20574 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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; Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Office of Career, Technical, and 

Adult Education, Rehabilitation 

Services Administration, Education; 

Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Departments of 

Education (ED) and Labor (DOL) are 

proposing, through this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), to 

implement jointly-administered 

activities authorized by title I of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act (WIOA). Through these regulations, 

the Departments propose to implement 

job training system reforms and 

strengthen the nation’s workforce 

development system to put Americans 

back to work and make the United 

States more competitive in the 21st 

Century. This joint proposed 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 

welfare dependency, and enhancing the 

productivity and competitiveness of the 

nation. 

WIOA strengthened the alignment of 

the workforce development system’s six 

core programs by imposing 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, and 

local levels to ensure a streamlined and 

coordinated service delivery system for 

job seekers, including those with 

disabilities, and employers. To that end, 

the Departments of Education and Labor 

propose to issue this joint NPRM to 

implement jointly-administered 

activities under title I of WIOA. These 

regulations lay the foundation, through 

coordination and collaboration at the 

Federal level, for implementing the 

vision and goals of WIOA. 

In addition to this joint NPRM, the 

Departments have proposed separate 

NPRMs to implement program-specific 

requirements of WIOA that fall under 

each Department’s purview. The 

Department of Labor is proposing a 

NPRM governing program-specific 

requirements under titles I and III of 

WIOA. The Department of Education is 

proposing three NPRMs: one 

implementing program-specific 

requirements of the Adult Education 

and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), as 

reauthorized by title II of WIOA; and 

two NPRMs implementing all programspecific requirements for all programs 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended by title IV of 

WIOA. The Department-specific NPRMs 

have been simultaneously published in 

this issue of the Federal Register. 

Developing and issuing all five WIOA 

NPRMs in a coordinated manner 

reinforces WIOA’s heightened emphasis 

on collaboration to ensure an integrated 

and seamless service delivery system for 

job seekers and employers. 

DATES: To be ensured consideration, 

comments must be submitted in writing 

on or before June 15, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number ETA– 

2015–0002, for Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN) 1205–AB74 and/or 1830– 

AA21, by one of the following methods: 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web 

site instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Mail and hand delivery/courier: 

Written comments, disk, and CD–ROM 

submissions may be mailed to Adele 

Gagliardi, Administrator, Office of 

Policy Development and Research, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Room N–5641, 

Washington, DC 20210. 

Instructions: Label all submissions 

with ‘‘RIN 1205–AB74’’ and/or ‘‘RIN 

1830–AA21.’’ Please submit your 

comments by only one method. Please 

be advised that the Departments will 

post all comments received that are 

related to this NPRM on http://

www.regulations.gov without making 

any change to the comments or 

redacting any information. The http://

www.regulations.gov Web site is the 

Federal eRulemaking portal and all 

comments posted there are available 

and accessible to the public. Therefore, 

the Departments recommend that 

commenters remove personal 

information such as Social Security 

Numbers, personal addresses, telephone 

numbers, and email addresses included 

in their comments as such information 

may become easily available to the 

public via the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. It is the 

responsibility of the commenter to 

safeguard personal information. 

Also, please note that due to security 

concerns, postal mail delivery in 

Washington, DC may be delayed. 

Therefore, the Departments encourage 

the public to submit comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: All comments on this 

proposed rule will be available on the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site 

and can be found using RIN 1205–AB74 

or RIN 1830–AA21. The Departments 

also will make all the comments it 

receives available for public inspection 

by appointment during normal business 

hours at the above addresses. If you 

need assistance to review the comments, 

the Departments will provide 

appropriate aids such as readers or print 

magnifiers. The Departments will make 

copies of this proposed rule available, 

upon request, in large print and 

electronic file on computer disk. To 

schedule an appointment to review the 

comments and/or obtain the proposed 

rule in an alternative format, contact the 

Office of Policy Development and 

Research (ETA) at (202) 693–3700 (this 

is not a toll-free number). You may also 

contact these offices at the addresses 

listed below. 

Comments under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act: In addition to filing 

comments with ETA or the Department 

of Education, persons wishing to 

comment on the information collection 

aspects of this rule may send comments 

to: Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for 

DOL–ETA, Office of Management and 

Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202– 

395–6881 (this is not a toll-free 

number), email: OIRA_submission@

omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

DOL: Adele Gagliardi, Administrator, 

Office of Policy and Research (OPDR), 

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 toll-free number) or 1–800–326– 

2577 (TDD). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20575 

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; Janet 

LaBreck, U.S. Department of Education, 

RSA, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 

5086 PCP, Washington, DC 20202–2800, 

Telephone: (202) 245–7408. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

III. Background 

IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of 

Proposed 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 

President Barack Obama signed WIOA 

into law on July 22, 2014. WIOA is 

landmark legislation designed to 

strengthen and improve our nation’s 

public workforce system and help put 

Americans, especially youth and those 

with significant barriers to employment, 

back to work. WIOA supports 

innovative strategies to keep pace with 

changing economic conditions and 

seeks to improve coordination between 

the core WIOA and other Federal 

programs that support employment 

services, workforce development, adult 

education and literacy, and vocational 

rehabilitation activities. 

In WIOA, Congress directed the 

Departments of Education and Labor to 

issue an NPRM to implement new 

statutory requirements to ensure that the 

workforce system operates as a 

comprehensive, integrated, and 

streamlined system to provide pathways 

to prosperity for those it serves and 

continuously improve the quality and 

performance of its services. Therefore, 

the Departments of Labor and Education 

are issuing this joint NPRM to 

implement jointly-administered 

activities authorized under title I of 

WIOA, specifically those related to the 

Unified and Combined State Plans, 

performance accountability, and the 

one-stop system. 

The Departments of Education and 

Labor are publishing this joint NPRM to 

implement those provisions of WIOA 

that affect all of the WIOA core 

programs (titles I–IV) and which will be 

jointly administered by both 

Departments. In addition to this joint 

NPRM, the Departments are publishing 

separately four agency-specific NPRMs 

that implement the provisions of WIOA 

that are administered separately by the 

Departments—one published by the 

Department of Labor implementing the 

agency-specific provisions of title I, and 

three published by the Department of 

Education implementing the agencyspecific provisions of titles II and IV. 

Readers should note that there are a 

number of cross-references in this joint 

NPRM to the agency-specific NPRMs. 

Finally, this NPRM has been structured 

so that the proposed Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) parts will align with 

the CFR parts in the agency-specific 

regulations once all of the proposed 

rules have been finalized. 

II. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AEFLA—Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act 

CBO—Community-based organization 

CEO—Chief elected official 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CSBG—Community Services Block Grant 

DINAP—Division of Indian and Native 

American Programs 

DOL—U.S. Department of Labor 

ED—U.S. Department of Education 

E.O.—Executive Order 

ESL—English-as-a-second-language 

ETA—Employment and Training 

Administration 

ETP—Eligible training provider 

FEIN—Federal employer identification 

number 

FR—Federal Register 

HHS—Department of Health and Human 

Services 

INA—Indian and Native American 

INAP—Indian and Native American 

Programs 

IPE—Individualized Plan for Employment 

IT—Information technology 

JTPA—Job Training Partnership Act 

JVSG—Jobs for Veterans State Grants 

LMI—Labor market information 

MOU—Memorandum of Understanding 

NACTP—Native American Career and 

Technical Education Program 

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

OJT—On-the-job training 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

OPRD—Office of Policy and Research 

PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Pub.L.—Public Law 

PY—Program year 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RFI—Requests for Information 

RFP—Request for Proposals 

RIN—Regulatory Information Number 

ROI—Requests of Information 

SBA—Small Business Administration 

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

sec.—Section of a Public Law or the United 

States Code 

SNAP—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program 

SSA—Social Security Administration 

TANF—Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families 

TEGL—Training and Employment Guidance 

Letter 

UC—Unemployment compensation 

UI—Unemployment insurance 

U.S.C.—United States Code 

VETS—Veterans’ Employment and Training 

Service 

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. Background 

On July 22, 2014, President Obama 

signed WIOA, 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 

reaffirms the role of the customerfocused 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. 

WIOA presents an extraordinary 

opportunity for the workforce system to 

accelerate its transformational efforts 

and demonstrate its ability to improve 

job and career options for our citizens 

through an integrated, job-driven public 

workforce system that links diverse 

talent to our nation’s businesses. It 

supports the development of strong, 

vibrant regional economies where 

businesses thrive and people want to 

live and work. 

Most provisions in titles I–III of WIOA 

take effect on July 1, 2015, the first full 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20576 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

program year after enactment; however, 

the new State Plans and performance 

accountability system take effect July 1, 

2016. Title IV took effect upon 

enactment. 

WIOA is designed to help job seekers 

access employment, education, training, 

and support services to succeed in the 

labor market and to match employers 

with the skilled workers they need to 

compete in the global economy. WIOA 

has six main purposes: (1) Increasing 

access to and opportunities for the 

employment, education, training, and 

support services that individuals, 

particularly those with barriers to 

employment, need to succeed in the 

labor market; (2) supporting the 

alignment of workforce investment, 

education, and economic development 

systems in support of a comprehensive, 

accessible, and high-quality workforce 

development system; (3) improving the 

quality and labor market relevance of 

workforce investment, education, and 

economic development efforts; (4) 

promoting improvement in the structure 

and delivery of services; (5) increasing 

the prosperity of workers and 

employers, the economic growth of 

communities, regions and States, and 

the global competitiveness of the United 

States; and (6) providing workforce 

investment activities, through workforce 

development systems, that increase 

employment, retention, and earnings of 

participants and that increase postsecondary credential attainment and, as 

a result, improve the quality of the 

workforce, reduce welfare dependency, 

increase economic self-sufficiency, meet 

skill requirements of employers, and 

enhance productivity and 

competitiveness of the nation. 

WIOA offers an opportunity to 

continue to modernize the workforce 

system, and achieve key hallmarks of a 

strong workforce system: A customercentered system, where the needs of 

business and workers drive workforce 

solutions; a system where one-stop 

career centers and partners provide 

excellent customer service to job seekers 

and businesses, and where the 

workforce system supports strong 

regional economies. 

To achieve these goals, WIOA 

requires an integrated approach to the 

implementation, administration, service 

delivery, and evaluation of the services 

provided under the core programs at the 

Federal, State, and local levels. The core 

programs consist of: (1) The adult, 

dislocated worker, and youth formula 

programs administered by DOL under 

title I of WIOA; (2) the AEFLA program 

administered by ED under title II of 

WIOA; (3) the Wagner-Peyser Act 

employment services program 

administered by DOL under title III of 

WIOA; and (4) the vocational 

rehabilitation program administered by 

ED under title IV of WIOA. Integration 

of the core programs essential to the 

effective operation of the workforce 

development system is achieved 

through the development of a Unified or 

Combined State Plan, the 

implementation of a common 

performance accountability system, and 

the design of the one-stop service 

delivery system. Under a Unified or 

Combined State Plan every State 

collaborates across the core programs 

(adult, dislocated worker, and youth; 

Wagner-Peyser; AEFLA; and Vocational 

Rehabilitation) and one-stop partner 

programs and other partners at the local 

and State levels to create a single 

unified and integrated strategic State 

Plan. States govern the core programs as 

one system assessing strategic needs and 

aligning them with service strategies to 

ensure the workforce system is designed 

to meet those needs. States use the 

certification process and competition to 

help achieve this vision and ensure 

continuous improvement. 

State and Local Boards, one-stop 

center operators and partners must 

increase coordination of programs and 

resources to support a comprehensive 

system providing integrated seamless 

services to all job seekers and workers 

and effective strategies that meet 

businesses’ workforce needs across the 

business life cycle. The Departments 

will work with State and Local Boards, 

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. 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. 

To facilitate the integration of the core 

programs, the Departments of Labor and 

Education have jointly developed this 

NPRM to implement the jointlyadministered activities authorized 

under title I of WIOA, specifically those 

related to the Unified and Combined 

State Plan, performance accountability, 

and one-stop requirements. In so doing, 

the Departments agreed, for purposes of 

this NPRM, that the joint regulations 

would be identical across all core 

programs in order to ensure consistency. 

However, we recognize that some of the 

proposed regulations may not be 

applicable for a particular core program. 

For example, proposed provisions 

related to local areas would not be 

applicable to the Vocational 

Rehabilitation program because it 

operates solely at a State level. 

Furthermore, various provisions of 

these proposed regulations reference 

joint guidance that the Departments 

plan to develop in the near future. The 

guidance may include: (1) Procedural 

requirements, such as how to submit a 

State Plan to the Department of Labor; 

(2) interpretative rules; and (3) the 

information that will be collected by the 

Departments pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) information 

collection process, which includes an 

opportunity for public comment. 

Legal Basis 

On July 22, 2014, the President signed 

WIOA (Pub. L. 113–128) into law. 

WIOA repeals WIA (29 U.S.C. 2801 et 

seq.). As a result, the WIA regulations 

no longer reflect current law, thus 

necessitating this NPRM for jointlyadministered activities. Furthermore, 

sec. 503(f) of WIOA requires the 

Departments of Education and Labor to 

issue NPRMs and then final rules that 

implement the changes made by WIOA. 

To that end, the Departments of Labor 

and Education are issuing this joint 

NPRM to implement jointlyadministered activities authorized 

under title I of WIOA. The Departments 

of Labor and Education will each issue 

separate NPRMs, simultaneously with 

this joint NPRM, to implement programspecific requirements imposed by 

WIOA. 

IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of 

Proposed 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 DOL 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 

(title I of WIOA); the AEFLA program 

(title II of WIOA); the Wagner-Peyser 

Act employment services program (title 

III of WIOA); and the Vocational 

Rehabilitation program under title I of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (title IV 

of WIOA). Previously, WIA gave States 

the option of submitting a plan similar 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20577 

to the Combined State Plans (referred to 

as Unified Plans in WIA). 

WIOA reforms State Plan 

requirements to foster better alignment 

of Federal investments in job training, to 

integrate service delivery across 

programs, and to ensure that the 

workforce system is job-driven and 

matches employers with skilled 

individuals. At a minimum, States must 

submit a Unified State Plan, which 

encompasses the six core programs 

under WIOA. States are strongly 

encouraged to submit a Combined State 

Plan, which includes the six core 

programs of the Unified State Plan, plus 

one or more optional programs, as 

described at § 676.140. Coordination 

across multiple Federal programs 

provides a wider range of coordinated 

and streamlined services to the 

customer. 

One of WIOA’s principal areas of 

reform is to require States to plan across 

the 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 planning can support better 

alignment of resources, increased 

coordination among programs, and 

improved efficiency in service delivery. 

This proposed 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 or Education, or 

other Secretaries, as appropriate. 

WIOA separates the strategic and 

operational plan elements to facilitate 

cross-program strategic planning. The 

separation of strategic elements allows 

the State to develop a vision for its 

entire system and identify the 

operational elements across the 

programs that support the system-wide 

vision. The plan requirements also 

require the use of economic and labor 

market information to ensure that the 

Governor’s vision and the State’s 

strategies are based on a thorough 

understanding of the economic 

opportunities and workforce needs of 

the State. This will align the best 

interests of job seekers and employers 

with the economic future of the State. 

The proposed regulations also 

describe the Unified or Combined State 

Plan modification requirements and the 

deadlines for the Unified or Combined 

State Plan, depending on which option 

the State elects. Given the multi-year 

life of the plan, States are required to 

revisit regularly strategies to ensure the 

plan remains responsive to economic 

conditions and labor market needs. 

State Workforce Development Boards 

are responsible for the development, 

implementation, and modification of the 

plan, and for convening of all relevant 

programs, required 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 Boards and chief elected 

officials (CEOs), businesses, 

representatives of labor organizations, 

community-based organizations (CBOs), 

adult and youth education and 

workforce development providers, 

institutions of higher education, 

disability service entities, youth-serving 

programs, and other stakeholders with 

an interest in the services provided by 

the six core programs and any optional 

program included in a Combined Plan, 

as well as the general public, including 

individuals with disabilities. 

As part of the PRA process for 

information collections, the Unified or 

Combined State Plan information 

collection instrument and submission 

requirements will be published in the 

Federal Register pending completion of 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review. Additionally, DOL and 

ED will issue joint planning guidance to 

assist States in implementing the 

planning requirements for both the 

Unified and Combined State Plans. 

Additional guidance related to 

Combined State Plans may also be 

jointly issued in partnership with other 

Secretaries as necessary to clarify 

requirements for optional programs. 

Currently, the Departments issue State 

planning guidance separately to explain 

the Administration’s priorities in 

relation to the planning requirements, 

explaining such requirements where 

necessary, submission procedures, and 

other matters. Jointly issued guidance 

would best meet the needs of State 

planning processes and submission 

requirements for WIOA. 

The Departments note that titles I, II, 

and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as 

amended by title IV of WIOA appear to 

raise inconsistencies regarding the 

applicability of certain jointlyadministered requirements as they 

relate to the outlying areas—American 

Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

and the Northern Mariana Islands. The 

apparent inconsistencies are grounded 

in the fact that WIOA and the 

Rehabilitation Act contain two differing 

definitions of ‘‘State.’’ Specifically, sec. 

3(56) of WIOA defines ‘‘State,’’ for 

purposes of programs funded under title 

I of WIOA, as the 50 States, the District 

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; the 

outlying areas are defined separately in 

sec. 3(45) as described above, and 

include Palau in certain circumstances. 

On the other hand, title IV, which 

amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

defines ‘‘State’’ at sec. 7(34) as the 50 

States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and the Northern 

Mariana Islands, thereby defining any of 

the outlying areas as a State for 

purposes of programs funded under title 

IV of WIOA. Title II of WIOA does not 

separately define either ‘‘State’’ or 

‘‘outlying area,’’ but defines ‘‘eligible 

agency’’ at sec. 203(3) to mean ‘‘the sole 

entity or agency in a State or outlying 

area responsible for administering or 

supervising policy for adult education 

and literacy activities in the State or 

outlying area . . .’’ These differences in 

definitions raise potential 

inconsistencies in the applicability of 

certain jointly-administered 

requirements for purposes of the 

outlying areas, such as those related to 

the requirements in secs. 102 and 103 of 

WIOA, which require States to submit a 

Unified or Combined State Plan to 

receive funding. Given the differing 

definitions, WIOA appears to be 

inconsistent across the core programs as 

to whether an outlying area must submit 

a Unified or Combined State Plan to 

receive funding. 

WIOA sec. 102(a) requires that, in 

order for a State to be eligible to receive 

allotments for the core programs, the 

State must submit a Unified State Plan. 

Read in isolation, sec. 102(a) does not 

appear to require that outlying areas 

submit a Unified State Plan as a 

prerequisite to receiving funds for the 

core programs. 

However, several other provisions in 

title I of WIOA create uncertainty on 

this point. Sections 126 (youth formula 

program) and 131 (adult and dislocated 

worker formula programs) require States 

to meet the requirements of secs. 102 or 

103 to receive a formula allotment 

under title I, while those same sections 

require outlying areas to comply with 

the requirements of title I, without 

elaboration, to receive an allotment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20578 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

under title I. The requirement in WIOA 

secs. 126 and 131 that outlying areas 

must comply with the requirements of 

title I implies—but is not clear—that 

they must submit a Unified State Plan. 

Between the clear language in sec. 102 

and the failure of secs. 126 and 131 to 

reference secs. 102 and 103, WIOA title 

I is unclear if outlying areas are required 

to submit a Unified State Plan to receive 

funding under title I. 

Under title II of WIOA, which 

reauthorizes AEFLA, sec. 211(b)(1) 

states that eligible agencies shall be 

awarded a grant to carry out their adult 

education program if they have a 

Unified State Plan approved under sec. 

102. Section 211(c)(1) includes similar 

language with regard to sec. 102 of 

WIOA when it describes the amounts to 

be allotted to eligible agencies. As noted 

above, WIOA sec. 203 defines an 

eligible agency as the agency in the 

State or outlying area (as those terms are 

defined in sec. 3 of WIOA) responsible 

for administering the adult education 

program in the State or outlying area. 

Thus, a plain reading of secs. 211(b)(1) 

and 211(c)(1) is that both States and 

outlying areas must have an approved 

Unified State Plan to be eligible to 

receive title II funds. WIOA sec. 221(1) 

reinforces this reading by requiring each 

eligible agency to develop, implement, 

and monitor the relevant portions of the 

Unified State Plan. 

However, WIOA sec. 224 only 

requires each State that wants funds 

under title II for any fiscal year to 

submit a Unified State Plan in 

accordance with sec. 102. In other 

words, sec. 224 does not mention 

eligible agencies or outlying areas, as is 

done in other provisions throughout 

title II. Of additional note is that 

separate from the requirements of 

WIOA, the Department of Education has 

permitted outlying areas administering 

AEFLA-funded programs to include 

AEFLA in an application for 

Consolidated Grants to Insular Areas 

(Consolidated Grant), in accordance 

with 48 U.S.C. 1469a. Consolidated 

Grant applications are submitted in lieu 

of any other State plan that is required 

under the programs included in the 

consolidation. Finally, sec. 101(a)(1) of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended by title IV of WIOA, requires 

a State—the definition of which 

includes outlying areas as described 

above—to submit a Unified State Plan in 

accordance with sec. 102 of WIOA in 

order to be eligible to receive Vocational 

Rehabilitation Services funds. This 

provision, unlike the similar provisions 

in WIOA titles I and II discussed above, 

is clear that the submission of a Unified 

State Plan is a prerequisite to receiving 

funding. 

Given these differences and potential 

inconsistencies, there are two possible 

options with regard to outlying areas. 

The first option is to require the 

outlying areas to submit a Unified or 

Combined State Plan as a prerequisite to 

receiving funding for the core programs. 

Under this option, the outlying areas 

would receive their funding through the 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

processes for all core programs as would 

be applicable to any State. While this 

option is consistent with WIOA’s goal of 

creating a more integrated, streamlined 

system and treats all grantees similarly, 

the Departments understand that the 

Unified or Combined State Plan 

requirements could pose additional 

burden on the outlying areas that may 

not exist for other States in terms of 

size, capacity, and resources. If the 

Departments were to adopt this option, 

the Department of Education would 

have, as an additional consideration, the 

implications of the Consolidated Grant 

application process as an option for the 

outlying areas to apply for AEFLA 

funds. 

The second option would be not to 

require the outlying areas to submit a 

complete Unified or Combined State 

Plan as a prerequisite to receiving 

funding for the core programs. Under 

this option, the Departments would 

continue to award funds to the outlying 

areas under WIOA as they have in the 

past. For example, under this option the 

Department of Labor would continue to 

require the outlying areas to submit a 

plan as part of the competitive grant 

competition required by WIOA sec. 

127(b)(1)(B). On the other hand, the 

Department of Education would require 

the outlying areas to submit a Unified or 

Combined State Plan, in accordance 

with secs. 102 and 103 of WIOA, for 

both the AEFLA and Vocational 

Rehabilitation Services programs. Under 

this option, outlying areas administering 

AEFLA would also still have the option 

to submit a Consolidated Grant to 

Insular Areas in lieu of the Unified or 

Combined State Plan under WIOA. 

While this option may be consistent 

with current practice for each program 

and most in line with the plain meaning 

of each of the relevant programmatic 

requirements under WIOA, it may not as 

effectively promote the collaborative, 

integrated purposes of WIOA among the 

core programs. In addition, this option 

imposes differing requirements for the 

core programs administered by the 

outlying areas, thereby causing potential 

confusion during the implementation 

process. Moreover, this option could 

result in the Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services program being the only 

component on a Unified or Combined 

State Plan, which would render the 

Unified or Combined State Plan 

requirements meaningless. 

The Departments specifically request 

comments on the options proposed 

above, as well as any additional options, 

and which option the Departments 

should adopt. 

In the section-by-section discussions 

of each proposed Unified and Combined 

State Plan provision below, the heading 

references the proposed DOL CFR part 

and section number. However, the 

Department of Education proposes in 

this joint NPRM identical provisions at 

34 CFR part 361, subpart D (under its 

State Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

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 proposed provision. 

§ 676.100 What are the purposes of the 

Unified and Combined State Plans? 

Proposed § 676.100 describes the 

principal purposes of the Unified and 

Combined State Plans, which 

communicate the State’s vision for the 

State workforce system and serve as a 

vehicle for aligning and integrating the 

State workforce system across Federal 

programs. 

Proposed § 676.100(a) explains that 

the Unified or Combined State Plan 

serves as the vehicle for the State to 

outline its vision of the workforce 

development system and how the State 

will achieve WIOA’s goals. 

Proposed § 676.100(b) explains that 

the Unified or Combined State Plan 

serves as a 4-year plan for how the State 

will align and integrate the workforce 

development system. 

Proposed § 676.100(b)(1)–(4) explain 

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; guide 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20579 

§ 676.105 What are the general 

requirements for the Unified State Plan? 

Proposed § 676.105 describes the 

general requirements for the Unified 

State Plan that apply to all six core 

programs. These requirements set the 

foundation for WIOA implementation 

by fostering strategic alignment, 

improving service integration, and 

ensuring that the 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 program rather than a plan 

that separately discusses the State’s 

approach to operating each program 

individually. 

Proposed § 676.105(a) explains that 

Unified State Plans must be submitted 

in accordance with § 676.130 and that 

the Secretaries of Labor and Education 

will issue joint planning guidance, as 

discussed above, with instructions to 

States on how to submit Unified State 

Plans. 

Proposed § 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. 

Proposed § 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). This 

section further explains that the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education will 

jointly issue planning guidance, which 

will include additional requirements 

with which the State’s plan must 

comply. 

Proposed § 676.105(d), which 

implements sec. 102(b) of WIOA, 

describes the content required to be 

included in the Unified State Plan. The 

proposed regulation includes major 

structural elements rather than 

repeating all the statutory State 

planning requirements. States still must 

comply with each of the statutory 

requirements, regardless of whether 

they are repeated in regulation. 

Proposed §§ 676.105(d)(1)–(3) 

implement the key WIOA statutory 

requirements found in sec. 102(b)(1), 

(b)(1)(E), and (b)(2), respectively. The 

plan contains two major content areas— 

strategic elements 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 other requirements 

imposed by the Secretaries of Labor or 

Education. Additional explanations and 

clarifications of assurances and plan 

requirements will be contained in the 

subsequently issued joint planning 

guidance. The plan requirements also 

emphasize the use of economic and 

labor market information to ensure that 

the Governor’s vision and State 

strategies are based on a thorough 

understanding of the economic 

opportunities and workforce needs of 

the State, to align the best interests of 

job seekers and employers with the 

economic future of the State. 

Finally, proposed § 676.105(d)(3)(v), 

as allowed by WIOA sec. 

102(b)(2)(C)(viii), requires the State Plan 

to include any additional operational 

planning elements as the Secretaries 

determine are necessary. These 

additional elements will be included in 

the joint planning guidance. 

§ 676.110 What are the programspecific requirements in the Unified 

State Plan for the adult, dislocated 

worker and youth workforce investment 

activities in Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title I? 

§ 676.115 What are the programspecific requirements in the Unified 

State Plan for the Adult Education and 

Family Literacy Act program in 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act title II? 

§ 676.120 What are the programspecific requirements in the Unified 

State Plan for the Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Services programs as 

amended by title III of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

§ 676.125 What are the programspecific requirements in the Unified 

State Plan for the State Vocational 

Rehabilitation Program in title IV of 

WIOA? 

States are required to develop a 

unified or combined plan as described 

in § 676.105. While States must address 

general common planning requirements, 

States must also ensure that their 

planning process and plan content 

adhere to the legal requirements for 

each of the six core programs that 

remains unique to each program, as 

required by sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of WIOA. 

Proposed § 676.110, implementing 

WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(d)(i), describes the 

additional requirements to which the 

adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

programs are subject. 

Proposed § 676.115 explains the 

additional requirements to which the 

AEFLA program is subject. 

Proposed paragraph (a) contains three 

specific program requirements. First, 

subparagraph (1) restates the statutory 

requirement that the eligible agency 

must align its adult education content 

standards with its State-adopted 

challenging academic content standards 

under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended, and 

further establishes that the eligible 

agency must have completed that 

alignment by July 1, 2016. Establishing 

the July 1, 2016, date will ensure that all 

States are positioned to work toward 

full implementation of rigorous 

standards in the first year of the Unified 

State Plan and promote consistency 

across States. Second, subparagraph (2) 

addresses the general requirement that 

States, in the Unified State Plan, 

describe the methods and factors the 

State will use to distribute funds under 

the core programs. The regulation 

clarifies and reinforces requirements in 

title II that the eligible agency must 

compete title II funds, award multi-year 

grants, and provide direct and equitable 

access to funds using the same grant or 

contract announcement and application 

procedure. Adding the provisions found 

in sec. 231 of WIOA to this 

subparagraph is intended to clarify the 

requirements related to the distribution 

of AEFLA funds that must be 

incorporated into the Unified State Plan. 

Third, subparagraph (3) addresses the 

requirement that the State describe how 

it will integrate workforce and 

education data on core programs, 

unemployment programs and education 

through post-secondary education. The 

regulation requires that for title II, a 

State must include in the Unified State 

Plan how it will ensure interoperability 

of data systems in the reporting of core 

indicators and performance reports 

required to be submitted by the State. 

This regulation is intended to support 

the work of eligible agencies 

participating in State Longitudinal Data 

Systems initiatives and Workforce Data 

Quality initiatives and otherwise 

support the concepts of interoperability 

that will allow efficient reporting of 

performance under WIOA. 

Proposed § 676.120, consistent with 

sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iv), requires States to 

include any information the Secretary of 

Labor determines is necessary to 

administer the Employment Services 

Program. This additional information 

will be provided in the jointly issued 

planning guidance. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20580 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed § 676.125 explains the 

additional requirements to which the 

State Vocational Rehabilitation program 

is subject. Specifically, States must 

submit a Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services portion, which complies with 

all State plan requirements set forth in 

sec. 101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended by WIOA, as part of 

the Unified State Plan. The 

Commissioner of the Rehabilitation 

Services Administration of ED is 

responsible for approving the 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

portion of the Unified State Plan. 

In addition to the specific elements 

required by WIOA, the Unified State 

Plans must include any additional 

program specific aspects as required by 

sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii). 

§ 676.130 What is the 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, the Unified State Plan must be 

submitted to the Secretary of Labor, 

according to the procedures established 

in this section, and as clarified and 

explained through joint planning 

guidance. Proposed § 676.130(d), 

discussed below, outlines the 

procedures the Secretary of Labor will 

follow upon receipt of a Unified State 

Plan. Proposed § 676.130 also describes 

the requirements for transparency, 

public comment, and submission, as 

well as the terms for approval. 

Proposed § 676.130(a) requires that 

the Unified State Plan be submitted in 

accordance with the procedures set out 

in the joint planning guidance, as 

previously discussed, issued by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education and 

the procedures outlined in sec. 102(c) of 

WIOA. 

Proposed §§ 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 

Secretary of Labor. The Secretary will 

develop a process for submission of 

Unified State Plans to ensure that ED 

receives the entire Unified State Plan 

submission concurrently. Based on this 

timeline, States are required to submit 

their first Unified State Plan on March 

3, 2016. The Departments anticipate that 

the second Unified State Plans will need 

to be submitted 4 years after the first 

plan, in roughly the spring of 2020. The 

official submission dates for the Plans 

will be announced in the joint planning 

guidance. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) clarifies 

that, consistent with current practice for 

many of the core programs, a PY runs 

from July 1 through June 30 of any year. 

This clarification is particularly 

important, in this context, for the 

Vocational Rehabilitation program since 

that program operates on a Federal fiscal 

year and will continue to do so, in 

accordance with title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, despite the 

fact that the Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services portion of the Unified State 

Plan will align, for submission 

purposes, with the other partners on a 

PY basis. 

Proposed § 676.130(c) requires that 

the State ensure that the Unified State 

Plan is developed and drafted as part of 

a transparent process. 

Proposed § 676.130(c)(1) implements 

WIOA’s Sunshine Provision at sec. 

101(g), which the Departments have 

interpreted to require that the State 

provide an opportunity for comment by 

the general public and by 

representatives of Local Boards, CEOs, 

businesses, representatives of labor 

organizations, CBOs, adult education 

providers, institutions of higher 

education, and other stakeholders with 

an interest in the services provided by 

the six core programs, including 

individuals with disabilities. This 

opportunity for comment provides 

interested stakeholders with a means to 

participate actively and effectively in 

the development of the plan in a 

transparent manner. 

Proposed § 676.130(c)(2) reiterates 

WIOA’s Sunshine Provision’s 

requirement at WIOA sec. 101(g) that 

the State Board make information 

regarding Unified State Planning 

publicly available to the public through 

regularly occurring open meetings. In 

addition, this section requires that the 

Unified State Plan describe the State’s 

process and public comment period. 

Proposed § 676.130(d) implements 

WIOA sec. 102(c)(2)(A) which requires 

the Secretary of Labor to provide the 

entire Unified State Plan to the 

Secretary of Education for review 

pursuant to the submission process 

described in § 676.130(b). Because 

content pertaining to each of the six 

core programs will be integrated 

throughout the Unified State Plan, it 

will be more efficient and effective to 

provide both Secretaries the opportunity 

to review the entirety of a State’s plan 

rather than trying to break out the 

portions of the plan pertaining to the 

specific programs. This joint review 

process supports the purposes of the 

Unified State Plan in fostering program 

integration and alignment. 

Proposed §§ 676.130(e)–(g), 

implementing WIOA sec. 102(c)(2)(B), 

pertain to the approval of the Unified 

State Plan. 

Proposed § 676.130(e) implements 

WIOA’s statutory requirement that the 

Unified State Plan is subject to the 

approval of the Secretary of Labor and 

the Secretary of Education. WIOA 

requires both Secretaries to approve the 

Unified State Plan to ensure crossprogram alignment, integration, and 

collaboration between the programs 

administered by the two Departments. 

Proposed § 676.130(f) implements 

WIOA’s statutory requirement that the 

Commissioner of the Rehabilitation 

Services Administration approve the 

vocational rehabilitation services 

portion of the Unified State Plan before 

the Secretaries of Labor and Education 

approve the Unified State Plan. 

Proposed § 676.130(g) implements 

WIOA’s statutory requirement that the 

Unified State Plan must be reviewed 

and approved by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education within 90 days of 

receipt. The Secretary of Labor will 

develop a process for submission of 

Unified State Plans to ensure that the 

Secretary of Education receives the 

entire Unified State Plan submission 

concurrently. The section further states 

that in order to disapprove a Unified 

State Plan either the Secretary of Labor 

or the Secretary of Education must find, 

in writing, that the Plan is inconsistent 

with a core program requirement, is 

inconsistent with Unified State Plan 

requirements under WIOA sec. 102, is 

incomplete, or that the plan does not 

provide sufficient information to make 

the findings described in proposed 

§§ 676.130(g)(1)–(2). 

Proposed § 676.130(h) implements 

WIOA sec. 102(c)(2)(B), which provides 

that if one of the Secretaries does not 

affirmatively make the determination 

described in §§ 676.130(g)(1)–(3) within 

90 days of receipt, the Unified State 

Plan will be considered approved. 

§ 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 specific 

circumstances, examples of which have 

been included in this section. States 

may also choose to submit a State Plan 

modification at any time during the life 

of the plan. Proposed § 676.135 further 

describes the requirements for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20581 

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. 

Proposed § 676.135(a) reiterates 

WIOA’s statutory authority in sec. 

102(c)(3)(B), which allows the Governor 

to submit a modification of the Unified 

State Plan at any time during the 4-year 

period of the Unified State Plan. 

Proposed § 676.135(b)(1) implements 

the statutory requirement in WIOA sec. 

102(c)(3)(A), requiring the Governor to 

submit a Unified State Plan 

modification at the end of the first 2- 

year period of any 4-year State Plan. 

In addition to the statutory mandate 

to modify the Plan, proposed 

§§ 676.135(b)(2)–(3) require that the 

Governor modify the Unified State Plan 

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 substantial changes in the 

State’s workforce investment system. In 

order for the plan to both effectively 

govern the State’s implementation and 

operation of the core programs and 

effectively serve the State’s workforce 

and employers, the plan must be 

consistent with relevant laws and 

policies. 

Proposed § 676.135(c) requires that 

modifications to the Unified State Plan 

be subject to the same public review and 

comment requirements for submitting a 

Unified State Plan described at 

proposed § 676.130(c). This requirement 

ensures transparency in the process of 

developing the Unified State Plan 

modification. The Unified State Plan 

modification must describe the State’s 

process and timeline for ensuring public 

comment. 

Proposed § 676.135(d), implementing 

WIOA sec. 102(c)(3)(B), requires Unified 

State Plan modifications to be subject to 

the same approval process as the 

original Unified State Plan submission. 

Modifications must be approved by both 

the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary 

of Education within 90 days of receipt, 

in accordance with the standards 

described at § 676.130, which also 

includes the approval process for the 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

portion of the State plan. 

§ 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 optional, 

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 programspecific requirements for any optional 

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, States are strongly 

encouraged to submit Combined State 

Plans. 

Proposed § 676.140, which 

implements sec. 103(a) and (b) of WIOA, 

authorizes the submission of a 

Combined State Plan, lists the optional 

programs that a State may include, and 

describes the requirements of the 

combined plan. 

Proposed § 676.140(a) allows a State 

to submit a Combined State Plan in lieu 

of a Unified State Plan. Proposed 

§ 676.140(b), implementing WIOA sec. 

103(b)(2), clarifies that, 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 the combined 

plan. The Combined State Plan takes the 

place of the individual State Plans for 

the optional programs that are covered 

by the plan and replaces the Unified 

State Plan. In this way, the Combined 

State Plan is meant to reduce the burden 

for States and promote integrated 

planning across State programs. One 

proposed exception to this rule, for the 

optional program, employment and 

training activities carried out under the 

Community Services Block Grant 

(CSBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.), is 

described below under proposed 

§ 676.140(h). 

The 4-year cycle, with a 2-year 

modification, for the Combined State 

Plan is inconsistent with the planning 

cycles for the plans governing the 

optional programs. The Departments 

seek comment on how to address this 

issue and reduce the burden of 

managing multiple cycles. Specifically, 

the Departments request comment on 

how to treat the plan for an optional 

program whose planning cycle is longer 

than 2 years, whose planning cycle is 

less than 2 years, and whose planning 

process includes intra-cycle 

modifications of the plan. Similarly, the 

Departments request comments on how 

best to treat the plan for an optional 

program that is reauthorized or 

otherwise significantly amended during 

the 4-year or 2-year cycle of a Combined 

State Plan, including a change to the 

optional program’s planning cycle. 

Proposed § 676.140(c) requires that 

the Combined State Plan be submitted 

to the appropriate Secretary for approval 

in accordance with the procedures 

described in proposed § 676.143(a). 

Proposed § 676.140(d) reiterates the 

requirement that the Combined State 

Plan include all of the core programs, 

and at least one of the optional 

programs described in WIOA sec. 

103(a)(2). 

Proposed §§ 676.140(d)(1)–(11) 

identify the programs that a State may 

include in the Combined State Plan. 

These are Federal programs that offer 

educational, training, employment, or 

supportive services to populations that 

may overlap with those core programs 

serve. By expanding the State’s crossprogram planning beyond the core 

programs to include one or more of the 

optional programs the State will further 

improve strategic alignment and service 

integration for job seekers and 

employers. 

Proposed §§ 676.140(e)(1)–(4) 

generally describe what must be 

included in the Combined State Plan. It 

is important to note that the portions of 

the Combined State Plan covering the 

core programs must include all of the 

required contents of the Unified State 

Plan, while the portions of the 

Combined State Plan covering optional 

programs must include the information 

for a plan or application as required by 

the laws authorizing and governing the 

optional programs, as well as common 

planning requirements (both strategic 

and operational) described in sec. 102(b) 

of WIOA, and as clarified and explained 

in the joint planning guidance for all 

included optional programs. This 

provision implements sec. 103(b)(1) of 

WIOA. 

Proposed § 676.140(f) clarifies that 

although the optional programs listed in 

sec. 103(a)(2) of WIOA are included in 

the Combined State Plan, those 

programs are subject to the requirements 

of the applicable Federal law, 

regulations, and program-specific 

requirements governing those programs. 

A program’s inclusion in the Combined 

State Plan does not negate a State’s duty 

to comply with all of the relevant laws 

and regulations, procedures, and any 

other requirements imposed by the 

agency or organization administering or 

governing that program. 

Proposed § 676.140(g), consistent with 

sec. 103(d)(2) of WIOA, explains that 

the term ‘‘appropriate secretary’’ when 

used in relation to the optional 

programs refers to the head of the 

Federal agency overseeing the program. 

Proposed § 676.140(h) indicates that 

States that elect to include employment 

and training activities carried out under 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20582 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the 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. Because 

employment and training activities are 

only a subset of the broad range of antipoverty activities and other 

requirements addressed in the overall 

CSBG plan, States would not be 

required to include these programspecific elements of a complete CSBG 

State Plan in the WIOA Combined State 

Plan. 

§ 676.143 What is the submission and 

approval process of the Combined State 

Plan? 

In order to facilitate the State’s 

strategic planning process, and 

concurrent review by the relevant 

Federal program offices, the Combined 

State Plan must be submitted in 

accordance with jointly-issued planning 

guidelines issued by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education and any programspecific requirements of each optional 

program that a State includes. 

Proposed § 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, with 

added considerations for review and 

approval by the Federal agencies that 

oversee the optional Combined State 

Plan programs. 

Proposed § 676.143(a) requires the 

Combined State Plan to be submitted in 

accordance with the requirements in 

§ 676.143 and joint planning guidelines 

issued by the Secretaries of DOL and 

ED. 

Proposed § 676.143(b) requires the 

State to submit, to all Secretaries whose 

programs are included in the Combined 

State Plan, in accordance with the 

procedures described in the joint 

planning guidance described in 

§ 676.143(a), any plan documents, 

application, form, or similar documents 

that are required by the optional 

Combined State Plan programs or 

activities in order to receive Federal 

funding for that program. Though the 

Combined State Plan takes the place of 

the individual State Plans for the 

optional programs or activities included 

in the Combined State Plan, the State 

must still comply with the submission 

requirements for approval of Federal 

funding under the optional programs. 

Proposed § 676.143(c) requires that 

the Combined State Plan be approved or 

disapproved in accordance with the 

requirements of sec. 103(c) of WIOA. 

This section requires that only the 

Secretary tasked with administering the 

relevant optional program review and 

approve that portion of the Combined 

State Plan. Accordingly, proposed 

§ 676.143(c)(1) implements sec. 

103(c)(3)(A) of WIOA, describing the 

approval process by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education for those parts of 

the Combined State Plan that cover the 

core programs, while proposed 

§ 676.143(c)(2) implements sec. 

103(c)(3)(B) of WIOA, describing the 

approval process by the appropriate 

secretary for the optional programs 

included in the Combined State Plan. 

Proposed § 676.143(d) implements 

WIOA’s standards for the Secretaries of 

Labor, Education, or other appropriate 

secretary to determine if a Combined 

State Plan should be approved or 

disapproved, or otherwise deemed 

complete. These standards are similar to 

the standards for disapproving a Unified 

State Plan, with considerations for the 

requirements of the optional Combined 

State Plan programs and activities. 

Proposed §§ 676.143(d)(1)–(3) state that 

the plan may not be approved if the 

relevant Secretary determines, in 

writing, within the relevant review 

period that: the plan is inconsistent 

with the requirements of the core 

programs or one or more of the optional 

programs included; does not meet the 

criteria for the core programs or one or 

more of the optional programs included; 

or is considered incomplete or 

insufficient to make an approval 

determination. 

Under this section, the appropriate 

Secretary reviewing his or her portion of 

the Combined State Plan is not required 

to take any action or make any 

determination to approve/disapprove a 

plan beyond what is required or 

permitted under the law governing that 

program. For example, if the appropriate 

Secretary is only authorized to 

determine if a plan is complete, as part 

of the Combined State Plan approval 

process that Secretary would not also be 

required to make the additional 

determinations described in 

§ 676.143(d) in order to approve or 

disapprove that portion of the plan. 

Proposed § 676.143(e) implements the 

requirement in WIOA sec. 103(c)(3) that, 

unless the relevant Secretary makes the 

determination described in § 676.143(d), 

the relevant portion of the plan will be 

deemed approved. 

Proposed § 676.143(f) requires a State, 

with respect to the core programs, and 

a program under the Carl D. Perkins 

Career and Technical Education Act of 

2006, to reach an agreement with the 

appropriate Secretaries regarding State 

performance measures or State 

performance accountability measures, as 

the case may be, including levels of 

performance. The plan may not be 

approved if an agreement as to these 

measures is not reached and included in 

the plan. Performance requirements for 

the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006 continue to 

apply. 

§ 676.145 What are the requirements 

for modifications of the Combined State 

Plan? 

Section 103 of WIOA provides for the 

modification process for parts of the 

Combined State Plan. Proposed 

§ 676.145 applies to the Combined State 

Plans the same requirements for 

modifications as Unified State Plans, 

with added requirements for the 

additional Federal programs included in 

the Combined State Plan. For the 

additional program and activities that 

are not part of the Unified State Plan, 

the State may elect to modify the 

Combined State Plan according to 

WIOA sec. 102(c)(3). 

Proposed § 676.145(a) requires 

modification of the Combined State Plan 

for the core programs at the end of the 

first 2-year period of any 4-year 

Combined State Plan. This proposed 

regulation subjects the core programs in 

the Combined State Plan to the 

modification requirements described at 

§ 676.135 for Unified State Plans, 

ensuring that all State plans governing 

the core programs are treated equally. 

Additionally, this proposed regulation 

requires the State Workforce 

Development Board to review the 

Combined State Plan, and the Governor 

to submit a modification to the 

Combined State Plans to ensure that the 

Plan remains responsive to changes in 

labor market and economic conditions 

and to other factors that impact the 

strategies described in the Combined 

State Plan. 

Proposed § 676.145(b), similar to the 

Unified State Plan provision, allows 

States to modify a Combined State Plan, 

at any time during the 4-year period of 

the Plan and requires modifications as 

described in § 676.145(a). 

Proposed § 676.145(c)(1) allows the 

State, at its discretion, to apply the 

modification requirements in § 676.135 

to the optional programs and activities 

included in the Combined State Plan. 

Proposed § 676.145(c)(2) requires the 

State to submit, in accordance with the 

submission requirements described in 

§ 676.143, any modification, 

amendment, or revision required by 

Federal law for the optional programs 

included in the Combined State Plan. 

However, the State is required to submit 

the modification, amendment, or 

revision for approval only to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20583 

Secretary overseeing the program if the 

modification, amendment, or revision 

affects the administration of that 

particular program and has no impact 

on the Combined State Plan as a whole 

or the integration and administration of 

the core and optional programs at the 

State level. In this case, the State may 

submit its modification, amendment, or 

revision in accordance with the 

procedures and requirements applicable 

to the particular program. 

In addition, if the program-specific 

requirements change by law for an 

optional Combined State Plan program, 

the State may choose to either: (1) 

Modify the Combined State Plan or (2) 

remove the program from the Combined 

State Plan and submit a separate plan to 

the Federal agency that oversees that 

program, in accordance with the new 

Federal law authorizing the optional 

program and other applicable legal 

requirements for such program. Since 

Combined State Plan programs are 

optionally included by the State in a 

Plan, the State may also choose to 

exclude them at a later date. A State also 

may amend its Combined State Plan to 

add an optional program or activity 

described in § 676.140(d), provided that 

it meets the requirements of WIOA and 

the optional program or activity. 

Proposed § 676.145(d) requires the 

modifications of Combined State Plans 

to be subject to public review and 

comment as described in proposed 

§ 676.130(c) or in program-specific 

requirements of each optional program 

included by the State. The Combined 

State Plan modification process must 

comply with the transparency 

requirements for the six core programs 

in the Combined State Plan. The 

Departments seek comment on how to 

streamline the public review and 

comment process for Combined State 

Plan modifications; whether it is 

advisable to limit the comment process 

to significant or substantial 

modifications to the common planning 

elements; and, if so, how the 

Departments might define significant or 

substantial changes. 

Proposed § 676.145(e) requires that 

modifications of the portions of the 

Combined State Plan that pertain to the 

core programs must be approved by the 

Secretaries of Labor and Education 

according to the approval standards 

described in § 676.143. 

Proposed § 676.145(f) requires that 

modifications of the Combined State 

Plan for the programs or activities 

described in § 676.140(d) be approved 

by the appropriate Secretary if the 

modification, amendment, or revision 

affects the administration of only that 

particular optional program and has no 

impact on the Combined State Plan as 

a whole or the integration and 

administration of the core and optional 

programs at the State level. 

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 the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(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 

core programs. The core programs are 

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

to include the adult, dislocated worker, 

and youth programs under title I of 

WIOA, the AEFLA programs under title 

II; the Employment Services authorized 

by the Wagner-Peyser program under 

the Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by 

title III (‘‘Employment Services’’); and 

the Vocational Rehabilitation program 

under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended by title IV. 

With a few exceptions, including the 

local accountability system under sec. 

116(c) of WIOA, the performance 

accountability requirements apply 

across all of the core programs. It is 

instructive to note that sec. 116 is 

located in the statute under subtitle A, 

which is System Alignment. This is an 

historic opportunity to align definitions, 

streamline performance indicators, and 

integrate reporting for each of the core 

programs to the extent practicable, 

while implementing program-specific 

requirements. Through these proposed 

joint regulations, the Departments are 

laying the foundation for the 

establishment of 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 programs, including Job 

Corps, Native American programs, the 

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker 

programs, and the YouthBuild program, 

to use the same performance 

accountability indicators as the core 

programs, as provided in 29 CFR part 

686 and 29 CFR part 684. This will 

better align both the core programs and 

other education and training programs 

across the workforce system. Further, 

DOL plans to include other workforce 

programs under its purview in this 

streamlining effort, including the Jobs 

for Veterans State Grants (JVSG) 

program as authorized by the Jobs for 

Veterans Act, other formula and 

applicable competitive grant programs 

administered by DOL. 

As with the planning requirements 

discussed previously, the differing 

definitions of ‘‘State’’ raise potential 

inconsistencies as to the applicability of 

the performance accountability system 

requirements of sec. 116 of WIOA for 

purposes of the outlying areas and their 

administration of the core programs. 

Section 116, which consistently 

references States, establishes a common 

performance system to measure the 

effectiveness of the States and local 

areas in achieving positive outcomes for 

participants in the core programs. 

However, sec. 116 does not specifically 

reference the outlying areas. Sections 

126 and 131 of WIOA require that 

outlying areas comply with all of the 

requirements of title I as a prerequisite 

to their receipt of title I funds, although 

neither section specifically references 

the requirements of sec. 116. The 

silence in sec. 116 is especially 

important with regard to the core 

programs funded under title I of WIOA, 

and administered by the Department of 

Labor, since sec. 3 defines the terms 

‘‘State’’ and ‘‘outlying area’’ separately. 

Reading title I, and sec. 116 specifically, 

in isolation, suggests that the 

performance system does not apply to 

the outlying areas. 

Unlike the title I programs, the Adult 

Education and Vocational Rehabilitation 

programs under titles II and IV, 

respectively, clearly require the outlying 

areas to comply with the performance 

accountability system requirements of 

sec. 116 of WIOA. Section 212 applies 

the performance provisions in sec. 116 

to all of the programs and activities 

authorized in title II, which includes the 

adult education programs and activities 

administered by the eligible agencies in 

the outlying areas. Additionally, sec. 

106 of the Rehabilitation Act, as 

amended by title IV of WIOA, requires 

that States—which includes the 

outlying areas—comply with the 

performance accountability system 

requirements of sec. 116 of WIOA. 

Given the use of the term ‘‘State’’ in 

sec. 116 and the differing definitions for 

that term for the various core programs, 

ambiguity exists within WIOA as to the 

applicability of the performance 

accountability system requirements 

with regard to the core programs 

administered by the Department of 

Labor under title I of WIOA. 

Nevertheless, WIOA is clear that the 

core programs funded under titles II and 

IV are subject to these requirements. For 

this reason, there are two options to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20584 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

resolve this potential inconsistency, 

thereby ensuring that the performance 

of the core programs in the outlying 

areas can be measured to ensure 

programmatic effectiveness. 

The first option would be to subject 

the title I WIOA core programs 

administered by the outlying areas to 

the sec. 116 performance system, as 

WIOA requires of the core programs 

funded under titles II and IV. The 

second option would be not to apply the 

performance accountability system 

requirements of sec. 116 of the title I 

WIOA programs administered by the 

outlying areas, since title I is less clear 

in the applicability of these 

requirements to the outlying areas, 

while requiring the outlying areas 

administering the Adult Education and 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

programs, funded under titles II and IV 

respectively, to comply with the sec. 

116 requirements since these titles 

clearly require such compliance. This 

option, while perhaps most in line with 

the plain meaning of the relevant 

statutory provisions, is contrary to the 

purpose of WIOA generally and the 

performance accountability system 

established in sec. 116 specifically. 

Moreover, this option would treat the 

various core programs differently, 

thereby causing potential confusion 

during implementation and could result 

in disparate treatment with regard to 

sanctions. 

The Departments specifically request 

comments on the options proposed 

above, as well as any additional options, 

and which option the Departments 

should adopt. 

In the section-by-section discussions 

of each proposed performance 

accountability provision below, the 

heading references the proposed DOL 

CFR part and section number. However, 

the Department of Education proposes 

in this joint NPRM identical provisions 

at 34 CFR part 361, subpart E (under its 

State Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

Program regulations) and at 34 CFR part 

463, subpart I (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 proposed provision. 

§ 677.150 What definitions apply to 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act performance measurements and 

reporting requirements? 

Proposed § 677.150 defines key 

performance-related terms which States 

must use in their reporting on 

performance calculations. The 

Departments propose these definitions 

to facilitate consistent reporting across 

the States. Under WIA, States created 

differing definitions of key terms for 

performance reporting, which resulted 

in inconsistent reporting and prevented 

the Departments from fully evaluating 

the effectiveness of its workforce and 

educational programs. 

The definitions the Departments are 

proposing in these regulations are 

sufficiently broad to apply across core 

programs and other programs 

authorized by this statute, to create an 

integrated performance accountability 

system, and to support clarity and 

alignment of performance metrics and 

comparability among the programs and 

States. 

Proposed § 677.150 defines 

participant, reportable individual, and 

exit. 

Proposed § 677.150(a) proposes a 

definition of ‘‘participant’’ across the 

core programs because participants are 

specifically identified in the statute as 

included in performance calculations. 

The definition of participant establishes 

a common point of measurement at 

which an individual is meaningfully 

engaged in a core program. This 

measurement point 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. 

The proposed definition does not 

attempt to define the activities leading 

up to participation in the same way 

across all of the core programs, but 

instead seeks to establish a common 

point in service design and delivery that 

an individual reaches regardless of the 

program in which he or she is enrolled. 

In each program, an individual must 

meet a specific programmatic threshold 

at which he or she begins receiving 

services regardless of the program. The 

proposed definition takes into account 

the unique processes of each program to 

meet such thresholds and, thus, 

participant is defined in a manner that 

works across the core programs. The 

proposal defines participant as a 

reportable individual who has received 

staff-assisted services after satisfying all 

applicable programmatic requirements 

for the provision of services, such as the 

eligibility determination. This proposed 

definition establishes a common 

approach to establishing a minimum 

participation threshold that is 

appropriate to the services provided by 

each program. This approach also 

ensures consistent definition of 

participant within each program. This 

definition excludes self-service 

individuals because they have minimal 

interaction with the program and 

minimal resources are spent on their 

behalf. Such individuals are reportable, 

as defined below, because they have 

contact with the system but are not 

participants and, thus, are not included 

in performance calculations. 

Specifically for Wagner-Peyser 

Employment Services, only those 

reportable individuals who received 

staff-assisted services would be 

included in performance calculations. 

For WIOA adults, reportable individuals 

who receive staff assisted services 

would be considered participants and, 

thus, be included in performance 

calculations. For WIOA dislocated 

workers, reportable individuals who are 

determined eligible and receive a staffassisted service would be considered 

participants and, thus, be included in 

performance calculations. For WIOA 

youth, reportable individuals who are 

determined eligible, receive an 

assessment, and receive a program 

element (a staff-assisted service) would 

be considered participants and, thus, be 

included in performance calculations. 

For the AEFLA program, reportable 

individuals who have been determined 

eligible and who have completed at 

least 12 contact hours in an adult 

education and literacy activity under 

AEFLA would be considered 

participants and, thus, be included in 

performance calculations. For the 

Vocational Rehabilitation program, 

reportable individuals who have been 

determined eligible for services and 

who have an approved and signed 

Individualized Plan for Employment 

(IPE) that outlines the services that the 

individual will receive would be 

considered participants and, thus, be 

included in performance calculations. 

Proposed § 677.150(b) defines 

‘‘reportable individual’’ as an individual 

who meets specific core program criteria 

for reporting such as the provision of 

identifying information or a level of 

service receipt that is below the staffassisted level, which will be further 

explained in guidance issued by DOL 

and ED. This approach would allow for 

counting self-service system utilization 

or those who received only 

informational services/activities as well 

as other services that may occur prior to 

an individual meeting all of the 

established benchmarks for 

participation. 

These definitions are critical for 

determining who is subject to 

performance calculations. All 

individuals receiving staff-assisted 

services through WIOA workforce 

system core programs would be reported 

under a single count of program 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20585 

participants and would be subject to 

performance calculations. It is 

important to note that this differs from 

ETA’s current approach for the 

Employment Services’ under WIA 

reporting whereby self-service 

individuals are included in performance 

calculations. In contrast, under these 

proposed regulations all self-service and 

information-only individuals would be 

subjected to reportable counts and other 

associated information, but not 

performance calculations for the 

primary indicators of performance. This 

proposed approach also would address 

the current inconsistency in reporting 

based on various co-enrollment 

strategies. 

The Departments are seeking feedback 

regarding this proposed approach, 

specifically for the WIOA title I and III 

programs, on the appropriate point of 

receipt of staff-assisted services, which 

has not been a commonly defined point 

under WIA. A stronger delineation of 

that measurement point, which would 

be the same for the Wagner-Peyser 

Employment Services, WIOA adults, 

and WIOA dislocated workers, would 

enhance comparability across States. 

Proposed § 677.150(c) defines the 

term ‘‘exit’’ for the purposes of a 

uniform performance accountability 

system for the core programs under 

WIOA, as well as applicable non-core 

programs as established through 

regulation or guidance. Several of the 

primary indicators of performance for 

performance accountability require 

measuring participants’ progress after 

they have exited from the program. One 

consistent definition of exit would 

facilitate this calculation and will allow 

the Departments to make meaningful 

comparisons across the States. For the 

core programs, excluding Vocational 

Rehabilitation, the Departments propose 

defining ‘‘exit’’ as the last date of 

service. The last date of service means 

the individual has not received any 

services for 90 days and there are no 

future services planned. For the purpose 

of this definition, ‘‘service’’ does not 

include self-service, information-only 

activities, or follow-up services. 

Therefore, in order to determine 

whether or not an individual has exited, 

States will retroactively determine if 90 

days have passed with no further 

service and no further services 

scheduled. 

The proposed definition of ‘‘exit’’ for 

the Vocational Rehabilitation program is 

similar in that it marks the point at 

which the individual no longer is 

engaged with the program and there is 

no ongoing relationship between the 

individual and the program. However, 

the proposed definition takes into 

account specific programmatic 

requirements. Under the Vocational 

Rehabilitation program, an individual 

would be determined to have exited the 

program on the date the individual’s 

case is closed in accordance with 

Vocational Rehabilitation program 

requirements. Even with this 

programmatic distinction, the 

calculations would be essentially the 

same as with the other core programs 

because in all instances the ‘‘exit’’ count 

would capture all individuals who are 

no longer active participants in any of 

the core programs. In addition, the 

Departments exclude from the 

definition of ‘‘exit,’’ for purposes of the 

Vocational Rehabilitation program, 

those individuals who have achieved a 

supported employment outcome at a 

subminimum wage. This proposed 

provision is necessary to implement 

WIOA’s heightened emphasis on 

competitive integrated employment. 

The Departments considered various 

approaches to defining ‘‘exit’’ across the 

programs. The proposed definition 

introduces common language that is 

broad enough to apply to all of the core 

programs, but also accommodates 

statutory requirements specific to the 

Vocational Rehabilitation program as 

implemented in 34 CFR 361.43 and 

361.56. 

The Departments seek comments on 

whether an individual’s continued use 

of self-service offerings should extend 

the individual’s exit date, or if a 

participant should be considered as 

having exited after the final staffassisted service. The self-service 

component is limited to WIOA title I 

programs and the Wagner-Peyser 

Employment Services. 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(2)(I) requires States 

to report on the number of participants 

who are enrolled in more than one 

WIOA core program. Therefore, the 

Departments are also considering the 

value of a cross-program definition of 

exit, sometimes called a common exit, 

that is based upon the last staff-assisted 

service from all core programs rather 

than a program exit. The current 

proposed definition of ‘‘exit’’ is program 

specific so if an individual was 

receiving services from more than one 

program, that individual could have 

multiple ‘‘exits.’’ The current proposed 

definition would allow programs to 

capture all exit-based participant 

outcomes in a reporting period 

regardless of whether the participant 

continued to receive services from other 

core programs. The Departments have 

considered a common exit-based 

definition that requires an individual to 

have completed all programs in order to 

officially exit from the system. Such a 

definition would emphasize the 

importance of an individual receiving 

and completing all partner program 

services necessary to ensure a successful 

attachment to the labor market. It is, 

however, largely dependent on the 

ability of States to exchange data 

effectively and efficiently across State 

agencies in order to determine outcomes 

for each of the programs. The 

Departments are seeking comments on 

the costs and benefits of taking a 

program-exit approach or a common 

exit approach in defining ‘‘exit.’’ 

2. 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? 

Proposed § 677.155 identifies the 

primary indicators of performance that 

States must include in their Unified or 

Combined State Plans. The primary 

indicators are applied in numerous 

places across all of the WIOA proposed 

regulations. Though the indicators may 

appear under other components of the 

regulations the indicators are aligned 

and the same and do not vary across the 

regulations. The Departments have 

considered a variety of approaches to 

define the primary indicators of 

performance, which will be applied to 

each of the core programs outlined in 

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

Specifically, these indicators will apply 

to the core programs administered by 

ED’s Office of Career, Technical, and 

Adult Education, ED’s Rehabilitation 

Services Administration, and DOL’s 

ETA. WIOA presents new opportunities 

for system alignment through 

performance accountability. The ED and 

DOL envision a performance system 

whereby all programs’ primary 

performance metrics share a common 

language that supports comparability 

and facilitates enhanced consumer 

choice and better programmatic 

decision-making. 

Proposed § 677.155(a)(1) identifies the 

six primary indicators that will be 

applied to the core programs identified 

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

DOL is also planning to leverage these 

indicators to streamline reporting for 

other DOL programs, such as the JVSG 

program, and other discretionary grant 

programs. To that end, the Departments 

invite comments specific to this issue. 

Proposed § 677.155(a)(1)(i) 

implements the first statutory 

performance indicator in sec. 

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

States to report on the percentage of 

participants in unsubsidized 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20586 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

employment in the second quarter after 

exit from the program. This statutory 

language requires States to measure the 

employment rate of participants in the 

second quarter after exit from the 

program. In contrast, WIA’s first 

indicator of performance required States 

to report on an ‘‘entered employment 

rate.’’ The WIA indicator measured 

individuals who were unemployed at 

the time of entry into the program and 

after receiving services, obtained 

employment, thus allowing the 

Departments to evaluate whether the 

WIA services were effective in helping 

unemployed individuals obtain 

employment. The proposed WIOA 

indicator is different from WIA’s 

‘‘entered employment rate’’ indicator in 

two ways: (1) The time period for 

measurement in WIOA is the second 

quarter after exit instead of the first 

quarter; and (2) the statutory language 

under WIOA does not specify that the 

indicator is to measure entry into 

employment. The Departments plan to 

calculate both an ‘‘employment rate’’ for 

all participants in the program 

regardless of employment status at 

program entry and an ‘‘entered 

employment rate’’ for participants who 

were unemployed at the time of 

program entry. The Departments seek 

public comment on whether and how to 

collect information on the quality of 

employment and how WIOA’s programs 

help employed and underemployed 

individuals find new or better jobs. 

Proposed § 677.155(a)(1)(ii) 

implements WIOA’s second statutory 

primary indicator of performance and is 

similar to the first, except that the time 

period for measurement is the fourth 

quarter after exit. This statutory 

language requires States to measure the 

employment rate of participants in the 

fourth quarter after exit from the 

program without regard to whether 

those participants were employed in the 

second quarter after exit from the 

program. Under WIA, this indicator is a 

retention measure that analyzes whether 

individuals who were employed in the 

first quarter after exiting from WIA 

services were still employed in the 

second and third quarters. As a 

retention measure such as the approach 

under WIA, this indicator would have 

counted participants who were 

employed in the second quarter after 

exit and measured of this group, who 

were still employed in the fourth 

quarter after exit from the program. The 

Departments seek comment on the 

advantages and disadvantages of 

collecting or reporting the employment 

retention rate in addition to the 

employer rate. 

Proposed § 677.155(a)(1)(iii) 

implements WIOA’s third statutory 

indicator found at sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(i)(III) and measures 

participants’ median earnings in the 

second quarter after exit. This indicator 

measures median earnings at the same 

time frame as the first indicator 

measures the employment rate of 

participants. The use of a median is a 

shift from the use of an average under 

WIA and is based on the language 

provided in WIOA. 

Proposed § 677.155(a)(1)(iv) 

implements WIOA’s fourth statutory 

indicator and measures post-secondary 

credential attainment and high school 

completion of program participants 

during participation in the program or 

within 1 year after exit. The proposed 

regulation defines this measure with the 

same language as the statute and 

includes the statutory language limiting 

participants who obtain a secondary 

school diploma or its equivalent to be 

included in the percentage counted as 

meeting the criterion only if the 

participant is employed or is enrolled in 

an education or training program 

leading to a recognized post-secondary 

credential within 1 year after exit from 

the program. The Departments 

specifically seek comment on 

clarifications that will be necessary to 

implement this indicator. 

Proposed § 677.155(a)(1)(v) measures 

the percentage of participants who, 

during a PY, are in education or training 

programs that lead to a recognized postsecondary credential or employment, 

and who are achieving measurable skill 

gains, which the Departments are 

defining as documented academic, 

technical, occupational or other forms of 

progress, toward the credential or 

employment. 

The Departments are considering 

using this indicator to measure interim 

progress of participants who may be 

enrolled in education or training 

services for a specified reporting period. 

For example, if a participant is enrolled 

in a 4-year registered apprenticeship 

program, the indicator would track the 

skills the participant gains throughout 

the reporting period, not just at the end 

of the 4-year training program. For lowskilled adults, this proposed indicator 

provides an opportunity to track 

progress in reading, writing, 

mathematics, and English proficiency 

while they are participating in an adult 

education program prior to completing 

the high school credential and entering 

post-secondary education or training or 

employment. The measurable skill gains 

indicator will encourage local adult 

education programs to serve all lowskilled adults as Congress intended. 

Another example pertains to a 

participant who is training for multiple 

fields in the YouthBuild program. Such 

an individual may be pursuing 

certifications that require several years 

of experience, specific study hours, and 

demonstration of skills and knowledge 

prior to the final certification exam. The 

measurable skill gains indicator would 

capture documented progress on interim 

milestones leading up to the final 

certification. The measurable skill gains 

indicator is intended to capture 

important progressions through 

pathways that offer different services 

based on program purposes and 

participant needs and can help fulfill 

the Departments’ vision of creating a 

workforce system that serves a diverse 

set of individuals with a range of 

services tailored to individual needs 

and goals. 

In using this indicator as a measure of 

interim progress of participants, the 

Departments are considering how States 

can document progression during 

participation in an education or training 

program in a standardized way. 

Documented progress could include 

such measures as: 

(1) The achievement of at least one 

educational functioning level of a 

participant in an education program that 

provides instruction below the postsecondary level; 

(2) attainment of a high school 

diploma or its equivalent; 

(3) a transcript or report card for 

either secondary or post-secondary 

education for 1 academic year (or 24 

credit hours) that shows a participant is 

achieving the State unit’s policies for 

academic standards; 

(4) a satisfactory or better progress 

report, towards established milestones 

from an employer who is providing 

training (e.g., completion of on-the-job 

training (OJT), completion of 1 year of 

an apprenticeship program); 

(5) the successful completion of an 

exam that is required for a particular 

occupation, progress in attaining 

technical or occupational skills as 

evidenced by trade-related benchmarks 

such as knowledge-based exams; and 

(6) measurable observable 

performance based on industry 

standards. 

The Departments seek comments on 

the proposed indicator and request 

comments on the ways States can 

measure and document participants’ 

measurable skill gains in a standardized 

way, including whether time intervals 

are required and what time intervals 

might be. The Departments also seek 

comments on whether the performance 

targets for this indicator should be set at 

the indicator (i.e., measurable skill 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20587 

gains) or documented progress measure 

(e.g., attainment of high school diploma) 

level. 

Proposed § 677.155(a)(1)(vi) 

implements the sixth statutory primary 

indicator related to effectiveness in 

serving employers. Under WIOA, the 

Departments are required to consult 

with stakeholders and receive public 

comment on proposed approaches to 

defining the indicator. As part of this 

requirement, the Departments have 

already 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, 

numerous town-halls and webinars on 

WIOA across the country, and 

consultations with State Administrators 

for the AEFLA and Vocational 

Rehabilitation (VR) stakeholders. 

Because the Departments have not 

previously used this indicator, it is 

important to hear from States and 

stakeholders on what they consider core 

functions of their services to employers 

in order to best determine how to 

understand and measure the 

effectiveness of the services provided. 

Additionally, it is critical to hear from 

employers on the attributes of services 

that they find effective. In drafting the 

potential proposals described below, the 

Departments consulted with a wide 

range of representatives to develop the 

indicators of effectiveness in serving 

employers as required by WIOA sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(i)(VI). See WIOA sec. 

116(b)(A)(2)(iv) and 116(b)(4)(B). 

Based on the consultations, the 

Departments have established several 

potential approaches to measuring the 

effectiveness of serving employers, 

including potential measures that could 

be used. One of the Departments’ 

principal concerns in crafting a final 

definition of this indicator is 

minimizing burden that measuring this 

indicator will impose on employers in 

order to avoid discouraging employer 

engagement with the workforce and 

education systems. The Departments 

value the interaction of employers with 

the workforce and education systems 

and do not want to impose any barriers 

to that interaction. With this in mind, 

the Departments’ proposed approaches 

aim to minimize employer burden while 

still attempting to measure the 

effectiveness of how the Departments’ 

programs serve employers. 

One approach to measure this 

indicator is to measure employee 

retention rates tied to the employment 

they obtained after receiving WIOA 

services. Under this approach, States 

would be required to use wage records 

to identify whether or not a participant 

matched the same Federal employer 

identification number (FEIN) in the 

second and fourth quarters. This 

approach has the lowest burden on 

employers, as it requires no action from 

the employer. Under this approach, 

WIOA’s services are effectively serving 

an employer if that employer hires a 

WIOA participant and the participant is 

still employed by that employer in the 

fourth quarter (up to a year) after 

program exit. The Departments would 

be interested in specific comments 

around the feasibility of this, and if it 

measures the systems’ effectiveness in 

serving employers. 

Another potential way to define this 

indicator would measure the repeat/

retention rates for employers’ use of the 

core programs. The Departments seek 

comments around this approach, 

including how States could capture this 

data, the feasibility of capturing and 

reporting this data, and if this indicator 

would measure the efficacy of the 

services provided to employers. 

The Departments are also considering 

using 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) as a 

measure of the effectiveness of serving 

employers. Employer usage may reflect 

the effectiveness of the system’s ability 

to reach out to employers, convey the 

services the core programs provide, and 

meet employers’ needs. The 

Departments seek comment on the 

feasibility of capturing this data 

accurately, the validity of such an 

approach in measuring effectiveness of 

program services, and the usefulness of 

this approach in managing employer 

services. 

The Departments are proposing to 

look at this as a shared indicator across 

programs, as many employers are served 

by multiple programs. Another 

approach could be to apply this measure 

to individual core programs. The 

Departments seek comment on the 

relative merits of each approach. The 

Departments also seek comment about 

whether a single metric for this 

indicator would sufficiently capture 

effectiveness in serving employers or if 

this indicator should encompass a 

combination of metrics, including how 

these metrics could most effectively be 

combined. 

Understanding that an array of 

programs provide services to employers, 

the Departments seek public comment 

on additional ways to measure the core 

programs’ effectiveness in serving 

employers. 

Proposed § 677.155(b) applies the six 

indicators outlined in proposed 

§ 677.155(a)(1) to the adult and 

dislocated worker programs under title 

I of WIOA, the AEFLA program under 

title II of WIOA, and the Vocational 

Rehabilitation program as amended by 

title IV of WIOA. 

Proposed § 677.155(c) applies the 

primary indicators of performance in 

proposed §§ 677.155(a)(1)(i)–(iii) and 

(vi) that States must include in their 

Unified or Combined State Plans for the 

Employment Services as amended by 

WIOA title III. Those indicators of 

performance which apply to the 

Employment Services are: (1) The 

percentage of program participants who 

are in unsubsidized employment during 

the second quarter after exit from the 

program; (2) the percentage of program 

participants who are in unsubsidized 

employment during the fourth quarter 

after exit from the program; (3) the 

median earnings of program participants 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after exit; and 

(4) the effectiveness in serving 

employers. The Departments also seeks 

comments on how to best measure the 

Wagner-Peyser Employment Services’ 

effectiveness in serving employers. 

Proposed § 677.155(d)(1)–(6) 

identifies the primary indicators of 

performance that States must to address 

in their Unified or Combined State 

Plans for the youth program under 

WIOA title I. The youth indicators apply 

universally to the youth workforce 

investment program and, therefore, 

apply to in-school and out-of-school 

youth as defined in WIOA sec. 

129(a)(1)(B) and (C). 

Proposed § 677.155(d)(1) implements 

the first statutory indicator for youth, 

which measures 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. Under WIA, States report on a 

placement rate, which measures a 

youth’s placement in either education or 

employment, after exiting from the 

program. The WIOA indicator differs 

from WIA’s placement rate in three 

ways. First, the time period for 

measurement in WIOA is the second 

quarter after exit instead of the first 

quarter after exit. Second, the placement 

rate under WIA only allowed postsecondary education to be reported; 

whereas, under WIOA, any education, 

including secondary and postsecondary, is reported. Third, the 

placement measure under WIA 

excluded those youth who were 

enrolled in post-secondary education, 

employed, or in the military at the time 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20588 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

of participation; WIOA’s indicators do 

not make these exclusions. WIA’s 

measure provided insight into how 

many youth came to a program not 

enrolled in post-secondary education, 

employed, or in the military, and then 

after receiving services, obtained 

employment or were placed into postsecondary education or training 

program. Under WIOA, this indicator 

does not provide for this exclusion and 

the Departments’ proposed indicator 

measures placement in the second 

quarter after exit of all participants. 

Proposed § 677.155(d)(2) implements 

the second statutory indicator that 

applies to the WIOA youth program 

under title I. This indicator under sec. 

116 of WIOA is similar to the first 

indicator in that it is the percentage of 

program participants who are in an 

education or training program or in 

unsubsidized employment in the fourth 

quarter after exit. The Departments 

propose that this indicator measure 

whether a participant is in education, 

training or unsubsidized employment in 

the fourth quarter. 

Proposed § 677.155(d)(3) implements 

the third statutory indicator that applies 

to the youth program under WIOA title 

I. This indicator measures median 

earnings in the second quarter after 

participants exit from the program. 

States must report the median point for 

earnings for all program participants in 

unsubsidized employment in the second 

quarter after exit. This indicator 

measures earnings in the second quarter 

after exit, which is the same time frame 

in which the States will measure if 

program participants are in education or 

training activities or unsubsidized 

employment. 

Proposed § 677.155(d)(4) implements 

the fourth statutory indicator and 

measures post-secondary credential 

attainment and high school completion 

of program participants who have exited 

from the youth program under WIOA 

title I. The language of the proposed 

regulation 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) and therefore, refer 

readers to this section for more 

information on this definition. 

Proposed § 677.155(d)(5) implements 

the fifth statutory indicator and pertains 

to measurable skill gains. The language 

of the proposed regulation is the same 

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

The Departments have provided an indepth explanation of this in the 

preamble for § 677.155(a)(1)(v) and 

refers readers to this section for more 

information on this definition. 

Proposed § 677.155(d)(6) implements 

the sixth statutory indicator and is the 

same language for the indicator in 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(vi). The Departments 

have provided an in-depth explanation 

of this in the preamble for 

§ 677.155(a)(1)(v) and refers readers to 

this section for more information on this 

definition. 

§ 677.160 What information is 

required for State performance reports? 

Proposed § 677.160 identifies the 

information States are statutorily 

required to report in the State 

performance report under WIOA sec. 

116(d)(2). The Departments agree that 

integrated performance reports would 

facilitate assessment of WIOA 

performance across programs. The 

proposed regulation reorganizes in a 

more user-friendly format the WIOA 

statutory requirements for the State 

performance reports. 

Section 116(d)(1) of WIOA requires 

the Departments to provide a 

performance reporting template for each 

of the performance reports required in 

secs. 116(d)(2)–(4) of WIOA. The 

Departments will seek public comment 

on the reporting templates through the 

PRA process. In developing these report 

templates, the Departments will seek to 

maximize the value of the templates for 

workers, job seekers, employers, local 

elected officials, State officials, Federal 

policy-makers, and other key 

stakeholders, and seek feedback on the 

formats that will be most useful for each 

audience through the PRA process. The 

Departments will seek to align 

performance reports to the extent 

possible while maximizing the value of 

each report for its primary audience, in 

order to have comparable reporting 

elements across all core programs in 

keeping with the shared statutory 

performance requirements. Aligning the 

reports and performance definitions will 

create a performance accountability 

system that is easier to understand and 

assess the effectiveness of States in 

achieving positive outcomes for 

individuals served by these programs. 

Proposed § 677.160(a) implements the 

reporting provisions of WIOA sec. 

116(d)(2) for the State performance 

reports. 

Proposed § 677.160(a)(1) requires 

States to report the number of 

participants served and the number of 

participants who exited from each of the 

core programs identified in WIOA sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

Proposed § 677.160(a)(1)(i)–(ii) 

implements WIOA’s statutory 

requirement that the States include a 

count of the number of participants and 

exiters served that are individuals with 

barriers to employment, disaggregated 

by those barriers as defined in WIOA 

sec. 3(24) and that are co-enrolled in 

any of the programs in WIOA sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(ii) in the State performance 

report. Additional reporting information 

required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2) in 

regard to participants and exiters are 

age, sex, and race and ethnicity. The 

provisions of the statute are clear in 

what is required and the Departments 

have proposed rule text to coincide with 

the statutory language. 

Proposed § 677.160(a)(2) implements 

WIOA’s statutory requirement that 

States include the levels achieved for 

the primary indicators of performance 

listed in § 677.155 in the performance 

report. This section also requires that 

the States’ performance report include 

disaggregated levels for individuals with 

barriers to employment as defined in 

WIOA sec. 3(24), as well as age, sex, 

race, and ethnicity as required by sec. 

116(d)(2) of WIOA. 

Proposed § 677.160(a)(3)–(7) 

implements WIOA’s statutory 

requirement that States report 

information on career and training 

services including: (1) Participant and 

exiter counts by career and training 

services, (2) the performance levels 

achieved for the primary indicators 

consistent with § 677.155 for career and 

training services, (3) the percentage of 

participants who are placed into 

training-related employment, (4) the 

amount of funds spent on each type of 

career and training service, and (5) the 

average cost per participant for 

participants who received career and 

training services. 

The Departments propose that these 

requirements are applied based on the 

applicable services provided by a core 

program. For example, the Employment 

Services do not provide training 

services and as such would not be 

required to report on training related 

information—they would only report on 

the applicable career services that they 

provide. Similarly, the AEFLA program 

also only provides certain career 

services, through the one-stop delivery 

system, and as such, reporting would 

only be required with respect to 

applicable career services that the 

program provides. Requiring programs 

to report on services they do not provide 

would create an additional and 

unnecessary reporting burden. This 

interpretation is in line with sec. 504 of 

WIOA, which requires the Departments 

to simplify and reduce reporting 

burdens. (Further information on the 

career and training services is found at 

20 CFR 680.150 and 680.200.) 

Additionally, the Departments interpret 

these provisions as prospective 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20589 

provisions that do not require 

retroactive collection of information. 

Proposed § 677.160(a)(3) implements 

the requirement for core programs to 

report on the number of participants 

and exiters in a program who received 

career and training services. Other than 

the proposed limitation that this be 

reported by a program based on the 

applicable services it provides, the 

statutory language is clear in the 

requirement and propose to implement 

as stated. 

Proposed § 677.160(a)(4) requires 

States to provide information on the 

performance levels achieved for the 

primary indicators consistent with 

§ 677.155 for career and training 

services for the most recent program 

year and the 3 preceding program years, 

as applicable to the program providing 

services. The Departments interpret this 

provision to apply to the core programs 

only with respect to the applicable 

services they provide and have more 

fully discussed this rationale above. 

Proposed § 677.160(a)(5) requires 

States to include the percent of 

participants in a WIOA title I program 

who obtained unsubsidized 

employment related to the training 

received. This provision implements 

WIOA’s statutory requirement that 

States report on training-related 

employment. WIOA sec. 116(d)(2)(G) 

requires States to report on the 

participants in programs ‘‘authorized 

under this subtitle.’’ Section 116 is in 

subtitle A, which does not authorize any 

programs under WIOA. Therefore, the 

Departments interpret this provision of 

WIOA to mean that States must report 

on core programs authorized by title I. 

Proposed §§ 677.160(a)(6) and (a)(7) 

require States to report on the amount 

of funds spent on each type of career 

and training service as well as the 

average cost per participant for 

participants receiving career and 

training services for the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years. The Departments 

interpret this provision to apply to the 

core programs only with respect to the 

applicable services they provide as 

discussed above. 

Proposed § 677.160(a)(8) implements 

WIOA’s statutory requirement that 

States report on the percent of the 

State’s annual allotment under WIOA 

sec. 132(b) that the State spent on 

administrative costs. 

Proposed § 677.160(a)(9) implements 

the WIOA statutory allowance for the 

collection of information that facilitates 

comparisons of programs with programs 

in other States. The Departments are 

considering collecting a variety of 

supplemental information such as 

outcomes for Unemployment Insurance 

claimants, reportable individuals, and 

other subgroups served by the core 

programs, as well as additional 

outcomes, such as entered employment 

(the number of individuals who were 

unemployed when coming into a 

program and obtained employment 

following program exit) or employment 

retention (the number of people who 

were employed in a quarter that 

remained employed in subsequent 

quarters) and information about 

participants enrolled in education or 

training programs that do not lead to a 

recognized post-secondary credential as 

potential performance information for 

inclusion in the State annual report 

narratives. The Departments are also 

considering the addition of a 

supplemental customer service measure, 

which would assess the quality of 

services provided to American Job 

Center customers. This measure would 

not be a primary indicator of 

performance, but would be used as a 

tool for tracking the quality of the 

customer experience. The Departments 

seek comment on how to structure such 

a measure (e.g., using the net promoter 

score) and whether the inclusion of 

such a measure would be valuable. 

Proposed § 677.160(a)(10) implements 

WIOA’s requirement that if at least one 

local area within a State is 

implementing a Pay-for-Performance 

contract strategy, the States’ title I 

programs must provide a State narrative 

report that contains the performance 

reporting requirements regarding payfor-performance contracting strategies, 

including the performance of service 

providers entering into contracts for 

pay-for-performance strategies and 

evaluation of the design of the programs 

and the performance strategies. 

Additionally, this provision requires the 

evaluation of program design and 

activities that require narrative in order 

to meet the requirements of the 

provision. The Departments interpret 

this provision to only apply to title I 

programs and only to apply to those 

States in which Pay-for-Performance 

contracting strategies are being 

implemented. Pay-for-performance 

contracting provisions are only included 

in the title I programs. Requiring 

programs to report on services and 

contracting mechanisms they do not 

provide or employ would create an 

additional and unnecessary reporting 

burden. This interpretation is in line 

with sec. 504 of WIOA, which requires 

the Departments to simplify and reduce 

reporting burdens. 

Proposed § 677.160(b) requires States 

to comply with WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(C). 

This section of WIOA 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 or when the results 

would reveal personally identifiable 

information about a participant. 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 require States to comply with sec. 

116(d)(6)(C) which ensures the 

Departments receive statistically reliable 

information and protects participants’ 

privacy. The Departments will issue 

guidance on these issues. 

Proposed § 677.160(c) requires that 

the State performance report include a 

mechanism for electronic access to the 

State’s local area and eligible training 

provider (ETP) performance reports. 

This provision does not require the 

State to submit the actual local area and 

ETP performance reports with their 

State report. 

Proposed § 677.160(d) proposes that 

the Departments will require 

compliance with these requirements in 

sec. 116 of WIOA as explained through 

joint guidance. The Departments may 

request information on reportable 

individuals for the purpose of 

understanding the number of 

individuals who are accessing services, 

including self-services and informationonly services, and for other purposes, 

including costs. 

§ 677.165 May a State require 

additional indicators of performance? 

Proposed § 677.165 is updated to 

reflect WIOA citations. The provision of 

additional performance indicators 

proposed by the State remains 

unchanged. 

§ 677.170 How are State adjusted 

levels of performance for primary 

indicators established? 

Proposed § 677.170 outlines the 

process that will be followed and the 

factors that will be considered in 

determining adjusted levels of 

performance. 

Proposed § 677.170(a)(1) implements 

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

that States provide expected levels of 

performance in the Unified or 

Combined State Plan for the first 2 years 

of the plan. Proposed § 677.170(a)(2) 

requires the State to submit expected 

levels for the third and fourth year 

before the start of the third PY covered 

by the Unified or Combined State Plan. 

This requirement is needed to 

implement the statutory requirement in 

WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(iv)(II) that the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20590 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

State reach agreement with the 

Secretaries on the negotiated levels of 

performance before the start of the third 

PY. 

Proposed § 677.170(b) requires that 

the Secretaries will reach agreement 

with the States on negotiated levels of 

performance based on the factors in sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(v) of WIOA, and proposed 

§ 677.170(c) provides that the 

Secretaries will disseminate a statistical 

adjustment model that will be used to 

make the adjustments in the State 

adjusted levels of performance for actual 

economic condition and characteristics 

of participants including the factors 

required by WIOA sec. 

116(b)(3)(A)(viii). The statistical 

adjustment model must be developed 

after consultation with specified 

stakeholder groups, including 

appropriate external experts. The 

Departments request comment on 

whether any additional factors beyond 

those in the statute should be 

considered in developing the model, 

and the best approach to updating the 

model as necessary. 

Proposed § 677.170(d)(1) provides for 

the application of the model to the 

primary indicators for the core programs 

based on the availability of data to 

sufficiently populate the model. For 

example, baseline data will be required 

to populate the model. None of the core 

programs will have this data for the new 

indicators of performance, such as the 

measurable skill gains indicator, until 

after States have begun reporting data 

for the indicator. 

Proposed §§ 677.170(d)(2)–(3) provide 

our interpretation that the model will be 

applied twice in the PY. Specifically, 

the model will generate an estimate of 

expected performance to serve as a 

framework for negotiating performance 

targets for the upcoming PY; the model 

will also be applied at the end of the PY 

to adjust expectations for performance 

levels based on actual circumstances. 

This interpretation is required by WIOA 

sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(vii), which states that 

the negotiated levels will be revised 

based on the model. This approach is 

similar to that utilized under WIA’s 

predecessor, the Job Training 

Partnership Act (JTPA), which applied 

an objective statistical model in order to 

develop targets and then updated the 

model based on actual circumstances at 

the end of a PY. Under JTPA, models 

were established for each required 

indicator and sec. 116 of WIOA intends 

a similar process. 

Proposed § 677.170(e) requires 

compliance with these requirements 

from sec. 116 of WIOA as explained in 

joint guidance issued by DOL and ED 

for subsequent programmatic guidance 

to be issued for programs concerning the 

model, and its application. 

§ 677.175 What responsibility do 

States have to use quarterly wage record 

information for performance 

accountability? 

Proposed § 677.175 implements the 

requirement in sec. 116(i)(2) of WIOA, 

that States use quarterly wage records, 

consistent with State law, to measure 

State and local progress on the 

performance accountability measures. 

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 social 

security numbers against quarterly wage 

record information is the most effective 

means by which timely and accurate 

data can be made available to the 

system. 

Proposed § 677.175(a) requires States 

to use quarterly wage record 

information to measure States’ and local 

areas’ progress on the adjusted levels of 

performance for the primary indicators 

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

requires the Secretary of Labor to make 

arrangements, consistent with State law, 

to ensure that the wage records of any 

State are available to other States to 

carry out the State plan or to complete 

the 116(d) annual report. Proposed 

§ 677.175(a), therefore, expressly 

authorizes the use of participants’ social 

security numbers to measure 

participants’ progress through quarterly 

wage records. 

Section 136(f)(2) of WIA required the 

Secretary of Labor to make arrangements 

to ensure that wage records of each State 

are available to any other State. Under 

this requirement, the Secretary worked 

with the States to create the Wage 

Record Interchange System (WRIS) and 

WRIS2. WRIS and WRIS 2 are 

automated networks that allow 

participating States to query the wage 

records of other participating States for 

the purpose of assessing and reporting 

on State and local employment, 

training, and education program 

performance. WRIS 2 allows States to 

share information for the purposes of 

reporting on outcomes for employment, 

training, and education programs and 

currently has approximately 36 States 

participating. WRIS was narrower and 

only allowed for reporting on outcomes 

for employment and training programs; 

there are currently 50 States 

participating in WRIS. These data 

sharing agreements greatly increased 

accuracy in States’ performance 

reporting and helped the Departments 

evaluate the effectiveness of educational 

and training programs. Given that WIOA 

expands the common performance 

measures and common reporting 

standards across all WIOA programs, 

including employment, education and 

training programs, the Departments 

intend to engage in a renegotiation of 

WRIS data sharing agreements with 

States, which will allow States to 

conduct interstate wage matches for all 

WIOA programs. 

Proposed § 677.175(b) defines 

quarterly wage record information as the 

intra and interstate wages paid to an 

individual, the social security number 

of the individual, and the name, 

address, State, and the FEIN of the 

employer paying the wages to the 

individual. This definition clarifies that 

the Departments interpret WIOA’s 

reference to quarterly wage records in 

sec. 116(i)(2) to mean all of the wages 

an individual earned in any State. In 

today’s economy, WIOA participants 

may receive services in one State and 

have work, or have wages reported, in 

another State. Therefore, in defining 

‘‘quarterly wage records’’ as the 

interstate and intrastate wages, the 

Departments hope to encourage States to 

conduct interstate wage queries to 

accurately report on an individual’s 

wages after participating in a WIOA 

program. 

3. Subpart B—Sanctions for State 

Performance and the Provision of 

Technical Assistance 

§ 677.180 What State actions are 

subject to a financial sanction under 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act sec. 116? 

Proposed § 677.180 outlines 

performance and reporting requirements 

that are subject to sanctions under sec. 

116(f) of WIOA. 

Proposed § 677.180(a) provides that 

only the failure to submit the State 

annual performance reports required 

under sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA is 

sanctionable. Section 116(f)(1)(B) of 

WIOA requires the Departments to 

assess a sanction if ‘‘a State fails to 

submit a report under subsection (d) for 

any PY.’’ There are three reports 

required under sec. 116(d): the State 

annual performance reports, the local 

area performance reports, and the ETP 

performance reports. However, of these, 

only the State annual performance 

reports must be submitted by the State 

to the Secretary of Labor and the 

Secretary of Education. 

Proposed § 677.180(b) implements the 

requirement in sec. 116(f)(1) of WIOA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20591 

that sanctions for performance failure be 

based on the primary indicators of 

performance at § 677.155 of this part for 

the core programs: the adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth programs under 

WIOA title I, the AEFLA programs 

under title II, the program under the 

Employment Services authorized by the 

Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by title 

III, and the Vocational Rehabilitation 

program under the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, as amended by title IV. 

§ 677.185 When are sanctions applied 

for failure to report? 

Proposed § 677.185 outlines the 

circumstances under which a State may 

be sanctioned for failure to report under 

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

Under proposed § 677.185(a)(1), it 

would be a failure to report if a State 

submits its annual performance reports 

on any date later than the date for 

submission set in guidance. The 

Departments propose to deem any late 

submission a failure to report because 

the Departments are concerned that 

setting the date for reporting failure at 

some later time would effectively 

extend the deadline for submission of 

the reports. The date for submission will 

be set in guidance by the Departments. 

In addition, under § 677.185(a)(2), the 

Departments propose that it would be a 

failure to report if the State submits a 

report on a timely basis, but the report 

is incomplete, including failure to 

include a mechanism to access the local 

area performance reports and ETP 

performance reports. This proposal is 

based on the Departments’ concern that 

if only timeliness is required, States 

could not be sanctioned for submitting 

reports that do not meet statutory 

requirements for reporting elements. If a 

State fails to submit a State annual 

performance report, it will be subject to 

a 5 percent sanction of the Governor’s 

Reserve allotment as discussed in 

§ 677.195 of this part. 

Proposed § 677.185(b) outlines the 

exceptional circumstances that would 

exempt a State from sanction in the case 

of failure to report under WIOA sec. 

116(f)(1)(B). The statute provides that a 

failure to report can be excused by 

either Secretary in the case of 

exceptional circumstances but does not 

define these circumstances. This 

proposal provides a non-exclusive list of 

exceptional circumstances beyond the 

State’s control that would be likely to 

cause a significant disruption in the 

State’s ability to submit timely, 

accurate, and complete performance 

reports. Reporting challenges that are 

routine or predictable would not 

qualify, because the statute requires the 

exception to be based on circumstances 

that are exceptional. 

Under proposed § 677.185(c)(1), the 

Departments would require States to 

notify the Secretary of Education or 

Labor of exceptional circumstances as 

soon as possible but no later than 30 

days prior to the established deadline 

for the State annual reports to request an 

extension to the reporting deadline. 

This minimum 30-day period for 

notification would provide the 

Secretaries with adequate opportunity 

to review the extension request and 

assess whether the circumstances 

underlying the request fit within the 

statutory exception. 

Proposed § 677.185(c)(2) deals with 

circumstances where an exceptional 

circumstance arises less than 30 days 

before the reporting deadline. Under 

this proposal, the Secretaries will 

review the request under guidance that 

the Departments will issue to deal with 

procedures for extension requests with 

less than 30 days’ notice. 

§ 677.190 When are sanctions applied 

for failure to achieve adjusted levels of 

performance? 

Proposed § 677.190 explains how 

States will be assessed for performance 

failure and when such failures will 

result in a financial sanction. Though 

the Departments have referenced other 

non-core programs in previous sections, 

performance success or failure will be 

based solely on the six core programs 

consistent with sec. 116(b)(2) and (f)(1) 

of WIOA. 

Proposed § 677.190(a) explains, 

consistent with § 677.170, that the 

statistical adjustment model will be 

applied at the end of a PY to adjust 

expected levels of performance based on 

actual economic conditions experienced 

and the characteristics of participants. 

Proposed § 677.190(b) clarifies that a 

determination that a State has failed 

performance will be based on the 

performance levels achieved after the 

application of the statistical adjustment 

model, pursuant to WIOA sec. 116(f)(1) 

which states that sanctions must be 

assessed if a State fails to meet adjusted 

levels of performance. In addition, this 

proposed section restates statutory 

language that requires the Secretary of 

Labor or Education to provide technical 

assistance, as appropriate, to include 

assistance with the development of a 

performance improvement plan in any 

year when a State fails to meet the 

adjusted levels of performance. 

Proposed § 677.190(c) outlines the 

three criteria that will be used to assess 

a State’s performance at the end of a PY: 

An overall State program score, an 

overall State indicator score, and 

individual indicator scores. The overall 

State program score would be an 

average score based on the percent of 

the State adjusted goal achieved on each 

of the six primary indicators for a core 

program. The overall State indicator 

score would be based on an average 

score of the percent of the State adjusted 

goal achieved across core programs on 

each of the six primary indicators. The 

individual indicator scores would be 

based on the percent of the State 

adjusted goal achieved on any single 

primary indicator for each of the six 

core programs. 

Table 1 below illustrates the manner 

in which each State is proposed to be 

assessed using the overall State program 

score and the overall State indicator 

score. Under this proposal, a failing 

average program score for any core 

program, a failing average indicator 

score for any indicator across programs, 

or a failing score on any individual 

indicator for each of the core programs 

would be a performance failure under 

sec. 116(f)(1) of WIOA. The Departments 

propose this approach because it 

provides accountability for all programs 

and all measures. For example, a State 

that on average falls below its median 

earnings target threshold across all 

programs would be subject to sanctions 

even if its performance on other 

indicators is satisfactory. The 

Departments seek comment on whether 

to use a weighted average or a straight 

average for purposes of each overall 

indicator score. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20592 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

As shown in Table 1, there are a total 

of 12 scores on which a State will be 

assessed for the proposed overall State 

indicator score and overall State 

program score criteria proposed. The 

first six averages on which a State is 

assessed are the average indicator scores 

across the core programs. The second 

six averages on which a State is assessed 

are the average program scores across 

each of the six indicators. The first six 

scores will be the average of the core 

programs’ percent achieved against their 

adjusted goals on the first indicator 

(employment in the second quarter after 

exit). The second six scores are the 

average of the core programs’ percent 

achieved against their adjusted goals on 

the second indicator (employment in 

the fourth quarter after exit). For the 

Employment Services, the Departments 

propose to exclude indicators four and 

five because WIOA exempts the 

Employment Services from these 

indicators. Therefore, the Departments 

propose that the program score for the 

Employment Services be comprised of 

the total average score of the percent 

achieved by the States’ Employment 

Services against their targets for 

indicators one, two, three, and six only. 

In addition, the Departments propose to 

phase in the inclusion of the measurable 

skills gain and effectiveness in serving 

employers indicators. 

Proposed § 677.190(d) establishes two 

thresholds for performance failure. The 

first threshold at proposed 

§ 677.190(d)(1) is 90 percent for each of 

the overall State program scores and the 

overall State indicator scores. The 

Departments are considering potentially 

setting this threshold higher to 

emphasize the importance of 

performance success and would be 

interested in specific comments on the 

established levels for success/failure in 

assessing performance under WIOA for 

the core programs. The second 

threshold in proposed § 677.190(d)(2) 

establishes a minimum threshold of 50 

percent for the individual indicator 

scores. The Departments consider this 

minimum threshold of performance 

critical for the purpose of underscoring 

the need to achieve and maintain 

successful performance with respect to 

each individual performance indicator, 

regardless of average performance across 

performance indicators and across core 

programs. The Departments seek 

comment on the implications of the 

proposed methodology, including the 

three criteria and associated thresholds 

for failure established under this 

proposed regulation (i.e., the overall 

State indicator score [90 percent of 

adjusted goal], the overall State program 

score [90 percent of adjusted goal], and 

the individual indicator scores [50 

percent of adjusted goal]). 

The Departments also request 

comments generally on how to define 

‘‘fails to meet the State adjusted levels 

of performance’’ and specifically on the 

methods described above. 

The Departments seek comment on 

the specific timelines for reporting 

outcomes on the core indicators of 

performance as well as the timing for 

using the annual State report to 

determine success or failure against 

adjusted levels of performance. Under 

WIA’s performance accountability 

provisions, titles I and II use the 

performance information reported in the 

State’s annual reports. Under WIA, 

these data have a built-in time-lag. 

WIOA establishes an employment 

indicator that extends the time-lag even 

further. The fourth quarter employment 

indicator would not be available until 

six quarters after a participant has 

exited. Given the inherent lag, by 

statutory definition, in the indicators, 

the Departments seek comment on the 

specific operational timelines for 

determining which performance 

outcomes to use for assessing 

performance. Specifically, the 

Departments seek comment on which 

State report should be the first annual 

State report used to assess performance 

against the State’s adjusted levels of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP16AP15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20593 

performance. In the event of 

performance failure in the first year, the 

Departments are seeking comment on 

when the performance improvement 

plan should be developed and, in the 

event there is performance failure in the 

second consecutive year, when the 

financial sanction should be applied. To 

the extent possible, the Departments 

would like to tie ultimate imposition of 

financial sanction with the performance 

improvement plan process, such that 

States have the chance to avoid 

financial sanction if they successfully 

execute the reforms included in their 

performance improvement plan. The 

Departments welcome comment on how 

best to accomplish this goal. 

In addition to timelines for 

calculating a State’s performance against 

its adjusted levels of performance, the 

Departments seek comment on the 

timelines for implementing the full 

accountability system to include 

determining performance failure for 

sanctions. Because WIOA introduces 

new indicators on which no historical 

data exist, there is a need to establish 

baseline benchmarks from which to 

establish adjusted levels of performance 

under WIOA. For this reason, the 

Departments seek comment on the 

transition timing of the performance 

accountability system as WIOA is 

implemented. 

Proposed § 677.190(e) outlines the 

statutory process under which 

performance failure by any State for 2 

consecutive years will result in a 

performance sanction. 

§ 677.195 What should States expect 

when a sanction is applied to the 

Governor’s Reserve Allotment? 

Proposed § 677.195 explains 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 5 percent of the amount 

that could otherwise be reserved by the 

Governor. Section 116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA 

provides that ‘‘the percentage of each 

amount that would . . . be reserved by 

the Governor under section 128(a) 

[Governor’s Reserve fund] . . . shall be 

reduced by five percentage points.’’ 

This provision is ambiguous and 

could be interpreted to require a 

percentage point reduction in the 

overall State allotment that could 

otherwise be reserved by the Governor. 

For example, under a percentage pointbased interpretation, if the total State 

allotment was one million dollars, and 

the Governor could reserve 15 

percentage points of the State allotment 

for a total of $150,000 reserved, the 

reduced amount of the Governor’s 

Reserve after a sanction of five 

percentage points would be 10 percent 

of the State allotment (i.e., $100,000). 

The better reading is that the 

maximum amount that could otherwise 

be reserved would be reduced by 5 

percent. For example, under this 

scenario, if the State allotment was one 

million dollars, and without a sanction 

the Governor could reserve $150,000, 

the amount of the Governor’s Reserve 

after sanctions would be 95 percent of 

the amount that could otherwise be 

reserved (i.e., $142,500), or in other 

words, the $150,000 reserve less the 5 

percent sanction. This is a better reading 

because a reading that required a 

reduction of percentage points of the 

overall allotment, rather than the 

percentage reserved by the Governor, 

would be unnecessarily punitive and 

inconsistent with the overall intent of 

WIOA. The Departments are further 

concerned that such an extreme 

reduction would frustrate the State’s 

ability to take actions to improve 

performance or submit timely, 

complete, and accurate performance 

reports in the future. 

Proposed § 677.195(b) clarifies that if, 

in the same PY, a State fails under 

proposed § 677.195(a)(1), failure to 

report in any given PY, and fails under 

proposed § 677.190(a)(2), failure to meet 

adjusted levels of performance for 2 

consecutive program years, then 

sanctions in the amount of 5 percent 

will be applied for each of these 

failures. The maximum sanction 

therefore that could be applied to a State 

in any given PY is 10 percent of the 

maximum available amount of the 

Governor’s Reserve allotment—for 

failure to submit a performance report 

and for failure to meet adjusted levels of 

performance for 2 consecutive program 

years. The Departments are seeking 

comment on this interpretation of the 

language under WIOA sec. 116(f), as 

well as the implications of this 

proposed regulation. The Departments 

also note that the application of 

sanctions against the Governor’s Reserve 

does not preclude the Departments from 

pursuing other avenues of enforcement 

as permitted under applicable laws. 

Proposed § 677.195(c) clarifies the 

statutory requirement in sec. 116(f)(1)(B) 

of WIOA that a sanction be applied until 

such a time as the Secretaries of 

Education and Labor determine that 

performance levels have been met and 

the State annual performance reports 

have been submitted. The immediately 

following PY is the first point at which 

the Departments could reasonably 

determine that a State that has 

previously failed performance has met 

adjusted levels of performance because 

the statistical adjustment model is only 

applied at the beginning and the end of 

the year and not at the time of the 

quarterly reports. The Departments 

interpret this statutory provision to 

mean that the reduction continues for 

the entire PY with no earn-back 

potential. This interpretation is 

consistent with the imposition of a 

sanction. If a State could earn its full 

reserve allotment even if it submitted its 

State annual performance report 6 

months after the deadline, reporting 

deadlines would be undermined and 

there would be little incentive for timely 

reporting. In addition, appropriations 

law prevents us from redistributing 

funds in a later PY. Finally, the proposal 

clarifies that the State will continue to 

have a sanction at the reduced amount 

of the total allotment of the Governor’s 

Reserve in successive PYs if they 

continue to fail to meet expected levels 

of performance, or fail to report. 

All performance reports required 

under sec. 116(d) of WIOA, are critically 

important for accountability purposes; 

however, as discussed above for 

proposed § 677.180, because the State 

annual performance reports are the only 

of these reports submitted by the State 

to the Departments, they are the only 

reports that are subject to sanctions. All 

required reports must be provided on a 

timely basis irrespective of the 

applicability of sanctions. 

Proposed § 677.195(d) identifies that a 

State may request a review of any 

sanction DOL imposes in accordance 

with the provisions outlined in 20 CFR 

683.800. 

The Departments also request 

comments on the specific approach 

outlined above, as well as generally on 

(1) how to define ‘‘fails to meet the State 

adjusted levels of performance,’’ and (2) 

how to operationalize the Departments’ 

approach to applying sanctions for both 

failure to submit a performance report 

and performance failure (i.e., a 

maximum sanction of 10 percent), 

including when sanctions should be 

applied. The Departments are 

considering whether failure to submit a 

performance report would automatically 

constitute failure to meet State adjusted 

levels of performance, resulting in the 

maximum sanction of 10 percent (5 

percent for failure to submit a 

performance report and 5 percent for 

failure to meet State adjusted levels of 

performance). In order to encourage 

States to submit the performance report 

and avoid the maximum potential 

sanction, the Departments are 

considering a definition of performance 

failure that would provide a final 

deadline for the States to submit their 

performance data and avoid a sanction 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20594 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

for failure to meet the State’s adjusted 

levels of performance. 

§ 677.200 What other administrative 

actions will be applied to States’ 

performance requirements? 

Proposed § 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. 

Proposed § 677.200(a) identifies the 

circumstances under which 

administrative actions would be 

triggered outside of the sanctions 

process. While States’ performance on 

the primary indicators will be 

aggregated into an overall program score 

and overall indicator score to assess 

performance failure, the individual 

indicators will be assessed, as explained 

in guidance, in order to establish 

whether a program’s performance is at 

risk. While sanctions are based on 

performance and reporting failures, the 

Departments want to foster a workforce 

system that is focused on achieving 

success, not just avoiding failure. Early 

intervention in the event of performance 

problems is necessary for States to 

achieve successful outcomes. 

Accordingly, to assist the States in 

performing well for all one-stop 

customers, the Departments propose 

alternate administrative actions for 

performance issues that do not rise to 

the level of sanctionable failure. 

Under proposed § 677.200(b) if a 

single primary indicator for a State’s 

programs is determined to be at risk, as 

explained in guidance issued by DOL or 

ED, the State must develop and submit 

a performance risk plan to outline the 

primary reasons for low performance 

and the steps they are taking to improve 

performance and ameliorate the risk for 

that indicator or indicators. This will 

require States to take a proactive 

approach to addressing performance 

concerns before they rise to the level of 

failure. The Departments propose that 

the levels set for administrative actions 

will be explained in guidance so that 

the Departments can adjust the levels as 

needed as the Departments gain 

programmatic experience with the new 

WIOA performance measures. As these 

levels will not be the subject of financial 

sanctions but are instead within the 

Departments’ general monitoring 

responsibilities, the inclusion of the 

levels in regulation is not required. 

4. Subpart C—Local Performance 

Accountability for Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I 

Programs 

§ 677.205 What performance 

indicators apply to local areas? 

Proposed §§ 677.205(a) and (b) 

implement sec. 116(c) of WIOA and 

clarify that for the core programs under 

title I of WIOA each local workforce 

area will be subject to the same primary 

indicators as States, although Governors 

may elect to apply additional 

performance indicators to local areas. 

Proposed § 677.205(c) outlines and 

explains that local area reports are 

required to be reported on the standard 

template that the Departments will 

provide under WIOA sec. 116(d)(1); be 

made available to the public on an 

annual basis, including by electronic 

means; and must include, at a 

minimum, the local areas’ performance 

levels achieved with respect to the 

primary indicators under § 677.155 as 

well as additional information States are 

required to report under WIOA sec. 

116(d)(3). This section largely 

summarizes statutory language in WIOA 

and establishes the proposed framework 

for guidelines and instructions that the 

Departments plan to issue later to 

implement and carry out the 

performance reporting requirements of 

WIOA sec. 116. In addition, proposed 

§ 677.205(c) requires the State to 

provide electronic links to the local area 

performance report as part of its annual 

State performance report. The 

Departments propose this requirement 

because while WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(B) 

requires the State to make the local 

report publicly available, sec. 

116(d)(6)(D) requires the Secretaries to 

disseminate these reports to Congress. 

The proposal will enable the 

Departments to fulfill this statutory 

requirement. 

Proposed §§ 677.205(d) and (e) 

outline the minimum required 

information to be provided in those 

reports consistent with sec. 116(d)(3) of 

WIOA. Under proposed § 677.205(d), 

the local area reports must contain 

information on actual performance 

levels achieved (consistent with 

§ 677.175, regarding the use and 

aggregation of interstate and intrastate 

wage records) on the primary indicators 

as outlined in § 677.155. Under 

proposed § 677.205(e), States must also 

make available performance information 

for their local areas for the adult, 

dislocated worker, and youth programs 

under WIOA title I consistent with 

§ 677.160(a). States are also required to 

make available information on the 

percentage of a local area’s allotment 

under WIOA sec. 128(b) and 133(b) that 

the local areas spent on administrative 

costs as well as any other information 

that may be proposed in guidance from 

the Secretary of Labor to facilitate 

comparisons of programs, with other 

programs in local areas or planning 

regions as deemed appropriate. 

Proposed § 677.205(f) reiterates that 

States are responsible for compliance 

with any associated guidance, including 

the use of the performance reporting 

template, issued by the Secretary of 

Labor for compliance with local area 

performance reporting requirements. 

§ 677.210 How are local performance 

levels established? 

Proposed § 677.210 describes the 

process to be utilized to establish local 

performance targets prior to the start of 

a PY and, subsequently, to establish 

performance levels based on actual 

circumstances at the conclusion of a PY. 

The proposed process is similar to the 

proposed language for establishing State 

performance levels, including the 

negotiations process, which is proposed 

to be developed and disseminated by 

the Governor and conducted with the 

Local Boards and CEOs. 

Proposed § 677.210(a) implements the 

requirements of sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of 

WIOA to apply a statistical adjustment 

model in the establishment of local area 

adjusted levels of performance. It 

requires the Departments to run the 

model at the beginning of a PY and at 

the end of the PY to revise adjusted 

levels of performance based on actual 

conditions experienced and the 

characteristics of participants. 

Proposed § 677.210(b)–(c) requires 

that the Governor, Local Board, and 

CEO reach agreement on local targets 

and adjusted levels of performance 

based on a negotiations process prior to 

the start of a PY. The Governor is to 

establish a negotiations process and 

disseminate it to all of the Local Boards 

and CEOs. 

Proposed § 677.210(d) states that 

Local Boards have the authority to 

establish performance targets for service 

providers in a local area. Setting 

performance targets will help local areas 

in evaluating the performance of service 

providers, managing programs at the 

local level, and determining whether to 

maintain or change providers. This also 

allows locals some flexibility in the way 

they structure their service delivery 

design while taking into account the 

performance requirements for a local 

area. The Departments suggest that the 

local area should consider its negotiated 

local performance levels, the services to 

be provided by each provider, and 

populations the service provider is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20595 

intended to serve in developing these 

targets. Targets may vary by provider 

and may be different from the local 

area’s performance measures. 

5. 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? 

Proposed § 677.215 outlines the 

circumstances in which a local area is 

eligible for an incentive grant. 

Proposed § 677.215(a) implements 

sec. 116(h) of WIOA and explains that 

the Governor is not required, but is 

allowed to use non-Federal funds to 

create incentives for Local Boards to 

implement pay-for-performance contract 

strategies for the delivery of training 

services described in sec. 134(c)(3) and 

sec. 129(c)(2) of WIOA in the local areas 

served by the Local Boards. 

Proposed § 677.215(b) maintains that 

pay-for-performance contract strategies 

must be implemented in accordance 

with 20 CFR 683.500 through 683.530 

and § 677.160. 

§ 677.220 Under what circumstances 

may a corrective action or sanction be 

applied to local areas for poor 

performance? 

Proposed § 677.220(a) explains the 

circumstances under which local areas 

must receive technical assistance under 

WIOA sec. 116(g) for failure to meet 

levels of performance. In accordance 

with WIOA, the proposed rule would 

require that local areas must receive 

technical assistance and may be subject 

to a performance improvement plan for 

failure to achieve adjusted levels of 

performance established with the State 

for primary performance indicators in 

the adult, dislocated worker, or youth 

programs authorized under title I of 

WIOA in any PY. The Governor, or his/ 

her designee, or upon request of the 

Governor, the Secretary of Labor, must 

provide technical assistance, which may 

include assistance in the development 

of a performance improvement plan or 

a modified local or regional plan, to the 

local area in the first year of failure to 

meet levels on the required performance 

indicators. In requesting assistance from 

the Secretary of Labor, the Governor’s 

request should include the factors that 

impede the provision of successful 

technical assistance at the State level, 

because the State is generally in the best 

position to address failure to meet the 

performance levels it negotiated with 

the local area. The Departments further 

clarify that a State must establish the 

threshold for failure for a local area to 

meet levels of performance prior to 

negotiating local area adjusted levels of 

performance. A local area cannot 

accurately negotiate adjusted levels of 

performance without having an 

understanding of what the State will 

consider failure. 

Proposed paragraph (b), in accordance 

with WIOA, outlines the required 

corrective actions for local areas that 

continue to fail to meet performance 

indicators for 3 consecutive years. A 

local area that failed to meet adjusted 

levels of performance on required 

performance indicators for a third 

consecutive year is subject to 

reorganization, which would include 

the certification of a new Board, the 

exclusion of underperforming service 

providers or partners, and other actions 

the Governor deems appropriate. The 

Departments request comments 

regarding what other actions should be 

considered in this circumstance. 

§ 677.225 Under what circumstances 

may local areas appeal a reorganization 

plan? 

Proposed § 677.225 implements sec. 

116(g)(2)(B) of WIOA and outlines when 

a local area and CEO may appeal a 

reorganization plan executed by the 

Governor. 

Proposed § 677.225(a) explains that 

the Local Board and CEO for a local area 

subject to a reorganization plan under 

WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(A) may appeal to 

the Governor to rescind or revise a 

reorganization plan no later than 30 

days after receiving notice of the 

reorganization plan. The Governor must 

make a final decision 30 days after 

receipt of an appeal. 

Proposed § 677.225(b) implements the 

statutory requirement that if the Local 

Board and CEO wish to appeal the final 

decision of the Governor, they must 

make an appeal to the Secretary of Labor 

no later than 30 days after receiving the 

final decision from the Governor. The 

Departments propose to require that any 

appeal to the Governor under proposed 

§ 677.225(a) or the Secretary of Labor 

under proposed § 677.225(b) must be 

submitted jointly by the Local Board 

and the CEO. The Departments propose 

this interpretation because the statute 

uses the conjunctive ‘‘and’’ in stating 

that the Local Board and the CEO may 

appeal. In addition, this interpretation 

has the benefit of requiring review only 

in circumstances where the Local Board 

and CEO are in agreement that the 

reorganization plan should be appealed 

and will conserve government resources 

in cases where either the Local Board or 

CEO agrees with the Governor’s 

decision. This approach also avoids 

duplication and inefficiency that would 

be engendered by providing an 

opportunity for the Local Board and the 

CEO to appeal separately. 

Proposed §§ 677.225(c)–(d) 

implement statutory requirements that 

the Secretary must make a final decision 

regarding an appeal within 30 days of 

receipt of the appeal and that a 

reorganization decision made by the 

Governor is effective at the time it is 

issued and remains in effect unless and 

until such time that the Secretary of 

Labor rescinds or revises the 

reorganization plan on appeal. 

6. 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? 

Proposed § 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 programs of study eligible to receive 

funding under the adult and dislocated 

worker formula programs under title I– 

B 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. 

The Departments are seeking 

comment on how the Departments may 

best support ETPs in meeting the 

requirements of this section as well as 

how to make the ETP reports a useful 

tool for WIOA participants, ETPs, 

interested stakeholders, and the general 

public. 

This proposed regulation, in 

conjunction with proposed § 680.400 

through 680.530, establishes the 

minimum requirements for performance 

information to be provided in the ETP 

performance reports. 

Proposed § 677.230(a) requires that 

States make publicly available and 

publish in the standard template 

disseminated by the Departments under 

ETP performance reports under WIOA 

sec. 116(d)(4), including by electronic 

means, the ETP reports for those ETPs 

who provide services under sec. 122 of 

WIOA, which is further discussed in 20 

CFR 680.500. 

Consistent with proposed § 680.470, 

and as provided below in proposed 

paragraph (b) of the section, States are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20596 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

only required to provide performance 

information on registered 

apprenticeship programs if these 

programs voluntarily submit 

performance information. DOL is 

considering ways to support interested 

registered apprenticeship programs in 

the collection and dissemination of 

performance data. The Department 

seeks comment on ways to support 

registered apprenticeship programs that 

are interested in providing performance 

information, and what that information 

might look like. 

Proposed § 677.230(a)(1) outlines the 

minimum participant performance 

information that is required to be made 

available under the statutory provisions 

in sec. 116(d)(4) of WIOA. ETP 

performance reports must include 

performance information on the total 

number of participants who receive 

training services under the adult and 

dislocated worker programs of WIOA 

title I for the most recent PY of 

performance as well as the three 

preceding PYs. The ETP reports must 

provide disaggregated counts of 

participants in the adult and dislocated 

worker programs with respect to barriers 

to employment, age, sex, and race and 

ethnicity. 

Additionally, the ETP performance 

reports must include counts of 

participants disaggregated by type of 

training entity for the adult and 

dislocated worker programs for the most 

recent PY and three preceding PYs. The 

Departments interpret this requirement 

to be applicable only in prospective 

years; this would not apply retroactively 

and would not require ETPs to provide 

information for these reports in years 

prior to being established as an ETP in 

the performance reports. Any data 

provided for initial eligibility 

determinations should be done 

consistent with established parameters 

under 20 CFR part 680, subpart E. 

Proposed § 677.230(a)(2) outlines the 

minimum exit-based performance 

information that is required to be made 

available under the statutory provisions 

in sec. 116(d)(4) of WIOA. At a 

minimum, the ETP performance reports 

must contain the number of participants 

who exit from a program of study, and 

the total number of participants who 

exited, disaggregated by type of training 

entity for a PY and the three preceding 

PYs. 

Proposed § 677.230(a)(3) identifies 

additional requirements that the ETP 

performance reports contain 

performance information on the average 

cost-per-participant for participants who 

received training services and 

disaggregated by type of training entity 

for the PY and three preceding PYs. The 

Departments interpret this requirement 

to be applicable only in prospective 

years; this would not apply 

retroactively, and does not require ETPs 

to provide information for these reports 

in years prior to being established as an 

ETP. The Departments seek comment on 

the best way to calculate cost-perparticipant. Any data provided for 

initial eligibility determinations should 

be done consistent with established 

parameters under 20 CFR part 680, 

subpart E. 

Proposed § 677.230(a)(4) provides that 

the ETP performance reports contain 

information on the total number of 

individuals exiting from a program of 

study (or its equivalent). This includes 

all students in a program of study and 

is not limited to those students who are 

WIOA participants. Including all 

students provides significantly better 

information on the effectiveness of a 

program of study. 

Proposed § 677.230(a)(5) reiterates the 

statutory requirements for outcome 

information on all students in a program 

of study with regard to the primary 

indicators of performance (as identified 

in clauses (I)–(IV), sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i) of 

WIOA, and §§ 677.155(a)(1)(i)–(iv)). 

Proposed § 677.230(b) is consistent 

with 20 CFR 680.470 and provides that 

registered apprenticeship programs 

need not submit performance 

information. Under this proposal, if a 

registered apprenticeship program 

voluntarily submits this information, it 

must be part of the report as with any 

other training provider. 

Proposed § 677.230(c) requires the 

State to provide electronic access to the 

eligible training provide performance 

report as part of its annual State 

performance report. The Departments 

propose this requirement because while 

WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(B) requires the 

State to make the ETP performance 

report available, sec. 116(d)(6)(D) 

requires the Secretaries to summarize 

and disseminate these reports to 

Congress. The proposal will enable the 

Departments to fulfill this statutory 

requirement. 

Proposed § 677.230(d) requires States 

to follow reporting guidance to be 

issued that will explain and clarify 

procedures governing this section. 

Proposed § 677.230(e) establishes that 

a Governor may designate one or more 

State agencies or appropriate State 

entities, such as a State education 

agency or State educational authority, to 

assist in overseeing the ETP 

performance and facilitating the 

production and dissemination of ETP 

performance reports. These agencies 

may be the same agencies that are 

designated responsible for 

administering the ETP list as provided 

for in § 680.210. The designated State 

agency or entity is responsible for data 

matching required to produce the ETP 

reports using quarterly wage data, 

creating and disseminating the reports, 

and coordinating the dissemination of 

the performance reports with the ETP 

list as provided in § 680.210. 

Proposed § 677.230(e)(1) establishes 

that the designated agency would be 

responsible for the facilitating the data 

matches necessary to develop and 

compile the ETP performance reports. 

This proposed regulation seeks to 

provide a foundation for data matching 

for the purposes of these reports to 

allow States more opportunities to 

establish the necessary connections and 

procedures that are in compliance with 

the existing regulations governing 

education data governed by the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

(FERPA) and the UI wage data governed 

by State law and UI Confidentiality 

Regulations found in 20 CFR part 603. 

Proposed § 677.230(e)(2) establishes 

that the designated State agency or State 

entity responsible for these reports 

would carry the responsibility for the 

creation and dissemination 

requirements found in this subsection. 

The Departments recognize that the ETP 

performance reports are a departure 

from the previous reporting mechanisms 

related to ETPs as they existed under 

WIA. The Departments are seeking 

comment on specific aspects of this new 

performance reporting requirement as it 

relates to reporting burden for training 

providers under this requirement. The 

Departments are interested in comments 

on ways the Departments may reduce 

this burden for training providers as 

well as how the Departments may 

leverage this performance reporting 

requirement to be of more use to the 

ETPs. The Departments would like 

specific comments on what would 

facilitate the reporting process to make 

it easier for ETPs to report on multiple 

programs of study, including programs 

that they would like to be on the list but 

do not have currently any WIOA funded 

participants enrolled. 

Proposed § 677.230(e)(3) establishes 

the designated State agency or State 

entity as responsible for coordinating 

the dissemination of the ETP 

performance reports with the 

dissemination of the ETP list. WIOA 

sec. 122 establishes the ETP list as a key 

resource in the State one-stop system 

and requires it to be available to 

individuals seeking information on 

training programs as well as participants 

receiving career services funded under 

WIOA and other programs. DOL 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20597 

considers the ETP reports to also be a 

key component of consumer choice. 

The Departments propose that the 

ETP performance report be 

disseminated in coordination with the 

dissemination of the ETP list and the 

information that is required to 

accompany that list under § 680.500. 

This coordination requirement is 

consistent with the statutory emphasis 

on consumer choice and performance 

accountability. 

7. Subpart F—Performance Reporting 

Administrative Requirements 

§ 677.235 What are the reporting 

requirements for individual records for 

core Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title I, III, and IV 

programs? 

Proposed § 677.235 outlines the 

requirements for core WIOA title I, III 

and IV programs for the collection and 

submission of individual records. 

Proposed § 677.235(a) requires that 

States submit individual records 

containing demographic information, 

information on services received, and 

information on resulting outcomes for 

individuals served by specific programs 

to be submitted by programs to their 

appropriate Secretary on a quarterly 

basis. At the time of WIOA’s enactment, 

DOL already required the submission of 

standardized individual records for the 

adult, dislocated worker and youth 

programs, and programs authorized 

under the Wagner-Peyser Act. Similarly, 

ED required the submission of 

individual-level data from case service 

records for the Vocational Rehabilitation 

program. 

DOL began requiring States to submit 

quarterly individual records, in part, to 

ensure the information submitted in 

States’ annual reports as required by 

WIA were accurate. These quarterly 

reports also helped DOL identify States 

that needed early intervention to 

provide assistance if they are not 

meeting their performance goals. The 

DOL interpreted several provisions of 

WIA as authorizing the collection of 

these reports. Specifically, WIA sec. 136 

required DOL to measure States’ 

progress, WIA sec. 172 required DOL to 

evaluate the activities of its programs, 

and WIA sec. 189 required DOL to 

submit an annual report to Congress on 

WIA title I programs. Additionally, WIA 

sec. 185 required States to maintain 

records sufficient to prepare 

performance reports. Considered as a 

whole, these statutory provisions 

authorized DOL to require States submit 

these reports. 

ED has collected individual-level data 

regarding all individuals served by the 

Vocational Rehabilitation program, 

whose case service records were closed, 

in order to satisfy data collection 

requirements and to ensure States’ 

compliance with programmatic 

requirements under WIA and the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ED has 

historically collected this data, via the 

Case Service Report (RSA–911), for 

open cases as well as closed cases, 

annually, but proposes to start 

collecting this data on a quarterly basis 

to satisfy requirements imposed by 

WIOA. 

Section 13 of the Rehabilitation Act 

requires ED to collect and report 

information required by WIOA sec. 

101(a)(10) to Congress and to the 

President in the Annual Report. Section 

14 of the Rehabilitation Act requires ED 

to conduct evaluations of the VR 

program. The information from this data 

collection is used in these evaluations. 

Section 106 of the Rehabilitation Act 

requires each State to report to ED the 

extent to which each State is in 

compliance with standards and 

indicators. Section 107 of the Act 

requires an annual review and periodic 

onsite monitoring of States’ 

performance, much of which is 

determined on the basis of this data 

collection activity. RSA–911 data are 

also needed to satisfy the requirements 

of sec. 131 of the Rehabilitation Act, 

which requires an exchange of data 

between RSA, the Social Security 

Administration (SSA), and DOL. 

Sections 116, 169, and 185 of WIOA 

retain similar requirements to the WIA 

provisions the Departments relied on to 

require these reports. Additionally, 

WIOA’s increased focus on performance 

accountability and requirement that the 

Departments sanction failing States, give 

the Departments authority to require 

these reports. 

Proposed § 677.235(b) requires the 

individual records be submitted in one 

record that is integrated across all core 

DOL programs. The proposal would 

require that the individual records 

submitted by States be standardized in 

terms of data elements and associated 

reporting specifications. Currently 

quarterly individual records are 

program-specific and not part of an 

integrated performance reporting 

system. For DOL programs, States are 

required to provide two separate 

individual records for an individual 

receiving services under WIA and 

Wagner-Peyser. This duplication 

increases the reporting burden on States 

and treats these programs separately 

rather than as parts of a holistic, 

integrated system designed to efficiently 

provide necessary employment and 

training services to an individual. 

Furthermore, sec. 504 of WIOA 

requires DOL and ED to reduce 

reporting burden and simplify reporting 

requirements. A single integrated 

individual record best meets these 

needs. Requiring a single, integrated 

record will eliminate duplicative 

reporting of an individual’s 

demographic information across 

programs. 

At the time of enactment, the 

Workforce Investment Streamlined 

Performance Reporting (WISPR) system 

is the most integrated individual record 

layout utilized in workforce 

development programs administered by 

DOL. The WISPR includes 

programmatic and performance 

reporting across programs authorized 

under WIA (adult, dislocated worker, 

and youth), Wagner-Peyser, the Trade 

Act, and the Jobs for Veterans State 

Grant programs administered by DOL’s 

Veterans’ Employment and Training 

Service (VETS). This new regulation 

proposes an integrated, individual 

record that is similar to the WISPR 

approach for core programs 

administered by DOL, which supports 

system alignment, as well as reduced 

reporting burden as required under sec. 

504 of WIOA. The Departments are 

working towards establishing reporting 

templates for the required performance 

reports and individual record formats 

that States will be required to use in 

order to meet these reporting 

requirements. 

Proposed § 677.235(c) explains that 

associated reporting instructions are 

proposed to be provided through policy 

guidance. 

§ 677.240 What are the requirements 

for data validation of State annual 

performance reports? 

Proposed § 677.240 implements sec. 

116(d)(5) of WIOA, which requires 

States to establish procedures, 

consistent with DOL and ED guidelines 

to provide that the information in the 

States’ annual performance reports are 

valid and reliable. Therefore, the 

Departments propose to add § 677.240, 

which requires States to submit valid 

and reliable annual State performance 

reports and associated individual record 

information consistent with 

requirements that the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education will explain 

through guidance. To ensure States are 

meeting this statutory requirement, the 

Departments propose that if a State fails 

to achieve the accuracy standards, the 

Secretary of Labor or Education may 

require the State to develop and 

implement corrective actions, which 

may require the State to provide training 

for its subrecipients. These proposed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20598 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

requirements are separate from the 

corrective actions provided under 

§ 677.185 and § 677.220. The 

Departments are committed to providing 

that States have the information needed 

to effectively validate data and propose 

that the Departments will provide 

training and technical assistance about 

these requirements. 

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 proposed one-stop provision 

below, the heading references the 

proposed DOL CFR part and section 

number. However, the Department of 

Education proposes in this joint NPRM 

identical provisions at 34 CFR part 361, 

subpart F (under its State Vocational 

Rehabilitation Services 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 proposed provision. 

2. Subpart A—General Description of 

the One-Stop Delivery System 

The WIOA reaffirms the role of the 

one-stop 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 the 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 

proposed regulations would establish 

requirements of the one-stop career 

center system as defined under WIOA, 

requiring partners to collaborate to 

support a seamless customer-focused 

service delivery network. The proposed 

regulations would require that programs 

and providers collocate, coordinate, and 

integrate activities and information, so 

that the system as a whole is cohesive 

and accessible for individuals and 

businesses alike. The ultimate goal is to 

increase the long-term employment 

outcomes for individuals seeking 

services, especially those with 

significant barriers to employment, and 

to improve services to employers. 

Proposed subpart A describes the onestop center system established under 

WIOA. It establishes the different types 

of one-stop career centers allowable in 

each local area, and 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 Boards must ensure 

that information on the availability of 

career services is available at all onestop physical locations and access 

points, including electronic access 

points, regardless of where individuals 

initially enter the local one-stop system. 

§ 678.300 What is the one-stop 

delivery system? 

Proposed § 678.300(a) describes the 

requirements of the one-stop delivery 

system and the purpose. The one-stop 

delivery system brings together a series 

of partner programs and entities 

responsible for workforce development, 

educational, and other human resource 

programs to collaborate in the creation 

of a seamless customer-focused service 

delivery network that enhances access 

to the programs’ services. Partners, 

programs, and providers will collocate, 

coordinate, and integrate activities so 

that individuals seeking assistance will 

have access to information and services 

that lead to positive employment 

outcomes for individuals seeking 

services. 

Proposed § 678.300(b) provides that 

there are responsibilities at the local, 

State and Federal levels relative to the 

establishment and maintenance of the 

one-stop delivery system. 

Proposed § 678.300(c) retains the 

same requirement found under WIA at 

20 CFR 662.100(c) that there be at least 

one physical one-stop career center in 

each local area. 

Proposed § 678.300(d) allows for the 

establishment of additional affiliate 

locations including specialized centers 

serving targeted participant populations, 

such as youth or dislocated workers, or 

industry sector specific centers. 

Proposed § 678.300(e) states that 

required one-stop partners must provide 

electronic access to programs, activities, 

and services by electronic means, in 

addition to providing access to the 

services at a comprehensive one-stop 

center or making the program services 

available at an affiliated site if the 

partner is participating at the affiliated 

site. Services provided through 

electronic means would need to 

supplement and not supplant those 

provided through the physical one-stop 

delivery system. The phrase ‘‘electronic 

means’’ includes Web sites, social 

media, internet chat features, and 

telephone. 

Proposed § 678.300(f) requires that the 

description of the one-stop delivery 

system be included in the Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) required at 

proposed 20 CFR 678.500. 

§ 678.305 What is a comprehensive 

one-stop center and what must be 

provided there? 

Proposed § 678.305 requires that there 

be a comprehensive one-stop career 

center in each local area. Although the 

requirement to have at least one 

physical center in each local area is 

unchanged from the requirement under 

WIA, and the requirement is more fully 

described under these proposed 

regulations. 

Proposed § 678.305(a) establishes that 

the comprehensive one-stop center is a 

physical location where individuals 

must have access to a specific set of 

services that must be made available to 

individuals seeking services. The 

required services are listed in proposed 

§ 678.305(b) and the proposed rule 

defines ‘‘access’’ in § 678.305(d). 

Customers can access a specific program 

without that program’s staff being 

physically present at a one-stop center. 

However, in order to ensure that 

comprehensive one-stop centers are not 

all virtual services, the Departments 

propose that WIOA title I staff be 

physically present in the one-stop. 

There may be creative ways to provide 

all virtual services to customers, but 

such an all-virtual site would not be 

considered a comprehensive one-stop 

center. This proposed physical presence 

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 regular 

business hours (e.g., job-sharing or shift 

work). 

Proposed § 678.305(c) provides that 

individuals must have access to the 

required services under § 678.305(b) on 

regular business days, at a minimum, at 

the comprehensive center. This is a 

more specific requirement than exists 

under WIA. If, for example, the 

comprehensive one-stop center is open 

Monday through Friday, customers 

must have access to the services listed 

at § 678.305(b) Monday through Friday. 

The Departments strongly encourage 

Local Boards to find creative ways to 

expand the hours that services are 

available to customers, to ensure that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20599 

services are universally accessible to 

people with various working hours, 

different access to transportation, and 

different family care arrangements. For 

example, Local Boards should consider 

ways to make services available to job 

seekers who might have childcare 

responsibilities or work during the 

normal business day. State Boards must 

consider service hours when evaluating 

effectiveness of one-stop centers, as part 

of the one-stop certification process 

described further in § 678.800(b). 

Proposed § 678.305(d) defines the 

access to services that must be available 

to individuals seeking assistance at the 

comprehensive one-stop. This access 

can be provided in one of three 

variations of physically present staff or 

through technology: (1) Program staff 

physically present at the location; (2) 

staff physically present at the one-stop 

from any partner program appropriately 

trained to provide information to 

customers about the programs, services, 

and activities available through partner 

programs, such as the types of services 

that program provides and whether the 

services might meet the individual’s 

needs; or (3) providing direct linkage 

through technology to someone who can 

either provide the program services, or 

provide information such as how to 

apply for the program, or how to begin 

receiving services. Under the proposed 

rule, if there is access to technological 

direct linkages (as defined in 

§ 678.305(d)(1)) at a comprehensive onestop center for a specific program, no 

partner program staff must be physically 

present. 

Proposed §§ 678.305(d)(1) and (2) 

provide that services provided through 

technology must be meaningful, 

available in a timely manner and not 

simply a referral to additional services 

at a later date or time. 

Proposed § 678.305(e) requires that all 

comprehensive one-stop career centers 

be physically and programmatically 

accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. 

§ 678.310 What is an affiliated site and 

what must be provided there? 

In addition to the proposed 

requirement for a physical center in 

each local area where required one-stop 

partners must provide access to their 

programs, services and activities, 

proposed § 678.310 provides that the 

one-stop delivery system may also 

provide 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. 

Proposed § 678.310(a) defines an 

affiliated site as a location that makes 

available one or more of the required or 

optional programs, services, and 

activities to individuals. The proposed 

rule is not intended to establish a new 

physical presence requirement for onestop partner programs in affiliated sites. 

Physical presence at affiliated sites can 

be negotiated at the local level by 

partner programs and the Local Board, 

and may be under 50 percent for any 

individual partner program, except in 

those cases described in proposed 

§ 678.315(b). 

Proposed § 678.310(b) sets forth the 

prohibition against standalone WagnerPeyser employment service centers, 

described more fully in proposed 

§ 678.315. Section 121(e)(3) of WIOA, 

which requires colocation of WagnerPeyser employment services, is effective 

on July 1, 2015. However, proposed 

§ 678.310(c) recognizes that States will 

need a reasonable amount of time to 

fully integrate the delivery of 

employment services into the one-stop 

system. Real property issues, decisions 

on site locations, discussions with 

municipal or county governments, and 

development of agreements with 

partners to participate at both 

comprehensive and affiliated sites may 

require some time. Nevertheless, a State 

in such circumstances must be prepared 

to provide DOL with a plan that details 

the steps the State will take to achieve 

colocation of Wagner-Peyser 

employment services as described in 

proposed § 678.315, and a timetable 

showing how the State will achieve 

colocation of Wagner-Peyser services 

within a reasonable time. The 

Departments are aware that States may 

also be considering how best to integrate 

other partner programs and may be 

considering the colocation of other 

programs as well. In its plan for 

achieving Wagner-Peyser employment 

services colocation, the State may wish 

to include how it will collocate other 

programs too, but this is not required. 

DOL may request the plan for achieving 

Wagner-Peyser employment services 

colocation during monitoring and other 

oversight activities. DOL’s ETA will 

provide guidance on the approach it 

will use to obtain the plan and timeline 

from States. 

Proposed § 678.310(d) requires that all 

affiliate one-stop centers be physically 

and programmatically accessible to 

individuals with disabilities, as 

described in proposed § 678.800. 

§ 678.315 Can a stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment service office be 

designated as an affiliated one-stop site? 

Proposed § 678.315 sets forth the 

prohibition against standalone WagnerPeyser employment services offices, to 

implement WIOA’s amendment to the 

Wagner-Peyser Act that requires 

Wagner-Peyser employment services to 

be collocated with one-stop centers. 

Wagner-Peyser employment services 

cannot, by themselves, constitute an 

affiliated one-stop center. In those cases 

where Wagner-Peyser employment 

services are located in an affiliated site, 

there must be at least one other partner 

in that affiliated site whose staff is 

physically present more than 50 percent 

of the time the center is open. Certain 

partner programs cannot be considered 

the ‘‘other partner’’ when determining 

whether Wagner-Peyser employment 

services are stand-alone; these are: local 

veterans’ employment representatives, 

disabled veterans’ outreach program 

specialists, or unemployment 

compensation (UC) staff. Local veterans’ 

employment representatives, disabled 

veterans’ outreach program specialists, 

also referred to collectively as JVSG 

programs, are typically provided 

alongside Wagner-Peyser employment 

services programs. When a veteran does 

not receive services through the 

disabled veterans’ outreach program, 

that veteran is served by the WagnerPeyser employment service. To provide 

individuals with the full range of 

employment, training, and education 

services available, it is important to 

connect both the JVSG programs and the 

Wagner-Peyser employment service 

with the rest of the one-stop system. The 

Departments expect that the entity that 

administers the Wagner-Peyser 

employment service, in consultation 

with Local Boards and one-stop 

partners, will need to make the changes 

needed to comply with the proposed 

rule. The proposed rule is not intended 

to establish a new physical presence 

requirement for individual one-stop 

partner programs in affiliated sites. The 

proposed rule is meant to trigger 

adjustments on where Wagner-Peyser 

employment services are delivered. The 

Departments are aware that some onestop partner programs are unable to 

have a physical presence in every 

affiliated site. Partner programs and the 

Local Board can negotiate physical 

presence at affiliated sites, and this 

presence may be below 50 percent for 

any one partner program. The 

Departments seek feedback, particularly 

from workforce programs outside WIOA 

title I and III, on whether the proposed 

requirement that other partners be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20600 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

present more than 50 percent of the time 

creates an impediment to participating 

in the one-stop system, and whether any 

other changes would facilitate 

colocation. 

§ 678.320 Are there any requirements 

for networks of eligible one-stop 

partners or specialized centers? 

Proposed § 678.320 explains the 

requirements for the networks of onestop partners and specialized centers 

named in the statute. These entities 

were not listed in WIA but were 

included as part of the one-stop system 

in the WIA regulations. An example of 

a specialized center is one targeted for 

youth, one geared at a specific industry 

sector, or one established specifically to 

respond to a large localized layoff. 

These specialized centers do not need to 

provide access to every required 

partner, but must have a way to make 

referrals to one-stop partners in 

comprehensive and affiliate centers. The 

specialized centers should also followup to make sure that services were 

provided after referral. A Local Board 

can design the specialized center to 

meet local needs. A specialized center 

must not be a standalone Wagner-Peyser 

employment service office. The 

requirements of proposed § 678.315(b) 

apply to specialized centers just as they 

apply to affiliated sites. 

3. Subpart B—One-Stop Partners and 

the Responsibilities of Partners 

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 basic 

educational or occupational skills, earn 

a post-secondary certificate or degree, 

get guidance on how to chart careers, or 

are employers seeking skilled workers. 

A true 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 

proposed rule, the Departments describe 

requirements relating to such one-stop 

partnerships. Specifically, this subpart 

identifies the programs that are required 

partners, the other entities that may 

serve as partners, the roles and 

responsibilities of required partners, 

and the types of services provided. 

§ 678.400 Who are the required onestop partners? 

Proposed §§ 678.400(a)–(b) lists the 

required partners under WIOA. Beyond 

the partners previously required under 

WIA, WIOA adds the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

program and the Ex-Offender program 

administered by DOL under sec. 212 of 

the Second Chance Act of 2007 to the 

list of required partners. 

§ 678.405 Is Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families a required one-stop 

partner? 

Proposed § 678.405(a) clarifies that 

TANF is a required partner. Proposed 

§ 678.405(b) provides further 

clarification that the Governor may 

determine that TANF will not be a 

required partner in a local area(s) but 

must notify the Secretaries of Labor and 

Health and Human Services in writing 

of this determination. This implements 

sec. 121(b)(1)(C) of WIOA. Proposed 

§ 678.405(c) clarifies that TANF may 

always partner or collaborate with the 

one-stop, even if the Governor has 

determined it is not a required partner 

in that State or local area. 

§ 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. Proposed 

§ 678.410(a) reinforces the 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 Board and CEOs approve. 

Proposed § 678.410(b) provides a list of 

possible additional partners. In addition 

to the optional partners listed, Local 

Boards may partner with a wide range 

of organizations, including but not 

limited to CBOs, non-profit community 

action agencies, disability service 

providers, nonprofit workforce 

providers, and nonprofit English-as-asecond-language (ESL) providers. 

In contrast to the former WIA 

requirement, the proposed rule does not 

contain an allowance for the State to 

require that optional partners be 

included as a partner in all of the local 

one-stop delivery systems in the State. 

This omission reflects the WIOA 

requirement that the Local Board 

determine partners in the one-stop and 

that the State cannot mandate partners 

other than those specifically required in 

WIOA. This change places greater 

discretion at the local level in 

identifying the appropriate mix of 

services provided and the Departments 

expect that such decisions will be based 

on local or regional labor market 

information and population 

demographics. 

§ 678.415 What entity serves as the 

one-stop partner for a particular 

program in the local area? 

The proposed regulation at § 678.415 

provides a general definition of the 

‘‘entity’’ that carries out the programs 

identified in §§ 678.400 and 678.410 

and serves as the one-stop partner. The 

regulation defines the entity as the grant 

recipient or other entity or organization 

responsible for administering the 

program’s funds in the local area. The 

term ‘‘entity’’ does not include service 

providers that contract with or are sub 

recipients of the local entity. The 

proposed regulation notes that for 

programs that do not have local 

administrative entities, the responsible 

State agency may be the one-stop 

partner. In addition, the proposed 

regulation specifies the appropriate 

entity to serve as partner for the Adult 

Education and Vocational Rehabilitation 

(AEFLA) program, WIOA national 

programs, and the Carl D. Perkins Career 

and Technical Education (Perkins) 

program is the State eligible agency. 

Further, a State eligible agency for the 

AEFLA or Perkins programs may 

delegate its responsibilities to act as a 

local one-stop partner to one or more 

State agencies (for the Perkins program 

only), local entities, or consortia of local 

entities, as specified in the proposed 

regulation. In making such a delegation, 

a State eligible agency would have to 

meet all Federal and State requirements 

applicable to such delegations. 

§ 678.420 What are the roles and 

responsibilities of the required one-stop 

partners? 

Proposed § 678.420 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). 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 center system must be 

proportionate to the benefits received 

and adhere to the partner program’s 

Federal authorizing statute, and to 

Federal cost principles requiring that 

costs are reasonable, necessary and 

allocable. The proposed requirement in 

§ 678.420(e), to provide representation 

on State and Local Workforce 

Development Boards, is new in WIOA 

and only required of core programs; 

WIA only required one-stop partner 

representation on Local Boards, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20601 

required it for all one-stop partner 

programs. 

§ 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? 

WIOA requires one-stop partners to 

deliver career services applicable to 

their specific program. This proposed 

regulation clarifies that an applicable 

career service is a service identified in 

§ 678.430 and is an authorized program 

activity. The TANF statute does not 

include a definition for career services. 

Accordingly, the TANF State grantees 

need to identify any employment 

services and related supports being 

provided by the TANF program (within 

the particular local area) that are 

comparable with the career services as 

described in proposed § 678.430. At a 

minimum, the TANF program partner 

must provide intake services at the onestop for TANF assistance and nonassistance benefits via application 

processing and initial eligibility 

determinations. These latter services 

comport with proposed § 678.420. The 

Departments seek specific comments 

about our proposal regarