurred in 2017. The 

sum of these calculations results in a 

total 10-year cost of $2.0 million 

($2,018,976), which is equal to an 

average annual cost of $201,898 for the 

pilot program. 

The Departments estimated the onetime labor cost for implementation to be 

incurred in 2019 and the annual labor 

cost to be incurred annually starting in 

2020 by taking the average of the lowend range of costs (i.e., if all States were 

to choose the lowest-cost approach) and 

the high-end range of costs (i.e., if all 

States were to choose the highest-cost 

approach). If all States chose the lowestcost approach (i.e., Approach 1), the 

one-time cost to the States would be 

$73,041. If all States chose the highestcost approach (i.e., Approach 2), the 

one-time cost to the States would be 

$201,016. We took the average of this 

range to estimate the one-time cost of 

the program of $137,029 to be incurred 

in 2019. We repeated this calculation to 

estimate the annual cost for the 

program. If all States chose the lowestcost approach, the annual cost to the 

States would be $72,124. If all States 

chose the highest-cost approach, the 

annual cost to the States would be $1.3 

million ($1,337,040). We took the 

average of this range to estimate the 

annual cost of the program of $704,582 

to be incurred beginning in 2020. The 

sum of these calculations results in a 

total 10-year cost of $4.4 million 

($4,364,521), which is equal to an 

average annual cost of $436,452 for the 

implementation. 

The sum of the costs for the pilot 

program and the implementation results 

in a total 10-year cost of $6.4 million 

($6,383,497), which is equal to an 

average annual cost of $638,350 for the 

implementation. 

iii. Negotiation of Levels of Performance 

WIOA sec. 116(b)(3) requires States to 

negotiate with DOL and ED and agree on 

levels of performance for each 

performance indicator for each core 

program every 2 years. States must 

establish expected levels of performance 

for each of the six core programs in the 

submitted Unified or Combined State 

Plan. Prior to approving the Unified or 

Combined State Plan, however, DOL 

and ED must negotiate with the States 

to agree on an adjusted performance 

level (referred to as a ‘‘negotiated level 

of performance’’ in § 677.170(b) of these 

final regulations). The negotiated level 

of performance must be incorporated 

into the Unified or Combined Plan prior 

to its approval. The negotiated levels of 

performance are based on factors 

including how the expected levels 

compare to other States, the statistical 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55969 

45Managers include data, VR program, State 

liaison, and unit chief participation. 

adjustment model, the extent to which 

the levels promote continuous 

improvement, and the extent to which 

the levels will assist the State in 

meeting its long-term performance 

goals. This negotiation of levels of 

performance will result in recurring 

costs incurred by each core program. 

Costs will be incurred by entities at 

Federal, State, and local levels to 

negotiate adjusted levels of 

performance. Specifically, biennial 

labor costs will be incurred at the 

Federal, State, and local levels for the 

DOL core programs, at the Federal and 

State levels for the AEFLA program, and 

at the Federal and State levels for the 

VR program. 

Costs 

At the Federal level for DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 13), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of GS–14 level, Step 5 managers (1) by 

the time required to negotiate levels of 

performance (8 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($76.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for GS– 

12 level, Step 5 management analysts (2 

analysts at $54.43/hour for 8 hours 

each). We summed the labor cost for 

both categories to estimate this biennial 

cost of $1,483. This calculation results 

in a total 10-year cost of $7,414, which 

is equal to an average annual cost of 

$741. 

At the State level for DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 16), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per State (1) by the time 

required to negotiate levels of 

performance (8 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.39/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for 

office and administrative support staff 

members (2 staff members at $30.57/

hour for 8 hours each). We summed the 

labor cost for both categories ($1,012) 

and multiplied the result by the number 

of States (57). This calculation yields a 

biennial cost of $57,698. Over the 10- 

year period, this calculation results in a 

total cost of $288,488, which is equal to 

an average annual cost of $28,849. 

At the local level for DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 19), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per Local WDB (1) by the 

time required to negotiate levels of 

performance (8 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($63.63/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for 

office and administrative support staff 

members (2 staff members at $29.36/

hour for 8 hours each). We summed the 

labor cost for both categories ($979) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

Local WDBs (580), which results in a 

biennial cost of $567,704. This 

calculation results in a total 10-year cost 

of $2.8 million ($2,838,520), which is 

equal to an average annual cost of 

$283,852. 

At the Federal level for the AEFLA 

programs (see Exhibit 14), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of GS–14 level, Step 5 managers (4) by 

the time required to negotiate levels of 

performance (24 hours each) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($76.48/hour). 

We performed the same calculation for 

GS–13 level, Step 5 social and 

community service managers (4 

managers at $64.71/hour for 24 hours 

each). We summed the labor cost for 

both categories to estimate this biennial 

cost of $13,554. Over the 10-year period, 

this calculation yields a total cost of 

$67,771, which is equal to an average 

annual cost of $6,777. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 17), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per State (1) by the time 

required to negotiate levels of 

performance (12 hours) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($65.39/hour). 

We repeated the calculation for social 

and community service managers (1 

manager at $54.21/hour for 12 hours). 

We summed the labor cost for both 

categories ($1,435) and multiplied the 

result by the number of States (57). This 

calculation results in a biennial cost of 

$81,806. Over the 10-year period, this 

calculation results in a total cost of 

$409,032, which is equal to an average 

annual cost of $40,903. 

At the Federal level for the VR 

program (see Exhibit 15), the 

Departments estimated this biennial 

labor cost by first multiplying the 

estimated number of GS–14 level, Step 

5 managers (4) by the time required to 

negotiate levels of performance (12 

hours each) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($76.48/hour).45 The 

biennial labor cost of $3,671 results in 

a total 10-year cost of $18,355, which is 

equal to an average annual cost of 

$1,836. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 18), 

the Departments estimated the cost of 

negotiating levels of performance by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per VR agency (1) by the 

time required to negotiate adjusted 

levels of performance (12 hours) and by 

the hourly compensation rate ($65.39/

hour). We repeated the calculation for 

the following occupational categories: 

social and community service managers 

(2 managers at $54.21/hour for 12 hours 

each) and management analysts (2 

analysts at $45.88/hour for 12 hours 

each). We summed the labor cost for the 

three categories ($3,187) and multiplied 

the result by the number of VR agencies 

(80) to estimate this biennial cost as 

$254,947. This calculation results in a 

10-year cost of $1.3 million 

($1,274,736), which is equal to an 

average annual cost of $127,474 over the 

10-year analysis period. 

The sum of these calculations yields 

a biennial cost of $980,863 for 

individuals from the Federal, State, and 

local level for the DOL core programs, 

from the Federal- and State-levels for 

the AEFLA program, and from the 

Federal and State levels for the VR 

program to negotiate levels of 

performance. This results in a total 10- 

year cost of $4.9 million ($4,904,316), 

which is equal to an average annual cost 

of $490,432. 

iv. Running Statistical Adjustment 

Model To Adjust Levels of Performance 

Based on Actual Economic Conditions 

and Characteristics of Participants 

WIOA sec. 116(b)(3) requires DOL, 

ED, and States to ensure that negotiated 

levels of performance are adjusted using 

a statistical adjustment model— 

developed and disseminated by DOL 

and ED—based on the differences 

among States in (1) actual economic 

conditions (including differences in 

unemployment rates and job losses or 

gains in particular industries) and (2) 

the characteristics of participants when 

they entered the relevant program 

(including indicators of poor work 

history, lack of work experience, lack of 

education or occupational skills 

attainment, dislocation from high-wage 

and high-benefit employment, low 

levels of literacy or English proficiency, 

disability status, homelessness, exoffender status, and welfare 

dependency). Regularly adjusting the 

levels of performance for each primary 

performance indicator for each core 

program will result in annual costs 

being incurred at the Federal, State, and 

local levels for the DOL core programs, 

at the Federal level for the AEFLA 

program, and at the Federal and State 

levels for the VR program to collect and 

update data on participants. 

Furthermore, DOL will experience costs 

related to annual licensing fees. 

Costs 

At the Federal level for DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 13), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55970 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

46For DOL programs, the Federal program will 

experience the heaviest burden as ETA will 

produce all State and local calculations and 

disseminate them to States and local areas. 

47Managers will include data unit database 

administrative staff and management staff. 

of GS–14 level, Step 5 managers (1) by 

the time required to collect and update 

data on the core programs’ participants 

(250 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($76.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for GS– 

13 level, Step 5 computer systems 

analysts (2 analysts at $64.71/hour for 

1,000 hours each). We summed the 

labor cost for both categories to estimate 

this annual cost of $148,540, which 

results in a total 10-year cost of $1.5 

million ($1,485,400).46

The Departments estimated the 

annual licensing fee for DOL to be 

$10,000, or a total cost of $100,000 over 

the 10-year analysis period. 

At the State level for DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 16), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per State (1) by the time 

required to collect and update data on 

the programs’ participants (10 hours) 

and by the hourly compensation rate 

($65.39/hour). We performed the same 

calculation for the following 

occupational categories: computer 

systems analysts (2 analysts at $56.17/ 

hour for 40 hours each) and office and 

administrative support staff members (2 

staff members at $30.57/hour for 20 

hours each). We summed the labor cost 

for the three categories ($6,370) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States (57) to estimate this annual cost 

of $363,107. This result is equal to a 

total 10-year cost of $3.6 million 

($3,631,071). 

At the local level for DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 19), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per Local WDB (1) by the 

time required to collect and update data 

on the programs’ participants (10 hours) 

and by the hourly compensation rate 

($63.63/hour). We performed the same 

calculation for the following 

occupational categories: computer 

systems analysts (2 analysts at $60.76/ 

hour for 40 hours each) and office and 

administrative support staff members (2 

staff members at $29.36/hour for 20 

hours each). We summed the labor cost 

for both categories ($6,672) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

Local WDBs (580). The annual cost is 

estimated to be $3.9 million 

($3,869,470), which results in a 10-year 

total cost of $38.7 million ($38,694,700). 

At the Federal level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 14), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of GS–14 level, Step 5 managers (2) by 

the time required to provide Federal 

oversight and technical assistance (40 

hours each) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($76.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for GS– 

12 level, Step 5 management analysts (2 

analysts at $54.43/hour for 80 hours 

each). We summed the labor cost for 

both categories to estimate this annual 

cost of $14,827, which results in a total 

10-year cost of $148,272. 

At the Federal level for the VR 

program (see Exhibit 15), the 

Departments estimated this biennial 

labor cost by first multiplying the 

estimated number of GS–14 level, Step 

5 managers (2) by the time required to 

collect and update data on its 

participants (52 hours each) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($76.48/

hour).47 The Departments repeated the 

calculation for GS–13 level, Step 5 

database administrators (2 

administrators at $64.71/hour for 156 

hours each). We summed the annual 

labor cost for the two categories 

($28,143), which results in a total 10- 

year cost of $281,434. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 18), 

the Departments estimated this cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per VR agency (1) by the 

time required to collect and update data 

on its participants (4 hours) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($65.39/hour). 

We repeated the calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

Database administrators (1 administrator 

at $57.02/hour for 20 hours), computer 

systems analysts (1 analyst at $56.17/

hour for 4 hours), and management 

analysts (1 analyst at $45.88/hour for 4 

hours). We summed the labor cost for 

the four categories ($1,810) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

VR agencies (80) to estimate this annual 

cost as $144,813, which results in a total 

10-year cost of $1.4 million 

($1,448,128). 

The sum of these calculations yields 

an annual cost of $4.6 million 

($4,578,901) for individuals from the 

Federal, State, and local levels for the 

DOL core programs, the Federal level for 

the AEFLA program, and the Federal 

and State levels for the VR program to 

collect and update data on their 

participants. This is equal to a 10-year 

total cost of $45.8 million ($45,789,005). 

v. Additional State Performance 

Accountability Indicators (Beyond 

Required Performance Indicators) 

Under WIOA sec. 116(b), States must 

include levels of performance for the six 

primary performance indicators in their 

Unified or Combined State Plans. In 

addition, WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(B) 

permits States to identify in the State 

Plan additional performance 

accountability indicators for the core 

programs beyond the six required 

primary indicators. Although States had 

similar latitude under WIA, no State has 

ever established additional performance 

indicators. Therefore, the Departments 

do not expect any State to establish 

additional performance accountability 

indicators under WIOA. If a State 

chooses to do so, however, we have 

conservatively calculated a burden 

estimate based on five States 

establishing additional indicators of 

performance. The costs associated with 

this activity are those incurred by Statelevel DOL core programs, State- and 

local-level AEFLA programs, and State 

VR agencies having to collect additional 

data to report on the additional 

performance indicators in the first year 

of the Final Rule. 

Costs 

At the State level for DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 31), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per State providing 

additional data (1) by the time required 

to collect additional data (16 hours) and 

by the hourly compensation rate 

($65.39/hour). We performed the same 

calculation for computer systems 

analysts (3 analysts at $56.17/hour for 

40 hours each) and office and 

administrative support staff members (1 

staff member at $30.57/hour for 36 

hours). We summed the labor cost for all 

three categories ($8,887) and multiplied 

the result by the number of States 

providing additional data (5) to estimate 

this one-time cost of $44,436. Over the 

10-year period, this calculation yields 

an average annual cost of $4,444. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 32), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per State providing 

additional data (1) by the time required 

to collect additional data (8 hours) and 

by the hourly compensation rate 

($65.39/hour). We repeated the 

calculation for the following 

occupational categories: Database 

administrators (1 administrator at 

$57.02/hour for 8 hours), computer 

systems analysts (1 analyst at $56.17/


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55971 

48This provision will be a joint effort between 

State and local AEFLA staff. 

hour for 8 hours), and social and 

community service managers (3 

managers at $54.21/hour for 8 hours 

each). We summed the labor cost for all 

four categories ($2,730) and multiplied 

the result by the number of States 

providing additional data (5) to estimate 

this one-time cost of $13,648.48 Over the 

10-year period, this calculation yields 

an average annual cost of $1,365. 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 34), the 

Departments estimated this cost by first 

multiplying the estimated number of 

managers per local AEFLA provider 

proving additional data (1) by the time 

required to collect additional data (4 

hours) and by the hourly compensation 

rate ($63.63/hour). We performed the 

same calculation for database 

administrators (1 administrator at 

$59.60/hour for 4 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for the two occupational 

categories ($493) and multiplied the 

result by the number of local AEFLA 

providers providing additional data 

(200) to estimate this one-time cost of 

$98,584. Over the 10-year period, this 

calculation yields an average annual 

cost of $9,858. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 33), 

the Departments estimated this cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per VR agency providing 

additional data (1) by the time required 

to collect additional data (8 hours) and 

by the hourly compensation rate 

($65.39/hour). We repeated the 

calculation for the following 

occupational categories: Database 

administrators (1 administrator at 

$57.02/hour for 8 hours), computer 

systems analysts (1 analyst at $56.17/

hour for 8 hours), and social and 

community service managers (3 

managers at $54.21/hour for 8 hours 

each). We summed the labor cost for the 

four categories ($2,730) and multiplied 

the result by the number of VR agencies 

providing additional data (5) to estimate 

this one-time cost as $13,648. Over the 

10-year period, this calculation yields 

an average annual cost of $1,365. 

The sum of these calculations yields 

a total first-year cost of $170,317 from 

the State-level DOL core programs, 

State- and local-level AEFLA programs, 

and State VR agencies to collect 

additional data. This is equal to an 

average annual cost of $17,032. 

vi. Technical Assistance to States 

The cost of this activity reflects the 

Federal cost for procuring a consultant 

to provide technical assistance to States 

in the collection of data to comply with 

the new performance accountability 

requirements of WIOA. The cost for this 

activity was not included in the NPRM, 

because the FY 2017 budget request was 

in the process of being developed. For 

FY 2017, the Administration requested 

funds to help meet WIOA performance 

requirements through improved data 

infrastructure along with $1 million for 

ED to provide technical assistance to 

help AEFLA grantees comply with the 

new requirements, including the 

collection of new WIOA data elements. 

The total 10-year cost (undiscounted) 

for this activity represents a one-time 

Federal consultant cost of $1 million in 

the second year of WIOA. 

Costs 

At the Federal level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 14), the 

Departments estimated the cost related 

to providing technical assistance to 

States to comply with the new WIOA 

performance accountability 

requirements, including the collection 

and reporting of new data as a one-time 

consultant cost ($1,000,000) in the 

second year of the rule. Over the 10-year 

period, this calculation yields an 

average annual cost of $100,000. 

vii. Performance Reports 

Under WIOA sec. 116(d)(6), States 

must make available (including by 

electronic means) performance reports 

for local areas and for ETPs under title 

I of WIOA. WIA required DOL to make 

State performance reports publicly 

available but did not require States, 

themselves, to make their performance 

reports available (see WIA sec. 

136(d)(3)). Section 116(d)(1) of WIOA 

requires the Departments to provide a 

performance reporting template to be 

used by States, Local WDBs, and ETPs 

for the performance reports required in 

WIOA secs. 116(d)(2) through (4). This 

Final Rule requires States to submit 

quarterly participant and performance 

data reports for each of the DOL core 

programs. Because DOL has required 

quarterly reporting for its programs 

prior to WIOA, the frequency of the 

reporting requirement should not result 

in incremental cost increases for any of 

the DOL core programs; rather, the 

Federal costs associated with this rule’s 

performance reporting requirements 

will be associated with the 

implementation of the new performance 

reporting template. In addition, DOL 

State-level costs will be associated with 

developing, updating, and submitting 

ETP reports because while ETP 

reporting was required under WIA, 

many States received waivers allowing 

them not to make the submissions. 

Under WIOA, DOL does not expect to 

allow waivers for this reporting 

requirement. The State-level AEFLA 

programs reported annually under WIA, 

while local-level AEFLA programs 

reported annually to States under WIA, 

and both will continue to do so under 

WIOA. AEFLA programs will incur 

costs to collect, analyze, and report 

performance data. Under WIA, VR 

agencies submitted annual performance 

data on closed service records through 

the RSA–911 Case Service Report, and 

under WIOA, they will incur costs to 

transition to reporting on open and 

closed service records on a quarterly 

basis. 

The DOL and ED, for purposes of the 

DOL core programs and the AEFLA 

program, will incur annual Federal level 

costs to collect, analyze, and report 

performance data. Furthermore, both 

Federal agencies will experience annual 

costs for software and IT systems. The 

Departments do not anticipate an 

increase in annual Federal-level costs 

for the VR program compared to the 

baseline. However, ED will incur a onetime software and IT systems cost to 

support its ability to compile quarterly 

data reported by VR agencies into 

annual reports required under WIOA. At 

the State level for the DOL core 

programs, the AEFLA program, and the 

VR program, as well as at the local level 

for the AEFLA program, there will be 

annual costs to collect, analyze, and 

report performance data. 

Costs 

At the Federal level for DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 35), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated average 

number of GS–14, Step 5 managers (1) 

by the time required to implement and 

review the new performance reporting 

template (8 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($76.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for GS– 

13, Step 5 computer systems analysts (1 

analyst at $64.71/hour for 5 hours) and 

GS–12, Step 5 management analysts (1 

analyst at $54.43/hour for 16 hours). We 

summed the labor cost for all three 

categories to estimate an annual cost of 

$1,806, which results in a total cost of 

$18,063 over the 10-year analysis 

period. 

The Departments estimated the 

annual software and IT systems cost at 

the Federal level for the DOL core 

programs to be $250,000, which yields 

a total cost of $2.5 million ($2,500,000) 

over the 10-year analysis period. 

At the State level for the DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 38), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated average 

number of managers per State (1) by the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55972 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

49This provision will be a joint effort between 

State and local AEFLA staff. 

50Costs for the Federal RSA program are not 

estimated because Federal costs for report 

generation will not be in excess of current RSA–911 

report costs. 

time required to develop, update, and 

submit ETP reports (8 hours) and by the 

hourly compensation rate ($65.39/hour). 

We performed the same calculation for 

the following occupational categories: 

Computer system analysts (1 analyst at 

$56.17/hour for 40 hours), management 

analysts (1 analyst at $45.88/hour for 60 

hours), and office and administrative 

staff members (4 staff members at 

$30.57/hour for 20 hours each). We 

summed the labor cost for all four 

categories ($7,968) and multiplied the 

result by the number of States (57) to 

estimate an annual cost of $454,194, 

which results in a total cost of $4.5 

million ($4,541,942) over the 10-year 

analysis period. 

At the Federal level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 36), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of GS–14, Step 5 managers (1) by the 

time required to collect, analyze, and 

report performance data (8 hours) and 

by the hourly compensation rate 

($76.48/hour). We repeated the 

calculation for GS–13, Step 5 social and 

community service managers (1 

manager at $64.71/hour for 16 hours) 

and GS–13, Step 5 database 

administrators (1 administrator at 

$64.71/hour for 40 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for all three categories to 

estimate an annual cost of $4,236. Over 

the 10-year period, this calculation 

yields a total cost of $42,356. 

The Departments estimated a onetime software and IT systems cost at the 

Federal level for the AEFLA program to 

be $5 million for development, 

modernization, and enhancement. Over 

the 10-year period, this calculation 

yields an average annual cost of 

$500,000. 

The Departments also estimated the 

annual software and IT systems cost for 

the AEFLA program at the Federal level 

to be $250,000 to maintain the steady 

state. Over the 10-year period, this 

calculation yields a cost of $2.5 million 

($2,500,000). 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 39), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated average 

number of managers per State (1) by the 

time required to collect, analyze, and 

report performance data (40 hours) and 

by the hourly compensation rate 

($65.39/hour). We repeated the 

calculation for the following 

occupational categories: Computer 

systems analysts (1 analyst at $56.17/

hour for 40 hours), social and 

community service managers (3 

managers at $54.21/hour for 40 hours 

each), and database administrators (1 

administrator at $57.02/hour for 40 

hours). We summed the labor cost for all 

four categories ($13,648) and multiplied 

the result by the number of States (57) 

to estimate an annual cost of $777,959. 

Over the 10-year period, this calculation 

yields a total cost of $7.8 million 

($7,779,588).49

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 41), the 

Departments estimated this cost by first 

multiplying the estimated number of 

managers per local AEFLA provider (1) 

by the time required to collect, analyze, 

and report performance data (8 hours) 

and by the hourly compensation rate 

($63.63/hour). We performed the same 

calculation for social and community 

service managers (1 manager at $61.01/ 

hour for 8 hours) and database 

administrators (1 administrator at 

$59.60/hour for 8 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for all three occupational 

categories ($1,474) and multiplied the 

result by the number of local AEFLA 

providers (2,396) to estimate an annual 

cost of $3.5 million ($3,531,512). Over 

the 10-year period, this calculation 

yields a total cost of $35.3 million 

($35,315,123). 

At the Federal level for the VR 

program (see Exhibit 37), the 

Departments estimated a one-time 

software and IT systems cost to be 

$68,925 to support ED’s ability to 

compile quarterly data reported by VR 

agencies into annual reports required 

under WIOA. Over the 10-year period, 

this calculation yields an average 

annual cost of $6,893. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 40), 

the Departments estimated this cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per VR agency (1) by the 

time required to review and verify the 

annual performance report that RSA 

will assemble from the quarterly RSA– 

911 data that the States have previously 

reported (5 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.39/hour). We 

repeated the calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

Computer systems analysts (1 analyst at 

$56.17/hour for 5 hours), social and 

community service managers (2 

managers at $54.21/hour for 10 hours 

each), and database administrators (1 

administrator at $57.02/hour for 25 

hours). We summed the labor cost for all 

four categories ($3,118) and multiplied 

the result by the number of VR agencies 

(80) to estimate an annual cost as 

$249,400, which results in a total 10- 

year cost of $2.5 million ($2,494,000).50

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 40), 

the Departments estimated this cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of staff trainers per VR agency (1) by the 

time required to train staff on new data 

collection (6 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($54.21/hour). We 

repeated the calculation for 

rehabilitation counselors (62 counselors 

at $36.66/hour for 3 hours each). We 

summed the labor cost for both 

categories ($7,144) and multiplied the 

result by the number of VR agencies (80) 

to estimate a one-time cost of $571,522, 

which results in an average annual cost 

of $57,152. 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 40), 

the Departments estimated this cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of rehabilitation counselors (62) by the 

time required to collect data in the first 

year (58 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($36.66/hour). We 

summed the labor cost ($131,829) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

VR agencies (80) to estimate a first year 

cost of $10.5 million ($10,546,349). We 

then multiplied the estimated number of 

rehabilitation counselors (62) by the 

time required to collect data in the 

second and subsequent years (15 hours) 

and by the hourly compensation rate 

($36.66/hour). We summed the labor 

cost ($34,094) and multiplied the result 

by the number of VR agencies (80) to 

estimate an annual cost of $2.7 million 

($2,727,504). This results in a total 10- 

year cost of $35.1 million ($35,093,885), 

which is equivalent to an average 

annual cost of $3.5 million ($3,509,388). 

The sum of these calculations yields 

an average annual cost of $9.6 million 

($9,592,540) for individuals from the 

Federal- and State-level DOL core 

programs, the Federal-, State-, and locallevel AEFLA programs, and the Federaland State-level VR agencies, that will 

incur costs related to the performance 

reports. This is equal to a total 10-year 

cost of $95.9 million ($95,925,404). 

viii. Obtain UI Wage Data 

WIOA core programs will need access 

to quarterly State UI wage data to 

efficiently identify exited participants 

who are employed in the second and 

fourth full quarters after exit to report 

on the employment performance 

indicators. These core programs also 

will need access to the State quarterly 

UI wage data to identify the individual 

quarterly wages in the second full 

quarter to calculate the median wage 

performance measure. Prior to WIOA, 

the AEFLA program obtained quarterly 

UI wage data on its participants and 

DOL’s public workforce systems had 

costs associated with UI wage matches. 

This will be the first time, however, that 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55973 

51Costs for the Federal RSA program are not 

estimated because Federal costs for report 

generation will not be in excess of current RSA–911 

report costs. 

52Costs for the Federal RSA program are not 

estimated because Federal costs for report 

generation will not be in excess of older RSA–911 

report costs. 

State VR agencies will be required to 

obtain and report UI wage data. VR 

programs will need to contribute a 

reasonable and proportional share of the 

costs for maintaining and using the 

State UI wage system and interstate 

wage information systems, on a per 

individual, per query, monthly, 

quarterly, or annual basis. 

Costs 

For State VR agencies (Exhibit 18), the 

Departments estimated this cost by first 

multiplying the data query cost for large 

VR agencies ($20,000) by the number of 

large VR agencies (10). We then 

multiplied the data query cost for 

medium VR agencies ($8,000) by the 

number of medium VR agencies (42). 

Finally, we multiplied the data query 

cost for small VR agencies ($4,000) by 

the number of small VR agencies (28). 

We summed the annual data query cost 

for all VR agencies ($648,000), which 

results in a total 10-year cost of $6.5 

million ($6,480,000).51

ix. Data Analytic Software and Training 

VR agencies also will require data 

analytic and reporting software to 

extract the information required from 

their data collection systems necessary 

to match individual cases to the 

employment and quarterly earnings data 

contained in the UI wage data system. 

DOL and AEFLA, which have the 

software and perform the analytics, will 

experience no incremental costs related 

to this activity. This software also will 

be required to import the wage and 

earnings information to their 

information collection and reporting 

systems, and complete the calculations 

necessary to report on the second 

quarter employment and median-age 

performance indicators, and on the 

fourth-quarter employment indicator. 

Costs 

For State VR agencies (see Exhibit 18), 

the Departments estimated this cost by 

first multiplying the software and IT 

systems cost for large VR agencies 

($25,000) by the number of large VR 

agencies (10). We then multiplied the 

software and IT systems cost for 

medium VR agencies ($15,000) by the 

number of medium VR agencies (42). 

Finally, we multiplied the software and 

IT systems cost for small VR agencies 

($10,000) by the number of small VR 

agencies (28). We summed the one-time 

software and IT systems cost for all VR 

agencies, resulting in a total one-time 

cost of $1.2 million ($1,160,000), which 

is equivalent to an average annual cost 

of $116,000.52

The sum of the costs for the 

Performance Accountability System, 

which includes the costs to: 

• Develop and update State 

performance accountability systems 

(which includes the cost to align 

technology and data systems across onestop partner programs); 

• Implement measures for data 

collection and reporting on the 

effectiveness in serving employers; 

• Negotiate levels of performance; 

• Run a statistical adjustment model 

to adjust levels of performance; 

• Obtain data to report on any 

additional State performance 

accountability indicators beyond 

required performance indicators; 

• Provide technical assistance to 

States; 

• Develop a performance report 

template; 

• Develop, update and submit ETP 

reports; 

• Collect, analyze, and report 

performance data; and provide training; 

• Collect UI wage data; and 

• Purchase data analytic software and 

provide training. 

This calculation results in a 10-year 

total cost of $589.0 million 

($588,988,950), which is equal to an 

average annual cost of $58.9 million 

($58,898,895). 

d. State Evaluation Responsibilities 

WIOA sec. 116(e)(1) requires States, 

in coordination with Local WDBs and 

agencies responsible for administering 

core programs, to conduct ongoing 

evaluations of title I activities carried 

out in the State under the core 

programs. Such program evaluations 

were required under WIA; however, 

WIOA specifies that SWAs and other 

State agencies must coordinate the 

evaluations with the evaluation and 

research conducted by the Secretary of 

Labor or the Secretary of Education 

under the provisions of Federal law 

identified in WIOA secs. 169 and 

242(c)(2)(D); secs. 12(a)(5), 14, and 107 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 

U.S.C. 709(a)(5), 711, 727) (applied with 

respect to the VR program); and the 

investigations provided for by the 

Secretary of Labor under sec. 10(b) of 

the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 

49i(b)). Additionally, WIOA sec. 

116(e)(4) directs that SWAs and other 

State agencies must, to the extent 

practicable, cooperate in the evaluations 

(including related research projects) 

conducted under the provisions of 

Federal law identified in the preceding 

sentence. Specifically, such cooperation 

must include the provision of data and 

responses to surveys, as well as 

allowing timely site visits. These 

directives regarding coordination within 

States as well as coordination with and 

cooperation in Federal evaluations were 

not present in WIA. Finally, WIOA sec. 

116(e)(3) requires States to prepare and 

submit annually to the State and Local 

WDBs within a State, and make 

available to the public (including by 

electronic means), any reports 

containing the results of evaluations 

conducted by the State under this 

section. Under WIA sec. 136(e)(3), 

States were required to prepare and 

submit periodically evaluation reports 

to the State and Local WDBs within the 

State and to DOL as part of their annual 

report, but were not required to make 

them electronically available to the 

public. 

Requirements related to Federal 

coordination to support State 

evaluations will be new to the AEFLA 

and VR programs under WIOA; 

however, DOL core programs had 

evaluation-related requirements under 

WIA, as discussed above. 

DOL will incur Federal-level costs for 

SWA evaluation activities under sec. 

116(e) of WIOA. The Federal-level 

AEFLA and VR programs will incur 

costs for providing technical assistance 

and promoting State AEFLA and VR 

agency participation, respectively, in 

the coordination process (which may 

include the design and development of 

State evaluation activities). All Federal 

programs will incur costs for technical 

assistance, monitoring, and 

dissemination. Costs will be incurred by 

affected entities to coordinate any 

evaluations of activities carried out in 

the States and in cooperating in the 

provision of various forms of data for 

Federal evaluations. The Departments 

estimate that implementing these 

requirements will generate annual labor 

costs at the Federal and State level for 

DOL and ED programs. In addition, 

there will be some marginal software 

and IT systems and consultant costs for 

State-level DOL programs. 

i. Costs 

At the Federal level for DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 42), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of GS–14, Step 5 managers per State (2) 

by the time required to support State 

evaluation activities (25 hours each) and 

by the hourly compensation rate 

($76.48/hour). We performed the same 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55974 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

calculation for GS–13, Step 5 computer 

system analysts (1 analyst at $64.71/

hour for 3 hours) and GS–12, Step 5 

management analysts (2 analysts at 

$54.43/hour for 30 hours each). We 

summed the labor cost for all three 

categories ($7,284) to estimate the costs 

this entity will incur annually. This is 

equivalent to a 10-year cost of $72,839. 

At the State level for DOL core 

programs (see Exhibit 45), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of computer systems analysts per State 

(2) by the time required to coordinate 

any evaluations of activities carried out 

in the States and to cooperate in the 

provision of various forms of data for 

Federal evaluations (15 hours each) and 

by the hourly compensation rate 

($56.17/hour). We performed the same 

calculation for the following 

occupational categories: Social and 

community managers (1 manager at 

$54.21/hour for 20 hours), management 

analysts (1 analyst at $45.88/hour for 10 

hours), and office and administrative 

staff members (1 staff member at $30.57/ 

hour for 10 hours). We summed the 

labor cost for all four categories ($3,534) 

and multiplied the result by the number 

of States (57) to estimate an annual cost 

of $201,427. This is equivalent to a 10- 

year cost of $2.0 million ($2,014,266). 

At the State level for DOL core 

programs, the Departments estimated 

the software and IT systems costs. We 

first multiplied the software and IT 

systems cost ($10,000) by the number of 

States (57) to estimate an annual cost of 

$570,000. This estimate represents the 

cost associated with this Final Rule 

beyond the IT expenditures currently 

incurred by SWAs. This is equivalent to 

a 10-year cost of $5.7 million 

($5,700,000). 

At the State level for DOL core 

programs, the Departments estimated 

the consultant costs. We first multiplied 

the consultant costs ($21,400) by the 

number of States (57) to estimate an 

annual cost of $1.2 million ($1,219,800). 

This is equivalent to a 10-year cost of 

$12.2 million ($12,198,000). 

At the Federal level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 43), the 

Departments estimated the labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of GS–14, Step 5 managers per State (4) 

by the time required to support State 

adult education agency participation in 

the coordination process (10 hours each) 

and the hourly compensation rate 

($76.48/hour). We performed the same 

calculation for the following 

occupational categories: GS–13, Step 5 

computer systems analysts (1 analyst at 

$64.71/hour for 5 hours), and GS–12, 

Step 5 management analysts (2 analysts 

at $54.43/hour for 30 hours each). We 

summed the labor cost for all three 

categories to estimate an annual cost of 

$6,649. This is equivalent to a 10-year 

cost of $66,486. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program (see Exhibit 46), the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of managers per State (1) by the time 

required to coordinate any evaluations 

of activities carried out in the States and 

in cooperating in the provision of 

various forms of data for Federal 

evaluations (10 hours) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.39/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

Computer systems analysts (1 analyst at 

$56.17/hour for 20 hours), social and 

community managers (1 manager at 

$54.21/hour for 10 hours), and 

management analysts (1 analyst at 

$45.88/hour for 20 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for all four categories 

($3,237) and multiplied the result by the 

number of States (57) to estimate an 

annual cost of $184,509. This is 

equivalent to a 10-year cost of $1.8 

million ($1,845,090). 

At the Federal level for the VR 

program (see Exhibit 44), the 

Departments estimated the labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated number 

of GS–14, Step 5 managers per State (2) 

by the time required to support State VR 

agency participation and coordination 

in carrying out State evaluations (5 

hours each) and the hourly 

compensation rate ($76.48/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: GS– 

13, Step 5 social and community service 

managers (2 managers at $64.71/hour for 

10 hours each) and GS–12, Step 5 

management analysts (2 analysts at 

$54.43/hour for 15 hours each). We 

summed the labor cost for all three 

categories to estimate an annual cost of 

$3,692. This is equivalent to a 10-year 

cost of $36,919. 

At the State level for the VR program 

(see Exhibit 47), the Departments 

estimated this labor cost by first 

multiplying the estimated number of 

managers per State (1) by the time 

required to coordinate any evaluations 

of activities carried out in the States and 

for cooperating in the provision of 

various forms of data for Federal 

evaluations (1 hour) and by the hourly 

compensation rate ($65.39/hour). We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

Computer systems analysts (1 analyst at 

$56.17/hour for 13 hours), social and 

community service managers (1 

manager at $54.21/hour for 5 hours), 

management analysts (1 analyst at 

$45.88/hour for 5 hours), and office and 

administrative support staff (1 staff 

member at $30.57/hour for 2 hours). We 

summed the labor cost for all five 

categories ($1,357) and multiplied the 

result by the number of VR agencies (80) 

to estimate an annual cost of $108,575. 

This is equivalent to a 10-year cost of 

$1.1 million ($1,085,752). 

The sum of these calculations yields 

a total 10-year cost of $23.0 million 

($23,019,352) resulting in an average 

annual cost of $2.3 million ($2,301,935), 

for individuals from the Federal- and 

State-level DOL, AEFLA and VR 

programs related to State evaluation 

responsibilities. 

Relative to the baseline of practice 

under WIA, the four provisions of the 

WIOA Final Rule described above are 

expected to result in costs of $626.8 

million ($626,780,605) over the 10-year 

period. This is equivalent to an average 

annual cost of $62.7 million 

($62,678,060). See section V.A.7 

(Summary of Analysis) for a summary of 

these costs. 

7. Summary of Analysis 

Exhibit 50 summarizes the estimated 

undiscounted average annual costs for 

each provision of this Final Rule. The 

exhibit also presents a high-level 

qualitative description of the benefits 

resulting from full WIOA 

implementation for each rule provision. 

These qualitative forecasts are 

predicated on program experience and 

are outcomes for which data will 

become available only after 

implementation. The Departments 

estimate the average annual cost of this 

Final Rule over the 10-year period of 

analysis to be $62.7 million. The largest 

contributor to this cost is the provision 

related to the development and 

updating of State performance 

accountability systems, which is 

estimated at $42.7 million per year. The 

next largest cost results from 

performance reports at an estimated 

$9.6 million per year, followed by the 

average cost of adjusting performance 

based on actual economic conditions 

and characteristics of participants at an 

estimated $4.6 million per year. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55975 

EXHIBIT 50—ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND LABOR FINAL RULE BY PROVISION

Provision 

Average 

annual cost 

(undiscounted) 

Percent of 

total cost Qualitative benefit highlights 

(a) Time to Review the New Rule ................................ $330,562 0.53 General requirement. 

(b)(i) Unified or Combined State Plans—Expanded 

Content Requirements.

120,202 0.19 Enhanced data for management decision-making and 

policy integration; avoided program service duplication; enhanced internal State planning; avoids 

‘‘silos’’ and service duplications; more efficient use 

of public resources. 

(b)(ii) Unified or Combined State Plans—Biennial Development and Modification Process.186,016 0.30 

(b)(iii) Unified or Combined Plans—Coordinating Submission of State Plans.840,450 1.34 

(c)(i) Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Systems.42,717,641 68.15 Clear articulation of expectations and outcomes for 

accountability purposes; improved policy and management decision-making from performance measure data; better management and policy decisions 

using outcome data; improved service and placements; more accountability. 

1.02% 

(c)(ii) Effectiveness of Serving Employers ................... 638,350 1.02 

(c)(iii) Negotiation of Levels of Performance ................ 490,432 0.78 

(c)(iv) Running Statistical Adjustment Model to Adjust 

Levels of Performance Based on Actual Economic 

Conditions and Characteristics of Participants.

4,578,901 7.31 

(c)(v) Additional State Performance Accountability Indicators (Beyond Required Performance Indicators).17,032 0.03 

(c)(vi) Technical Assistance to States .......................... 100,000 0.16 

(c)(vii) Performance Reports, including collection of 

new data.

9,592,540 15.30 

(c)(viii) Obtain UI Wage Data ....................................... 648,000 1.03 

(c)(ix) Data Analytic Software and Training ................. 116,000 0.19 

(d) State Evaluation Responsibilities ............................ 2,301,935 3.67 Improved service delivery and customer service; enhanced policy-making and system building; more 

accountability. 

Total Costs ............................................................ 62,678,060 100.00 

Note: Totals might not sum due to rounding. 

Exhibit 51 summarizes the first-year 

costs for each provision of this Final 

Rule. The Departments estimated the 

total first-year cost of this Final Rule to 

be $135.5 million. The largest 

contributor to the first-year cost is the 

provision related to developing and 

updating State performance 

accountability systems at $97.5 million. 

The next largest first-year cost results 

from performance reports, amounting to 

$21.7 million, followed by adjusting 

levels of performance based on actual 

economic conditions and characteristics 

at $4.6 million. 

EXHIBIT 51—ESTIMATED FIRST-YEAR COSTS OF THE FINAL RULE BY PROVISION

Provision Total first-year 

cost 

Percent of 

total first-year 

cost 

(a) Time to Review the New Rule ........................................................................................................................... $3,305,615 2.44 

(b)(i) Unified or Combined State Plans—Expanded Content Requirements .......................................................... 1,202,022 0.89 

(b)(ii) Unified or Combined State Plans—Biennial Development and Modification Process .................................. 0 0.00 

(b)(iii) Unified or Combined Plans—Coordinating Submission of State Plans ....................................................... 1,680,901 1.24 

(c)(i) Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Systems .................................................. 97,467,521 71.91 

(c)(ii) Effectiveness of Serving Employers .............................................................................................................. 338,045 0.25 

(c)(iii) Negotiation of Levels of Performance ........................................................................................................... 980,863 0.72 

(c)(iv) Running Statistical Adjustment to Adjust Levels of Performance Based on Actual Economic Conditions 

and Characteristics of Participants ...................................................................................................................... 4,578,901 3.38 

(c)(v) Additional State Performance Accountability Indicators (Beyond Required Performance Indicators) .......... 170,317 0.13 

(c)(vi) Technical Assistance to States ..................................................................................................................... 0 0.00 

(c)(vii) Performance Reports, including collection of new data ............................................................................... 21,705,903 16.01 

(c)(viii) Obtain UI Wage Data .................................................................................................................................. 648,000 0.48 

(c)(ix) Data Analytic Software and Training ............................................................................................................ 1,160,000 0.86 

(d) State Evaluation Responsibilities ....................................................................................................................... 2,301,935 1.70 

Total Cost ......................................................................................................................................................... 135,540,023 100.00 

Note: Totals might not sum due to rounding. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55976 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

53U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration. (2015). Archive of State 

Statutory Formula Funding. Retrieved from: https:// 

www.doleta.gov/budget/py01_py09_arra_

archive.cfm. The Departments used data from the 

following files to estimate the average annual WIA 

budget: WIA Adult Activities Program (PYs 2011, 

2012, 2013, and 2014); WIA Dislocated Worker 

Activities Program (PYs 2011, 2012, 2013, and 

2014); and WIA Youth Activities (PYs 2012, 2013, 

and 2014). Note that for adult and dislocated 

worker activities, the Departments summed the 

program year’s July funding with the previous 

program year’s October funding to calculate the 

amount of funding per fiscal year. The youth 

activities funding is obligated to States in April and 

therefore corresponds to the fiscal year in which it 

is obligated. We inflated the funding for each fiscal 

year, so that the average annual WIA budget is in 

2015 dollars. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration. (2015) State Statutory 

Formula Funding. Retrieved from: https://

www.doleta.gov/budget/statfund.cfm. The 

Departments also used data from the following files 

to estimate the average annual WIA budget: 

Employment Services Program Dollar Tables (PYs 

2012, 2013, and 2014). Note that Wagner-Peyser Act 

funds for a program year are obligated to States in 

July; therefore, these funds correspond to the fiscal 

year in which they are obligated. We inflated the 

funding for each fiscal year, so that the average 

annual WIA budget is in 2015 dollars. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). 

Department of Education Budget Tables. Retrieved 

from: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/

tables.html?src=ct. The Departments used data from 

the following files to estimate the average annual 

WIA budget: Congressional Action (FYs 2012, 2013, 

and 2014). The budget was updated to 2015 dollars. 

54Training and Employment Guidance Letter 

(TEGL) 34–14, TEGL 12–14, TEGL 24–14. The 

Departments inflated the funding for each program 

year. 

55The Departments were able to estimate many 

but not all of the inputs that would be necessary 

to quantify a benefit to DOL programs that could 

result from this Final Rule if affected entities 

choose to integrate DOL program participant 

records. This activity is highly encouraged but not 

required by this Final Rule; hence, one of the key 

inputs to the benefits calculation (the number of 

entities choosing to integrate) is highly uncertain. 

Given the inability to reliably estimate this input, 

no quantitative estimate of cost savings is 

presented; instead these ancillary benefits are 

discussed at the end of this benefits section. 

56 DOL already included economic, education, 

and workforce data in the State Plans under WIA, 

so DOL programs will not experience as much in 

incremental costs associated with this particular 

requirement as will the AEFLA and VR programs. 

Exhibit 52 summarizes the estimated 

annual and total costs of this Final Rule. 

The estimated total (undiscounted) cost 

of the rule sums to $626.8 million over 

the 10-year analysis period, which is 

equal to an average annual cost of $62.7 

million per year. In total, the estimated 

10-year discounted costs of the Final 

Rule range from $495.2 million to 

$558.9 million (with 7- and 3-percent 

discounting, respectively). 

To contextualize the cost of this Final 

Rule, the average annual budget for WIA 

implementation over FY 2012–2014 for 

the Departments of Labor and Education 

combined was $7.2 billion.53 Thus, the 

annual additional cost of implementing 

this Final Rule is 0.9 to 1 percent of the 

average annual WIA budget for FY 

2012–2014 (with 3-percent and 7- 

percent discounting, respectively). In 

response to public comments, the 

Departments also contextualize the cost 

of the Final Rule relative to the amount 

of administrative and transition funds 

available to States, which averaged 

$200.1 million between PY 2014 and PY 

2015.54 The annual additional cost of 

implementing the Final Rule is between 

32.7 percent and 35.2 percent of the 

average annual administrative and 

transition funds budget (with 3-percent 

and 7-percent discounting, 

respectively). 

EXHIBIT 52—ESTIMATED MONETIZED

COSTS OF DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR

AND EDUCATION FINAL RULE

[2015 dollars] 

2016 ...................................... $135,540,023 

2017 ...................................... 77,389,018 

2018 ...................................... 64,038,222 

2019 ...................................... 52,945,116 

2020 ...................................... 59,249,908 

2021 ...................................... 45,312,669 

2022 ...................................... 50,789,374 

2023 ...................................... 45,312,669 

2024 ...................................... 50,890,937 

2025 ...................................... 45,312,669 

Undiscounted 10-Year Total 626,780,605 

10-Year Total with 3% Discounting ............................. 558,940,877 

10-Year Total with 7% Discounting ............................. 495,158,156 

10-Year Average .................. 62,678,060 

Annualized with 3% Discounting ............................. 65,524,922 

Annualized with 7% Discounting ............................. 70,499,382 

Note: Totals might not sum due to rounding. 

Regulatory Benefits 

The Departments were unable to 

quantify several important benefits to 

society due to data limitations and a 

lack of existing data or evaluation 

findings on particular items.55 These 

include increased employment 

opportunities for unemployed or 

underemployed U.S. workers, enhanced 

ETP process, and evaluation of State 

programs. Below, we describe 

qualitatively the benefits related to this 

Final Rule. 

The Departments provide a qualitative 

description of the anticipated WIOA 

benefits below. The anticipated WIOA 

benefits are the results of expanded 

services to a larger number of people 

and/or improving services that are 

already being offered under WIA. These 

qualitative forecasts are predicated on 

program experience and are outcomes 

for which data will become available 

only after implementation. The studies 

discussed below are largely based on 

programs and their existing 

requirements under WIA and therefore 

they capture the benefits associated 

with WIA. However, they still can 

illustrate the types of benefits that are 

expected from this Final Rule. 

Increased alignment of training with 

local labor markets through economic, 

education, and workforce data. Under 

WIOA, more substantial economic, 

education, and workforce data are 

required to be integrated into the State 

Plan than was required under WIA for 

ED programs. Under WIA, economic, 

education, and workforce data were not 

included in State Plans for ED 

programs.56 Hence, it was possible that 

some program participants were being 

trained for jobs with no local demand at 

the time of the participants’ exit from 

the training program, even though the 

demand for the job might have existed 

elsewhere. Under WIOA, economic, 

education, and workforce data will be 

shared by DOL and ED via the core 

programs in the State Plan. Relative to 

WIA, the use of economic, education, 

and workforce data are expected to 

result in training that is better aligned 

with local labor market demand (i.e., the 

likelihood that more participants are 

learning skills that are applicable to jobs 

for which there will be local demand is 

increased). 

This is expected to result in three 

potential benefits: (1) Improved 

employment outcomes in the local area, 

(2) higher wages, and (3) reduced costs 

associated with returning training 

participants. First, because training 

participants will primarily be trained for 

jobs with local demand, these 

individuals will have an increased 

likelihood of obtaining employment 

following their training due to their 

applicable skill set and the increased 

availability of local labor market 

positions. This could minimize the 

duration of unemployment in some 

local areas. Second, these individuals 

could be paid a higher wage because 

they will possess job-specific training 

for jobs in demand in the local area. 

Finally, under WIA, if an individual 

was not employed after exiting a 

training program, he or she was able to 

participate in some additional training 

programs, which resulted in greater 

costs for those training providers and 

one-stop partners. Under WIOA, the 

Departments expect costs for returning 

participants could decrease due to some 

participants’ increased likelihood of 

obtaining employment. Overall, having 

better aligned training programs will 

have a positive effect on the economy 

from benefits such as reduced retraining 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55977 

57 Johnson, T., Gritz, M., Jackson, R., Burghardt, 

J., Boussy, C., Leonard, J., and Orians, C. (1999). 

National Job Corps Study: Report on the process 

analysis. Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, 

Inc. for U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration. Retrieved from: http://

wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/99- 

jc_analysis.pdf. 

58U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, U.S. Department of Education, and U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). 

What works in job training: A synthesis of the 

evidence. Retrieved from: http://www.dol.gov/asp/

evaluation/jdt/jdt.pdf. 

59 Ibid. 

60 Decker, P.T., & Berk. J.A. (2011). Ten years of 

the Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Interpreting 

the research on WIA and related programs. Journal 

of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(4), 906– 

926. 

61Hollenbeck, K., Schroeder, D., King, C.T., and 

Huang, W.J. (2005). Net impact estimates for 

services provided through the Workforce Investment 

Act (Occasional Paper 2005–06). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration, Office of Policy and 

Research, Division of Research and Demonstration. 

Retrieved from: http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/Full

Text_Documents/Net%20Impact%20Estimates%20

for%20Services%20Provided%20through%20the

%20Workforce%20Investment%20Act- 

%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

62Heinrich, C.J., Mueser, P.R., and Troske, K.R. 

(2009). Workforce Investment Act non-experimental 

net impact evaluation. Columbia, MD: IMPAQ 

International, LLC. Retrieved from: http://

wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/

Workforce%20Investment%20Act%20NonExperimental%20Net%20Impact%20Evaluation

%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

63Park, J. (2011). Does occupational training by 

the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program really 

help reemployment?: Success measured as 

matching. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 

Retrieved from: https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/

FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2011-09.pdf. 

64 Ibid. 

65 Jackson, R.H., Malene ́ Dixon, R., McCoy, A., 

Pistorino, C., Zador, P., Lopdell, J., . . . and Bruno., 

L. (2007). Youth Opportunity Grant Initiative: 

Impact and synthesis report. Prepared by Decision 

Information Resources, Inc. for U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 

Retrieved from: http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/

FullText_Documents/YO%20Impact%20and

%20Synthesis%20Report.pdf. 

66U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. (2013). Five-Year 

research and evaluation strategic plan program 

years 2012–2017. Retrieved from: http://

wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/

ETAOP_2013_21.pdf. 

67Barnow, B., and Gubits, D. (2003) Review of 

recent pilot, demonstration, research, and 

evaluation initiatives to assist in the 

implementation of programs under the Workforce 

Investment Act (Occasional Paper 2003–10). U.S. 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration. Retrieved from: http://

wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/

ETAOP%202003-10%20Review%20of%20

Recent%20Pilot%2C%20Demonostration

%2C%20Research%2C%20and%20

Evaluation%20Initiatives.pdf. 

68 Ibid. 

69Chrisinger, C.K. (2011). Earnings progression 

among workforce development participants: 

Evidence from Washington State. U.S. Department 

of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration. Retrieved from: http://

wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/

ETAOP_2011-11.pdf. 

70Heinrich, C.J., Mueser, P.R., and Troske, K.R. 

(2009). Workforce Investment Act non-experimental 

net impact evaluation. Columbia, MD: IMPAQ 

International, LLC. Retrieved from: http://

wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/

Workforce%20Investment%20Act%20NonExperimental%20Net%20Impact%20Evaluation

%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

71 Ibid. 

costs, and improved worker morale. The 

lengthy and involved process of 

implementing changes to existing 

programs and developing new 

programs, however, might delay the 

benefits derived from improved 

economic, education, and workforce 

data.57

State evaluation research. In support 

of a State’s strategic plan and goals, 

State-conducted evaluations and other 

forms of research will enable each State 

to test various interventions geared 

toward State conditions and 

opportunities. Results from such 

evaluation and research, if used by 

States, could improve service quality 

and effectiveness, potentially leading to 

higher employment rates and earnings 

among participants. Implementing 

various innovations that have been 

tested and found effective also could 

lead to lower unit costs and increased 

numbers of individuals served within a 

State. Sharing the findings nationally 

could lead to new service or 

management practices that other States 

could adopt to improve participant 

labor market outcomes, lower unit costs, 

or increase the number served. 

Training’s impact on job placement. 

A recent study found that flexible and 

innovative training that is closely 

related to a real and in-demand 

occupation is associated with better 

labor market outcomes for training 

participants. Youth disconnected from 

work and school can benefit from 

comprehensive and integrated models of 

training that combine education, 

occupational skills, and support 

services.58 The study noted, however, 

that evidence for effective employment 

and training-related programs for youth 

is less extensive than for adults, and 

that there are fewer positive findings 

from evaluations.59 The WIA youth 

program remains largely untested.60

One study found that WIA training 

services increase placement rates by 4.4 

percent among adults and by 5.9 percent 

among dislocated workers,61 while 

another study concluded that placement 

rates are 3 to 5 percent higher among all 

training recipients.62

Participants in occupational training 

had a reemployment rate 5 percentage 

points higher than those who received 

no training, and reemployment rates 

were highest among recipients of onthe-job training, a difference of 10 to 11 

percentage points.63 The study found 

that training, however, did not 

correspond to higher employment 

retention or earnings.64 A Youth 

Opportunity Grant Initiative study 

found that Youth Opportunity was 

successful at improving outcomes for 

high-poverty youth. Youth Opportunity 

also increased the labor-force 

participation rate overall and for 

subgroups, including 16- to 19-year-old 

adolescents, women, African 

Americans, and in-school youth.65 DOLsponsored research found that 

participants who received core services 

(often funded by Employment Services) 

and other services in American Job 

Centers were more likely to enter and 

retain employment.66

Training’s impact on wages. Before 

enactment of WIA, Job Training 

Partnership Act services had a modest 

but statistically significant impact on 

the earnings of adult participants.67

WIA training increased participants’ 

quarterly earnings by $660; these 

impacts persisted beyond 2 years and 

were largest among women.68 WIA adult 

program participants who received core 

services (e.g., skill assessment, labor 

market information) or intensive 

services (e.g., specialized assessments, 

counseling) earned up to $200 more per 

quarter than non-WIA participants. 

Participants who received training 

services in addition to core and 

intensive services initially earned less 

but caught up within 10 quarters with 

the earnings of participants who 

received only core or intensive services; 

marginal benefits of training could 

exceed $400 per quarter. Earnings 

progressions were similar for WIA adult 

program participants and users of the 

labor exchange only.69 WIA training 

services also improved participants’ 

long-term wage rates, doubling earnings 

after 10 quarters over those not 

receiving training services.70 WIA 

participants who did not receive 

training, however, earned $550 to $700 

more in the first quarter after placement. 

The study also noted that individuals 

who did not receive training received 

effective short-term counseling that 

enabled them to gain an immediate 

advantage in the labor market.71

Another DOL program, the Job Corps 

program for disadvantaged youth and 

young adults, produced sustained 

increases in earnings for participants in 

their early twenties. Students who 

completed Job Corps vocational training 

experienced average earnings increases 

by the fourth follow-up year over the 

comparison group, whereas those who 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55978 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

72 Gritz, M., and Johnson, T. (2001). National Job 

Corps Study: Assessing program effects on earnings 

for students achieving key program milestones. 

Prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute for U.S. 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of Policy and Research. 

Retrieved from: http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/

FullText_Documents/MilestoneImpactReportFinal.pdf. 

73Hollenbeck, K., Schroeder, D., King, C.T., and 

Huang, W.J. (2005). Net impact estimates for 

services provided through the Workforce Investment 

Act (Occasional Paper 2005–06). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from: http://

wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/

Net%20Impact%20Estimates%20for%20Services

%20Provided%20through%20the%20

Workforce%20Investment%20Act-%20Final%20

Report.pdf. 

74Needels, K., Bellotti, J., Dadgar, M., and 

Nicholson, W. (2006). Evaluation of the Military 

Base National Emergency Grants: Final report 

(Occasional Paper 2007–02). Prepared by 

Mathematica Policy Research for U.S. Department 

of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of Policy Development and 

Research. Retrieved from: https://wdr.doleta.gov/

research/FullText_Documents/Evaluation%20of

%20the%20Military%20Base%20National%20

Emergency%20Grants%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

75OECD. About the Survey of Adult Skills 

(PIAAC). Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/site/ 

piaac/surveyofadultskills.htm. 

76Portland State University. (2010). Introduction 

to LSAL. Retrieved from: http://www.lsal.pdx.edu/ 

index.html. 

77U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, 

Technical, and Adult Education. The Impact of ABS 

Program Participation on Long-Term Economic 

Outcomes. Washington, DC, 2014. Retrieved from: 

http://lincs.ed.gov/employer/1_ABS_Economic_

Outcomes.pdf. 

78U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, 

Technical, and Adult Education. The Impact of ABS 

Program Participation on Long-Term Literacy 

Growth. Washington, DC, 2014. Retrieved from: 

http://lincs.ed.gov/employer/2_ABS_Literacy_

Growth.pdf. 

79U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, 

Technical, and Adult Education. The Impact of ABS 

Program Participation on Long-Term GED 

Attainment. Washington, DC, 2014. Retrieved from: 

http://lincs.ed.gov/employer/3_ABS_GED_

Attainment.pdf. 

80U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, 

Technical, and Adult Education. The Impact of ABS 

Program Participation on Long-Term Postsecondary 

Engagement. Washington, DC, 2014. Retrieved 

from: http://lincs.ed.gov/employer/4_ABS_Post

secondary_Engagement.pdf. 

81 Johnson, T., Gritz, M., Jackson, R., Burghardt, 

J., Boussy, C., Leonard, J. and Orians, C. (1999). 

National Job Corps study: Report on the process 

analysis. Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, 

Inc. for U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration. Retrieved from: http://

wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/99- 

jc_analysis.pdf. 

82 Greenstone, M., and Looney, A. (2011). 

Building America’s job skills with effective 

workforce programs: A training strategy to raise 

wages and increase work opportunities. 

Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project. Retrieved 

from: http://www.brookings.edu/∼/media/research/

files/papers/2011/11/training-greenstone-looney/

11_training_greenstone_looney.pdf. 

83 Jacobson, L.S., Lalonde, R.J., and Sullivan, D. 

(2011). Policies to reduce high tenured displaced 

workers’ earnings losses through retraining 

(Discussion Paper 2011–11). Washington, DC: The 

Hamilton Project. Retrieved from: http://

www.brookings.edu/∼/media/research/files/papers/

2011/11/displaced-jacobson-lalaonde-sullivan/11_

displaced_jls_paper.pdf. 

84Heinrich, C.J., Mueser, P.R., Troske, K.R., Jeon, 

K.S., and Kahvecioglu, D.C. (2009). New estimates 

of public employment and training program net 

impacts: A nonexperimental evaluation of the 

Workforce Investment Act program (Discussion 

Paper 4569). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study 

of Labor (IZA). Retrieved from: http://ftp.iza.org/

dp4569.pdf. 

did not complete training experienced 

no increase.72 Another publication 

noted that on average, adults 

experienced a $743 quarterly post-exit 

earnings boost.73

Those who completed training 

experienced a 15 percent increase in 

employment rates and an increase in 

hourly wages of $1.21 relative to 

participants without training.74

Participation in WIA training also had a 

distinct positive but smaller impact on 

employment and earnings, with 

employment 4.4 percentage points 

higher and quarterly earnings $660 

higher than comparison group members. 

National and international studies 

such as the recent Survey of Adult 

Skills 75 provide strong evidence of the 

need for and economic value of adult 

basic skills (ABS). A growing body of 

research indicates strong economic 

return on basic skills at given levels of 

education. Estimates have been made of 

the potential economic benefits that 

would accrue from increased 

educational attainment and levels of 

basic skills. The Longitudinal Study of 

Adult Learning 76 (LSAL) randomly 

sampled approximately 1,000 high 

school dropouts and followed them for 

nearly a decade from 1998 to 2007. 

LSAL followed both participants and 

nonparticipants in ABS programs, 

assessing their literacy skills and skill 

uses over long periods, along with 

changes in their social, educational, and 

economic status, offering a rich picture 

of adult literacy development. The 

study found that individuals who 

participate in ABS programs have 

higher future earnings, and income 

premiums are larger with more 

intensive participation.77 Individuals 

who participate in ABS programs tend 

to have higher levels of future literacy 

proficiency. Their proficiency 

premiums are larger with more 

intensive participation.78 The study also 

found a robust impact of ABS program 

participation on secondary school 

credential attainment 79 and engagement 

in postsecondary education.80

Vocational and adult literacy’s 

education impact. Vocational managers 

indicate that closely aligning service 

offerings with labor market reports 

improves the likelihood that 

participants will learn applicable skills. 

The lengthy and involved process of 

implementing changes to existing 

programs and developing new 

programs, however, might delay the 

benefits derived from improved labor 

market data.81

The following are channels through 

which the benefits discussed above 

might be achieved: 

Better information for workers. The 

performance accountability measures 

will provide workers with higherquality information about potential 

training program providers and enable 

them to make better-informed choices 

about which programs to pursue. The 

information analyzed and published by 

the WDBs about local labor markets also 

will help trainees and providers target 

their efforts and develop reasonable 

expectations about outcomes. 

Consumers of educational services, 

including those with barriers to 

employment, such as disadvantaged and 

displaced workers, require reliable 

information on the value of different 

training options to make informed 

choices. Displaced workers tend to be 

farther removed from schooling and lack 

information about available courses and 

the fields with the highest economic 

return.82 Given these information gaps 

and financial pressures, it is important 

that displaced workers learn of the 

economic returns to various training 

plans.83 Still, one study concluded that 

the cost-effectiveness of WIA job 

training for disadvantaged workers is 

‘‘modestly positive’’ due to the limited 

sample of States on which the research 

was based.84

State performance accountability 

measures. This requirement will 

include significant data collection for 

Local WDBs to address performance 

measures for the core programs in their 

jurisdictions. This data collection will 

permit the State WDBs to assess 

performance across each State. Training 

providers will be required to provide 

data to Local WDBs, which will 

represent a cost in the form of increased 

data collection and processing. 

Employers and employees also will 

have to provide information to the 

training providers, which will take time. 

This provision—in combination with 

the Board membership provision 

requiring employer/business 

representation that is part of the DOL 

WIOA Final Rule—is expected to 

improve the quality of local training 

and, ultimately, the number and caliber 

of job placements. 

Implementation of follow-up 

measures, rather than termination-based 

measures, might improve long-term 

labor market outcomes, although some 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55979 

85Courty, P., and Marschke, G. (2007). Making 

government accountable: Lessons from a federal job 

training program. Public Administration Review, 

67(5), 904–916. 

86Heckman, J.J., Heinrich, C., and Smith, J.A. 

(1997). Assessing the performance of performance 

standards in public bureaucracies. American 

Economic Review, 87(2), 389–395. 

87 Ibid. 

88 Ibid. 

89 Dunham, K., Mack, M., Salzman, J., and 

Wiegand, A. (2005). Evaluation of the WIA 

performance measurement system: Survey report. 

Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates for 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration. Retrieved from: http://

wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/

Evaluation%20of%20the%20WIA%20Performance

%20Measurement%20System%20-%20Survey%20

Report.pdf. 

90Hollenbeck K., Schroeder, D., King, C.T., and 

Huang, W.-J. (2005). Net impact estimates for 

services provided through the Workforce Investment 

Act (Occasional Paper 2005–06). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration, Office of Policy and 

Research, Division of Research and Demonstration. 

Retrieved from: http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/

FullText_Documents/Net%20Impact%20Estimates

%20for%20Services%20Provided%20through

%20the%20Workforce%20Investment%20Act- 

%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

91Heinrich, C.J., Mueser, P.R., and Troske, K.R. 

(2009). Workforce Investment Act non-experimental 

net impact evaluation. Columbia, MD: IMPAQ 

International, LLC. Retrieved from: http://

wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/

Workforce%20Investment%20Act%20NonExperimental%20Net%20Impact%20Evaluation

%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

92 Kosanovich, W., Fleck, H., Yost, B., Armon, W., 

and Siliezar, S. (2001). Comprehensive assessment 

of self-employment assistance programs. Prepared 

by DTI Associates for U.S. Department of Labor, 

Office of Workforce Security. Retrieved from: http:// 

wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/

Comprehensive%20Assessment%20of%20SelfEmployment%20Assistance%20Programs.pdf. 

93 D’Amico, R. et al. (2015). Providing public 

workforce services to job seekers: Implementation 

findings on the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker 

Programs. Washington, DC: Mathematic Policy 

Research. 94McConnell, S. et al. (2016). Providing public 

workforce services to job seekers: 15-Month impact 

findings on the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker 

Programs. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy 

Research. 

could divert resources from training 

activities.85

Before-after earning metrics capture 

the contribution of training to earnings 

potential and minimize incentives to 

select only training participants with 

high initial earnings.86 With the 

exception of programs in a few States, 

current incentives do not reward 

enrollment of the least advantaged.87 In 

addition, the study noted evidence that 

the performance-standards can be 

‘‘gamed’’ in an attempt to maximize 

centers’ measured performance.88

Pressure to meet performance levels 

could lead providers to focus on offering 

services to participants most likely to 

succeed. For example, current 

performance accountability measures 

might create incentives for training 

providers to screen participants for 

motivation, delay participation for those 

needing significant improvement, or 

discourage participation by those with 

high existing wages.89

The following subsections present 

additional channels by which economic 

benefits may be associated with various 

aspects of this Final Rule: 

Dislocated workers. A study found 

that, for dislocated workers, receiving 

WIA services significantly increased 

employment rates by 13.5 percent and 

boosted post-exit quarterly earnings by 

$951.90 Another study, however, found 

that training in the WIA dislocated 

worker program had a net benefit close 

to zero or even below zero.91

Self-employed individuals. Job 

seekers who received self-employment 

services started businesses sooner and 

had longer lasting businesses than 

nonparticipants. Self-employment 

assistance participants were 19 times 

more likely to be self-employed than 

nonparticipants and expressed high 

levels of satisfaction with selfemployment. A study of Maine, New 

Jersey, and New York programs found 

that participants were four times more 

likely to obtain employment of any kind 

than nonparticipants.92

Workers with disabilities. A study of 

individuals with disabilities enrolled in 

training for a broad array of occupations 

found that the mean hourly wage and 

hours worked per quarter for program 

graduates were higher than for 

individuals who did not complete the 

program. 

In conclusion, after a review of the 

quantitative and qualitative analysis of 

the impacts of this Final Rule, the 

Departments have concluded that the 

societal benefits justify the anticipated 

costs. 

Ancillary Benefits 

The following section describes the 

ancillary benefit to the DOL program 

that may result from this Final Rule due 

to integrated DOL program participant 

records—an activity that is highly 

encouraged in the Final Rule, but is not 

required. 

Integrated DOL Program Participant 

Records. Section 504 of WIOA requires 

State and Local WDBs to establish 

procedures and criteria that will 

simplify reporting requirements and 

reduce reporting burdens. Under WIOA, 

States will be highly encouraged to 

submit one record for an individual 

participating in one or more DOL title 

I and Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service core programs. The individual 

records would be standardized in terms 

of data elements and associated 

reporting specifications. Under WIA, for 

the DOL core programs, States were 

required to provide two separate 

individual records for an individual 

receiving services under the DOL title I 

programs and the Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service program. A single 

integrated individual record for DOL 

core programs would eliminate 

duplicative reporting of an individual’s 

demographic information across 

programs. 

According to a recent report which 

sampled 28 local areas, career 

counselors reported that their high 

caseloads (approximately 50 to 100 

cases per counselor) limited the amount 

of time they could spend providing 

individualized career services 

(individualized career services under 

WIOA) per client.93 Efficiencies in the 

intake process will allow case managers 

to spend more time per client delivering 

intensive services. The study also found 

that intensive services led to increased 

employment and earnings, and 

individuals that received intensive 

services were more likely to have stable 

jobs with more benefits.94 In addition to 

the technical benefits of integrated 

systems, this process will reduce 

administrative burdens in service 

delivery that existed under WIA. WIOA 

removes a sequence of service 

requirement that in some cases may 

have prolonged or created barriers to 

effective service delivery. Under WIOA, 

career planners can deliver the needed 

services without going through these 

administrative processes. By doing so, 

individuals will get the services they 

need sooner which can lead to quicker 

entry into employment or training. 

Furthermore, having integrated records 

will help the programs find the best mix 

of services for individuals, which can 

result in UI payment reductions, 

improved job placement rates, higher 

paying jobs, and reduced government 

assistance. Although there will be some 

upfront costs to develop the system (as 

discussed in provision (c) ‘‘State 

Performance Accountability System’’), 

the Departments expect long-term 

benefits. 

Transfers 

In addition, there are two important 

transfers that the Departments were 

unable to quantify. Below, we describe 

qualitatively the transfers that are 

expected to result from improved 

system alignment and the 

Reemployment and Eligibility 

Assessment Program. 

Improved system alignment. Under 

WIOA, State WDBs must help 

Governors develop strategies for 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55980 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

95Poe-Yamagata, E., Benus, J., Bill, N., Carrington, 

H., Michaelides, M., and Shen, T. (2011). Impact of 

the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) 

Initiative. Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, 

LLC. Retrieved from: http://wdr.doleta.gov/

research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2012_08_

Impact_of_the_REA_Initiative.pdf. 

96 In terms of VR grantees, they are State 

government entities and, by definition, are not 

small entities. 

aligning technology and data systems 

across one-stop partner programs to 

enhance service delivery and improve 

efficiencies in reporting on performance 

accountability measures. Improved 

system alignment will allow States to 

better understand and address Statelevel problems. Integrated data systems 

will allow for unified and streamlined 

intake, case management, and service 

delivery; minimize the duplication of 

data; ensure consistently defined and 

applied data elements; facilitate 

compliance with performance reporting 

and evaluation requirements; and 

provide meaningful information about 

core program participation to inform 

operations. For example, participants in 

a title I job training program, who need 

to improve their basic literacy skills, 

will be able to access the title II adult 

education services they need in one 

location which will help to facilitate 

concurrent service delivery by the onestop core partner programs and 

ultimately accelerate overall timeliness 

for outcome attainment. With this 

improved information, States will have 

the ability to negotiate levels of 

performance more accurately, which 

will subsequently reduce the likelihood 

that States will receive sanctions for 

failing to meet the State-adjusted levels 

of performance for a program for a 

second consecutive program year or for 

failing to submit a report for any 

program year. 

The Reemployment and Eligibility 

Assessment program. The 

Reemployment and Eligibility 

Assessment program, which has now 

evolved to become the Reemployment 

Service and Eligibility Assessment 

program, was effective in assisting 

claimants to exit the UI program and 

avoid exhausting regular UI benefits in 

Florida, Idaho, and Nevada. By avoiding 

UI benefit exhaustion, the program led 

to reductions in the likelihood of 

receiving unemployment compensation 

benefits. There exists notable evidence 

that the Reemployment and Eligibility 

Assessment program is cost-effective, 

particularly when provided through an 

integrated service delivery model, 

which WIOA also promotes.95 The 

program reduced UI payments and 

increased tax revenue resulting from 

increased worker earnings. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 603, requires agencies to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

to determine whether a regulation will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Section 605 of the RFA allows an 

agency to certify a rule in lieu of 

preparing an analysis if the regulation is 

not expected to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Further, under 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 

U.S.C. 801 (SBREFA), an agency is 

required to produce compliance 

guidance for small entities if the rule 

has a significant economic impact. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) defines a small business as one 

that is ‘‘independently owned and 

operated and which is not dominant in 

its field of operation.’’ The definition of 

small business varies from industry to 

industry to the extent necessary to 

reflect industry size differences 

properly. An agency must either use the 

SBA definition for a small entity or 

establish an alternative definition, in 

this instance, for the workforce 

industry. The Departments have 

adopted the SBA definition for purposes 

of this certification. 

The Departments have notified the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, 

under the RFA at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), and 

certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This finding is supported, in very large 

measure, by the fact that small entities 

are already receiving financial 

assistance under the WIA program and 

will likely continue to do so under the 

WIOA program as articulated in this 

Final Rule. 

Affected Small Entities 

The Final Rule can be expected to 

impact small one-stop center operators. 

One-stop operators can be a single entity 

(public, private, or nonprofit) or a 

consortium of entities. The types of 

entities that might be a one-stop 

operator include: (1) An institution of 

higher education; (2) an employment 

service State agency established under 

the Wagner-Peyser Act; (3) a 

community-based organization, 

nonprofit organization, or workforce 

intermediary; (4) a private for-profit 

entity; (5) a government agency; (6) a 

Local WDB, with the approval of the 

chief elected official and the Governor; 

or (7) another interested organization or 

entity that can carry out the duties of 

the one-stop operator. Examples include 

a local chamber of commerce or other 

business organization, or a labor 

organization. 

This Final Rule can also be expected 

to impact a variety of AEFLA local 

providers: (1) Local education agencies; 

(2) community-based organizations; (3) 

faith-based organizations; (4) libraries; 

community, junior, and technical 

colleges; (5) 4-year colleges and 

universities; (6) correctional 

institutions; and (7) other institutions, 

such as medical and special institutions 

not designed for criminal offenders.96

Impact on Small Entities 

The Departments indicate that 

transfer payments are a significant 

aspect of this analysis in that the 

majority of WIOA program cost burdens 

on State and Local WDBs will be fully 

financed through Federal transfer 

payments to States. We have highlighted 

costs that are new to WIOA 

implementation and this Final Rule. 

Therefore, we expect that this WIOA 

Final Rule will have no cost impact on 

small entities. 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

The Departments have concluded that 

this Joint WIOA Final Rule does not 

impose a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA; therefore, the 

Departments are not required to produce 

any Compliance Guides for Small 

Entities, as mandated by the SBREFA. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The purposes of the 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 continuing efforts to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, the 

Departments conduct preclearance 

consultation activities to provide the 

public and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This 

activity helps to ensure that the public 

understands the collection instructions, 

respondents can provide the requested 

data in the desired format, reporting 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55981 

burden (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the 

Departments 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 the OMB under 

the PRA and 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). 

In accordance with the PRA, the 

Departments submitted two ICRs—(1) 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act Common Performance Reporting 

and (2) Unified or Combined State Plan 

and Plan Modifications under the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act, Wagner-Peyser Act WIOA Title I 

Programs, and Vocational Rehabilitation 

Adult Education—to OMB when the 

NPRM was published. The NPRM 

provided an opportunity for the public 

to send comments on the two 

information collections directly to the 

Departments; commenters also were 

advised that comments under the PRA 

could be submitted directly to OMB. 

OMB issued a notice of action for each 

request asking the Departments to 

resubmit the ICRs, after considering 

public comments, at the Final Rule 

stage. Given that information collection 

instruments were not ready at the time 

the NPRM published, the Departments 

provided additional opportunities for 

the public to comment on the 

information collections through notices 

in the Federal Register that provided 

additional comment periods on the 

associated forms and instructions. These 

comment periods provided at least 60 

days for comments to be submitted to 

the agencies. Each of these ICRs was 

then submitted for OMB approval, and 

additional notices were published in the 

Federal Register that invited comments 

to be sent to OMB for a period lasting 

at least 30 days. The Departments also 

submitted each ICR for further approval 

to incorporate the provisions of this 

Joint WIOA Final Rule; these Final Rule 

ICRs were not subject to further public 

comment. The Departments provide a 

status of each ICR in the summary 

section that immediately follows in this 

portion of the preamble. Where a review 

remained pending, when this preamble 

was drafted, the Department will 

publish an additional notice to 

announce OMB’s final action on the 

ICR. The Departments also discuss the 

public comments received related to the 

ICRs in this section of the preamble. It 

should be noted that these ICRs have 

been submitted under a procedure that 

allows a collection to be sponsored by 

one agency and later subscribed to by 

other agencies. Such ICRs are classified 

as ‘‘common forms.’’ In making the 

initial request, the host agency submits 

the request and claims its portion of the 

burden; ultimately, the full burden is 

accounted for as other agencies 

subscribe and claim their share of the 

burden. For purposes of this Joint WIOA 

Final Rule preamble, only the DOL 

share of the burden is discussed. The 

full burden is addressed in the 

supporting statement used to justify the 

request. 

It should be noted that the ICR review 

status reported in this section only 

relates to requests related directly to the 

Final Rule. Certain ICR packages that 

were previously approved are being 

updated to change references to those in 

the Joint WIOA Final Rule. As has been 

the practice throughout WIOA 

implementation, the agencies will 

continue to update stakeholders on the 

status of the joint ICRs related to State 

planning and performance 

accountability through other means. 

The Required Elements for the 

Submission of the Unified or Combined 

State Plan and Plan Modifications 

Under the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act Information Collection, 

OMB 1205–0522 substantive 

requirements were approved via a 

notice of action dated February 19, 

2016. As of the date of the drafting of 

this preamble, the information 

collection is being updated to reflect 

references in the Joint WIOA Final Rule. 

Also, the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act Common Performance 

Reporting ICR review is pending as of 

the date this preamble was drafted. The 

substantive requirements will be 

approved through a notice of action by 

OMB, and will take effect as of that date. 

The Departments will announce this 

approval. 

The information collections in this 

Final Rule are summarized as follows. 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act Common Performance Reporting 

Agency: DOL–ETA. 

Title: Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act Common Performance 

Reporting. 

Type of Review: New collection. 

OMB Control Number: 1205–0526. 

Affected Public: State, Local, and 

Tribal Governments; Private Sector; and 

Individuals or Households. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits (WIOA sec. 

116). 

Total Estimated Number of 

Respondents Annually: 16,246,121. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 32,456,962. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 

8,372,737 hours. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $26,147,067. 

Regulations Sections: 20 CFR part 680 

(adult and dislocated worker programs, 

and ETPs); 20 CFR part 681 (youth 

program); 20 CFR part 652 (WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service 

program); 34 CFR parts 462 and 463 

(AEFLA program); and 34 CFR part 361 

(VR program). 

ICR Approval Status: Not yet 

approved. 

Overview and Response to Comments 

Received 

Overview: This information collection 

will collect common performance data 

required under sec. 116 of WIOA from 

all six core programs—the adult, 

dislocated worker, youth, WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service, 

AEFLA, and VR programs—as well as 

from ETPs. The Departments will use a 

common approach to standardize the 

quarterly and annual reporting, as 

appropriate, of common data elements 

for all core programs and ETPs. These 

data are in addition to other 

performance data reported by each of 

the core programs under current 

information collections in accordance 

with final joint and program-specific 

regulations discussed elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register. The 

Departments note that the OMB control 

number for this new information 

collection was shown in the NPRM as 

1205–0420. After further review and 

consultation with OMB, due to the need 

to continue reporting other data 

associated with WIA, 1205–0420 will 

remain as a WIA-only collection and the 

new WIOA performance collection will 

receive the control number 1205–0526. 

Response to Comments Received: The 

Departments received general and 

specific comments concerning this 

performance information collection. The 

comments focused specifically upon 

three areas: Measurable skill gains; ETP; 

and the ICR instruments. 

General Comments 

General comments focused on data 

collection and overall burden. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55982 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that the Departments should be aware 

that the proposed definitions and rules 

could create unintended incentives that 

do not align with program objectives. 

Another commenter stated that there is 

too much data included in the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR. Several 

commenters requested clarification 

about data collection, reducing the 

burden, and other requirements. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments have established a 

reporting system that reflects all the 

requirements of WIOA and, to the extent 

possible, safeguards against false or 

inaccurate reporting. The statistical 

adjustment model will contribute 

greatly to such efforts. The WIOA 

Performance Management, Information, 

and Reporting System includes only 

those elements that are required by 

statute or are a necessary component of 

the calculation of performance 

indicators or report items. While the 

Departments recognize that the data 

requirements are potentially 

burdensome, the Departments have 

made every effort to minimize the 

burden as much as possible. 

Additionally, the Departments recognize 

concerns regarding clarification about 

data collection for several of the primary 

indicators of performance and the 

burden of collection and management of 

data on common performance 

accountability requirements, as well as 

ensuring consistency in reporting across 

programs. The Departments recognize 

that State agencies will be faced with 

the challenges and burden of 

implementing the new requirements 

and responsibilities imposed by WIOA, 

including revising their management 

information systems. The Departments 

are working together to provide both 

joint and program-specific guidance and 

technical assistance to assist States in 

implementing these changes. The ETA 

will also issue an agency-specific 

reporting handbook for the PIRL along 

with guidance. 

Comments: A few commenters 

discussed the use of supplemental data 

(i.e., a proxy for wage records that do 

not exist) in the context of the median 

earnings performance indicator. 

Specifically, two commenters expressed 

opposition to the use of supplemental 

data for the median wage indicator, 

commenting that under WIA reporting, 

any wage-related measure relied 

exclusively on wage records. Another 

commenter remarked that the collection 

of supplemental data on wages is 

burdensome. Other commenters 

recommended that calculation of 

median earnings should not permit the 

utilization of supplemental data, but 

should rely solely on quarterly wage 

records. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments considered the concerns 

expressed by commenters regarding the 

possible burden and reliability of 

supplemental data and follow-up 

methods to report on the median wage 

indicator. However, the Departments 

have concluded that in order to hold 

States accountable for employment and 

earnings outcomes of all program 

participants, States will be allowed to 

collect and verify supplemental wage 

information to demonstrate employment 

outcomes in the 2nd and 4th quarters 

after exit in those instances where wage 

records are not available. Using 

supplemental data ensures that 

programs may track participants even if 

those participants’ employment and 

wage information is not contained in the 

State’s quarterly wage record system. If 

a State uses supplemental information 

to report on the employment rate 

indicators, the State must also use 

supplemental information to report on 

the median earnings indicator. States 

that elect not to use supplemental data 

and follow-up methods are expected to 

include participants who do not have 

the necessary data points to complete a 

wage record match in the denominator 

of the calculation. Those individuals 

would be counted as failures on the 

three employment indicators. In some 

programs, follow-up procedures have 

already been established and have been 

used historically to supplement wage 

record matching. The Departments 

conclude that allowing States to use 

supplemental follow-up methods for 

individuals who are self-employed, do 

not provide a valid SSN, or other 

specified reasons will provide a more 

comprehensive picture of program 

performance. The Departments will 

issue joint guidance to define further 

what constitutes acceptable forms of 

supplemental data and follow-up 

methods. 

Comments: Many commenters 

discussed the credential attainment rate 

indicator, several of whom commented 

on the calculation methodology. In 

particular, three commenters said the 

proposed methodology for calculating 

the credential attainment rate would 

overlook the progress and 

accomplishments of students who enter 

adult education programs with high 

school credentials. A commenter 

remarked that if the denominator for the 

credential attainment indicator includes 

all participants, it would serve as a 

disincentive to co-enrollment; however, 

if it only includes participants in 

training, it would create a disincentive 

for widespread access to training. Two 

commenters stated that the proposed 

calculation of the credential rate 

denominator would create a negative 

incentive and serve to steer low-skilled 

individuals away from training services. 

Another commenter suggested that only 

participants who received training 

services should be counted in this 

indicator. Still another commenter 

urged the Departments to design this 

indicator to prevent counting a 

participant more than once. Two 

commenters recommended that 

secondary and postsecondary results be 

separated for the calculation of the 

credential attainment rate indicator. 

Some commenters requested 

clarification on various aspects of the 

credential attainment rate indicator. 

Three commenters asked the 

Departments to clarify what would 

constitute a certificate. A commenter 

requested that the Departments provide 

clear definitions for the terms 

‘‘recognized postsecondary credentials’’ 

and ‘‘industry recognized credentials.’’ 

Similarly, two other commenters 

suggested that the Departments provide 

guidance on this issue. Another 

commenter recommended that 

clarification be provided regarding how 

far in the past a date of enrollment in 

education or training may be to count 

for purposes of this indicator. Two 

commenters requested clarification 

regarding whether Adult Basic 

Education (ABE) participation in classes 

at the ninth grade equivalent or higher 

would count as enrollment in secondary 

education. A different commenter 

requested additional information 

regarding the counting of participants 

who obtain multiple credentials during 

the same program year. A couple of 

commenters requested clarification 

about what services would qualify as a 

participant having received training for 

the purpose of the credential attainment 

rate. Finally, two commenters asked 

whether the credential obtained must be 

based on WIOA-funded services and 

provided by an ETP. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments understand the concerns 

expressed by many commenters about 

whether the credential attainment rate 

indicator includes all participants of 

any core program. The credential 

attainment rate indicator focuses on 

participants who are enrolled in an 

education or training program because 

the purpose of the indicator is to 

measure performance related to 

attainment of credentials received as a 

result of successful participation in 

these programs; therefore, it would not 

be reasonable to measure credential 

attainment against a universe that 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55983 

includes other individuals who are 

seeking critical WIOA services other 

than a credential. The final regulations, 

as well as the final WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR, will make clear that 

this indicator measures the percentage 

of those participants enrolled in an 

education or training program 

(excluding those in OJT and customized 

training) who obtained a recognized 

postsecondary credential or a secondary 

school diploma, or its recognized 

equivalent, during participation in or 

within 1 year after exit from the 

program. Moreover, a participant who 

has obtained a secondary school 

diploma or its recognized equivalent is 

only included in the percentage of 

participants who obtained a secondary 

school diploma or recognized 

equivalent if the participant is also 

employed or is enrolled in an education 

or training program leading to a 

recognized postsecondary credential 

within 1 year after exit from the 

program. This WIOA Joint Performance 

ICR has been revised accordingly such 

that the postsecondary portion of the 

credential attainment rate denominator 

includes only those postsecondary 

exiters in an education or training 

program. Postsecondary exiters in onthe-job training and customized training 

are excluded from the credential 

attainment rate indicator because the 

Departments recognize that those 

trainings do not typically lead to a 

credential. 

A ‘‘recognized postsecondary 

credential’’ is defined in WIOA sec. 

3(52) as ‘‘a credential consisting of an 

industry-recognized certificate or 

certification, a certificate of completion 

of an apprenticeship, a license 

recognized by the State involved or 

Federal Government, or an associate or 

baccalaureate degree.’’ The Departments 

will issue joint guidance that further 

defines what constitutes an acceptable 

credential for the credential attainment 

rate numerator, including guidance 

regarding an acceptable industryrecognized certificate or certification 

and definitions for each type of 

credential. The Departments have not 

provided a threshold for participation in 

education or training programs for 

inclusion in the indicator. The 

Departments will provide further 

program-specific guidance on what 

constitutes education or training for 

inclusion in the credential attainment 

rate indicator, for purposes of the core 

programs. The credential obtained is not 

required to be WIOA-funded or based 

on services provided by an eligible 

training provider. There is no reason to 

capture the date training concluded. 

The credential indicator is calculated 

based on those in education or training 

at any point in the program or within 1 

year after exiting the program, 

regardless of whether the training 

ended. 

Because WIOA sec. 116(b)(2) specifies 

the percentage of participants who 

obtain a recognized postsecondary 

credential or secondary school diploma 

or its recognized equivalent in a single 

indicator, the Departments will not 

separate secondary and postsecondary 

credential attainment into two separate 

indicators. Any acceptable credential 

attained during the program or within 1 

year following program exit counts 

toward the credential attainment rate 

indicator. The PIRL records outcomes 

regarding this indicator in the following 

manner. 

First, for participants enrolled in a 

postsecondary education or training 

program (other than OJT and 

customized training), PIRL 1811, Most 

Recent Date Enrolled in Education or 

Training Program Leading to a 

Recognized Postsecondary Credential or 

Employment During the Program, 

records enrollment. Participants 

enrolled in such a program are included 

in the denominator for calculating 

outcomes for this indicator. PIRL 1801, 

Date Attained Recognized Credential, 

records the date on which an individual 

attained a recognized credential, and 

PIRL 1800, Type of Recognized 

Credential, records the type of 

recognized credential attained. The 

Departments note that PIRL 1801 

(formerly PIRL 1705) has been renamed 

as suggested by a commenter. 

Participants are included as successes in 

the numerator of this indicator if at least 

one recognized credential is earned 

either during participation in the 

program or within 1 year (i.e., four 

quarters) after exit from the program. A 

participant counts in the denominator 

and numerator only one time regardless 

of how many credentials a ‘‘participant’’ 

attains prior to an ‘‘exit.’’ However, if a 

‘‘participant’’ ‘‘exits’’ more than once in 

a program year and attains a credential 

prior to each exit, the program will 

report the credential attained prior to 

each exit. The Departments note that 

participants who enter a program with 

a secondary school credential are 

counted as a success on this indicator if 

they earn a postsecondary credential 

during participation in the program or 

within 1 year after exit from the 

program. 

Second, for participants who attain a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent, PIRL 1401, 

Enrolled in a Secondary Education 

Program, records enrollment. ABE 

participation in classes at the ninth 

grade equivalent or higher will count as 

enrollment in secondary education. 

Participants enrolled in such a program 

are included in the denominator for 

calculating outcomes regarding this 

indicator. As stated above, PIRL 1801, 

Date Attained Recognized Credential, 

records the date on which an individual 

attained a recognized credential, and 

PIRL 1800, Type of Recognized 

Credential, records the type of 

recognized credential attained, 

including high school diploma or 

equivalency. WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(iii) 

requires that program participants who 

obtain a secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent shall be included 

in the percentage counted as meeting 

the criterion only if such participants 

have obtained or retained employment 

or are in an education or training 

program leading to a recognized 

postsecondary credential within 1 year 

after exit from the program. To that end, 

PIRL 1406, Date Enrolled in a Post Exit 

Education or Training Program, records 

the date of post-exit enrollment in such 

a program. Participants are included as 

successes in the numerator of this 

indicator if, during the program or 

within 1 year after exit from the 

program, they are enrolled in a post-exit 

education or training program (PIRL 

1406), attain a recognized postsecondary 

credential (PIRL 1800), or obtain or 

retain employment (PIRL 1600, PIRL 

1602, PIRL 1604, PIRL 1606). In the 

final WIOA Joint Performance ICR, 

those participants who are receiving 

adult education services while 

incarcerated will not count in the 

employment retention, earnings, 

credential attainment, or effectiveness of 

serving employers indicators. These 

individuals will only be counted, for 

performance calculation purposes, in 

the measurable skill gains indicator. The 

Departments recognize burden concerns 

for tracking credential attainment. 

WIOA requires the collection and 

reporting of the credential attainment 

rate indicator for all core programs, 

except for the Employment Service 

program, authorized under the WagnerPeyser Act as amended by title III of 

WIOA (see WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)). 

The Departments will provide guidance 

and technical assistance for tracking and 

reporting credential attainment. 

Comments: A few commenters 

expressed concern that a participant 

may only be in the denominator once 

but may be in the numerator multiple 

times, thereby disproportionately 

affecting the indicator. Commenters 

suggested that the measurable skill gains 

report templates be aligned with the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55984 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

reporting instructions and designed so 

that a participant is not counted 

multiple times. Another recommended 

that the Departments revise the 

reporting period to include a reasonable 

lag period, which would provide 

participants with a reasonable 

opportunity to achieve a gain. Three 

commenters suggested that participants 

who receive educational or training 

services while incarcerated or 

institutionalized be included in the 

measurable skill gains performance 

indicator in order to avoid a 

disincentive to serve these populations. 

However, a commenter remarked that 

institutionalized individuals should be 

excluded from the indicator because 

they will not likely be able to continue 

in secondary or postsecondary 

education. A commenter requested 

clarification on the inclusion of 

incarcerated individuals in this 

indicator. One commenter stated that 

the program year timeline does not align 

with the performance needs of the 

participant and would result in an 

underestimation of the true rate of skill 

gains. The commenter also contended 

that if a participant is receiving services 

under multiple programs, the individual 

could be counted multiple times, 

creating an incentive to recruit and 

promote providers offering short-term 

trainings with easily achieved 

milestones. 

Departments’ Response: The 

performance calculation for the 

measurable skill gains indicator is the 

same as it is for all other indicators. If 

a participant exits a program more than 

once in a program year and achieves 

measurable skill gains prior to exiting 

each time, then that participant could 

achieve more than one measurable skill 

gain in a program year. A participant 

may achieve more than one measurable 

skill gain prior to each exit, but only one 

gain per exit will be counted in the 

performance calculations. If a 

participant is co-enrolled in multiple 

core programs and meets the definition 

of participant for each of the multiple 

programs in which the participant is 

enrolled, the participant would count in 

each program’s indicators of 

performance, including the measurable 

skill gains indicator. 

The Departments will provide 

program-specific guidance and technical 

assistance to define the types of services 

and trainings that constitute ‘‘an 

education or training program that leads 

to a recognized postsecondary 

credential or employment’’. Individuals 

not in the types of programs specified 

will not be included in the measurable 

skill gains indicator. 

The Departments recognize the 

concern raised by commenters that the 

program year timeline may not provide 

participants with reasonable 

opportunity to achieve a gain, 

particularly when a participant enters 

the program late in a program year. 

Therefore, the Departments considered 

whether a minimum time threshold 

should be incorporated into the 

measurable skill gains indicator. 

However, the Departments have 

concluded that given the diversity of 

participant needs and program services, 

imposing a time period by which 

progress is to be documented would be 

somewhat arbitrary and difficult. Such 

practice could result in excluding a 

number of participants from 

performance accountability reporting 

requirements, even if those participants 

achieve a gain under one of the 

measures of progress. The Departments 

note that the negotiations process can 

and should take into account enrollment 

patterns and lower baseline data when 

establishing negotiated levels of 

performance for the measurable skill 

gains indicator. 

All participant outcomes, regardless 

of whether achieved at the end of the 

reporting period in which a participant 

enrolled or in the next reporting period, 

will count as positive outcomes for the 

program. The Departments are 

concerned about incentivizing behavior 

that discourages service providers from 

enrolling disconnected youth, in 

particular, when they first approach 

programs, or that purposefully attempts 

to focus service on individuals who are 

more likely to obtain a positive 

outcome. The Departments emphasize 

that programs must not delay 

enrollment or prohibit participants from 

entering a program late in the program 

year. 

It is not the Departments’ intent to 

exclude incarcerated individuals from 

the measurable skill gains indicator. The 

PIRL includes a code value for 

incarcerated participants in PIRL 923, 

Other Reasons for Exit (formerly PIRL 

971, Exclusionary Reasons). This 

element is used to exclude incarcerated 

participants who are enrolled in adult 

education from all performance 

indicators except for the measurable 

skill gains indicator if they remain 

incarcerated at program exit. The 

Departments recognize that some 

programs (i.e., the youth and adult 

education programs) offer educational 

services to incarcerated individuals, and 

participants may make interim progress 

or other gains in secondary or 

postsecondary education. The final 

information collection specifies that the 

purpose of the code values specific to 

incarcerated participants is to exclude 

incarcerated individuals from the 

performance calculations for the 

employment indicators (employment in 

2nd and 4th quarter after exit, median 

wages, and effectiveness in serving 

employers) and the credential 

attainment indicator, but not to exclude 

them from performance calculations for 

the measurable skill gains indicator. 

This means that programs that serve 

incarcerated individuals would be held 

accountable for the measurable skill 

gains indicator. 

Comments: Regarding the burden of 

collecting data for measurable skill 

gains, commenters stated that the 

performance indicator would be too 

burdensome to collect for adult and 

dislocated worker programs. 

Commenters also inquired how 

frequently the data used to calculate this 

indicator need to be collected. One 

commenter remarked that it has not 

tracked the data required to calculate 

measurable skill gains and it would be 

burdensome to gather this information 

retroactively. A commenter emphasized 

the need for guidance regarding 

measurable skill gains. Another 

commenter requested that guidance for 

the indicator consider skills beyond 

typical quantifiable measures, using the 

NFJP model as a basis, which includes 

developing detailed custom training 

plans for each participant. One 

commenter inquired whether local areas 

will be required to implement a 

standard measure or test of proficiency 

and whether there will be technical 

assistance to operationalize the realtime recording of proficiency levels. 

This commenter compared the potential 

challenges of the measurable skill gains 

indicator for local areas to the 

challenges experienced under the WIA 

literacy/numeracy gains common 

measure. One commenter supported the 

proposal to phase in the implementation 

of the measurable skill gains indicator 

and suggested that grade point average 

(GPA) be used as a method to measure 

and document skill gains. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments recognize burden concerns 

for States due to the changes in the 

performance reporting requirements; 

however, WIOA sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i) 

requires that the measurable skill gains 

indicator apply across all core programs, 

except for the Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service program, in order 

to assess the effectiveness of States and 

local areas in achieving positive 

outcomes for individuals served by 

those programs. Therefore, the 

implementation of the measurable skill 

gains indicator cannot be phased in and 

States are required to begin collecting 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55985 

data for this indicator in PY 2016. 

Having said this, the Departments 

recognize that some programs will not 

be able to collect data and report on all 

indicators immediately. The 

Departments will provide programspecific guidance as appropriate. 

In order to address the various 

comments and questions received 

regarding the measurable skill gains 

indicator, the Departments will provide 

program guidance and technical 

assistance regarding each core program 

in WIOA titles I, II, and IV to further 

clarify the measurable skill gains 

indicator. The Departments have 

concluded, however, that additional 

types of documented progress for 

determining whether a participant has 

achieved measurable skill gains beyond 

the five types set forth in final 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(v) will not be included. 

The Departments note the five gain 

types included in the regulation and the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR share a 

level of rigor and provide enough 

flexibility to allow for the commenters’ 

recommended option. 

The Departments acknowledge the 

suggestion to use GPA as a method to 

measure skill gains. The Departments 

reiterate that, as stated above, both the 

Final Rule at § 677.155(a)(1)(v) and the 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR will define 

only five standardized ways States can 

measure and document participants’ 

measurable skill gains. The Departments 

note, however, that GPA may be 

reflected in PIRL 1807 (former PIRL 

1801) and PIRL 1808 (former PIRL 

1801). Each of these elements records 

measurable skill gains as documented 

by a transcript or report card for either 

secondary or postsecondary education 

for a sufficient number of credit hours 

to show that a participant is meeting the 

State unit’s academic standards. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that measurable skill gains should 

include attainment of competencies to 

stay abreast of innovative educational 

practices; secondary and postsecondary 

education should be measured 

separately to enhance precision and 

clarity of the indicator; and interim 

progress should be achieved after 

attainment of 12 rather than 24 credit 

hours. Another commenter inquired as 

to what is considered an adequate rate 

of measurable skill gains for part-time 

students. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the 

suggestion to include attainment of 

competencies to stay abreast of 

innovative educational practices but 

have not added measures beyond the 

five standardized ways for documenting 

measurable skill gains in 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(v) and the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR. In regard to the 

comment related to measuring 

secondary and postsecondary education 

separately, the Departments will not 

separate secondary and postsecondary 

credential attainment into two separate 

indicators of performance because 

WIOA specifies the percentage of 

students who obtain a recognized 

postsecondary credential or secondary 

school diploma as a single indicator of 

performance for the performance 

accountability measures. However, the 

Departments note that it is important to 

capture data on students who achieve a 

high school diploma or its recognized 

equivalent, as well as a recognized 

postsecondary credential; therefore, 

both will be included in one indicator 

for performance accountability purposes 

(as indicated by the ‘‘Credential 

Attainment Rate’’ tab in the WIOA 

Statewide Performance Report 

Template), but programs will be able to 

collect data on achievement of both 

types of credentials, as appropriate, in 

PIRL 1800 (former PIRL 1700), which 

records Type of Recognized Credential 

attained. The Departments conclude 

that for the measurable skill gains 

indicator, the multiple gain types 

proposed are rigorous and provide 

flexibility to allow for gains to be 

captured in a variety of ways. While 

commenters may be concerned about 

how the Departments will adjust for 

variation among States in gains for 

clients enrolled in longer-term 

postsecondary programs, the 

Departments note that participants 

would have the opportunity for success 

in the transcript type gain, which would 

allow a program to record a gain for 

such participants in every year. 

Furthermore, the statistical adjustment 

model is designed to compensate for 

these variations in the consideration of 

levels of performance, thereby 

compensating for State-to-State 

variances in the length of postsecondary 

education. The Departments will not 

weigh performance indicators based on 

degree of program difficulty. The 

Departments emphasize that programs 

may not purposefully attempt to focus 

service on individuals perceived as 

more likely to obtain a positive 

outcome, or selectively enroll 

participants in programs in which 

positive outcomes on these indicators 

are perceived as more likely, but for 

which such enrollment is not in the best 

interest of the participants. 

Lastly, the Departments recognize 

concerns regarding credit hours for 

interim progress. In the NPRM, the 

Departments proposed a measure 

requiring a transcript or report card for 

1 academic year or for 24 credit hours. 

The Departments agree with the concern 

that a transcript for 1 academic year or 

24 credit hours is too onerous for parttime students and have changed this 

measure to require that the transcript or 

report card reflect a sufficient number of 

credit hours to show a participant is 

achieving the State unit’s academic 

standards. This change will be reflected 

in the Joint WIOA Final Rule at 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(v)(C), which will 

document progress through receipt of a 

secondary or postsecondary transcript 

or report card for a sufficient number of 

credit hours that shows a participant is 

meeting the State unit’s academic 

standards. The Departments anticipate 

that, for participants in postsecondary 

education, a sufficient number of credit 

hours would be at least 12 hours per 

semester or, for part-time students, a 

total of at least 12 hours over the course 

of two completed consecutive semesters 

during the program year that shows a 

participant is achieving the State unit’s 

academic standards (or the equivalent 

for other than credit-hour programs). 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended that the Departments 

implement processes in data collection 

and reporting that are sensitive to 

diverse populations. Specifically, this 

commenter pointed out that the 

significant barriers for some students 

(especially those at the lowest literacy 

levels or non-native English speakers) 

are often not taken into consideration 

when developing measures to track 

goals and student performance. Another 

commenter suggested that special 

programming efforts may require new 

regulations or exceptions to existing 

regulations. Other commenters 

recommended that special priority 

populations, including ‘‘low-level 

learners’’, be reported as separate 

cohorts and suggested that the reporting 

methods take into consideration the 

more difficult process for data collection 

to follow up with these populations. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the 

recommendation to implement 

processes for data collection and 

reporting that are sensitive to special 

populations with barriers to 

employment. The Departments 

recognize that, given the diversity of 

participant needs and program services, 

the State agencies will be faced with the 

challenges and burden of implementing 

the new requirements and 

responsibilities imposed by WIOA, 

including the challenges associated with 

revising the management information 

systems to collect information on 

diverse populations. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55986 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

However, for consistency purposes in 

reporting, the Departments will not 

implement additional exceptions to 

these final regulations. The Departments 

have provided rules to accommodate 

certain exceptional circumstances. For 

example, criminal offenders in 

correctional facilities are not included 

in employment and earnings indicators 

or the credential attainment rate 

indicator if they remain incarcerated at 

program exit, since they do not have the 

same opportunity to engage in 

unsubsidized employment or 

postsecondary education as do others in 

the general population. Likewise, 

participants who score at low levels of 

literacy are not included in credential 

attainment rate indicators unless they 

are enrolled in programs that provide 

instruction at or above the ninth grade 

level. These measures provide a 

reasonable approach to providing 

accountability while acknowledging the 

needs of vulnerable populations. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

provided feedback on two basic 

approaches to compiling the 

information necessary for a compliant 

ETP performance report that would 

achieve the stated objective of 

maximizing the value of the template for 

stakeholders. In the first approach, 

grantees would complete the ETP 

performance reports and make them 

available using the proposed template. 

Under that approach, one commenter 

favored grantees completing and making 

available the information using the 

proposed template, reasoning that it 

would give States the flexibility to 

compile and reconcile their own data. 

Commenters in another State agreed this 

approach would maximize the value of 

the report for local use. One commenter 

said that its State does not collect 

program level data for its large public 

institutions as part of the criteria to be 

an ETP, but the commenter 

recommended that program level data 

should be reported for those who 

provide training to participants in the 

WIOA adult and dislocated worker 

programs. In the second approach, 

grantees would send the necessary 

aggregate data to the Department, which 

would then compile, format and display 

the data. 

One commenter favored this approach 

because it would increase the likelihood 

that reporting would be consistent, 

which would facilitate analysis and 

comparison. Another commenter 

suggested that, because each State has 

different access rights to information, 

the burden on States could be 

drastically reduced if WIOA partners 

could submit their reports to their 

Federal reporting agency that is then 

responsible for consolidating the 

information. Another commenter 

requested that DOL not specify the 

manner in which ETP performance 

reports are filed, reasoning that it would 

be easier for State agencies to run data 

required by the template rather than 

requiring ETPs to modify their systems 

to capture all the information required 

by the report. A commenter agreed that 

much of the information in the ETP 

report could be more efficiently 

provided by State and local 

governments—notably one-stop 

caseworkers—rather than ETPs, which 

have little or no access to some of the 

data. Commenters in another State 

remarked that local areas collect and 

track information for the ETP 

performance report constantly and 

stated that transferring the data to a 

centralized point for display to the 

public seems unnecessary and 

burdensome. Some commenters 

supported flexibility and urged the 

Departments not to mandate a method 

for filing reports, allowing either of the 

two approaches: grantees complete the 

ETP performance reports using a 

template and provide the Departments 

with the appropriate location of the 

report, or grantees send the necessary 

aggregate data to the Departments where 

the data could be compiled, formatted 

and displayed in a standardized userfriendly template and made available as 

required by WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(B). 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

116(d)(1) requires the Secretary of 

Labor, in conjunction with the Secretary 

of Education, to develop a template for 

performance reports to be used by 

States, Local WDBs, and ETPs for 

reporting on outcomes achieved by 

participants in the six core programs. 

The statute further requires that these 

templates for performance reports be 

designed in a manner that reflects the 

need to maximize the value of these 

templates for workers, job seekers, 

employers, local elected officials, State 

officials, Federal policy-makers, and 

other key stakeholders. Ultimately, as 

required by WIOA sec. 116(d)(6), the 

State must make available, in an easily 

understandable format, the performance 

reports for the ETPs. Based on review 

and consideration of the comments, the 

Departments have concluded that the 

standardization of the submission 

approach would lead to the best results 

in terms of data quality and will be 

providing submission details in a 

separate publication. 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed concern regarding the level of 

burden to ETPs for collecting the 

required data. Comments on burden 

pertained to required data elements as 

well as the data required for WIOA and 

non-WIOA students in particular. Some 

of these commenters recommended that 

the Departments lessen the burden by 

providing States the flexibility to 

develop ETP reporting requirements 

specifically for the elements related to 

wage data. One commenter 

acknowledged the data collection 

challenge for some ETPs but asserted it 

was important to have data on all 

students in order to help WIOA 

participants make informed decisions 

when selecting a training program. 

Another commenter remarked that it 

would be challenging to track down 

students to identify information as 

needed. A State agency expressed 

concern that ETPs would incur 

substantial burden to modify their 

systems to track and report data specific 

to WIOA participants. Another 

commenter said it is unlikely all 

providers will be able to collect the 

required data, so there may be data gaps 

for non-WIOA participants. A 

commenter expressed concern that the 

ETP performance report would not 

encourage entities other than colleges to 

participate in training because the data 

collection would seem intrusive to 

smaller facilities. This commenter also 

stated that collecting detailed program 

level data would be ineffective due to 

the small number of enrollments in 

training programs. Other commenters 

expressed similar concerns that data 

collection for the ETP performance 

report would seem intrusive to smaller 

training facilities and that information 

and documentation for low-income and 

younger clients would be difficult. 

Another commenter stated that 

disaggregated reports would be largely 

blank due to the relatively small number 

of participants and the need to maintain 

confidentiality. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the 

commenters’ concerns and recognize the 

need to identify effective data collection 

strategies. However, the Departments 

have no authority to reduce the ETP 

reporting requirements set forth in 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(4), which mandate 

the collection of specific information for 

WIOA participants and for all 

individuals engaged in a program of 

study (or equivalent) for each such 

program of study provided by each 

eligible training provider, as outlined in 

the final regulations at § 677.230(a). The 

Departments recognize concerns 

expressed regarding the level of burden 

to ETPs for collecting the required data. 

In particular, WIOA sec. 116(d)(4)(A) 

requires information specifying the 

levels of performance achieved, for all 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55987 

individuals engaged in a program of 

study, with respect to the primary 

indicators of performance for 

employment, earnings, and credential 

attainment. Moreover, WIOA sec. 

116(d)(4)(B) requires the total number of 

individuals exiting from a program of 

study. Finally, WIOA secs. 116(d)(4)(C)– 

(F) require additional information 

regarding participant counts, participant 

exits, average cost per participant, and 

number of participants with barriers to 

employment as described in the 

proposed definitions. 

In addition, the Departments have 

concluded that States are permitted to 

use ITAs for out-of-school WIOA youth 

participants ages 18 to 24, as provided 

in the DOL WIOA Final Rule at 20 CFR 

681.550. For the purpose of the annual 

ETP performance report, WIOA out-ofschool youth, ages 18 to 24, 

participating in a program of study 

using an ITA are reported in both the 

ETP performance report as well as in the 

State and Local annual reports. Because 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(4) does not describe 

such youth, the Departments note that 

when such youth are reported in the 

ETP performance reports, their 

performance is reported using the same 

performance indicators as prescribed for 

WIOA adult and dislocated worker 

participants (i.e., the primary indicators 

of performance specified under WIOA 

sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)), which will be 

further specified in implementing 

regulations at § 677.155(a)(1)(i) through 

(vi). Using the same metrics for out-ofschool youth using ITAs as well as for 

other WIOA participants and 

individuals in a course of study (or 

equivalent) minimizes the burden on 

ETPs. The Departments note that such 

youth are excluded from the required 

reporting identified at § 677.230(a)(1)(i) 

through (iii), but are included in the 

counts required by (a)(2) through (a)(4). 

The Departments further note that such 

youth are additionally reported on in 

the State and Local annual reports in 

accordance with §§ 677.155(d), 677.160, 

and 677.205 as described in those 

sections. The Departments will provide 

additional guidance on the treatment of 

these out-of-school youth using ITAs 

through the information collection 

process and in guidance. Therefore, for 

purposes of reporting on the ETP 

performance report, references to the 

adult and dislocated worker programs 

under title I of the WIOA adult program 

include out-of-school WIOA youth ages 

18 to 24 participating in a program of 

study using an ITA. 

The Departments have concluded that 

the WIOA Joint Performance ICR is in 

line with WIOA sec. 116(d) and will not 

reduce the number of required elements 

in the ETP reporting template. The 

Departments recognize the contribution 

of ETPs that may serve smaller 

populations and acknowledge that 

suppression standards may limit data, 

but have concluded that the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR aligns with WIOA sec. 

116. The Departments also recognize the 

interest in establishing processes for 

accessing wage related data. The 

Departments will provide additional 

information on the parameters of the 

collection and reporting of this 

information through the associated ICR 

and program specific guidance. 

Comments: Regarding the PIRL, 

multiple commenters addressed the use 

of unique identifiers for program 

participants. A commenter requested 

clarification regarding how States would 

match unique identifiers when not 

using SSNs. Similarly, three 

commenters asked whether all core 

programs would be required to use the 

same unique identifier for a participant. 

Other commenters requested that the 

Departments clarify if the unique 

identifier must be an SSN. Another 

commenter recommended that a method 

for implementing a unique identifier be 

identified and phased in over time in 

order to allow States time to develop the 

necessary data collection systems. One 

commenter remarked that its core 

programs are not interconnected and 

would be unable to share unique 

identifiers. 

Departments’ Response: The unique 

identifier is not required to be an SSN. 

However, wage matching with the State 

UI system will be impossible for any 

participant for whom an SSN is not 

available. In those circumstances, 

programs will need to rely on 

supplemental follow-up methods for 

determining wages at 2nd quarter and 

4th quarter following program exit. State 

VR agencies use a unique identifier now 

and the VR program may be a resource 

for other core programs when 

developing such a system. The 

Departments understand that many 

State data systems for Education and 

Labor programs are not interconnected. 

There is no requirement to share a 

common data system. Having separate 

systems does not preclude matching 

data to identify employment outcomes. 

Comments: Commenters also 

discussed cultural barriers to 

employment. Four commenters urged 

the Departments to define cultural 

barriers clearly. Similarly, two 

commenters recommended that the 

Departments provide a less subjective 

definition of cultural barriers to allow 

for more consistency in the data. 

Another commenter suggested that the 

definition of cultural barriers be 

expanded to include limited English 

abilities. Two commenters stated that 

PIRL 705 identifies both displaced 

homemaker and cultural barriers. A 

commenter expressed opposition to 

tracking cultural barriers, reasoning this 

could alienate populations it should be 

serving and create liability for 

discrimination-based lawsuits. 

Similarly, another commenter expressed 

concern about posing this question 

without appearing discriminatory. Two 

commenters opposed collecting 

information on cultural barriers, stating 

that it is subjective and adds no 

significant value. Another commenter 

asked whether cultural barriers should 

be identified by the participant. One 

commenter recommended that the 

service providers, rather than the 

participant, be responsible for 

identifying cultural barriers. However, 

another commenter suggested only 

substantial, self-identified cultural 

barriers should be reported. Still 

another commenter contended that PIRL 

705 is defined using a lesser standard 

than WIOA, which references a 

substantial cultural barrier. Two 

commenters requested that the 

Departments provide guidance 

indicating how to collect data on 

cultural barriers. A commenter 

suggested that participants may be 

unaware of the cultural barriers to 

employment that they face, making the 

data inaccurate. 

Departments’ Response: The statute 

identifies ‘‘individuals who are English 

language learners, individuals who have 

low levels of literacy and individuals 

facing substantial cultural barriers’’ as 

three categories of an ‘‘individual with 

a barrier to employment.’’ These three 

categories are treated as separate data 

elements in the PIRL because both 

individuals who are English language 

learners and individuals with low levels 

of literacy are elements that are required 

to be used in the statistical adjustment 

model, while the data element for 

individuals who are facing substantial 

cultural barriers is not required to be 

used in the model. The Departments 

understand that the determination of 

cultural barriers is highly subjective and 

have provided a definition that allows a 

program to base the designation on a 

participant’s self-perception as to 

whether his or her attitudes, beliefs, 

customs, or practices pose a hindrance 

to employment. 

Comments: Five commenters 

expressed concern and requested 

clarification about the discrepancies 

between the PIRL and RSA–911. For 

example, a commenter stated that the 

RSA–911 does not currently collect 

PIRL 1802 (Date of Most Recent 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55988 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Measurable Skill Gains: Training 

Milestone) or PIRL 1803 (Date of Most 

Recent Measurable Skill Gains: Skills 

Progression). Another commenter 

recommended that the Departments 

align the PIRL and RSA–911 definitions 

and reporting options for PIRL data 

elements 1800 through 1804. Similarly, 

another commenter suggested that the 

Departments align the PIRL and RSA– 

911 or provide a crosswalk between the 

two sets of data elements. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments note the RSA–911 ICR was 

published prior to the proposed WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR, which includes 

the PIRL. Therefore, the RSA–911 did 

not reflect all of the changes necessary 

to align with the PIRL. The final RSA– 

911 ICR will include new and/or revised 

data elements and definitions as 

necessary to provide alignment with the 

PIRL. In addition, RSA–911 data will be 

submitted quarterly in order to align 

reporting under the VR program, which 

operates on a Federal fiscal year basis, 

to the reporting of performance on a 

program year basis as required under 

these regulations. 

Comments: Two commenters 

expressed concern that the PIRL is 

centered on DOL programs and is 

difficult for other core programs to use. 

A commenter said that it is unclear 

which programs are responsible for the 

transmission of the PIRL, or if each core 

program should submit the report 

separately. A commenter said that a 

combined core PIRL would be 

duplicative if States are required to 

submit quarterly and annual reports as 

well. 

Departments’ Response: Individual 

core programs will submit data through 

each core program’s information 

collection. The entity that will submit 

this data will vary by State based on the 

level of data integration. The 

Departments strongly encourage States 

to improve data integration across 

programs. The purpose of this collection 

is to specify the elements that are 

required to be reported by all core 

programs and align the definitions of 

the different data elements across the 

core programs, thereby ensuring 

consistency and comparability of the 

data among all core programs and 

States. The Departments note that, for 

the programs that require submissions 

of quarterly and annual reports, the 

information obtained through this 

collection will be part of these quarterly 

and annual reports and not a 

duplication of those reports. 

Comments: A number of stakeholders 

submitted comments on the burden 

estimates for the State performance 

report template, noting that the costs are 

underestimated. In particular, 

commenters suggested that the time to 

collect data should be more than 15 

minutes per response. Commenters also 

cited the burden to obtain information 

that is not currently available, including 

the requirement to track individuals 

after program exit and the need to 

monitor data quality. A commenter 

enumerated significant IT time and 

costs, including more frequent reporting 

and integration with partnering 

agencies, to implement the required 

changes. Another commenter remarked 

that staff time spent on these activities 

results in fewer direct services to 

program participants. A commenter 

asked for clarification about reporting 

for multiple years and possible 

duplication for co-enrolled participants, 

commenting that enhancing the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information 

collected would reduce the burden on 

those who must respond. Another 

commenter requested that an effort be 

made to utilize any existing Federal and 

State databases that already contain 

some of the WIOA-required data 

elements that need to be collected. One 

commenter suggested that the 

Departments develop a standardized 

application or supplemental form that 

includes fields for applicants to selfreport the required data elements. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge that an 

increase in the burden estimate is 

necessary to reflect more accurately the 

costs in time and resources to begin 

collecting, validating, and reporting new 

requirements under WIOA’s new 

reporting system, particularly for the VR 

program. As such, the burden estimates 

in the RIA section of this Joint WIOA 

Final Rule (see section V.A), as well as 

the tables in section 12 of the 

Supporting Statement for the WIOA 

Joint Performance ICR (which cover 

burden estimates) have been modified . 

For example, in response to comments, 

RSA has revised its methodology for 

estimating burden related to new data 

collection requirements in order to more 

accurately reflect needed State 

investments in personnel, time, and 

other resources. 

The Departments also understand the 

increased administrative burden for 

follow up and the collection of new 

statutorily required data under WIOA, 

such as cost per WIOA participant 

served (see WIOA sec. 116(d)(2)(F), 

which requires the State performance 

report to include ‘‘the average cost per 

participant of those participants who 

received career and training services, 

respectively, during the most recent 

program year and the three preceding 

program years’’). The Departments made 

every effort to provide a comprehensive 

estimate of the costs incurred by 

programs, State agencies, and all other 

stakeholders in adhering to all WIOA 

requirements and will provide direction 

on issues such as identifying clients 

without SSNs, streamlining processes 

and eliminating duplication, timelines 

for integration, alignment of the RSA– 

911 with the WIOA PIRL, and best 

practices for providing optimal initial 

and follow-up services to participants in 

subsequent guidance. Also, the 

Departments agree with the commenter 

that the enhanced use of technology in 

the data collection and reporting 

process will result in greater efficiencies 

and reduced burden for States and local 

programs. With regard to the 

commenter’s other concerns about data 

sharing among the core partners, the 

Departments are currently working on 

additional guidance to facilitate that 

process. The burden estimate for the 

collection and reporting of data was 

updated in the issuance of the final 

WIOA Joint Performance ICR to more 

accurately reflect the time staff spent 

obtaining and entering the required data 

elements. 

States may use existing databases to 

assist in obtaining the required data 

elements provided the data sharing 

meets the required statutory and 

regulatory privacy requirements. 

However, States remain responsible for 

ensuring the accuracy and timely 

submission of required data elements. 

States are not prohibited from 

developing a standardized form that 

would allow individuals to self-report 

data, apart from information that is 

necessary for the program to receive 

Federal funds. 

Comments: Several commenters 

provided input on the definition of 

participant and/or participation period. 

The majority of commenters expressed 

opposition to establishing a new exit 

date for an individual who has exited 

and returned within the same program 

year. A few commenters stated that the 

proposed exit methodology will 

increase the implementation burden 

while producing less informative data. 

Another commenter mentioned that the 

proposal to combine multiple periods of 

participation (POPs) when a participant 

exits more than once in a program year 

would reduce the reliability of quarterly 

reports, increase the burden to manage 

programs, and decrease the effectiveness 

of the statistical adjustment model. A 

few other commenters said that 

implementing the definition of ‘‘exit’’ as 

proposed would require modifications 

to case management systems. A 

commenter suggested that the definition 

of ‘‘exiter’’ remain the same as under 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55989 

WIA. This commenter also remarked 

that the definition of ‘‘exiter’’ as 

proposed in the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR would provide an 

accurate count of participants in a 

program year for participant and 

‘‘exiter’’ measures, but would 

potentially duplicate participants in 

primary performance outcome 

measures. A commenter remarked that 

the proposed definitions of 

‘‘participant’’ and ‘‘exit’’ would require 

a rolling system for reporting, but it is 

not clear how this could be done 

accurately to track performance. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the 

commenters’ many concerns and 

suggestions related to the Departments’ 

proposed approach to participation and 

exit for individuals who exit more than 

once in the same program year. To 

respond to these concerns, the 

Departments have altered the approach 

to unique participants that was 

published in the proposed WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR. For performance 

reporting purposes, States should report 

participants separately for each time the 

participant exits the program, with the 

period of time the participant received 

services prior to exiting sometimes 

commonly called a ‘‘POP.’’ In addition, 

States should provide to the 

Departments, for each of the WIOA titles 

I and II core programs, and the VR 

program, a unique identifier that stays 

the same across multiple POP for the 

same participant, but not necessarily the 

same identifier across different 

programs if the participant receives 

services from multiple programs in the 

same program year. The Departments 

will use this unique identifier to 

calculate a count of unique participants 

in each program for each State, which 

will be reported on the State 

Performance Reporting Template. The 

performance measures will be 

calculated using the ‘‘exits’’ (i.e., POP), 

which the Departments conclude will 

incentivize the provision of the most 

effective and appropriate service 

delivery strategy regardless of how 

many previous POP an individual has 

had. The Departments will provide 

further guidance and technical 

assistance to implement this in order to 

ensure a consistent approach that 

facilitates comparability across 

programs. 

Core programs administered by ETA 

already utilize a ‘‘rolling four quarter 

methodology’’ for quarterly reporting. In 

other words, for each data element, the 

most recent four quarters worth of data 

are reported (which will be different for 

different data elements due to the 

timing of the availability of the data). 

ETA will continue utilizing this 

approach, which adjusts for seasonality 

and which allows 1 year of data to be 

reported on any given quarterly report. 

Comments: Several commenters 

discussed the collection of data 

pertaining to barriers to employment. A 

few commenters said that collecting the 

data on barriers of employment would 

be challenging and burdensome. 

Similarly, a commenter stated that the 

collection of this data would increase 

the burden more than the value it would 

provide and asked how the Departments 

plan to communicate the results of the 

data to local areas. Another commenter 

stated that the proposed data on barriers 

to be collected is unnecessary. A few 

commenters requested clarification on 

barriers to employment. In particular, 

one of these commenters asked whether 

it is expected to collect data on all 

barriers to employment for each client. 

Another commenter requested 

clarification on how data on barriers to 

employment would be collected. A 

different commenter suggested the 

Departments confirm that a participant 

may be reported in multiple categories 

for barriers to employment. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA sec. 

116 requires a statewide report that 

includes a breakout by those with 

barriers to employment. The WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR provides information 

about the barriers to employment that 

must be collected and how these data 

will be collected. Additional 

information on how these categories are 

populated can be found in the PIRL and 

Statewide Annual Report Specifications. 

Comments: Some Commenters 

pointed out that every barrier to 

employment should not have to require 

documentation to be validated. Two 

commenters asked whether PIRL 802 

(formerly PIRL 702) determining ‘‘Low 

Income’’, would apply to adult 

education participants and whether 

supporting documentation from the 

participant would be required. 

Similarly, another commenter said that 

describing artificial barriers for exoffenders is a poor word choice for 

describing their barriers to employment. 

Departments’ Response: WIOA 

specifies new reporting requirements, 

including data reporting related to 

barriers to employment. The definition 

of an ‘‘individual with a barrier to 

employment’’ encompasses mandatory 

populations. Low income and exoffenders are just two of the populations 

included in the definition, representing 

barriers to employment that must be 

collected for purposes of the 

performance accountability system 

under WIOA. The Departments 

recognize the importance of ensuring 

that individuals with barriers to 

employment receive services, and the 

Departments recognize that States may 

experience challenges with this data 

collection. The Departments intend to 

issue joint- and program-specific 

guidance and technical assistance to 

provide further clarification on each 

employment barrier, how the data 

should be collected, and necessary 

documentation for each barrier. 

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. 

Affected Public: State, Local, and 

Tribal Governments. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or maintain benefits (WIOA, secs. 

102 and 103). 

Total Estimated Number of 

Respondents Annually: 38. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 38. 

Frequency of Responses: On 

Occasion. 

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 

8,136 hours. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $0. 

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. 

ICR Approval Status: Not yet 

approved. 

Overview and Response to Comments 

Received 

Overview: WIOA requires each State 

to submit either a Unified or Combined 

State Plan 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. The Departments have 

interpreted ‘‘State,’’ in this context, to 

include the outlying areas of Guam, 

American Samoa, Northern Mariana 

Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and, as 

applicable, the Republic of Palau. This 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55990 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

means that each of the outlying areas 

must submit a Unified or Combined 

State Plan, in accordance with secs. 102 

and 103 of WIOA, just as any State does. 

The Unified or Combined State Plan 

requirements improve service 

integration and ensure that the public 

workforce system is industry-relevant 

and responds to the economic needs of 

the State and successfully matches 

employers with skilled workers. The 

Unified or Combined State Plan 

describes how the State will develop 

and implement a unified and integrated 

service delivery system rather than 

separately discuss the State’s approach 

to operating each core program 

individually. This information 

collection implements secs. 102 and 103 

of WIOA. 

While each State, at a minimum, must 

submit a Unified State Plan covering the 

six core programs, sec. 103 of WIOA 

permits a State to submit a Combined 

State Plan that includes the six core 

programs plus one or more additional 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

listed in sec. 103(a)(2) of WIOA. If the 

State chooses to include one or more 

Combined State Plan partner programs, 

its Combined State Plan must include 

all of the common planning elements 

contained in the Unified State Plan and 

an additional element describing how 

the State will coordinate the additional 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

with the six core programs (WIOA sec. 

103(b)(3)). 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that State Plans require a 

labor market analysis. 

Departments’ Response: Although the 

Departments agree with the comment, 

no change to the WIOA State Plan ICR 

is needed because it already requires a 

labor market analysis consistent with 

sec. 102(b)(1) of WIOA. 

Comments: Another commenter 

expressed concern that the trucking 

industry may struggle to secure ‘‘indemand’’ recognition in many States 

unless a State’s obligations are further 

clarified under section II of the Draft 

Unified and Combined State Plan 

Requirements document. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment because States are encouraged 

to use a variety of accurate, reliable, and 

timely labor market information on 

which to base their analyses in the State 

Plan. The use of a variety of labor 

market information allows States to 

reliably determine ‘‘in-demand’’ labor 

market needs, including for the trucking 

industry. 

Comments: Several commenters 

provided input on section II(a)(1)(A)(iii), 

in which commenters proposed that 

States include an assessment of the 

employment needs of employers in 

certain industries and sectors, including 

a description of the knowledge, skills, 

abilities, and credentials and licenses 

required for employers. The 

commenters also recommended 

replacing ‘‘credentials and licenses’’ 

with ‘‘recognized postsecondary 

credentials.’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments conclude that it was 

appropriate to keep ‘‘credentials and 

licenses’’ rather than narrowing the 

meaning of term by replacing it with 

‘‘postsecondary credentials’’ since it is a 

broad term that allows maximum 

flexibility to States to determine their 

needs and the WIOA State Plan ICR 

already requires States to include 

‘‘recognized postsecondary credentials.’’ 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

when assessing the needs of employers, 

it would be beneficial to collect 

information on whether these various 

employers are subject to sec. 503 of the 

Rehabilitation Act. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR because it is not 

the appropriate vehicle for collecting 

information on whether employers are 

subject to sec. 503 of the Rehabilitation 

Act. 

Comments: Some commenters noted 

that section II(a)(1)(B) would be an 

appropriate opportunity to include labor 

force participation rates for persons 

with disabilities, including youth and 

veterans with disabilities. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that understanding 

labor force participation rates is 

important and revised the collection 

instrument in section II(a)(1)(B)(i) to 

include labor force participation rates. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that States collect information 

concerning the numbers of individuals 

with disabilities who are working in 

segregated work environments 

(‘‘sheltered workshops’’) and who are 

employed under a 14c waiver (receiving 

sub-minimum wage). 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment because the change is not 

necessary. Section 101(a)(14) of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by title IV of WIOA, requires the VR 

agencies to conduct a semiannual 

review and re-evaluation of individuals 

served by the VR program who are 

employed in sheltered settings or at 

subminimum wage. The semiannual 

reviews must be conducted for the first 

2 years of the individual’s employment 

and annually thereafter. Furthermore, 

the VR services portion of the Unified 

or Combined State Plan contains an 

assurance that the State VR agency will 

report information generated under sec. 

101(a)(14) to the Administrator of the 

Wage and Hour Division of DOL. 

Comments: Another commenter 

proposed that knowledge and 

familiarity with English be included in 

the analysis of the current workforce 

and that each Plan include a strategy for 

addressing the adult education and 

family literacy needs of the incumbent 

workforce. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that such analysis 

and strategies should be included and 

expect States to provide a strategy for 

addressing the needs of individuals 

with limited English proficiency. Since 

the WIOA State Plan ICR already 

requires this as written, no change is 

needed. 

Comments: A commenter cited an 

increase in State and Federal policies 

aimed at increasing employment for 

individuals with disabilities and 

encouraged States to examine whether 

or not their particular State is under any 

of these policies, which would help 

determine future labor market trends 

and give further direction on increasing 

employment for individuals with 

disabilities. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to require an 

examination of State policies as a way 

to understand their possible impact on 

employment for individuals with 

disabilities since it goes beyond what 

the State is required to do under WIOA 

for purposes of the State Plan and may 

be more appropriate for a formal study. 

Comments: Another commenter 

explicitly urged that financial literacy 

be included as a component of 

education. Specifically, the commenter 

said that there should be an assessment 

of financial literacy skills as part of the 

assessment of education and skills level. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that financial literacy 

plays a significant role in a person’s 

overall success, and that the WIOA State 

Plan ICR, as written, permits States to 

identify what skills gaps exist in their 

State, including a lack of financial 

literacy. States are encouraged to look at 

financial literacy as a possible need of 

their population, but the Departments 

decline to itemize every kind of skill 

that could be included in an assessment 

of education and skill level in the WIOA 

State Plan ICR. 

Comments: Several commenters asked 

for clarification on what is meant by 

‘‘skill gaps.’’ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55991 

Departments’ Response: Determining 

‘‘current gaps,’’ ‘‘projected gaps,’’ and 

‘‘projected education and skills of the 

workforce’’ is within the State’s 

purview, and each State has flexibility 

to identify what skills gaps or 

mismatches exist in the State. 

Comments: A commenter said 

innovative partnerships with entities 

such as faith- and community-based 

organizations should be included in the 

analysis of the State’s workforce 

development, education, and training 

activities in section II(a)(2)(A) and 

section III(a)(2)(c). 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree and made a change 

to the WIOA State Plan ICR by adding 

a footnote clarifying that the phrase 

‘‘workforce development activities’’ 

could include a wide variety of 

programs, including human services, 

faith- and community-based 

organizations, and educational 

institutions. 

Comments: A commenter asserted 

that the requirements for the workforce 

development, activities should include 

reporting on, and not only an 

assessment of, activities offered and to 

what extent those activities are both 

physically and programmatically 

accessible to job seekers with 

disabilities. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment because it is more appropriate 

to identify the extent to which these 

activities are accessible during 

monitoring than through the State Plan. 

Sections V.7 and V.10 require States to 

comply with physical and programmatic 

accessibility requirements of WIOA sec. 

188 and the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990. 

Comments: A commenter said the 

State’s strategic goal should be a guiding 

rather than prescriptive document, 

providing overall direction and 

supporting Local WDBs in developing 

strategies best suited to their local 

economies. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR because it is 

within the Governor’s discretion to 

decide how broad the vision should be 

for the State; however, engagement of 

the Local WDBs is required under sec. 

101(d) of WIOA in the development of 

the State Plan. 

Comments: Several commenters took 

issue with the use of the term ‘‘sector 

strategies’’ in section (II)(c)(1) and 

suggested that the language be refined. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree and changed the 

WIOA State Plan ICR to refer to 

‘‘industry or sector partnerships’’ and to 

align more closely with the statutory 

language, including WIOA sec. 

101(d)(3)(B) and (D). Also, statutory 

references were added for the 

definitions of ‘‘career pathway’’ and ‘‘indemand industry sector or occupation’’ 

to provide additional clarity concerning 

this requirement. 

Comments: Some commenters 

requested career pathways and sector 

strategies be addressed in State Plans 

and requested further definition of 

career pathways. Another commenter 

requested that State Plans include 

descriptions about credentialing and 

integrating credentialing with sector 

partnerships. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to 

these comments. The WIOA State Plan 

ICR already includes requirements for 

the State to describe both its sector and 

career pathways strategy in section 

(II)(c), so it already supports the 

inclusion of credentialing and its 

integration with sector and career 

pathways strategies. Although the 

Departments did not revise the WIOA 

State Plan ICR to include definitions of 

‘‘career pathways’’ and ‘‘sector 

partnerships,’’ the Departments did add 

statutory citations for the definitions of 

those terms. 

Comments: Commenters said the 

language of section (II)(c)(2) is more 

detailed than the requirements under 

WIOA sec. 102(b)(1)(E), which the 

commenters said only references the 

alignment between core programs and 

‘‘other resources available to the State.’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with this comment, 

and section IV has been revised in the 

WIOA State Plan ICR to require a 

description of the joint planning and 

coordination among the core programs 

and with other required partners and 

other programs and activities included 

in the Unified or Combined State Plan. 

Comments: A commenter said the 

Departments should clarify the intended 

‘‘gaps’’ mentioned in the final sentence 

of section II(c)(2). 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments clarify the meaning in the 

final sentence of section (II)(c)(2) by 

changing the word ‘‘gaps’’ to 

‘‘weaknesses’’ and by adding a reference 

to section II(a)(2) to explain what 

analysis should be taken into account 

for this requirement. However, the 

Departments decline to add a reference 

to section II(a)(1)(B)(iv), since the 

requirement is specifically regarding the 

strengthening of workforce development 

activities. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

State strategy should unify wrap-around 

services across programs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment, since section III(a)(2)(C) of the 

WIOA State Plan ICR already requires 

coordination of supportive services 

(wrap-around services) among 

programs. 

Comments: Another commenter 

recommended amending language, 

which clarifies that States can and 

should be coordinating and aligning 

services across programs in a manner 

that achieves the goals of industry and 

sector partnerships. The same 

commenter recommended strengthening 

the language to clarify that the 

description required is not limited to 

direct employer services, but should 

also include any other programs and 

activities that will support service 

delivery to employers. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments concur with this 

suggestion to reinforce the importance 

of industry and sector partnerships and 

have amended the requirement. With 

respect to the comment concerning 

service delivery to employers, the 

Departments conclude that the language 

is sufficient as originally written to 

include both direct and indirect services 

to employers. 

Comments: A commenter was unclear 

as to the source of the requirement that 

the State outline additional strategies for 

coordinating ‘‘services to employers.’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments conclude that both the 

State and local governments are partners 

in developing strategies for serving 

employers. Using the authority WIOA 

grants to the Secretaries to add 

additional operational planning 

elements as appropriate, the 

Departments chose to include a 

requirement around serving employers 

since they are a critical customer. 

Comments: Several commenters 

supported extending the requirement to 

cover a broader range of providers than 

community colleges and area career and 

technical education (CTE) schools, but 

noted that there is no formal definition 

of the term ‘‘education and training 

providers’’ under WIOA. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with this comment 

and revised section III(a)(2) of the WIOA 

State Plan ICR to include in section 

III(a)(2)(E) a separate requirement for 

engagement with community colleges 

and career and technical education 

schools as required by sec. 

102(b)(2)(B)(iv) of WIOA. The 

Departments included in section 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55992 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

III(a)(2)(F) a separate element for 

engagement with other education and 

training providers because such 

coordination is necessary to have a 

successful strategy for the provision of 

services. 

Comments: A commenter requested 

that the listed examples in section 

III(a)(2)(E) include community 

rehabilitation organizations (CROs). The 

commenter noted that frequently 

individuals with disabilities enter into 

CROs after completing high school, and 

these CROs are tasked with teaching 

individuals with disabilities job skills 

with the expectation of acquiring 

employment in the community. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment because CROs are not solely 

education/training entities. 

Nevertheless, States may address CROs 

in their plans. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

adding a subsection to section III(b) of 

the WIOA State Plan ICR that includes 

a description of proposed benchmarks 

for the negotiated amounts and/or 

percentages that each one-stop partner 

that is a unit of State government will 

contribute to the local one-stop delivery 

system costs. The commenter said that 

including this element will provide for 

better coordination and more 

transparency in the negotiation of 

shared costs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments concur that the inclusion 

of information on one-stop partner cost 

sharing arrangements in the State Plan 

will provide for better coordination and 

more transparency in the negotiation of 

shared costs. However, the Departments 

anticipate that States will not be ready 

to provide their guidelines in the initial 

Unified or Combined State Plans that 

take effect July 1, 2016. Instead, the 

Departments revised section III(b)(2) of 

the WIOA State Plan ICR to require 

information about the State’s process for 

developing guidelines and benchmarks 

in the initial Unified or Combined State 

Plan, and require the guidelines when 

the State submits a modification to its 

State Plan in PY 2018. 

Comments: Another commenter 

recommended emphasizing the role of 

local and regional planning in 

establishing appropriate assessment 

standards. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments concur with the comment 

with minor modifications and made a 

change to the WIOA State Plan ICR. The 

Departments amended the requirement 

that ‘‘such State assessments should 

take into account local and regional 

planning goals,’’ and also added 

‘‘broken down by State and local area.’’ 

Comments: A commenter agreed with 

the importance of the assessment of core 

programs and one-stop partner programs 

based on accountability measures, but 

asserted that not all core programs 

currently collect the same performance 

information. The commenter requested 

clarification on what constitutes 

previous assessment results for the 

preceding 2 years, noting that there may 

not be a formal assessment available in 

States that were previously granted 

waivers of the requirement to conduct 

evaluations under WIA. The commenter 

also requested clarification on what 

constitutes elements required to be 

included in the assessments for the 

other core programs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree and made a change 

to the WIOA State Plan ICR as a result 

of this comment. The previous 2-year 

period referenced in sec. 116 of WIOA 

and in section III(b)(4) of the WIOA 

State Plan ICR should be implemented 

for the first time at the 2-year plan 

modification cycle because assessments 

of WIOA programs will not be available 

before that time. Therefore, clarifying 

language has been added. 

Comments: Another commenter 

requested the Departments to require 

States to provide a description of a 

clearly defined management reporting 

structure for State merit staff. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment because requiring a reporting 

structure for merit staff imposes an 

unnecessary burden on States. However, 

States may elect to develop such a 

policy and include it in its State Plan. 

Comments: A commenter urged the 

Departments to require that assessments 

document how each program will 

ensure not only physical accessibility 

but programmatic accessibility, 

including specific examples of how 

WIOA sec. 188 regulations are being 

met. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that compliance with 

physical and programmatic accessibility 

requirements is critical and have 

required States to provide how this will 

be achieved in section III(b)(8) of the 

WIOA State Plan ICR and through the 

common assurances in section V. 

Therefore, a change in the WIOA State 

Plan ICR is not needed. 

Comments: Another commenter 

supported efforts to improve 

coordination across programs and 

recognized that integrated data systems 

are an important step in achieving this 

goal. However, the commenter was 

concerned that achieving this goal will 

be expensive and challenging for States 

in light of State budget crises and 

declining Federal resources. This 

commenter proposed adding language 

that clarifies that States are not required 

to make such efforts. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to revise the WIOA 

State Plan ICR not to require States to 

make efforts to integrate data systems. 

Under WIOA sec. 101(d)(8), the State 

WDB is required to assist the Governor 

with ‘‘the development of strategies for 

aligning technology and data systems 

across one-stop partner programs to 

enhance service delivery and improve 

efficiencies in reporting on performance 

accountability measures (including the 

design and implementation of common 

intake, data collection, case 

management information, and 

performance accountability 

measurement and reporting processes 

and the incorporation of local input into 

such design and implementation, to 

improve coordination of services across 

one-stop partner programs)’’ and under 

WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(v)(I), the State 

Plan must explain ‘‘how the lead State 

agencies with responsibility for the 

administration of the core programs will 

align and integrate available workforce 

and education data on core programs, 

unemployment insurance programs, and 

education through postsecondary 

education.’’ Due to these statutory 

requirements, States must develop a 

plan for aligning and integrating data 

systems. 

Comments: A commenter indicated 

that moving to true interoperability and 

integration of data management systems 

would likely require substantial outlays 

of time and money that States may not 

be able to meet, especially in a time of 

level or declining Federal resources. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment since WIOA requires States to 

have a plan for aligning and integrating 

data systems. 

Comments: Another commenter said 

that States should establish a reasonable 

timeline for data alignment and 

integration. 

Departments’ Response: The WIOA 

State Plan ICR, as written, permits 

States to establish a ‘‘reasonable 

timeline’’ as part of their plans for 

achieving data system alignment and 

integration. Therefore, a change to the 

collection is not needed. 

Comments: The same commenter also 

said the Departments and State Plans 

should both report a single score for 

each of the six performance indicators, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55993 

but only after 4 years of WIOA 

implementation. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment. WIOA requires that each 

State establish levels of performance for 

each of the indicators of performance for 

each of the programs. 

Comments: A commenter suggested 

that Veterans Priority of Service (POS) 

be addressed in the State Plan and that 

POS should be required for serviceconnected and non-service connected 

disabilities. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to make the 

requested change because the WIOA 

State Plan ICR requires States to 

describe how they implement Veterans 

POS in their State (see section III(b)(7)). 

Moreover, under 38 U.S.C. 4215, all 

veterans, including disabled veterans 

with both service and non-service 

connected disabilities, receive POS for 

all employment and training programs 

funded in whole or in part by DOL. 

Comments: A few commenters 

requested clarification on the 

Addressing the Accessibility of the OneStop Delivery System for Individuals 

with Disabilities requirement in light of 

a parenthetical sentence at the end of 

the section indicating that this 

requirement applies to core programs, 

rather than the one-stop delivery system 

partners referenced earlier in the 

requirement. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments make a change to section 

III(b)(8) of the WIOA State Plan ICR as 

a result of the comment. The 

Departments concur with the comment 

that the parenthetical in the proposed 

WIOA State Plan ICR could create 

confusion about the requirements of 

WIOA sec. 188 and so it was removed. 

WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(vii) requires that 

the Unified State Plan contain a 

description of how one-stop operators 

and one-stop partners, in addition to 

core programs, will comply with sec. 

188 of WIOA and the applicable 

provisions of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990. Per WIOA sec. 

103(b)(1), this information must also be 

included in any Combined State Plan. 

Comments: Some commenters said 

States should be required to describe the 

methods used for joint planning and 

coordination of the core programs, even 

where the State opts to submit a Unified 

State Plan rather than a Combined State 

Plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments concur that discussion of 

coordination with core programs and 

one-stop partners is helpful to ensure 

successful joint planning and 

coordination for both Unified and 

Combined State Plans, rather than just 

the Combined State Plan as had been 

proposed. To that end, the Departments 

added specific reference to the Unified 

State Plan to section IV of the WIOA 

State Plan ICR. 

Comments: A few commenters said 

the review and approval requirement 

should be extended to all agencies or 

entities with responsibility for 

Combined State Plan partner programs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments maintain that the WIOA 

State Plan ICR as written, and as 

required by WIOA, provides all 

programs the opportunity to review and 

comment on the State Plan. WIOA does 

not require Combined State Plan partner 

programs to approve the Combined 

State Plan prior to its submission. 

Comments: A commenter said the 

State Plan process should also include 

the expertise and experience of partner 

organizations that serve individuals 

with barriers to employment because 

they are important partners in the 

public workforce system. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments concur that the State Plan 

process should include the expertise 

and experience of partner organizations 

that serve individuals with barriers to 

employment because they are important 

partners in the public workforce system. 

To that end, the Departments have 

added specific mention of organizations 

serving individuals with barriers to 

employment to the common assurances 

in section V(4)(a) of the WIOA State 

Plan ICR. As such, these organizations 

are now specifically listed as being 

among the stakeholders who should 

have the opportunity to comment on the 

Unified or Combined State Plan. 

Comments: A commenter requested a 

specific number of days for public 

comment on the State Plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to set a number of 

days for public comment because States 

may use their own discretion in 

providing a reasonable period of time 

for public comment. Many States have 

State laws or regulations that govern the 

amount of time that must be provided 

for public comment. 

Comments: Another commenter 

requested clarification on whether there 

are cost limitations for contributions 

and whether such contributions shall be 

factored into infrastructure costs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments conclude that the 

requested information is not appropriate 

to the WIOA State Plan ICR so no 

change was made. Further specifics on 

infrastructure costs are provided in the 

preamble for the Joint WIOA Final Rule 

at part 678 and will be provided in 

future joint guidance. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended including explicit 

reference to other people with barriers 

to employment, including individuals 

with disabilities, as well as clarification 

that priority of service to veterans 

remains in place. 

Departments’ Response: Section 3(24) 

of WIOA defines an ‘‘individual with a 

barrier to employment,’’ which includes 

many different populations. Individuals 

with disabilities are specifically 

identified in sec. 3(24)(D) of WIOA. 

Given the exclusive list of populations 

contained in that definition, there is no 

statutory authority for the Departments 

to add other populations to that 

definition or to the WIOA State Plan 

ICR. Requirements for priority of service 

for veterans remain in place and are 

covered in section III(b)(7) of the WIOA 

State Plan ICR. 

Comments: Another commenter 

recommended adding the following 

Common Assurance: ‘‘The State will 

negotiate in good faith with the Local 

Boards its portion of the shared costs of 

the one-stop system, in accordance with 

WIOA sec. 121, on behalf of all one-stop 

partners that are units of State 

government.’’ 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment. The Departments expect that 

States will negotiate in good faith with 

Local WDBs on one-stop cost sharing 

without requiring an assurance that they 

will do so. 

Comments: A commenter said States 

should be required to describe how they 

will meet the statutory requirement to 

use statewide funds to support local 

areas by providing information on, and 

support for, the effective development, 

convening, and implementation of 

industry or sector partnerships. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment. Other areas of the State Plan 

requirements provide adequate 

information on how the State intends to 

implement sector partnerships, and the 

Departments have concluded it 

appropriate to maintain the requirement 

regarding use of statewide funds broad 

enough for States to describe a number 

of uses of those funds, required and 

allowable. 

Comments: Some commenters on 20 

CFR 683.130 of the DOL WIOA NPRM 

were concerned with the Governor’s 

approval of the adult-dislocated worker 

funds transfer request and whether the 

Governor would complete the request 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55994 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

timely or would unreasonably deny a 

request. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments concur with the comment 

and added a requirement to include 

State-developed criteria for transferring 

adult and dislocated worker funds in 

the plan in order to provide process 

transparency to local areas that may 

request funds transfers. 

Comments: A commenter 

acknowledged the need to differentiate 

training models enumerated in 

paragraph (b)(1) from apprenticeships, 

but said the name ‘‘employer-based’’ is 

more appropriate than the term 

‘‘alternative’’ in reflecting the 

widespread use of programs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree that the language in 

section VI(b)(1) of the WIOA State Plan 

ICR, which governs program-specific 

requirements for the adult and 

dislocated worker programs, should 

reflect more specifically the training 

model, and have amended the 

requirement to replace ‘‘alternative’’ 

with ‘‘work-based’’ since ‘‘work-based’’ 

more accurately captures the variety of 

training models than ‘‘employer-based.’’ 

Comments: Another commenter 

suggested requiring a policy on criteria 

for selecting employers for work-based 

training. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment. Since the Departments 

require States to address work-based 

learning approaches, requiring a specific 

policy on employer criteria is not 

needed because the description of the 

State’s approach will provide sufficient 

information and also provide 

information to stakeholders. 

Comments: A commenter said it was 

unclear whether the description of the 

Training Provider Eligibility Procedure 

was for initial eligibility, subsequent 

eligibility, or both. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments concur with the 

commenter that the proposed language 

was unclear. Therefore, the Departments 

revised the program-specific 

requirements in the WIOA State Plan 

ICR under section VI in subsection (b)(3) 

for the adult and dislocated worker 

programs to specify that the State must 

provide its training provider eligibility 

procedure for both initial and continued 

eligibility. 

Comments: A commenter asked if it is 

the intent for the State to describe how 

the State ensures that all 14 program 

elements required under the youth 

program are carried out, or some other 

objective. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments agree with the concern and 

replaced the language in the WIOA State 

Plan ICR under section VI in subsection 

(c)(2), thereby offering more clarity. 

Comments: Another commenter said 

WIOA title I, subtitle B should be 

expanded to include assurance that 

States have a written publicly available 

policy that ensures adult program funds 

provide a priority in the delivery of 

career and training services to 

individuals who are basic skills 

deficient. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments concur that more 

information on the implementation of 

the priority in the use of adult funds for 

training services and the individualized 

career services outlined in WIOA sec. 

134(c)(2)(A)(xii) would be useful, and 

have included a new requirement in the 

WIOA State Plan ICR under section VI 

in subsection (b)(4) for the adult 

program to describe how the State will 

implement and monitor the priority of 

service provisions for public assistance 

recipients, other low-income 

individuals, or individuals who are 

basic skills deficient in accordance with 

the requirements of WIOA sec. 

134(c)(3)(E), which applies to training 

services and individualized career 

services funded by the adult formula 

program. However, the Departments did 

not add a requirement that the policy be 

made publicly available because the 

State Plan is already required to be 

made publicly available for comment. 

Comments: A commenter submitted a 

comment related to the priority for use 

of adult funds stating that DOL should 

require that State and local planning 

efforts utilize the most current Census 

and administrative data available to 

develop estimates of each priority 

service population in their planning 

efforts, and update these data year to 

year. The commenter stated that these 

data should be utilized in Federal 

reviews of State Plans to ensure that 

system designs and projected 

investments are equitably targeted to 

service-priority populations and that 

they should also be used to benchmark 

system performance in actual 

implementation of the priority for the 

use of adult funds from year to year. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment. The Departments maintain 

that the priority for use of adult funds 

can be made without the use of Census 

data, and the approach suggested by the 

commenter would be overly 

burdensome for both State and Federal 

staff. 

Comments: Another commenter said 

use of the term identification of UI 

eligibility issues does not align with 

language in WIOA, asserting that there 

is a fundamental difference between 

providing assistance in filing for 

benefits and determining eligibility. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments made a change to the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment by adding ‘‘and referral to UI 

staff for adjudication’’ to the WIOA 

State Plan ICR under section VI in 

subsection (a)(2) for the Wagner-Peyser 

Act Employment Service program. The 

Departments’ intention with the 

language referenced by the commenter 

was not to de-emphasize reemployment 

services, but rather to emphasize the 

importance of enhanced connection 

between UI and ES/WIOA staff, and 

reemphasize the importance of 

providing reemployment services to UI 

claimants and other unemployed 

individuals. Both WIOA title I and the 

Wagner-Peyser Act (as amended by 

WIOA title III) contain new language 

regarding how these programs may 

provide services to UI claimants. 

Comments: Numerous commenters 

requested reintroducing the requirement 

for SWAs to consult the NFJP grantees 

as was required in the regulations at 20 

CFR 653.107(d). 

Departments’ Response: In response 

to this comment, the Departments make 

a change to the WIOA State Plan ICR 

under section VI in subsection (e)(4) for 

the Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service program because it will foster 

greater collaboration between the SWAs 

and the NFJP grantees. 

Comments: A few commenters said 

there appears to be no specific element 

relating to integrated education and 

training, as required under WIOA sec. 

102(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II)(dd), and 

recommended that the instrument be 

amended to include a requirement that 

States describe how they will fund and 

support such activities. 

Departments’ Response: Under 

section VI of the WIOA State Plan ICR 

for the AEFLA (title II) program, States 

have an opportunity to describe in 

subsection (b) how they will fund 

eligible providers to establish or operate 

adult education and literacy activities, 

including integrated education and 

training. The Departments make a small 

clarification to the WIOA State Plan 

ICR. 

Comments: A commenter asked for 

clarification on whether ‘‘eligible 

agency’’ as used in the Aligning of 

Content Standards section refers to 

State agencies, Local WDBs, and/or 

adult education providers (WIOA, 

AEFLA, etc.). 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55995 

Departments’ Response: The 

definition of ‘‘eligible agency’’ for the 

AEFLA program is located in sec. 203(3) 

of WIOA. 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

provided input on section (d), 

Integrated English Literacy and Civics 

Education Program. A commenter 

expressed concern that the language 

used in the fourth paragraph of (d) fails 

to acknowledge the populations 

enrolled in integrated literacy and civics 

education courses who are already 

employed and working towards job 

advancement and literacy gains. The 

commenter stated that plans for program 

design and success should include not 

only job placement outcomes but also 

job retention and advancement 

measures. The other commenter said the 

Departments should provide flexibility 

for program operators to determine the 

appropriate services to meet the needs 

of individual participants, which may 

not include workforce preparation and 

training. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments delete the paragraph and 

move it to the AEFLA program 

certifications and assurances section, 

where the language outlining the two 

requirements for design of Integrated 

English Literacy and Civics Education 

programs will remain included as part 

of the assurance. This language 

expresses the specific requirements for 

design of these programs in sec. 

243(c)(1) and (2) of WIOA. 

Comments: A commenter applauded 

the attention that is given to reporting 

coordination and collaboration between 

State VR agencies and relevant entities, 

specifically inter-agency and interdepartment cooperatives. 

Departments’ Response: No change to 

the WIOA State Plan ICR is needed as 

a result of this comment. 

Comments: Another commenter 

suggested that the State should describe 

the manner in which the designated 

State agency establishes cooperative 

agreements with private non-profit VR 

service providers. The same commenter 

stated that the instrument should 

include a reference to employers who 

are Federal contractors to assist with 

their compliance with Rehabilitation 

Act sec. 503 and Vietnam Era Veterans’ 

Readjustment Assistance Act 

(VEVRAA). The same commenter also 

stated that the instrument should 

include a section under (j)(1) for those 

who are veterans with non-serviceconnected disabilities on public 

assistance. Lastly, the same commenter 

stated that data should be disaggregated 

by age and disability. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment since only those elements 

described in sec. 101(a) of the 

Rehabilitation Act are required to be 

included in the VR services portion of 

the Unified or Combined State Plan. 

Comments: A couple of commenters 

expressed concern over whether States 

will be able to meet current State Plan 

submission deadlines. One commenter 

expressed concern over limitations for 

tracking client earnings in the 2nd and 

4th quarter due to the lack of data 

agreements at the Federal level. The 

other commenter noted that some core 

partners do not collect the information 

needed to establish a reasonable 

baseline of comparison and was 

uncertain if the requested information 

needed to complete the table will be 

available in time to meet the State Plan 

submission deadline. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments make a change to the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to 

these comments by including specific 

instructions for how to populate the 

chart for the first 2 years of the plan to 

account for a lack of data availability. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended developing crosswalks of 

substantially similar plan elements and 

allowing States to respond to programspecific elements through incorporation 

by reference of responses to the 

Combined State Plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment. Although the Departments 

agree that identical or similar plan 

provisions relative to required and 

optional Combined State Plan partner 

programs may be ‘‘integrated’’ or 

‘‘synthesized’’ together in the Combined 

State Plan document, the Departments 

decline to develop crosswalks of those 

elements at this time. However, in 

responding to a program-specific 

requirement that may be duplicative of 

an element addressed in other parts of 

a Combined State Plan, a State may 

clearly identify where it thinks it has 

responded to the requirement in the 

plan document. If the provision is not 

so identified, then the Federal task of 

reviewing the document and rendering 

a decision on completeness may become 

a major challenge and burdensome to 

the State and Federal staff. 

Comments: A joint submission from a 

couple of commenters requested 

clarification on the use of the term ‘‘the 

State’’ as it pertains to the inclusion of 

the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act in a Combined State 

Plan, per the supplemental document 

entitled, ‘‘Supplement to Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Actprogram specific.’’ The commenters 

asserted that the document uses ‘‘the 

State’’ in lieu of the statutorily required 

term ‘‘the State eligible agency,’’ at least 

as it pertains to what entity is 

responsible for the Perkins Act’s 

participation in a Combined State Plan. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment. The Departments were not 

seeking comment on the programspecific elements for the Perkins section 

of the WIOA State Plan ICR since it is 

a separately approved data collection. 

Comments: A commenter referred to 

the States’ total estimated burden, 

which is $141,708, and noted that the 

Federal burden is $240,987. The 

commenter asserted that, unless the 

$141,708 value of respondent time is for 

each of the six core program 

respondents, the estimated burden for 

States to fulfill the program-specific 

requirements for all six core programs 

appears to be significantly 

underestimated. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments concur with the 

commenter that the burden estimated 

for the Federal review was overstated 

relative to the State burden. After 

further analysis of the burden estimate, 

the Departments corrected a 

mathematical error in item #14 that 

failed to annualize State Plan receipt as 

was done for the State burden estimate. 

Comments: Another commenter stated 

that the WIOA State Plan ICR provides 

a reasonable synthesis of the required 

elements and provides States with 

sufficient guidance, but certain elements 

could be strengthened to ensure that 

States and programs are moving towards 

true alignment across programs. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to make a change 

to the WIOA State Plan ICR because the 

comment did not suggest one. 

Comments: A commenter stated that 

the draft instrument responds to many 

of its concerns, but expressed continued 

reservations that certain State Plan 

elements may not truly reflect the 

experiences of, or respond to the needs 

of, individuals with disabilities. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to make a change 

to the WIOA State Plan ICR in response 

to the comment because the comment 

did not suggest one. 

Comments: Another commenter 

commended the Departments’ 

collaboration on the instrument but also 

urged the inclusion of entities that serve 

individuals with barriers to 

employment, including immigrants, in 

outreach and technical assistance 

efforts. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55996 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to make a change 

to the WIOA State Plan ICR in response 

to the comment because the comment 

did not suggest one. 

Comments: A commenter appreciated 

several elements of the WIOA 

legislation (e.g., adding adult education 

as a core program, the bill’s emphasis on 

college and career readiness) and 

asserted that the need for additional 

funding has never been greater. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to make a change 

to the WIOA State Plan ICR in response 

to the comment because the comment 

did not suggest one. 

Comments: Another commenter 

opposed ‘‘the program’’ in general. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to make a change 

to the WIOA State Plan ICR in response 

to the comment because the comment 

did not suggest one. 

Comments: A commenter 

recommended that certain pages of the 

SCSEP component related to SCSEP 

operations be deleted from the SCSEP 

Combined State Plan requirements. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment. The Departments are not 

seeking comment on these data 

elements since they are covered by a 

separate collection number governing 

the SCSEP data collection. 

Comments: A comment that was 

submitted through the NPRM stated that 

the State Plan should require evidencebased strategies as outlined in the JobDriven Training reports. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment since the instrument already 

reflects the content of the job-driven 

report. 

Comments: Another comment that 

was submitted through the NPRM 

recommended requiring States to 

include in the State Plan how they will 

use measurable skill gains and a list of 

the measurable skill gains they will use. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment since measurable skill gains 

are addressed in the WIOA Joint 

Performance ICR. 

Comments: The final comment that 

was submitted through the NPRM 

requested guidance on the burden of 

technology upgrades. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments decline to change the 

WIOA State Plan ICR in response to this 

comment but will take it into account 

for future guidance or technical 

assistance. 

To see a more detailed view of the 

responses to public comments, refer to 

item 8 of the supporting statements of 

the information collections. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

E.O. 13132 requires Federal agencies 

to ensure that the principles of 

Federalism established by the Framers 

of our Constitution guide the executive 

departments and agencies in the 

formulation and implementation of 

policies and to further the policies of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Further, agencies must strictly adhere to 

constitutional principles. Agencies must 

closely examine the constitutional and 

statutory authority supporting any 

action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and they 

must carefully assess the necessity for 

any such action. To the extent 

practicable, State and local officials 

must be consulted before any such 

action is implemented. Section 3(b) of 

the E.O. further provides that Federal 

agencies must implement regulations 

that have a substantial direct effect only 

if statutory authority permits the 

regulation and it is of national 

significance. The Departments have 

reviewed the Joint WIOA Final Rule in 

light of these requirements and have 

concluded that, with the enactment of 

WIOA and its clear requirement to 

publish national implementing 

regulations, E.O. sec. 3(b) has been 

reviewed and its requirement satisfied. 

Accordingly, the Departments have 

reviewed this WIOA-required Joint 

Final Rule and have concluded that the 

rulemaking has no Federalism 

implications. The Joint WIOA Final 

Rule, as noted above, has no substantial 

direct effects on States, on the 

relationships between the States, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government as described by 

E.O. 13132. Therefore, the Departments 

have concluded that this Final Rule 

does not have a sufficient Federalism 

implication to warrant the preparation 

of a summary impact statement. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Comments: In response to the NPRM, 

the Departments received some 

comments that addressed unfunded 

mandates. A few commenters asserted 

that the requirements to collect data and 

to report performance are unfunded 

mandates. One of the commenters 

asserted that the cost in terms of time 

and technology for integrating 

individual records across multiple data 

systems at the State level is very high. 

Another one of the commenters 

suggested that the rule included other 

unfunded mandates, such as subminimum wage tracking and preemployment transition services setasides. One commenter added that 

although grant funding will be provided 

by the Federal government, in some 

States the grant funds provided for 

implementation are insufficient to 

reimburse the States. 

Departments’ Response: The 

Departments acknowledge the 

commenters’ concerns and detail the 

cost burden associated with this Joint 

WIOA Final Rule in Section V.A 

(Rulemaking Analyses and Notices). 

Grant funding is provided annually to 

all programs authorized under WIOA 

and that funding will be used to cover 

the costs of implementing this rule. 

With respect to the comments 

pertaining to requirements under the VR 

program for the VR agencies to report 

data regarding individuals employed at 

subminimum wage and for States to 

reserve at least 15 percent of their VR 

allotment to provide pre-employment 

transition services to students with 

disabilities, ED provides descriptions of 

these cost burdens in the RIA of the VR 

program-specific Final Rule published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 directs agencies to assess the 

effects of Federal regulatory actions on 

State, local, and tribal governments, and 

the private sector. A Federal mandate is 

any provision in a regulation that 

imposes an enforceable duty upon State, 

local, or tribal governments, or imposes 

a duty upon the private sector that is not 

voluntary. 

WIOA contains specific language 

supporting employment and training 

activities for Indian, Alaska Natives, and 

Native Hawaiian individuals. These 

program requirements are supported, as 

is the WIOA workforce development 

system generally, by Federal formula 

grant funds and accordingly are not 

considered unfunded mandates. 

Similarly, Migrant and Seasonal 

Farmworker activities are authorized 

and funded under the WIOA program as 

was done under the WIA program. The 

States are mandated to perform certain 

activities for the Federal government 

under WIOA and will be reimbursed 

(grant funding) for the resources 

required to perform those activities. The 

same process and grant relationship 

exists between States and Local WDBs 

under the WIA program and must 

continue under the WIOA program as 

identified in this Final Rule. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55997 

WIOA contains language-establishing 

procedures regarding the eligibility of 

training providers to receive funds 

under the WIOA program and contains 

clear State information collection 

requirements for eligible training 

providers (e.g., submission of 

appropriate, accurate, and timely 

information). A decision by a private 

training entity to participate as a 

provider under the WIOA program is 

purely voluntary and, therefore, 

information collection burdens do not 

impose a duty on the private sector that 

is not voluntarily assumed. 

Following consideration of these 

factors, the Departments concluded that 

the Joint WIOA Final Rule contained no 

unfunded Federal mandates, which are 

defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(6) to include 

either a ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ or a ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate.’’ 

G. Plain Language 

E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 require 

regulations to be written in a manner 

that is easy to understand. 

Comments: An individual had 

difficulty understanding many of the 

provisions of the proposal and said that 

the definitions sounded like the ‘‘fine 

print’’ of a contract. 

Departments’ Response: The overall 

format of these WIOA regulations 

reflects the Departments’ commitment 

to writing regulations that are readerfriendly. The Departments have 

attempted to make this Final Rule easy 

to understand. For example, the 

regulatory text is presented in a 

‘‘question and answer’’ format and 

organized consistent with WIOA. In 

consideration of the foregoing, the 

Departments have concluded that the 

Departments have drafted this Joint 

WIOA Final Rule in plain language. 

H. Assessment of Federal Regulations 

and Policies on Families 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus 

Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act of 

1999 (Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681) 

requires the assessment of the impact of 

this rule on family well-being. A rule 

that is determined to have a negative 

effect on families must be supported 

with an adequate rationale. The 

Departments have assessed this Joint 

WIOA Final Rule in light of this 

requirement and concluded that the 

Joint Final Rule will not have a negative 

effect on families. 

I. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

The Departments reviewed the Joint 

WIOA Final Rule under the terms of 

E.O. 13175 and DOL’s Tribal 

Consultation Policy and have concluded 

the final regulation would have tribal 

implications as the final regulations 

have substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian tribes, the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Therefore, as described in the preamble 

to the NPRM, the Departments carried 

out several consultations with tribal 

institutions, including tribal officials, 

which allowed the tribal officials to 

provide meaningful and timely input 

into the Departments’ proposals. 

Additionally, through the Notice and 

Comment rulemaking process, the 

Departments received comments on the 

programs and provisions in WIOA that 

have tribal implications and the 

Departments have responded to these 

comments throughout the preamble to 

the Final Joint and DOL-only 

regulations. 

In addition to the comments received 

through its Notice and Comment 

rulemaking process, the Department of 

Labor received feedback from the INA 

community and the public prior to the 

publication of the NPRM. This feedback 

was summarized in the NPRM at 80 FR 

20626–28. 

J. Executive Order 12630 (Government 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights) 

The Departments have concluded that 

this Joint WIOA Final Rule is not 

subject to E.O. 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights, because it does not involve 

implementation of a policy with takings 

implications. 

K. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This Joint WIOA Final Rule was 

drafted and reviewed in accordance 

with E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, 

and the Departments have concluded 

that the Joint Final Rule will not unduly 

burden the Federal court system. The 

Joint WIOA Final Rule was written to 

minimize litigation and, to the extent 

feasible, provide a clear legal standard 

for affected conduct. In addition, the 

Joint WIOA Final Rule has been 

reviewed to eliminate drafting errors 

and ambiguities. 

L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy 

Supply) 

This Joint WIOA Final Rule was 

drafted and reviewed in accordance 

with E.O. 13211, Energy Supply. The 

Departments have concluded the Joint 

WIOA Final Rule will not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy and is not 

subject to E.O. 13211. 

List of Subjects 

20 CFR Parts 676, 677, and 678 

Employment, Grant programs—labor. 

34 CFR Part 361 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Grant programs—education, 

Grant programs—social programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Vocational rehabilitation. 

34 CFR Part 463 

Adult education, Grant programs— 

education, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Department of Labor 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

20 CFR Chapter V 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, ETA amends 20 CFR chapter 

V as follows: 

■ 1. Add part 676 to read as follows: 

PART 676—UNIFIED AND COMBINED 

STATE PLANS UNDER TITLE I OF THE 

WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND 

OPPORTUNITY ACT 

Sec. 

676.100 What are the purposes of the 

Unified and Combined State Plans? 

676.105 What are the general requirements 

for the Unified State Plan? 

676.110 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the adult, dislocated worker, and 

youth programs authorized under 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act title I? 

676.115 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act program authorized under 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act title II? 

676.120 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, 

as amended by Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act title III? 

676.125 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the State Vocational Rehabilitation 

program authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title IV? 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55998 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

676.130 What is the development, 

submission, and approval process of the 

Unified State Plan? 

676.135 What are the requirements for 

modification of the Unified State Plan? 

676.140 What are the general requirements 

for submitting a Combined State Plan? 

676.143 What is the development, 

submission, and approval process of the 

Combined State Plan? 

676.145 What are the requirements for 

modifications of the Combined State 

Plan? 

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, and 503, Pub. L. 

113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014). 

§ 676.100 What are the purposes of the 

Unified and Combined State Plans? 

(a) The Unified and Combined State 

Plans provide the framework for States 

to outline a strategic vision of, and goals 

for, how their workforce development 

systems will achieve the purposes of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA). 

(b) The Unified and Combined State 

Plans serve as 4-year action plans to 

develop, align, and integrate the State’s 

systems and provide a platform to 

achieve the State’s vision and strategic 

and operational goals. A Unified or 

Combined State Plan is intended to: 

(1) Align, in strategic coordination, 

the six core programs required in the 

Unified State Plan pursuant to 

§ 676.105(b), and additional Combined 

State Plan partner programs that may be 

part of the Combined State Plan 

pursuant to § 676.140; 

(2) Direct investments in economic, 

education, and workforce training 

programs to focus on providing relevant 

education and training to ensure that 

individuals, including youth and 

individuals with barriers to 

employment, have the skills to compete 

in the job market and that employers 

have a ready supply of skilled workers; 

(3) Apply strategies for job-driven 

training consistently across Federal 

programs; and 

(4) Enable economic, education, and 

workforce partners to build a skilled 

workforce through innovation in, and 

alignment of, employment, training, and 

education programs. 

§ 676.105 What are the general 

requirements for the Unified State Plan? 

(a) The Unified State Plan must be 

submitted in accordance with § 676.130 

and WIOA sec. 102(c), as explained in 

joint planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education. 

(b) The Governor of each State must 

submit, at a minimum, in accordance 

with § 676.130, a Unified State Plan to 

the Secretary of Labor to be eligible to 

receive funding for the workforce 

development system’s six core 

programs: 

(1) The adult, dislocated worker, and 

youth programs authorized under 

subtitle B of title I of WIOA and 

administered by the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL); 

(2) The Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act (AEFLA) program 

authorized under title II of WIOA and 

administered by the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED); 

(3) The Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act 

of 1933, as amended by WIOA title III 

and administered by DOL; and 

(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation 

program authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by title IV of WIOA and administered by 

ED. 

(c) The Unified State Plan must 

outline the State’s 4-year strategy for the 

core programs described in paragraph 

(b) of this section and meet the 

requirements of sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as 

explained in the joint planning 

guidelines issued by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education. 

(d) The Unified State Plan must 

include strategic and operational 

planning elements to facilitate the 

development of an aligned, coordinated, 

and comprehensive workforce 

development system. The Unified State 

Plan must include: 

(1) Strategic planning elements that 

describe the State’s strategic vision and 

goals for preparing an educated and 

skilled workforce under sec. 102(b)(1) of 

WIOA. The strategic planning elements 

must be informed by and include an 

analysis of the State’s economic 

conditions and employer and workforce 

needs, including education and skill 

needs. 

(2) Strategies for aligning the core 

programs and Combined State Plan 

partner programs as described in 

§ 676.140(d), as well as other resources 

available to the State, to achieve the 

strategic vision and goals in accordance 

with sec. 102(b)(1)(E) of WIOA. 

(3) Operational planning elements in 

accordance with sec. 102(b)(2) of WIOA 

that support the strategies for aligning 

the core programs and other resources 

available to the State to achieve the 

State’s vision and goals and a 

description of how the State Workforce 

Development Board (WDB) will 

implement its functions, in accordance 

with sec. 101(d) of WIOA. Operational 

planning elements must include: 

(i) A description of how the State 

strategy will be implemented by each 

core program’s lead State agency; 

(ii) State operating systems, including 

data systems, and policies that will 

support the implementation of the 

State’s strategy identified in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section; 

(iii) Program-specific requirements for 

the core programs required by WIOA 

sec. 102(b)(2)(D); 

(iv) Assurances required by sec. 

102(b)(2)(E) of WIOA, including an 

assurance that the lead State agencies 

responsible for the administration of the 

core programs reviewed and commented 

on the appropriate operational planning 

of the Unified State Plan and approved 

the elements as serving the needs of the 

population served by such programs, 

and other assurances deemed necessary 

by the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education under sec. 102(b)(2)(E)(x) of 

WIOA; 

(v) A description of joint planning 

and coordination across core programs, 

required one-stop partner programs, and 

other programs and activities in the 

Unified State Plan; and 

(vi) Any additional operational 

planning requirements imposed by the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii) 

of WIOA. 

(e) All of the requirements in this part 

that apply to States also apply to 

outlying areas. 

§ 676.110 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

programs authorized under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title I? 

The program-specific requirements for 

the adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

programs that must be included in the 

Unified State Plan are described in sec. 

102(b)(2)(D) of WIOA. Additional 

planning requirements may be 

explained in joint planning guidelines 

issued by the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education. 

§ 676.115 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act 

program authorized under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title II? 

The program-specific requirements for 

the AEFLA program in title II that must 

be included in the Unified State Plan 

are described in secs. 102(b)(2)(C) and 

102(b)(2)(D)(ii) of WIOA. 

(a) With regard to the description 

required in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I) of 

WIOA pertaining to content standards, 

the Unified State Plan must describe 

how the eligible agency will, by July 1, 

2016, align its content standards for 

adult education with State-adopted 

challenging academic content standards 

under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended. 

(b) With regard to the description 

required in sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(iv) of 

WIOA pertaining to the methods and 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 55999 

factors the State will use to distribute 

funds under the core programs, for title 

II of WIOA, the Unified State Plan must 

include— 

(1) How the eligible agency will 

award multi-year grants on a 

competitive basis to eligible providers 

in the State; and 

(2) How the eligible agency will 

provide direct and equitable access to 

funds using the same grant or contract 

announcement and application 

procedure. 

§ 676.120 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as 

amended by Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title III? 

The Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act 

of 1933, as amended by WIOA title III, 

is subject to requirements in sec. 102(b) 

of WIOA, including any additional 

requirements imposed by the Secretary 

of Labor under secs. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii) 

and 102(b)(2)(D)(iv) of WIOA, as 

explained in joint planning guidelines 

issued by the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education. 

§ 676.125 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the State Vocational Rehabilitation program 

authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended by Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title IV? 

The program specific-requirements for 

the vocational rehabilitation services 

portion of the Unified or Combined 

State Plan are set forth in sec. 101(a) of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. All submission requirements 

for the vocational rehabilitation services 

portion of the Unified or Combined 

State Plan are in addition to the jointly 

developed strategic and operational 

content requirements prescribed by sec. 

102(b) of WIOA. 

§ 676.130 What is the development, 

submission, and approval process of the 

Unified State Plan? 

(a) The Unified State Plan described 

in § 676.105 must be submitted in 

accordance with WIOA sec. 102(c), as 

explained in joint planning guidelines 

issued jointly by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Education. 

(b) A State must submit its Unified 

State Plan to the Secretary of Labor 

pursuant to a process identified by the 

Secretary. 

(1) The initial Unified State Plan must 

be submitted no later than 120 days 

prior to the commencement of the 

second full program year of WIOA. 

(2) Subsequent Unified State Plans 

must be submitted no later than 120 

days prior to the end of the 4-year 

period covered by a preceding Unified 

State Plan. 

(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of 

this section, ‘‘program year’’ means July 

1 through June 30 of any year. 

(c) The Unified State Plan must be 

developed with the assistance of the 

State WDB, as required by § 679.130(a) 

of this chapter and WIOA sec. 101(d), 

and must be developed in coordination 

with administrators with optimum 

policy-making authority for the core 

programs and required one-stop 

partners. 

(d) The State must provide an 

opportunity for public comment on and 

input into the development of the 

Unified State Plan prior to its 

submission. 

(1) The opportunity for public 

comment must include an opportunity 

for comment by representatives of Local 

WDBs and chief elected officials, 

businesses, representatives of labor 

organizations, community-based 

organizations, adult education 

providers, institutions of higher 

education, other stakeholders with an 

interest in the services provided by the 

six core programs, and the general 

public, including individuals with 

disabilities. 

(2) Consistent with the ‘‘Sunshine 

Provision’’ of WIOA in sec. 101(g), the 

State WDB must make information 

regarding the Unified State Plan 

available to the public through 

electronic means and regularly 

occurring open meetings in accordance 

with State law. The Unified State Plan 

must describe the State’s process and 

timeline for ensuring a meaningful 

opportunity for public comment. 

(e) Upon receipt of the Unified State 

Plan from the State, the Secretary of 

Labor will ensure that the entire Unified 

State Plan is submitted to the Secretary 

of Education pursuant to a process 

developed by the Secretaries. 

(f) The Unified State Plan is subject to 

the approval of both the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of Education. 

(g) Before the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education approve the Unified State 

Plan, the vocational rehabilitation 

services portion of the Unified State 

Plan described in WIOA sec. 

102(b)(2)(D)(iii) must be approved by 

the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation 

Services Administration. 

(h) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education will review and approve the 

Unified State Plan within 90 days of 

receipt by the Secretary of Labor, unless 

the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary 

of Education determines in writing 

within that period that: 

(1) The plan is inconsistent with a 

core program’s requirements; 

(2) The Unified State Plan is 

inconsistent with any requirement of 

sec. 102 of WIOA; or 

(3) The plan is incomplete or 

otherwise insufficient to determine 

whether it is consistent with a core 

program’s requirements or other 

requirements of WIOA. 

(i) If neither the Secretary of Labor nor 

the Secretary of Education makes the 

written determination described in 

paragraph (h) of this section within 90 

days of the receipt by the Secretaries, 

the Unified State Plan will be 

considered approved. 

§ 676.135 What are the requirements for 

modification of the Unified State Plan? 

(a) In addition to the required 

modification review set forth in 

paragraph (b) of this section, a Governor 

may submit a modification of its Unified 

State Plan at any time during the 4-year 

period of the plan. 

(b) Modifications are required, at a 

minimum: 

(1) At the end of the first 2-year 

period of any 4-year State Plan, wherein 

the State WDB must review the Unified 

State Plan, and the Governor must 

submit modifications to the plan to 

reflect changes in labor market and 

economic conditions or other factors 

affecting the implementation of the 

Unified State Plan; 

(2) When changes in Federal or State 

law or policy substantially affect the 

strategies, goals, and priorities upon 

which the Unified State Plan is based; 

(3) When there are changes in the 

statewide vision, strategies, policies, 

State negotiated levels of performance 

as described in § 677.170(b) of this 

chapter, the methodology used to 

determine local allocation of funds, 

reorganizations that change the working 

relationship with system employees, 

changes in organizational 

responsibilities, changes to the 

membership structure of the State WDB 

or alternative entity, and similar 

substantial changes to the State’s 

workforce development system. 

(c) Modifications to the Unified State 

Plan are subject to the same public 

review and comment requirements in 

§ 676.130(d) that apply to the 

development of the original Unified 

State Plan. 

(d) Unified State Plan modifications 

must be approved by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education, based on the 

approval standards applicable to the 

original Unified State Plan under 

§ 676.130. This approval must come 

after the approval of the Commissioner 

of the Rehabilitation Services 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56000 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Administration for modification of any 

portion of the plan described in sec. 

102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA. 

§ 676.140 What are the general 

requirements for submitting a Combined 

State Plan? 

(a) A State may choose to develop and 

submit a 4-year Combined State Plan in 

lieu of the Unified State Plan described 

in §§ 676.105 through 676.125. 

(b) A State that submits a Combined 

State Plan covering an activity or 

program described in paragraph (d) of 

this section that is, in accordance with 

WIOA sec. 103(c), approved or deemed 

complete under the law relating to the 

program will not be required to submit 

any other plan or application in order to 

receive Federal funds to carry out the 

core programs or the program or 

activities described under paragraph (d) 

of this section that are covered by the 

Combined State Plan. 

(c) If a State develops a Combined 

State Plan, it must be submitted in 

accordance with the process described 

in § 676.143. 

(d) If a State chooses to submit a 

Combined State Plan, the plan must 

include the six core programs and one 

or more of the Combined State Plan 

partner programs and activities 

described in sec. 103(a)(2) of WIOA. The 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

and activities that may be included in 

the Combined State Plan are: 

(1) Career and technical education 

programs authorized under the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.); 

(2) Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families or TANF, authorized under 

part A of title IV of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

(3) Employment and training 

programs authorized under sec. 6(d)(4) 

of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 

(7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4)); 

(4) Work programs authorized under 

sec. 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act 

of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o)); 

(5) Trade adjustment assistance 

activities under chapter 2 of title II of 

the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 

et seq.); 

(6) Services for veterans authorized 

under chapter 41 of title 38 United 

States Code; 

(7) Programs authorized under State 

unemployment compensation laws (in 

accordance with applicable Federal 

law); 

(8) Senior Community Service 

Employment Programs under title V of 

the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 

U.S.C. 3056 et seq.); 

(9) Employment and training 

activities carried out by the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD); 

(10) Employment and training 

activities carried out under the 

Community Services Block Grant Act 

(42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); and 

(11) Reintegration of offenders 

programs authorized under sec. 212 of 

the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42 

U.S.C. 17532). 

(e) A Combined State Plan must 

contain: 

(1) For the core programs, the 

information required by sec. 102(b) of 

WIOA and §§ 676.105 through 676.125, 

as explained in the joint planning 

guidelines issued by the Secretaries; 

(2) For the Combined State Plan 

partner programs and activities, except 

as described in paragraph (h) of this 

section, the information required by the 

law authorizing and governing that 

program to be submitted to the 

appropriate Secretary, any other 

applicable legal requirements, and any 

common planning requirements 

described in sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as 

explained in the joint planning 

guidelines issued by the Secretaries; 

(3) A description of the methods used 

for joint planning and coordination 

among the core programs, and with the 

required one-stop partner programs and 

other programs and activities included 

in the State Plan; and 

(4) An assurance that all of the 

entities responsible for planning or 

administering the programs described in 

the Combined State Plan have had a 

meaningful opportunity to review and 

comment on all portions of the plan. 

(f) Each Combined State Plan partner 

program included in the Combined 

State Plan remains subject to the 

applicable program-specific 

requirements of the Federal law and 

regulations, and any other applicable 

legal or program requirements, 

governing the implementation and 

operation of that program. 

(g) For purposes of §§ 676.140 through 

676.145 the term ‘‘appropriate 

Secretary’’ means the head of the 

Federal agency who exercises either 

plan or application approval authority 

for the program or activity under the 

Federal law authorizing the program or 

activity or, if there are no planning or 

application requirements, who exercises 

administrative authority over the 

program or activity under that Federal 

law. 

(h) States that include employment 

and training activities carried out under 

the Community Services Block Grant 

(CSBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.) 

under a Combined State Plan would 

submit all other required elements of a 

complete CSBG State Plan directly to 

the Federal agency that administers the 

program, according to the requirements 

of Federal law and regulations. 

(i) States that submit employment and 

training activities carried out by HUD 

under a Combined State Plan would 

submit any other required planning 

documents for HUD programs directly 

to HUD, according to the requirements 

of Federal law and regulations. 

§ 676.143 What is the development, 

submission, and approval process of the 

Combined State Plan? 

(a) For purposes of § 676.140(a), if a 

State chooses to develop a Combined 

State Plan it must submit the Combined 

State Plan in accordance with the 

requirements described below and sec. 

103 of WIOA, as explained in the joint 

planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education. 

(b) The Combined State Plan must be 

developed with the assistance of the 

State WDB, as required by § 679.130(a) 

of this chapter and WIOA sec. 101(d), 

and must be developed in coordination 

with administrators with optimum 

policy-making authority for the core 

programs and required one-stop 

partners. 

(c) The State must provide an 

opportunity for public comment on and 

input into the development of the 

Combined State Plan prior to its 

submission. 

(1) The opportunity for public 

comment for the portions of the 

Combined State Plan that cover the core 

programs must include an opportunity 

for comment by representatives of Local 

WDBs and chief elected officials, 

businesses, representatives of labor 

organizations, community-based 

organizations, adult education 

providers, institutions of higher 

education, other stakeholders with an 

interest in the services provided by the 

six core programs, and the general 

public, including individuals with 

disabilities. 

(2) Consistent with the ‘‘Sunshine 

Provision’’ of WIOA in sec. 101(g), the 

State WDB must make information 

regarding the Combined State Plan 

available to the public through 

electronic means and regularly 

occurring open meetings in accordance 

with State law. The Combined State 

Plan must describe the State’s process 

and timeline for ensuring a meaningful 

opportunity for public comment on the 

portions of the plan covering core 

programs. 

(3) The portions of the plan that cover 

the Combined State Plan partner 

programs are subject to any public 

comment requirements applicable to 

those programs. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56001 

(d) The State must submit to the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education and 

to the Secretary of the agency with 

responsibility for approving the 

program’s plan or deeming it complete 

under the law governing the program, as 

part of its Combined State Plan, any 

plan, application, form, or any other 

similar document that is required as a 

condition for the approval of Federal 

funding under the applicable program 

or activity. Such submission must occur 

in accordance with a process identified 

by the relevant Secretaries in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(e) The Combined State Plan will be 

approved or disapproved in accordance 

with the requirements of sec. 103(c) of 

WIOA. 

(1) The portion of the Combined State 

Plan covering programs administered by 

the Departments of Labor and Education 

must be reviewed, and approved or 

disapproved, by the appropriate 

Secretary within 90 days beginning on 

the day the Combined State Plan is 

received by the appropriate Secretary 

from the State, consistent with 

paragraph (f) of this section. Before the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education 

approve the Combined State Plan, the 

vocational rehabilitation services 

portion of the Combined State Plan 

described in WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) 

must be approved by the Commissioner 

of the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration. 

(2) If an appropriate Secretary other 

than the Secretary of Labor or the 

Secretary of Education has authority to 

approve or deem complete a portion of 

the Combined State Plan for a program 

or activity described in § 676.140(d), 

that portion of the Combined State Plan 

must be reviewed, and approved, 

disapproved, or deemed complete, by 

the appropriate Secretary within 120 

days beginning on the day the 

Combined State Plan is received by the 

appropriate Secretary from the State 

consistent with paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(f) The appropriate Secretaries will 

review and approve or deem complete 

the Combined State Plan within 90 or 

120 days, as appropriate, as described in 

paragraph (e) of this section, unless the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education or 

appropriate Secretary have determined 

in writing within that period that: 

(1) The Combined State Plan is 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the six core programs or the Federal 

laws authorizing or applicable to the 

program or activity involved, including 

the criteria for approval of a plan or 

application, or deeming the plan 

complete, if any, under such law; 

(2) The portion of the Combined State 

Plan describing the six core programs or 

the program or activity described in 

paragraph (a) of this section involved 

does not satisfy the criteria as provided 

in sec. 102 or 103 of WIOA, as 

applicable; or 

(3) The Combined State Plan is 

incomplete, or otherwise insufficient to 

determine whether it is consistent with 

a core program’s requirements, other 

requirements of WIOA, or the Federal 

laws authorizing, or applicable to, the 

program or activity described in 

§ 676.140(d), including the criteria for 

approval of a plan or application, if any, 

under such law. 

(g) If the Secretary of Labor, the 

Secretary of Education, or the 

appropriate Secretary does not make the 

written determination described in 

paragraph (f) of this section within the 

relevant period of time after submission 

of the Combined State Plan, that portion 

of the Combined State Plan over which 

the Secretary has jurisdiction will be 

considered approved. 

(h) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education’s written determination of 

approval or disapproval regarding the 

portion of the plan for the six core 

programs may be separate from the 

written determination of approval, 

disapproval, or completeness of the 

program-specific requirements of 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

and activities described in § 676.140(d) 

and included in the Combined State 

Plan. 

(i) Special rule. In paragraphs (f)(1) 

and (3) of this section, the term ‘‘criteria 

for approval of a plan or application,’’ 

with respect to a State or a core program 

or a program under the Carl D. Perkins 

Career and Technical Education Act of 

2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), includes 

a requirement for agreement between 

the State and the appropriate Secretaries 

regarding State performance measures 

or State performance accountability 

measures, as the case may be, including 

levels of performance. 

§ 676.145 What are the requirements for 

modifications of the Combined State Plan? 

(a) For the core program portions of 

the Combined State Plan, modifications 

are required, at a minimum: 

(1) By the end of the first 2-year 

period of any 4-year State Plan. The 

State WDB must review the Combined 

State Plan, and the Governor must 

submit modifications to the Combined 

State Plan to reflect changes in labor 

market and economic conditions or 

other factors affecting the 

implementation of the Combined State 

Plan; 

(2) When changes in Federal or State 

law or policy substantially affect the 

strategies, goals, and priorities upon 

which the Combined State Plan is 

based; 

(3) When there are changes in the 

statewide vision, strategies, policies, 

State negotiated levels of performance 

as described in § 677.170(b) of this 

chapter, the methodology used to 

determine local allocation of funds, 

reorganizations that change the working 

relationship with system employees, 

changes in organizational 

responsibilities, changes to the 

membership structure of the State WDB 

or alternative entity, and similar 

substantial changes to the State’s 

workforce development system. 

(b) In addition to the required 

modification review described in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a State 

may submit a modification of its 

Combined State Plan at any time during 

the 4-year period of the plan. 

(c) For any Combined State Plan 

partner programs and activities 

described in § 676.140(d) that are 

included in a State’s Combined State 

Plan, the State— 

(1) May decide if the modification 

requirements under WIOA sec. 102(c)(3) 

that apply to the core programs will 

apply to the Combined State Plan 

partner programs, as long as consistent 

with any other modification 

requirements for the programs, or may 

comply with the requirements 

applicable to only the particular 

program or activity; and 

(2) Must submit, in accordance with 

the procedure described in § 676.143, 

any modification, amendment, or 

revision required by the Federal law 

authorizing, or applicable to, the 

Combined State Plan partner program or 

activity. 

(i) If the underlying programmatic 

requirements change (e.g., the 

authorizing statute is reauthorized) for 

Federal laws authorizing such programs, 

a State must either modify its Combined 

State Plan or submit a separate plan to 

the appropriate Federal agency in 

accordance with the new Federal law 

authorizing the Combined State Plan 

partner program or activity and other 

legal requirements applicable to such 

program or activity. 

(ii) If the modification, amendment, or 

revision affects the administration of 

only that particular Combined State 

Plan partner program and has no impact 

on the Combined State Plan as a whole 

or the integration and administration of 

the core and other Combined State Plan 

partner programs at the State level, 

modifications must be submitted for 

approval to only the appropriate 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56002 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Secretary, based on the approval 

standards applicable to the original 

Combined State Plan under § 676.143, if 

the State elects, or in accordance with 

the procedures and requirements 

applicable to the particular Combined 

State Plan partner program. 

(3) A State also may amend its 

Combined State Plan to add a Combined 

State Plan partner program or activity 

described in § 676.140(d). 

(d) Modifications of the Combined 

State Plan are subject to the same public 

review and comment requirements that 

apply to the development of the original 

Combined State Plan as described in 

§ 676.143(c) except that, if the 

modification, amendment, or revision 

affects the administration of a particular 

Combined State Plan partner program 

and has no impact on the Combined 

State Plan as a whole or the integration 

and administration of the core and other 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

at the State level, a State may comply 

instead with the procedures and 

requirements applicable to the 

particular Combined State Plan partner 

program. 

(e) Modifications for the core program 

portions of the Combined State Plan 

must be approved by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education, based on the 

approval standards applicable to the 

original Combined State Plan under 

§ 676.143. This approval must come 

after the approval of the Commissioner 

of the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration for modification of any 

portion of the Combined State Plan 

described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of 

WIOA. 

■ 2. Add part 677 to read as follows: 

PART 677—PERFORMANCE 

ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER TITLE I OF 

THE WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND 

OPPORTUNITY ACT 

Sec. 

677.150 What definitions apply to 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act performance accountability 

provisions? 

Subpart A—State Indicators of Performance 

for Core Programs 

677.155 What are the primary indicators of 

performance under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

677.160 What information is required for 

State performance reports? 

677.165 May a State establish additional 

indicators of performance? 

677.170 How are State levels of 

performance for primary indicators 

established? 

677.175 What responsibility do States have 

to use quarterly wage record information 

for performance accountability? 

Subpart B—Sanctions for State 

Performance and the Provision of Technical 

Assistance 

677.180 When is a State subject to a 

financial sanction under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

677.185 When are sanctions applied for a 

State’s failure to submit an annual 

performance report? 

677.190 When are sanctions applied for 

failure to achieve adjusted levels of 

performance? 

677.195 What should States expect when a 

sanction is applied to the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment? 

677.200 What other administrative actions 

will be applied to States’ performance 

requirements? 

Subpart C—Local Performance 

Accountability for Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act Title I Programs 

677.205 What performance indicators apply 

to local areas and what information must 

be included in local area performance 

reports? 

677.210 How are local performance levels 

established? 

Subpart D—Incentives and Sanctions for 

Local Performance for Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I 

Programs 

677.215 Under what circumstances are 

local areas eligible for State Incentive 

Grants? 

677.220 Under what circumstances may a 

corrective action or sanction be applied 

to local areas for poor performance? 

677.225 Under what circumstances may 

local areas appeal a reorganization plan? 

Subpart E—Eligible Training Provider 

Performance for Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act Title I Programs 

677.230 What information is required for 

the eligible training provider 

performance reports? 

Subpart F—Performance Reporting 

Administrative Requirements 

677.235 What are the reporting 

requirements for individual records for 

core Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) title I programs; 

the Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service program, as amended by WIOA 

title III; and the Vocational 

Rehabilitation program authorized under 

title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

as amended by WIOA title IV? 

677.240 What are the requirements for data 

validation of State annual performance 

reports? 

Authority: Secs. 116, 189, and 503 of Pub. 

L. 113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014). 

§ 677.150 What definitions apply to 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

performance accountability provisions? 

(a) Participant. A reportable 

individual who has received services 

other than the services described in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, after 

satisfying all applicable programmatic 

requirements for the provision of 

services, such as eligibility 

determination. 

(1) For the Vocational Rehabilitation 

(VR) program, a participant is a 

reportable individual who has an 

approved and signed Individualized 

Plan for Employment (IPE) and has 

begun to receive services. 

(2) For the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) title I youth 

program, a participant is a reportable 

individual who has satisfied all 

applicable program requirements for the 

provision of services, including 

eligibility determination, an objective 

assessment, and development of an 

individual service strategy, and received 

1 of the 14 WIOA youth program 

elements identified in sec. 129(c)(2) of 

WIOA. 

(3) The following individuals are not 

participants: 

(i) Individuals in an Adult Education 

and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) 

program who have not completed at 

least 12 contact hours; 

(ii) Individuals who only use the selfservice system. 

(A) Subject to paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of 

this section, self-service occurs when 

individuals independently access any 

workforce development system 

program’s information and activities in 

either a physical location, such as a onestop center resource room or partner 

agency, or remotely via the use of 

electronic technologies. 

(B) Self-service does not uniformly 

apply to all virtually accessed services. 

For example, virtually accessed services 

that provide a level of support beyond 

independent job or information seeking 

on the part of an individual would not 

qualify as self-service. 

(iii) Individuals who receive 

information-only services or activities, 

which provide readily available 

information that does not require an 

assessment by a staff member of the 

individual’s skills, education, or career 

objectives. 

(4) Programs must include 

participants in their performance 

calculations. 

(b) Reportable individual. An 

individual who has taken action that 

demonstrates an intent to use program 

services and who meets specific 

reporting criteria of the program, 

including: 

(1) Individuals who provide 

identifying information; 

(2) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; or 

(3) Individuals who only receive 

information-only services or activities. 

(c) Exit. As defined for the purpose of 

performance calculations, exit is the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56003 

point after which a participant who has 

received services through any program 

meets the following criteria: 

(1) For the adult, dislocated worker, 

and youth programs authorized under 

WIOA title I, the AEFLA program 

authorized under WIOA title II, and the 

Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 

Act, as amended by WIOA title III, exit 

date is the last date of service. 

(i) The last day of service cannot be 

determined until at least 90 days have 

elapsed since the participant last 

received services; services do not 

include self-service, information-only 

services or activities, or follow-up 

services. This also requires that there 

are no plans to provide the participant 

with future services. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(2)(i) For the VR program authorized 

under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended by WIOA title IV (VR 

program): 

(A) The participant’s record of service 

is closed in accordance with 34 CFR 

361.56 because the participant has 

achieved an employment outcome; or 

(B) The participant’s service record is 

closed because the individual has not 

achieved an employment outcome or 

the individual has been determined 

ineligible after receiving services in 

accordance with 34 CFR 361.43. 

(ii) Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this section, a participant 

will not be considered as meeting the 

definition of exit from the VR program 

if the participant’s service record is 

closed because the participant has 

achieved a supported employment 

outcome in an integrated setting but not 

in competitive integrated employment. 

(3)(i) A State may implement a 

common exit policy for all or some of 

the core programs in WIOA title I and 

the Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 

Act, as amended by WIOA title III, and 

any additional required partner 

program(s) listed in sec. 121(b)(1)(B) of 

WIOA that is under the authority of the 

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 

(ii) If a State chooses to implement a 

common exit policy, the policy must 

require that a participant is exited only 

when all of the criteria in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section are met for the 

WIOA title I core programs and the 

Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 

Act, as amended by WIOA title III, as 

well as any additional required partner 

programs listed in sec. 121(b)(1)(B) of 

WIOA under the authority of DOL to 

which the common exit policy applies 

in which the participant is enrolled. 

(d) State. For purposes of this part, 

other than in regard to sanctions or the 

statistical adjustment model, all 

references to ‘‘State’’ include the 

outlying areas of American Samoa, 

Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

and, as applicable, the Republic of 

Palau. 

Subpart A—State Indicators of 

Performance for Core Programs 

§ 677.155 What are the primary indicators 

of performance under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

(a) All States submitting either a 

Unified or Combined State Plan under 

§§ 676.130 and 676.143 of this chapter, 

must propose expected levels of 

performance for each of the primary 

indicators of performance for the adult, 

dislocated worker, and youth programs 

authorized under WIOA title I; the 

AEFLA program authorized under 

WIOA title II; the Employment Service 

program authorized under the WagnerPeyser Act, as amended by WIOA title 

III; and the VR program authorized 

under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended by WIOA title IV. 

(1) Primary indicators of performance. 

The six primary indicators of 

performance for the adult and 

dislocated worker programs, the AEFLA 

program, and the VR program are: 

(i) The percentage of participants who 

are in unsubsidized employment during 

the second quarter after exit from the 

program; 

(ii) The percentage of participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the fourth quarter after exit from 

the program; 

(iii) Median earnings of participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exit from 

the program; 

(iv)(A) The percentage of those 

participants enrolled in an education or 

training program (excluding those in onthe-job training [OJT] and customized 

training) who attained a recognized 

postsecondary credential or a secondary 

school diploma, or its recognized 

equivalent, during participation in or 

within 1 year after exit from the 

program. 

(B) A participant who has attained a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent is included in the 

percentage of participants who have 

attained a secondary school diploma or 

recognized equivalent only if the 

participant also is employed or is 

enrolled in an education or training 

program leading to a recognized 

postsecondary credential within 1 year 

after exit from the program; 

(v) The percentage of participants 

who, during a program year, are in an 

education or training program that leads 

to a recognized postsecondary 

credential or employment and who are 

achieving measurable skill gains, 

defined as documented academic, 

technical, occupational, or other forms 

of progress, towards such a credential or 

employment. Depending upon the type 

of education or training program, 

documented progress is defined as one 

of the following: 

(A) Documented achievement of at 

least one educational functioning level 

of a participant who is receiving 

instruction below the postsecondary 

education level; 

(B) Documented attainment of a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent; 

(C) Secondary or postsecondary 

transcript or report card for a sufficient 

number of credit hours that shows a 

participant is meeting the State unit’s 

academic standards; 

(D) Satisfactory or better progress 

report, towards established milestones, 

such as completion of OJT or 

completion of 1 year of an 

apprenticeship program or similar 

milestones, from an employer or 

training provider who is providing 

training; or 

(E) Successful passage of an exam that 

is required for a particular occupation or 

progress in attaining technical or 

occupational skills as evidenced by 

trade-related benchmarks such as 

knowledge-based exams. 

(vi) Effectiveness in serving 

employers. 

(2) Participants. For purposes of the 

primary indicators of performance in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, 

‘‘participant’’ will have the meaning 

given to it in § 677.150(a), except that— 

(i) For purposes of determining 

program performance levels under 

indicators set forth in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (iv) and (vi) of this 

section, a ‘‘participant’’ does not 

include a participant who received 

services under sec. 225 of WIOA and 

exits such program while still in a 

correctional institution as defined in 

sec. 225(e)(1) of WIOA; and 

(ii) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education may, as needed and 

consistent with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), make further 

determinations as to the participants to 

be included in calculating program 

performance levels for purposes of any 

of the performance indicators set forth 

in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(b) The primary indicators in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi) 

of this section apply to the Employment 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56004 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Service program authorized under the 

Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by 

WIOA title III. 

(c) For the youth program authorized 

under WIOA title I, the primary 

indicators are: 

(1) Percentage of participants who are 

in education or training activities, or in 

unsubsidized employment, during the 

second quarter after exit from the 

program; 

(2) Percentage of participants in 

education or training activities, or in 

unsubsidized employment, during the 

fourth quarter after exit from the 

program; 

(3) Median earnings of participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exit from 

the program; 

(4) The percentage of those 

participants enrolled in an education or 

training program (excluding those in 

OJT and customized training) who 

obtained a recognized postsecondary 

credential or a secondary school 

diploma, or its recognized equivalent, 

during participation in or within 1 year 

after exit from the program, except that 

a participant who has attained a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent is included as 

having attained a secondary school 

diploma or recognized equivalent only 

if the participant is also employed or is 

enrolled in an education or training 

program leading to a recognized 

postsecondary credential within 1 year 

from program exit; 

(5) The percentage of participants 

who during a program year, are in an 

education or training program that leads 

to a recognized postsecondary 

credential or employment and who are 

achieving measurable skill gains, 

defined as documented academic, 

technical, occupational or other forms of 

progress towards such a credential or 

employment. Depending upon the type 

of education or training program, 

documented progress is defined as one 

of the following: 

(i) Documented achievement of at 

least one educational functioning level 

of a participant who is receiving 

instruction below the postsecondary 

education level; 

(ii) Documented attainment of a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent; 

(iii) Secondary or postsecondary 

transcript or report card for a sufficient 

number of credit hours that shows a 

participant is achieving the State unit’s 

academic standards; 

(iv) Satisfactory or better progress 

report, towards established milestones, 

such as completion of OJT or 

completion of 1 year of an 

apprenticeship program or similar 

milestones, from an employer or 

training provider who is providing 

training; or 

(v) Successful passage of an exam that 

is required for a particular occupation or 

progress in attaining technical or 

occupational skills as evidenced by 

trade-related benchmarks such as 

knowledge-based exams. 

(6) Effectiveness in serving employers. 

§ 677.160 What information is required for 

State performance reports? 

(a) The State performance report 

required by sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA must 

be submitted annually using a template 

the Departments of Labor and Education 

will disseminate, and must provide, at 

a minimum, information on the actual 

performance levels achieved consistent 

with § 677.175 with respect to: 

(1) The total number of participants 

served, and the total number of 

participants who exited each of the core 

programs identified in sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA, including 

disaggregated counts of those who 

participated in and exited a core 

program, by: 

(i) Individuals with barriers to 

employment as defined in WIOA sec. 

3(24); and 

(ii) Co-enrollment in any of the 

programs in WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

(2) Information on the performance 

levels achieved for the primary 

indicators of performance for all of the 

core programs identified in § 677.155 

including disaggregated levels for: 

(i) Individuals with barriers to 

employment as defined in WIOA sec. 

3(24); 

(ii) Age; 

(iii) Sex; and 

(iv) Race and ethnicity. 

(3) The total number of participants 

who received career services and the 

total number of participants who exited 

from career services for the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, and the total number of 

participants who received training 

services and the total number of 

participants who exited from training 

services for the most recent program 

year and the 3 preceding program years, 

as applicable to the program; 

(4) Information on the performance 

levels achieved for the primary 

indicators of performance consistent 

with § 677.155 for career services and 

training services for the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program; 

(5) The percentage of participants in 

a program who attained unsubsidized 

employment related to the training 

received (often referred to as trainingrelated employment) through WIOA 

title I, subtitle B programs; 

(6) The amount of funds spent on 

career services and the amount of funds 

spent on training services for the most 

recent program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program; 

(7) The average cost per participant 

for those participants who received 

career services and training services, 

respectively, during the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program; 

(8) The percentage of a State’s annual 

allotment under WIOA sec. 132(b) that 

the State spent on administrative costs; 

and 

(9) Information that facilitates 

comparisons of programs with programs 

in other States. 

(10) For WIOA title I programs, a State 

performance narrative, which, for States 

in which a local area is implementing a 

pay-for-performance contracting 

strategy, at a minimum provides: 

(i) A description of pay-forperformance contract strategies being 

used for programs; 

(ii) The performance of service 

providers entering into contracts for 

such strategies, measured against the 

levels of performance specified in the 

contracts for such strategies; and 

(iii) An evaluation of the design of the 

programs and performance strategies 

and, when available, the satisfaction of 

employers and participants who 

received services under such strategies. 

(b) The disaggregation of data for the 

State performance report must be done 

in compliance with WIOA sec. 

116(d)(6)(C). 

(c) The State performance reports 

must include a mechanism of electronic 

access to the State’s local area and 

eligible training provider (ETP) 

performance reports. 

(d) States must comply with these 

requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as 

explained in joint guidance issued by 

the Departments of Labor and 

Education, which may include 

information on reportable individuals as 

determined by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Education. 

§ 677.165 May a State establish additional 

indicators of performance? 

States may identify additional 

indicators of performance for the six 

core programs. If a State does so, these 

indicators must be included in the 

Unified or Combined State Plan. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56005 

§ 677.170 How are State levels of 

performance for primary indicators 

established? 

(a) A State must submit in the State 

Plan expected levels of performance on 

the primary indicators of performance 

for each core program as required by 

sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(iii) of WIOA as 

explained in joint guidance issued by 

the Secretaries of Labor and Education. 

(1) The initial State Plan submitted 

under WIOA must contain expected 

levels of performance for the first 2 

years of the State Plan. 

(2) States must submit expected levels 

of performance for the third and fourth 

year of the State Plan before the third 

program year consistent with §§ 676.135 

and 676.145 of this chapter. 

(b) States must reach agreement on 

levels of performance with the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education for 

each indicator for each core program. 

These are the negotiated levels of 

performance. The negotiated levels must 

be based on the following factors: 

(1) How the negotiated levels of 

performance compare with State levels 

of performance established for other 

States; 

(2) The application of an objective 

statistical model established by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education, 

subject to paragraph (d) of this section; 

(3) How the negotiated levels promote 

continuous improvement in 

performance based on the primary 

indicators and ensure optimal return on 

investment of Federal funds; and 

(4) The extent to which the negotiated 

levels assist the State in meeting the 

performance goals established by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education for 

the core programs in accordance with 

the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993, as amended. 

(c) An objective statistical adjustment 

model will be developed and 

disseminated by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Education. The model will be based 

on: 

(1) Differences among States in actual 

economic conditions, including but not 

limited to unemployment rates and job 

losses or gains in particular industries; 

and 

(2) The characteristics of participants, 

including but not limited to: 

(i) Indicators of poor work history; 

(ii) Lack of work experience; 

(iii) Lack of educational or 

occupational skills attainment; 

(iv) Dislocation from high-wage and 

high-benefit employment; 

(v) Low levels of literacy; 

(vi) Low levels of English proficiency; 

(vii) Disability status; 

(viii) Homelessness; 

(ix) Ex-offender status; and 

(x) Welfare dependency. 

(d) The objective statistical 

adjustment model developed under 

paragraph (c) of this section will be: 

(1) Applied to the core programs’ 

primary indicators upon availability of 

data which are necessary to populate 

the model and apply the model to the 

local core programs; 

(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, used before the beginning of a 

program year in order to reach 

agreement on State negotiated levels for 

the upcoming program year; and 

(3) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, used to revise negotiated levels 

at the end of a program year based on 

actual economic conditions and 

characteristics of participants served, 

consistent with sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(vii) of 

WIOA. 

(e) The negotiated levels revised at the 

end of the program year, based on the 

statistical adjustment model, are the 

adjusted levels of performance. 

(f) States must comply with these 

requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as 

explained in joint guidance issued by 

the Departments of Labor and 

Education. 

§ 677.175 What responsibility do States 

have to use quarterly wage record 

information for performance 

accountability? 

(a)(1) States must, consistent with 

State laws, use quarterly wage record 

information in measuring a State’s 

performance on the primary indicators 

of performance outlined in § 677.155 

and a local area’s performance on the 

primary indicators of performance 

identified in § 677.205. 

(2) The use of social security numbers 

from participants and such other 

information as is necessary to measure 

the progress of those participants 

through quarterly wage record 

information is authorized. 

(3) To the extent that quarterly wage 

records are not available for a 

participant, States may use other 

information as is necessary to measure 

the progress of those participants 

through methods other than quarterly 

wage record information. 

(b) ‘‘Quarterly wage record 

information’’ means intrastate and 

interstate wages paid to an individual, 

the social security number (or numbers, 

if more than one) of the individual, and 

the name, address, State, and the 

Federal employer identification number 

of the employer paying the wages to the 

individual. 

(c) The Governor may designate a 

State agency (or appropriate State 

entity) to assist in carrying out the 

performance reporting requirements for 

WIOA core programs and ETPs. The 

Governor or such agency (or appropriate 

State entity) is responsible for: 

(1) Facilitating data matches; 

(2) Data quality reliability; and 

(3) Protection against disaggregation 

that would violate applicable privacy 

standards. 

Subpart B—Sanctions for State 

Performance and the Provision of 

Technical Assistance 

§ 677.180 When is a State subject to a 

financial sanction under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

A State will be subject to financial 

sanction under WIOA sec. 116(f) if it 

fails to: 

(a) Submit the State annual 

performance report required under 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(2); or 

(b) Meet adjusted levels of 

performance for the primary indicators 

of performance in accordance with sec. 

116(f) of WIOA. 

§ 677.185 When are sanctions applied for 

a State’s failure to submit an annual 

performance report? 

(a) Sanctions will be applied when a 

State fails to submit the State annual 

performance report required under sec. 

116(d)(2) of WIOA. A State fails to 

report if the State either: 

(1) Does not submit a State annual 

performance report by the date for 

timely submission set in performance 

reporting guidance; or 

(2) Submits a State annual 

performance report by the date for 

timely submission, but the report is 

incomplete. 

(b) Sanctions will not be applied if the 

reporting failure is due to exceptional 

circumstances outside of the State’s 

control. Exceptional circumstances may 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Natural disasters; 

(2) Unexpected personnel transitions; 

and 

(3) Unexpected technology related 

issues. 

(c) In the event that a State may not 

be able to submit a complete and 

accurate performance report by the 

deadline for timely reporting: 

(1) The State must notify the Secretary 

of Labor or Secretary of Education as 

soon as possible, but no later than 30 

days prior to the established deadline 

for submission, of a potential impact on 

the State’s ability to submit its State 

annual performance report in order to 

not be considered failing to report. 

(2) In circumstances where 

unexpected events occur less than 30 

days before the established deadline for 

submission of the State annual 

performance reports, the Secretaries of 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56006 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Labor and Education will review 

requests for extending the reporting 

deadline in accordance with the 

Departments of Labor and Education’s 

procedures that will be established in 

guidance. 

§ 677.190 When are sanctions applied for 

failure to achieve adjusted levels of 

performance? 

(a) States’ negotiated levels of 

performance will be adjusted through 

the application of the statistical 

adjustment model established under 

§ 677.170 to account for actual 

economic conditions experienced 

during a program year and 

characteristics of participants, annually 

at the close of each program year. 

(b) Any State that fails to meet 

adjusted levels of performance for the 

primary indicators of performance 

outlined in § 677.155 for any year will 

receive technical assistance, including 

assistance in the development of a 

performance improvement plan 

provided by the Secretary of Labor or 

Secretary of Education. 

(c) Whether a State has failed to meet 

adjusted levels of performance will be 

determined using the following three 

criteria: 

(1) The overall State program score, 

which is expressed as the percent 

achieved, compares the actual results 

achieved by a core program on the 

primary indicators of performance to the 

adjusted levels of performance for that 

core program. The average of the 

percentages achieved of the adjusted 

level of performance for each of the 

primary indicators by a core program 

will constitute the overall State program 

score. 

(2) However, until all indicators for 

the core program have at least 2 years 

of complete data, the overall State 

program score will be based on a 

comparison of the actual results 

achieved to the adjusted level of 

performance for each of the primary 

indicators that have at least 2 years of 

complete data for that program; 

(3) The overall State indicator score, 

which is expressed as the percent 

achieved, compares the actual results 

achieved on a primary indicator of 

performance by all core programs in a 

State to the adjusted levels of 

performance for that primary indicator. 

The average of the percentages achieved 

of the adjusted level of performance by 

all of the core programs on that 

indicator will constitute the overall 

State indicator score. 

(4) However, until all indicators for 

the State have at least 2 years of 

complete data, the overall State 

indicator score will be based on a 

comparison of the actual results 

achieved to the adjusted level of 

performance for each of the primary 

indicators that have at least 2 years of 

complete data in a State. 

(5) The individual indicator score, 

which is expressed as the percent 

achieved, compares the actual results 

achieved by each core program on each 

of the individual primary indicators to 

the adjusted levels of performance for 

each of the program’s primary indicators 

of performance. 

(d) A performance failure occurs 

when: 

(1) Any overall State program score or 

overall State indicator score falls below 

90 percent for the program year; or 

(2) Any of the States’ individual 

indicator scores fall below 50 percent 

for the program year. 

(e) Sanctions based on performance 

failure will be applied to States if, for 2 

consecutive years, the State fails to 

meet: 

(1) 90 percent of the overall State 

program score for the same core 

program; 

(2) 90 percent of the overall State 

indicator score for the same primary 

indicator; or 

(3) 50 percent of the same indicator 

score for the same program. 

§ 677.195 What should States expect when 

a sanction is applied to the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment? 

(a) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education will reduce the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment by five percent of the 

maximum available amount for the 

immediately succeeding program year 

if: 

(1) The State fails to submit the State 

annual performance reports as required 

under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2), as defined 

in § 677.185; 

(2) The State fails to meet State 

adjusted levels of performance for the 

same primary performance indicator(s) 

under either § 677.190(d)(1) for the 

second consecutive year as defined in 

§ 677.190; or 

(3) The State’s score on the same 

indicator for the same program falls 

below 50 percent under § 677.190(d)(2) 

for the second consecutive year as 

defined in § 677.190. 

(b) If the State fails under paragraphs 

(a)(1) and either (a)(2) or (3) of this 

section in the same program year, the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education will 

reduce the Governor’s Reserve 

Allotment by 10 percent of the 

maximum available amount for the 

immediately succeeding program year. 

(c) If a State’s Governor’s Reserve 

Allotment is reduced: 

(1) The reduced amount will not be 

returned to the State in the event that 

the State later improves performance or 

submits its annual performance report; 

and 

(2) The Governor’s Reserve will 

continue to be set at the reduced level 

in each subsequent year until the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education, depending on which 

program is impacted, determines that 

the State met the State adjusted levels 

of performance for the applicable 

primary performance indicators and has 

submitted all of the required 

performance reports. 

(d) A State may request review of a 

sanction the Secretary of Labor imposes 

in accordance with the provisions of 

§ 683.800 of this chapter. 

§ 677.200 What other administrative 

actions will be applied to States’ 

performance requirements? 

(a) In addition to sanctions for failure 

to report or failure to meet adjusted 

levels of performance, States will be 

subject to administrative actions in the 

case of poor performance. 

(b) States’ performance achievement 

on the individual primary indicators 

will be assessed in addition to the 

overall State program score and overall 

State indicator score. Based on this 

assessment, as clarified and explained 

in guidance, for performance on any 

individual primary indicator, the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education will require the State to 

establish a performance risk plan to 

address continuous improvement on the 

individual primary indicator. 

Subpart C—Local Performance 

Accountability for Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I 

Programs 

§ 677.205 What performance indicators 

apply to local areas and what information 

must be included in local area performance 

reports? 

(a) Each local area in a State under 

WIOA title I is subject to the same 

primary indicators of performance for 

the core programs for WIOA title I under 

§ 677.155(a)(1) and (c) that apply to the 

State. 

(b) In addition to the indicators 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, under § 677.165, the Governor 

may apply additional indicators of 

performance to local areas in the State. 

(c) States must annually make local 

area performance reports available to 

the public using a template that the 

Departments of Labor and Education 

will disseminate in guidance, including 

by electronic means. The State must 

provide electronic access to the public 

local area performance report in its 

annual State performance report. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56007 

(d) The local area performance report 

must include: 

(1) The actual results achieved under 

§ 677.155 and the information required 

under § 677.160(a); 

(2) The percentage of a local area’s 

allotment under WIOA secs. 128(b) and 

133(b) that the local area spent on 

administrative costs; and 

(3) Other information that facilitates 

comparisons of programs with programs 

in other local areas (or planning regions 

if the local area is part of a planning 

region). 

(e) The disaggregation of data for the 

local area performance report must be 

done in compliance with WIOA sec. 

116(d)(6)(C). 

(f) States must comply with any 

requirements from sec. 116(d)(3) of 

WIOA as explained in guidance, 

including the use of the performance 

reporting template, issued by DOL. 

§ 677.210 How are local performance 

levels established? 

(a) The objective statistical adjustment 

model required under sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of WIOA and 

described in § 677.170(c) must be: 

(1) Applied to the core programs’ 

primary indicators upon availability of 

data which are necessary to populate 

the model and apply the model to the 

local core programs; 

(2) Used in order to reach agreement 

on local negotiated levels of 

performance for the upcoming program 

year; and 

(3) Used to establish adjusted levels of 

performance at the end of a program 

year based on actual conditions, 

consistent with WIOA sec. 116(c)(3). 

(b) Until all indicators for the core 

program in a local area have at least 2 

years of complete data, the comparison 

of the actual results achieved to the 

adjusted levels of performance for each 

of the primary indicators only will be 

applied where there are at least 2 years 

of complete data for that program. 

(c) The Governor, Local Workforce 

Development Board (WDB), and chief 

elected official must reach agreement on 

local negotiated levels of performance 

based on a negotiations process before 

the start of a program year with the use 

of the objective statistical model 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section. The negotiations will include a 

discussion of circumstances not 

accounted for in the model and will take 

into account the extent to which the 

levels promote continuous 

improvement. The objective statistical 

model will be applied at the end of the 

program year based on actual economic 

conditions and characteristics of the 

participants served. 

(d) The negotiations process described 

in paragraph (c) of this section must be 

developed by the Governor and 

disseminated to all Local WDBs and 

chief elected officials. 

(e) The Local WDBs may apply 

performance measures to service 

providers that differ from the 

performance indicators that apply to the 

local area. These performance measures 

must be established after considering: 

(1) The established local negotiated 

levels; 

(2) The services provided by each 

provider; and 

(3) The populations the service 

providers are intended to serve. 

Subpart D—Incentives and Sanctions 

for Local Performance for Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I 

Programs 

§ 677.215 Under what circumstances are 

local areas eligible for State Incentive 

Grants? 

(a) The Governor is not required to 

award local incentive funds, but is 

authorized to provide incentive grants 

to local areas for performance on the 

primary indicators of performance 

consistent with WIOA sec. 

134(a)(3)(A)(xi). 

(b) The Governor may use nonFederal funds to create incentives for 

the Local WDBs to implement pay-forperformance contract strategies for the 

delivery of training services described 

in WIOA sec. 134(c)(3) or activities 

described in WIOA sec. 129(c)(2) in the 

local areas served by the Local WDBs. 

Pay-for-performance contract strategies 

must be implemented in accordance 

with part 683, subpart E of this chapter 

and § 677.160. 

§ 677.220 Under what circumstances may 

a corrective action or sanction be applied 

to local areas for poor performance? 

(a) If a local area fails to meet the 

adjusted levels of performance agreed to 

under § 677.210 for the primary 

indicators of performance in the adult, 

dislocated worker, and youth programs 

authorized under WIOA title I in any 

program year, technical assistance must 

be provided by the Governor or, upon 

the Governor’s request, by the Secretary 

of Labor. 

(1) A State must establish the 

threshold for failure to meet adjusted 

levels of performance for a local area 

before coming to agreement on the 

negotiated levels of performance for the 

local area. 

(i) A State must establish the adjusted 

level of performance for a local area, 

using the statistical adjustment model 

described in § 677.170(c). 

(ii) At least 2 years of complete data 

on any indicator for any local core 

program are required in order to 

establish adjusted levels of performance 

for a local area. 

(2) The technical assistance may 

include: 

(i) Assistance in the development of a 

performance improvement plan; 

(ii) The development of a modified 

local or regional plan; or 

(iii) Other actions designed to assist 

the local area in improving 

performance. 

(b) If a local area fails to meet the 

adjusted levels of performance agreed to 

under § 677.210 for the same primary 

indicators of performance for the same 

core program authorized under WIOA 

title I for a third consecutive program 

year, the Governor must take corrective 

actions. The corrective actions must 

include the development of a 

reorganization plan under which the 

Governor: 

(1) Requires the appointment and 

certification of a new Local WDB, 

consistent with the criteria established 

under § 679.350 of this chapter; 

(2) Prohibits the use of eligible 

providers and one-stop partners that 

have been identified as achieving poor 

levels of performance; or 

(3) Takes such other significant 

actions as the Governor determines are 

appropriate. 

§ 677.225 Under what circumstances may 

local areas appeal a reorganization plan? 

(a) The Local WDB and chief elected 

official for a local area that is subject to 

a reorganization plan under WIOA sec. 

116(g)(2)(A) may appeal to the Governor 

to rescind or revise the reorganization 

plan not later than 30 days after 

receiving notice of the reorganization 

plan. The Governor must make a final 

decision within 30 days after receipt of 

the appeal. 

(b) The Local WDB and chief elected 

official may appeal the final decision of 

the Governor to the Secretary of Labor 

not later than 30 days after receiving the 

decision from the Governor. Any appeal 

of the Governor’s final decision must be: 

(1) Appealed jointly by the Local 

WDB and chief elected official to the 

Secretary of Labor under § 683.650 of 

this chapter; and 

(2) Must be submitted by certified 

mail, return receipt requested, to the 

Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20210, Attention: 

ASET. A copy of the appeal must be 

simultaneously provided to the 

Governor. 

(c) Upon receipt of the joint appeal 

from the Local WDB and chief elected 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56008 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

official, the Secretary of Labor must 

make a final decision within 30 days. In 

making this determination the Secretary 

of Labor may consider any comments 

submitted by the Governor in response 

to the appeals. 

(d) The decision by the Governor on 

the appeal becomes effective at the time 

it is issued and remains effective unless 

the Secretary of Labor rescinds or 

revises the reorganization plan under 

WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(C). 

Subpart E—Eligible Training Provider 

Performance for Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act Title I Programs 

§ 677.230 What information is required for 

the eligible training provider performance 

reports? 

(a) States are required to make 

available and publish annually using a 

template the Departments of Labor and 

Education will disseminate including 

through electronic means, the ETP 

performance reports for ETPs who 

provide services under sec. 122 of 

WIOA that are described in §§ 680.400 

through 680.530 of this chapter. These 

reports at a minimum must include, 

consistent with § 677.175 and with 

respect to each program of study that is 

eligible to receive funds under WIOA: 

(1) The total number of participants as 

defined by § 677.150(a) who received 

training services under the adult and 

dislocated worker programs authorized 

under WIOA title I for the most recent 

year and the 3 preceding program years, 

including: 

(i) The number of participants under 

the adult and dislocated worker 

programs disaggregated by barriers to 

employment; 

(ii) The number of participants under 

the adult and dislocated worker 

programs disaggregated by race, 

ethnicity, sex, and age; 

(iii) The number of participants under 

the adult and dislocated worker 

programs disaggregated by the type of 

training entity for the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years; 

(2) The total number of participants 

who exit a program of study or its 

equivalent, including disaggregate 

counts by the type of training entity 

during the most recent program year 

and the 3 preceding program years; 

(3) The average cost-per-participant 

for participants who received training 

services for the most recent program 

year and the 3 preceding program years 

disaggregated by type of training entity; 

(4) The total number of individuals 

exiting from the program of study (or 

the equivalent) with respect to all 

individuals engaging in the program of 

study (or the equivalent); and 

(5) The levels of performance 

achieved for the primary indicators of 

performance identified in 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(i) through (iv) with 

respect to all individuals engaging in a 

program of study (or the equivalent). 

(b) Apprenticeship programs 

registered under the National 

Apprenticeship Act are not required to 

submit ETP performance information. If 

a registered apprenticeship program 

voluntarily submits performance 

information to a State, the State must 

include this information in the report. 

(c) The State must provide a 

mechanism of electronic access to the 

public ETP performance report in its 

annual State performance report. 

(d) States must comply with any 

requirements from sec. 116(d)(4) of 

WIOA as explained in guidance issued 

by DOL. 

(e) The Governor may designate one 

or more State agencies such as a State 

Education Agency or other State 

Educational Authority to assist in 

overseeing ETP performance and 

facilitating the production and 

dissemination of ETP performance 

reports. These agencies may be the same 

agencies that are designated as 

responsible for administering the ETP 

list as provided under § 680.500 of this 

chapter. The Governor or such agencies, 

or authorities, is responsible for: 

(1) Facilitating data matches between 

ETP records and unemployment 

insurance (UI) wage data in order to 

produce the report; 

(2) The creation and dissemination of 

the reports as described in paragraphs 

(a) through (d) of this section; 

(3) Coordinating the dissemination of 

the performance reports with the ETP 

list and the information required to 

accompany the list, as provided in 

§ 680.500 of this chapter. 

Subpart F—Performance Reporting 

Administrative Requirements 

§ 677.235 What are the reporting 

requirements for individual records for core 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA) title I programs; the Wagner-Peyser 

Act Employment Service program, as 

amended by WIOA title III; and the 

Vocational Rehabilitation program 

authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended by WIOA title IV? 

(a) On a quarterly basis, each State 

must submit to the Secretary of Labor or 

the Secretary of Education, as 

appropriate, individual records that 

include demographic information, 

information on services received, and 

information on resulting outcomes, as 

appropriate, for each reportable 

individual in either of the following 

programs administered by the Secretary 

of Labor or Secretary of Education: A 

WIOA title I core program; the 

Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 

Act, as amended by WIOA title III; or 

the VR program authorized under title I 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended by WIOA title IV. 

(b) For individual records submitted 

to the Secretary of Labor, those records 

may be required to be integrated across 

all programs administered by the 

Secretary of Labor in one single file. 

(c) States must comply with the 

requirements of sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA 

as explained in guidance issued by the 

Departments of Labor and Education. 

§ 677.240 What are the requirements for 

data validation of State annual performance 

reports? 

(a) States must establish procedures, 

consistent with guidelines issued by the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education, to ensure that they submit 

complete annual performance reports 

that contain information that is valid 

and reliable, as required by WIOA sec. 

116(d)(5). 

(b) If a State fails to meet standards in 

paragraph (a) of this section as 

determined by the Secretary of Labor or 

the Secretary of Education, the 

appropriate Secretary will provide 

technical assistance and may require the 

State to develop and implement 

corrective actions, which may require 

the State to provide training for its 

subrecipients. 

(c) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education will provide training and 

technical assistance to States in order to 

implement this section. States must 

comply with the requirements of sec. 

116(d)(5) of WIOA as explained in 

guidance. 

■ 3. Add part 678 to read as follows: 

PART 678—DESCRIPTION OF THE 

ONE-STOP DELIVERY SYSTEM 

UNDER TITLE I OF THE WORKFORCE 

INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY ACT 

Subpart A—General Description of the OneStop Delivery System 

Sec. 

678.300 What is the one-stop delivery 

system? 

678.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop 

center and what must be provided there? 

678.310 What is an affiliated site and what 

must be provided there? 

678.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser 

Act Employment Service office be 

designated as an affiliated one-stop site? 

678.320 Are there any requirements for 

networks of eligible one-stop partners or 

specialized centers? 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56009 

Subpart B—One-Stop Partners and the 

Responsibilities of Partners 

678.400 Who are the required one-stop 

partners? 

678.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families a required one-stop partner? 

678.410 What other entities may serve as 

one-stop partners? 

678.415 What entity serves as the one-stop 

partner for a particular program in the 

local area? 

678.420 What are the roles and 

responsibilities of the required one-stop 

partners? 

678.425 What are the applicable career 

services that must be provided through 

the one-stop delivery system by required 

one-stop partners? 

678.430 What are career services? 

678.435 What are the business services 

provided through the one-stop delivery 

system, and how are they provided? 

678.440 When may a fee be charged for the 

business services in this subpart? 

Subpart C—Memorandum of Understanding 

for the One-Stop Delivery System 

678.500 What is the Memorandum of 

Understanding for the one-stop delivery 

system and what must be included in the 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

678.505 Is there a single Memorandum of 

Understanding for the local area, or must 

there be different Memoranda of 

Understanding between the Local 

Workforce Development Board and each 

partner? 

678.510 How must the Memorandum of 

Understanding be negotiated? 

Subpart D—One-Stop Operators 

678.600 Who may operate one-stop centers? 

678.605 How is the one-stop operator 

selected? 

678.610 When is the sole-source selection 

of one-stop operators appropriate, and 

how is it conducted? 

678.615 May an entity currently serving as 

one-stop operator compete to be a onestop operator under the procurement 

requirements of this subpart? 

678.620 What is the one-stop operator’s 

role? 

678.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a 

service provider? 

678.630 Can State merit staff still work in 

a one-stop center where the operator is 

not a governmental entity? 

678.635 What is the compliance date of the 

provisions of this subpart? 

Subpart E—One-Stop Operating Costs 

678.700 What are the one-stop 

infrastructure costs? 

678.705 What guidance must the Governor 

issue regarding one-stop infrastructure 

funding? 

678.710 How are infrastructure costs 

funded? 

678.715 How are one-stop infrastructure 

costs funded in the local funding 

mechanism? 

678.720 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the local one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

678.725 What happens if consensus on 

infrastructure funding is not reached at 

the local level between the Local 

Workforce Development Board, chief 

elected officials, and one-stop partners? 

678.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

678.731 What are the steps to determine the 

amount to be paid under the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

678.735 How are infrastructure cost budgets 

for the one-stop centers in a local area 

determined in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

678.736 How does the Governor establish a 

cost allocation methodology used to 

determine the one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs under the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

678.737 How are one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs determined under 

the State one-stop infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

678.738 How are statewide caps on the 

contributions for one-stop infrastructure 

funding determined in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

678.740 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

678.745 What factors does the State 

Workforce Development Board use to 

develop the formula described in 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act, which is used by the Governor to 

determine the appropriate one-stop 

infrastructure budget for each local area 

operating under the State infrastructure 

funding mechanism, if no reasonably 

implementable locally negotiated budget 

exists? 

678.750 When and how can a one-stop 

partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure 

amount designated by the State under 

the State infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

678.755 What are the required elements 

regarding infrastructure funding that 

must be included in the one-stop 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

678.760 How do one-stop partners jointly 

fund other shared costs under the 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

Subpart F—One-Stop Certification 

678.800 How are one-stop centers and onestop delivery systems certified for 

effectiveness, physical and programmatic 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement? 

Subpart G—Common Identifier 

678.900 What is the common identifier to 

be used by each one-stop delivery 

system? 

Authority: Secs. 503, 107, 121, 134, 189, 

Pub. L. 113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 

2014). 

Subpart A—General Description of the 

One-Stop Delivery System 

§ 678.300 What is the one-stop delivery 

system? 

(a) The one-stop delivery system 

brings together workforce development, 

educational, and other human resource 

services in a seamless customer-focused 

service delivery network that enhances 

access to the programs’ services and 

improves long-term employment 

outcomes for individuals receiving 

assistance. One-stop partners administer 

separately funded programs as a set of 

integrated streamlined services to 

customers. 

(b) Title I of the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act (WIOA) assigns 

responsibilities at the local, State, and 

Federal level to ensure the creation and 

maintenance of a one-stop delivery 

system that enhances the range and 

quality of education and workforce 

development services that employers 

and individual customers can access. 

(c) The system must include at least 

one comprehensive physical center in 

each local area as described in 

§ 678.305. 

(d) The system may also have 

additional arrangements to supplement 

the comprehensive center. These 

arrangements include: 

(1) An affiliated site or a network of 

affiliated sites, where one or more 

partners make programs, services, and 

activities available, as described in 

§ 678.310; 

(2) A network of eligible one-stop 

partners, as described in §§ 678.400 

through 678.410, through which each 

partner provides one or more of the 

programs, services, and activities that 

are linked, physically or 

technologically, to an affiliated site or 

access point that assures customers are 

provided information on the availability 

of career services, as well as other 

program services and activities, 

regardless of where they initially enter 

the public workforce system in the local 

area; and 

(3) Specialized centers that address 

specific needs, including those of 

dislocated workers, youth, or key 

industry sectors, or clusters. 

(e) Required one-stop partner 

programs must provide access to 

programs, services, and activities 

through electronic means if applicable 

and practicable. This is in addition to 

providing access to services through the 

mandatory comprehensive physical onestop center and any affiliated sites or 

specialized centers. The provision of 

programs and services by electronic 

methods such as Web sites, telephones, 

or other means must improve the 

efficiency, coordination, and quality of 

one-stop partner services. Electronic 

delivery must not replace access to such 

services at a comprehensive one-stop 

center or be a substitute to making 

services available at an affiliated site if 

the partner is participating in an 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56010 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

affiliated site. Electronic delivery 

systems must be in compliance with the 

nondiscrimination and equal 

opportunity provisions of WIOA sec. 

188 and its implementing regulations at 

29 CFR part 38. 

(f) The design of the local area’s onestop delivery system must be described 

in the Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) executed with the one-stop 

partners, described in § 678.500. 

§ 678.305 What is a comprehensive onestop center and what must be provided 

there? 

(a) A comprehensive one-stop center 

is a physical location where job seeker 

and employer customers can access the 

programs, services, and activities of all 

required one-stop partners. A 

comprehensive one-stop center must 

have at least one title I staff person 

physically present. 

(b) The comprehensive one-stop 

center must provide: 

(1) Career services, described in 

§ 678.430; 

(2) Access to training services 

described in § 680.200 of this chapter; 

(3) Access to any employment and 

training activities carried out under sec. 

134(d) of WIOA; 

(4) Access to programs and activities 

carried out by one-stop partners listed 

in §§ 678.400 through 678.410, 

including the Employment Service 

program authorized under the WagnerPeyser Act, as amended by WIOA title 

III (Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service program); and 

(5) Workforce and labor market 

information. 

(c) Customers must have access to 

these programs, services, and activities 

during regular business days at a 

comprehensive one-stop center. The 

Local Workforce Development Board 

(WDB) may establish other service hours 

at other times to accommodate the 

schedules of individuals who work on 

regular business days. The State WDB 

will evaluate the hours of access to 

service as part of the evaluation of 

effectiveness in the one-stop 

certification process described in 

§ 678.800(b). 

(d) ‘‘Access’’ to each partner program 

and its services means: 

(1) Having a program staff member 

physically present at the one-stop 

center; 

(2) Having a staff member from a 

different partner program physically 

present at the one-stop center 

appropriately trained to provide 

information to customers about the 

programs, services, and activities 

available through partner programs; or 

(3) Making available a direct linkage 

through technology to program staff 

who can provide meaningful 

information or services. 

(i) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ means 

providing direct connection at the onestop center, within a reasonable time, by 

phone or through a real-time Web-based 

communication to a program staff 

member who can provide program 

information or services to the customer. 

(ii) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ cannot 

exclusively be providing a phone 

number or computer Web site or 

providing information, pamphlets, or 

materials. 

(e) All comprehensive one-stop 

centers must be physically and 

programmatically accessible to 

individuals with disabilities, as 

described in 29 CFR part 38, the 

implementing regulations of WIOA sec. 

188. 

§ 678.310 What is an affiliated site and 

what must be provided there? 

(a) An affiliated site, or affiliate onestop center, is a site that makes available 

to job seeker and employer customers 

one or more of the one-stop partners’ 

programs, services, and activities. An 

affiliated site does not need to provide 

access to every required one-stop 

partner program. The frequency of 

program staff’s physical presence in the 

affiliated site will be determined at the 

local level. Affiliated sites are access 

points in addition to the comprehensive 

one-stop center(s) in each local area. If 

used by local areas as a part of the 

service delivery strategy, affiliate sites 

must be implemented in a manner that 

supplements and enhances customer 

access to services. 

(b) As described in § 678.315, WagnerPeyser Act employment services cannot 

be a stand-alone affiliated site. 

(c) States, in conjunction with the 

Local WDBs, must examine lease 

agreements and property holdings 

throughout the one-stop delivery system 

in order to use property in an efficient 

and effective way. Where necessary and 

appropriate, States and Local WDBs 

must take expeditious steps to align 

lease expiration dates with efforts to 

consolidate one-stop operations into 

service points where Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services are colocated as 

soon as reasonably possible. These steps 

must be included in the State Plan. 

(d) All affiliated sites must be 

physically and programmatically 

accessible to individuals with 

disabilities, as described in 29 CFR part 

38, the implementing regulations of 

WIOA sec. 188. 

§ 678.315 Can a stand-alone WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service office be 

designated as an affiliated one-stop site? 

(a) Separate stand-alone WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service offices 

are not permitted under WIOA, as also 

described in § 652.202 of this chapter. 

(b) If Wagner-Peyser Act employment 

services are provided at an affiliated 

site, there must be at least one or more 

other partners in the affiliated site with 

a physical presence of combined staff 

more than 50 percent of the time the 

center is open. Additionally, the other 

partner must not be the partner 

administering local veterans’ 

employment representatives, disabled 

veterans’ outreach program specialists, 

or unemployment compensation 

programs. If Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services and any of these 3 

programs are provided at an affiliated 

site, an additional partner or partners 

must have a presence of combined staff 

in the center more than 50 percent of 

the time the center is open. 

§ 678.320 Are there any requirements for 

networks of eligible one-stop partners or 

specialized centers? 

Any network of one-stop partners or 

specialized centers, as described in 

§ 678.300(d)(3), must be connected to 

the comprehensive one-stop center and 

any appropriate affiliate one-stop 

centers, for example, by having 

processes in place to make referrals to 

these centers and the partner programs 

located in them. Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services cannot stand alone 

in a specialized center. Just as described 

in § 678.315 for an affiliated site, a 

specialized center must include other 

programs besides Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services, local veterans’ 

employment representatives, disabled 

veterans’ outreach program specialists, 

and unemployment compensation. 

Subpart B—One-Stop Partners and the 

Responsibilities of Partners 

§ 678.400 Who are the required one-stop 

partners? 

(a) Section 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA 

identifies the entities that are required 

partners in the local one-stop delivery 

systems. 

(b) The required partners are the 

entities responsible for administering 

the following programs and activities in 

the local area: 

(1) Programs authorized under title I 

of WIOA, including: 

(i) Adults; 

(ii) Dislocated workers; 

(iii) Youth; 

(iv) Job Corps; 

(v) YouthBuild; 

(vi) Native American programs; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56011 

(vii) Migrant and seasonal farmworker 

programs; 

(2) The Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act 

(29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.), as amended by 

WIOA title III; 

(3) The Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act (AEFLA) program 

authorized under title II of WIOA; 

(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) 

program authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 

720 et seq.), as amended by WIOA title 

IV; 

(5) The Senior Community Service 

Employment Program authorized under 

title V of the Older Americans Act of 

1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.); 

(6) Career and technical education 

programs at the postsecondary level 

authorized under the Carl D. Perkins 

Career and Technical Education Act of 

2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.); 

(7) Trade Adjustment Assistance 

activities authorized under chapter 2 of 

title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 

U.S.C. 2271 et seq.); 

(8) Jobs for Veterans State Grants 

programs authorized under chapter 41 

of title 38, U.S.C.; 

(9) Employment and training 

activities carried out under the 

Community Services Block Grant (42 

U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); 

(10) Employment and training 

activities carried out by the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development; 

(11) Programs authorized under State 

unemployment compensation laws (in 

accordance with applicable Federal 

law); 

(12) Programs authorized under sec. 

212 of the Second Chance Act of 2007 

(42 U.S.C. 17532); and 

(13) Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) authorized under part 

A of title IV of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), unless exempted 

by the Governor under § 678.405(b). 

§ 678.405 Is Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families a required one-stop 

partner? 

(a) Yes, TANF, authorized under part 

A of title IV of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), is a required 

partner. 

(b) The Governor may determine that 

TANF will not be a required partner in 

the State, or within some specific local 

areas in the State. In this instance, the 

Governor must notify the Secretaries of 

the U.S. Departments of Labor and 

Health and Human Services in writing 

of this determination. 

(c) In States, or local areas within a 

State, where the Governor has 

determined that TANF is not required to 

be a partner, local TANF programs may 

still work in collaboration or 

partnership with the local one-stop 

centers to deliver employment and 

training services to the TANF 

population unless inconsistent with the 

Governor’s direction. 

§ 678.410 What other entities may serve as 

one-stop partners? 

(a) Other entities that carry out a 

workforce development program, 

including Federal, State, or local 

programs and programs in the private 

sector, may serve as additional partners 

in the one-stop delivery system if the 

Local WDB and chief elected official(s) 

approve the entity’s participation. 

(b) Additional partners may include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Employment and training 

programs administered by the Social 

Security Administration, including the 

Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency 

Program established under sec. 1148 of 

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1320b-19); 

(2) Employment and training 

programs carried out by the Small 

Business Administration; 

(3) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) employment and 

training programs, authorized under 

secs. 6(d)(4) and 6(o) of the Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 

2015(d)(4)); 

(4) Client Assistance Program 

authorized under sec. 112 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 

732); 

(5) Programs authorized under the 

National and Community Service Act of 

1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.); and 

(6) Other appropriate Federal, State or 

local programs, including, but not 

limited to, employment, education, and 

training programs provided by public 

libraries or in the private sector. 

§ 678.415 What entity serves as the onestop partner for a particular program in the 

local area? 

(a) The entity that carries out the 

program and activities listed in 

§ 678.400 or § 678.410, and therefore 

serves as the one-stop partner, is the 

grant recipient, administrative entity, or 

organization responsible for 

administering the funds of the specified 

program in the local area. The term 

‘‘entity’’ does not include the service 

providers that contract with, or are 

subrecipients of, the local 

administrative entity. For programs that 

do not include local administrative 

entities, the responsible State agency 

must be the partner. Specific entities for 

particular programs are identified in 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 

section. If a program or activity listed in 

§ 678.400 is not carried out in a local 

area, the requirements relating to a 

required one-stop partner are not 

applicable to such program or activity in 

that local one-stop delivery system. 

(b) For title II of WIOA, the entity or 

agency that carries out the program for 

the purposes of paragraph (a) of this 

section is the sole entity or agency in 

the State or outlying area responsible for 

administering or supervising policy for 

adult education and literacy activities in 

the State or outlying area. The State 

eligible entity or agency may delegate its 

responsibilities under paragraph (a) of 

this section to one or more eligible 

providers or consortium of eligible 

providers. 

(c) For the VR program, authorized 

under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended by WIOA title IV, the 

entity that carries out the program for 

the purposes of paragraph (a) of this 

section is the designated State agencies 

or designated State units specified 

under sec. 101(a)(2) of the 

Rehabilitation Act that is primarily 

concerned with vocational 

rehabilitation, or vocational and other 

rehabilitation, of individuals with 

disabilities. 

(d) Under WIOA title I, the national 

programs, including Job Corps, the 

Native American program, YouthBuild, 

and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker 

programs are required one-stop partners. 

The entity for the Native American 

program, YouthBuild, and Migrant and 

Seasonal Farmworker programs is the 

grantee of those respective programs. 

The entity for Job Corps is the Job Corps 

center. 

(e) For the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act of 2006, the 

entity that carries out the program for 

the purposes of paragraph (a) of this 

section is the eligible recipient or 

recipients at the postsecondary level, or 

a consortium of eligible recipients at the 

postsecondary level in the local area. 

The eligible recipient at the 

postsecondary level may also request 

assistance from the State eligible agency 

in completing its responsibilities under 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

§ 678.420 What are the roles and 

responsibilities of the required one-stop 

partners? 

Each required partner must: 

(a) Provide access to its programs or 

activities through the one-stop delivery 

system, in addition to any other 

appropriate locations; 

(b) Use a portion of funds made 

available to the partner’s program, to the 

extent consistent with the Federal law 

authorizing the partner’s program and 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56012 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

with Federal cost principles in 2 CFR 

parts 200 and 2900 (requiring, among 

other things, that costs are allowable, 

reasonable, necessary, and allocable), to: 

(1) Provide applicable career services; 

and 

(2) Work collaboratively with the 

State and Local WDBs to establish and 

maintain the one-stop delivery system. 

This includes jointly funding the onestop infrastructure through partner 

contributions that are based upon: 

(i) A reasonable cost allocation 

methodology by which infrastructure 

costs are charged to each partner based 

on proportionate use and relative 

benefit received; 

(ii) Federal cost principles; and 

(iii) Any local administrative cost 

requirements in the Federal law 

authorizing the partner’s program. (This 

is further described in § 678.700.) 

(c) Enter into an MOU with the Local 

WDB relating to the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system that meets the 

requirements of § 678.500(b); 

(d) Participate in the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system consistent 

with the terms of the MOU, 

requirements of authorizing laws, the 

Federal cost principles, and all other 

applicable legal requirements; and 

(e) Provide representation on the State 

and Local WDBs as required and 

participate in Board committees as 

needed. 

§ 678.425 What are the applicable career 

services that must be provided through the 

one-stop delivery system by required onestop partners? 

(a) The applicable career services to 

be delivered by required one-stop 

partners are those services listed in 

§ 678.430 that are authorized to be 

provided under each partner’s program. 

(b) One-stop centers provide services 

to individual customers based on 

individual needs, including the 

seamless delivery of multiple services to 

individual customers. There is no 

required sequence of services. 

§ 678.430 What are career services? 

Career services, as identified in sec. 

134(c)(2) of WIOA, consist of three 

types: 

(a) Basic career services must be made 

available and, at a minimum, must 

include the following services, as 

consistent with allowable program 

activities and Federal cost principles: 

(1) Determinations of whether the 

individual is eligible to receive 

assistance from the adult, dislocated 

worker, or youth programs; 

(2) Outreach, intake (including worker 

profiling), and orientation to 

information and other services available 

through the one-stop delivery system. 

For the TANF program, States must 

provide individuals with the 

opportunity to initiate an application for 

TANF assistance and non-assistance 

benefits and services, which could be 

implemented through the provision of 

paper application forms or links to the 

application Web site; 

(3) Initial assessment of skill levels 

including literacy, numeracy, and 

English language proficiency, as well as 

aptitudes, abilities (including skills 

gaps), and supportive services needs; 

(4) Labor exchange services, 

including— 

(i) Job search and placement 

assistance, and, when needed by an 

individual, career counseling, 

including— 

(A) Provision of information on indemand industry sectors and 

occupations (as defined in sec. 3(23) of 

WIOA); and 

(B) Provision of information on 

nontraditional employment; and 

(ii) Appropriate recruitment and other 

business services on behalf of 

employers, including information and 

referrals to specialized business services 

other than those traditionally offered 

through the one-stop delivery system; 

(5) Provision of referrals to and 

coordination of activities with other 

programs and services, including 

programs and services within the onestop delivery system and, when 

appropriate, other workforce 

development programs; 

(6) Provision of workforce and labor 

market employment statistics 

information, including the provision of 

accurate information relating to local, 

regional, and national labor market 

areas, including— 

(i) Job vacancy listings in labor market 

areas; 

(ii) Information on job skills necessary 

to obtain the vacant jobs listed; and 

(iii) Information relating to local 

occupations in demand and the 

earnings, skill requirements, and 

opportunities for advancement for those 

jobs; 

(7) Provision of performance 

information and program cost 

information on eligible providers of 

education, training, and workforce 

services by program and type of 

providers; 

(8) Provision of information, in usable 

and understandable formats and 

languages, about how the local area is 

performing on local performance 

accountability measures, as well as any 

additional performance information 

relating to the area’s one-stop delivery 

system; 

(9) Provision of information, in usable 

and understandable formats and 

languages, relating to the availability of 

supportive services or assistance, and 

appropriate referrals to those services 

and assistance, including: Child care; 

child support; medical or child health 

assistance available through the State’s 

Medicaid program and Children’s 

Health Insurance Program; benefits 

under SNAP; assistance through the 

earned income tax credit; and assistance 

under a State program for TANF, and 

other supportive services and 

transportation provided through that 

program; 

(10) Provision of information and 

meaningful assistance to individuals 

seeking assistance in filing a claim for 

unemployment compensation. 

(i) ‘‘Meaningful assistance’’ means: 

(A) Providing assistance on-site using 

staff who are well-trained in 

unemployment compensation claims 

filing and the rights and responsibilities 

of claimants; or 

(B) Providing assistance by phone or 

via other technology, as long as the 

assistance is provided by trained and 

available staff and within a reasonable 

time. 

(ii) The costs associated in providing 

this assistance may be paid for by the 

State’s unemployment insurance 

program, or the WIOA adult or 

dislocated worker programs, or some 

combination thereof. 

(11) Assistance in establishing 

eligibility for programs of financial aid 

assistance for training and education 

programs not provided under WIOA. 

(b) Individualized career services 

must be made available if determined to 

be appropriate in order for an individual 

to obtain or retain employment. These 

services include the following services, 

as consistent with program 

requirements and Federal cost 

principles: 

(1) Comprehensive and specialized 

assessments of the skill levels and 

service needs of adults and dislocated 

workers, which may include— 

(i) Diagnostic testing and use of other 

assessment tools; and 

(ii) In-depth interviewing and 

evaluation to identify employment 

barriers and appropriate employment 

goals; 

(2) Development of an individual 

employment plan, to identify the 

employment goals, appropriate 

achievement objectives, and appropriate 

combination of services for the 

participant to achieve his or her 

employment goals, including the list of, 

and information about, the eligible 

training providers (as described in 

§ 680.180 of this chapter); 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56013 

(3) Group counseling; 

(4) Individual counseling; 

(5) Career planning; 

(6) Short-term pre-vocational services 

including development of learning 

skills, communication skills, 

interviewing skills, punctuality, 

personal maintenance skills, and 

professional conduct services to prepare 

individuals for unsubsidized 

employment or training; 

(7) Internships and work experiences 

that are linked to careers (as described 

in § 680.170 of this chapter); 

(8) Workforce preparation activities; 

(9) Financial literacy services as 

described in sec. 129(b)(2)(D) of WIOA 

and § 681.500 of this chapter; 

(10) Out-of-area job search assistance 

and relocation assistance; and 

(11) English language acquisition and 

integrated education and training 

programs. 

(c) Follow-up services must be 

provided, as appropriate, including: 

Counseling regarding the workplace, for 

participants in adult or dislocated 

worker workforce investment activities 

who are placed in unsubsidized 

employment, for up to 12 months after 

the first day of employment. 

(d) In addition to the requirements in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, TANF 

agencies must identify employment 

services and related support being 

provided by the TANF program (within 

the local area) that qualify as career 

services and ensure access to them via 

the local one-stop delivery system. 

§ 678.435 What are the business services 

provided through the one-stop delivery 

system, and how are they provided? 

(a) Certain career services must be 

made available to local employers, 

specifically labor exchange activities 

and labor market information described 

in § 678.430(a)(4)(ii) and (a)(6). Local 

areas must establish and develop 

relationships and networks with large 

and small employers and their 

intermediaries. Local areas also must 

develop, convene, or implement 

industry or sector partnerships. 

(b) Customized business services may 

be provided to employers, employer 

associations, or other such 

organizations. These services are 

tailored for specific employers and may 

include: 

(1) Customized screening and referral 

of qualified participants in training 

services to employers; 

(2) Customized services to employers, 

employer associations, or other such 

organizations, on employment-related 

issues; 

(3) Customized recruitment events 

and related services for employers 

including targeted job fairs; 

(4) Human resource consultation 

services, including but not limited to 

assistance with: 

(i) Writing/reviewing job descriptions 

and employee handbooks; 

(ii) Developing performance 

evaluation and personnel policies; 

(iii) Creating orientation sessions for 

new workers; 

(iv) Honing job interview techniques 

for efficiency and compliance; 

(v) Analyzing employee turnover; 

(vi) Creating job accommodations and 

using assistive technologies; or 

(vii) Explaining labor and 

employment laws to help employers 

comply with discrimination, wage/hour, 

and safety/health regulations; 

(5) Customized labor market 

information for specific employers, 

sectors, industries or clusters; and 

(6) Other similar customized services. 

(c) Local areas may also provide other 

business services and strategies that 

meet the workforce investment needs of 

area employers, in accordance with 

partner programs’ statutory 

requirements and consistent with 

Federal cost principles. These business 

services may be provided through 

effective business intermediaries 

working in conjunction with the Local 

WDB, or through the use of economic 

development, philanthropic, and other 

public and private resources in a 

manner determined appropriate by the 

Local WDB and in cooperation with the 

State. Allowable activities, consistent 

with each partner’s authorized 

activities, include, but are not limited 

to: 

(1) Developing and implementing 

industry sector strategies (including 

strategies involving industry 

partnerships, regional skills alliances, 

industry skill panels, and sectoral skills 

partnerships); 

(2) Customized assistance or referral 

for assistance in the development of a 

registered apprenticeship program; 

(3) Developing and delivering 

innovative workforce investment 

services and strategies for area 

employers, which may include career 

pathways, skills upgrading, skill 

standard development and certification 

for recognized postsecondary credential 

or other employer use, and other 

effective initiatives for meeting the 

workforce investment needs of area 

employers and workers; 

(4) Assistance to area employers in 

managing reductions in force in 

coordination with rapid response 

activities and with strategies for the 

aversion of layoffs, which may include 

strategies such as early identification of 

firms at risk of layoffs, use of feasibility 

studies to assess the needs of and 

options for at-risk firms, and the 

delivery of employment and training 

activities to address risk factors; 

(5) The marketing of business services 

to appropriate area employers, 

including small and mid-sized 

employers; and 

(6) Assisting employers with 

accessing local, State, and Federal tax 

credits. 

(d) All business services and 

strategies must be reflected in the local 

plan, described in § 679.560(b)(3) of this 

chapter. 

§ 678.440 When may a fee be charged for 

the business services in this subpart? 

(a) There is no requirement that a feefor-service be charged to employers. 

(b) No fee may be charged for services 

provided in § 678.435(a). 

(c) A fee may be charged for services 

provided under § 678.435(b) and (c). 

Services provided under § 678.435(c) 

may be provided through effective 

business intermediaries working in 

conjunction with the Local WDB and 

may also be provided on a fee-forservice basis or through the leveraging 

of economic development, 

philanthropic, and other public and 

private resources in a manner 

determined appropriate by the Local 

WDB. The Local WDB may examine the 

services provided compared with the 

assets and resources available within 

the local one-stop delivery system and 

through its partners to determine an 

appropriate cost structure for services, if 

any. 

(d) Any fees earned are recognized as 

program income and must be expended 

by the partner in accordance with the 

partner program’s authorizing statute, 

implementing regulations, and Federal 

cost principles identified in Uniform 

Guidance. 

Subpart C—Memorandum of 

Understanding for the One-Stop 

Delivery System 

§ 678.500 What is the Memorandum of 

Understanding for the one-stop delivery 

system and what must be included in the 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

(a) The MOU is the product of local 

discussion and negotiation, and is an 

agreement developed and executed 

between the Local WDB and the onestop partners, with the agreement of the 

chief elected official and the one-stop 

partners, relating to the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system in the local 

area. Two or more local areas in a region 

may develop a single joint MOU, if they 

are in a region that has submitted a 

regional plan under sec. 106 of WIOA. 

(b) The MOU must include: 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56014 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) A description of services to be 

provided through the one-stop delivery 

system, including the manner in which 

the services will be coordinated and 

delivered through the system; 

(2) Agreement on funding the costs of 

the services and the operating costs of 

the system, including: 

(i) Funding of infrastructure costs of 

one-stop centers in accordance with 

§§ 678.700 through 678.755; and 

(ii) Funding of the shared services and 

operating costs of the one-stop delivery 

system described in § 678.760; 

(3) Methods for referring individuals 

between the one-stop operators and 

partners for appropriate services and 

activities; 

(4) Methods to ensure that the needs 

of workers, youth, and individuals with 

barriers to employment, including 

individuals with disabilities, are 

addressed in providing access to 

services, including access to technology 

and materials that are available through 

the one-stop delivery system; 

(5) The duration of the MOU and 

procedures for amending it; and 

(6) Assurances that each MOU will be 

reviewed, and if substantial changes 

have occurred, renewed, not less than 

once every 3-year period to ensure 

appropriate funding and delivery of 

services. 

(c) The MOU may contain any other 

provisions agreed to by the parties that 

are consistent with WIOA title I, the 

authorizing statutes and regulations of 

one-stop partner programs, and the 

WIOA regulations. 

(d) When fully executed, the MOU 

must contain the signatures of the Local 

WDB, one-stop partners, the chief 

elected official(s), and the time period 

in which the agreement is effective. The 

MOU must be updated not less than 

every 3 years to reflect any changes in 

the signatory official of the Board, onestop partners, and chief elected officials, 

or one-stop infrastructure funding. 

(e) If a one-stop partner appeal to the 

State regarding infrastructure costs, 

using the process described in 

§ 678.750, results in a change to the onestop partner’s infrastructure cost 

contributions, the MOU must be 

updated to reflect the final one-stop 

partner infrastructure cost 

contributions. 

§ 678.505 Is there a single Memorandum of 

Understanding for the local area, or must 

there be different Memoranda of 

Understanding between the Local 

Workforce Development Board and each 

partner? 

(a) A single ‘‘umbrella’’ MOU may be 

developed that addresses the issues 

relating to the local one-stop delivery 

system for the Local WDB, chief elected 

official and all partners. Alternatively, 

the Local WDB (with agreement of chief 

elected official) may enter into separate 

agreements between each partner or 

groups of partners. 

(b) Under either approach, the 

requirements described in § 678.500 

apply. Since funds are generally 

appropriated annually, the Local WDB 

may negotiate financial agreements with 

each partner annually to update funding 

of services and operating costs of the 

system under the MOU. 

§ 678.510 How must the Memorandum of 

Understanding be negotiated? 

(a) WIOA emphasizes full and 

effective partnerships between Local 

WDBs, chief elected officials, and onestop partners. Local WDBs and partners 

must enter into good-faith negotiations. 

Local WDBs, chief elected officials, and 

one-stop partners may also request 

assistance from a State agency 

responsible for administering the 

partner program, the Governor, State 

WDB, or other appropriate parties on 

other aspects of the MOU. 

(b) Local WDBs and one-stop partners 

must establish, in the MOU, how they 

will fund the infrastructure costs and 

other shared costs of the one-stop 

centers. If agreement regarding 

infrastructure costs is not reached when 

other sections of the MOU are ready, an 

interim infrastructure funding 

agreement may be included instead, as 

described in § 678.715(c). Once 

agreement on infrastructure funding is 

reached, the Local WDB and one-stop 

partners must amend the MOU to 

include the infrastructure funding of the 

one-stop centers. Infrastructure funding 

is described in detail in subpart E of this 

part. 

(c) The Local WDB must report to the 

State WDB, Governor, and relevant State 

agency when MOU negotiations with 

one-stop partners have reached an 

impasse. 

(1) The Local WDB and partners must 

document the negotiations and efforts 

that have taken place in the MOU. The 

State WDB, one-stop partner programs, 

and the Governor may consult with the 

appropriate Federal agencies to address 

impasse situations related to issues 

other than infrastructure funding after 

attempting to address the impasse. 

Impasses related to infrastructure cost 

funding must be resolved using the 

State infrastructure cost funding 

mechanism described in § 678.730. 

(2) The Local WDB must report failure 

to execute an MOU with a required 

partner to the Governor, State WDB, and 

the State agency responsible for 

administering the partner’s program. 

Additionally, if the State cannot assist 

the Local WDB in resolving the impasse, 

the Governor or the State WDB must 

report the failure to the Secretary of 

Labor and to the head of any other 

Federal agency with responsibility for 

oversight of a partner’s program. 

Subpart D—One-Stop Operators 

§ 678.600 Who may operate one-stop 

centers? 

(a) One-stop operators may be a single 

entity (public, private, or nonprofit) or 

a consortium of entities. If the 

consortium of entities is one of one-stop 

partners, it must include a minimum of 

three of the one-stop partners described 

in § 678.400. 

(b) The one-stop operator may operate 

one or more one-stop centers. There 

may be more than one one-stop operator 

in a local area. 

(c) The types of entities that may be 

a one-stop operator include: 

(1) An institution of higher education; 

(2) An Employment Service State 

agency established under the WagnerPeyser Act; 

(3) A community-based organization, 

nonprofit organization, or workforce 

intermediary; 

(4) A private for-profit entity; 

(5) A government agency; 

(6) A Local WDB, with the approval 

of the chief elected official and the 

Governor; or 

(7) Another interested organization or 

entity, which is capable of carrying out 

the duties of the one-stop operator. 

Examples may include a local chamber 

of commerce or other business 

organization, or a labor organization. 

(d) Elementary schools and secondary 

schools are not eligible as one-stop 

operators, except that a nontraditional 

public secondary school such as a night 

school, adult school, or an area career 

and technical education school may be 

selected. 

(e) The State and Local WDBs must 

ensure that, in carrying out WIOA 

programs and activities, one-stop 

operators: 

(1) Disclose any potential conflicts of 

interest arising from the relationships of 

the operators with particular training 

service providers or other service 

providers (further discussed in 

§ 679.430 of this chapter); 

(2) Do not establish practices that 

create disincentives to providing 

services to individuals with barriers to 

employment who may require longerterm career and training services; and 

(3) Comply with Federal regulations 

and procurement policies relating to the 

calculation and use of profits, including 

those at § 683.295 of this chapter, the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56015 

Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, 

and other applicable regulations and 

policies. 

§ 678.605 How is the one-stop operator 

selected? 

(a) Consistent with paragraphs (b) and 

(c) of this section, the Local WDB must 

select the one-stop operator through a 

competitive process, as required by sec. 

121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA, at least once 

every 4 years. A State may require, or 

a Local WDB may choose to implement, 

a competitive selection process more 

than once every 4 years. 

(b) In instances in which a State is 

conducting the competitive process 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the State must follow the same 

policies and procedures it uses for 

procurement with non-Federal funds. 

(c) All other non-Federal entities, 

including subrecipients of a State (such 

as local areas), must use a competitive 

process based on local procurement 

policies and procedures and the 

principles of competitive procurement 

in the Uniform Guidance set out at 2 

CFR 200.318 through 200.326. All 

references to ‘‘noncompetitive 

proposals’’ in the Uniform Guidance at 

2 CFR 200.320(f) will be read as ‘‘sole 

source procurement’’ for the purposes of 

implementing this section. 

(d) Entities must prepare written 

documentation explaining the 

determination concerning the nature of 

the competitive process to be followed 

in selecting a one-stop operator. 

§ 678.610 When is the sole-source 

selection of one-stop operators appropriate, 

and how is it conducted? 

(a) States may select a one-stop 

operator through sole source selection 

when allowed under the same policies 

and procedures used for competitive 

procurement with non-Federal funds, 

while other non-Federal entities 

including subrecipients of a State (such 

as local areas) may select a one-stop 

operator through sole selection when 

consistent with local procurement 

policies and procedures and the 

Uniform Guidance set out at 2 CFR 

200.320. 

(b) In the event that sole source 

procurement is determined necessary 

and reasonable, in accordance with 

§ 678.605(c), written documentation 

must be prepared and maintained 

concerning the entire process of making 

such a selection. 

(c) Such sole source procurement 

must include appropriate conflict of 

interest policies and procedures. These 

policies and procedures must conform 

to the specifications in § 679.430 of this 

chapter for demonstrating internal 

controls and preventing conflict of 

interest. 

(d) A Local WDB may be selected as 

a one-stop operator through sole source 

procurement only with agreement of the 

chief elected official in the local area 

and the Governor. The Local WDB must 

establish sufficient conflict of interest 

policies and procedures and these 

policies and procedures must be 

approved by the Governor. 

§ 678.615 May an entity currently serving 

as one-stop operator compete to be a onestop operator under the procurement 

requirements of this subpart? 

(a) Local WDBs may compete for and 

be selected as one-stop operators, as 

long as appropriate firewalls and 

conflict of interest policies and 

procedures are in place. These policies 

and procedures must conform to the 

specifications in § 679.430 of this 

chapter for demonstrating internal 

controls and preventing conflict of 

interest. 

(b) State and local agencies may 

compete for and be selected as one-stop 

operators by the Local WDB, as long as 

appropriate firewalls and conflict of 

interest policies and procedures are in 

place. These policies and procedures 

must conform to the specifications in 

§ 679.430 of this chapter for 

demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflict of interest. 

(c) In the case of single-area States 

where the State WDB serves as the Local 

WDB, the State agency is eligible to 

compete for and be selected as operator 

as long as appropriate firewalls and 

conflict of interest policies are in place 

and followed for the competition. These 

policies and procedures must conform 

to the specifications in § 679.430 of this 

chapter for demonstrating internal 

controls and preventing conflicts of 

interest. 

§ 678.620 What is the one-stop operator’s 

role? 

(a) At a minimum, the one-stop 

operator must coordinate the service 

delivery of required one-stop partners 

and service providers. Local WDBs may 

establish additional roles of one-stop 

operator, including, but not limited to: 

Coordinating service providers across 

the one-stop delivery system, being the 

primary provider of services within the 

center, providing some of the services 

within the center, or coordinating 

service delivery in a multi-center area, 

which may include affiliated sites. The 

competition for a one-stop operator 

must clearly articulate the role of the 

one-stop operator. 

(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section, a one-stop operator may not 

perform the following functions: 

Convene system stakeholders to assist in 

the development of the local plan; 

prepare and submit local plans (as 

required under sec. 107 of WIOA); be 

responsible for oversight of itself; 

manage or significantly participate in 

the competitive selection process for 

one-stop operators; select or terminate 

one-stop operators, career services, and 

youth providers; negotiate local 

performance accountability measures; or 

develop and submit budget for activities 

of the Local WDB in the local area. 

(2) An entity serving as a one-stop 

operator, that also serves a different role 

within the one-stop delivery system, 

may perform some or all of these 

functions when it is acting in its other 

role, if it has established sufficient 

firewalls and conflict of interest policies 

and procedures. The policies and 

procedures must conform to the 

specifications in § 679.430 of this 

chapter for demonstrating internal 

controls and preventing conflict of 

interest. 

§ 678.625 Can a one-stop operator also be 

a service provider? 

Yes, but there must be appropriate 

firewalls in place in regards to the 

competition, and subsequent oversight, 

monitoring, and evaluation of 

performance of the service provider. 

The operator cannot develop, manage, 

or conduct the competition of a service 

provider in which it intends to compete. 

In cases where an operator is also a 

service provider, there must be firewalls 

and internal controls within the 

operator-service provider entity, as well 

as specific policies and procedures at 

the Local WDB level regarding 

oversight, monitoring, and evaluation of 

performance of the service provider. 

The firewalls must conform to the 

specifications in § 679.430 of this 

chapter for demonstrating internal 

controls and preventing conflicts of 

interest. 

§ 678.630 Can State merit staff still work in 

a one-stop center where the operator is not 

a governmental entity? 

Yes. State merit staff can continue to 

perform functions and activities in the 

one-stop center. The Local WDB and 

one-stop operator must establish a 

system for management of merit staff in 

accordance with State policies and 

procedures. Continued use of State 

merit staff for the provision of WagnerPeyser Act services or services from 

other programs with merit staffing 

requirements must be included in the 

competition for and final contract with 

the one-stop operator when WagnerPeyser Act services or services from 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56016 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

other programs with merit staffing 

requirements are being provided. 

§ 678.635 What is the compliance date of 

the provisions of this subpart? 

(a) No later than July 1, 2017, one-stop 

operators selected under the 

competitive process described in this 

subpart must be in place and operating 

the one-stop center. 

(b) By November 17, 2016, every 

Local WDB must demonstrate it is 

taking steps to prepare for competition 

of its one-stop operator. This 

demonstration may include, but is not 

limited to, market research, requests for 

information, and conducting a cost and 

price analysis. 

Subpart E—One-Stop Operating Costs 

§ 678.700 What are the one-stop 

infrastructure costs? 

(a) Infrastructure costs of one-stop 

centers are nonpersonnel costs that are 

necessary for the general operation of 

the one-stop center, including: 

(1) Rental of the facilities; 

(2) Utilities and maintenance; 

(3) Equipment (including assessmentrelated products and assistive 

technology for individuals with 

disabilities); and 

(4) Technology to facilitate access to 

the one-stop center, including 

technology used for the center’s 

planning and outreach activities. 

(b) Local WDBs may consider 

common identifier costs as costs of onestop infrastructure. 

(c) Each entity that carries out a 

program or activities in a local one-stop 

center, described in §§ 678.400 through 

678.410, must use a portion of the funds 

available for the program and activities 

to maintain the one-stop delivery 

system, including payment of the 

infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. 

These payments must be in accordance 

with this subpart; Federal cost 

principles, which require that all costs 

must be allowable, reasonable, 

necessary, and allocable to the program; 

and all other applicable legal 

requirements. 

§ 678.705 What guidance must the 

Governor issue regarding one-stop 

infrastructure funding? 

(a) The Governor, after consultation 

with chief elected officials, the State 

WDB, and Local WDBs, and consistent 

with guidance and policies provided by 

the State WDB, must develop and issue 

guidance for use by local areas, 

specifically: 

(1) Guidelines for State-administered 

one-stop partner programs for 

determining such programs’ 

contributions to a one-stop delivery 

system, based on such programs’ 

proportionate use of such system, and 

relative benefit received, consistent with 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for Federal Awards 

in 2 CFR part 200, including 

determining funding for the costs of 

infrastructure; and 

(2) Guidance to assist Local WDBs, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners in local areas in determining 

equitable and stable methods of funding 

the costs of infrastructure at one-stop 

centers based on proportionate use and 

relative benefit received, and consistent 

with Federal cost principles contained 

in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 

200. 

(b) The guidance must include: 

(1) The appropriate roles of the onestop partner programs in identifying 

one-stop infrastructure costs; 

(2) Approaches to facilitate equitable 

and efficient cost allocation that results 

in a reasonable cost allocation 

methodology where infrastructure costs 

are charged to each partner based on its 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

centers and relative benefit received, 

consistent with Federal cost principles 

at 2 CFR part 200; and 

(3) The timelines regarding 

notification to the Governor for not 

reaching local agreement and triggering 

the State funding mechanism described 

in § 678.730, and timelines for a onestop partner to submit an appeal in the 

State funding mechanism. 

§ 678.710 How are infrastructure costs 

funded? 

Infrastructure costs are funded either 

through the local funding mechanism 

described in § 678.715 or through the 

State funding mechanism described in 

§ 678.730. 

§ 678.715 How are one-stop infrastructure 

costs funded in the local funding 

mechanism? 

(a) In the local funding mechanism, 

the Local WDB, chief elected officials, 

and one-stop partners agree to amounts 

and methods of calculating amounts 

each partner will contribute for one-stop 

infrastructure funding, include the 

infrastructure funding terms in the 

MOU, and sign the MOU. The local 

funding mechanism must meet all of the 

following requirements: 

(1) The infrastructure costs are funded 

through cash and fairly evaluated noncash and third-party in-kind partner 

contributions and include any funding 

from philanthropic organizations or 

other private entities, or through other 

alternative financing options, to provide 

a stable and equitable funding stream 

for ongoing one-stop delivery system 

operations; 

(2) Contributions must be negotiated 

between one-stop partners, chief elected 

officials, and the Local WDB and the 

amount to be contributed must be 

included in the MOU; 

(3) The one-stop partner program’s 

proportionate share of funding must be 

calculated in accordance with the 

Uniform Administrative Requirements, 

Cost Principles, and Audit 

Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 

CFR part 200 based upon a reasonable 

cost allocation methodology whereby 

infrastructure costs are charged to each 

partner in proportion to its use of the 

one-stop center, relative to benefits 

received. Such costs must also be 

allowable, reasonable, necessary, and 

allocable; 

(4) Partner shares must be 

periodically reviewed and reconciled 

against actual costs incurred, and 

adjusted to ensure that actual costs 

charged to any one-stop partners are 

proportionate to the use of the one-stop 

center and relative to the benefit 

received by the one-stop partners and 

their respective programs or activities. 

(b) In developing the section of the 

MOU on one-stop infrastructure funding 

described in § 678.755, the Local WDB 

and chief elected officials will: 

(1) Ensure that the one-stop partners 

adhere to the guidance identified in 

§ 678.705 on one-stop delivery system 

infrastructure costs. 

(2) Work with one-stop partners to 

achieve consensus and informally 

mediate any possible conflicts or 

disagreements among one-stop partners. 

(3) Provide technical assistance to 

new one-stop partners and local grant 

recipients to ensure that those entities 

are informed and knowledgeable of the 

elements contained in the MOU and the 

one-stop infrastructure costs 

arrangement. 

(c) The MOU may include an interim 

infrastructure funding agreement, 

including as much detail as the Local 

WDB has negotiated with one-stop 

partners, if all other parts of the MOU 

have been negotiated, in order to allow 

the partner programs to operate in the 

one-stop centers. The interim 

infrastructure funding agreement must 

be finalized within 6 months of when 

the MOU is signed. If the interim 

infrastructure funding agreement is not 

finalized within that timeframe, the 

Local WDB must notify the Governor, as 

described in § 678.725. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56017 

§ 678.720 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the local one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the local funding mechanism, 

one-stop partner programs may 

determine what funds they will use to 

pay for infrastructure costs. The use of 

these funds must be in accordance with 

the requirements in this subpart, and 

with the relevant partner’s authorizing 

statutes and regulations, including, for 

example, prohibitions against 

supplanting non-Federal resources, 

statutory limitations on administrative 

costs, and all other applicable legal 

requirements. In the case of partners 

administering programs authorized by 

title I of WIOA, these infrastructure 

costs may be considered program costs. 

In the case of partners administering 

adult education and literacy programs 

authorized by title II of WIOA, these 

funds must include Federal funds made 

available for the local administration of 

adult education and literacy programs 

authorized by title II of WIOA. These 

funds may also include non-Federal 

resources that are cash, in-kind or thirdparty contributions. In the case of 

partners administering the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006, funds used to pay for 

infrastructure costs may include funds 

available for local administrative 

expenses, non-Federal resources that are 

cash, in-kind or third-party 

contributions, and may include other 

funds made available by the State. 

(b) There are no specific caps on the 

amount or percent of overall funding a 

one-stop partner may contribute to fund 

infrastructure costs under the local 

funding mechanism, except that 

contributions for administrative costs 

may not exceed the amount available for 

administrative costs under the 

authorizing statute of the partner 

program. However, amounts contributed 

for infrastructure costs must be 

allowable and based on proportionate 

use of the one-stop centers and relative 

benefit received by the partner program, 

taking into account the total cost of the 

one-stop infrastructure as well as 

alternate financing options, and must be 

consistent with 2 CFR part 200, 

including the Federal cost principles. 

(c) Cash, non-cash, and third-party inkind contributions may be provided by 

one-stop partners to cover their 

proportionate share of infrastructure 

costs. 

(1) Cash contributions are cash funds 

provided to the Local WDB or its 

designee by one-stop partners, either 

directly or by an interagency transfer. 

(2) Non-cash contributions are 

comprised of— 

(i) Expenditures incurred by one-stop 

partners on behalf of the one-stop 

center; and 

(ii) Non-cash contributions or goods 

or services contributed by a partner 

program and used by the one-stop 

center. 

(3) Non-cash contributions, especially 

those set forth in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of 

this section, must be valued consistent 

with 2 CFR 200.306 to ensure they are 

fairly evaluated and meet the partners’ 

proportionate share. 

(4) Third-party in-kind contributions 

are: 

(i) Contributions of space, equipment, 

technology, non-personnel services, or 

other like items to support the 

infrastructure costs associated with onestop operations, by a non-one-stop 

partner to support the one-stop center in 

general, not a specific partner; or 

(ii) Contributions by a non-one-stop 

partner of space, equipment, 

technology, non-personnel services, or 

other like items to support the 

infrastructure costs associated with onestop operations, to a one-stop partner to 

support its proportionate share of onestop infrastructure costs. 

(iii) In-kind contributions described 

in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 

section must be valued consistent with 

2 CFR 200.306 and reconciled on a 

regular basis to ensure they are fairly 

evaluated and meet the proportionate 

share of the partner. 

(5) All partner contributions, 

regardless of the type, must be 

reconciled on a regular basis (i.e., 

monthly or quarterly), comparing actual 

expenses incurred to relative benefits 

received, to ensure each partner 

program is contributing its 

proportionate share in accordance with 

the terms of the MOU. 

§ 678.725 What happens if consensus on 

infrastructure funding is not reached at the 

local level between the Local Workforce 

Development Board, chief elected officials, 

and one-stop partners? 

With regard to negotiations for 

infrastructure funding for Program Year 

(PY) 2017 and for each subsequent 

program year thereafter, if the Local 

WDB, chief elected officials, and onestop partners do not reach consensus on 

methods of sufficiently funding local 

infrastructure through the local funding 

mechanism in accordance with the 

Governor’s guidance issued under 

§ 678.705 and consistent with the 

regulations in §§ 678.715 and 678.720, 

and include that consensus agreement 

in the signed MOU, then the Local WDB 

must notify the Governor by the 

deadline established by the Governor 

under § 678.705(b)(3). Once notified, the 

Governor must administer funding 

through the State funding mechanism, 

as described in §§ 678.730 through 

678.738, for the program year impacted 

by the local area’s failure to reach 

consensus. 

§ 678.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) Consistent with sec. 

121(h)(1)(A)(i)(II) of WIOA, if the Local 

WDB, chief elected official, and onestop partners in a local area do not reach 

consensus agreement on methods of 

sufficiently funding the costs of 

infrastructure of one-stop centers for a 

program year, the State funding 

mechanism is applicable to the local 

area for that program year. 

(b) In the State funding mechanism, 

the Governor, subject to the limitations 

in paragraph (c) of this section, 

determines one-stop partner 

contributions after consultation with the 

chief elected officials, Local WDBs, and 

the State WDB. This determination 

involves: 

(1) The application of a budget for 

one-stop infrastructure costs as 

described in § 678.735, based on either 

agreement reached in the local area 

negotiations or the State WDB formula 

outlined in § 678.745; 

(2) The determination of each local 

one-stop partner program’s 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

delivery system and relative benefit 

received, consistent with the Uniform 

Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, including 

the Federal cost principles, the partner 

programs’ authorizing laws and 

regulations, and other applicable legal 

requirements described in § 678.736; 

and 

(3) The calculation of required 

statewide program caps on 

contributions to infrastructure costs 

from one-stop partner programs in areas 

operating under the State funding 

mechanism as described in § 678.738. 

(c) In certain situations, the Governor 

does not determine the infrastructure 

cost contributions for some one-stop 

partner programs under the State 

funding mechanism. 

(1) The Governor will not determine 

the contribution amounts for 

infrastructure funds for Native 

American program grantees described in 

part 684 of this chapter. The appropriate 

portion of funds to be provided by 

Native American program grantees to 

pay for one-stop infrastructure must be 

determined as part of the development 

of the MOU described in § 678.500 and 

specified in that MOU. 

(2) In States in which the policymaking authority is placed in an entity 

or official that is independent of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56018 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

authority of the Governor with respect 

to the funds provided for adult 

education and literacy activities 

authorized under title II of WIOA, 

postsecondary career and technical 

education activities authorized under 

the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006, or VR services 

authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (other than 

sec. 112 or part C), as amended by 

WIOA title IV, the determination of the 

amount each of the applicable partners 

must contribute to assist in paying the 

infrastructure costs of one-stop centers 

must be made by the official or chief 

officer of the entity with such authority, 

in consultation with the Governor. 

(d) Any duty, ability, choice, 

responsibility, or other action otherwise 

related to the determination of 

infrastructure costs contributions that is 

assigned to the Governor in §§ 678.730 

through 678.745 also applies to this 

decision-making process performed by 

the official or chief officer described in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 

§ 678.731 What are the steps to determine 

the amount to be paid under the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) To initiate the State funding 

mechanism, a Local WDB that has not 

reached consensus on methods of 

sufficiently funding local infrastructure 

through the local funding mechanism as 

provided in § 678.725 must notify the 

Governor by the deadline established by 

the Governor under § 678.705(b)(3). 

(b) Once a Local WDB has informed 

the Governor that no consensus has 

been reached: 

(1) The Local WDB must provide the 

Governor with local negotiation 

materials in accordance with 

§ 678.735(a). 

(2) The Governor must determine the 

one-stop center budget by either: 

(i) Accepting a budget previously 

agreed upon by partner programs in the 

local negotiations, in accordance with 

§ 678.735(b)(1); or 

(ii) Creating a budget for the one-stop 

center using the State WDB formula 

(described in § 678.745) in accordance 

with § 678.735(b)(3). 

(3) The Governor then must establish 

a cost allocation methodology to 

determine the one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs, in accordance with 

§ 678.736. 

(4)(i) Using the methodology 

established under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of 

this section, and taking into 

consideration the factors concerning 

individual partner programs listed in 

§ 678.737(b)(2), the Governor must 

determine each partner’s proportionate 

share of the infrastructure costs, in 

accordance with § 678.737(b)(1), and 

(ii) In accordance with § 678.730(c), in 

some instances, the Governor does not 

determine a partner program’s 

proportionate share of infrastructure 

funding costs, in which case it must be 

determined by the entities named in 

§ 678.730(c)(1) and (2). 

(5) The Governor must then calculate 

the statewide caps on the amounts that 

partner programs may be required to 

contribute toward infrastructure 

funding, according to the steps found at 

§ 678.738(a)(1) through (4). 

(6) The Governor must ensure that the 

aggregate total of the infrastructure 

contributions according to proportionate 

share required of all local partner 

programs in local areas under the State 

funding mechanism do not exceed the 

cap for that particular program, in 

accordance with § 678.738(b)(1). If the 

total does not exceed the cap, the 

Governor must direct each one-stop 

partner program to pay the amount 

determined under § 678.737(a) toward 

the infrastructure funding costs of the 

one-stop center. If the total does exceed 

the cap, then to determine the amount 

to direct each one-stop program to pay, 

the Governor may: 

(i) Ascertain, in accordance with 

§ 678.738(b)(2)(i), whether the local 

partner or partners whose proportionate 

shares are calculated above the 

individual program caps are willing to 

voluntarily contribute above the capped 

amount to equal that program’s 

proportionate share; or 

(ii) Choose from the options provided 

in § 678.738(b)(2)(ii), including having 

the local area re-enter negotiations to 

reassess each one-stop partner’s 

proportionate share and make 

adjustments or identify alternate sources 

of funding to make up the difference 

between the capped amount and the 

proportionate share of infrastructure 

funding of the one-stop partner. 

(7) If none of the solutions given in 

paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this 

section prove to be viable, the Governor 

must reassess the proportionate shares 

of each one-stop partner so that the 

aggregate amount attributable to the 

local partners for each program is less 

than that program’s cap amount. Upon 

such reassessment, the Governor must 

direct each one-stop partner program to 

pay the reassessed amount toward the 

infrastructure funding costs of the onestop center. 

§ 678.735 How are infrastructure cost 

budgets for the one-stop centers in a local 

area determined in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) Local WDBs must provide to the 

Governor appropriate and relevant 

materials and documents used in the 

negotiations under the local funding 

mechanism, including but not limited 

to: The local WIOA plan, the cost 

allocation method or methods proposed 

by the partners to be used in 

determining proportionate share, the 

proposed amounts or budget to fund 

infrastructure, the amount of total 

partner funds included, the type of 

funds or non-cash contributions, 

proposed one-stop center budgets, and 

any agreed upon or proposed MOUs. 

(b)(1) If a local area has reached 

agreement as to the infrastructure 

budget for the one-stop centers in the 

local area, it must provide this budget 

to the Governor as required by 

paragraph (a) of this section. If, as a 

result of the agreed upon infrastructure 

budget, only the individual 

programmatic contributions to 

infrastructure funding based upon 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

centers and relative benefit received are 

at issue, the Governor may accept the 

budget, from which the Governor must 

calculate each partner’s contribution 

consistent with the cost allocation 

methodologies contained in the Uniform 

Guidance found in 2 CFR part 200, as 

described in § 678.736. 

(2) The Governor may also take into 

consideration the extent to which the 

partners in the local area have agreed in 

determining the proportionate shares, 

including any agreements reached at the 

local level by one or more partners, as 

well as any other element or product of 

the negotiating process provided to the 

Governor as required by paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(3) If a local area has not reached 

agreement as to the infrastructure 

budget for the one-stop centers in the 

local area, or if the Governor determines 

that the agreed upon budget does not 

adequately meet the needs of the local 

area or does not reasonably work within 

the confines of the local area’s resources 

in accordance with the Governor’s onestop budget guidance (which is required 

to be issued by WIOA sec. 121(h)(1)(B) 

and under § 678.705), then, in 

accordance with § 678.745, the 

Governor must use the formula 

developed by the State WDB based on 

at least the factors required under 

§ 678.745, and any associated weights to 

determine the local area budget. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56019 

§ 678.736 How does the Governor 

establish a cost allocation methodology 

used to determine the one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs under the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

Once the appropriate budget is 

determined for a local area through 

either method described in § 678.735 

(by acceptance of a budget agreed upon 

in local negotiation or by the Governor 

applying the formula detailed in 

§ 678.745), the Governor must 

determine the appropriate cost 

allocation methodology to be applied to 

the one-stop partners in such local area, 

consistent with the Federal cost 

principles permitted under 2 CFR part 

200, to fund the infrastructure budget. 

§ 678.737 How are one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs determined under the 

State one-stop infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

(a) The Governor must direct the onestop partners in each local area that 

have not reached agreement under the 

local funding mechanism to pay what 

the Governor determines is each partner 

program’s proportionate share of 

infrastructure funds for that area, 

subject to the application of the caps 

described in § 678.738. 

(b)(1) The Governor must use the cost 

allocation methodology—as determined 

under § 678.736—to determine each 

partner’s proportionate share of the 

infrastructure costs under the State 

funding mechanism, subject to 

considering the factors described in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(2) In determining each partner 

program’s proportionate share of 

infrastructure costs, the Governor must 

take into account the costs of 

administration of the one-stop delivery 

system for purposes not related to onestop centers for each partner (such as 

costs associated with maintaining the 

Local WDB or information technology 

systems), as well as the statutory 

requirements for each partner program, 

the partner program’s ability to fulfill 

such requirements, and all other 

applicable legal requirements. The 

Governor may also take into 

consideration the extent to which the 

partners in the local area have agreed in 

determining the proportionate shares, 

including any agreements reached at the 

local level by one or more partners, as 

well as any other materials or 

documents of the negotiating process, 

which must be provided to the Governor 

by the Local WDB and described in 

§ 678.735(a). 

§ 678.738 How are statewide caps on the 

contributions for one-stop infrastructure 

funding determined in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) The Governor must calculate the 

statewide cap on the contributions for 

one-stop infrastructure funding required 

to be provided by each one-stop partner 

program for those local areas that have 

not reached agreement. The cap is the 

amount determined under paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section, which the 

Governor derives by: 

(1) First, determining the amount 

resulting from applying the percentage 

for the corresponding one-stop partner 

program provided in paragraph (d) of 

this section to the amount of Federal 

funds provided to carry out the one-stop 

partner program in the State for the 

applicable fiscal year; 

(2) Second, selecting a factor (or 

factors) that reasonably indicates the use 

of one-stop centers in the State, 

applying such factor(s) to all local areas 

in the State, and determining the 

percentage of such factor(s) applicable 

to the local areas that reached agreement 

under the local funding mechanism in 

the State; 

(3) Third, determining the amount 

resulting from applying the percentage 

determined in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section to the amount determined under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section for the 

one-stop partner program; and 

(4) Fourth, determining the amount 

that results from subtracting the amount 

determined under paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section from the amount 

determined under paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section. The outcome of this final 

calculation results in the partner 

program’s cap. 

(b)(1) The Governor must ensure that 

the funds required to be contributed by 

each partner program in the local areas 

in the State under the State funding 

mechanism, in aggregate, do not exceed 

the statewide cap for each program as 

determined under paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(2) If the contributions initially 

determined under § 678.737 would 

exceed the applicable cap determined 

under paragraph (a) of this section, the 

Governor may: 

(i) Ascertain if the one-stop partner 

whose contribution would otherwise 

exceed the cap determined under 

paragraph (a) of this section will 

voluntarily contribute above the capped 

amount, so that the total contributions 

equal that partner’s proportionate share. 

The one-stop partner’s contribution 

must still be consistent with the 

program’s authorizing laws and 

regulations, the Federal cost principles 

in 2 CFR part 200, and other applicable 

legal requirements; or 

(ii) Direct or allow the Local WDB, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners to: Re-enter negotiations, as 

necessary; reduce the infrastructure 

costs to reflect the amount of funds that 

are available for such costs without 

exceeding the cap levels; reassess the 

proportionate share of each one-stop 

partner; or identify alternative sources 

of financing for one-stop infrastructure 

funding, consistent with the 

requirement that each one-stop partner 

pay an amount that is consistent with 

the proportionate use of the one-stop 

center and relative benefit received by 

the partner, the program’s authorizing 

laws and regulations, the Federal cost 

principles in 2 CFR part 200, and other 

applicable legal requirements. 

(3) If applicable under paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Local WDB, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners, after renegotiation, may come 

to agreement, sign an MOU, and 

proceed under the local funding 

mechanism. Such actions do not require 

the redetermination of the applicable 

caps under paragraph (a) of this section. 

(4) If, after renegotiation, agreement 

among partners still cannot be reached 

or alternate financing cannot be 

identified, the Governor may adjust the 

specified allocation, in accordance with 

the amounts available and the 

limitations described in paragraph (d) of 

this section. In determining these 

adjustments, the Governor may take into 

account information relating to the 

renegotiation as well as the information 

described in § 678.735(a). 

(c) Limitations. Subject to paragraph 

(a) of this section and in accordance 

with WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D), the 

following limitations apply to the 

Governor’s calculations of the amount 

that one-stop partners in local areas that 

have not reached agreement under the 

local funding mechanism may be 

required under § 678.736 to contribute 

to one-stop infrastructure funding: 

(1) WIOA formula programs and 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service. 

The portion of funds required to be 

contributed under the WIOA youth, 

adult, or dislocated worker programs, or 

under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 

49 et seq.) must not exceed three 

percent of the amount of the program in 

the State for a program year. 

(2) Other one-stop partners. For 

required one-stop partners other than 

those specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (3), 

(5), and (6) of this section, the portion 

of funds required to be contributed must 

not exceed 1.5 percent of the amount of 

Federal funds provided to carry out that 

program in the State for a fiscal year. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56020 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

For purposes of the Carl D. Perkins 

Career and Technical Education Act of 

2006, the cap on contributions is 

determined based on the funds made 

available by the State for postsecondary 

level programs and activities under sec. 

132 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act and the 

amount of funds used by the State under 

sec. 112(a)(3) of the Perkins Act during 

the prior year to administer 

postsecondary level programs and 

activities, as applicable. 

(3) Vocational rehabilitation. (i) 

Within a State, for the entity or entities 

administering the programs described in 

WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(iv) and 

§ 678.400, the allotment is based on the 

one State Federal fiscal year allotment, 

even in instances where that allotment 

is shared between two State agencies, 

and the cumulative portion of funds 

required to be contributed must not 

exceed— 

(A) 0.75 percent of the amount of 

Federal funds provided to carry out 

such program in the State for Fiscal 

Year 2016 for purposes of applicability 

of the State funding mechanism for PY 

2017; 

(B) 1.0 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2017 for 

purposes of applicability of the State 

funding mechanism for PY 2018; 

(C) 1.25 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2018 for 

purposes of applicability of the State 

funding mechanism for PY 2019; 

(D) 1.5 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2019 and 

following years for purposes of 

applicability of the State funding 

mechanism for PY 2020 and subsequent 

years. 

(ii) The limitations set forth in 

paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section for any 

given fiscal year must be based on the 

final VR allotment to the State in the 

applicable Federal fiscal year. 

(4) Federal direct spending programs. 

For local areas that have not reached a 

one-stop infrastructure funding 

agreement by consensus, an entity 

administering a program funded with 

direct Federal spending, as defined in 

sec. 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 

1985, as in effect on February 15, 2014 

(2 U.S.C. 900(c)(8)), must not be 

required to provide more for 

infrastructure costs than the amount 

that the Governor determined (as 

described in § 678.737). 

(5) TANF programs. For purposes of 

TANF, the cap on contributions is 

determined based on the total Federal 

TANF funds expended by the State for 

work, education, and training activities 

during the prior Federal fiscal year (as 

reported to the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) on the 

quarterly TANF Financial Report form), 

plus any additional amount of Federal 

TANF funds that the State TANF agency 

reasonably determines was expended 

for administrative costs in connection 

with these activities but that was 

separately reported to HHS as an 

administrative cost. The State’s 

contribution to the one-stop 

infrastructure must not exceed 1.5 

percent of these combined expenditures. 

(6) Community Services Block Grant 

(CSBG) programs. For purposes of 

CSBG, the cap on contributions will be 

based on the total amount of CSBG 

funds determined by the State to have 

been expended by local CSBG-eligible 

entities for the provision of employment 

and training activities during the prior 

Federal fiscal year for which 

information is available (as reported to 

HHS on the CSBG Annual Report) and 

any additional amount that the State 

CSBG agency reasonably determines 

was expended for administrative 

purposes in connection with these 

activities and was separately reported to 

HHS as an administrative cost. The 

State’s contribution must not exceed 1.5 

percent of these combined expenditures. 

(d) For programs for which it is not 

otherwise feasible to determine the 

amount of Federal funding used by the 

program until the end of that program’s 

operational year—because, for example, 

the funding available for education, 

employment, and training activities is 

included within funding for the 

program that may also be used for other 

unrelated activities—the determination 

of the Federal funds provided to carry 

out the program for a fiscal year under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be 

determined by: 

(1) The percentage of Federal funds 

available to the one-stop partner 

program that were used by the one-stop 

partner program for education, 

employment, and training activities in 

the previous fiscal year for which data 

are available; and 

(2) Applying the percentage 

determined under paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section to the total amount of 

Federal funds available to the one-stop 

partner program for the fiscal year for 

which the determination under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section applies. 

§ 678.740 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the State funding mechanism, 

infrastructure costs for WIOA title I 

programs, including Native American 

Programs described in part 684 of this 

chapter, may be paid using program 

funds, administrative funds, or both. 

Infrastructure costs for the Senior 

Community Service Employment 

Program under title V of the Older 

Americans Act (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) 

may also be paid using program funds, 

administrative funds, or both. 

(b) In the State funding mechanism, 

infrastructure costs for other required 

one-stop partner programs (listed in 

§§ 678.400 through 678.410) are limited 

to the program’s administrative funds, 

as appropriate. 

(c) In the State funding mechanism, 

infrastructure costs for the adult 

education program authorized by title II 

of WIOA must be paid from the funds 

that are available for local 

administration and may be paid from 

funds made available by the State or 

non-Federal resources that are cash, inkind, or third-party contributions. 

(d) In the State funding mechanism, 

infrastructure costs for the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006 must be paid from funds 

available for local administration of 

postsecondary level programs and 

activities to eligible recipients or 

consortia of eligible recipients and may 

be paid from funds made available by 

the State or non-Federal resources that 

are cash, in-kind, or third-party 

contributions. 

§ 678.745 What factors does the State 

Workforce Development Board use to 

develop the formula described in Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act, which is 

used by the Governor to determine the 

appropriate one-stop infrastructure budget 

for each local area operating under the 

State infrastructure funding mechanism, if 

no reasonably implementable locally 

negotiated budget exists? 

The State WDB must develop a 

formula, as described in WIOA sec. 

121(h)(3)(B), to be used by the Governor 

under § 678.735(b)(3) in determining the 

appropriate budget for the infrastructure 

costs of one-stop centers in the local 

areas that do not reach agreement under 

the local funding mechanism and are, 

therefore, subject to the State funding 

mechanism. The formula identifies the 

factors and corresponding weights for 

each factor that the Governor must use, 

which must include: The number of 

one-stop centers in a local area; the 

population served by such centers; the 

services provided by such centers; and 

any factors relating to the operations of 

such centers in the local area that the 

State WDB determines are appropriate. 

As indicated in § 678.735(b)(1), if the 

local area has agreed on such a budget, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56021 

the Governor may accept that budget in 

lieu of applying the formula factors. 

§ 678.750 When and how can a one-stop 

partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure 

amount designated by the State under the 

State infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) The Governor must establish a 

process, described under sec. 

121(h)(2)(E) of WIOA, for a one-stop 

partner administering a program 

described in §§ 678.400 through 678.410 

to appeal the Governor’s determination 

regarding the one-stop partner’s portion 

of funds to be provided for one-stop 

infrastructure costs. This appeal process 

must be described in the Unified State 

Plan. 

(b) The appeal may be made on the 

ground that the Governor’s 

determination is inconsistent with 

proportionate share requirements in 

§ 678.735(a), the cost contribution 

limitations in § 678.735(b), the cost 

contribution caps in § 678.738, 

consistent with the process described in 

the State Plan. 

(c) The process must ensure prompt 

resolution of the appeal in order to 

ensure the funds are distributed in a 

timely manner, consistent with the 

requirements of § 683.630 of this 

chapter. 

(d) The one-stop partner must submit 

an appeal in accordance with State’s 

deadlines for appeals specified in the 

guidance issued under § 678.705(b)(3), 

or if the State has not set a deadline, 

within 21 days from the Governor’s 

determination. 

§ 678.755 What are the required elements 

regarding infrastructure funding that must 

be included in the one-stop Memorandum 

of Understanding? 

The MOU, fully described in 

§ 678.500, must contain the following 

information whether the local areas use 

either the local one-stop or the State 

funding method: 

(a) The period of time in which this 

infrastructure funding agreement is 

effective. This may be a different time 

period than the duration of the MOU. 

(b) Identification of an infrastructure 

and shared services budget that will be 

periodically reconciled against actual 

costs incurred and adjusted accordingly 

to ensure that it reflects a cost allocation 

methodology that demonstrates how 

infrastructure costs are charged to each 

partner in proportion to its use of the 

one-stop center and relative benefit 

received, and that complies with 2 CFR 

part 200 (or any corresponding similar 

regulation or ruling). 

(c) Identification of all one-stop 

partners, chief elected officials, and 

Local WDB participating in the 

infrastructure funding arrangement. 

(d) Steps the Local WDB, chief elected 

officials, and one-stop partners used to 

reach consensus or an assurance that the 

local area followed the guidance for the 

State funding process. 

(e) Description of the process to be 

used among partners to resolve issues 

during the MOU duration period when 

consensus cannot be reached. 

(f) Description of the periodic 

modification and review process to 

ensure equitable benefit among one-stop 

partners. 

§ 678.760 How do one-stop partners jointly 

fund other shared costs under the 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

(a) In addition to jointly funding 

infrastructure costs, one-stop partners 

listed in §§ 678.400 through 678.410 

must use a portion of funds made 

available under their programs’ 

authorizing Federal law (or fairly 

evaluated in-kind contributions) to pay 

the additional costs relating to the 

operation of the one-stop delivery 

system. These other costs must include 

applicable career services and may 

include other costs, including shared 

services. 

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) 

of this section, shared services’ costs 

may include the costs of shared services 

that are authorized for and may be 

commonly provided through the onestop partner programs to any individual, 

such as initial intake, assessment of 

needs, appraisal of basic skills, 

identification of appropriate services to 

meet such needs, referrals to other onestop partners, and business services. 

Shared operating costs may also include 

shared costs of the Local WDB’s 

functions. 

(c) Contributions to the additional 

costs related to operation of the one-stop 

delivery system may be cash, non-cash, 

or third-party in-kind contributions, 

consistent with how these are described 

in § 678.720(c). 

(d) The shared costs described in 

paragraph (a) of this section must be 

allocated according to the proportion of 

benefit received by each of the partners, 

consistent with the Federal law 

authorizing the partner’s program, and 

consistent with all other applicable legal 

requirements, including Federal cost 

principles in 2 CFR part 200 (or any 

corresponding similar regulation or 

ruling) requiring that costs are 

allowable, reasonable, necessary, and 

allocable. 

(e) Any shared costs agreed upon by 

the one-stop partners must be included 

in the MOU. 

Subpart F—One-Stop Certification 

§ 678.800 How are one-stop centers and 

one-stop delivery systems certified for 

effectiveness, physical and programmatic 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement? 

(a) The State WDB, in consultation 

with chief elected officials and Local 

WDBs, must establish objective criteria 

and procedures for Local WDBs to use 

when certifying one-stop centers. 

(1) The State WDB, in consultation 

with chief elected officials and Local 

WDBs, must review and update the 

criteria every 2 years as part of the 

review and modification of State Plans 

pursuant to § 676.135 of this chapter. 

(2) The criteria must be consistent 

with the Governor’s and State WDB’s 

guidelines, guidance, and policies on 

infrastructure funding decisions, 

described in § 678.705. The criteria 

must evaluate the one-stop centers and 

one-stop delivery system for 

effectiveness, including customer 

satisfaction, physical and programmatic 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement. 

(3) When the Local WDB is the onestop operator as described in § 679.410 

of this chapter, the State WDB must 

certify the one-stop center. 

(b) Evaluations of effectiveness must 

include how well the one-stop center 

integrates available services for 

participants and businesses, meets the 

workforce development needs of 

participants and the employment needs 

of local employers, operates in a costefficient manner, coordinates services 

among the one-stop partner programs, 

and provides access to partner program 

services to the maximum extent 

practicable, including providing 

services outside of regular business 

hours where there is a workforce need, 

as identified by the Local WDB. These 

evaluations must take into account 

feedback from one-stop customers. They 

must also include evaluations of how 

well the one-stop center ensures equal 

opportunity for individuals with 

disabilities to participate in or benefit 

from one-stop center services. These 

evaluations must include criteria 

evaluating how well the centers and 

delivery systems take actions to comply 

with the disability-related regulations 

implementing WIOA sec. 188, set forth 

at 29 CFR part 38. Such actions include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Providing reasonable 

accommodations for individuals with 

disabilities; 

(2) Making reasonable modifications 

to policies, practices, and procedures 

where necessary to avoid discrimination 

against persons with disabilities; 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56022 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) Administering programs in the 

most integrated setting appropriate; 

(4) Communicating with persons with 

disabilities as effectively as with others; 

(5) Providing appropriate auxiliary 

aids and services, including assistive 

technology devices and services, where 

necessary to afford individuals with 

disabilities an equal opportunity to 

participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, 

the program or activity; and 

(6) Providing for the physical 

accessibility of the one-stop center to 

individuals with disabilities. 

(c) Evaluations of continuous 

improvement must include how well 

the one-stop center supports the 

achievement of the negotiated local 

levels of performance for the indicators 

of performance for the local area 

described in sec. 116(b)(2) of WIOA and 

part 677 of this chapter. Other 

continuous improvement factors may 

include a regular process for identifying 

and responding to technical assistance 

needs, a regular system of continuing 

professional staff development, and 

having systems in place to capture and 

respond to specific customer feedback. 

(d) Local WDBs must assess at least 

once every 3 years the effectiveness, 

physical and programmatic 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement of one-stop centers and 

the one-stop delivery systems using the 

criteria and procedures developed by 

the State WDB. The Local WDB may 

establish additional criteria, or set 

higher standards for service 

coordination, than those set by the State 

criteria. Local WDBs must review and 

update the criteria every 2 years as part 

of the Local Plan update process 

described in § 676.580 of this chapter. 

Local WDBs must certify one-stop 

centers in order to be eligible to use 

infrastructure funds in the State funding 

mechanism described in § 678.730. 

(e) All one-stop centers must comply 

with applicable physical and 

programmatic accessibility 

requirements, as set forth in 29 CFR part 

38, the implementing regulations of 

WIOA sec. 188. 

Subpart G—Common Identifier 

§ 678.900 What is the common identifier to 

be used by each one-stop delivery system? 

(a) The common one-stop delivery 

system identifier is ‘‘American Job 

Center.’’ 

(b) As of November 17, 2016, each 

one-stop delivery system must include 

the ‘‘American Job Center’’ identifier or 

‘‘a proud partner of the American Job 

Center network’’ on all primary 

electronic resources used by the onestop delivery system, and on any newly 

printed, purchased, or created materials. 

(c) As of July 1, 2017, each one-stop 

delivery system must include the 

‘‘American Job Center’’ identifier or ‘‘a 

proud partner of the American Job 

Center network’’ on all products, 

programs, activities, services, electronic 

resources, facilities, and related 

property and new materials used in the 

one-stop delivery system. 

(d) One-stop partners, States, or local 

areas may use additional identifiers on 

their products, programs, activities, 

services, facilities, and related property 

and materials. 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Chapters III and IV 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of Education 

amends 34 CFR chapters III and IV as 

follows: 

PART 361—STATE VOCATIONAL 

REHABILITATION SERVICES 

PROGRAM 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 361 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709(c), unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 5. Add subpart D to part 361 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart D—Unified and Combined State 

Plans Under Title I of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act 

Sec. 

361.100 What are the purposes of the 

Unified and Combined State Plans? 

361.105 What are the general requirements 

for the Unified State Plan? 

361.110 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the adult, dislocated worker, and 

youth programs authorized under 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act title I? 

361.115 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act program authorized under 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act title II? 

361.120 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, 

as amended by Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act title III? 

361.125 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the State Vocational Rehabilitation 

program authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title IV? 

361.130 What is the development, 

submission, and approval process of the 

Unified State Plan? 

361.135 What are the requirements for 

modification of the Unified State Plan? 

361.140 What are the general requirements 

for submitting a Combined State Plan? 

361.143 What is the development, 

submission, and approval process of the 

Combined State Plan? 

361.145 What are the requirements for 

modifications of the Combined State 

Plan? 

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, and 503, Pub. L. 

113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014). 

Subpart D—Unified and Combined 

State Plans Under Title I of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act 

§ 361.100 What are the purposes of the 

Unified and Combined State Plans? 

(a) The Unified and Combined State 

Plans provide the framework for States 

to outline a strategic vision of, and goals 

for, how their workforce development 

systems will achieve the purposes of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA). 

(b) The Unified and Combined State 

Plans serve as 4-year action plans to 

develop, align, and integrate the State’s 

systems and provide a platform to 

achieve the State’s vision and strategic 

and operational goals. A Unified or 

Combined State Plan is intended to: 

(1) Align, in strategic coordination, 

the six core programs required in the 

Unified State Plan pursuant to 

§ 361.105(b), and additional Combined 

State Plan partner programs that may be 

part of the Combined State Plan 

pursuant to § 361.140; 

(2) Direct investments in economic, 

education, and workforce training 

programs to focus on providing relevant 

education and training to ensure that 

individuals, including youth and 

individuals with barriers to 

employment, have the skills to compete 

in the job market and that employers 

have a ready supply of skilled workers; 

(3) Apply strategies for job-driven 

training consistently across Federal 

programs; and 

(4) Enable economic, education, and 

workforce partners to build a skilled 

workforce through innovation in, and 

alignment of, employment, training, and 

education programs. 

§ 361.105 What are the general 

requirements for the Unified State Plan? 

(a) The Unified State Plan must be 

submitted in accordance with § 361.130 

and WIOA sec. 102(c), as explained in 

joint planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education. 

(b) The Governor of each State must 

submit, at a minimum, in accordance 

with § 361.130, a Unified State Plan to 

the Secretary of Labor to be eligible to 

receive funding for the workforce 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56023 

development system’s six core 

programs: 

(1) The adult, dislocated worker, and 

youth programs authorized under 

subtitle B of title I of WIOA and 

administered by the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL); 

(2) The Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act (AEFLA) program 

authorized under title II of WIOA and 

administered by the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED); 

(3) The Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act 

of 1933, as amended by WIOA title III 

and administered by DOL; and 

(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation 

program authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by title IV of WIOA and administered by 

ED. 

(c) The Unified State Plan must 

outline the State’s 4-year strategy for the 

core programs described in paragraph 

(b) of this section and meet the 

requirements of sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as 

explained in the joint planning 

guidelines issued by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education. 

(d) The Unified State Plan must 

include strategic and operational 

planning elements to facilitate the 

development of an aligned, coordinated, 

and comprehensive workforce 

development system. The Unified State 

Plan must include: 

(1) Strategic planning elements that 

describe the State’s strategic vision and 

goals for preparing an educated and 

skilled workforce under sec. 102(b)(1) of 

WIOA. The strategic planning elements 

must be informed by and include an 

analysis of the State’s economic 

conditions and employer and workforce 

needs, including education and skill 

needs. 

(2) Strategies for aligning the core 

programs and Combined State Plan 

partner programs as described in 

§ 361.140(d), as well as other resources 

available to the State, to achieve the 

strategic vision and goals in accordance 

with sec. 102(b)(1)(E) of WIOA. 

(3) Operational planning elements in 

accordance with sec. 102(b)(2) of WIOA 

that support the strategies for aligning 

the core programs and other resources 

available to the State to achieve the 

State’s vision and goals and a 

description of how the State Workforce 

Development Board (WDB) will 

implement its functions, in accordance 

with sec. 101(d) of WIOA. Operational 

planning elements must include: 

(i) A description of how the State 

strategy will be implemented by each 

core program’s lead State agency; 

(ii) State operating systems, including 

data systems, and policies that will 

support the implementation of the 

State’s strategy identified in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section; 

(iii) Program-specific requirements for 

the core programs required by WIOA 

sec. 102(b)(2)(D); 

(iv) Assurances required by sec. 

102(b)(2)(E) of WIOA, including an 

assurance that the lead State agencies 

responsible for the administration of the 

core programs reviewed and commented 

on the appropriate operational planning 

of the Unified State Plan and approved 

the elements as serving the needs of the 

population served by such programs, 

and other assurances deemed necessary 

by the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education under sec. 102(b)(2)(E)(x) of 

WIOA; 

(v) A description of joint planning 

and coordination across core programs, 

required one-stop partner programs, and 

other programs and activities in the 

Unified State Plan; and 

(vi) Any additional operational 

planning requirements imposed by the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii) 

of WIOA. 

(e) All of the requirements in this 

subpart that apply to States also apply 

to outlying areas. 

§ 361.110 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

programs authorized under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title I? 

The program-specific requirements for 

the adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

programs that must be included in the 

Unified State Plan are described in sec. 

102(b)(2)(D) of WIOA. Additional 

planning requirements may be 

explained in joint planning guidelines 

issued by the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education. 

§ 361.115 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act 

program authorized under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title II? 

The program-specific requirements for 

the AEFLA program in title II that must 

be included in the Unified State Plan 

are described in secs. 102(b)(2)(C) and 

102(b)(2)(D)(ii) of WIOA. 

(a) With regard to the description 

required in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I) of 

WIOA pertaining to content standards, 

the Unified State Plan must describe 

how the eligible agency will, by July 1, 

2016, align its content standards for 

adult education with State-adopted 

challenging academic content standards 

under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended. 

(b) With regard to the description 

required in sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(iv) of 

WIOA pertaining to the methods and 

factors the State will use to distribute 

funds under the core programs, for title 

II of WIOA, the Unified State Plan must 

include— 

(1) How the eligible agency will 

award multi-year grants on a 

competitive basis to eligible providers 

in the State; and 

(2) How the eligible agency will 

provide direct and equitable access to 

funds using the same grant or contract 

announcement and application 

procedure. 

§ 361.120 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as 

amended by Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title III? 

The Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act 

of 1933, as amended by WIOA title III, 

is subject to requirements in sec. 102(b) 

of WIOA, including any additional 

requirements imposed by the Secretary 

of Labor under secs. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii) 

and 102(b)(2)(D)(iv) of WIOA, as 

explained in joint planning guidelines 

issued by the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education. 

§ 361.125 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the State Vocational Rehabilitation program 

authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended by Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title IV? 

The program specific-requirements for 

the vocational rehabilitation services 

portion of the Unified or Combined 

State Plan are set forth in sec. 101(a) of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. All submission requirements 

for the vocational rehabilitation services 

portion of the Unified or Combined 

State Plan are in addition to the jointly 

developed strategic and operational 

content requirements prescribed by sec. 

102(b) of WIOA. 

§ 361.130 What is the development, 

submission, and approval process of the 

Unified State Plan? 

(a) The Unified State Plan described 

in § 361.105 must be submitted in 

accordance with WIOA sec. 102(c), as 

explained in joint planning guidelines 

issued jointly by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Education. 

(b) A State must submit its Unified 

State Plan to the Secretary of Labor 

pursuant to a process identified by the 

Secretary. 

(1) The initial Unified State Plan must 

be submitted no later than 120 days 

prior to the commencement of the 

second full program year of WIOA. 

(2) Subsequent Unified State Plans 

must be submitted no later than 120 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56024 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

days prior to the end of the 4-year 

period covered by a preceding Unified 

State Plan. 

(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of 

this section, ‘‘program year’’ means July 

1 through June 30 of any year. 

(c) The Unified State Plan must be 

developed with the assistance of the 

State WDB, as required by 20 CFR 

679.130(a) and WIOA sec. 101(d), and 

must be developed in coordination with 

administrators with optimum policymaking authority for the core programs 

and required one-stop partners. 

(d) The State must provide an 

opportunity for public comment on and 

input into the development of the 

Unified State Plan prior to its 

submission. 

(1) The opportunity for public 

comment must include an opportunity 

for comment by representatives of Local 

WDBs and chief elected officials, 

businesses, representatives of labor 

organizations, community-based 

organizations, adult education 

providers, institutions of higher 

education, other stakeholders with an 

interest in the services provided by the 

six core programs, and the general 

public, including individuals with 

disabilities. 

(2) Consistent with the ‘‘Sunshine 

Provision’’ of WIOA in sec. 101(g), the 

State WDB must make information 

regarding the Unified State Plan 

available to the public through 

electronic means and regularly 

occurring open meetings in accordance 

with State law. The Unified State Plan 

must describe the State’s process and 

timeline for ensuring a meaningful 

opportunity for public comment. 

(e) Upon receipt of the Unified State 

Plan from the State, the Secretary of 

Labor will ensure that the entire Unified 

State Plan is submitted to the Secretary 

of Education pursuant to a process 

developed by the Secretaries. 

(f) The Unified State Plan is subject to 

the approval of both the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of Education. 

(g) Before the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education approve the Unified State 

Plan, the vocational rehabilitation 

services portion of the Unified State 

Plan described in WIOA sec. 

102(b)(2)(D)(iii) must be approved by 

the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation 

Services Administration. 

(h) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education will review and approve the 

Unified State Plan within 90 days of 

receipt by the Secretary of Labor, unless 

the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary 

of Education determines in writing 

within that period that: 

(1) The plan is inconsistent with a 

core program’s requirements; 

(2) The Unified State Plan is 

inconsistent with any requirement of 

sec. 102 of WIOA; or 

(3) The plan is incomplete or 

otherwise insufficient to determine 

whether it is consistent with a core 

program’s requirements or other 

requirements of WIOA. 

(i) If neither the Secretary of Labor nor 

the Secretary of Education makes the 

written determination described in 

paragraph (h) of this section within 90 

days of the receipt by the Secretaries, 

the Unified State Plan will be 

considered approved. 

§ 361.135 What are the requirements for 

modification of the Unified State Plan? 

(a) In addition to the required 

modification review set forth in 

paragraph (b) of this section, a Governor 

may submit a modification of its Unified 

State Plan at any time during the 4-year 

period of the plan. 

(b) Modifications are required, at a 

minimum: 

(1) At the end of the first 2-year 

period of any 4-year State Plan, wherein 

the State WDB must review the Unified 

State Plan, and the Governor must 

submit modifications to the plan to 

reflect changes in labor market and 

economic conditions or other factors 

affecting the implementation of the 

Unified State Plan; 

(2) When changes in Federal or State 

law or policy substantially affect the 

strategies, goals, and priorities upon 

which the Unified State Plan is based; 

(3) When there are changes in the 

statewide vision, strategies, policies, 

State negotiated levels of performance 

as described in § 361.170(b), the 

methodology used to determine local 

allocation of funds, reorganizations that 

change the working relationship with 

system employees, changes in 

organizational responsibilities, changes 

to the membership structure of the State 

WDB or alternative entity, and similar 

substantial changes to the State’s 

workforce development system. 

(c) Modifications to the Unified State 

Plan are subject to the same public 

review and comment requirements in 

§ 361.130(d) that apply to the 

development of the original Unified 

State Plan. 

(d) Unified State Plan modifications 

must be approved by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education, based on the 

approval standards applicable to the 

original Unified State Plan under 

§ 361.130. This approval must come 

after the approval of the Commissioner 

of the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration for modification of any 

portion of the plan described in sec. 

102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA. 

§ 361.140 What are the general 

requirements for submitting a Combined 

State Plan? 

(a) A State may choose to develop and 

submit a 4-year Combined State Plan in 

lieu of the Unified State Plan described 

in §§ 361.105 through 361.125. 

(b) A State that submits a Combined 

State Plan covering an activity or 

program described in paragraph (d) of 

this section that is, in accordance with 

WIOA sec. 103(c), approved or deemed 

complete under the law relating to the 

program will not be required to submit 

any other plan or application in order to 

receive Federal funds to carry out the 

core programs or the program or 

activities described under paragraph (d) 

of this section that are covered by the 

Combined State Plan. 

(c) If a State develops a Combined 

State Plan, it must be submitted in 

accordance with the process described 

in § 361.143. 

(d) If a State chooses to submit a 

Combined State Plan, the plan must 

include the six core programs and one 

or more of the Combined State Plan 

partner programs and activities 

described in sec. 103(a)(2) of WIOA. The 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

and activities that may be included in 

the Combined State Plan are: 

(1) Career and technical education 

programs authorized under the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.); 

(2) Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families or TANF, authorized under 

part A of title IV of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

(3) Employment and training 

programs authorized under sec. 6(d)(4) 

of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 

(7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4)); 

(4) Work programs authorized under 

sec. 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act 

of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o)); 

(5) Trade adjustment assistance 

activities under chapter 2 of title II of 

the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 

et seq.); 

(6) Services for veterans authorized 

under chapter 41 of title 38 United 

States Code; 

(7) Programs authorized under State 

unemployment compensation laws (in 

accordance with applicable Federal 

law); 

(8) Senior Community Service 

Employment Programs under title V of 

the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 

U.S.C. 3056 et seq.); 

(9) Employment and training 

activities carried out by the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD); 

(10) Employment and training 

activities carried out under the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56025 

Community Services Block Grant Act 

(42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); and 

(11) Reintegration of offenders 

programs authorized under sec. 212 of 

the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42 

U.S.C. 17532). 

(e) A Combined State Plan must 

contain: 

(1) For the core programs, the 

information required by sec. 102(b) of 

WIOA and §§ 361.105 through 361.125, 

as explained in the joint planning 

guidelines issued by the Secretaries; 

(2) For the Combined State Plan 

partner programs and activities, except 

as described in paragraph (h) of this 

section, the information required by the 

law authorizing and governing that 

program to be submitted to the 

appropriate Secretary, any other 

applicable legal requirements, and any 

common planning requirements 

described in sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as 

explained in the joint planning 

guidelines issued by the Secretaries; 

(3) A description of the methods used 

for joint planning and coordination 

among the core programs, and with the 

required one-stop partner programs and 

other programs and activities included 

in the State Plan; and 

(4) An assurance that all of the 

entities responsible for planning or 

administering the programs described in 

the Combined State Plan have had a 

meaningful opportunity to review and 

comment on all portions of the plan. 

(f) Each Combined State Plan partner 

program included in the Combined 

State Plan remains subject to the 

applicable program-specific 

requirements of the Federal law and 

regulations, and any other applicable 

legal or program requirements, 

governing the implementation and 

operation of that program. 

(g) For purposes of §§ 361.140 through 

361.145 the term ‘‘appropriate 

Secretary’’ means the head of the 

Federal agency who exercises either 

plan or application approval authority 

for the program or activity under the 

Federal law authorizing the program or 

activity or, if there are no planning or 

application requirements, who exercises 

administrative authority over the 

program or activity under that Federal 

law. 

(h) States that include employment 

and training activities carried out under 

the Community Services Block Grant 

(CSBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.) 

under a Combined State Plan would 

submit all other required elements of a 

complete CSBG State Plan directly to 

the Federal agency that administers the 

program, according to the requirements 

of Federal law and regulations. 

(i) States that submit employment and 

training activities carried out by HUD 

under a Combined State Plan would 

submit any other required planning 

documents for HUD programs directly 

to HUD, according to the requirements 

of Federal law and regulations. 

§ 361.143 What is the development, 

submission, and approval process of the 

Combined State Plan? 

(a) For purposes of § 361.140(a), if a 

State chooses to develop a Combined 

State Plan it must submit the Combined 

State Plan in accordance with the 

requirements described below and sec. 

103 of WIOA, as explained in the joint 

planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education. 

(b) The Combined State Plan must be 

developed with the assistance of the 

State WDB, as required by 20 CFR 

679.130(a) and WIOA sec. 101(d), and 

must be developed in coordination with 

administrators with optimum policymaking authority for the core programs 

and required one-stop partners. 

(c) The State must provide an 

opportunity for public comment on and 

input into the development of the 

Combined State Plan prior to its 

submission. 

(1) The opportunity for public 

comment for the portions of the 

Combined State Plan that cover the core 

programs must include an opportunity 

for comment by representatives of Local 

WDBs and chief elected officials, 

businesses, representatives of labor 

organizations, community-based 

organizations, adult education 

providers, institutions of higher 

education, other stakeholders with an 

interest in the services provided by the 

six core programs, and the general 

public, including individuals with 

disabilities. 

(2) Consistent with the ‘‘Sunshine 

Provision’’ of WIOA in sec. 101(g), the 

State WDB must make information 

regarding the Combined State Plan 

available to the public through 

electronic means and regularly 

occurring open meetings in accordance 

with State law. The Combined State 

Plan must describe the State’s process 

and timeline for ensuring a meaningful 

opportunity for public comment on the 

portions of the plan covering core 

programs. 

(3) The portions of the plan that cover 

the Combined State Plan partner 

programs are subject to any public 

comment requirements applicable to 

those programs. 

(d) The State must submit to the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education and 

to the Secretary of the agency with 

responsibility for approving the 

program’s plan or deeming it complete 

under the law governing the program, as 

part of its Combined State Plan, any 

plan, application, form, or any other 

similar document that is required as a 

condition for the approval of Federal 

funding under the applicable program 

or activity. Such submission must occur 

in accordance with a process identified 

by the relevant Secretaries in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(e) The Combined State Plan will be 

approved or disapproved in accordance 

with the requirements of sec. 103(c) of 

WIOA. 

(1) The portion of the Combined State 

Plan covering programs administered by 

the Departments of Labor and Education 

must be reviewed, and approved or 

disapproved, by the appropriate 

Secretary within 90 days beginning on 

the day the Combined State Plan is 

received by the appropriate Secretary 

from the State, consistent with 

paragraph (f) of this section. Before the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education 

approve the Combined State Plan, the 

vocational rehabilitation services 

portion of the Combined State Plan 

described in WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) 

must be approved by the Commissioner 

of the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration. 

(2) If an appropriate Secretary other 

than the Secretary of Labor or the 

Secretary of Education has authority to 

approve or deem complete a portion of 

the Combined State Plan for a program 

or activity described in § 361.140(d), 

that portion of the Combined State Plan 

must be reviewed, and approved, 

disapproved, or deemed complete, by 

the appropriate Secretary within 120 

days beginning on the day the 

Combined State Plan is received by the 

appropriate Secretary from the State 

consistent with paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(f) The appropriate Secretaries will 

review and approve or deem complete 

the Combined State Plan within 90 or 

120 days, as appropriate, as described in 

paragraph (e) of this section, unless the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education or 

appropriate Secretary have determined 

in writing within that period that: 

(1) The Combined State Plan is 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the six core programs or the Federal 

laws authorizing or applicable to the 

program or activity involved, including 

the criteria for approval of a plan or 

application, or deeming the plan 

complete, if any, under such law; 

(2) The portion of the Combined State 

Plan describing the six core programs or 

the program or activity described in 

paragraph (a) of this section involved 

does not satisfy the criteria as provided 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56026 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

in sec. 102 or 103 of WIOA, as 

applicable; or 

(3) The Combined State Plan is 

incomplete, or otherwise insufficient to 

determine whether it is consistent with 

a core program’s requirements, other 

requirements of WIOA, or the Federal 

laws authorizing, or applicable to, the 

program or activity described in 

§ 361.140(d), including the criteria for 

approval of a plan or application, if any, 

under such law. 

(g) If the Secretary of Labor, the 

Secretary of Education, or the 

appropriate Secretary does not make the 

written determination described in 

paragraph (f) of this section within the 

relevant period of time after submission 

of the Combined State Plan, that portion 

of the Combined State Plan over which 

the Secretary has jurisdiction will be 

considered approved. 

(h) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education’s written determination of 

approval or disapproval regarding the 

portion of the plan for the six core 

programs may be separate from the 

written determination of approval, 

disapproval, or completeness of the 

program-specific requirements of 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

and activities described in § 361.140(d) 

and included in the Combined State 

Plan. 

(i) Special rule. In paragraphs (f)(1) 

and (3) of this section, the term ‘‘criteria 

for approval of a plan or application,’’ 

with respect to a State or a core program 

or a program under the Carl D. Perkins 

Career and Technical Education Act of 

2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), includes 

a requirement for agreement between 

the State and the appropriate Secretaries 

regarding State performance measures 

or State performance accountability 

measures, as the case may be, including 

levels of performance. 

§ 361.145 What are the requirements for 

modifications of the Combined State Plan? 

(a) For the core program portions of 

the Combined State Plan, modifications 

are required, at a minimum: 

(1) By the end of the first 2-year 

period of any 4-year State Plan. The 

State WDB must review the Combined 

State Plan, and the Governor must 

submit modifications to the Combined 

State Plan to reflect changes in labor 

market and economic conditions or 

other factors affecting the 

implementation of the Combined State 

Plan; 

(2) When changes in Federal or State 

law or policy substantially affect the 

strategies, goals, and priorities upon 

which the Combined State Plan is 

based; 

(3) When there are changes in the 

statewide vision, strategies, policies, 

State negotiated levels of performance 

as described in § 361.170(b), the 

methodology used to determine local 

allocation of funds, reorganizations that 

change the working relationship with 

system employees, changes in 

organizational responsibilities, changes 

to the membership structure of the State 

WDB or alternative entity, and similar 

substantial changes to the State’s 

workforce development system. 

(b) In addition to the required 

modification review described in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a State 

may submit a modification of its 

Combined State Plan at any time during 

the 4-year period of the plan. 

(c) For any Combined State Plan 

partner programs and activities 

described in § 361.140(d) that are 

included in a State’s Combined State 

Plan, the State— 

(1) May decide if the modification 

requirements under WIOA sec. 102(c)(3) 

that apply to the core programs will 

apply to the Combined State Plan 

partner programs, as long as consistent 

with any other modification 

requirements for the programs, or may 

comply with the requirements 

applicable to only the particular 

program or activity; and 

(2) Must submit, in accordance with 

the procedure described in § 361.143, 

any modification, amendment, or 

revision required by the Federal law 

authorizing, or applicable to, the 

Combined State Plan partner program or 

activity. 

(i) If the underlying programmatic 

requirements change (e.g., the 

authorizing statute is reauthorized) for 

Federal laws authorizing such programs, 

a State must either modify its Combined 

State Plan or submit a separate plan to 

the appropriate Federal agency in 

accordance with the new Federal law 

authorizing the Combined State Plan 

partner program or activity and other 

legal requirements applicable to such 

program or activity. 

(ii) If the modification, amendment, or 

revision affects the administration of 

only that particular Combined State 

Plan partner program and has no impact 

on the Combined State Plan as a whole 

or the integration and administration of 

the core and other Combined State Plan 

partner programs at the State level, 

modifications must be submitted for 

approval to only the appropriate 

Secretary, based on the approval 

standards applicable to the original 

Combined State Plan under § 361.143, if 

the State elects, or in accordance with 

the procedures and requirements 

applicable to the particular Combined 

State Plan partner program. 

(3) A State also may amend its 

Combined State Plan to add a Combined 

State Plan partner program or activity 

described in § 361.140(d). 

(d) Modifications of the Combined 

State Plan are subject to the same public 

review and comment requirements that 

apply to the development of the original 

Combined State Plan as described in 

§ 361.143(c) except that, if the 

modification, amendment, or revision 

affects the administration of a particular 

Combined State Plan partner program 

and has no impact on the Combined 

State Plan as a whole or the integration 

and administration of the core and other 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

at the State level, a State may comply 

instead with the procedures and 

requirements applicable to the 

particular Combined State Plan partner 

program. 

(e) Modifications for the core program 

portions of the Combined State Plan 

must be approved by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education, based on the 

approval standards applicable to the 

original Combined State Plan under 

§ 361.143. This approval must come 

after the approval of the Commissioner 

of the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration for modification of any 

portion of the Combined State Plan 

described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of 

WIOA. 

■ 6. Revise subpart E of part 361 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart E—Performance Accountability 

Under Title I of the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act 

Sec. 

361.150 What definitions apply to 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act performance accountability 

provisions? 

361.155 What are the primary indicators of 

performance under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

361.160 What information is required for 

State performance reports? 

361.165 May a State establish additional 

indicators of performance? 

361.170 How are State levels of 

performance for primary indicators 

established? 

361.175 What responsibility do States have 

to use quarterly wage record information 

for performance accountability? 

361.180 When is a State subject to a 

financial sanction under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

361.185 When are sanctions applied for a 

State’s failure to submit an annual 

performance report? 

361.190 When are sanctions applied for 

failure to achieve adjusted levels of 

performance? 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56027 

361.195 What should States expect when a 

sanction is applied to the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment? 

361.200 What other administrative actions 

will be applied to States’ performance 

requirements? 

361.205 What performance indicators apply 

to local areas and what information must 

be included in local area performance 

reports? 

361.210 How are local performance levels 

established? 

361.215 Under what circumstances are 

local areas eligible for State Incentive 

Grants? 

361.220 Under what circumstances may a 

corrective action or sanction be applied 

to local areas for poor performance? 

361.225 Under what circumstances may 

local areas appeal a reorganization plan? 

361.230 What information is required for 

the eligible training provider 

performance reports? 

361.235 What are the reporting 

requirements for individual records for 

core Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) title I programs; 

the Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service program, as amended by WIOA 

title III; and the Vocational 

Rehabilitation program authorized under 

title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

as amended by WIOA title IV? 

361.240 What are the requirements for data 

validation of State annual performance 

reports? 

Authority: Secs. 116, 189, and 503 of Pub. 

L. 113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014). 

Subpart E—Performance 

Accountability Under Title I of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act 

§ 361.150 What definitions apply to 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

performance accountability provisions? 

(a) Participant. A reportable 

individual who has received services 

other than the services described in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, after 

satisfying all applicable programmatic 

requirements for the provision of 

services, such as eligibility 

determination. 

(1) For the Vocational Rehabilitation 

(VR) program, a participant is a 

reportable individual who has an 

approved and signed Individualized 

Plan for Employment (IPE) and has 

begun to receive services. 

(2) For the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) title I youth 

program, a participant is a reportable 

individual who has satisfied all 

applicable program requirements for the 

provision of services, including 

eligibility determination, an objective 

assessment, and development of an 

individual service strategy, and received 

1 of the 14 WIOA youth program 

elements identified in sec. 129(c)(2) of 

WIOA. 

(3) The following individuals are not 

participants: 

(i) Individuals in an Adult Education 

and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) 

program who have not completed at 

least 12 contact hours; 

(ii) Individuals who only use the selfservice system. 

(A) Subject to paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of 

this section, self-service occurs when 

individuals independently access any 

workforce development system 

program’s information and activities in 

either a physical location, such as a onestop center resource room or partner 

agency, or remotely via the use of 

electronic technologies. 

(B) Self-service does not uniformly 

apply to all virtually accessed services. 

For example, virtually accessed services 

that provide a level of support beyond 

independent job or information seeking 

on the part of an individual would not 

qualify as self-service. 

(iii) Individuals who receive 

information-only services or activities, 

which provide readily available 

information that does not require an 

assessment by a staff member of the 

individual’s skills, education, or career 

objectives. 

(4) Programs must include 

participants in their performance 

calculations. 

(b) Reportable individual. An 

individual who has taken action that 

demonstrates an intent to use program 

services and who meets specific 

reporting criteria of the program, 

including: 

(1) Individuals who provide 

identifying information; 

(2) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; or 

(3) Individuals who only receive 

information-only services or activities. 

(c) Exit. As defined for the purpose of 

performance calculations, exit is the 

point after which a participant who has 

received services through any program 

meets the following criteria: 

(1) For the adult, dislocated worker, 

and youth programs authorized under 

WIOA title I, the AEFLA program 

authorized under WIOA title II, and the 

Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 

Act, as amended by WIOA title III, exit 

date is the last date of service. 

(i) The last day of service cannot be 

determined until at least 90 days have 

elapsed since the participant last 

received services; services do not 

include self-service, information-only 

services or activities, or follow-up 

services. This also requires that there 

are no plans to provide the participant 

with future services. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(2)(i) For the VR program authorized 

under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended by WIOA title IV (VR 

program): 

(A) The participant’s record of service 

is closed in accordance with § 361.56 

because the participant has achieved an 

employment outcome; or 

(B) The participant’s service record is 

closed because the individual has not 

achieved an employment outcome or 

the individual has been determined 

ineligible after receiving services in 

accordance with § 361.43. 

(ii) Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this section, a participant 

will not be considered as meeting the 

definition of exit from the VR program 

if the participant’s service record is 

closed because the participant has 

achieved a supported employment 

outcome in an integrated setting but not 

in competitive integrated employment. 

(3)(i) A State may implement a 

common exit policy for all or some of 

the core programs in WIOA title I and 

the Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 

Act, as amended by WIOA title III, and 

any additional required partner 

program(s) listed in sec. 121(b)(1)(B) of 

WIOA that is under the authority of the 

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 

(ii) If a State chooses to implement a 

common exit policy, the policy must 

require that a participant is exited only 

when all of the criteria in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section are met for the 

WIOA title I core programs and the 

Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 

Act, as amended by WIOA title III, as 

well as any additional required partner 

programs listed in sec. 121(b)(1)(B) of 

WIOA under the authority of DOL to 

which the common exit policy applies 

in which the participant is enrolled. 

(d) State. For purposes of this part, 

other than in regard to sanctions or the 

statistical adjustment model, all 

references to ‘‘State’’ include the 

outlying areas of American Samoa, 

Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

and, as applicable, the Republic of 

Palau. 

§ 361.155 What are the primary indicators 

of performance under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

(a) All States submitting either a 

Unified or Combined State Plan under 

§§ 361.130 and 361.143, must propose 

expected levels of performance for each 

of the primary indicators of performance 

for the adult, dislocated worker, and 

youth programs authorized under WIOA 

title I; the AEFLA program authorized 

under WIOA title II; the Employment 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56028 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Service program authorized under the 

Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by 

WIOA title III; and the VR program 

authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by WIOA title IV. 

(1) Primary indicators of performance. 

The six primary indicators of 

performance for the adult and 

dislocated worker programs, the AEFLA 

program, and the VR program are: 

(i) The percentage of participants who 

are in unsubsidized employment during 

the second quarter after exit from the 

program; 

(ii) The percentage of participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the fourth quarter after exit from 

the program; 

(iii) Median earnings of participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exit from 

the program; 

(iv)(A) The percentage of those 

participants enrolled in an education or 

training program (excluding those in onthe-job training [OJT] and customized 

training) who attained a recognized 

postsecondary credential or a secondary 

school diploma, or its recognized 

equivalent, during participation in or 

within 1 year after exit from the 

program. 

(B) A participant who has attained a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent is included in the 

percentage of participants who have 

attained a secondary school diploma or 

recognized equivalent only if the 

participant also is employed or is 

enrolled in an education or training 

program leading to a recognized 

postsecondary credential within 1 year 

after exit from the program; 

(v) The percentage of participants 

who, during a program year, are in an 

education or training program that leads 

to a recognized postsecondary 

credential or employment and who are 

achieving measurable skill gains, 

defined as documented academic, 

technical, occupational, or other forms 

of progress, towards such a credential or 

employment. Depending upon the type 

of education or training program, 

documented progress is defined as one 

of the following: 

(A) Documented achievement of at 

least one educational functioning level 

of a participant who is receiving 

instruction below the postsecondary 

education level; 

(B) Documented attainment of a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent; 

(C) Secondary or postsecondary 

transcript or report card for a sufficient 

number of credit hours that shows a 

participant is meeting the State unit’s 

academic standards; 

(D) Satisfactory or better progress 

report, towards established milestones, 

such as completion of OJT or 

completion of 1 year of an 

apprenticeship program or similar 

milestones, from an employer or 

training provider who is providing 

training; or 

(E) Successful passage of an exam that 

is required for a particular occupation or 

progress in attaining technical or 

occupational skills as evidenced by 

trade-related benchmarks such as 

knowledge-based exams. 

(vi) Effectiveness in serving 

employers. 

(2) Participants. For purposes of the 

primary indicators of performance in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, 

‘‘participant’’ will have the meaning 

given to it in § 361.150(a), except that— 

(i) For purposes of determining 

program performance levels under 

indicators set forth in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (iv) and (vi) of this 

section, a ‘‘participant’’ does not 

include a participant who received 

services under sec. 225 of WIOA and 

exits such program while still in a 

correctional institution as defined in 

sec. 225(e)(1) of WIOA; and 

(ii) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education may, as needed and 

consistent with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), make further 

determinations as to the participants to 

be included in calculating program 

performance levels for purposes of any 

of the performance indicators set forth 

in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(b) The primary indicators in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi) 

of this section apply to the Employment 

Service program authorized under the 

Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by 

WIOA title III. 

(c) For the youth program authorized 

under WIOA title I, the primary 

indicators are: 

(1) Percentage of participants who are 

in education or training activities, or in 

unsubsidized employment, during the 

second quarter after exit from the 

program; 

(2) Percentage of participants in 

education or training activities, or in 

unsubsidized employment, during the 

fourth quarter after exit from the 

program; 

(3) Median earnings of participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exit from 

the program; 

(4) The percentage of those 

participants enrolled in an education or 

training program (excluding those in 

OJT and customized training) who 

obtained a recognized postsecondary 

credential or a secondary school 

diploma, or its recognized equivalent, 

during participation in or within 1 year 

after exit from the program, except that 

a participant who has attained a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent is included as 

having attained a secondary school 

diploma or recognized equivalent only 

if the participant is also employed or is 

enrolled in an education or training 

program leading to a recognized 

postsecondary credential within 1 year 

from program exit; 

(5) The percentage of participants 

who during a program year, are in an 

education or training program that leads 

to a recognized postsecondary 

credential or employment and who are 

achieving measurable skill gains, 

defined as documented academic, 

technical, occupational or other forms of 

progress towards such a credential or 

employment. Depending upon the type 

of education or training program, 

documented progress is defined as one 

of the following: 

(i) Documented achievement of at 

least one educational functioning level 

of a participant who is receiving 

instruction below the postsecondary 

education level; 

(ii) Documented attainment of a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent; 

(iii) Secondary or postsecondary 

transcript or report card for a sufficient 

number of credit hours that shows a 

participant is achieving the State unit’s 

academic standards; 

(iv) Satisfactory or better progress 

report, towards established milestones, 

such as completion of OJT or 

completion of 1 year of an 

apprenticeship program or similar 

milestones, from an employer or 

training provider who is providing 

training; or 

(v) Successful passage of an exam that 

is required for a particular occupation or 

progress in attaining technical or 

occupational skills as evidenced by 

trade-related benchmarks such as 

knowledge-based exams. 

(6) Effectiveness in serving employers. 

§ 361.160 What information is required for 

State performance reports? 

(a) The State performance report 

required by sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA must 

be submitted annually using a template 

the Departments of Labor and Education 

will disseminate, and must provide, at 

a minimum, information on the actual 

performance levels achieved consistent 

with § 361.175 with respect to: 

(1) The total number of participants 

served, and the total number of 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56029 

participants who exited each of the core 

programs identified in sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA, including 

disaggregated counts of those who 

participated in and exited a core 

program, by: 

(i) Individuals with barriers to 

employment as defined in WIOA sec. 

3(24); and 

(ii) Co-enrollment in any of the 

programs in WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

(2) Information on the performance 

levels achieved for the primary 

indicators of performance for all of the 

core programs identified in § 361.155 

including disaggregated levels for: 

(i) Individuals with barriers to 

employment as defined in WIOA sec. 

3(24); 

(ii) Age; 

(iii) Sex; and 

(iv) Race and ethnicity. 

(3) The total number of participants 

who received career services and the 

total number of participants who exited 

from career services for the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, and the total number of 

participants who received training 

services and the total number of 

participants who exited from training 

services for the most recent program 

year and the 3 preceding program years, 

as applicable to the program; 

(4) Information on the performance 

levels achieved for the primary 

indicators of performance consistent 

with § 361.155 for career services and 

training services for the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program; 

(5) The percentage of participants in 

a program who attained unsubsidized 

employment related to the training 

received (often referred to as trainingrelated employment) through WIOA 

title I, subtitle B programs; 

(6) The amount of funds spent on 

career services and the amount of funds 

spent on training services for the most 

recent program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program; 

(7) The average cost per participant 

for those participants who received 

career services and training services, 

respectively, during the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program; 

(8) The percentage of a State’s annual 

allotment under WIOA sec. 132(b) that 

the State spent on administrative costs; 

and 

(9) Information that facilitates 

comparisons of programs with programs 

in other States. 

(10) For WIOA title I programs, a State 

performance narrative, which, for States 

in which a local area is implementing a 

pay-for-performance contracting 

strategy, at a minimum provides: 

(i) A description of pay-forperformance contract strategies being 

used for programs; 

(ii) The performance of service 

providers entering into contracts for 

such strategies, measured against the 

levels of performance specified in the 

contracts for such strategies; and 

(iii) An evaluation of the design of the 

programs and performance strategies 

and, when available, the satisfaction of 

employers and participants who 

received services under such strategies. 

(b) The disaggregation of data for the 

State performance report must be done 

in compliance with WIOA sec. 

116(d)(6)(C). 

(c) The State performance reports 

must include a mechanism of electronic 

access to the State’s local area and 

eligible training provider (ETP) 

performance reports. 

(d) States must comply with these 

requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as 

explained in joint guidance issued by 

the Departments of Labor and 

Education, which may include 

information on reportable individuals as 

determined by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Education. 

§ 361.165 May a State establish additional 

indicators of performance? 

States may identify additional 

indicators of performance for the six 

core programs. If a State does so, these 

indicators must be included in the 

Unified or Combined State Plan. 

§ 361.170 How are State levels of 

performance for primary indicators 

established? 

(a) A State must submit in the State 

Plan expected levels of performance on 

the primary indicators of performance 

for each core program as required by 

sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(iii) of WIOA as 

explained in joint guidance issued by 

the Secretaries of Labor and Education. 

(1) The initial State Plan submitted 

under WIOA must contain expected 

levels of performance for the first 2 

years of the State Plan. 

(2) States must submit expected levels 

of performance for the third and fourth 

year of the State Plan before the third 

program year consistent with §§ 361.135 

and 361.145. 

(b) States must reach agreement on 

levels of performance with the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education for 

each indicator for each core program. 

These are the negotiated levels of 

performance. The negotiated levels must 

be based on the following factors: 

(1) How the negotiated levels of 

performance compare with State levels 

of performance established for other 

States; 

(2) The application of an objective 

statistical model established by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education, 

subject to paragraph (d) of this section; 

(3) How the negotiated levels promote 

continuous improvement in 

performance based on the primary 

indicators and ensure optimal return on 

investment of Federal funds; and 

(4) The extent to which the negotiated 

levels assist the State in meeting the 

performance goals established by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education for 

the core programs in accordance with 

the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993, as amended. 

(c) An objective statistical adjustment 

model will be developed and 

disseminated by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Education. The model will be based 

on: 

(1) Differences among States in actual 

economic conditions, including but not 

limited to unemployment rates and job 

losses or gains in particular industries; 

and 

(2) The characteristics of participants, 

including but not limited to: 

(i) Indicators of poor work history; 

(ii) Lack of work experience; 

(iii) Lack of educational or 

occupational skills attainment; 

(iv) Dislocation from high-wage and 

high-benefit employment; 

(v) Low levels of literacy; 

(vi) Low levels of English proficiency; 

(vii) Disability status; 

(viii) Homelessness; 

(ix) Ex-offender status; and 

(x) Welfare dependency. 

(d) The objective statistical 

adjustment model developed under 

paragraph (c) of this section will be: 

(1) Applied to the core programs’ 

primary indicators upon availability of 

data which are necessary to populate 

the model and apply the model to the 

local core programs; 

(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, used before the beginning of a 

program year in order to reach 

agreement on State negotiated levels for 

the upcoming program year; and 

(3) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, used to revise negotiated levels 

at the end of a program year based on 

actual economic conditions and 

characteristics of participants served, 

consistent with sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(vii) of 

WIOA. 

(e) The negotiated levels revised at the 

end of the program year, based on the 

statistical adjustment model, are the 

adjusted levels of performance. 

(f) States must comply with these 

requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56030 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

explained in joint guidance issued by 

the Departments of Labor and 

Education. 

§ 361.175 What responsibility do States 

have to use quarterly wage record 

information for performance 

accountability? 

(a)(1) States must, consistent with 

State laws, use quarterly wage record 

information in measuring a State’s 

performance on the primary indicators 

of performance outlined in § 361.155 

and a local area’s performance on the 

primary indicators of performance 

identified in § 361.205. 

(2) The use of social security numbers 

from participants and such other 

information as is necessary to measure 

the progress of those participants 

through quarterly wage record 

information is authorized. 

(3) To the extent that quarterly wage 

records are not available for a 

participant, States may use other 

information as is necessary to measure 

the progress of those participants 

through methods other than quarterly 

wage record information. 

(b) ‘‘Quarterly wage record 

information’’ means intrastate and 

interstate wages paid to an individual, 

the social security number (or numbers, 

if more than one) of the individual, and 

the name, address, State, and the 

Federal employer identification number 

of the employer paying the wages to the 

individual. 

(c) The Governor may designate a 

State agency (or appropriate State 

entity) to assist in carrying out the 

performance reporting requirements for 

WIOA core programs and ETPs. The 

Governor or such agency (or appropriate 

State entity) is responsible for: 

(1) Facilitating data matches; 

(2) Data quality reliability; and 

(3) Protection against disaggregation 

that would violate applicable privacy 

standards. 

§ 361.180 When is a State subject to a 

financial sanction under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

A State will be subject to financial 

sanction under WIOA sec. 116(f) if it 

fails to: 

(a) Submit the State annual 

performance report required under 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(2); or 

(b) Meet adjusted levels of 

performance for the primary indicators 

of performance in accordance with sec. 

116(f) of WIOA. 

§ 361.185 When are sanctions applied for 

a State’s failure to submit an annual 

performance report? 

(a) Sanctions will be applied when a 

State fails to submit the State annual 

performance report required under sec. 

116(d)(2) of WIOA. A State fails to 

report if the State either: 

(1) Does not submit a State annual 

performance report by the date for 

timely submission set in performance 

reporting guidance; or 

(2) Submits a State annual 

performance report by the date for 

timely submission, but the report is 

incomplete. 

(b) Sanctions will not be applied if the 

reporting failure is due to exceptional 

circumstances outside of the State’s 

control. Exceptional circumstances may 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Natural disasters; 

(2) Unexpected personnel transitions; 

and 

(3) Unexpected technology related 

issues. 

(c) In the event that a State may not 

be able to submit a complete and 

accurate performance report by the 

deadline for timely reporting: 

(1) The State must notify the Secretary 

of Labor or Secretary of Education as 

soon as possible, but no later than 30 

days prior to the established deadline 

for submission, of a potential impact on 

the State’s ability to submit its State 

annual performance report in order to 

not be considered failing to report. 

(2) In circumstances where 

unexpected events occur less than 30 

days before the established deadline for 

submission of the State annual 

performance reports, the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education will review 

requests for extending the reporting 

deadline in accordance with the 

Departments of Labor and Education’s 

procedures that will be established in 

guidance. 

§ 361.190 When are sanctions applied for 

failure to achieve adjusted levels of 

performance? 

(a) States’ negotiated levels of 

performance will be adjusted through 

the application of the statistical 

adjustment model established under 

§ 361.170 to account for actual 

economic conditions experienced 

during a program year and 

characteristics of participants, annually 

at the close of each program year. 

(b) Any State that fails to meet 

adjusted levels of performance for the 

primary indicators of performance 

outlined in § 361.155 for any year will 

receive technical assistance, including 

assistance in the development of a 

performance improvement plan 

provided by the Secretary of Labor or 

Secretary of Education. 

(c) Whether a State has failed to meet 

adjusted levels of performance will be 

determined using the following three 

criteria: 

(1) The overall State program score, 

which is expressed as the percent 

achieved, compares the actual results 

achieved by a core program on the 

primary indicators of performance to the 

adjusted levels of performance for that 

core program. The average of the 

percentages achieved of the adjusted 

level of performance for each of the 

primary indicators by a core program 

will constitute the overall State program 

score. 

(2) However, until all indicators for 

the core program have at least 2 years 

of complete data, the overall State 

program score will be based on a 

comparison of the actual results 

achieved to the adjusted level of 

performance for each of the primary 

indicators that have at least 2 years of 

complete data for that program; 

(3) The overall State indicator score, 

which is expressed as the percent 

achieved, compares the actual results 

achieved on a primary indicator of 

performance by all core programs in a 

State to the adjusted levels of 

performance for that primary indicator. 

The average of the percentages achieved 

of the adjusted level of performance by 

all of the core programs on that 

indicator will constitute the overall 

State indicator score. 

(4) However, until all indicators for 

the State have at least 2 years of 

complete data, the overall State 

indicator score will be based on a 

comparison of the actual results 

achieved to the adjusted level of 

performance for each of the primary 

indicators that have at least 2 years of 

complete data in a State. 

(5) The individual indicator score, 

which is expressed as the percent 

achieved, compares the actual results 

achieved by each core program on each 

of the individual primary indicators to 

the adjusted levels of performance for 

each of the program’s primary indicators 

of performance. 

(d) A performance failure occurs 

when: 

(1) Any overall State program score or 

overall State indicator score falls below 

90 percent for the program year; or 

(2) Any of the States’ individual 

indicator scores fall below 50 percent 

for the program year. 

(e) Sanctions based on performance 

failure will be applied to States if, for 2 

consecutive years, the State fails to 

meet: 

(1) 90 percent of the overall State 

program score for the same core 

program; 

(2) 90 percent of the overall State 

indicator score for the same primary 

indicator; or 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56031 

(3) 50 percent of the same indicator 

score for the same program. 

§ 361.195 What should States expect when 

a sanction is applied to the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment? 

(a) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education will reduce the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment by five percent of the 

maximum available amount for the 

immediately succeeding program year 

if: 

(1) The State fails to submit the State 

annual performance reports as required 

under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2), as defined 

in § 361.185; 

(2) The State fails to meet State 

adjusted levels of performance for the 

same primary performance indicator(s) 

under either § 361.190(d)(1) for the 

second consecutive year as defined in 

§ 361.190; or 

(3) The State’s score on the same 

indicator for the same program falls 

below 50 percent under § 361.190(d)(2) 

for the second consecutive year as 

defined in § 361.190. 

(b) If the State fails under paragraphs 

(a)(1) and either (a)(2) or (3) of this 

section in the same program year, the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education will 

reduce the Governor’s Reserve 

Allotment by 10 percent of the 

maximum available amount for the 

immediately succeeding program year. 

(c) If a State’s Governor’s Reserve 

Allotment is reduced: 

(1) The reduced amount will not be 

returned to the State in the event that 

the State later improves performance or 

submits its annual performance report; 

and 

(2) The Governor’s Reserve will 

continue to be set at the reduced level 

in each subsequent year until the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education, depending on which 

program is impacted, determines that 

the State met the State adjusted levels 

of performance for the applicable 

primary performance indicators and has 

submitted all of the required 

performance reports. 

(d) A State may request review of a 

sanction the Secretary of Labor imposes 

in accordance with the provisions of 20 

CFR 683.800. 

§ 361.200 What other administrative 

actions will be applied to States’ 

performance requirements? 

(a) In addition to sanctions for failure 

to report or failure to meet adjusted 

levels of performance, States will be 

subject to administrative actions in the 

case of poor performance. 

(b) States’ performance achievement 

on the individual primary indicators 

will be assessed in addition to the 

overall State program score and overall 

State indicator score. Based on this 

assessment, as clarified and explained 

in guidance, for performance on any 

individual primary indicator, the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education will require the State to 

establish a performance risk plan to 

address continuous improvement on the 

individual primary indicator. 

§ 361.205 What performance indicators 

apply to local areas and what information 

must be included in local area performance 

reports? 

(a) Each local area in a State under 

WIOA title I is subject to the same 

primary indicators of performance for 

the core programs for WIOA title I under 

§ 361.155(a)(1) and (c) that apply to the 

State. 

(b) In addition to the indicators 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, under § 361.165, the Governor 

may apply additional indicators of 

performance to local areas in the State. 

(c) States must annually make local 

area performance reports available to 

the public using a template that the 

Departments of Labor and Education 

will disseminate in guidance, including 

by electronic means. The State must 

provide electronic access to the public 

local area performance report in its 

annual State performance report. 

(d) The local area performance report 

must include: 

(1) The actual results achieved under 

§ 361.155 and the information required 

under § 361.160(a); 

(2) The percentage of a local area’s 

allotment under WIOA secs. 128(b) and 

133(b) that the local area spent on 

administrative costs; and 

(3) Other information that facilitates 

comparisons of programs with programs 

in other local areas (or planning regions 

if the local area is part of a planning 

region). 

(e) The disaggregation of data for the 

local area performance report must be 

done in compliance with WIOA sec. 

116(d)(6)(C). 

(f) States must comply with any 

requirements from sec. 116(d)(3) of 

WIOA as explained in guidance, 

including the use of the performance 

reporting template, issued by DOL. 

§ 361.210 How are local performance 

levels established? 

(a) The objective statistical adjustment 

model required under sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of WIOA and 

described in § 361.170(c) must be: 

(1) Applied to the core programs’ 

primary indicators upon availability of 

data which are necessary to populate 

the model and apply the model to the 

local core programs; 

(2) Used in order to reach agreement 

on local negotiated levels of 

performance for the upcoming program 

year; and 

(3) Used to establish adjusted levels of 

performance at the end of a program 

year based on actual conditions, 

consistent with WIOA sec. 116(c)(3). 

(b) Until all indicators for the core 

program in a local area have at least 2 

years of complete data, the comparison 

of the actual results achieved to the 

adjusted levels of performance for each 

of the primary indicators only will be 

applied where there are at least 2 years 

of complete data for that program. 

(c) The Governor, Local Workforce 

Development Board (WDB), and chief 

elected official must reach agreement on 

local negotiated levels of performance 

based on a negotiations process before 

the start of a program year with the use 

of the objective statistical model 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section. The negotiations will include a 

discussion of circumstances not 

accounted for in the model and will take 

into account the extent to which the 

levels promote continuous 

improvement. The objective statistical 

model will be applied at the end of the 

program year based on actual economic 

conditions and characteristics of the 

participants served. 

(d) The negotiations process described 

in paragraph (c) of this section must be 

developed by the Governor and 

disseminated to all Local WDBs and 

chief elected officials. 

(e) The Local WDBs may apply 

performance measures to service 

providers that differ from the 

performance indicators that apply to the 

local area. These performance measures 

must be established after considering: 

(1) The established local negotiated 

levels; 

(2) The services provided by each 

provider; and 

(3) The populations the service 

providers are intended to serve. 

§ 361.215 Under what circumstances are 

local areas eligible for State Incentive 

Grants? 

(a) The Governor is not required to 

award local incentive funds, but is 

authorized to provide incentive grants 

to local areas for performance on the 

primary indicators of performance 

consistent with WIOA sec. 

134(a)(3)(A)(xi). 

(b) The Governor may use nonFederal funds to create incentives for 

the Local WDBs to implement pay-forperformance contract strategies for the 

delivery of training services described 

in WIOA sec. 134(c)(3) or activities 

described in WIOA sec. 129(c)(2) in the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56032 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

local areas served by the Local WDBs. 

Pay-for-performance contract strategies 

must be implemented in accordance 

with 20 CFR part 683, subpart E and 

§ 361.160. 

§ 361.220 Under what circumstances may 

a corrective action or sanction be applied 

to local areas for poor performance? 

(a) If a local area fails to meet the 

adjusted levels of performance agreed to 

under § 361.210 for the primary 

indicators of performance in the adult, 

dislocated worker, and youth programs 

authorized under WIOA title I in any 

program year, technical assistance must 

be provided by the Governor or, upon 

the Governor’s request, by the Secretary 

of Labor. 

(1) A State must establish the 

threshold for failure to meet adjusted 

levels of performance for a local area 

before coming to agreement on the 

negotiated levels of performance for the 

local area. 

(i) A State must establish the adjusted 

level of performance for a local area, 

using the statistical adjustment model 

described in § 361.170(c). 

(ii) At least 2 years of complete data 

on any indicator for any local core 

program are required in order to 

establish adjusted levels of performance 

for a local area. 

(2) The technical assistance may 

include: 

(i) Assistance in the development of a 

performance improvement plan; 

(ii) The development of a modified 

local or regional plan; or 

(iii) Other actions designed to assist 

the local area in improving 

performance. 

(b) If a local area fails to meet the 

adjusted levels of performance agreed to 

under § 361.210 for the same primary 

indicators of performance for the same 

core program authorized under WIOA 

title I for a third consecutive program 

year, the Governor must take corrective 

actions. The corrective actions must 

include the development of a 

reorganization plan under which the 

Governor: 

(1) Requires the appointment and 

certification of a new Local WDB, 

consistent with the criteria established 

under 20 CFR 679.350; 

(2) Prohibits the use of eligible 

providers and one-stop partners that 

have been identified as achieving poor 

levels of performance; or 

(3) Takes such other significant 

actions as the Governor determines are 

appropriate. 

§ 361.225 Under what circumstances may 

local areas appeal a reorganization plan? 

(a) The Local WDB and chief elected 

official for a local area that is subject to 

a reorganization plan under WIOA sec. 

116(g)(2)(A) may appeal to the Governor 

to rescind or revise the reorganization 

plan not later than 30 days after 

receiving notice of the reorganization 

plan. The Governor must make a final 

decision within 30 days after receipt of 

the appeal. 

(b) The Local WDB and chief elected 

official may appeal the final decision of 

the Governor to the Secretary of Labor 

not later than 30 days after receiving the 

decision from the Governor. Any appeal 

of the Governor’s final decision must be: 

(1) Appealed jointly by the Local 

WDB and chief elected official to the 

Secretary of Labor under 20 CFR 

683.650; and 

(2) Must be submitted by certified 

mail, return receipt requested, to the 

Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20210, Attention: 

ASET. A copy of the appeal must be 

simultaneously provided to the 

Governor. 

(c) Upon receipt of the joint appeal 

from the Local WDB and chief elected 

official, the Secretary of Labor must 

make a final decision within 30 days. In 

making this determination the Secretary 

of Labor may consider any comments 

submitted by the Governor in response 

to the appeals. 

(d) The decision by the Governor on 

the appeal becomes effective at the time 

it is issued and remains effective unless 

the Secretary of Labor rescinds or 

revises the reorganization plan under 

WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(C). 

§ 361.230 What information is required for 

the eligible training provider performance 

reports? 

(a) States are required to make 

available and publish annually using a 

template the Departments of Labor and 

Education will disseminate including 

through electronic means, the ETP 

performance reports for ETPs who 

provide services under sec. 122 of 

WIOA that are described in 20 CFR 

680.400 through 680.530. These reports 

at a minimum must include, consistent 

with § 361.175 and with respect to each 

program of study that is eligible to 

receive funds under WIOA: 

(1) The total number of participants as 

defined by § 361.150(a) who received 

training services under the adult and 

dislocated worker programs authorized 

under WIOA title I for the most recent 

year and the 3 preceding program years, 

including: 

(i) The number of participants under 

the adult and dislocated worker 

programs disaggregated by barriers to 

employment; 

(ii) The number of participants under 

the adult and dislocated worker 

programs disaggregated by race, 

ethnicity, sex, and age; 

(iii) The number of participants under 

the adult and dislocated worker 

programs disaggregated by the type of 

training entity for the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years; 

(2) The total number of participants 

who exit a program of study or its 

equivalent, including disaggregate 

counts by the type of training entity 

during the most recent program year 

and the 3 preceding program years; 

(3) The average cost-per-participant 

for participants who received training 

services for the most recent program 

year and the 3 preceding program years 

disaggregated by type of training entity; 

(4) The total number of individuals 

exiting from the program of study (or 

the equivalent) with respect to all 

individuals engaging in the program of 

study (or the equivalent); and 

(5) The levels of performance 

achieved for the primary indicators of 

performance identified in 

§ 361.155(a)(1)(i) through (iv) with 

respect to all individuals engaging in a 

program of study (or the equivalent). 

(b) Apprenticeship programs 

registered under the National 

Apprenticeship Act are not required to 

submit ETP performance information. If 

a registered apprenticeship program 

voluntarily submits performance 

information to a State, the State must 

include this information in the report. 

(c) The State must provide a 

mechanism of electronic access to the 

public ETP performance report in its 

annual State performance report. 

(d) States must comply with any 

requirements from sec. 116(d)(4) of 

WIOA as explained in guidance issued 

by DOL. 

(e) The Governor may designate one 

or more State agencies such as a State 

Education Agency or other State 

Educational Authority to assist in 

overseeing ETP performance and 

facilitating the production and 

dissemination of ETP performance 

reports. These agencies may be the same 

agencies that are designated as 

responsible for administering the ETP 

list as provided under 20 CFR 680.500. 

The Governor or such agencies, or 

authorities, is responsible for: 

(1) Facilitating data matches between 

ETP records and unemployment 

insurance (UI) wage data in order to 

produce the report; 

(2) The creation and dissemination of 

the reports as described in paragraphs 

(a) through (d) of this section; 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56033 

(3) Coordinating the dissemination of 

the performance reports with the ETP 

list and the information required to 

accompany the list, as provided in 20 

CFR 680.500. 

§ 361.235 What are the reporting 

requirements for individual records for core 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA) title I programs; the Wagner-Peyser 

Act Employment Service program, as 

amended by WIOA title III; and the 

Vocational Rehabilitation program 

authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended by WIOA title IV? 

(a) On a quarterly basis, each State 

must submit to the Secretary of Labor or 

the Secretary of Education, as 

appropriate, individual records that 

include demographic information, 

information on services received, and 

information on resulting outcomes, as 

appropriate, for each reportable 

individual in either of the following 

programs administered by the Secretary 

of Labor or Secretary of Education: A 

WIOA title I core program; the 

Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 

Act, as amended by WIOA title III; or 

the VR program authorized under title I 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended by WIOA title IV. 

(b) For individual records submitted 

to the Secretary of Labor, those records 

may be required to be integrated across 

all programs administered by the 

Secretary of Labor in one single file. 

(c) States must comply with the 

requirements of sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA 

as explained in guidance issued by the 

Departments of Labor and Education. 

§ 361.240 What are the requirements for 

data validation of State annual performance 

reports? 

(a) States must establish procedures, 

consistent with guidelines issued by the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education, to ensure that they submit 

complete annual performance reports 

that contain information that is valid 

and reliable, as required by WIOA sec. 

116(d)(5). 

(b) If a State fails to meet standards in 

paragraph (a) of this section as 

determined by the Secretary of Labor or 

the Secretary of Education, the 

appropriate Secretary will provide 

technical assistance and may require the 

State to develop and implement 

corrective actions, which may require 

the State to provide training for its 

subrecipients. 

(c) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education will provide training and 

technical assistance to States in order to 

implement this section. States must 

comply with the requirements of sec. 

116(d)(5) of WIOA as explained in 

guidance. 

■ 7. Add subpart F to part 361 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart F—Description of the One-Stop 

Delivery System Under Title I of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

Sec. 

361.300 What is the one-stop delivery 

system? 

361.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop 

center and what must be provided there? 

361.310 What is an affiliated site and what 

must be provided there? 

361.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser 

Act Employment Service office be 

designated as an affiliated one-stop site? 

361.320 Are there any requirements for 

networks of eligible one-stop partners or 

specialized centers? 

361.400 Who are the required one-stop 

partners? 

361.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families a required one-stop partner? 

361.410 What other entities may serve as 

one-stop partners? 

361.415 What entity serves as the one-stop 

partner for a particular program in the 

local area? 

361.420 What are the roles and 

responsibilities of the required one-stop 

partners? 

361.425 What are the applicable career 

services that must be provided through 

the one-stop delivery system by required 

one-stop partners? 

361.430 What are career services? 

361.435 What are the business services 

provided through the one-stop delivery 

system, and how are they provided? 

361.440 When may a fee be charged for the 

business services in this subpart? 

361.500 What is the Memorandum of 

Understanding for the one-stop delivery 

system and what must be included in the 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

361.505 Is there a single Memorandum of 

Understanding for the local area, or must 

there be different Memoranda of 

Understanding between the Local 

Workforce Development Board and each 

partner? 

361.510 How must the Memorandum of 

Understanding be negotiated? 

361.600 Who may operate one-stop centers? 

361.605 How is the one-stop operator 

selected? 

361.610 When is the sole-source selection 

of one-stop operators appropriate, and 

how is it conducted? 

361.615 May an entity currently serving as 

one-stop operator compete to be a onestop operator under the procurement 

requirements of this subpart? 

361.620 What is the one-stop operator’s 

role? 

361.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a 

service provider? 

361.630 Can State merit staff still work in 

a one-stop center where the operator is 

not a governmental entity? 

361.635 What is the compliance date of the 

provisions of this subpart? 

361.700 What are the one-stop 

infrastructure costs? 

361.705 What guidance must the Governor 

issue regarding one-stop infrastructure 

funding? 

361.710 How are infrastructure costs 

funded? 

361.715 How are one-stop infrastructure 

costs funded in the local funding 

mechanism? 

361.720 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the local one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

361.725 What happens if consensus on 

infrastructure funding is not reached at 

the local level between the Local 

Workforce Development Board, chief 

elected officials, and one-stop partners? 

361.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

361.731 What are the steps to determine the 

amount to be paid under the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

361.735 How are infrastructure cost budgets 

for the one-stop centers in a local area 

determined in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

361.736 How does the Governor establish a 

cost allocation methodology used to 

determine the one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs under the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

361.737 How are one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs determined under 

the State one-stop infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

361.738 How are statewide caps on the 

contributions for one-stop infrastructure 

funding determined in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

361.740 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

361.745 What factors does the State 

Workforce Development Board use to 

develop the formula described in 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act, which is used by the Governor to 

determine the appropriate one-stop 

infrastructure budget for each local area 

operating under the State infrastructure 

funding mechanism, if no reasonably 

implementable locally negotiated budget 

exists? 

361.750 When and how can a one-stop 

partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure 

amount designated by the State under 

the State infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

361.755 What are the required elements 

regarding infrastructure funding that 

must be included in the one-stop 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

361.760 How do one-stop partners jointly 

fund other shared costs under the 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

361.800 How are one-stop centers and onestop delivery systems certified for 

effectiveness, physical and programmatic 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement? 

361.900 What is the common identifier to 

be used by each one-stop delivery 

system? 

Authority: Secs. 503, 107, 121, 134, 189, 

Pub. L. 113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 

2014). 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56034 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart F—Description of the OneStop Delivery System Under Title I of 

the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act 

§ 361.300 What is the one-stop delivery 

system? 

(a) The one-stop delivery system 

brings together workforce development, 

educational, and other human resource 

services in a seamless customer-focused 

service delivery network that enhances 

access to the programs’ services and 

improves long-term employment 

outcomes for individuals receiving 

assistance. One-stop partners administer 

separately funded programs as a set of 

integrated streamlined services to 

customers. 

(b) Title I of the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act (WIOA) assigns 

responsibilities at the local, State, and 

Federal level to ensure the creation and 

maintenance of a one-stop delivery 

system that enhances the range and 

quality of education and workforce 

development services that employers 

and individual customers can access. 

(c) The system must include at least 

one comprehensive physical center in 

each local area as described in 

§ 361.305. 

(d) The system may also have 

additional arrangements to supplement 

the comprehensive center. These 

arrangements include: 

(1) An affiliated site or a network of 

affiliated sites, where one or more 

partners make programs, services, and 

activities available, as described in 

§ 361.310; 

(2) A network of eligible one-stop 

partners, as described in §§ 361.400 

through 361.410, through which each 

partner provides one or more of the 

programs, services, and activities that 

are linked, physically or 

technologically, to an affiliated site or 

access point that assures customers are 

provided information on the availability 

of career services, as well as other 

program services and activities, 

regardless of where they initially enter 

the public workforce system in the local 

area; and 

(3) Specialized centers that address 

specific needs, including those of 

dislocated workers, youth, or key 

industry sectors, or clusters. 

(e) Required one-stop partner 

programs must provide access to 

programs, services, and activities 

through electronic means if applicable 

and practicable. This is in addition to 

providing access to services through the 

mandatory comprehensive physical onestop center and any affiliated sites or 

specialized centers. The provision of 

programs and services by electronic 

methods such as Web sites, telephones, 

or other means must improve the 

efficiency, coordination, and quality of 

one-stop partner services. Electronic 

delivery must not replace access to such 

services at a comprehensive one-stop 

center or be a substitute to making 

services available at an affiliated site if 

the partner is participating in an 

affiliated site. Electronic delivery 

systems must be in compliance with the 

nondiscrimination and equal 

opportunity provisions of WIOA sec. 

188 and its implementing regulations at 

29 CFR part 38. 

(f) The design of the local area’s onestop delivery system must be described 

in the Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) executed with the one-stop 

partners, described in § 361.500. 

§ 361.305 What is a comprehensive onestop center and what must be provided 

there? 

(a) A comprehensive one-stop center 

is a physical location where job seeker 

and employer customers can access the 

programs, services, and activities of all 

required one-stop partners. A 

comprehensive one-stop center must 

have at least one title I staff person 

physically present. 

(b) The comprehensive one-stop 

center must provide: 

(1) Career services, described in 

§ 361.430; 

(2) Access to training services 

described in 20 CFR 680.200; 

(3) Access to any employment and 

training activities carried out under sec. 

134(d) of WIOA; 

(4) Access to programs and activities 

carried out by one-stop partners listed 

in §§ 361.400 through 361.410, 

including the Employment Service 

program authorized under the WagnerPeyser Act, as amended by WIOA title 

III (Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service program); and 

(5) Workforce and labor market 

information. 

(c) Customers must have access to 

these programs, services, and activities 

during regular business days at a 

comprehensive one-stop center. The 

Local Workforce Development Board 

(WDB) may establish other service hours 

at other times to accommodate the 

schedules of individuals who work on 

regular business days. The State WDB 

will evaluate the hours of access to 

service as part of the evaluation of 

effectiveness in the one-stop 

certification process described in 

§ 361.800(b). 

(d) ‘‘Access’’ to each partner program 

and its services means: 

(1) Having a program staff member 

physically present at the one-stop 

center; 

(2) Having a staff member from a 

different partner program physically 

present at the one-stop center 

appropriately trained to provide 

information to customers about the 

programs, services, and activities 

available through partner programs; or 

(3) Making available a direct linkage 

through technology to program staff 

who can provide meaningful 

information or services. 

(i) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ means 

providing direct connection at the onestop center, within a reasonable time, by 

phone or through a real-time Web-based 

communication to a program staff 

member who can provide program 

information or services to the customer. 

(ii) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ cannot 

exclusively be providing a phone 

number or computer Web site or 

providing information, pamphlets, or 

materials. 

(e) All comprehensive one-stop 

centers must be physically and 

programmatically accessible to 

individuals with disabilities, as 

described in 29 CFR part 38, the 

implementing regulations of WIOA sec. 

188. 

§ 361.310 What is an affiliated site and 

what must be provided there? 

(a) An affiliated site, or affiliate onestop center, is a site that makes available 

to job seeker and employer customers 

one or more of the one-stop partners’ 

programs, services, and activities. An 

affiliated site does not need to provide 

access to every required one-stop 

partner program. The frequency of 

program staff’s physical presence in the 

affiliated site will be determined at the 

local level. Affiliated sites are access 

points in addition to the comprehensive 

one-stop center(s) in each local area. If 

used by local areas as a part of the 

service delivery strategy, affiliate sites 

must be implemented in a manner that 

supplements and enhances customer 

access to services. 

(b) As described in § 361.315, WagnerPeyser Act employment services cannot 

be a stand-alone affiliated site. 

(c) States, in conjunction with the 

Local WDBs, must examine lease 

agreements and property holdings 

throughout the one-stop delivery system 

in order to use property in an efficient 

and effective way. Where necessary and 

appropriate, States and Local WDBs 

must take expeditious steps to align 

lease expiration dates with efforts to 

consolidate one-stop operations into 

service points where Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services are colocated as 

soon as reasonably possible. These steps 

must be included in the State Plan. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56035 

(d) All affiliated sites must be 

physically and programmatically 

accessible to individuals with 

disabilities, as described in 29 CFR part 

38, the implementing regulations of 

WIOA sec. 188. 

§ 361.315 Can a stand-alone WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service office be 

designated as an affiliated one-stop site? 

(a) Separate stand-alone WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service offices 

are not permitted under WIOA, as also 

described in 20 CFR 652.202. 

(b) If Wagner-Peyser Act employment 

services are provided at an affiliated 

site, there must be at least one or more 

other partners in the affiliated site with 

a physical presence of combined staff 

more than 50 percent of the time the 

center is open. Additionally, the other 

partner must not be the partner 

administering local veterans’ 

employment representatives, disabled 

veterans’ outreach program specialists, 

or unemployment compensation 

programs. If Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services and any of these 3 

programs are provided at an affiliated 

site, an additional partner or partners 

must have a presence of combined staff 

in the center more than 50 percent of 

the time the center is open. 

§ 361.320 Are there any requirements for 

networks of eligible one-stop partners or 

specialized centers? 

Any network of one-stop partners or 

specialized centers, as described in 

§ 361.300(d)(3), must be connected to 

the comprehensive one-stop center and 

any appropriate affiliate one-stop 

centers, for example, by having 

processes in place to make referrals to 

these centers and the partner programs 

located in them. Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services cannot stand alone 

in a specialized center. Just as described 

in § 361.315 for an affiliated site, a 

specialized center must include other 

programs besides Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services, local veterans’ 

employment representatives, disabled 

veterans’ outreach program specialists, 

and unemployment compensation. 

§ 361.400 Who are the required one-stop 

partners? 

(a) Section 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA 

identifies the entities that are required 

partners in the local one-stop delivery 

systems. 

(b) The required partners are the 

entities responsible for administering 

the following programs and activities in 

the local area: 

(1) Programs authorized under title I 

of WIOA, including: 

(i) Adults; 

(ii) Dislocated workers; 

(iii) Youth; 

(iv) Job Corps; 

(v) YouthBuild; 

(vi) Native American programs; and 

(vii) Migrant and seasonal farmworker 

programs; 

(2) The Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act 

(29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.), as amended by 

WIOA title III; 

(3) The Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act (AEFLA) program 

authorized under title II of WIOA; 

(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) 

program authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 

720 et seq.), as amended by WIOA title 

IV; 

(5) The Senior Community Service 

Employment Program authorized under 

title V of the Older Americans Act of 

1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.); 

(6) Career and technical education 

programs at the postsecondary level 

authorized under the Carl D. Perkins 

Career and Technical Education Act of 

2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.); 

(7) Trade Adjustment Assistance 

activities authorized under chapter 2 of 

title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 

U.S.C. 2271 et seq.); 

(8) Jobs for Veterans State Grants 

programs authorized under chapter 41 

of title 38, U.S.C.; 

(9) Employment and training 

activities carried out under the 

Community Services Block Grant (42 

U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); 

(10) Employment and training 

activities carried out by the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development; 

(11) Programs authorized under State 

unemployment compensation laws (in 

accordance with applicable Federal 

law); 

(12) Programs authorized under sec. 

212 of the Second Chance Act of 2007 

(42 U.S.C. 17532); and 

(13) Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) authorized under part 

A of title IV of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), unless exempted 

by the Governor under § 361.405(b). 

§ 361.405 Is Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families a required one-stop 

partner? 

(a) Yes, TANF, authorized under part 

A of title IV of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), is a required 

partner. 

(b) The Governor may determine that 

TANF will not be a required partner in 

the State, or within some specific local 

areas in the State. In this instance, the 

Governor must notify the Secretaries of 

the U.S. Departments of Labor and 

Health and Human Services in writing 

of this determination. 

(c) In States, or local areas within a 

State, where the Governor has 

determined that TANF is not required to 

be a partner, local TANF programs may 

still work in collaboration or 

partnership with the local one-stop 

centers to deliver employment and 

training services to the TANF 

population unless inconsistent with the 

Governor’s direction. 

§ 361.410 What other entities may serve as 

one-stop partners? 

(a) Other entities that carry out a 

workforce development program, 

including Federal, State, or local 

programs and programs in the private 

sector, may serve as additional partners 

in the one-stop delivery system if the 

Local WDB and chief elected official(s) 

approve the entity’s participation. 

(b) Additional partners may include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Employment and training 

programs administered by the Social 

Security Administration, including the 

Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency 

Program established under sec. 1148 of 

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1320b–19); 

(2) Employment and training 

programs carried out by the Small 

Business Administration; 

(3) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) employment and 

training programs, authorized under 

secs. 6(d)(4) and 6(o) of the Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 

2015(d)(4)); 

(4) Client Assistance Program 

authorized under sec. 112 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 

732); 

(5) Programs authorized under the 

National and Community Service Act of 

1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.); and 

(6) Other appropriate Federal, State or 

local programs, including, but not 

limited to, employment, education, and 

training programs provided by public 

libraries or in the private sector. 

§ 361.415 What entity serves as the onestop partner for a particular program in the 

local area? 

(a) The entity that carries out the 

program and activities listed in 

§ 361.400 or § 361.410, and therefore 

serves as the one-stop partner, is the 

grant recipient, administrative entity, or 

organization responsible for 

administering the funds of the specified 

program in the local area. The term 

‘‘entity’’ does not include the service 

providers that contract with, or are 

subrecipients of, the local 

administrative entity. For programs that 

do not include local administrative 

entities, the responsible State agency 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56036 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

must be the partner. Specific entities for 

particular programs are identified in 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 

section. If a program or activity listed in 

§ 361.400 is not carried out in a local 

area, the requirements relating to a 

required one-stop partner are not 

applicable to such program or activity in 

that local one-stop delivery system. 

(b) For title II of WIOA, the entity or 

agency that carries out the program for 

the purposes of paragraph (a) of this 

section is the sole entity or agency in 

the State or outlying area responsible for 

administering or supervising policy for 

adult education and literacy activities in 

the State or outlying area. The State 

eligible entity or agency may delegate its 

responsibilities under paragraph (a) of 

this section to one or more eligible 

providers or consortium of eligible 

providers. 

(c) For the VR program, authorized 

under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended by WIOA title IV, the 

entity that carries out the program for 

the purposes of paragraph (a) of this 

section is the designated State agencies 

or designated State units specified 

under sec. 101(a)(2) of the 

Rehabilitation Act that is primarily 

concerned with vocational 

rehabilitation, or vocational and other 

rehabilitation, of individuals with 

disabilities. 

(d) Under WIOA title I, the national 

programs, including Job Corps, the 

Native American program, YouthBuild, 

and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker 

programs are required one-stop partners. 

The entity for the Native American 

program, YouthBuild, and Migrant and 

Seasonal Farmworker programs is the 

grantee of those respective programs. 

The entity for Job Corps is the Job Corps 

center. 

(e) For the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act of 2006, the 

entity that carries out the program for 

the purposes of paragraph (a) of this 

section is the eligible recipient or 

recipients at the postsecondary level, or 

a consortium of eligible recipients at the 

postsecondary level in the local area. 

The eligible recipient at the 

postsecondary level may also request 

assistance from the State eligible agency 

in completing its responsibilities under 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

§ 361.420 What are the roles and 

responsibilities of the required one-stop 

partners? 

Each required partner must: 

(a) Provide access to its programs or 

activities through the one-stop delivery 

system, in addition to any other 

appropriate locations; 

(b) Use a portion of funds made 

available to the partner’s program, to the 

extent consistent with the Federal law 

authorizing the partner’s program and 

with Federal cost principles in 2 CFR 

parts 200 and 3474 (requiring, among 

other things, that costs are allowable, 

reasonable, necessary, and allocable), to: 

(1) Provide applicable career services; 

and 

(2) Work collaboratively with the 

State and Local WDBs to establish and 

maintain the one-stop delivery system. 

This includes jointly funding the onestop infrastructure through partner 

contributions that are based upon: 

(i) A reasonable cost allocation 

methodology by which infrastructure 

costs are charged to each partner based 

on proportionate use and relative 

benefit received; 

(ii) Federal cost principles; and 

(iii) Any local administrative cost 

requirements in the Federal law 

authorizing the partner’s program. (This 

is further described in § 361.700.) 

(c) Enter into an MOU with the Local 

WDB relating to the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system that meets the 

requirements of § 361.500(b); 

(d) Participate in the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system consistent 

with the terms of the MOU, 

requirements of authorizing laws, the 

Federal cost principles, and all other 

applicable legal requirements; and 

(e) Provide representation on the State 

and Local WDBs as required and 

participate in Board committees as 

needed. 

§ 361.425 What are the applicable career 

services that must be provided through the 

one-stop delivery system by required onestop partners? 

(a) The applicable career services to 

be delivered by required one-stop 

partners are those services listed in 

§ 361.430 that are authorized to be 

provided under each partner’s program. 

(b) One-stop centers provide services 

to individual customers based on 

individual needs, including the 

seamless delivery of multiple services to 

individual customers. There is no 

required sequence of services. 

§ 361.430 What are career services? 

Career services, as identified in sec. 

134(c)(2) of WIOA, consist of three 

types: 

(a) Basic career services must be made 

available and, at a minimum, must 

include the following services, as 

consistent with allowable program 

activities and Federal cost principles: 

(1) Determinations of whether the 

individual is eligible to receive 

assistance from the adult, dislocated 

worker, or youth programs; 

(2) Outreach, intake (including worker 

profiling), and orientation to 

information and other services available 

through the one-stop delivery system. 

For the TANF program, States must 

provide individuals with the 

opportunity to initiate an application for 

TANF assistance and non-assistance 

benefits and services, which could be 

implemented through the provision of 

paper application forms or links to the 

application Web site; 

(3) Initial assessment of skill levels 

including literacy, numeracy, and 

English language proficiency, as well as 

aptitudes, abilities (including skills 

gaps), and supportive services needs; 

(4) Labor exchange services, 

including— 

(i) Job search and placement 

assistance, and, when needed by an 

individual, career counseling, 

including— 

(A) Provision of information on indemand industry sectors and 

occupations (as defined in sec. 3(23) of 

WIOA); and 

(B) Provision of information on 

nontraditional employment; and 

(ii) Appropriate recruitment and other 

business services on behalf of 

employers, including information and 

referrals to specialized business services 

other than those traditionally offered 

through the one-stop delivery system; 

(5) Provision of referrals to and 

coordination of activities with other 

programs and services, including 

programs and services within the onestop delivery system and, when 

appropriate, other workforce 

development programs; 

(6) Provision of workforce and labor 

market employment statistics 

information, including the provision of 

accurate information relating to local, 

regional, and national labor market 

areas, including— 

(i) Job vacancy listings in labor market 

areas; 

(ii) Information on job skills necessary 

to obtain the vacant jobs listed; and 

(iii) Information relating to local 

occupations in demand and the 

earnings, skill requirements, and 

opportunities for advancement for those 

jobs; 

(7) Provision of performance 

information and program cost 

information on eligible providers of 

education, training, and workforce 

services by program and type of 

providers; 

(8) Provision of information, in usable 

and understandable formats and 

languages, about how the local area is 

performing on local performance 

accountability measures, as well as any 

additional performance information 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56037 

relating to the area’s one-stop delivery 

system; 

(9) Provision of information, in usable 

and understandable formats and 

languages, relating to the availability of 

supportive services or assistance, and 

appropriate referrals to those services 

and assistance, including: Child care; 

child support; medical or child health 

assistance available through the State’s 

Medicaid program and Children’s 

Health Insurance Program; benefits 

under SNAP; assistance through the 

earned income tax credit; and assistance 

under a State program for TANF, and 

other supportive services and 

transportation provided through that 

program; 

(10) Provision of information and 

meaningful assistance to individuals 

seeking assistance in filing a claim for 

unemployment compensation. 

(i) ‘‘Meaningful assistance’’ means: 

(A) Providing assistance on-site using 

staff who are well-trained in 

unemployment compensation claims 

filing and the rights and responsibilities 

of claimants; or 

(B) Providing assistance by phone or 

via other technology, as long as the 

assistance is provided by trained and 

available staff and within a reasonable 

time. 

(ii) The costs associated in providing 

this assistance may be paid for by the 

State’s unemployment insurance 

program, or the WIOA adult or 

dislocated worker programs, or some 

combination thereof. 

(11) Assistance in establishing 

eligibility for programs of financial aid 

assistance for training and education 

programs not provided under WIOA. 

(b) Individualized career services 

must be made available if determined to 

be appropriate in order for an individual 

to obtain or retain employment. These 

services include the following services, 

as consistent with program 

requirements and Federal cost 

principles: 

(1) Comprehensive and specialized 

assessments of the skill levels and 

service needs of adults and dislocated 

workers, which may include— 

(i) Diagnostic testing and use of other 

assessment tools; and 

(ii) In-depth interviewing and 

evaluation to identify employment 

barriers and appropriate employment 

goals; 

(2) Development of an individual 

employment plan, to identify the 

employment goals, appropriate 

achievement objectives, and appropriate 

combination of services for the 

participant to achieve his or her 

employment goals, including the list of, 

and information about, the eligible 

training providers (as described in 20 

CFR 680.180); 

(3) Group counseling; 

(4) Individual counseling; 

(5) Career planning; 

(6) Short-term pre-vocational services 

including development of learning 

skills, communication skills, 

interviewing skills, punctuality, 

personal maintenance skills, and 

professional conduct services to prepare 

individuals for unsubsidized 

employment or training; 

(7) Internships and work experiences 

that are linked to careers (as described 

in 20 CFR 680.170); 

(8) Workforce preparation activities; 

(9) Financial literacy services as 

described in sec. 129(b)(2)(D) of WIOA 

and 20 CFR 681.500; 

(10) Out-of-area job search assistance 

and relocation assistance; and 

(11) English language acquisition and 

integrated education and training 

programs. 

(c) Follow-up services must be 

provided, as appropriate, including: 

Counseling regarding the workplace, for 

participants in adult or dislocated 

worker workforce investment activities 

who are placed in unsubsidized 

employment, for up to 12 months after 

the first day of employment. 

(d) In addition to the requirements in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, TANF 

agencies must identify employment 

services and related support being 

provided by the TANF program (within 

the local area) that qualify as career 

services and ensure access to them via 

the local one-stop delivery system. 

§ 361.435 What are the business services 

provided through the one-stop delivery 

system, and how are they provided? 

(a) Certain career services must be 

made available to local employers, 

specifically labor exchange activities 

and labor market information described 

in § 361.430(a)(4)(ii) and (a)(6). Local 

areas must establish and develop 

relationships and networks with large 

and small employers and their 

intermediaries. Local areas also must 

develop, convene, or implement 

industry or sector partnerships. 

(b) Customized business services may 

be provided to employers, employer 

associations, or other such 

organizations. These services are 

tailored for specific employers and may 

include: 

(1) Customized screening and referral 

of qualified participants in training 

services to employers; 

(2) Customized services to employers, 

employer associations, or other such 

organizations, on employment-related 

issues; 

(3) Customized recruitment events 

and related services for employers 

including targeted job fairs; 

(4) Human resource consultation 

services, including but not limited to 

assistance with: 

(i) Writing/reviewing job descriptions 

and employee handbooks; 

(ii) Developing performance 

evaluation and personnel policies; 

(iii) Creating orientation sessions for 

new workers; 

(iv) Honing job interview techniques 

for efficiency and compliance; 

(v) Analyzing employee turnover; 

(vi) Creating job accommodations and 

using assistive technologies; or 

(vii) Explaining labor and 

employment laws to help employers 

comply with discrimination, wage/hour, 

and safety/health regulations; 

(5) Customized labor market 

information for specific employers, 

sectors, industries or clusters; and 

(6) Other similar customized services. 

(c) Local areas may also provide other 

business services and strategies that 

meet the workforce investment needs of 

area employers, in accordance with 

partner programs’ statutory 

requirements and consistent with 

Federal cost principles. These business 

services may be provided through 

effective business intermediaries 

working in conjunction with the Local 

WDB, or through the use of economic 

development, philanthropic, and other 

public and private resources in a 

manner determined appropriate by the 

Local WDB and in cooperation with the 

State. Allowable activities, consistent 

with each partner’s authorized 

activities, include, but are not limited 

to: 

(1) Developing and implementing 

industry sector strategies (including 

strategies involving industry 

partnerships, regional skills alliances, 

industry skill panels, and sectoral skills 

partnerships); 

(2) Customized assistance or referral 

for assistance in the development of a 

registered apprenticeship program; 

(3) Developing and delivering 

innovative workforce investment 

services and strategies for area 

employers, which may include career 

pathways, skills upgrading, skill 

standard development and certification 

for recognized postsecondary credential 

or other employer use, and other 

effective initiatives for meeting the 

workforce investment needs of area 

employers and workers; 

(4) Assistance to area employers in 

managing reductions in force in 

coordination with rapid response 

activities and with strategies for the 

aversion of layoffs, which may include 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56038 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

strategies such as early identification of 

firms at risk of layoffs, use of feasibility 

studies to assess the needs of and 

options for at-risk firms, and the 

delivery of employment and training 

activities to address risk factors; 

(5) The marketing of business services 

to appropriate area employers, 

including small and mid-sized 

employers; and 

(6) Assisting employers with 

accessing local, State, and Federal tax 

credits. 

(d) All business services and 

strategies must be reflected in the local 

plan, described in 20 CFR 679.560(b)(3). 

§ 361.440 When may a fee be charged for 

the business services in this subpart? 

(a) There is no requirement that a feefor-service be charged to employers. 

(b) No fee may be charged for services 

provided in § 361.435(a). 

(c) A fee may be charged for services 

provided under § 361.435(b) and (c). 

Services provided under § 361.435(c) 

may be provided through effective 

business intermediaries working in 

conjunction with the Local WDB and 

may also be provided on a fee-forservice basis or through the leveraging 

of economic development, 

philanthropic, and other public and 

private resources in a manner 

determined appropriate by the Local 

WDB. The Local WDB may examine the 

services provided compared with the 

assets and resources available within 

the local one-stop delivery system and 

through its partners to determine an 

appropriate cost structure for services, if 

any. 

(d) Any fees earned are recognized as 

program income and must be expended 

by the partner in accordance with the 

partner program’s authorizing statute, 

implementing regulations, and Federal 

cost principles identified in Uniform 

Guidance. 

§ 361.500 What is the Memorandum of 

Understanding for the one-stop delivery 

system and what must be included in the 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

(a) The MOU is the product of local 

discussion and negotiation, and is an 

agreement developed and executed 

between the Local WDB and the onestop partners, with the agreement of the 

chief elected official and the one-stop 

partners, relating to the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system in the local 

area. Two or more local areas in a region 

may develop a single joint MOU, if they 

are in a region that has submitted a 

regional plan under sec. 106 of WIOA. 

(b) The MOU must include: 

(1) A description of services to be 

provided through the one-stop delivery 

system, including the manner in which 

the services will be coordinated and 

delivered through the system; 

(2) Agreement on funding the costs of 

the services and the operating costs of 

the system, including: 

(i) Funding of infrastructure costs of 

one-stop centers in accordance with 

§§ 361.700 through 361.755; and 

(ii) Funding of the shared services and 

operating costs of the one-stop delivery 

system described in § 361.760; 

(3) Methods for referring individuals 

between the one-stop operators and 

partners for appropriate services and 

activities; 

(4) Methods to ensure that the needs 

of workers, youth, and individuals with 

barriers to employment, including 

individuals with disabilities, are 

addressed in providing access to 

services, including access to technology 

and materials that are available through 

the one-stop delivery system; 

(5) The duration of the MOU and 

procedures for amending it; and 

(6) Assurances that each MOU will be 

reviewed, and if substantial changes 

have occurred, renewed, not less than 

once every 3-year period to ensure 

appropriate funding and delivery of 

services. 

(c) The MOU may contain any other 

provisions agreed to by the parties that 

are consistent with WIOA title I, the 

authorizing statutes and regulations of 

one-stop partner programs, and the 

WIOA regulations. 

(d) When fully executed, the MOU 

must contain the signatures of the Local 

WDB, one-stop partners, the chief 

elected official(s), and the time period 

in which the agreement is effective. The 

MOU must be updated not less than 

every 3 years to reflect any changes in 

the signatory official of the Board, onestop partners, and chief elected officials, 

or one-stop infrastructure funding. 

(e) If a one-stop partner appeal to the 

State regarding infrastructure costs, 

using the process described in 

§ 361.750, results in a change to the onestop partner’s infrastructure cost 

contributions, the MOU must be 

updated to reflect the final one-stop 

partner infrastructure cost 

contributions. 

§ 361.505 Is there a single Memorandum of 

Understanding for the local area, or must 

there be different Memoranda of 

Understanding between the Local 

Workforce Development Board and each 

partner? 

(a) A single ‘‘umbrella’’ MOU may be 

developed that addresses the issues 

relating to the local one-stop delivery 

system for the Local WDB, chief elected 

official and all partners. Alternatively, 

the Local WDB (with agreement of chief 

elected official) may enter into separate 

agreements between each partner or 

groups of partners. 

(b) Under either approach, the 

requirements described in § 361.500 

apply. Since funds are generally 

appropriated annually, the Local WDB 

may negotiate financial agreements with 

each partner annually to update funding 

of services and operating costs of the 

system under the MOU. 

§ 361.510 How must the Memorandum of 

Understanding be negotiated? 

(a) WIOA emphasizes full and 

effective partnerships between Local 

WDBs, chief elected officials, and onestop partners. Local WDBs and partners 

must enter into good-faith negotiations. 

Local WDBs, chief elected officials, and 

one-stop partners may also request 

assistance from a State agency 

responsible for administering the 

partner program, the Governor, State 

WDB, or other appropriate parties on 

other aspects of the MOU. 

(b) Local WDBs and one-stop partners 

must establish, in the MOU, how they 

will fund the infrastructure costs and 

other shared costs of the one-stop 

centers. If agreement regarding 

infrastructure costs is not reached when 

other sections of the MOU are ready, an 

interim infrastructure funding 

agreement may be included instead, as 

described in § 361.715(c). Once 

agreement on infrastructure funding is 

reached, the Local WDB and one-stop 

partners must amend the MOU to 

include the infrastructure funding of the 

one-stop centers. Infrastructure funding 

is described in detail in §§ 361.700 

through 361.760. 

(c) The Local WDB must report to the 

State WDB, Governor, and relevant State 

agency when MOU negotiations with 

one-stop partners have reached an 

impasse. 

(1) The Local WDB and partners must 

document the negotiations and efforts 

that have taken place in the MOU. The 

State WDB, one-stop partner programs, 

and the Governor may consult with the 

appropriate Federal agencies to address 

impasse situations related to issues 

other than infrastructure funding after 

attempting to address the impasse. 

Impasses related to infrastructure cost 

funding must be resolved using the 

State infrastructure cost funding 

mechanism described in § 361.730. 

(2) The Local WDB must report failure 

to execute an MOU with a required 

partner to the Governor, State WDB, and 

the State agency responsible for 

administering the partner’s program. 

Additionally, if the State cannot assist 

the Local WDB in resolving the impasse, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56039 

the Governor or the State WDB must 

report the failure to the Secretary of 

Labor and to the head of any other 

Federal agency with responsibility for 

oversight of a partner’s program. 

§ 361.600 Who may operate one-stop 

centers? 

(a) One-stop operators may be a single 

entity (public, private, or nonprofit) or 

a consortium of entities. If the 

consortium of entities is one of one-stop 

partners, it must include a minimum of 

three of the one-stop partners described 

in § 361.400. 

(b) The one-stop operator may operate 

one or more one-stop centers. There 

may be more than one one-stop operator 

in a local area. 

(c) The types of entities that may be 

a one-stop operator include: 

(1) An institution of higher education; 

(2) An Employment Service State 

agency established under the WagnerPeyser Act; 

(3) A community-based organization, 

nonprofit organization, or workforce 

intermediary; 

(4) A private for-profit entity; 

(5) A government agency; 

(6) A Local WDB, with the approval 

of the chief elected official and the 

Governor; or 

(7) Another interested organization or 

entity, which is capable of carrying out 

the duties of the one-stop operator. 

Examples may include a local chamber 

of commerce or other business 

organization, or a labor organization. 

(d) Elementary schools and secondary 

schools are not eligible as one-stop 

operators, except that a nontraditional 

public secondary school such as a night 

school, adult school, or an area career 

and technical education school may be 

selected. 

(e) The State and Local WDBs must 

ensure that, in carrying out WIOA 

programs and activities, one-stop 

operators: 

(1) Disclose any potential conflicts of 

interest arising from the relationships of 

the operators with particular training 

service providers or other service 

providers (further discussed in 20 CFR 

679.430); 

(2) Do not establish practices that 

create disincentives to providing 

services to individuals with barriers to 

employment who may require longerterm career and training services; and 

(3) Comply with Federal regulations 

and procurement policies relating to the 

calculation and use of profits, including 

those at 20 CFR 683.295, the Uniform 

Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, and other 

applicable regulations and policies. 

§ 361.605 How is the one-stop operator 

selected? 

(a) Consistent with paragraphs (b) and 

(c) of this section, the Local WDB must 

select the one-stop operator through a 

competitive process, as required by sec. 

121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA, at least once 

every 4 years. A State may require, or 

a Local WDB may choose to implement, 

a competitive selection process more 

than once every 4 years. 

(b) In instances in which a State is 

conducting the competitive process 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the State must follow the same 

policies and procedures it uses for 

procurement with non-Federal funds. 

(c) All other non-Federal entities, 

including subrecipients of a State (such 

as local areas), must use a competitive 

process based on local procurement 

policies and procedures and the 

principles of competitive procurement 

in the Uniform Guidance set out at 2 

CFR 200.318 through 200.326. All 

references to ‘‘noncompetitive 

proposals’’ in the Uniform Guidance at 

2 CFR 200.320(f) will be read as ‘‘sole 

source procurement’’ for the purposes of 

implementing this section. 

(d) Entities must prepare written 

documentation explaining the 

determination concerning the nature of 

the competitive process to be followed 

in selecting a one-stop operator. 

§ 361.610 When is the sole-source 

selection of one-stop operators appropriate, 

and how is it conducted? 

(a) States may select a one-stop 

operator through sole source selection 

when allowed under the same policies 

and procedures used for competitive 

procurement with non-Federal funds, 

while other non-Federal entities 

including subrecipients of a State (such 

as local areas) may select a one-stop 

operator through sole selection when 

consistent with local procurement 

policies and procedures and the 

Uniform Guidance set out at 2 CFR 

200.320. 

(b) In the event that sole source 

procurement is determined necessary 

and reasonable, in accordance with 

§ 361.605(c), written documentation 

must be prepared and maintained 

concerning the entire process of making 

such a selection. 

(c) Such sole source procurement 

must include appropriate conflict of 

interest policies and procedures. These 

policies and procedures must conform 

to the specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 

for demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflict of interest. 

(d) A Local WDB may be selected as 

a one-stop operator through sole source 

procurement only with agreement of the 

chief elected official in the local area 

and the Governor. The Local WDB must 

establish sufficient conflict of interest 

policies and procedures and these 

policies and procedures must be 

approved by the Governor. 

§ 361.615 May an entity currently serving 

as one-stop operator compete to be a onestop operator under the procurement 

requirements of this subpart? 

(a) Local WDBs may compete for and 

be selected as one-stop operators, as 

long as appropriate firewalls and 

conflict of interest policies and 

procedures are in place. These policies 

and procedures must conform to the 

specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 for 

demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflict of interest. 

(b) State and local agencies may 

compete for and be selected as one-stop 

operators by the Local WDB, as long as 

appropriate firewalls and conflict of 

interest policies and procedures are in 

place. These policies and procedures 

must conform to the specifications in 20 

CFR 679.430 for demonstrating internal 

controls and preventing conflict of 

interest. 

(c) In the case of single-area States 

where the State WDB serves as the Local 

WDB, the State agency is eligible to 

compete for and be selected as operator 

as long as appropriate firewalls and 

conflict of interest policies are in place 

and followed for the competition. These 

policies and procedures must conform 

to the specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 

for demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflicts of interest. 

§ 361.620 What is the one-stop operator’s 

role? 

(a) At a minimum, the one-stop 

operator must coordinate the service 

delivery of required one-stop partners 

and service providers. Local WDBs may 

establish additional roles of one-stop 

operator, including, but not limited to: 

Coordinating service providers across 

the one-stop delivery system, being the 

primary provider of services within the 

center, providing some of the services 

within the center, or coordinating 

service delivery in a multi-center area, 

which may include affiliated sites. The 

competition for a one-stop operator 

must clearly articulate the role of the 

one-stop operator. 

(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section, a one-stop operator may not 

perform the following functions: 

Convene system stakeholders to assist in 

the development of the local plan; 

prepare and submit local plans (as 

required under sec. 107 of WIOA); be 

responsible for oversight of itself; 

manage or significantly participate in 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56040 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

the competitive selection process for 

one-stop operators; select or terminate 

one-stop operators, career services, and 

youth providers; negotiate local 

performance accountability measures; or 

develop and submit budget for activities 

of the Local WDB in the local area. 

(2) An entity serving as a one-stop 

operator, that also serves a different role 

within the one-stop delivery system, 

may perform some or all of these 

functions when it is acting in its other 

role, if it has established sufficient 

firewalls and conflict of interest policies 

and procedures. The policies and 

procedures must conform to the 

specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 for 

demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflict of interest. 

§ 361.625 Can a one-stop operator also be 

a service provider? 

Yes, but there must be appropriate 

firewalls in place in regards to the 

competition, and subsequent oversight, 

monitoring, and evaluation of 

performance of the service provider. 

The operator cannot develop, manage, 

or conduct the competition of a service 

provider in which it intends to compete. 

In cases where an operator is also a 

service provider, there must be firewalls 

and internal controls within the 

operator-service provider entity, as well 

as specific policies and procedures at 

the Local WDB level regarding 

oversight, monitoring, and evaluation of 

performance of the service provider. 

The firewalls must conform to the 

specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 for 

demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflicts of interest. 

§ 361.630 Can State merit staff still work in 

a one-stop center where the operator is not 

a governmental entity? 

Yes. State merit staff can continue to 

perform functions and activities in the 

one-stop center. The Local WDB and 

one-stop operator must establish a 

system for management of merit staff in 

accordance with State policies and 

procedures. Continued use of State 

merit staff for the provision of WagnerPeyser Act services or services from 

other programs with merit staffing 

requirements must be included in the 

competition for and final contract with 

the one-stop operator when WagnerPeyser Act services or services from 

other programs with merit staffing 

requirements are being provided. 

§ 361.635 What is the compliance date of 

the provisions of this subpart? 

(a) No later than July 1, 2017, one-stop 

operators selected under the 

competitive process described in this 

subpart must be in place and operating 

the one-stop center. 

(b) By November 17, 2016, every 

Local WDB must demonstrate it is 

taking steps to prepare for competition 

of its one-stop operator. This 

demonstration may include, but is not 

limited to, market research, requests for 

information, and conducting a cost and 

price analysis. 

§ 361.700 What are the one-stop 

infrastructure costs? 

(a) Infrastructure costs of one-stop 

centers are nonpersonnel costs that are 

necessary for the general operation of 

the one-stop center, including: 

(1) Rental of the facilities; 

(2) Utilities and maintenance; 

(3) Equipment (including assessmentrelated products and assistive 

technology for individuals with 

disabilities); and 

(4) Technology to facilitate access to 

the one-stop center, including 

technology used for the center’s 

planning and outreach activities. 

(b) Local WDBs may consider 

common identifier costs as costs of onestop infrastructure. 

(c) Each entity that carries out a 

program or activities in a local one-stop 

center, described in §§ 361.400 through 

361.410, must use a portion of the funds 

available for the program and activities 

to maintain the one-stop delivery 

system, including payment of the 

infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. 

These payments must be in accordance 

with this subpart; Federal cost 

principles, which require that all costs 

must be allowable, reasonable, 

necessary, and allocable to the program; 

and all other applicable legal 

requirements. 

§ 361.705 What guidance must the 

Governor issue regarding one-stop 

infrastructure funding? 

(a) The Governor, after consultation 

with chief elected officials, the State 

WDB, and Local WDBs, and consistent 

with guidance and policies provided by 

the State WDB, must develop and issue 

guidance for use by local areas, 

specifically: 

(1) Guidelines for State-administered 

one-stop partner programs for 

determining such programs’ 

contributions to a one-stop delivery 

system, based on such programs’ 

proportionate use of such system, and 

relative benefit received, consistent with 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for Federal Awards 

in 2 CFR part 200, including 

determining funding for the costs of 

infrastructure; and 

(2) Guidance to assist Local WDBs, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners in local areas in determining 

equitable and stable methods of funding 

the costs of infrastructure at one-stop 

centers based on proportionate use and 

relative benefit received, and consistent 

with Federal cost principles contained 

in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 

200. 

(b) The guidance must include: 

(1) The appropriate roles of the onestop partner programs in identifying 

one-stop infrastructure costs; 

(2) Approaches to facilitate equitable 

and efficient cost allocation that results 

in a reasonable cost allocation 

methodology where infrastructure costs 

are charged to each partner based on its 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

centers and relative benefit received, 

consistent with Federal cost principles 

at 2 CFR part 200; and 

(3) The timelines regarding 

notification to the Governor for not 

reaching local agreement and triggering 

the State funding mechanism described 

in § 361.730, and timelines for a onestop partner to submit an appeal in the 

State funding mechanism. 

§ 361.710 How are infrastructure costs 

funded? 

Infrastructure costs are funded either 

through the local funding mechanism 

described in § 361.715 or through the 

State funding mechanism described in 

§ 361.730. 

§ 361.715 How are one-stop infrastructure 

costs funded in the local funding 

mechanism? 

(a) In the local funding mechanism, 

the Local WDB, chief elected officials, 

and one-stop partners agree to amounts 

and methods of calculating amounts 

each partner will contribute for one-stop 

infrastructure funding, include the 

infrastructure funding terms in the 

MOU, and sign the MOU. The local 

funding mechanism must meet all of the 

following requirements: 

(1) The infrastructure costs are funded 

through cash and fairly evaluated noncash and third-party in-kind partner 

contributions and include any funding 

from philanthropic organizations or 

other private entities, or through other 

alternative financing options, to provide 

a stable and equitable funding stream 

for ongoing one-stop delivery system 

operations; 

(2) Contributions must be negotiated 

between one-stop partners, chief elected 

officials, and the Local WDB and the 

amount to be contributed must be 

included in the MOU; 

(3) The one-stop partner program’s 

proportionate share of funding must be 

calculated in accordance with the 

Uniform Administrative Requirements, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56041 

Cost Principles, and Audit 

Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 

CFR part 200 based upon a reasonable 

cost allocation methodology whereby 

infrastructure costs are charged to each 

partner in proportion to its use of the 

one-stop center, relative to benefits 

received. Such costs must also be 

allowable, reasonable, necessary, and 

allocable; 

(4) Partner shares must be 

periodically reviewed and reconciled 

against actual costs incurred, and 

adjusted to ensure that actual costs 

charged to any one-stop partners are 

proportionate to the use of the one-stop 

center and relative to the benefit 

received by the one-stop partners and 

their respective programs or activities. 

(b) In developing the section of the 

MOU on one-stop infrastructure funding 

described in § 361.755, the Local WDB 

and chief elected officials will: 

(1) Ensure that the one-stop partners 

adhere to the guidance identified in 

§ 361.705 on one-stop delivery system 

infrastructure costs. 

(2) Work with one-stop partners to 

achieve consensus and informally 

mediate any possible conflicts or 

disagreements among one-stop partners. 

(3) Provide technical assistance to 

new one-stop partners and local grant 

recipients to ensure that those entities 

are informed and knowledgeable of the 

elements contained in the MOU and the 

one-stop infrastructure costs 

arrangement. 

(c) The MOU may include an interim 

infrastructure funding agreement, 

including as much detail as the Local 

WDB has negotiated with one-stop 

partners, if all other parts of the MOU 

have been negotiated, in order to allow 

the partner programs to operate in the 

one-stop centers. The interim 

infrastructure funding agreement must 

be finalized within 6 months of when 

the MOU is signed. If the interim 

infrastructure funding agreement is not 

finalized within that timeframe, the 

Local WDB must notify the Governor, as 

described in § 361.725. 

§ 361.720 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the local one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the local funding mechanism, 

one-stop partner programs may 

determine what funds they will use to 

pay for infrastructure costs. The use of 

these funds must be in accordance with 

the requirements in this subpart, and 

with the relevant partner’s authorizing 

statutes and regulations, including, for 

example, prohibitions against 

supplanting non-Federal resources, 

statutory limitations on administrative 

costs, and all other applicable legal 

requirements. In the case of partners 

administering programs authorized by 

title I of WIOA, these infrastructure 

costs may be considered program costs. 

In the case of partners administering 

adult education and literacy programs 

authorized by title II of WIOA, these 

funds must include Federal funds made 

available for the local administration of 

adult education and literacy programs 

authorized by title II of WIOA. These 

funds may also include non-Federal 

resources that are cash, in-kind or thirdparty contributions. In the case of 

partners administering the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006, funds used to pay for 

infrastructure costs may include funds 

available for local administrative 

expenses, non-Federal resources that are 

cash, in-kind or third-party 

contributions, and may include other 

funds made available by the State. 

(b) There are no specific caps on the 

amount or percent of overall funding a 

one-stop partner may contribute to fund 

infrastructure costs under the local 

funding mechanism, except that 

contributions for administrative costs 

may not exceed the amount available for 

administrative costs under the 

authorizing statute of the partner 

program. However, amounts contributed 

for infrastructure costs must be 

allowable and based on proportionate 

use of the one-stop centers and relative 

benefit received by the partner program, 

taking into account the total cost of the 

one-stop infrastructure as well as 

alternate financing options, and must be 

consistent with 2 CFR part 200, 

including the Federal cost principles. 

(c) Cash, non-cash, and third-party inkind contributions may be provided by 

one-stop partners to cover their 

proportionate share of infrastructure 

costs. 

(1) Cash contributions are cash funds 

provided to the Local WDB or its 

designee by one-stop partners, either 

directly or by an interagency transfer. 

(2) Non-cash contributions are 

comprised of— 

(i) Expenditures incurred by one-stop 

partners on behalf of the one-stop 

center; and 

(ii) Non-cash contributions or goods 

or services contributed by a partner 

program and used by the one-stop 

center. 

(3) Non-cash contributions, especially 

those set forth in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of 

this section, must be valued consistent 

with 2 CFR 200.306 to ensure they are 

fairly evaluated and meet the partners’ 

proportionate share. 

(4) Third-party in-kind contributions 

are: 

(i) Contributions of space, equipment, 

technology, non-personnel services, or 

other like items to support the 

infrastructure costs associated with onestop operations, by a non-one-stop 

partner to support the one-stop center in 

general, not a specific partner; or 

(ii) Contributions by a non-one-stop 

partner of space, equipment, 

technology, non-personnel services, or 

other like items to support the 

infrastructure costs associated with onestop operations, to a one-stop partner to 

support its proportionate share of onestop infrastructure costs. 

(iii) In-kind contributions described 

in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 

section must be valued consistent with 

2 CFR 200.306 and reconciled on a 

regular basis to ensure they are fairly 

evaluated and meet the proportionate 

share of the partner. 

(5) All partner contributions, 

regardless of the type, must be 

reconciled on a regular basis (i.e., 

monthly or quarterly), comparing actual 

expenses incurred to relative benefits 

received, to ensure each partner 

program is contributing its 

proportionate share in accordance with 

the terms of the MOU. 

§ 361.725 What happens if consensus on 

infrastructure funding is not reached at the 

local level between the Local Workforce 

Development Board, chief elected officials, 

and one-stop partners? 

With regard to negotiations for 

infrastructure funding for Program Year 

(PY) 2017 and for each subsequent 

program year thereafter, if the Local 

WDB, chief elected officials, and onestop partners do not reach consensus on 

methods of sufficiently funding local 

infrastructure through the local funding 

mechanism in accordance with the 

Governor’s guidance issued under 

§ 361.705 and consistent with the 

regulations in §§ 361.715 and 361.720, 

and include that consensus agreement 

in the signed MOU, then the Local WDB 

must notify the Governor by the 

deadline established by the Governor 

under § 361.705(b)(3). Once notified, the 

Governor must administer funding 

through the State funding mechanism, 

as described in §§ 361.730 through 

361.738, for the program year impacted 

by the local area’s failure to reach 

consensus. 

§ 361.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) Consistent with sec. 

121(h)(1)(A)(i)(II) of WIOA, if the Local 

WDB, chief elected official, and onestop partners in a local area do not reach 

consensus agreement on methods of 

sufficiently funding the costs of 

infrastructure of one-stop centers for a 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56042 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

program year, the State funding 

mechanism is applicable to the local 

area for that program year. 

(b) In the State funding mechanism, 

the Governor, subject to the limitations 

in paragraph (c) of this section, 

determines one-stop partner 

contributions after consultation with the 

chief elected officials, Local WDBs, and 

the State WDB. This determination 

involves: 

(1) The application of a budget for 

one-stop infrastructure costs as 

described in § 361.735, based on either 

agreement reached in the local area 

negotiations or the State WDB formula 

outlined in § 361.745; 

(2) The determination of each local 

one-stop partner program’s 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

delivery system and relative benefit 

received, consistent with the Uniform 

Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, including 

the Federal cost principles, the partner 

programs’ authorizing laws and 

regulations, and other applicable legal 

requirements described in § 361.736; 

and 

(3) The calculation of required 

statewide program caps on 

contributions to infrastructure costs 

from one-stop partner programs in areas 

operating under the State funding 

mechanism as described in § 361.738. 

(c) In certain situations, the Governor 

does not determine the infrastructure 

cost contributions for some one-stop 

partner programs under the State 

funding mechanism. 

(1) The Governor will not determine 

the contribution amounts for 

infrastructure funds for Native 

American program grantees described in 

20 CFR part 684. The appropriate 

portion of funds to be provided by 

Native American program grantees to 

pay for one-stop infrastructure must be 

determined as part of the development 

of the MOU described in § 361.500 and 

specified in that MOU. 

(2) In States in which the policymaking authority is placed in an entity 

or official that is independent of the 

authority of the Governor with respect 

to the funds provided for adult 

education and literacy activities 

authorized under title II of WIOA, 

postsecondary career and technical 

education activities authorized under 

the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006, or VR services 

authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (other than 

sec. 112 or part C), as amended by 

WIOA title IV, the determination of the 

amount each of the applicable partners 

must contribute to assist in paying the 

infrastructure costs of one-stop centers 

must be made by the official or chief 

officer of the entity with such authority, 

in consultation with the Governor. 

(d) Any duty, ability, choice, 

responsibility, or other action otherwise 

related to the determination of 

infrastructure costs contributions that is 

assigned to the Governor in §§ 361.730 

through 361.745 also applies to this 

decision-making process performed by 

the official or chief officer described in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 

§ 361.731 What are the steps to determine 

the amount to be paid under the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) To initiate the State funding 

mechanism, a Local WDB that has not 

reached consensus on methods of 

sufficiently funding local infrastructure 

through the local funding mechanism as 

provided in § 361.725 must notify the 

Governor by the deadline established by 

the Governor under § 361.705(b)(3). 

(b) Once a Local WDB has informed 

the Governor that no consensus has 

been reached: 

(1) The Local WDB must provide the 

Governor with local negotiation 

materials in accordance with 

§ 361.735(a). 

(2) The Governor must determine the 

one-stop center budget by either: 

(i) Accepting a budget previously 

agreed upon by partner programs in the 

local negotiations, in accordance with 

§ 361.735(b)(1); or 

(ii) Creating a budget for the one-stop 

center using the State WDB formula 

(described in § 361.745) in accordance 

with § 361.735(b)(3). 

(3) The Governor then must establish 

a cost allocation methodology to 

determine the one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs, in accordance with 

§ 361.736. 

(4)(i) Using the methodology 

established under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of 

this section, and taking into 

consideration the factors concerning 

individual partner programs listed in 

§ 361.737(b)(2), the Governor must 

determine each partner’s proportionate 

share of the infrastructure costs, in 

accordance with § 361.737(b)(1), and 

(ii) In accordance with § 361.730(c), in 

some instances, the Governor does not 

determine a partner program’s 

proportionate share of infrastructure 

funding costs, in which case it must be 

determined by the entities named in 

§ 361.730(c)(1) and (2). 

(5) The Governor must then calculate 

the statewide caps on the amounts that 

partner programs may be required to 

contribute toward infrastructure 

funding, according to the steps found at 

§ 361.738(a)(1) through (4). 

(6) The Governor must ensure that the 

aggregate total of the infrastructure 

contributions according to proportionate 

share required of all local partner 

programs in local areas under the State 

funding mechanism do not exceed the 

cap for that particular program, in 

accordance with § 361.738(b)(1). If the 

total does not exceed the cap, the 

Governor must direct each one-stop 

partner program to pay the amount 

determined under § 361.737(a) toward 

the infrastructure funding costs of the 

one-stop center. If the total does exceed 

the cap, then to determine the amount 

to direct each one-stop program to pay, 

the Governor may: 

(i) Ascertain, in accordance with 

§ 361.738(b)(2)(i), whether the local 

partner or partners whose proportionate 

shares are calculated above the 

individual program caps are willing to 

voluntarily contribute above the capped 

amount to equal that program’s 

proportionate share; or 

(ii) Choose from the options provided 

in § 361.738(b)(2)(ii), including having 

the local area re-enter negotiations to 

reassess each one-stop partner’s 

proportionate share and make 

adjustments or identify alternate sources 

of funding to make up the difference 

between the capped amount and the 

proportionate share of infrastructure 

funding of the one-stop partner. 

(7) If none of the solutions given in 

paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this 

section prove to be viable, the Governor 

must reassess the proportionate shares 

of each one-stop partner so that the 

aggregate amount attributable to the 

local partners for each program is less 

than that program’s cap amount. Upon 

such reassessment, the Governor must 

direct each one-stop partner program to 

pay the reassessed amount toward the 

infrastructure funding costs of the onestop center. 

§ 361.735 How are infrastructure cost 

budgets for the one-stop centers in a local 

area determined in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) Local WDBs must provide to the 

Governor appropriate and relevant 

materials and documents used in the 

negotiations under the local funding 

mechanism, including but not limited 

to: the local WIOA plan, the cost 

allocation method or methods proposed 

by the partners to be used in 

determining proportionate share, the 

proposed amounts or budget to fund 

infrastructure, the amount of total 

partner funds included, the type of 

funds or non-cash contributions, 

proposed one-stop center budgets, and 

any agreed upon or proposed MOUs. 

(b)(1) If a local area has reached 

agreement as to the infrastructure 

budget for the one-stop centers in the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56043 

local area, it must provide this budget 

to the Governor as required by 

paragraph (a) of this section. If, as a 

result of the agreed upon infrastructure 

budget, only the individual 

programmatic contributions to 

infrastructure funding based upon 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

centers and relative benefit received are 

at issue, the Governor may accept the 

budget, from which the Governor must 

calculate each partner’s contribution 

consistent with the cost allocation 

methodologies contained in the Uniform 

Guidance found in 2 CFR part 200, as 

described in § 361.736. 

(2) The Governor may also take into 

consideration the extent to which the 

partners in the local area have agreed in 

determining the proportionate shares, 

including any agreements reached at the 

local level by one or more partners, as 

well as any other element or product of 

the negotiating process provided to the 

Governor as required by paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(3) If a local area has not reached 

agreement as to the infrastructure 

budget for the one-stop centers in the 

local area, or if the Governor determines 

that the agreed upon budget does not 

adequately meet the needs of the local 

area or does not reasonably work within 

the confines of the local area’s resources 

in accordance with the Governor’s onestop budget guidance (which is required 

to be issued by WIOA sec. 121(h)(1)(B) 

and under § 361.705), then, in 

accordance with § 361.745, the 

Governor must use the formula 

developed by the State WDB based on 

at least the factors required under 

§ 361.745, and any associated weights to 

determine the local area budget. 

§ 361.736 How does the Governor 

establish a cost allocation methodology 

used to determine the one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs under the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

Once the appropriate budget is 

determined for a local area through 

either method described in § 361.735 

(by acceptance of a budget agreed upon 

in local negotiation or by the Governor 

applying the formula detailed in 

§ 361.745), the Governor must 

determine the appropriate cost 

allocation methodology to be applied to 

the one-stop partners in such local area, 

consistent with the Federal cost 

principles permitted under 2 CFR part 

200, to fund the infrastructure budget. 

§ 361.737 How are one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs determined under the 

State one-stop infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

(a) The Governor must direct the onestop partners in each local area that 

have not reached agreement under the 

local funding mechanism to pay what 

the Governor determines is each partner 

program’s proportionate share of 

infrastructure funds for that area, 

subject to the application of the caps 

described in § 361.738. 

(b)(1) The Governor must use the cost 

allocation methodology—as determined 

under § 361.736—to determine each 

partner’s proportionate share of the 

infrastructure costs under the State 

funding mechanism, subject to 

considering the factors described in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(2) In determining each partner 

program’s proportionate share of 

infrastructure costs, the Governor must 

take into account the costs of 

administration of the one-stop delivery 

system for purposes not related to onestop centers for each partner (such as 

costs associated with maintaining the 

Local WDB or information technology 

systems), as well as the statutory 

requirements for each partner program, 

the partner program’s ability to fulfill 

such requirements, and all other 

applicable legal requirements. The 

Governor may also take into 

consideration the extent to which the 

partners in the local area have agreed in 

determining the proportionate shares, 

including any agreements reached at the 

local level by one or more partners, as 

well as any other materials or 

documents of the negotiating process, 

which must be provided to the Governor 

by the Local WDB and described in 

§ 361.735(a). 

§ 361.738 How are statewide caps on the 

contributions for one-stop infrastructure 

funding determined in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) The Governor must calculate the 

statewide cap on the contributions for 

one-stop infrastructure funding required 

to be provided by each one-stop partner 

program for those local areas that have 

not reached agreement. The cap is the 

amount determined under paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section, which the 

Governor derives by: 

(1) First, determining the amount 

resulting from applying the percentage 

for the corresponding one-stop partner 

program provided in paragraph (d) of 

this section to the amount of Federal 

funds provided to carry out the one-stop 

partner program in the State for the 

applicable fiscal year; 

(2) Second, selecting a factor (or 

factors) that reasonably indicates the use 

of one-stop centers in the State, 

applying such factor(s) to all local areas 

in the State, and determining the 

percentage of such factor(s) applicable 

to the local areas that reached agreement 

under the local funding mechanism in 

the State; 

(3) Third, determining the amount 

resulting from applying the percentage 

determined in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section to the amount determined under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section for the 

one-stop partner program; and 

(4) Fourth, determining the amount 

that results from subtracting the amount 

determined under paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section from the amount 

determined under paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section. The outcome of this final 

calculation results in the partner 

program’s cap. 

(b)(1) The Governor must ensure that 

the funds required to be contributed by 

each partner program in the local areas 

in the State under the State funding 

mechanism, in aggregate, do not exceed 

the statewide cap for each program as 

determined under paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(2) If the contributions initially 

determined under § 361.737 would 

exceed the applicable cap determined 

under paragraph (a) of this section, the 

Governor may: 

(i) Ascertain if the one-stop partner 

whose contribution would otherwise 

exceed the cap determined under 

paragraph (a) of this section will 

voluntarily contribute above the capped 

amount, so that the total contributions 

equal that partner’s proportionate share. 

The one-stop partner’s contribution 

must still be consistent with the 

program’s authorizing laws and 

regulations, the Federal cost principles 

in 2 CFR part 200, and other applicable 

legal requirements; or 

(ii) Direct or allow the Local WDB, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners to: Re-enter negotiations, as 

necessary; reduce the infrastructure 

costs to reflect the amount of funds that 

are available for such costs without 

exceeding the cap levels; reassess the 

proportionate share of each one-stop 

partner; or identify alternative sources 

of financing for one-stop infrastructure 

funding, consistent with the 

requirement that each one-stop partner 

pay an amount that is consistent with 

the proportionate use of the one-stop 

center and relative benefit received by 

the partner, the program’s authorizing 

laws and regulations, the Federal cost 

principles in 2 CFR part 200, and other 

applicable legal requirements. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56044 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) If applicable under paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Local WDB, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners, after renegotiation, may come 

to agreement, sign an MOU, and 

proceed under the local funding 

mechanism. Such actions do not require 

the redetermination of the applicable 

caps under paragraph (a) of this section. 

(4) If, after renegotiation, agreement 

among partners still cannot be reached 

or alternate financing cannot be 

identified, the Governor may adjust the 

specified allocation, in accordance with 

the amounts available and the 

limitations described in paragraph (d) of 

this section. In determining these 

adjustments, the Governor may take into 

account information relating to the 

renegotiation as well as the information 

described in § 361.735(a). 

(c) Limitations. Subject to paragraph 

(a) of this section and in accordance 

with WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D), the 

following limitations apply to the 

Governor’s calculations of the amount 

that one-stop partners in local areas that 

have not reached agreement under the 

local funding mechanism may be 

required under § 361.736 to contribute 

to one-stop infrastructure funding: 

(1) WIOA formula programs and 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service. 

The portion of funds required to be 

contributed under the WIOA youth, 

adult, or dislocated worker programs, or 

under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 

49 et seq.) must not exceed three 

percent of the amount of the program in 

the State for a program year. 

(2) Other one-stop partners. For 

required one-stop partners other than 

those specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (3), 

(5), and (6) of this section, the portion 

of funds required to be contributed must 

not exceed 1.5 percent of the amount of 

Federal funds provided to carry out that 

program in the State for a fiscal year. 

For purposes of the Carl D. Perkins 

Career and Technical Education Act of 

2006, the cap on contributions is 

determined based on the funds made 

available by the State for postsecondary 

level programs and activities under sec. 

132 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act and the 

amount of funds used by the State under 

sec. 112(a)(3) of the Perkins Act during 

the prior year to administer 

postsecondary level programs and 

activities, as applicable. 

(3) Vocational rehabilitation. (i) 

Within a State, for the entity or entities 

administering the programs described in 

WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(iv) and 

§ 361.400, the allotment is based on the 

one State Federal fiscal year allotment, 

even in instances where that allotment 

is shared between two State agencies, 

and the cumulative portion of funds 

required to be contributed must not 

exceed— 

(A) 0.75 percent of the amount of 

Federal funds provided to carry out 

such program in the State for Fiscal 

Year 2016 for purposes of applicability 

of the State funding mechanism for PY 

2017; 

(B) 1.0 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2017 for 

purposes of applicability of the State 

funding mechanism for PY 2018; 

(C) 1.25 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2018 for 

purposes of applicability of the State 

funding mechanism for PY 2019; 

(D) 1.5 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2019 and 

following years for purposes of 

applicability of the State funding 

mechanism for PY 2020 and subsequent 

years. 

(ii) The limitations set forth in 

paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section for any 

given fiscal year must be based on the 

final VR allotment to the State in the 

applicable Federal fiscal year. 

(4) Federal direct spending programs. 

For local areas that have not reached a 

one-stop infrastructure funding 

agreement by consensus, an entity 

administering a program funded with 

direct Federal spending, as defined in 

sec. 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 

1985, as in effect on February 15, 2014 

(2 U.S.C. 900(c)(8)), must not be 

required to provide more for 

infrastructure costs than the amount 

that the Governor determined (as 

described in § 361.737). 

(5) TANF programs. For purposes of 

TANF, the cap on contributions is 

determined based on the total Federal 

TANF funds expended by the State for 

work, education, and training activities 

during the prior Federal fiscal year (as 

reported to the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) on the 

quarterly TANF Financial Report form), 

plus any additional amount of Federal 

TANF funds that the State TANF agency 

reasonably determines was expended 

for administrative costs in connection 

with these activities but that was 

separately reported to HHS as an 

administrative cost. The State’s 

contribution to the one-stop 

infrastructure must not exceed 1.5 

percent of these combined expenditures. 

(6) Community Services Block Grant 

(CSBG) programs. For purposes of 

CSBG, the cap on contributions will be 

based on the total amount of CSBG 

funds determined by the State to have 

been expended by local CSBG-eligible 

entities for the provision of employment 

and training activities during the prior 

Federal fiscal year for which 

information is available (as reported to 

HHS on the CSBG Annual Report) and 

any additional amount that the State 

CSBG agency reasonably determines 

was expended for administrative 

purposes in connection with these 

activities and was separately reported to 

HHS as an administrative cost. The 

State’s contribution must not exceed 1.5 

percent of these combined expenditures. 

(d) For programs for which it is not 

otherwise feasible to determine the 

amount of Federal funding used by the 

program until the end of that program’s 

operational year—because, for example, 

the funding available for education, 

employment, and training activities is 

included within funding for the 

program that may also be used for other 

unrelated activities—the determination 

of the Federal funds provided to carry 

out the program for a fiscal year under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be 

determined by: 

(1) The percentage of Federal funds 

available to the one-stop partner 

program that were used by the one-stop 

partner program for education, 

employment, and training activities in 

the previous fiscal year for which data 

are available; and 

(2) Applying the percentage 

determined under paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section to the total amount of 

Federal funds available to the one-stop 

partner program for the fiscal year for 

which the determination under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section applies. 

§ 361.740 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the State funding mechanism, 

infrastructure costs for WIOA title I 

programs, including Native American 

Programs described in 20 CFR part 684, 

may be paid using program funds, 

administrative funds, or both. 

Infrastructure costs for the Senior 

Community Service Employment 

Program under title V of the Older 

Americans Act (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) 

may also be paid using program funds, 

administrative funds, or both. 

(b) In the State funding mechanism, 

infrastructure costs for other required 

one-stop partner programs (listed in 

§§ 361.400 through 361.410) are limited 

to the program’s administrative funds, 

as appropriate. 

(c) In the State funding mechanism, 

infrastructure costs for the adult 

education program authorized by title II 

of WIOA must be paid from the funds 

that are available for local 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56045 

administration and may be paid from 

funds made available by the State or 

non-Federal resources that are cash, inkind, or third-party contributions. 

(d) In the State funding mechanism, 

infrastructure costs for the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006 must be paid from funds 

available for local administration of 

postsecondary level programs and 

activities to eligible recipients or 

consortia of eligible recipients and may 

be paid from funds made available by 

the State or non-Federal resources that 

are cash, in-kind, or third-party 

contributions. 

§ 361.745 What factors does the State 

Workforce Development Board use to 

develop the formula described in Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act, which is 

used by the Governor to determine the 

appropriate one-stop infrastructure budget 

for each local area operating under the 

State infrastructure funding mechanism, if 

no reasonably implementable locally 

negotiated budget exists? 

The State WDB must develop a 

formula, as described in WIOA sec. 

121(h)(3)(B), to be used by the Governor 

under § 361.735(b)(3) in determining the 

appropriate budget for the infrastructure 

costs of one-stop centers in the local 

areas that do not reach agreement under 

the local funding mechanism and are, 

therefore, subject to the State funding 

mechanism. The formula identifies the 

factors and corresponding weights for 

each factor that the Governor must use, 

which must include: The number of 

one-stop centers in a local area; the 

population served by such centers; the 

services provided by such centers; and 

any factors relating to the operations of 

such centers in the local area that the 

State WDB determines are appropriate. 

As indicated in § 361.735(b)(1), if the 

local area has agreed on such a budget, 

the Governor may accept that budget in 

lieu of applying the formula factors. 

§ 361.750 When and how can a one-stop 

partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure 

amount designated by the State under the 

State infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) The Governor must establish a 

process, described under sec. 

121(h)(2)(E) of WIOA, for a one-stop 

partner administering a program 

described in §§ 361.400 through 361.410 

to appeal the Governor’s determination 

regarding the one-stop partner’s portion 

of funds to be provided for one-stop 

infrastructure costs. This appeal process 

must be described in the Unified State 

Plan. 

(b) The appeal may be made on the 

ground that the Governor’s 

determination is inconsistent with 

proportionate share requirements in 

§ 361.735(a), the cost contribution 

limitations in § 361.735(b), the cost 

contribution caps in § 361.738, 

consistent with the process described in 

the State Plan. 

(c) The process must ensure prompt 

resolution of the appeal in order to 

ensure the funds are distributed in a 

timely manner, consistent with the 

requirements of 20 CFR 683.630. 

(d) The one-stop partner must submit 

an appeal in accordance with State’s 

deadlines for appeals specified in the 

guidance issued under § 361.705(b)(3), 

or if the State has not set a deadline, 

within 21 days from the Governor’s 

determination. 

§ 361.755 What are the required elements 

regarding infrastructure funding that must 

be included in the one-stop Memorandum 

of Understanding? 

The MOU, fully described in 

§ 361.500, must contain the following 

information whether the local areas use 

either the local one-stop or the State 

funding method: 

(a) The period of time in which this 

infrastructure funding agreement is 

effective. This may be a different time 

period than the duration of the MOU. 

(b) Identification of an infrastructure 

and shared services budget that will be 

periodically reconciled against actual 

costs incurred and adjusted accordingly 

to ensure that it reflects a cost allocation 

methodology that demonstrates how 

infrastructure costs are charged to each 

partner in proportion to its use of the 

one-stop center and relative benefit 

received, and that complies with 2 CFR 

part 200 (or any corresponding similar 

regulation or ruling). 

(c) Identification of all one-stop 

partners, chief elected officials, and 

Local WDB participating in the 

infrastructure funding arrangement. 

(d) Steps the Local WDB, chief elected 

officials, and one-stop partners used to 

reach consensus or an assurance that the 

local area followed the guidance for the 

State funding process. 

(e) Description of the process to be 

used among partners to resolve issues 

during the MOU duration period when 

consensus cannot be reached. 

(f) Description of the periodic 

modification and review process to 

ensure equitable benefit among one-stop 

partners. 

§ 361.760 How do one-stop partners jointly 

fund other shared costs under the 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

(a) In addition to jointly funding 

infrastructure costs, one-stop partners 

listed in §§ 361.400 through 361.410 

must use a portion of funds made 

available under their programs’ 

authorizing Federal law (or fairly 

evaluated in-kind contributions) to pay 

the additional costs relating to the 

operation of the one-stop delivery 

system. These other costs must include 

applicable career services and may 

include other costs, including shared 

services. 

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) 

of this section, shared services’ costs 

may include the costs of shared services 

that are authorized for and may be 

commonly provided through the onestop partner programs to any individual, 

such as initial intake, assessment of 

needs, appraisal of basic skills, 

identification of appropriate services to 

meet such needs, referrals to other onestop partners, and business services. 

Shared operating costs may also include 

shared costs of the Local WDB’s 

functions. 

(c) Contributions to the additional 

costs related to operation of the one-stop 

delivery system may be cash, non-cash, 

or third-party in-kind contributions, 

consistent with how these are described 

in § 361.720(c). 

(d) The shared costs described in 

paragraph (a) of this section must be 

allocated according to the proportion of 

benefit received by each of the partners, 

consistent with the Federal law 

authorizing the partner’s program, and 

consistent with all other applicable legal 

requirements, including Federal cost 

principles in 2 CFR part 200 (or any 

corresponding similar regulation or 

ruling) requiring that costs are 

allowable, reasonable, necessary, and 

allocable. 

(e) Any shared costs agreed upon by 

the one-stop partners must be included 

in the MOU. 

§ 361.800 How are one-stop centers and 

one-stop delivery systems certified for 

effectiveness, physical and programmatic 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement? 

(a) The State WDB, in consultation 

with chief elected officials and Local 

WDBs, must establish objective criteria 

and procedures for Local WDBs to use 

when certifying one-stop centers. 

(1) The State WDB, in consultation 

with chief elected officials and Local 

WDBs, must review and update the 

criteria every 2 years as part of the 

review and modification of State Plans 

pursuant to § 361.135. 

(2) The criteria must be consistent 

with the Governor’s and State WDB’s 

guidelines, guidance, and policies on 

infrastructure funding decisions, 

described in § 361.705. The criteria 

must evaluate the one-stop centers and 

one-stop delivery system for 

effectiveness, including customer 

satisfaction, physical and programmatic 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56046 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement. 

(3) When the Local WDB is the onestop operator as described in 20 CFR 

679.410, the State WDB must certify the 

one-stop center. 

(b) Evaluations of effectiveness must 

include how well the one-stop center 

integrates available services for 

participants and businesses, meets the 

workforce development needs of 

participants and the employment needs 

of local employers, operates in a costefficient manner, coordinates services 

among the one-stop partner programs, 

and provides access to partner program 

services to the maximum extent 

practicable, including providing 

services outside of regular business 

hours where there is a workforce need, 

as identified by the Local WDB. These 

evaluations must take into account 

feedback from one-stop customers. They 

must also include evaluations of how 

well the one-stop center ensures equal 

opportunity for individuals with 

disabilities to participate in or benefit 

from one-stop center services. These 

evaluations must include criteria 

evaluating how well the centers and 

delivery systems take actions to comply 

with the disability-related regulations 

implementing WIOA sec. 188, set forth 

at 29 CFR part 38. Such actions include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Providing reasonable 

accommodations for individuals with 

disabilities; 

(2) Making reasonable modifications 

to policies, practices, and procedures 

where necessary to avoid discrimination 

against persons with disabilities; 

(3) Administering programs in the 

most integrated setting appropriate; 

(4) Communicating with persons with 

disabilities as effectively as with others; 

(5) Providing appropriate auxiliary 

aids and services, including assistive 

technology devices and services, where 

necessary to afford individuals with 

disabilities an equal opportunity to 

participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, 

the program or activity; and 

(6) Providing for the physical 

accessibility of the one-stop center to 

individuals with disabilities. 

(c) Evaluations of continuous 

improvement must include how well 

the one-stop center supports the 

achievement of the negotiated local 

levels of performance for the indicators 

of performance for the local area 

described in sec. 116(b)(2) of WIOA and 

part 361. Other continuous 

improvement factors may include a 

regular process for identifying and 

responding to technical assistance 

needs, a regular system of continuing 

professional staff development, and 

having systems in place to capture and 

respond to specific customer feedback. 

(d) Local WDBs must assess at least 

once every 3 years the effectiveness, 

physical and programmatic 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement of one-stop centers and 

the one-stop delivery systems using the 

criteria and procedures developed by 

the State WDB. The Local WDB may 

establish additional criteria, or set 

higher standards for service 

coordination, than those set by the State 

criteria. Local WDBs must review and 

update the criteria every 2 years as part 

of the Local Plan update process 

described in § 361.580. Local WDBs 

must certify one-stop centers in order to 

be eligible to use infrastructure funds in 

the State funding mechanism described 

in § 361.730. 

(e) All one-stop centers must comply 

with applicable physical and 

programmatic accessibility 

requirements, as set forth in 29 CFR part 

38, the implementing regulations of 

WIOA sec. 188. 

§ 361.900 What is the common identifier to 

be used by each one-stop delivery system? 

(a) The common one-stop delivery 

system identifier is ‘‘American Job 

Center.’’ 

(b) As of November 17, 2016, each 

one-stop delivery system must include 

the ‘‘American Job Center’’ identifier or 

‘‘a proud partner of the American Job 

Center network’’ on all primary 

electronic resources used by the onestop delivery system, and on any newly 

printed, purchased, or created materials. 

(c) As of July 1, 2017, each one-stop 

delivery system must include the 

‘‘American Job Center’’ identifier or ‘‘a 

proud partner of the American Job 

Center network’’ on all products, 

programs, activities, services, electronic 

resources, facilities, and related 

property and new materials used in the 

one-stop delivery system. 

(d) One-stop partners, States, or local 

areas may use additional identifiers on 

their products, programs, activities, 

services, facilities, and related property 

and materials. 

PART 463—ADULT EDUCATION AND 

FAMILY LITERACY ACT 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 463 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 102 and 103, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 9. Add subpart H to part 463, as added 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, to read as follows: 

Subpart H—Unified and Combined State 

Plans Under Title I of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act 

Sec. 

463.100 What are the purposes of the 

Unified and Combined State Plans? 

463.105 What are the general requirements 

for the Unified State Plan? 

463.110 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the adult, dislocated worker, and 

youth programs authorized under 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act title I? 

463.115 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act program authorized under 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act title II? 

463.120 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, 

as amended by Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act title III? 

463.125 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the State Vocational Rehabilitation 

program authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title IV? 

463.130 What is the development, 

submission, and approval process of the 

Unified State Plan? 

463.135 What are the requirements for 

modification of the Unified State Plan? 

463.140 What are the general requirements 

for submitting a Combined State Plan? 

463.143 What is the development, 

submission, and approval process of the 

Combined State Plan? 

463.145 What are the requirements for 

modifications of the Combined State 

Plan? 

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, and 503, Pub. L. 

113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014). 

Subpart H—Unified and Combined 

State Plans Under Title I of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act 

§ 463.100 What are the purposes of the 

Unified and Combined State Plans? 

(a) The Unified and Combined State 

Plans provide the framework for States 

to outline a strategic vision of, and goals 

for, how their workforce development 

systems will achieve the purposes of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA). 

(b) The Unified and Combined State 

Plans serve as 4-year action plans to 

develop, align, and integrate the State’s 

systems and provide a platform to 

achieve the State’s vision and strategic 

and operational goals. A Unified or 

Combined State Plan is intended to: 

(1) Align, in strategic coordination, 

the six core programs required in the 

Unified State Plan pursuant to 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56047 

§ 463.105(b), and additional Combined 

State Plan partner programs that may be 

part of the Combined State Plan 

pursuant to § 463.140; 

(2) Direct investments in economic, 

education, and workforce training 

programs to focus on providing relevant 

education and training to ensure that 

individuals, including youth and 

individuals with barriers to 

employment, have the skills to compete 

in the job market and that employers 

have a ready supply of skilled workers; 

(3) Apply strategies for job-driven 

training consistently across Federal 

programs; and 

(4) Enable economic, education, and 

workforce partners to build a skilled 

workforce through innovation in, and 

alignment of, employment, training, and 

education programs. 

§ 463.105 What are the general 

requirements for the Unified State Plan? 

(a) The Unified State Plan must be 

submitted in accordance with § 463.130 

and WIOA sec. 102(c), as explained in 

joint planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education. 

(b) The Governor of each State must 

submit, at a minimum, in accordance 

with § 463.130, a Unified State Plan to 

the Secretary of Labor to be eligible to 

receive funding for the workforce 

development system’s six core 

programs: 

(1) The adult, dislocated worker, and 

youth programs authorized under 

subtitle B of title I of WIOA and 

administered by the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL); 

(2) The Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act (AEFLA) program 

authorized under title II of WIOA and 

administered by the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED); 

(3) The Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act 

of 1933, as amended by WIOA title III 

and administered by DOL; and 

(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation 

program authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by title IV of WIOA and administered by 

ED. 

(c) The Unified State Plan must 

outline the State’s 4-year strategy for the 

core programs described in paragraph 

(b) of this section and meet the 

requirements of sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as 

explained in the joint planning 

guidelines issued by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education. 

(d) The Unified State Plan must 

include strategic and operational 

planning elements to facilitate the 

development of an aligned, coordinated, 

and comprehensive workforce 

development system. The Unified State 

Plan must include: 

(1) Strategic planning elements that 

describe the State’s strategic vision and 

goals for preparing an educated and 

skilled workforce under sec. 102(b)(1) of 

WIOA. The strategic planning elements 

must be informed by and include an 

analysis of the State’s economic 

conditions and employer and workforce 

needs, including education and skill 

needs. 

(2) Strategies for aligning the core 

programs and Combined State Plan 

partner programs as described in 

§ 463.140(d), as well as other resources 

available to the State, to achieve the 

strategic vision and goals in accordance 

with sec. 102(b)(1)(E) of WIOA. 

(3) Operational planning elements in 

accordance with sec. 102(b)(2) of WIOA 

that support the strategies for aligning 

the core programs and other resources 

available to the State to achieve the 

State’s vision and goals and a 

description of how the State Workforce 

Development Board (WDB) will 

implement its functions, in accordance 

with sec. 101(d) of WIOA. Operational 

planning elements must include: 

(i) A description of how the State 

strategy will be implemented by each 

core program’s lead State agency; 

(ii) State operating systems, including 

data systems, and policies that will 

support the implementation of the 

State’s strategy identified in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section; 

(iii) Program-specific requirements for 

the core programs required by WIOA 

sec. 102(b)(2)(D); 

(iv) Assurances required by sec. 

102(b)(2)(E) of WIOA, including an 

assurance that the lead State agencies 

responsible for the administration of the 

core programs reviewed and commented 

on the appropriate operational planning 

of the Unified State Plan and approved 

the elements as serving the needs of the 

population served by such programs, 

and other assurances deemed necessary 

by the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education under sec. 102(b)(2)(E)(x) of 

WIOA; 

(v) A description of joint planning 

and coordination across core programs, 

required one-stop partner programs, and 

other programs and activities in the 

Unified State Plan; and 

(vi) Any additional operational 

planning requirements imposed by the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii) 

of WIOA. 

(e) All of the requirements in this 

subpart that apply to States also apply 

to outlying areas. 

§ 463.110 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

programs authorized under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title I? 

The program-specific requirements for 

the adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

programs that must be included in the 

Unified State Plan are described in sec. 

102(b)(2)(D) of WIOA. Additional 

planning requirements may be 

explained in joint planning guidelines 

issued by the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education. 

§ 463.115 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act 

program authorized under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title II? 

The program-specific requirements for 

the AEFLA program in title II that must 

be included in the Unified State Plan 

are described in secs. 102(b)(2)(C) and 

102(b)(2)(D)(ii) of WIOA. 

(a) With regard to the description 

required in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I) of 

WIOA pertaining to content standards, 

the Unified State Plan must describe 

how the eligible agency will, by July 1, 

2016, align its content standards for 

adult education with State-adopted 

challenging academic content standards 

under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended. 

(b) With regard to the description 

required in sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(iv) of 

WIOA pertaining to the methods and 

factors the State will use to distribute 

funds under the core programs, for title 

II of WIOA, the Unified State Plan must 

include— 

(1) How the eligible agency will 

award multi-year grants on a 

competitive basis to eligible providers 

in the State; and 

(2) How the eligible agency will 

provide direct and equitable access to 

funds using the same grant or contract 

announcement and application 

procedure. 

§ 463.120 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as 

amended by Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title III? 

The Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act 

of 1933, as amended by WIOA title III, 

is subject to requirements in sec. 102(b) 

of WIOA, including any additional 

requirements imposed by the Secretary 

of Labor under secs. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii) 

and 102(b)(2)(D)(iv) of WIOA, as 

explained in joint planning guidelines 

issued by the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56048 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 463.125 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the State Vocational Rehabilitation program 

authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended by Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title IV? 

The program specific-requirements for 

the vocational rehabilitation services 

portion of the Unified or Combined 

State Plan are set forth in sec. 101(a) of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. All submission requirements 

for the vocational rehabilitation services 

portion of the Unified or Combined 

State Plan are in addition to the jointly 

developed strategic and operational 

content requirements prescribed by sec. 

102(b) of WIOA. 

§ 463.130 What is the development, 

submission, and approval process of the 

Unified State Plan? 

(a) The Unified State Plan described 

in § 463.105 must be submitted in 

accordance with WIOA sec. 102(c), as 

explained in joint planning guidelines 

issued jointly by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Education. 

(b) A State must submit its Unified 

State Plan to the Secretary of Labor 

pursuant to a process identified by the 

Secretary. 

(1) The initial Unified State Plan must 

be submitted no later than 120 days 

prior to the commencement of the 

second full program year of WIOA. 

(2) Subsequent Unified State Plans 

must be submitted no later than 120 

days prior to the end of the 4-year 

period covered by a preceding Unified 

State Plan. 

(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of 

this section, ‘‘program year’’ means July 

1 through June 30 of any year. 

(c) The Unified State Plan must be 

developed with the assistance of the 

State WDB, as required by 20 CFR 

679.130(a) and WIOA sec. 101(d), and 

must be developed in coordination with 

administrators with optimum policymaking authority for the core programs 

and required one-stop partners. 

(d) The State must provide an 

opportunity for public comment on and 

input into the development of the 

Unified State Plan prior to its 

submission. 

(1) The opportunity for public 

comment must include an opportunity 

for comment by representatives of Local 

WDBs and chief elected officials, 

businesses, representatives of labor 

organizations, community-based 

organizations, adult education 

providers, institutions of higher 

education, other stakeholders with an 

interest in the services provided by the 

six core programs, and the general 

public, including individuals with 

disabilities. 

(2) Consistent with the ‘‘Sunshine 

Provision’’ of WIOA in sec. 101(g), the 

State WDB must make information 

regarding the Unified State Plan 

available to the public through 

electronic means and regularly 

occurring open meetings in accordance 

with State law. The Unified State Plan 

must describe the State’s process and 

timeline for ensuring a meaningful 

opportunity for public comment. 

(e) Upon receipt of the Unified State 

Plan from the State, the Secretary of 

Labor will ensure that the entire Unified 

State Plan is submitted to the Secretary 

of Education pursuant to a process 

developed by the Secretaries. 

(f) The Unified State Plan is subject to 

the approval of both the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of Education. 

(g) Before the Secretaries of Labor and 

Education approve the Unified State 

Plan, the vocational rehabilitation 

services portion of the Unified State 

Plan described in WIOA sec. 

102(b)(2)(D)(iii) must be approved by 

the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation 

Services Administration. 

(h) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education will review and approve the 

Unified State Plan within 90 days of 

receipt by the Secretary of Labor, unless 

the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary 

of Education determines in writing 

within that period that: 

(1) The plan is inconsistent with a 

core program’s requirements; 

(2) The Unified State Plan is 

inconsistent with any requirement of 

sec. 102 of WIOA; or 

(3) The plan is incomplete or 

otherwise insufficient to determine 

whether it is consistent with a core 

program’s requirements or other 

requirements of WIOA. 

(i) If neither the Secretary of Labor nor 

the Secretary of Education makes the 

written determination described in 

paragraph (h) of this section within 90 

days of the receipt by the Secretaries, 

the Unified State Plan will be 

considered approved. 

§ 463.135 What are the requirements for 

modification of the Unified State Plan? 

(a) In addition to the required 

modification review set forth in 

paragraph (b) of this section, a Governor 

may submit a modification of its Unified 

State Plan at any time during the 4-year 

period of the plan. 

(b) Modifications are required, at a 

minimum: 

(1) At the end of the first 2-year 

period of any 4-year State Plan, wherein 

the State WDB must review the Unified 

State Plan, and the Governor must 

submit modifications to the plan to 

reflect changes in labor market and 

economic conditions or other factors 

affecting the implementation of the 

Unified State Plan; 

(2) When changes in Federal or State 

law or policy substantially affect the 

strategies, goals, and priorities upon 

which the Unified State Plan is based; 

(3) When there are changes in the 

statewide vision, strategies, policies, 

State negotiated levels of performance 

as described in § 463.170(b), the 

methodology used to determine local 

allocation of funds, reorganizations that 

change the working relationship with 

system employees, changes in 

organizational responsibilities, changes 

to the membership structure of the State 

WDB or alternative entity, and similar 

substantial changes to the State’s 

workforce development system. 

(c) Modifications to the Unified State 

Plan are subject to the same public 

review and comment requirements in 

§ 463.130(d) that apply to the 

development of the original Unified 

State Plan. 

(d) Unified State Plan modifications 

must be approved by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education, based on the 

approval standards applicable to the 

original Unified State Plan under 

§ 463.130. This approval must come 

after the approval of the Commissioner 

of the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration for modification of any 

portion of the plan described in sec. 

102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA. 

§ 463.140 What are the general 

requirements for submitting a Combined 

State Plan? 

(a) A State may choose to develop and 

submit a 4-year Combined State Plan in 

lieu of the Unified State Plan described 

in §§ 463.105 through 463.125. 

(b) A State that submits a Combined 

State Plan covering an activity or 

program described in paragraph (d) of 

this section that is, in accordance with 

WIOA sec. 103(c), approved or deemed 

complete under the law relating to the 

program will not be required to submit 

any other plan or application in order to 

receive Federal funds to carry out the 

core programs or the program or 

activities described under paragraph (d) 

of this section that are covered by the 

Combined State Plan. 

(c) If a State develops a Combined 

State Plan, it must be submitted in 

accordance with the process described 

in § 463.143. 

(d) If a State chooses to submit a 

Combined State Plan, the plan must 

include the six core programs and one 

or more of the Combined State Plan 

partner programs and activities 

described in sec. 103(a)(2) of WIOA. The 

Combined State Plan partner programs 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56049 

and activities that may be included in 

the Combined State Plan are: 

(1) Career and technical education 

programs authorized under the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.); 

(2) Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families or TANF, authorized under 

part A of title IV of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

(3) Employment and training 

programs authorized under sec. 6(d)(4) 

of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 

(7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4)); 

(4) Work programs authorized under 

sec. 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act 

of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o)); 

(5) Trade adjustment assistance 

activities under chapter 2 of title II of 

the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 

et seq.); 

(6) Services for veterans authorized 

under chapter 41 of title 38 United 

States Code; 

(7) Programs authorized under State 

unemployment compensation laws (in 

accordance with applicable Federal 

law); 

(8) Senior Community Service 

Employment Programs under title V of 

the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 

U.S.C. 3056 et seq.); 

(9) Employment and training 

activities carried out by the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD); 

(10) Employment and training 

activities carried out under the 

Community Services Block Grant Act 

(42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); and 

(11) Reintegration of offenders 

programs authorized under sec. 212 of 

the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42 

U.S.C. 17532). 

(e) A Combined State Plan must 

contain: 

(1) For the core programs, the 

information required by sec. 102(b) of 

WIOA and §§ 463.105 through 463.125, 

as explained in the joint planning 

guidelines issued by the Secretaries; 

(2) For the Combined State Plan 

partner programs and activities, except 

as described in paragraph (h) of this 

section, the information required by the 

law authorizing and governing that 

program to be submitted to the 

appropriate Secretary, any other 

applicable legal requirements, and any 

common planning requirements 

described in sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as 

explained in the joint planning 

guidelines issued by the Secretaries; 

(3) A description of the methods used 

for joint planning and coordination 

among the core programs, and with the 

required one-stop partner programs and 

other programs and activities included 

in the State Plan; and 

(4) An assurance that all of the 

entities responsible for planning or 

administering the programs described in 

the Combined State Plan have had a 

meaningful opportunity to review and 

comment on all portions of the plan. 

(f) Each Combined State Plan partner 

program included in the Combined 

State Plan remains subject to the 

applicable program-specific 

requirements of the Federal law and 

regulations, and any other applicable 

legal or program requirements, 

governing the implementation and 

operation of that program. 

(g) For purposes of §§ 463.140 through 

463.145 the term ‘‘appropriate 

Secretary’’ means the head of the 

Federal agency who exercises either 

plan or application approval authority 

for the program or activity under the 

Federal law authorizing the program or 

activity or, if there are no planning or 

application requirements, who exercises 

administrative authority over the 

program or activity under that Federal 

law. 

(h) States that include employment 

and training activities carried out under 

the Community Services Block Grant 

(CSBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.) 

under a Combined State Plan would 

submit all other required elements of a 

complete CSBG State Plan directly to 

the Federal agency that administers the 

program, according to the requirements 

of Federal law and regulations. 

(i) States that submit employment and 

training activities carried out by HUD 

under a Combined State Plan would 

submit any other required planning 

documents for HUD programs directly 

to HUD, according to the requirements 

of Federal law and regulations. 

§ 463.143 What is the development, 

submission, and approval process of the 

Combined State Plan? 

(a) For purposes of § 463.140(a), if a 

State chooses to develop a Combined 

State Plan it must submit the Combined 

State Plan in accordance with the 

requirements described below and sec. 

103 of WIOA, as explained in the joint 

planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education. 

(b) The Combined State Plan must be 

developed with the assistance of the 

State WDB, as required by 20 CFR 

679.130(a) and WIOA sec. 101(d), and 

must be developed in coordination with 

administrators with optimum policymaking authority for the core programs 

and required one-stop partners. 

(c) The State must provide an 

opportunity for public comment on and 

input into the development of the 

Combined State Plan prior to its 

submission. 

(1) The opportunity for public 

comment for the portions of the 

Combined State Plan that cover the core 

programs must include an opportunity 

for comment by representatives of Local 

WDBs and chief elected officials, 

businesses, representatives of labor 

organizations, community-based 

organizations, adult education 

providers, institutions of higher 

education, other stakeholders with an 

interest in the services provided by the 

six core programs, and the general 

public, including individuals with 

disabilities. 

(2) Consistent with the ‘‘Sunshine 

Provision’’ of WIOA in sec. 101(g), the 

State WDB must make information 

regarding the Combined State Plan 

available to the public through 

electronic means and regularly 

occurring open meetings in accordance 

with State law. The Combined State 

Plan must describe the State’s process 

and timeline for ensuring a meaningful 

opportunity for public comment on the 

portions of the plan covering core 

programs. 

(3) The portions of the plan that cover 

the Combined State Plan partner 

programs are subject to any public 

comment requirements applicable to 

those programs. 

(d) The State must submit to the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education and 

to the Secretary of the agency with 

responsibility for approving the 

program’s plan or deeming it complete 

under the law governing the program, as 

part of its Combined State Plan, any 

plan, application, form, or any other 

similar document that is required as a 

condition for the approval of Federal 

funding under the applicable program 

or activity. Such submission must occur 

in accordance with a process identified 

by the relevant Secretaries in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(e) The Combined State Plan will be 

approved or disapproved in accordance 

with the requirements of sec. 103(c) of 

WIOA. 

(1) The portion of the Combined State 

Plan covering programs administered by 

the Departments of Labor and Education 

must be reviewed, and approved or 

disapproved, by the appropriate 

Secretary within 90 days beginning on 

the day the Combined State Plan is 

received by the appropriate Secretary 

from the State, consistent with 

paragraph (f) of this section. Before the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education 

approve the Combined State Plan, the 

vocational rehabilitation services 

portion of the Combined State Plan 

described in WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) 

must be approved by the Commissioner 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56050 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

of the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration. 

(2) If an appropriate Secretary other 

than the Secretary of Labor or the 

Secretary of Education has authority to 

approve or deem complete a portion of 

the Combined State Plan for a program 

or activity described in § 463.140(d), 

that portion of the Combined State Plan 

must be reviewed, and approved, 

disapproved, or deemed complete, by 

the appropriate Secretary within 120 

days beginning on the day the 

Combined State Plan is received by the 

appropriate Secretary from the State 

consistent with paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(f) The appropriate Secretaries will 

review and approve or deem complete 

the Combined State Plan within 90 or 

120 days, as appropriate, as described in 

paragraph (e) of this section, unless the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education or 

appropriate Secretary have determined 

in writing within that period that: 

(1) The Combined State Plan is 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the six core programs or the Federal 

laws authorizing or applicable to the 

program or activity involved, including 

the criteria for approval of a plan or 

application, or deeming the plan 

complete, if any, under such law; 

(2) The portion of the Combined State 

Plan describing the six core programs or 

the program or activity described in 

paragraph (a) of this section involved 

does not satisfy the criteria as provided 

in sec. 102 or 103 of WIOA, as 

applicable; or 

(3) The Combined State Plan is 

incomplete, or otherwise insufficient to 

determine whether it is consistent with 

a core program’s requirements, other 

requirements of WIOA, or the Federal 

laws authorizing, or applicable to, the 

program or activity described in 

§ 463.140(d), including the criteria for 

approval of a plan or application, if any, 

under such law. 

(g) If the Secretary of Labor, the 

Secretary of Education, or the 

appropriate Secretary does not make the 

written determination described in 

paragraph (f) of this section within the 

relevant period of time after submission 

of the Combined State Plan, that portion 

of the Combined State Plan over which 

the Secretary has jurisdiction will be 

considered approved. 

(h) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education’s written determination of 

approval or disapproval regarding the 

portion of the plan for the six core 

programs may be separate from the 

written determination of approval, 

disapproval, or completeness of the 

program-specific requirements of 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

and activities described in § 463.140(d) 

and included in the Combined State 

Plan. 

(i) Special rule. In paragraphs (f)(1) 

and (3) of this section, the term ‘‘criteria 

for approval of a plan or application,’’ 

with respect to a State or a core program 

or a program under the Carl D. Perkins 

Career and Technical Education Act of 

2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), includes 

a requirement for agreement between 

the State and the appropriate Secretaries 

regarding State performance measures 

or State performance accountability 

measures, as the case may be, including 

levels of performance. 

§ 463.145 What are the requirements for 

modifications of the Combined State Plan? 

(a) For the core program portions of 

the Combined State Plan, modifications 

are required, at a minimum: 

(1) By the end of the first 2-year 

period of any 4-year State Plan. The 

State WDB must review the Combined 

State Plan, and the Governor must 

submit modifications to the Combined 

State Plan to reflect changes in labor 

market and economic conditions or 

other factors affecting the 

implementation of the Combined State 

Plan; 

(2) When changes in Federal or State 

law or policy substantially affect the 

strategies, goals, and priorities upon 

which the Combined State Plan is 

based; 

(3) When there are changes in the 

statewide vision, strategies, policies, 

State negotiated levels of performance 

as described in § 463.170(b), the 

methodology used to determine local 

allocation of funds, reorganizations that 

change the working relationship with 

system employees, changes in 

organizational responsibilities, changes 

to the membership structure of the State 

WDB or alternative entity, and similar 

substantial changes to the State’s 

workforce development system. 

(b) In addition to the required 

modification review described in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a State 

may submit a modification of its 

Combined State Plan at any time during 

the 4-year period of the plan. 

(c) For any Combined State Plan 

partner programs and activities 

described in § 463.140(d) that are 

included in a State’s Combined State 

Plan, the State— 

(1) May decide if the modification 

requirements under WIOA sec. 102(c)(3) 

that apply to the core programs will 

apply to the Combined State Plan 

partner programs, as long as consistent 

with any other modification 

requirements for the programs, or may 

comply with the requirements 

applicable to only the particular 

program or activity; and 

(2) Must submit, in accordance with 

the procedure described in § 463.143, 

any modification, amendment, or 

revision required by the Federal law 

authorizing, or applicable to, the 

Combined State Plan partner program or 

activity. 

(i) If the underlying programmatic 

requirements change (e.g., the 

authorizing statute is reauthorized) for 

Federal laws authorizing such programs, 

a State must either modify its Combined 

State Plan or submit a separate plan to 

the appropriate Federal agency in 

accordance with the new Federal law 

authorizing the Combined State Plan 

partner program or activity and other 

legal requirements applicable to such 

program or activity. 

(ii) If the modification, amendment, or 

revision affects the administration of 

only that particular Combined State 

Plan partner program and has no impact 

on the Combined State Plan as a whole 

or the integration and administration of 

the core and other Combined State Plan 

partner programs at the State level, 

modifications must be submitted for 

approval to only the appropriate 

Secretary, based on the approval 

standards applicable to the original 

Combined State Plan under § 463.143, if 

the State elects, or in accordance with 

the procedures and requirements 

applicable to the particular Combined 

State Plan partner program. 

(3) A State also may amend its 

Combined State Plan to add a Combined 

State Plan partner program or activity 

described in § 463.140(d). 

(d) Modifications of the Combined 

State Plan are subject to the same public 

review and comment requirements that 

apply to the development of the original 

Combined State Plan as described in 

§ 463.143(c) except that, if the 

modification, amendment, or revision 

affects the administration of a particular 

Combined State Plan partner program 

and has no impact on the Combined 

State Plan as a whole or the integration 

and administration of the core and other 

Combined State Plan partner programs 

at the State level, a State may comply 

instead with the procedures and 

requirements applicable to the 

particular Combined State Plan partner 

program. 

(e) Modifications for the core program 

portions of the Combined State Plan 

must be approved by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education, based on the 

approval standards applicable to the 

original Combined State Plan under 

§ 463.143. This approval must come 

after the approval of the Commissioner 

of the Rehabilitation Services 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56051 

Administration for modification of any 

portion of the Combined State Plan 

described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of 

WIOA. 

■ 10. Add subpart I to part 463, as 

added elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register, to read as follows: 

Subpart I—Performance Accountability 

Under Title I of the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act 

Sec. 

463.150 What definitions apply to 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act performance accountability 

provisions? 

463.155 What are the primary indicators of 

performance under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

463.160 What information is required for 

State performance reports? 

463.165 May a State establish additional 

indicators of performance? 

463.170 How are State levels of 

performance for primary indicators 

established? 

463.175 What responsibility do States have 

to use quarterly wage record information 

for performance accountability? 

463.180 When is a State subject to a 

financial sanction under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

463.185 When are sanctions applied for a 

State’s failure to submit an annual 

performance report? 

463.190 When are sanctions applied for 

failure to achieve adjusted levels of 

performance? 

463.195 What should States expect when a 

sanction is applied to the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment? 

463.200 What other administrative actions 

will be applied to States’ performance 

requirements? 

463.205 What performance indicators apply 

to local areas and what information must 

be included in local area performance 

reports? 

463.210 How are local performance levels 

established? 

463.215 Under what circumstances are 

local areas eligible for State Incentive 

Grants? 

463.220 Under what circumstances may a 

corrective action or sanction be applied 

to local areas for poor performance? 

463.225 Under what circumstances may 

local areas appeal a reorganization plan? 

463.230 What information is required for 

the eligible training provider 

performance reports? 

463.235 What are the reporting 

requirements for individual records for 

core Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) title I programs; 

the Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service program, as amended by WIOA 

title III; and the Vocational 

Rehabilitation program authorized under 

title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

as amended by WIOA title IV? 

463.240 What are the requirements for data 

validation of State annual performance 

reports? 

Authority: Secs. 116, 189, and 503 of Pub. 

L. 113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014). 

Subpart I—Performance Accountability 

Under Title I of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act 

§ 463.150 What definitions apply to 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

performance accountability provisions? 

(a) Participant. A reportable 

individual who has received services 

other than the services described in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, after 

satisfying all applicable programmatic 

requirements for the provision of 

services, such as eligibility 

determination. 

(1) For the Vocational Rehabilitation 

(VR) program, a participant is a 

reportable individual who has an 

approved and signed Individualized 

Plan for Employment (IPE) and has 

begun to receive services. 

(2) For the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act (WIOA) title I youth 

program, a participant is a reportable 

individual who has satisfied all 

applicable program requirements for the 

provision of services, including 

eligibility determination, an objective 

assessment, and development of an 

individual service strategy, and received 

1 of the 14 WIOA youth program 

elements identified in sec. 129(c)(2) of 

WIOA. 

(3) The following individuals are not 

participants: 

(i) Individuals in an Adult Education 

and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) 

program who have not completed at 

least 12 contact hours; 

(ii) Individuals who only use the selfservice system. 

(A) Subject to paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of 

this section, self-service occurs when 

individuals independently access any 

workforce development system 

program’s information and activities in 

either a physical location, such as a onestop center resource room or partner 

agency, or remotely via the use of 

electronic technologies. 

(B) Self-service does not uniformly 

apply to all virtually accessed services. 

For example, virtually accessed services 

that provide a level of support beyond 

independent job or information seeking 

on the part of an individual would not 

qualify as self-service. 

(iii) Individuals who receive 

information-only services or activities, 

which provide readily available 

information that does not require an 

assessment by a staff member of the 

individual’s skills, education, or career 

objectives. 

(4) Programs must include 

participants in their performance 

calculations. 

(b) Reportable individual. An 

individual who has taken action that 

demonstrates an intent to use program 

services and who meets specific 

reporting criteria of the program, 

including: 

(1) Individuals who provide 

identifying information; 

(2) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; or 

(3) Individuals who only receive 

information-only services or activities. 

(c) Exit. As defined for the purpose of 

performance calculations, exit is the 

point after which a participant who has 

received services through any program 

meets the following criteria: 

(1) For the adult, dislocated worker, 

and youth programs authorized under 

WIOA title I, the AEFLA program 

authorized under WIOA title II, and the 

Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 

Act, as amended by WIOA title III, exit 

date is the last date of service. 

(i) The last day of service cannot be 

determined until at least 90 days have 

elapsed since the participant last 

received services; services do not 

include self-service, information-only 

services or activities, or follow-up 

services. This also requires that there 

are no plans to provide the participant 

with future services. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(2)(i) For the VR program authorized 

under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended by WIOA title IV (VR 

program): 

(A) The participant’s record of service 

is closed in accordance with § 463.56 

because the participant has achieved an 

employment outcome; or 

(B) The participant’s service record is 

closed because the individual has not 

achieved an employment outcome or 

the individual has been determined 

ineligible after receiving services in 

accordance with § 463.43. 

(ii) Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this section, a participant 

will not be considered as meeting the 

definition of exit from the VR program 

if the participant’s service record is 

closed because the participant has 

achieved a supported employment 

outcome in an integrated setting but not 

in competitive integrated employment. 

(3)(i) A State may implement a 

common exit policy for all or some of 

the core programs in WIOA title I and 

the Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 

Act, as amended by WIOA title III, and 

any additional required partner 

program(s) listed in sec. 121(b)(1)(B) of 

WIOA that is under the authority of the 

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 

(ii) If a State chooses to implement a 

common exit policy, the policy must 

require that a participant is exited only 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56052 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

when all of the criteria in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section are met for the 

WIOA title I core programs and the 

Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 

Act, as amended by WIOA title III, as 

well as any additional required partner 

programs listed in sec. 121(b)(1)(B) of 

WIOA under the authority of DOL to 

which the common exit policy applies 

in which the participant is enrolled. 

(d) State. For purposes of this part, 

other than in regard to sanctions or the 

statistical adjustment model, all 

references to ‘‘State’’ include the 

outlying areas of American Samoa, 

Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

and, as applicable, the Republic of 

Palau. 

§ 463.155 What are the primary indicators 

of performance under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

(a) All States submitting either a 

Unified or Combined State Plan under 

§§ 463.130 and 463.143, must propose 

expected levels of performance for each 

of the primary indicators of performance 

for the adult, dislocated worker, and 

youth programs authorized under WIOA 

title I; the AEFLA program authorized 

under WIOA title II; the Employment 

Service program authorized under the 

Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by 

WIOA title III; and the VR program 

authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

by WIOA title IV. 

(1) Primary indicators of performance. 

The six primary indicators of 

performance for the adult and 

dislocated worker programs, the AEFLA 

program, and the VR program are: 

(i) The percentage of participants who 

are in unsubsidized employment during 

the second quarter after exit from the 

program; 

(ii) The percentage of participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the fourth quarter after exit from 

the program; 

(iii) Median earnings of participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exit from 

the program; 

(iv)(A) The percentage of those 

participants enrolled in an education or 

training program (excluding those in onthe-job training [OJT] and customized 

training) who attained a recognized 

postsecondary credential or a secondary 

school diploma, or its recognized 

equivalent, during participation in or 

within 1 year after exit from the 

program. 

(B) A participant who has attained a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent is included in the 

percentage of participants who have 

attained a secondary school diploma or 

recognized equivalent only if the 

participant also is employed or is 

enrolled in an education or training 

program leading to a recognized 

postsecondary credential within 1 year 

after exit from the program; 

(v) The percentage of participants 

who, during a program year, are in an 

education or training program that leads 

to a recognized postsecondary 

credential or employment and who are 

achieving measurable skill gains, 

defined as documented academic, 

technical, occupational, or other forms 

of progress, towards such a credential or 

employment. Depending upon the type 

of education or training program, 

documented progress is defined as one 

of the following: 

(A) Documented achievement of at 

least one educational functioning level 

of a participant who is receiving 

instruction below the postsecondary 

education level; 

(B) Documented attainment of a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent; 

(C) Secondary or postsecondary 

transcript or report card for a sufficient 

number of credit hours that shows a 

participant is meeting the State unit’s 

academic standards; 

(D) Satisfactory or better progress 

report, towards established milestones, 

such as completion of OJT or 

completion of 1 year of an 

apprenticeship program or similar 

milestones, from an employer or 

training provider who is providing 

training; or 

(E) Successful passage of an exam that 

is required for a particular occupation or 

progress in attaining technical or 

occupational skills as evidenced by 

trade-related benchmarks such as 

knowledge-based exams. 

(vi) Effectiveness in serving 

employers. 

(2) Participants. For purposes of the 

primary indicators of performance in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, 

‘‘participant’’ will have the meaning 

given to it in § 463.150(a), except that— 

(i) For purposes of determining 

program performance levels under 

indicators set forth in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (iv) and (vi) of this 

section, a ‘‘participant’’ does not 

include a participant who received 

services under sec. 225 of WIOA and 

exits such program while still in a 

correctional institution as defined in 

sec. 225(e)(1) of WIOA; and 

(ii) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education may, as needed and 

consistent with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), make further 

determinations as to the participants to 

be included in calculating program 

performance levels for purposes of any 

of the performance indicators set forth 

in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(b) The primary indicators in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi) 

of this section apply to the Employment 

Service program authorized under the 

Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by 

WIOA title III. 

(c) For the youth program authorized 

under WIOA title I, the primary 

indicators are: 

(1) Percentage of participants who are 

in education or training activities, or in 

unsubsidized employment, during the 

second quarter after exit from the 

program; 

(2) Percentage of participants in 

education or training activities, or in 

unsubsidized employment, during the 

fourth quarter after exit from the 

program; 

(3) Median earnings of participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exit from 

the program; 

(4) The percentage of those 

participants enrolled in an education or 

training program (excluding those in 

OJT and customized training) who 

obtained a recognized postsecondary 

credential or a secondary school 

diploma, or its recognized equivalent, 

during participation in or within 1 year 

after exit from the program, except that 

a participant who has attained a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent is included as 

having attained a secondary school 

diploma or recognized equivalent only 

if the participant is also employed or is 

enrolled in an education or training 

program leading to a recognized 

postsecondary credential within 1 year 

from program exit; 

(5) The percentage of participants 

who during a program year, are in an 

education or training program that leads 

to a recognized postsecondary 

credential or employment and who are 

achieving measurable skill gains, 

defined as documented academic, 

technical, occupational or other forms of 

progress towards such a credential or 

employment. Depending upon the type 

of education or training program, 

documented progress is defined as one 

of the following: 

(i) Documented achievement of at 

least one educational functioning level 

of a participant who is receiving 

instruction below the postsecondary 

education level; 

(ii) Documented attainment of a 

secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent; 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56053 

(iii) Secondary or postsecondary 

transcript or report card for a sufficient 

number of credit hours that shows a 

participant is achieving the State unit’s 

academic standards; 

(iv) Satisfactory or better progress 

report, towards established milestones, 

such as completion of OJT or 

completion of 1 year of an 

apprenticeship program or similar 

milestones, from an employer or 

training provider who is providing 

training; or 

(v) Successful passage of an exam that 

is required for a particular occupation or 

progress in attaining technical or 

occupational skills as evidenced by 

trade-related benchmarks such as 

knowledge-based exams. 

(6) Effectiveness in serving employers. 

§ 463.160 What information is required for 

State performance reports? 

(a) The State performance report 

required by sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA must 

be submitted annually using a template 

the Departments of Labor and Education 

will disseminate, and must provide, at 

a minimum, information on the actual 

performance levels achieved consistent 

with § 463.175 with respect to: 

(1) The total number of participants 

served, and the total number of 

participants who exited each of the core 

programs identified in sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA, including 

disaggregated counts of those who 

participated in and exited a core 

program, by: 

(i) Individuals with barriers to 

employment as defined in WIOA sec. 

3(24); and 

(ii) Co-enrollment in any of the 

programs in WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

(2) Information on the performance 

levels achieved for the primary 

indicators of performance for all of the 

core programs identified in § 463.155 

including disaggregated levels for: 

(i) Individuals with barriers to 

employment as defined in WIOA sec. 

3(24); 

(ii) Age; 

(iii) Sex; and 

(iv) Race and ethnicity. 

(3) The total number of participants 

who received career services and the 

total number of participants who exited 

from career services for the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, and the total number of 

participants who received training 

services and the total number of 

participants who exited from training 

services for the most recent program 

year and the 3 preceding program years, 

as applicable to the program; 

(4) Information on the performance 

levels achieved for the primary 

indicators of performance consistent 

with § 463.155 for career services and 

training services for the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program; 

(5) The percentage of participants in 

a program who attained unsubsidized 

employment related to the training 

received (often referred to as trainingrelated employment) through WIOA 

title I, subtitle B programs; 

(6) The amount of funds spent on 

career services and the amount of funds 

spent on training services for the most 

recent program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program; 

(7) The average cost per participant 

for those participants who received 

career services and training services, 

respectively, during the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program; 

(8) The percentage of a State’s annual 

allotment under WIOA sec. 132(b) that 

the State spent on administrative costs; 

and 

(9) Information that facilitates 

comparisons of programs with programs 

in other States. 

(10) For WIOA title I programs, a State 

performance narrative, which, for States 

in which a local area is implementing a 

pay-for-performance contracting 

strategy, at a minimum provides: 

(i) A description of pay-forperformance contract strategies being 

used for programs; 

(ii) The performance of service 

providers entering into contracts for 

such strategies, measured against the 

levels of performance specified in the 

contracts for such strategies; and 

(iii) An evaluation of the design of the 

programs and performance strategies 

and, when available, the satisfaction of 

employers and participants who 

received services under such strategies. 

(b) The disaggregation of data for the 

State performance report must be done 

in compliance with WIOA sec. 

116(d)(6)(C). 

(c) The State performance reports 

must include a mechanism of electronic 

access to the State’s local area and 

eligible training provider (ETP) 

performance reports. 

(d) States must comply with these 

requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as 

explained in joint guidance issued by 

the Departments of Labor and 

Education, which may include 

information on reportable individuals as 

determined by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Education. 

§ 463.165 May a State establish additional 

indicators of performance? 

States may identify additional 

indicators of performance for the six 

core programs. If a State does so, these 

indicators must be included in the 

Unified or Combined State Plan. 

§ 463.170 How are State levels of 

performance for primary indicators 

established? 

(a) A State must submit in the State 

Plan expected levels of performance on 

the primary indicators of performance 

for each core program as required by 

sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(iii) of WIOA as 

explained in joint guidance issued by 

the Secretaries of Labor and Education. 

(1) The initial State Plan submitted 

under WIOA must contain expected 

levels of performance for the first 2 

years of the State Plan. 

(2) States must submit expected levels 

of performance for the third and fourth 

year of the State Plan before the third 

program year consistent with §§ 463.135 

and 463.145. 

(b) States must reach agreement on 

levels of performance with the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education for 

each indicator for each core program. 

These are the negotiated levels of 

performance. The negotiated levels must 

be based on the following factors: 

(1) How the negotiated levels of 

performance compare with State levels 

of performance established for other 

States; 

(2) The application of an objective 

statistical model established by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education, 

subject to paragraph (d) of this section; 

(3) How the negotiated levels promote 

continuous improvement in 

performance based on the primary 

indicators and ensure optimal return on 

investment of Federal funds; and 

(4) The extent to which the negotiated 

levels assist the State in meeting the 

performance goals established by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education for 

the core programs in accordance with 

the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993, as amended. 

(c) An objective statistical adjustment 

model will be developed and 

disseminated by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Education. The model will be based 

on: 

(1) Differences among States in actual 

economic conditions, including but not 

limited to unemployment rates and job 

losses or gains in particular industries; 

and 

(2) The characteristics of participants, 

including but not limited to: 

(i) Indicators of poor work history; 

(ii) Lack of work experience; 

(iii) Lack of educational or 

occupational skills attainment; 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56054 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(iv) Dislocation from high-wage and 

high-benefit employment; 

(v) Low levels of literacy; 

(vi) Low levels of English proficiency; 

(vii) Disability status; 

(viii) Homelessness; 

(ix) Ex-offender status; and 

(x) Welfare dependency. 

(d) The objective statistical 

adjustment model developed under 

paragraph (c) of this section will be: 

(1) Applied to the core programs’ 

primary indicators upon availability of 

data which are necessary to populate 

the model and apply the model to the 

local core programs; 

(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, used before the beginning of a 

program year in order to reach 

agreement on State negotiated levels for 

the upcoming program year; and 

(3) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, used to revise negotiated levels 

at the end of a program year based on 

actual economic conditions and 

characteristics of participants served, 

consistent with sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(vii) of 

WIOA. 

(e) The negotiated levels revised at the 

end of the program year, based on the 

statistical adjustment model, are the 

adjusted levels of performance. 

(f) States must comply with these 

requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as 

explained in joint guidance issued by 

the Departments of Labor and 

Education. 

§ 463.175 What responsibility do States 

have to use quarterly wage record 

information for performance 

accountability? 

(a)(1) States must, consistent with 

State laws, use quarterly wage record 

information in measuring a State’s 

performance on the primary indicators 

of performance outlined in § 463.155 

and a local area’s performance on the 

primary indicators of performance 

identified in § 463.205. 

(2) The use of social security numbers 

from participants and such other 

information as is necessary to measure 

the progress of those participants 

through quarterly wage record 

information is authorized. 

(3) To the extent that quarterly wage 

records are not available for a 

participant, States may use other 

information as is necessary to measure 

the progress of those participants 

through methods other than quarterly 

wage record information. 

(b) ‘‘Quarterly wage record 

information’’ means intrastate and 

interstate wages paid to an individual, 

the social security number (or numbers, 

if more than one) of the individual, and 

the name, address, State, and the 

Federal employer identification number 

of the employer paying the wages to the 

individual. 

(c) The Governor may designate a 

State agency (or appropriate State 

entity) to assist in carrying out the 

performance reporting requirements for 

WIOA core programs and ETPs. The 

Governor or such agency (or appropriate 

State entity) is responsible for: 

(1) Facilitating data matches; 

(2) Data quality reliability; and 

(3) Protection against disaggregation 

that would violate applicable privacy 

standards. 

§ 463.180 When is a State subject to a 

financial sanction under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

A State will be subject to financial 

sanction under WIOA sec. 116(f) if it 

fails to: 

(a) Submit the State annual 

performance report required under 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(2); or 

(b) Meet adjusted levels of 

performance for the primary indicators 

of performance in accordance with sec. 

116(f) of WIOA. 

§ 463.185 When are sanctions applied for 

a State’s failure to submit an annual 

performance report? 

(a) Sanctions will be applied when a 

State fails to submit the State annual 

performance report required under sec. 

116(d)(2) of WIOA. A State fails to 

report if the State either: 

(1) Does not submit a State annual 

performance report by the date for 

timely submission set in performance 

reporting guidance; or 

(2) Submits a State annual 

performance report by the date for 

timely submission, but the report is 

incomplete. 

(b) Sanctions will not be applied if the 

reporting failure is due to exceptional 

circumstances outside of the State’s 

control. Exceptional circumstances may 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Natural disasters; 

(2) Unexpected personnel transitions; 

and 

(3) Unexpected technology related 

issues. 

(c) In the event that a State may not 

be able to submit a complete and 

accurate performance report by the 

deadline for timely reporting: 

(1) The State must notify the Secretary 

of Labor or Secretary of Education as 

soon as possible, but no later than 30 

days prior to the established deadline 

for submission, of a potential impact on 

the State’s ability to submit its State 

annual performance report in order to 

not be considered failing to report. 

(2) In circumstances where 

unexpected events occur less than 30 

days before the established deadline for 

submission of the State annual 

performance reports, the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education will review 

requests for extending the reporting 

deadline in accordance with the 

Departments of Labor and Education’s 

procedures that will be established in 

guidance. 

§ 463.190 When are sanctions applied for 

failure to achieve adjusted levels of 

performance? 

(a) States’ negotiated levels of 

performance will be adjusted through 

the application of the statistical 

adjustment model established under 

§ 463.170 to account for actual 

economic conditions experienced 

during a program year and 

characteristics of participants, annually 

at the close of each program year. 

(b) Any State that fails to meet 

adjusted levels of performance for the 

primary indicators of performance 

outlined in § 463.155 for any year will 

receive technical assistance, including 

assistance in the development of a 

performance improvement plan 

provided by the Secretary of Labor or 

Secretary of Education. 

(c) Whether a State has failed to meet 

adjusted levels of performance will be 

determined using the following three 

criteria: 

(1) The overall State program score, 

which is expressed as the percent 

achieved, compares the actual results 

achieved by a core program on the 

primary indicators of performance to the 

adjusted levels of performance for that 

core program. The average of the 

percentages achieved of the adjusted 

level of performance for each of the 

primary indicators by a core program 

will constitute the overall State program 

score. 

(2) However, until all indicators for 

the core program have at least 2 years 

of complete data, the overall State 

program score will be based on a 

comparison of the actual results 

achieved to the adjusted level of 

performance for each of the primary 

indicators that have at least 2 years of 

complete data for that program; 

(3) The overall State indicator score, 

which is expressed as the percent 

achieved, compares the actual results 

achieved on a primary indicator of 

performance by all core programs in a 

State to the adjusted levels of 

performance for that primary indicator. 

The average of the percentages achieved 

of the adjusted level of performance by 

all of the core programs on that 

indicator will constitute the overall 

State indicator score. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56055 

(4) However, until all indicators for 

the State have at least 2 years of 

complete data, the overall State 

indicator score will be based on a 

comparison of the actual results 

achieved to the adjusted level of 

performance for each of the primary 

indicators that have at least 2 years of 

complete data in a State. 

(5) The individual indicator score, 

which is expressed as the percent 

achieved, compares the actual results 

achieved by each core program on each 

of the individual primary indicators to 

the adjusted levels of performance for 

each of the program’s primary indicators 

of performance. 

(d) A performance failure occurs 

when: 

(1) Any overall State program score or 

overall State indicator score falls below 

90 percent for the program year; or 

(2) Any of the States’ individual 

indicator scores fall below 50 percent 

for the program year. 

(e) Sanctions based on performance 

failure will be applied to States if, for 2 

consecutive years, the State fails to 

meet: 

(1) 90 percent of the overall State 

program score for the same core 

program; 

(2) 90 percent of the overall State 

indicator score for the same primary 

indicator; or 

(3) 50 percent of the same indicator 

score for the same program. 

§ 463.195 What should States expect when 

a sanction is applied to the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment? 

(a) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education will reduce the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment by five percent of the 

maximum available amount for the 

immediately succeeding program year 

if: 

(1) The State fails to submit the State 

annual performance reports as required 

under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2), as defined 

in § 463.185; 

(2) The State fails to meet State 

adjusted levels of performance for the 

same primary performance indicator(s) 

under either § 463.190(d)(1) for the 

second consecutive year as defined in 

§ 463.190; or 

(3) The State’s score on the same 

indicator for the same program falls 

below 50 percent under § 463.190(d)(2) 

for the second consecutive year as 

defined in § 463.190. 

(b) If the State fails under paragraphs 

(a)(1) and either (a)(2) or (3) of this 

section in the same program year, the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education will 

reduce the Governor’s Reserve 

Allotment by 10 percent of the 

maximum available amount for the 

immediately succeeding program year. 

(c) If a State’s Governor’s Reserve 

Allotment is reduced: 

(1) The reduced amount will not be 

returned to the State in the event that 

the State later improves performance or 

submits its annual performance report; 

and 

(2) The Governor’s Reserve will 

continue to be set at the reduced level 

in each subsequent year until the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education, depending on which 

program is impacted, determines that 

the State met the State adjusted levels 

of performance for the applicable 

primary performance indicators and has 

submitted all of the required 

performance reports. 

(d) A State may request review of a 

sanction the Secretary of Labor imposes 

in accordance with the provisions of 20 

CFR 683.800. 

§ 463.200 What other administrative 

actions will be applied to States’ 

performance requirements? 

(a) In addition to sanctions for failure 

to report or failure to meet adjusted 

levels of performance, States will be 

subject to administrative actions in the 

case of poor performance. 

(b) States’ performance achievement 

on the individual primary indicators 

will be assessed in addition to the 

overall State program score and overall 

State indicator score. Based on this 

assessment, as clarified and explained 

in guidance, for performance on any 

individual primary indicator, the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education will require the State to 

establish a performance risk plan to 

address continuous improvement on the 

individual primary indicator. 

§ 463.205 What performance indicators 

apply to local areas and what information 

must be included in local area performance 

reports? 

(a) Each local area in a State under 

WIOA title I is subject to the same 

primary indicators of performance for 

the core programs for WIOA title I under 

§ 463.155(a)(1) and (c) that apply to the 

State. 

(b) In addition to the indicators 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, under § 463.165, the Governor 

may apply additional indicators of 

performance to local areas in the State. 

(c) States must annually make local 

area performance reports available to 

the public using a template that the 

Departments of Labor and Education 

will disseminate in guidance, including 

by electronic means. The State must 

provide electronic access to the public 

local area performance report in its 

annual State performance report. 

(d) The local area performance report 

must include: 

(1) The actual results achieved under 

§ 463.155 and the information required 

under § 463.160(a); 

(2) The percentage of a local area’s 

allotment under WIOA secs. 128(b) and 

133(b) that the local area spent on 

administrative costs; and 

(3) Other information that facilitates 

comparisons of programs with programs 

in other local areas (or planning regions 

if the local area is part of a planning 

region). 

(e) The disaggregation of data for the 

local area performance report must be 

done in compliance with WIOA sec. 

116(d)(6)(C). 

(f) States must comply with any 

requirements from sec. 116(d)(3) of 

WIOA as explained in guidance, 

including the use of the performance 

reporting template, issued by DOL. 

§ 463.210 How are local performance 

levels established? 

(a) The objective statistical adjustment 

model required under sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of WIOA and 

described in § 463.170(c) must be: 

(1) Applied to the core programs’ 

primary indicators upon availability of 

data which are necessary to populate 

the model and apply the model to the 

local core programs; 

(2) Used in order to reach agreement 

on local negotiated levels of 

performance for the upcoming program 

year; and 

(3) Used to establish adjusted levels of 

performance at the end of a program 

year based on actual conditions, 

consistent with WIOA sec. 116(c)(3). 

(b) Until all indicators for the core 

program in a local area have at least 2 

years of complete data, the comparison 

of the actual results achieved to the 

adjusted levels of performance for each 

of the primary indicators only will be 

applied where there are at least 2 years 

of complete data for that program. 

(c) The Governor, Local Workforce 

Development Board (WDB), and chief 

elected official must reach agreement on 

local negotiated levels of performance 

based on a negotiations process before 

the start of a program year with the use 

of the objective statistical model 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section. The negotiations will include a 

discussion of circumstances not 

accounted for in the model and will take 

into account the extent to which the 

levels promote continuous 

improvement. The objective statistical 

model will be applied at the end of the 

program year based on actual economic 

conditions and characteristics of the 

participants served. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56056 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(d) The negotiations process described 

in paragraph (c) of this section must be 

developed by the Governor and 

disseminated to all Local WDBs and 

chief elected officials. 

(e) The Local WDBs may apply 

performance measures to service 

providers that differ from the 

performance indicators that apply to the 

local area. These performance measures 

must be established after considering: 

(1) The established local negotiated 

levels; 

(2) The services provided by each 

provider; and 

(3) The populations the service 

providers are intended to serve. 

§ 463.215 Under what circumstances are 

local areas eligible for State Incentive 

Grants? 

(a) The Governor is not required to 

award local incentive funds, but is 

authorized to provide incentive grants 

to local areas for performance on the 

primary indicators of performance 

consistent with WIOA sec. 

134(a)(3)(A)(xi). 

(b) The Governor may use nonFederal funds to create incentives for 

the Local WDBs to implement pay-forperformance contract strategies for the 

delivery of training services described 

in WIOA sec. 134(c)(3) or activities 

described in WIOA sec. 129(c)(2) in the 

local areas served by the Local WDBs. 

Pay-for-performance contract strategies 

must be implemented in accordance 

with 20 CFR part 683, subpart E and 

§ 463.160. 

§ 463.220 Under what circumstances may 

a corrective action or sanction be applied 

to local areas for poor performance? 

(a) If a local area fails to meet the 

adjusted levels of performance agreed to 

under § 463.210 for the primary 

indicators of performance in the adult, 

dislocated worker, and youth programs 

authorized under WIOA title I in any 

program year, technical assistance must 

be provided by the Governor or, upon 

the Governor’s request, by the Secretary 

of Labor. 

(1) A State must establish the 

threshold for failure to meet adjusted 

levels of performance for a local area 

before coming to agreement on the 

negotiated levels of performance for the 

local area. 

(i) A State must establish the adjusted 

level of performance for a local area, 

using the statistical adjustment model 

described in § 463.170(c). 

(ii) At least 2 years of complete data 

on any indicator for any local core 

program are required in order to 

establish adjusted levels of performance 

for a local area. 

(2) The technical assistance may 

include: 

(i) Assistance in the development of a 

performance improvement plan; 

(ii) The development of a modified 

local or regional plan; or 

(iii) Other actions designed to assist 

the local area in improving 

performance. 

(b) If a local area fails to meet the 

adjusted levels of performance agreed to 

under § 463.210 for the same primary 

indicators of performance for the same 

core program authorized under WIOA 

title I for a third consecutive program 

year, the Governor must take corrective 

actions. The corrective actions must 

include the development of a 

reorganization plan under which the 

Governor: 

(1) Requires the appointment and 

certification of a new Local WDB, 

consistent with the criteria established 

under 20 CFR 679.350; 

(2) Prohibits the use of eligible 

providers and one-stop partners that 

have been identified as achieving poor 

levels of performance; or 

(3) Takes such other significant 

actions as the Governor determines are 

appropriate. 

§ 463.225 Under what circumstances may 

local areas appeal a reorganization plan? 

(a) The Local WDB and chief elected 

official for a local area that is subject to 

a reorganization plan under WIOA sec. 

116(g)(2)(A) may appeal to the Governor 

to rescind or revise the reorganization 

plan not later than 30 days after 

receiving notice of the reorganization 

plan. The Governor must make a final 

decision within 30 days after receipt of 

the appeal. 

(b) The Local WDB and chief elected 

official may appeal the final decision of 

the Governor to the Secretary of Labor 

not later than 30 days after receiving the 

decision from the Governor. Any appeal 

of the Governor’s final decision must be: 

(1) Appealed jointly by the Local 

WDB and chief elected official to the 

Secretary of Labor under 20 CFR 

683.650; and 

(2) Must be submitted by certified 

mail, return receipt requested, to the 

Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington DC 20210, Attention: ASET. 

A copy of the appeal must be 

simultaneously provided to the 

Governor. 

(c) Upon receipt of the joint appeal 

from the Local WDB and chief elected 

official, the Secretary of Labor must 

make a final decision within 30 days. In 

making this determination the Secretary 

of Labor may consider any comments 

submitted by the Governor in response 

to the appeals. 

(d) The decision by the Governor on 

the appeal becomes effective at the time 

it is issued and remains effective unless 

the Secretary of Labor rescinds or 

revises the reorganization plan under 

WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(C). 

§ 463.230 What information is required for 

the eligible training provider performance 

reports? 

(a) States are required to make 

available and publish annually using a 

template the Departments of Labor and 

Education will disseminate including 

through electronic means, the ETP 

performance reports for ETPs who 

provide services under sec. 122 of 

WIOA that are described in 20 CFR 

680.400 through 680.530. These reports 

at a minimum must include, consistent 

with § 463.175 and with respect to each 

program of study that is eligible to 

receive funds under WIOA: 

(1) The total number of participants as 

defined by § 463.150(a) who received 

training services under the adult and 

dislocated worker programs authorized 

under WIOA title I for the most recent 

year and the 3 preceding program years, 

including: 

(i) The number of participants under 

the adult and dislocated worker 

programs disaggregated by barriers to 

employment; 

(ii) The number of participants under 

the adult and dislocated worker 

programs disaggregated by race, 

ethnicity, sex, and age; 

(iii) The number of participants under 

the adult and dislocated worker 

programs disaggregated by the type of 

training entity for the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years; 

(2) The total number of participants 

who exit a program of study or its 

equivalent, including disaggregate 

counts by the type of training entity 

during the most recent program year 

and the 3 preceding program years; 

(3) The average cost-per-participant 

for participants who received training 

services for the most recent program 

year and the 3 preceding program years 

disaggregated by type of training entity; 

(4) The total number of individuals 

exiting from the program of study (or 

the equivalent) with respect to all 

individuals engaging in the program of 

study (or the equivalent); and 

(5) The levels of performance 

achieved for the primary indicators of 

performance identified in 

§ 463.155(a)(1)(i) through (iv) with 

respect to all individuals engaging in a 

program of study (or the equivalent). 

(b) Apprenticeship programs 

registered under the National 

Apprenticeship Act are not required to 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56057 

submit ETP performance information. If 

a registered apprenticeship program 

voluntarily submits performance 

information to a State, the State must 

include this information in the report. 

(c) The State must provide a 

mechanism of electronic access to the 

public ETP performance report in its 

annual State performance report. 

(d) States must comply with any 

requirements from sec. 116(d)(4) of 

WIOA as explained in guidance issued 

by DOL. 

(e) The Governor may designate one 

or more State agencies such as a State 

Education Agency or other State 

Educational Authority to assist in 

overseeing ETP performance and 

facilitating the production and 

dissemination of ETP performance 

reports. These agencies may be the same 

agencies that are designated as 

responsible for administering the ETP 

list as provided under 20 CFR 680.500. 

The Governor or such agencies, or 

authorities, is responsible for: 

(1) Facilitating data matches between 

ETP records and unemployment 

insurance (UI) wage data in order to 

produce the report; 

(2) The creation and dissemination of 

the reports as described in paragraphs 

(a) through (d) of this section; 

(3) Coordinating the dissemination of 

the performance reports with the ETP 

list and the information required to 

accompany the list, as provided in 20 

CFR 680.500. 

§ 463.235 What are the reporting 

requirements for individual records for core 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA) title I programs; the Wagner-Peyser 

Act Employment Service program, as 

amended by WIOA title III; and the 

Vocational Rehabilitation program 

authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended by WIOA title IV? 

(a) On a quarterly basis, each State 

must submit to the Secretary of Labor or 

the Secretary of Education, as 

appropriate, individual records that 

include demographic information, 

information on services received, and 

information on resulting outcomes, as 

appropriate, for each reportable 

individual in either of the following 

programs administered by the Secretary 

of Labor or Secretary of Education: A 

WIOA title I core program; the 

Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser 

Act, as amended by WIOA title III; or 

the VR program authorized under title I 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended by WIOA title IV. 

(b) For individual records submitted 

to the Secretary of Labor, those records 

may be required to be integrated across 

all programs administered by the 

Secretary of Labor in one single file. 

(c) States must comply with the 

requirements of sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA 

as explained in guidance issued by the 

Departments of Labor and Education. 

§ 463.240 What are the requirements for 

data validation of State annual performance 

reports? 

(a) States must establish procedures, 

consistent with guidelines issued by the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education, to ensure that they submit 

complete annual performance reports 

that contain information that is valid 

and reliable, as required by WIOA sec. 

116(d)(5). 

(b) If a State fails to meet standards in 

paragraph (a) of this section as 

determined by the Secretary of Labor or 

the Secretary of Education, the 

appropriate Secretary will provide 

technical assistance and may require the 

State to develop and implement 

corrective actions, which may require 

the State to provide training for its 

subrecipients. 

(c) The Secretaries of Labor and 

Education will provide training and 

technical assistance to States in order to 

implement this section. States must 

comply with the requirements of sec. 

116(d)(5) of WIOA as explained in 

guidance. 

■ 11. Add subpart J to part 463, as 

added elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register, to read as follows: 

Subpart J—Description of the One-Stop 

Delivery System Under Title I of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

Sec. 

463.300 What is the one-stop delivery 

system? 

463.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop 

center and what must be provided there? 

463.310 What is an affiliated site and what 

must be provided there? 

463.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser 

Act Employment Service office be 

designated as an affiliated one-stop site? 

463.320 Are there any requirements for 

networks of eligible one-stop partners or 

specialized centers? 

463.400 Who are the required one-stop 

partners? 

463.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families a required one-stop partner? 

463.410 What other entities may serve as 

one-stop partners? 

463.415 What entity serves as the one-stop 

partner for a particular program in the 

local area? 

463.420 What are the roles and 

responsibilities of the required one-stop 

partners? 

463.425 What are the applicable career 

services that must be provided through 

the one-stop delivery system by required 

one-stop partners? 

463.430 What are career services? 

463.435 What are the business services 

provided through the one-stop delivery 

system, and how are they provided? 

463.440 When may a fee be charged for the 

business services in this subpart? 

463.500 What is the Memorandum of 

Understanding for the one-stop delivery 

system and what must be included in the 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

463.505 Is there a single Memorandum of 

Understanding for the local area, or must 

there be different Memoranda of 

Understanding between the Local 

Workforce Development Board and each 

partner? 

463.510 How must the Memorandum of 

Understanding be negotiated? 

463.600 Who may operate one-stop centers? 

463.605 How is the one-stop operator 

selected? 

463.610 When is the sole-source selection 

of one-stop operators appropriate, and 

how is it conducted? 

463.615 May an entity currently serving as 

one-stop operator compete to be a onestop operator under the procurement 

requirements of this subpart? 

463.620 What is the one-stop operator’s 

role? 

463.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a 

service provider? 

463.630 Can State merit staff still work in 

a one-stop center where the operator is 

not a governmental entity? 

463.635 What is the compliance date of the 

provisions of this subpart? 

463.700 What are the one-stop 

infrastructure costs? 

463.705 What guidance must the Governor 

issue regarding one-stop infrastructure 

funding? 

463.710 How are infrastructure costs 

funded? 

463.715 How are one-stop infrastructure 

costs funded in the local funding 

mechanism? 

463.720 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the local one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

463.725 What happens if consensus on 

infrastructure funding is not reached at 

the local level between the Local 

Workforce Development Board, chief 

elected officials, and one-stop partners? 

463.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

463.731 What are the steps to determine the 

amount to be paid under the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

463.735 How are infrastructure cost budgets 

for the one-stop centers in a local area 

determined in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

463.736 How does the Governor establish a 

cost allocation methodology used to 

determine the one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs under the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

463.737 How are one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs determined under 

the State one-stop infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

463.738 How are statewide caps on the 

contributions for one-stop infrastructure 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56058 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

funding determined in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

463.740 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

463.745 What factors does the State 

Workforce Development Board use to 

develop the formula described in 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act, which is used by the Governor to 

determine the appropriate one-stop 

infrastructure budget for each local area 

operating under the State infrastructure 

funding mechanism, if no reasonably 

implementable locally negotiated budget 

exists? 

463.750 When and how can a one-stop 

partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure 

amount designated by the State under 

the State infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

463.755 What are the required elements 

regarding infrastructure funding that 

must be included in the one-stop 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

463.760 How do one-stop partners jointly 

fund other shared costs under the 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

463.800 How are one-stop centers and onestop delivery systems certified for 

effectiveness, physical and programmatic 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement? 

463.900 What is the common identifier to 

be used by each one-stop delivery 

system? 

Authority: Secs. 503, 107, 121, 134, 189, 

Pub. L. 113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 

2014). 

Subpart J—Description of the OneStop Delivery System Under Title I of 

the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act 

§ 463.300 What is the one-stop delivery 

system? 

(a) The one-stop delivery system 

brings together workforce development, 

educational, and other human resource 

services in a seamless customer-focused 

service delivery network that enhances 

access to the programs’ services and 

improves long-term employment 

outcomes for individuals receiving 

assistance. One-stop partners administer 

separately funded programs as a set of 

integrated streamlined services to 

customers. 

(b) Title I of the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act (WIOA) assigns 

responsibilities at the local, State, and 

Federal level to ensure the creation and 

maintenance of a one-stop delivery 

system that enhances the range and 

quality of education and workforce 

development services that employers 

and individual customers can access. 

(c) The system must include at least 

one comprehensive physical center in 

each local area as described in 

§ 463.305. 

(d) The system may also have 

additional arrangements to supplement 

the comprehensive center. These 

arrangements include: 

(1) An affiliated site or a network of 

affiliated sites, where one or more 

partners make programs, services, and 

activities available, as described in 

§ 463.310; 

(2) A network of eligible one-stop 

partners, as described in §§ 463.400 

through 463.410, through which each 

partner provides one or more of the 

programs, services, and activities that 

are linked, physically or 

technologically, to an affiliated site or 

access point that assures customers are 

provided information on the availability 

of career services, as well as other 

program services and activities, 

regardless of where they initially enter 

the public workforce system in the local 

area; and 

(3) Specialized centers that address 

specific needs, including those of 

dislocated workers, youth, or key 

industry sectors, or clusters. 

(e) Required one-stop partner 

programs must provide access to 

programs, services, and activities 

through electronic means if applicable 

and practicable. This is in addition to 

providing access to services through the 

mandatory comprehensive physical onestop center and any affiliated sites or 

specialized centers. The provision of 

programs and services by electronic 

methods such as Web sites, telephones, 

or other means must improve the 

efficiency, coordination, and quality of 

one-stop partner services. Electronic 

delivery must not replace access to such 

services at a comprehensive one-stop 

center or be a substitute to making 

services available at an affiliated site if 

the partner is participating in an 

affiliated site. Electronic delivery 

systems must be in compliance with the 

nondiscrimination and equal 

opportunity provisions of WIOA sec. 

188 and its implementing regulations at 

29 CFR part 38. 

(f) The design of the local area’s onestop delivery system must be described 

in the Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) executed with the one-stop 

partners, described in § 463.500. 

§ 463.305 What is a comprehensive onestop center and what must be provided 

there? 

(a) A comprehensive one-stop center 

is a physical location where job seeker 

and employer customers can access the 

programs, services, and activities of all 

required one-stop partners. A 

comprehensive one-stop center must 

have at least one title I staff person 

physically present. 

(b) The comprehensive one-stop 

center must provide: 

(1) Career services, described in 

§ 463.430; 

(2) Access to training services 

described in 20 CFR 680.200; 

(3) Access to any employment and 

training activities carried out under sec. 

134(d) of WIOA; 

(4) Access to programs and activities 

carried out by one-stop partners listed 

in §§ 463.400 through 463.410, 

including the Employment Service 

program authorized under the WagnerPeyser Act, as amended by WIOA title 

III (Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service program); and 

(5) Workforce and labor market 

information. 

(c) Customers must have access to 

these programs, services, and activities 

during regular business days at a 

comprehensive one-stop center. The 

Local Workforce Development Board 

(WDB) may establish other service hours 

at other times to accommodate the 

schedules of individuals who work on 

regular business days. The State WDB 

will evaluate the hours of access to 

service as part of the evaluation of 

effectiveness in the one-stop 

certification process described in 

§ 463.800(b). 

(d) ‘‘Access’’ to each partner program 

and its services means: 

(1) Having a program staff member 

physically present at the one-stop 

center; 

(2) Having a staff member from a 

different partner program physically 

present at the one-stop center 

appropriately trained to provide 

information to customers about the 

programs, services, and activities 

available through partner programs; or 

(3) Making available a direct linkage 

through technology to program staff 

who can provide meaningful 

information or services. 

(i) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ means 

providing direct connection at the onestop center, within a reasonable time, by 

phone or through a real-time Web-based 

communication to a program staff 

member who can provide program 

information or services to the customer. 

(ii) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ cannot 

exclusively be providing a phone 

number or computer Web site or 

providing information, pamphlets, or 

materials. 

(e) All comprehensive one-stop 

centers must be physically and 

programmatically accessible to 

individuals with disabilities, as 

described in 29 CFR part 38, the 

implementing regulations of WIOA sec. 

188. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56059 

§ 463.310 What is an affiliated site and 

what must be provided there? 

(a) An affiliated site, or affiliate onestop center, is a site that makes available 

to job seeker and employer customers 

one or more of the one-stop partners’ 

programs, services, and activities. An 

affiliated site does not need to provide 

access to every required one-stop 

partner program. The frequency of 

program staff’s physical presence in the 

affiliated site will be determined at the 

local level. Affiliated sites are access 

points in addition to the comprehensive 

one-stop center(s) in each local area. If 

used by local areas as a part of the 

service delivery strategy, affiliate sites 

must be implemented in a manner that 

supplements and enhances customer 

access to services. 

(b) As described in § 463.315, WagnerPeyser Act employment services cannot 

be a stand-alone affiliated site. 

(c) States, in conjunction with the 

Local WDBs, must examine lease 

agreements and property holdings 

throughout the one-stop delivery system 

in order to use property in an efficient 

and effective way. Where necessary and 

appropriate, States and Local WDBs 

must take expeditious steps to align 

lease expiration dates with efforts to 

consolidate one-stop operations into 

service points where Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services are colocated as 

soon as reasonably possible. These steps 

must be included in the State Plan. 

(d) All affiliated sites must be 

physically and programmatically 

accessible to individuals with 

disabilities, as described in 29 CFR part 

38, the implementing regulations of 

WIOA sec. 188. 

§ 463.315 Can a stand-alone WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service office be 

designated as an affiliated one-stop site? 

(a) Separate stand-alone WagnerPeyser Act Employment Service offices 

are not permitted under WIOA, as also 

described in 20 CFR 652.202. 

(b) If Wagner-Peyser Act employment 

services are provided at an affiliated 

site, there must be at least one or more 

other partners in the affiliated site with 

a physical presence of combined staff 

more than 50 percent of the time the 

center is open. Additionally, the other 

partner must not be the partner 

administering local veterans’ 

employment representatives, disabled 

veterans’ outreach program specialists, 

or unemployment compensation 

programs. If Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services and any of these 3 

programs are provided at an affiliated 

site, an additional partner or partners 

must have a presence of combined staff 

in the center more than 50 percent of 

the time the center is open. 

§ 463.320 Are there any requirements for 

networks of eligible one-stop partners or 

specialized centers? 

Any network of one-stop partners or 

specialized centers, as described in 

§ 463.300(d)(3), must be connected to 

the comprehensive one-stop center and 

any appropriate affiliate one-stop 

centers, for example, by having 

processes in place to make referrals to 

these centers and the partner programs 

located in them. Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services cannot stand alone 

in a specialized center. Just as described 

in § 463.315 for an affiliated site, a 

specialized center must include other 

programs besides Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services, local veterans’ 

employment representatives, disabled 

veterans’ outreach program specialists, 

and unemployment compensation. 

§ 463.400 Who are the required one-stop 

partners? 

(a) Section 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA 

identifies the entities that are required 

partners in the local one-stop delivery 

systems. 

(b) The required partners are the 

entities responsible for administering 

the following programs and activities in 

the local area: 

(1) Programs authorized under title I 

of WIOA, including: 

(i) Adults; 

(ii) Dislocated workers; 

(iii) Youth; 

(iv) Job Corps; 

(v) YouthBuild; 

(vi) Native American programs; and 

(vii) Migrant and seasonal farmworker 

programs; 

(2) The Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Service program 

authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act 

(29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.), as amended by 

WIOA title III; 

(3) The Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act (AEFLA) program 

authorized under title II of WIOA; 

(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) 

program authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 

720 et seq.), as amended by WIOA title 

IV; 

(5) The Senior Community Service 

Employment Program authorized under 

title V of the Older Americans Act of 

1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.); 

(6) Career and technical education 

programs at the postsecondary level 

authorized under the Carl D. Perkins 

Career and Technical Education Act of 

2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.); 

(7) Trade Adjustment Assistance 

activities authorized under chapter 2 of 

title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 

U.S.C. 2271 et seq.); 

(8) Jobs for Veterans State Grants 

programs authorized under chapter 41 

of title 38, U.S.C.; 

(9) Employment and training 

activities carried out under the 

Community Services Block Grant (42 

U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); 

(10) Employment and training 

activities carried out by the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development; 

(11) Programs authorized under State 

unemployment compensation laws (in 

accordance with applicable Federal 

law); 

(12) Programs authorized under sec. 

212 of the Second Chance Act of 2007 

(42 U.S.C. 17532); and 

(13) Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) authorized under part 

A of title IV of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), unless exempted 

by the Governor under § 463.405(b). 

§ 463.405 Is Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families a required one-stop 

partner? 

(a) Yes, TANF, authorized under part 

A of title IV of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), is a required 

partner. 

(b) The Governor may determine that 

TANF will not be a required partner in 

the State, or within some specific local 

areas in the State. In this instance, the 

Governor must notify the Secretaries of 

the U.S. Departments of Labor and 

Health and Human Services in writing 

of this determination. 

(c) In States, or local areas within a 

State, where the Governor has 

determined that TANF is not required to 

be a partner, local TANF programs may 

still work in collaboration or 

partnership with the local one-stop 

centers to deliver employment and 

training services to the TANF 

population unless inconsistent with the 

Governor’s direction. 

§ 463.410 What other entities may serve as 

one-stop partners? 

(a) Other entities that carry out a 

workforce development program, 

including Federal, State, or local 

programs and programs in the private 

sector, may serve as additional partners 

in the one-stop delivery system if the 

Local WDB and chief elected official(s) 

approve the entity’s participation. 

(b) Additional partners may include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Employment and training 

programs administered by the Social 

Security Administration, including the 

Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency 

Program established under sec. 1148 of 

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1320b–19); 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56060 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Employment and training 

programs carried out by the Small 

Business Administration; 

(3) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) employment and 

training programs, authorized under 

secs. 6(d)(4) and 6(o) of the Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 

2015(d)(4)); 

(4) Client Assistance Program 

authorized under sec. 112 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 

732); 

(5) Programs authorized under the 

National and Community Service Act of 

1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.); and 

(6) Other appropriate Federal, State or 

local programs, including, but not 

limited to, employment, education, and 

training programs provided by public 

libraries or in the private sector. 

§ 463.415 What entity serves as the onestop partner for a particular program in the 

local area? 

(a) The entity that carries out the 

program and activities listed in 

§ 463.400 or § 463.410, and therefore 

serves as the one-stop partner, is the 

grant recipient, administrative entity, or 

organization responsible for 

administering the funds of the specified 

program in the local area. The term 

‘‘entity’’ does not include the service 

providers that contract with, or are 

subrecipients of, the local 

administrative entity. For programs that 

do not include local administrative 

entities, the responsible State agency 

must be the partner. Specific entities for 

particular programs are identified in 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 

section. If a program or activity listed in 

§ 463.400 is not carried out in a local 

area, the requirements relating to a 

required one-stop partner are not 

applicable to such program or activity in 

that local one-stop delivery system. 

(b) For title II of WIOA, the entity or 

agency that carries out the program for 

the purposes of paragraph (a) of this 

section is the sole entity or agency in 

the State or outlying area responsible for 

administering or supervising policy for 

adult education and literacy activities in 

the State or outlying area. The State 

eligible entity or agency may delegate its 

responsibilities under paragraph (a) of 

this section to one or more eligible 

providers or consortium of eligible 

providers. 

(c) For the VR program, authorized 

under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended by WIOA title IV, the 

entity that carries out the program for 

the purposes of paragraph (a) of this 

section is the designated State agencies 

or designated State units specified 

under sec. 101(a)(2) of the 

Rehabilitation Act that is primarily 

concerned with vocational 

rehabilitation, or vocational and other 

rehabilitation, of individuals with 

disabilities. 

(d) Under WIOA title I, the national 

programs, including Job Corps, the 

Native American program, YouthBuild, 

and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker 

programs are required one-stop partners. 

The entity for the Native American 

program, YouthBuild, and Migrant and 

Seasonal Farmworker programs is the 

grantee of those respective programs. 

The entity for Job Corps is the Job Corps 

center. 

(e) For the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act of 2006, the 

entity that carries out the program for 

the purposes of paragraph (a) of this 

section is the eligible recipient or 

recipients at the postsecondary level, or 

a consortium of eligible recipients at the 

postsecondary level in the local area. 

The eligible recipient at the 

postsecondary level may also request 

assistance from the State eligible agency 

in completing its responsibilities under 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

§ 463.420 What are the roles and 

responsibilities of the required one-stop 

partners? 

Each required partner must: 

(a) Provide access to its programs or 

activities through the one-stop delivery 

system, in addition to any other 

appropriate locations; 

(b) Use a portion of funds made 

available to the partner’s program, to the 

extent consistent with the Federal law 

authorizing the partner’s program and 

with Federal cost principles in 2 CFR 

parts 200 and 3474 (requiring, among 

other things, that costs are allowable, 

reasonable, necessary, and allocable), to: 

(1) Provide applicable career services; 

and 

(2) Work collaboratively with the 

State and Local WDBs to establish and 

maintain the one-stop delivery system. 

This includes jointly funding the onestop infrastructure through partner 

contributions that are based upon: 

(i) A reasonable cost allocation 

methodology by which infrastructure 

costs are charged to each partner based 

on proportionate use and relative 

benefit received; 

(ii) Federal cost principles; and 

(iii) Any local administrative cost 

requirements in the Federal law 

authorizing the partner’s program. (This 

is further described in § 463.700.) 

(c) Enter into an MOU with the Local 

WDB relating to the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system that meets the 

requirements of § 463.500(b); 

(d) Participate in the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system consistent 

with the terms of the MOU, 

requirements of authorizing laws, the 

Federal cost principles, and all other 

applicable legal requirements; and 

(e) Provide representation on the State 

and Local WDBs as required and 

participate in Board committees as 

needed. 

§ 463.425 What are the applicable career 

services that must be provided through the 

one-stop delivery system by required onestop partners? 

(a) The applicable career services to 

be delivered by required one-stop 

partners are those services listed in 

§ 463.430 that are authorized to be 

provided under each partner’s program. 

(b) One-stop centers provide services 

to individual customers based on 

individual needs, including the 

seamless delivery of multiple services to 

individual customers. There is no 

required sequence of services. 

§ 463.430 What are career services? 

Career services, as identified in sec. 

134(c)(2) of WIOA, consist of three 

types: 

(a) Basic career services must be made 

available and, at a minimum, must 

include the following services, as 

consistent with allowable program 

activities and Federal cost principles: 

(1) Determinations of whether the 

individual is eligible to receive 

assistance from the adult, dislocated 

worker, or youth programs; 

(2) Outreach, intake (including worker 

profiling), and orientation to 

information and other services available 

through the one-stop delivery system. 

For the TANF program, States must 

provide individuals with the 

opportunity to initiate an application for 

TANF assistance and non-assistance 

benefits and services, which could be 

implemented through the provision of 

paper application forms or links to the 

application Web site; 

(3) Initial assessment of skill levels 

including literacy, numeracy, and 

English language proficiency, as well as 

aptitudes, abilities (including skills 

gaps), and supportive services needs; 

(4) Labor exchange services, 

including— 

(i) Job search and placement 

assistance, and, when needed by an 

individual, career counseling, 

including— 

(A) Provision of information on indemand industry sectors and 

occupations (as defined in sec. 3(23) of 

WIOA); and 

(B) Provision of information on 

nontraditional employment; and 

(ii) Appropriate recruitment and other 

business services on behalf of 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56061 

employers, including information and 

referrals to specialized business services 

other than those traditionally offered 

through the one-stop delivery system; 

(5) Provision of referrals to and 

coordination of activities with other 

programs and services, including 

programs and services within the onestop delivery system and, when 

appropriate, other workforce 

development programs; 

(6) Provision of workforce and labor 

market employment statistics 

information, including the provision of 

accurate information relating to local, 

regional, and national labor market 

areas, including— 

(i) Job vacancy listings in labor market 

areas; 

(ii) Information on job skills necessary 

to obtain the vacant jobs listed; and 

(iii) Information relating to local 

occupations in demand and the 

earnings, skill requirements, and 

opportunities for advancement for those 

jobs; 

(7) Provision of performance 

information and program cost 

information on eligible providers of 

education, training, and workforce 

services by program and type of 

providers; 

(8) Provision of information, in usable 

and understandable formats and 

languages, about how the local area is 

performing on local performance 

accountability measures, as well as any 

additional performance information 

relating to the area’s one-stop delivery 

system; 

(9) Provision of information, in usable 

and understandable formats and 

languages, relating to the availability of 

supportive services or assistance, and 

appropriate referrals to those services 

and assistance, including: Child care; 

child support; medical or child health 

assistance available through the State’s 

Medicaid program and Children’s 

Health Insurance Program; benefits 

under SNAP; assistance through the 

earned income tax credit; and assistance 

under a State program for TANF, and 

other supportive services and 

transportation provided through that 

program; 

(10) Provision of information and 

meaningful assistance to individuals 

seeking assistance in filing a claim for 

unemployment compensation. 

(i) ‘‘Meaningful assistance’’ means: 

(A) Providing assistance on-site using 

staff who are well-trained in 

unemployment compensation claims 

filing and the rights and responsibilities 

of claimants; or 

(B) Providing assistance by phone or 

via other technology, as long as the 

assistance is provided by trained and 

available staff and within a reasonable 

time. 

(ii) The costs associated in providing 

this assistance may be paid for by the 

State’s unemployment insurance 

program, or the WIOA adult or 

dislocated worker programs, or some 

combination thereof. 

(11) Assistance in establishing 

eligibility for programs of financial aid 

assistance for training and education 

programs not provided under WIOA. 

(b) Individualized career services 

must be made available if determined to 

be appropriate in order for an individual 

to obtain or retain employment. These 

services include the following services, 

as consistent with program 

requirements and Federal cost 

principles: 

(1) Comprehensive and specialized 

assessments of the skill levels and 

service needs of adults and dislocated 

workers, which may include— 

(i) Diagnostic testing and use of other 

assessment tools; and 

(ii) In-depth interviewing and 

evaluation to identify employment 

barriers and appropriate employment 

goals; 

(2) Development of an individual 

employment plan, to identify the 

employment goals, appropriate 

achievement objectives, and appropriate 

combination of services for the 

participant to achieve his or her 

employment goals, including the list of, 

and information about, the eligible 

training providers (as described in 20 

CFR 680.180); 

(3) Group counseling; 

(4) Individual counseling; 

(5) Career planning; 

(6) Short-term pre-vocational services 

including development of learning 

skills, communication skills, 

interviewing skills, punctuality, 

personal maintenance skills, and 

professional conduct services to prepare 

individuals for unsubsidized 

employment or training; 

(7) Internships and work experiences 

that are linked to careers (as described 

in 20 CFR 680.170); 

(8) Workforce preparation activities; 

(9) Financial literacy services as 

described in sec. 129(b)(2)(D) of WIOA 

and 20 CFR 681.500; 

(10) Out-of-area job search assistance 

and relocation assistance; and 

(11) English language acquisition and 

integrated education and training 

programs. 

(c) Follow-up services must be 

provided, as appropriate, including: 

Counseling regarding the workplace, for 

participants in adult or dislocated 

worker workforce investment activities 

who are placed in unsubsidized 

employment, for up to 12 months after 

the first day of employment. 

(d) In addition to the requirements in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, TANF 

agencies must identify employment 

services and related support being 

provided by the TANF program (within 

the local area) that qualify as career 

services and ensure access to them via 

the local one-stop delivery system. 

§ 463.435 What are the business services 

provided through the one-stop delivery 

system, and how are they provided? 

(a) Certain career services must be 

made available to local employers, 

specifically labor exchange activities 

and labor market information described 

in § 463.430(a)(4)(ii) and (a)(6). Local 

areas must establish and develop 

relationships and networks with large 

and small employers and their 

intermediaries. Local areas also must 

develop, convene, or implement 

industry or sector partnerships. 

(b) Customized business services may 

be provided to employers, employer 

associations, or other such 

organizations. These services are 

tailored for specific employers and may 

include: 

(1) Customized screening and referral 

of qualified participants in training 

services to employers; 

(2) Customized services to employers, 

employer associations, or other such 

organizations, on employment-related 

issues; 

(3) Customized recruitment events 

and related services for employers 

including targeted job fairs; 

(4) Human resource consultation 

services, including but not limited to 

assistance with: 

(i) Writing/reviewing job descriptions 

and employee handbooks; 

(ii) Developing performance 

evaluation and personnel policies; 

(iii) Creating orientation sessions for 

new workers; 

(iv) Honing job interview techniques 

for efficiency and compliance; 

(v) Analyzing employee turnover; 

(vi) Creating job accommodations and 

using assistive technologies; or 

(vii) Explaining labor and 

employment laws to help employers 

comply with discrimination, wage/hour, 

and safety/health regulations; 

(5) Customized labor market 

information for specific employers, 

sectors, industries or clusters; and 

(6) Other similar customized services. 

(c) Local areas may also provide other 

business services and strategies that 

meet the workforce investment needs of 

area employers, in accordance with 

partner programs’ statutory 

requirements and consistent with 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56062 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal cost principles. These business 

services may be provided through 

effective business intermediaries 

working in conjunction with the Local 

WDB, or through the use of economic 

development, philanthropic, and other 

public and private resources in a 

manner determined appropriate by the 

Local WDB and in cooperation with the 

State. Allowable activities, consistent 

with each partner’s authorized 

activities, include, but are not limited 

to: 

(1) Developing and implementing 

industry sector strategies (including 

strategies involving industry 

partnerships, regional skills alliances, 

industry skill panels, and sectoral skills 

partnerships); 

(2) Customized assistance or referral 

for assistance in the development of a 

registered apprenticeship program; 

(3) Developing and delivering 

innovative workforce investment 

services and strategies for area 

employers, which may include career 

pathways, skills upgrading, skill 

standard development and certification 

for recognized postsecondary credential 

or other employer use, and other 

effective initiatives for meeting the 

workforce investment needs of area 

employers and workers; 

(4) Assistance to area employers in 

managing reductions in force in 

coordination with rapid response 

activities and with strategies for the 

aversion of layoffs, which may include 

strategies such as early identification of 

firms at risk of layoffs, use of feasibility 

studies to assess the needs of and 

options for at-risk firms, and the 

delivery of employment and training 

activities to address risk factors; 

(5) The marketing of business services 

to appropriate area employers, 

including small and mid-sized 

employers; and 

(6) Assisting employers with 

accessing local, State, and Federal tax 

credits. 

(d) All business services and 

strategies must be reflected in the local 

plan, described in 20 CFR 679.560(b)(3). 

§ 463.440 When may a fee be charged for 

the business services in this subpart? 

(a) There is no requirement that a feefor-service be charged to employers. 

(b) No fee may be charged for services 

provided in § 463.435(a). 

(c) A fee may be charged for services 

provided under § 463.435(b) and (c). 

Services provided under § 463.435(c) 

may be provided through effective 

business intermediaries working in 

conjunction with the Local WDB and 

may also be provided on a fee-forservice basis or through the leveraging 

of economic development, 

philanthropic, and other public and 

private resources in a manner 

determined appropriate by the Local 

WDB. The Local WDB may examine the 

services provided compared with the 

assets and resources available within 

the local one-stop delivery system and 

through its partners to determine an 

appropriate cost structure for services, if 

any. 

(d) Any fees earned are recognized as 

program income and must be expended 

by the partner in accordance with the 

partner program’s authorizing statute, 

implementing regulations, and Federal 

cost principles identified in Uniform 

Guidance. 

§ 463.500 What is the Memorandum of 

Understanding for the one-stop delivery 

system and what must be included in the 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

(a) The MOU is the product of local 

discussion and negotiation, and is an 

agreement developed and executed 

between the Local WDB and the onestop partners, with the agreement of the 

chief elected official and the one-stop 

partners, relating to the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system in the local 

area. Two or more local areas in a region 

may develop a single joint MOU, if they 

are in a region that has submitted a 

regional plan under sec. 106 of WIOA. 

(b) The MOU must include: 

(1) A description of services to be 

provided through the one-stop delivery 

system, including the manner in which 

the services will be coordinated and 

delivered through the system; 

(2) Agreement on funding the costs of 

the services and the operating costs of 

the system, including: 

(i) Funding of infrastructure costs of 

one-stop centers in accordance with 

§§ 463.700 through 463.755; and 

(ii) Funding of the shared services and 

operating costs of the one-stop delivery 

system described in § 463.760; 

(3) Methods for referring individuals 

between the one-stop operators and 

partners for appropriate services and 

activities; 

(4) Methods to ensure that the needs 

of workers, youth, and individuals with 

barriers to employment, including 

individuals with disabilities, are 

addressed in providing access to 

services, including access to technology 

and materials that are available through 

the one-stop delivery system; 

(5) The duration of the MOU and 

procedures for amending it; and 

(6) Assurances that each MOU will be 

reviewed, and if substantial changes 

have occurred, renewed, not less than 

once every 3-year period to ensure 

appropriate funding and delivery of 

services. 

(c) The MOU may contain any other 

provisions agreed to by the parties that 

are consistent with WIOA title I, the 

authorizing statutes and regulations of 

one-stop partner programs, and the 

WIOA regulations. 

(d) When fully executed, the MOU 

must contain the signatures of the Local 

WDB, one-stop partners, the chief 

elected official(s), and the time period 

in which the agreement is effective. The 

MOU must be updated not less than 

every 3 years to reflect any changes in 

the signatory official of the Board, onestop partners, and chief elected officials, 

or one-stop infrastructure funding. 

(e) If a one-stop partner appeal to the 

State regarding infrastructure costs, 

using the process described in 

§ 463.750, results in a change to the onestop partner’s infrastructure cost 

contributions, the MOU must be 

updated to reflect the final one-stop 

partner infrastructure cost 

contributions. 

§ 463.505 Is there a single Memorandum of 

Understanding for the local area, or must 

there be different Memoranda of 

Understanding between the Local 

Workforce Development Board and each 

partner? 

(a) A single ‘‘umbrella’’ MOU may be 

developed that addresses the issues 

relating to the local one-stop delivery 

system for the Local WDB, chief elected 

official and all partners. Alternatively, 

the Local WDB (with agreement of chief 

elected official) may enter into separate 

agreements between each partner or 

groups of partners. 

(b) Under either approach, the 

requirements described in § 463.500 

apply. Since funds are generally 

appropriated annually, the Local WDB 

may negotiate financial agreements with 

each partner annually to update funding 

of services and operating costs of the 

system under the MOU. 

§ 463.510 How must the Memorandum of 

Understanding be negotiated? 

(a) WIOA emphasizes full and 

effective partnerships between Local 

WDBs, chief elected officials, and onestop partners. Local WDBs and partners 

must enter into good-faith negotiations. 

Local WDBs, chief elected officials, and 

one-stop partners may also request 

assistance from a State agency 

responsible for administering the 

partner program, the Governor, State 

WDB, or other appropriate parties on 

other aspects of the MOU. 

(b) Local WDBs and one-stop partners 

must establish, in the MOU, how they 

will fund the infrastructure costs and 

other shared costs of the one-stop 

centers. If agreement regarding 

infrastructure costs is not reached when 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56063 

other sections of the MOU are ready, an 

interim infrastructure funding 

agreement may be included instead, as 

described in § 463.715(c). Once 

agreement on infrastructure funding is 

reached, the Local WDB and one-stop 

partners must amend the MOU to 

include the infrastructure funding of the 

one-stop centers. Infrastructure funding 

is described in detail in §§ 463.700 

through 463.760. 

(c) The Local WDB must report to the 

State WDB, Governor, and relevant State 

agency when MOU negotiations with 

one-stop partners have reached an 

impasse. 

(1) The Local WDB and partners must 

document the negotiations and efforts 

that have taken place in the MOU. The 

State WDB, one-stop partner programs, 

and the Governor may consult with the 

appropriate Federal agencies to address 

impasse situations related to issues 

other than infrastructure funding after 

attempting to address the impasse. 

Impasses related to infrastructure cost 

funding must be resolved using the 

State infrastructure cost funding 

mechanism described in § 463.730. 

(2) The Local WDB must report failure 

to execute an MOU with a required 

partner to the Governor, State WDB, and 

the State agency responsible for 

administering the partner’s program. 

Additionally, if the State cannot assist 

the Local WDB in resolving the impasse, 

the Governor or the State WDB must 

report the failure to the Secretary of 

Labor and to the head of any other 

Federal agency with responsibility for 

oversight of a partner’s program. 

§ 463.600 Who may operate one-stop 

centers? 

(a) One-stop operators may be a single 

entity (public, private, or nonprofit) or 

a consortium of entities. If the 

consortium of entities is one of one-stop 

partners, it must include a minimum of 

three of the one-stop partners described 

in § 463.400. 

(b) The one-stop operator may operate 

one or more one-stop centers. There 

may be more than one one-stop operator 

in a local area. 

(c) The types of entities that may be 

a one-stop operator include: 

(1) An institution of higher education; 

(2) An Employment Service State 

agency established under the WagnerPeyser Act; 

(3) A community-based organization, 

nonprofit organization, or workforce 

intermediary; 

(4) A private for-profit entity; 

(5) A government agency; 

(6) A Local WDB, with the approval 

of the chief elected official and the 

Governor; or 

(7) Another interested organization or 

entity, which is capable of carrying out 

the duties of the one-stop operator. 

Examples may include a local chamber 

of commerce or other business 

organization, or a labor organization. 

(d) Elementary schools and secondary 

schools are not eligible as one-stop 

operators, except that a nontraditional 

public secondary school such as a night 

school, adult school, or an area career 

and technical education school may be 

selected. 

(e) The State and Local WDBs must 

ensure that, in carrying out WIOA 

programs and activities, one-stop 

operators: 

(1) Disclose any potential conflicts of 

interest arising from the relationships of 

the operators with particular training 

service providers or other service 

providers (further discussed in 20 CFR 

679.430); 

(2) Do not establish practices that 

create disincentives to providing 

services to individuals with barriers to 

employment who may require longerterm career and training services; and 

(3) Comply with Federal regulations 

and procurement policies relating to the 

calculation and use of profits, including 

those at 20 CFR 683.295, the Uniform 

Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, and other 

applicable regulations and policies. 

§ 463.605 How is the one-stop operator 

selected? 

(a) Consistent with paragraphs (b) and 

(c) of this section, the Local WDB must 

select the one-stop operator through a 

competitive process, as required by sec. 

121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA, at least once 

every 4 years. A State may require, or 

a Local WDB may choose to implement, 

a competitive selection process more 

than once every 4 years. 

(b) In instances in which a State is 

conducting the competitive process 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the State must follow the same 

policies and procedures it uses for 

procurement with non-Federal funds. 

(c) All other non-Federal entities, 

including subrecipients of a State (such 

as local areas), must use a competitive 

process based on local procurement 

policies and procedures and the 

principles of competitive procurement 

in the Uniform Guidance set out at 2 

CFR 200.318 through 200.326. All 

references to ‘‘noncompetitive 

proposals’’ in the Uniform Guidance at 

2 CFR 200.320(f) will be read as ‘‘sole 

source procurement’’ for the purposes of 

implementing this section. 

(d) Entities must prepare written 

documentation explaining the 

determination concerning the nature of 

the competitive process to be followed 

in selecting a one-stop operator. 

§ 463.610 When is the sole-source 

selection of one-stop operators appropriate, 

and how is it conducted? 

(a) States may select a one-stop 

operator through sole source selection 

when allowed under the same policies 

and procedures used for competitive 

procurement with non-Federal funds, 

while other non-Federal entities 

including subrecipients of a State (such 

as local areas) may select a one-stop 

operator through sole selection when 

consistent with local procurement 

policies and procedures and the 

Uniform Guidance set out at 2 CFR 

200.320. 

(b) In the event that sole source 

procurement is determined necessary 

and reasonable, in accordance with 

§ 463.605(c), written documentation 

must be prepared and maintained 

concerning the entire process of making 

such a selection. 

(c) Such sole source procurement 

must include appropriate conflict of 

interest policies and procedures. These 

policies and procedures must conform 

to the specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 

for demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflict of interest. 

(d) A Local WDB may be selected as 

a one-stop operator through sole source 

procurement only with agreement of the 

chief elected official in the local area 

and the Governor. The Local WDB must 

establish sufficient conflict of interest 

policies and procedures and these 

policies and procedures must be 

approved by the Governor. 

§ 463.615 May an entity currently serving 

as one-stop operator compete to be a onestop operator under the procurement 

requirements of this subpart? 

(a) Local WDBs may compete for and 

be selected as one-stop operators, as 

long as appropriate firewalls and 

conflict of interest policies and 

procedures are in place. These policies 

and procedures must conform to the 

specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 for 

demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflict of interest. 

(b) State and local agencies may 

compete for and be selected as one-stop 

operators by the Local WDB, as long as 

appropriate firewalls and conflict of 

interest policies and procedures are in 

place. These policies and procedures 

must conform to the specifications in 20 

CFR 679.430 for demonstrating internal 

controls and preventing conflict of 

interest. 

(c) In the case of single-area States 

where the State WDB serves as the Local 

WDB, the State agency is eligible to 

compete for and be selected as operator 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56064 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

as long as appropriate firewalls and 

conflict of interest policies are in place 

and followed for the competition. These 

policies and procedures must conform 

to the specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 

for demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflicts of interest. 

§ 463.620 What is the one-stop operator’s 

role? 

(a) At a minimum, the one-stop 

operator must coordinate the service 

delivery of required one-stop partners 

and service providers. Local WDBs may 

establish additional roles of one-stop 

operator, including, but not limited to: 

Coordinating service providers across 

the one-stop delivery system, being the 

primary provider of services within the 

center, providing some of the services 

within the center, or coordinating 

service delivery in a multi-center area, 

which may include affiliated sites. The 

competition for a one-stop operator 

must clearly articulate the role of the 

one-stop operator. 

(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section, a one-stop operator may not 

perform the following functions: 

Convene system stakeholders to assist in 

the development of the local plan; 

prepare and submit local plans (as 

required under sec. 107 of WIOA); be 

responsible for oversight of itself; 

manage or significantly participate in 

the competitive selection process for 

one-stop operators; select or terminate 

one-stop operators, career services, and 

youth providers; negotiate local 

performance accountability measures; or 

develop and submit budget for activities 

of the Local WDB in the local area. 

(2) An entity serving as a one-stop 

operator, that also serves a different role 

within the one-stop delivery system, 

may perform some or all of these 

functions when it is acting in its other 

role, if it has established sufficient 

firewalls and conflict of interest policies 

and procedures. The policies and 

procedures must conform to the 

specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 for 

demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflict of interest. 

§ 463.625 Can a one-stop operator also be 

a service provider? 

Yes, but there must be appropriate 

firewalls in place in regards to the 

competition, and subsequent oversight, 

monitoring, and evaluation of 

performance of the service provider. 

The operator cannot develop, manage, 

or conduct the competition of a service 

provider in which it intends to compete. 

In cases where an operator is also a 

service provider, there must be firewalls 

and internal controls within the 

operator-service provider entity, as well 

as specific policies and procedures at 

the Local WDB level regarding 

oversight, monitoring, and evaluation of 

performance of the service provider. 

The firewalls must conform to the 

specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 for 

demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflicts of interest. 

§ 463.630 Can State merit staff still work in 

a one-stop center where the operator is not 

a governmental entity? 

Yes. State merit staff can continue to 

perform functions and activities in the 

one-stop center. The Local WDB and 

one-stop operator must establish a 

system for management of merit staff in 

accordance with State policies and 

procedures. Continued use of State 

merit staff for the provision of WagnerPeyser Act services or services from 

other programs with merit staffing 

requirements must be included in the 

competition for and final contract with 

the one-stop operator when WagnerPeyser Act services or services from 

other programs with merit staffing 

requirements are being provided. 

§ 463.635 What is the compliance date of 

the provisions of this subpart? 

(a) No later than July 1, 2017, one-stop 

operators selected under the 

competitive process described in this 

subpart must be in place and operating 

the one-stop center. 

(b) By November 17, 2016, every 

Local WDB must demonstrate it is 

taking steps to prepare for competition 

of its one-stop operator. This 

demonstration may include, but is not 

limited to, market research, requests for 

information, and conducting a cost and 

price analysis. 

§ 463.700 What are the one-stop 

infrastructure costs? 

(a) Infrastructure costs of one-stop 

centers are nonpersonnel costs that are 

necessary for the general operation of 

the one-stop center, including: 

(1) Rental of the facilities; 

(2) Utilities and maintenance; 

(3) Equipment (including assessmentrelated products and assistive 

technology for individuals with 

disabilities); and 

(4) Technology to facilitate access to 

the one-stop center, including 

technology used for the center’s 

planning and outreach activities. 

(b) Local WDBs may consider 

common identifier costs as costs of onestop infrastructure. 

(c) Each entity that carries out a 

program or activities in a local one-stop 

center, described in §§ 463.400 through 

463.410, must use a portion of the funds 

available for the program and activities 

to maintain the one-stop delivery 

system, including payment of the 

infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. 

These payments must be in accordance 

with this subpart; Federal cost 

principles, which require that all costs 

must be allowable, reasonable, 

necessary, and allocable to the program; 

and all other applicable legal 

requirements. 

§ 463.705 What guidance must the 

Governor issue regarding one-stop 

infrastructure funding? 

(a) The Governor, after consultation 

with chief elected officials, the State 

WDB, and Local WDBs, and consistent 

with guidance and policies provided by 

the State WDB, must develop and issue 

guidance for use by local areas, 

specifically: 

(1) Guidelines for State-administered 

one-stop partner programs for 

determining such programs’ 

contributions to a one-stop delivery 

system, based on such programs’ 

proportionate use of such system, and 

relative benefit received, consistent with 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for Federal Awards 

in 2 CFR part 200, including 

determining funding for the costs of 

infrastructure; and 

(2) Guidance to assist Local WDBs, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners in local areas in determining 

equitable and stable methods of funding 

the costs of infrastructure at one-stop 

centers based on proportionate use and 

relative benefit received, and consistent 

with Federal cost principles contained 

in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 

200. 

(b) The guidance must include: 

(1) The appropriate roles of the onestop partner programs in identifying 

one-stop infrastructure costs; 

(2) Approaches to facilitate equitable 

and efficient cost allocation that results 

in a reasonable cost allocation 

methodology where infrastructure costs 

are charged to each partner based on its 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

centers and relative benefit received, 

consistent with Federal cost principles 

at 2 CFR part 200; and 

(3) The timelines regarding 

notification to the Governor for not 

reaching local agreement and triggering 

the State funding mechanism described 

in § 463.730, and timelines for a onestop partner to submit an appeal in the 

State funding mechanism. 

§ 463.710 How are infrastructure costs 

funded? 

Infrastructure costs are funded either 

through the local funding mechanism 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56065 

described in § 463.715 or through the 

State funding mechanism described in 

§ 463.730. 

§ 463.715 How are one-stop infrastructure 

costs funded in the local funding 

mechanism? 

(a) In the local funding mechanism, 

the Local WDB, chief elected officials, 

and one-stop partners agree to amounts 

and methods of calculating amounts 

each partner will contribute for one-stop 

infrastructure funding, include the 

infrastructure funding terms in the 

MOU, and sign the MOU. The local 

funding mechanism must meet all of the 

following requirements: 

(1) The infrastructure costs are funded 

through cash and fairly evaluated noncash and third-party in-kind partner 

contributions and include any funding 

from philanthropic organizations or 

other private entities, or through other 

alternative financing options, to provide 

a stable and equitable funding stream 

for ongoing one-stop delivery system 

operations; 

(2) Contributions must be negotiated 

between one-stop partners, chief elected 

officials, and the Local WDB and the 

amount to be contributed must be 

included in the MOU; 

(3) The one-stop partner program’s 

proportionate share of funding must be 

calculated in accordance with the 

Uniform Administrative Requirements, 

Cost Principles, and Audit 

Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 

CFR part 200 based upon a reasonable 

cost allocation methodology whereby 

infrastructure costs are charged to each 

partner in proportion to its use of the 

one-stop center, relative to benefits 

received. Such costs must also be 

allowable, reasonable, necessary, and 

allocable; 

(4) Partner shares must be 

periodically reviewed and reconciled 

against actual costs incurred, and 

adjusted to ensure that actual costs 

charged to any one-stop partners are 

proportionate to the use of the one-stop 

center and relative to the benefit 

received by the one-stop partners and 

their respective programs or activities. 

(b) In developing the section of the 

MOU on one-stop infrastructure funding 

described in § 463.755, the Local WDB 

and chief elected officials will: 

(1) Ensure that the one-stop partners 

adhere to the guidance identified in 

§ 463.705 on one-stop delivery system 

infrastructure costs. 

(2) Work with one-stop partners to 

achieve consensus and informally 

mediate any possible conflicts or 

disagreements among one-stop partners. 

(3) Provide technical assistance to 

new one-stop partners and local grant 

recipients to ensure that those entities 

are informed and knowledgeable of the 

elements contained in the MOU and the 

one-stop infrastructure costs 

arrangement. 

(c) The MOU may include an interim 

infrastructure funding agreement, 

including as much detail as the Local 

WDB has negotiated with one-stop 

partners, if all other parts of the MOU 

have been negotiated, in order to allow 

the partner programs to operate in the 

one-stop centers. The interim 

infrastructure funding agreement must 

be finalized within 6 months of when 

the MOU is signed. If the interim 

infrastructure funding agreement is not 

finalized within that timeframe, the 

Local WDB must notify the Governor, as 

described in § 463.725. 

§ 463.720 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the local one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the local funding mechanism, 

one-stop partner programs may 

determine what funds they will use to 

pay for infrastructure costs. The use of 

these funds must be in accordance with 

the requirements in this subpart, and 

with the relevant partner’s authorizing 

statutes and regulations, including, for 

example, prohibitions against 

supplanting non-Federal resources, 

statutory limitations on administrative 

costs, and all other applicable legal 

requirements. In the case of partners 

administering programs authorized by 

title I of WIOA, these infrastructure 

costs may be considered program costs. 

In the case of partners administering 

adult education and literacy programs 

authorized by title II of WIOA, these 

funds must include Federal funds made 

available for the local administration of 

adult education and literacy programs 

authorized by title II of WIOA. These 

funds may also include non-Federal 

resources that are cash, in-kind or thirdparty contributions. In the case of 

partners administering the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006, funds used to pay for 

infrastructure costs may include funds 

available for local administrative 

expenses, non-Federal resources that are 

cash, in-kind or third-party 

contributions, and may include other 

funds made available by the State. 

(b) There are no specific caps on the 

amount or percent of overall funding a 

one-stop partner may contribute to fund 

infrastructure costs under the local 

funding mechanism, except that 

contributions for administrative costs 

may not exceed the amount available for 

administrative costs under the 

authorizing statute of the partner 

program. However, amounts contributed 

for infrastructure costs must be 

allowable and based on proportionate 

use of the one-stop centers and relative 

benefit received by the partner program, 

taking into account the total cost of the 

one-stop infrastructure as well as 

alternate financing options, and must be 

consistent with 2 CFR part 200, 

including the Federal cost principles. 

(c) Cash, non-cash, and third-party inkind contributions may be provided by 

one-stop partners to cover their 

proportionate share of infrastructure 

costs. 

(1) Cash contributions are cash funds 

provided to the Local WDB or its 

designee by one-stop partners, either 

directly or by an interagency transfer. 

(2) Non-cash contributions are 

comprised of— 

(i) Expenditures incurred by one-stop 

partners on behalf of the one-stop 

center; and 

(ii) Non-cash contributions or goods 

or services contributed by a partner 

program and used by the one-stop 

center. 

(3) Non-cash contributions, especially 

those set forth in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of 

this section, must be valued consistent 

with 2 CFR 200.306 to ensure they are 

fairly evaluated and meet the partners’ 

proportionate share. 

(4) Third-party in-kind contributions 

are: 

(i) Contributions of space, equipment, 

technology, non-personnel services, or 

other like items to support the 

infrastructure costs associated with onestop operations, by a non-one-stop 

partner to support the one-stop center in 

general, not a specific partner; or 

(ii) Contributions by a non-one-stop 

partner of space, equipment, 

technology, non-personnel services, or 

other like items to support the 

infrastructure costs associated with onestop operations, to a one-stop partner to 

support its proportionate share of onestop infrastructure costs. 

(iii) In-kind contributions described 

in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 

section must be valued consistent with 

2 CFR 200.306 and reconciled on a 

regular basis to ensure they are fairly 

evaluated and meet the proportionate 

share of the partner. 

(5) All partner contributions, 

regardless of the type, must be 

reconciled on a regular basis (i.e., 

monthly or quarterly), comparing actual 

expenses incurred to relative benefits 

received, to ensure each partner 

program is contributing its 

proportionate share in accordance with 

the terms of the MOU. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56066 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 463.725 What happens if consensus on 

infrastructure funding is not reached at the 

local level between the Local Workforce 

Development Board, chief elected officials, 

and one-stop partners? 

With regard to negotiations for 

infrastructure funding for Program Year 

(PY) 2017 and for each subsequent 

program year thereafter, if the Local 

WDB, chief elected officials, and onestop partners do not reach consensus on 

methods of sufficiently funding local 

infrastructure through the local funding 

mechanism in accordance with the 

Governor’s guidance issued under 

§ 463.705 and consistent with the 

regulations in §§ 463.715 and 463.720, 

and include that consensus agreement 

in the signed MOU, then the Local WDB 

must notify the Governor by the 

deadline established by the Governor 

under § 463.705(b)(3). Once notified, the 

Governor must administer funding 

through the State funding mechanism, 

as described in §§ 463.730 through 

463.738, for the program year impacted 

by the local area’s failure to reach 

consensus. 

§ 463.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) Consistent with sec. 

121(h)(1)(A)(i)(II) of WIOA, if the Local 

WDB, chief elected official, and onestop partners in a local area do not reach 

consensus agreement on methods of 

sufficiently funding the costs of 

infrastructure of one-stop centers for a 

program year, the State funding 

mechanism is applicable to the local 

area for that program year. 

(b) In the State funding mechanism, 

the Governor, subject to the limitations 

in paragraph (c) of this section, 

determines one-stop partner 

contributions after consultation with the 

chief elected officials, Local WDBs, and 

the State WDB. This determination 

involves: 

(1) The application of a budget for 

one-stop infrastructure costs as 

described in § 463.735, based on either 

agreement reached in the local area 

negotiations or the State WDB formula 

outlined in § 463.745; 

(2) The determination of each local 

one-stop partner program’s 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

delivery system and relative benefit 

received, consistent with the Uniform 

Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, including 

the Federal cost principles, the partner 

programs’ authorizing laws and 

regulations, and other applicable legal 

requirements described in § 463.736; 

and 

(3) The calculation of required 

statewide program caps on 

contributions to infrastructure costs 

from one-stop partner programs in areas 

operating under the State funding 

mechanism as described in § 463.738. 

(c) In certain situations, the Governor 

does not determine the infrastructure 

cost contributions for some one-stop 

partner programs under the State 

funding mechanism. 

(1) The Governor will not determine 

the contribution amounts for 

infrastructure funds for Native 

American program grantees described in 

20 CFR part 684. The appropriate 

portion of funds to be provided by 

Native American program grantees to 

pay for one-stop infrastructure must be 

determined as part of the development 

of the MOU described in § 463.500 and 

specified in that MOU. 

(2) In States in which the policymaking authority is placed in an entity 

or official that is independent of the 

authority of the Governor with respect 

to the funds provided for adult 

education and literacy activities 

authorized under title II of WIOA, 

postsecondary career and technical 

education activities authorized under 

the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006, or VR services 

authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (other than 

sec. 112 or part C), as amended by 

WIOA title IV, the determination of the 

amount each of the applicable partners 

must contribute to assist in paying the 

infrastructure costs of one-stop centers 

must be made by the official or chief 

officer of the entity with such authority, 

in consultation with the Governor. 

(d) Any duty, ability, choice, 

responsibility, or other action otherwise 

related to the determination of 

infrastructure costs contributions that is 

assigned to the Governor in §§ 463.730 

through 463.745 also applies to this 

decision-making process performed by 

the official or chief officer described in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 

§ 463.731 What are the steps to determine 

the amount to be paid under the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) To initiate the State funding 

mechanism, a Local WDB that has not 

reached consensus on methods of 

sufficiently funding local infrastructure 

through the local funding mechanism as 

provided in § 463.725 must notify the 

Governor by the deadline established by 

the Governor under § 463.705(b)(3). 

(b) Once a Local WDB has informed 

the Governor that no consensus has 

been reached: 

(1) The Local WDB must provide the 

Governor with local negotiation 

materials in accordance with 

§ 463.735(a). 

(2) The Governor must determine the 

one-stop center budget by either: 

(i) Accepting a budget previously 

agreed upon by partner programs in the 

local negotiations, in accordance with 

§ 463.735(b)(1); or 

(ii) Creating a budget for the one-stop 

center using the State WDB formula 

(described in § 463.745) in accordance 

with § 463.735(b)(3). 

(3) The Governor then must establish 

a cost allocation methodology to 

determine the one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs, in accordance with 

§ 463.736. 

(4)(i) Using the methodology 

established under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of 

this section, and taking into 

consideration the factors concerning 

individual partner programs listed in 

§ 463.737(b)(2), the Governor must 

determine each partner’s proportionate 

share of the infrastructure costs, in 

accordance with § 463.737(b)(1), and 

(ii) In accordance with § 463.730(c), in 

some instances, the Governor does not 

determine a partner program’s 

proportionate share of infrastructure 

funding costs, in which case it must be 

determined by the entities named in 

§ 463.730(c)(1) and (2). 

(5) The Governor must then calculate 

the statewide caps on the amounts that 

partner programs may be required to 

contribute toward infrastructure 

funding, according to the steps found at 

§ 463.738(a)(1) through (4). 

(6) The Governor must ensure that the 

aggregate total of the infrastructure 

contributions according to proportionate 

share required of all local partner 

programs in local areas under the State 

funding mechanism do not exceed the 

cap for that particular program, in 

accordance with § 463.738(b)(1). If the 

total does not exceed the cap, the 

Governor must direct each one-stop 

partner program to pay the amount 

determined under § 463.737(a) toward 

the infrastructure funding costs of the 

one-stop center. If the total does exceed 

the cap, then to determine the amount 

to direct each one-stop program to pay, 

the Governor may: 

(i) Ascertain, in accordance with 

§ 463.738(b)(2)(i), whether the local 

partner or partners whose proportionate 

shares are calculated above the 

individual program caps are willing to 

voluntarily contribute above the capped 

amount to equal that program’s 

proportionate share; or 

(ii) Choose from the options provided 

in § 463.738(b)(2)(ii), including having 

the local area re-enter negotiations to 

reassess each one-stop partner’s 

proportionate share and make 

adjustments or identify alternate sources 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56067 

of funding to make up the difference 

between the capped amount and the 

proportionate share of infrastructure 

funding of the one-stop partner. 

(7) If none of the solutions given in 

paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this 

section prove to be viable, the Governor 

must reassess the proportionate shares 

of each one-stop partner so that the 

aggregate amount attributable to the 

local partners for each program is less 

than that program’s cap amount. Upon 

such reassessment, the Governor must 

direct each one-stop partner program to 

pay the reassessed amount toward the 

infrastructure funding costs of the onestop center. 

§ 463.735 How are infrastructure cost 

budgets for the one-stop centers in a local 

area determined in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) Local WDBs must provide to the 

Governor appropriate and relevant 

materials and documents used in the 

negotiations under the local funding 

mechanism, including but not limited 

to: The local WIOA plan, the cost 

allocation method or methods proposed 

by the partners to be used in 

determining proportionate share, the 

proposed amounts or budget to fund 

infrastructure, the amount of total 

partner funds included, the type of 

funds or non-cash contributions, 

proposed one-stop center budgets, and 

any agreed upon or proposed MOUs. 

(b)(1) If a local area has reached 

agreement as to the infrastructure 

budget for the one-stop centers in the 

local area, it must provide this budget 

to the Governor as required by 

paragraph (a) of this section. If, as a 

result of the agreed upon infrastructure 

budget, only the individual 

programmatic contributions to 

infrastructure funding based upon 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

centers and relative benefit received are 

at issue, the Governor may accept the 

budget, from which the Governor must 

calculate each partner’s contribution 

consistent with the cost allocation 

methodologies contained in the Uniform 

Guidance found in 2 CFR part 200, as 

described in § 463.736. 

(2) The Governor may also take into 

consideration the extent to which the 

partners in the local area have agreed in 

determining the proportionate shares, 

including any agreements reached at the 

local level by one or more partners, as 

well as any other element or product of 

the negotiating process provided to the 

Governor as required by paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(3) If a local area has not reached 

agreement as to the infrastructure 

budget for the one-stop centers in the 

local area, or if the Governor determines 

that the agreed upon budget does not 

adequately meet the needs of the local 

area or does not reasonably work within 

the confines of the local area’s resources 

in accordance with the Governor’s onestop budget guidance (which is required 

to be issued by WIOA sec. 121(h)(1)(B) 

and under § 463.705), then, in 

accordance with § 463.745, the 

Governor must use the formula 

developed by the State WDB based on 

at least the factors required under 

§ 463.745, and any associated weights to 

determine the local area budget. 

§ 463.736 How does the Governor 

establish a cost allocation methodology 

used to determine the one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs under the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

Once the appropriate budget is 

determined for a local area through 

either method described in § 463.735 

(by acceptance of a budget agreed upon 

in local negotiation or by the Governor 

applying the formula detailed in 

§ 463.745), the Governor must 

determine the appropriate cost 

allocation methodology to be applied to 

the one-stop partners in such local area, 

consistent with the Federal cost 

principles permitted under 2 CFR part 

200, to fund the infrastructure budget. 

§ 463.737 How are one-stop partner 

programs’ proportionate shares of 

infrastructure costs determined under the 

State one-stop infrastructure funding 

mechanism? 

(a) The Governor must direct the onestop partners in each local area that 

have not reached agreement under the 

local funding mechanism to pay what 

the Governor determines is each partner 

program’s proportionate share of 

infrastructure funds for that area, 

subject to the application of the caps 

described in § 463.738. 

(b)(1) The Governor must use the cost 

allocation methodology—as determined 

under § 463.736—to determine each 

partner’s proportionate share of the 

infrastructure costs under the State 

funding mechanism, subject to 

considering the factors described in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(2) In determining each partner 

program’s proportionate share of 

infrastructure costs, the Governor must 

take into account the costs of 

administration of the one-stop delivery 

system for purposes not related to onestop centers for each partner (such as 

costs associated with maintaining the 

Local WDB or information technology 

systems), as well as the statutory 

requirements for each partner program, 

the partner program’s ability to fulfill 

such requirements, and all other 

applicable legal requirements. The 

Governor may also take into 

consideration the extent to which the 

partners in the local area have agreed in 

determining the proportionate shares, 

including any agreements reached at the 

local level by one or more partners, as 

well as any other materials or 

documents of the negotiating process, 

which must be provided to the Governor 

by the Local WDB and described in 

§ 463.735(a). 

§ 463.738 How are statewide caps on the 

contributions for one-stop infrastructure 

funding determined in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) The Governor must calculate the 

statewide cap on the contributions for 

one-stop infrastructure funding required 

to be provided by each one-stop partner 

program for those local areas that have 

not reached agreement. The cap is the 

amount determined under paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section, which the 

Governor derives by: 

(1) First, determining the amount 

resulting from applying the percentage 

for the corresponding one-stop partner 

program provided in paragraph (d) of 

this section to the amount of Federal 

funds provided to carry out the one-stop 

partner program in the State for the 

applicable fiscal year; 

(2) Second, selecting a factor (or 

factors) that reasonably indicates the use 

of one-stop centers in the State, 

applying such factor(s) to all local areas 

in the State, and determining the 

percentage of such factor(s) applicable 

to the local areas that reached agreement 

under the local funding mechanism in 

the State; 

(3) Third, determining the amount 

resulting from applying the percentage 

determined in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section to the amount determined under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section for the 

one-stop partner program; and 

(4) Fourth, determining the amount 

that results from subtracting the amount 

determined under paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section from the amount 

determined under paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section. The outcome of this final 

calculation results in the partner 

program’s cap. 

(b)(1) The Governor must ensure that 

the funds required to be contributed by 

each partner program in the local areas 

in the State under the State funding 

mechanism, in aggregate, do not exceed 

the statewide cap for each program as 

determined under paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(2) If the contributions initially 

determined under § 463.737 would 

exceed the applicable cap determined 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56068 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

under paragraph (a) of this section, the 

Governor may: 

(i) Ascertain if the one-stop partner 

whose contribution would otherwise 

exceed the cap determined under 

paragraph (a) of this section will 

voluntarily contribute above the capped 

amount, so that the total contributions 

equal that partner’s proportionate share. 

The one-stop partner’s contribution 

must still be consistent with the 

program’s authorizing laws and 

regulations, the Federal cost principles 

in 2 CFR part 200, and other applicable 

legal requirements; or 

(ii) Direct or allow the Local WDB, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners to: Re-enter negotiations, as 

necessary; reduce the infrastructure 

costs to reflect the amount of funds that 

are available for such costs without 

exceeding the cap levels; reassess the 

proportionate share of each one-stop 

partner; or identify alternative sources 

of financing for one-stop infrastructure 

funding, consistent with the 

requirement that each one-stop partner 

pay an amount that is consistent with 

the proportionate use of the one-stop 

center and relative benefit received by 

the partner, the program’s authorizing 

laws and regulations, the Federal cost 

principles in 2 CFR part 200, and other 

applicable legal requirements. 

(3) If applicable under paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Local WDB, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners, after renegotiation, may come 

to agreement, sign an MOU, and 

proceed under the local funding 

mechanism. Such actions do not require 

the redetermination of the applicable 

caps under paragraph (a) of this section. 

(4) If, after renegotiation, agreement 

among partners still cannot be reached 

or alternate financing cannot be 

identified, the Governor may adjust the 

specified allocation, in accordance with 

the amounts available and the 

limitations described in paragraph (d) of 

this section. In determining these 

adjustments, the Governor may take into 

account information relating to the 

renegotiation as well as the information 

described in § 463.735(a). 

(c) Limitations. Subject to paragraph 

(a) of this section and in accordance 

with WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D), the 

following limitations apply to the 

Governor’s calculations of the amount 

that one-stop partners in local areas that 

have not reached agreement under the 

local funding mechanism may be 

required under § 463.736 to contribute 

to one-stop infrastructure funding: 

(1) WIOA formula programs and 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service. 

The portion of funds required to be 

contributed under the WIOA youth, 

adult, or dislocated worker programs, or 

under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 

49 et seq.) must not exceed three 

percent of the amount of the program in 

the State for a program year. 

(2) Other one-stop partners. For 

required one-stop partners other than 

those specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (3), 

(5), and (6) of this section, the portion 

of funds required to be contributed must 

not exceed 1.5 percent of the amount of 

Federal funds provided to carry out that 

program in the State for a fiscal year. 

For purposes of the Carl D. Perkins 

Career and Technical Education Act of 

2006, the cap on contributions is 

determined based on the funds made 

available by the State for postsecondary 

level programs and activities under sec. 

132 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act and the 

amount of funds used by the State under 

sec. 112(a)(3) of the Perkins Act during 

the prior year to administer 

postsecondary level programs and 

activities, as applicable. 

(3) Vocational Rehabilitation 

(i) Within a State, for the entity or 

entities administering the programs 

described in WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(iv) 

and § 463.400, the allotment is based on 

the one State Federal fiscal year 

allotment, even in instances where that 

allotment is shared between two State 

agencies, and the cumulative portion of 

funds required to be contributed must 

not exceed— 

(A) 0.75 percent of the amount of 

Federal funds provided to carry out 

such program in the State for Fiscal 

Year 2016 for purposes of applicability 

of the State funding mechanism for PY 

2017; 

(B) 1.0 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2017 for 

purposes of applicability of the State 

funding mechanism for PY 2018; 

(C) 1.25 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2018 for 

purposes of applicability of the State 

funding mechanism for PY 2019; 

(D) 1.5 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2019 and 

following years for purposes of 

applicability of the State funding 

mechanism for PY 2020 and subsequent 

years. 

(ii) The limitations set forth in 

paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section for any 

given fiscal year must be based on the 

final VR allotment to the State in the 

applicable Federal fiscal year. 

(4) Federal direct spending programs. 

For local areas that have not reached a 

one-stop infrastructure funding 

agreement by consensus, an entity 

administering a program funded with 

direct Federal spending, as defined in 

sec. 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 

1985, as in effect on February 15, 2014 

(2 U.S.C. 900(c)(8)), must not be 

required to provide more for 

infrastructure costs than the amount 

that the Governor determined (as 

described in § 463.737). 

(5) TANF programs. For purposes of 

TANF, the cap on contributions is 

determined based on the total Federal 

TANF funds expended by the State for 

work, education, and training activities 

during the prior Federal fiscal year (as 

reported to the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) on the 

quarterly TANF Financial Report form), 

plus any additional amount of Federal 

TANF funds that the State TANF agency 

reasonably determines was expended 

for administrative costs in connection 

with these activities but that was 

separately reported to HHS as an 

administrative cost. The State’s 

contribution to the one-stop 

infrastructure must not exceed 1.5 

percent of these combined expenditures. 

(6) Community Services Block Grant 

(CSBG) programs. For purposes of 

CSBG, the cap on contributions will be 

based on the total amount of CSBG 

funds determined by the State to have 

been expended by local CSBG-eligible 

entities for the provision of employment 

and training activities during the prior 

Federal fiscal year for which 

information is available (as reported to 

HHS on the CSBG Annual Report) and 

any additional amount that the State 

CSBG agency reasonably determines 

was expended for administrative 

purposes in connection with these 

activities and was separately reported to 

HHS as an administrative cost. The 

State’s contribution must not exceed 1.5 

percent of these combined expenditures. 

(d) For programs for which it is not 

otherwise feasible to determine the 

amount of Federal funding used by the 

program until the end of that program’s 

operational year—because, for example, 

the funding available for education, 

employment, and training activities is 

included within funding for the 

program that may also be used for other 

unrelated activities—the determination 

of the Federal funds provided to carry 

out the program for a fiscal year under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be 

determined by: 

(1) The percentage of Federal funds 

available to the one-stop partner 

program that were used by the one-stop 

partner program for education, 

employment, and training activities in 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56069 

the previous fiscal year for which data 

are available; and 

(2) Applying the percentage 

determined under paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section to the total amount of 

Federal funds available to the one-stop 

partner program for the fiscal year for 

which the determination under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section applies. 

§ 463.740 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the State funding mechanism, 

infrastructure costs for WIOA title I 

programs, including Native American 

Programs described in 20 CFR part 684, 

may be paid using program funds, 

administrative funds, or both. 

Infrastructure costs for the Senior 

Community Service Employment 

Program under title V of the Older 

Americans Act (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) 

may also be paid using program funds, 

administrative funds, or both. 

(b) In the State funding mechanism, 

infrastructure costs for other required 

one-stop partner programs (listed in 

§§ 463.400 through 463.410) are limited 

to the program’s administrative funds, 

as appropriate. 

(c) In the State funding mechanism, 

infrastructure costs for the adult 

education program authorized by title II 

of WIOA must be paid from the funds 

that are available for local 

administration and may be paid from 

funds made available by the State or 

non-Federal resources that are cash, inkind, or third-party contributions. 

(d) In the State funding mechanism, 

infrastructure costs for the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act of 2006 must be paid from funds 

available for local administration of 

postsecondary level programs and 

activities to eligible recipients or 

consortia of eligible recipients and may 

be paid from funds made available by 

the State or non-Federal resources that 

are cash, in-kind, or third-party 

contributions. 

§ 463.745 What factors does the State 

Workforce Development Board use to 

develop the formula described in Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act, which is 

used by the Governor to determine the 

appropriate one-stop infrastructure budget 

for each local area operating under the 

State infrastructure funding mechanism, if 

no reasonably implementable locally 

negotiated budget exists? 

The State WDB must develop a 

formula, as described in WIOA sec. 

121(h)(3)(B), to be used by the Governor 

under § 463.735(b)(3) in determining the 

appropriate budget for the infrastructure 

costs of one-stop centers in the local 

areas that do not reach agreement under 

the local funding mechanism and are, 

therefore, subject to the State funding 

mechanism. The formula identifies the 

factors and corresponding weights for 

each factor that the Governor must use, 

which must include: the number of onestop centers in a local area; the 

population served by such centers; the 

services provided by such centers; and 

any factors relating to the operations of 

such centers in the local area that the 

State WDB determines are appropriate. 

As indicated in § 463.735(b)(1), if the 

local area has agreed on such a budget, 

the Governor may accept that budget in 

lieu of applying the formula factors. 

§ 463.750 When and how can a one-stop 

partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure 

amount designated by the State under the 

State infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) The Governor must establish a 

process, described under sec. 

121(h)(2)(E) of WIOA, for a one-stop 

partner administering a program 

described in §§ 463.400 through 463.410 

to appeal the Governor’s determination 

regarding the one-stop partner’s portion 

of funds to be provided for one-stop 

infrastructure costs. This appeal process 

must be described in the Unified State 

Plan. 

(b) The appeal may be made on the 

ground that the Governor’s 

determination is inconsistent with 

proportionate share requirements in 

§ 463.735(a), the cost contribution 

limitations in § 463.735(b), the cost 

contribution caps in § 463.738, 

consistent with the process described in 

the State Plan. 

(c) The process must ensure prompt 

resolution of the appeal in order to 

ensure the funds are distributed in a 

timely manner, consistent with the 

requirements of 20 CFR 683.630. 

(d) The one-stop partner must submit 

an appeal in accordance with State’s 

deadlines for appeals specified in the 

guidance issued under § 463.705(b)(3), 

or if the State has not set a deadline, 

within 21 days from the Governor’s 

determination. 

§ 463.755 What are the required elements 

regarding infrastructure funding that must 

be included in the one-stop Memorandum 

of Understanding? 

The MOU, fully described in 

§ 463.500, must contain the following 

information whether the local areas use 

either the local one-stop or the State 

funding method: 

(a) The period of time in which this 

infrastructure funding agreement is 

effective. This may be a different time 

period than the duration of the MOU. 

(b) Identification of an infrastructure 

and shared services budget that will be 

periodically reconciled against actual 

costs incurred and adjusted accordingly 

to ensure that it reflects a cost allocation 

methodology that demonstrates how 

infrastructure costs are charged to each 

partner in proportion to its use of the 

one-stop center and relative benefit 

received, and that complies with 2 CFR 

part 200 (or any corresponding similar 

regulation or ruling). 

(c) Identification of all one-stop 

partners, chief elected officials, and 

Local WDB participating in the 

infrastructure funding arrangement. 

(d) Steps the Local WDB, chief elected 

officials, and one-stop partners used to 

reach consensus or an assurance that the 

local area followed the guidance for the 

State funding process. 

(e) Description of the process to be 

used among partners to resolve issues 

during the MOU duration period when 

consensus cannot be reached. 

(f) Description of the periodic 

modification and review process to 

ensure equitable benefit among one-stop 

partners. 

§ 463.760 How do one-stop partners jointly 

fund other shared costs under the 

Memorandum of Understanding? 

(a) In addition to jointly funding 

infrastructure costs, one-stop partners 

listed in §§ 463.400 through 463.410 

must use a portion of funds made 

available under their programs’ 

authorizing Federal law (or fairly 

evaluated in-kind contributions) to pay 

the additional costs relating to the 

operation of the one-stop delivery 

system. These other costs must include 

applicable career services and may 

include other costs, including shared 

services. 

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) 

of this section, shared services’ costs 

may include the costs of shared services 

that are authorized for and may be 

commonly provided through the onestop partner programs to any individual, 

such as initial intake, assessment of 

needs, appraisal of basic skills, 

identification of appropriate services to 

meet such needs, referrals to other onestop partners, and business services. 

Shared operating costs may also include 

shared costs of the Local WDB’s 

functions. 

(c) Contributions to the additional 

costs related to operation of the one-stop 

delivery system may be cash, non-cash, 

or third-party in-kind contributions, 

consistent with how these are described 

in § 463.720(c). 

(d) The shared costs described in 

paragraph (a) of this section must be 

allocated according to the proportion of 

benefit received by each of the partners, 

consistent with the Federal law 

authorizing the partner’s program, and 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56070 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

consistent with all other applicable legal 

requirements, including Federal cost 

principles in 2 CFR part 200 (or any 

corresponding similar regulation or 

ruling) requiring that costs are 

allowable, reasonable, necessary, and 

allocable. 

(e) Any shared costs agreed upon by 

the one-stop partners must be included 

in the MOU. 

§ 463.800 How are one-stop centers and 

one-stop delivery systems certified for 

effectiveness, physical and programmatic 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement? 

(a) The State WDB, in consultation 

with chief elected officials and Local 

WDBs, must establish objective criteria 

and procedures for Local WDBs to use 

when certifying one-stop centers. 

(1) The State WDB, in consultation 

with chief elected officials and Local 

WDBs, must review and update the 

criteria every 2 years as part of the 

review and modification of State Plans 

pursuant to § 463.135. 

(2) The criteria must be consistent 

with the Governor’s and State WDB’s 

guidelines, guidance, and policies on 

infrastructure funding decisions, 

described in § 463.705. The criteria 

must evaluate the one-stop centers and 

one-stop delivery system for 

effectiveness, including customer 

satisfaction, physical and programmatic 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement. 

(3) When the Local WDB is the onestop operator as described in 20 CFR 

679.410, the State WDB must certify the 

one-stop center. 

(b) Evaluations of effectiveness must 

include how well the one-stop center 

integrates available services for 

participants and businesses, meets the 

workforce development needs of 

participants and the employment needs 

of local employers, operates in a costefficient manner, coordinates services 

among the one-stop partner programs, 

and provides access to partner program 

services to the maximum extent 

practicable, including providing 

services outside of regular business 

hours where there is a workforce need, 

as identified by the Local WDB. These 

evaluations must take into account 

feedback from one-stop customers. They 

must also include evaluations of how 

well the one-stop center ensures equal 

opportunity for individuals with 

disabilities to participate in or benefit 

from one-stop center services. These 

evaluations must include criteria 

evaluating how well the centers and 

delivery systems take actions to comply 

with the disability-related regulations 

implementing WIOA sec. 188, set forth 

at 29 CFR part 38. Such actions include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Providing reasonable 

accommodations for individuals with 

disabilities; 

(2) Making reasonable modifications 

to policies, practices, and procedures 

where necessary to avoid discrimination 

against persons with disabilities; 

(3) Administering programs in the 

most integrated setting appropriate; 

(4) Communicating with persons with 

disabilities as effectively as with others; 

(5) Providing appropriate auxiliary 

aids and services, including assistive 

technology devices and services, where 

necessary to afford individuals with 

disabilities an equal opportunity to 

participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, 

the program or activity; and 

(6) Providing for the physical 

accessibility of the one-stop center to 

individuals with disabilities. 

(c) Evaluations of continuous 

improvement must include how well 

the one-stop center supports the 

achievement of the negotiated local 

levels of performance for the indicators 

of performance for the local area 

described in sec. 116(b)(2) of WIOA and 

part 463. Other continuous 

improvement factors may include a 

regular process for identifying and 

responding to technical assistance 

needs, a regular system of continuing 

professional staff development, and 

having systems in place to capture and 

respond to specific customer feedback. 

(d) Local WDBs must assess at least 

once every 3 years the effectiveness, 

physical and programmatic 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement of one-stop centers and 

the one-stop delivery systems using the 

criteria and procedures developed by 

the State WDB. The Local WDB may 

establish additional criteria, or set 

higher standards for service 

coordination, than those set by the State 

criteria. Local WDBs must review and 

update the criteria every 2 years as part 

of the Local Plan update process 

described in § 463.580. Local WDBs 

must certify one-stop centers in order to 

be eligible to use infrastructure funds in 

the State funding mechanism described 

in § 463.730. 

(e) All one-stop centers must comply 

with applicable physical and 

programmatic accessibility 

requirements, as set forth in 29 CFR part 

38, the implementing regulations of 

WIOA sec. 188. 

§ 463.900 What is the common identifier to 

be used by each one-stop delivery system? 

(a) The common one-stop delivery 

system identifier is ‘‘American Job 

Center.’’ 

(b) As of November 17, 2016, each 

one-stop delivery system must include 

the ‘‘American Job Center’’ identifier or 

‘‘a proud partner of the American Job 

Center network’’ on all primary 

electronic resources used by the onestop delivery system, and on any newly 

printed, purchased, or created materials. 

(c) As of July 1, 2017, each one-stop 

delivery system must include the 

‘‘American Job Center’’ identifier or ‘‘a 

proud partner of the American Job 

Center network’’ on all products, 

programs, activities, services, electronic 

resources, facilities, and related 

property and new materials used in the 

one-stop delivery system. 

(d) One-stop partners, States, or local 

areas may use additional identifiers on 

their products, programs, activities, 

services, facilities, and related property 

and materials. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

June 2016. 

Thomas E. Perez, 

Secretary of Labor. 

John B. King, Jr., 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15977 Filed 8–8–16; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P; 4510–FN–P; 4510–FT–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES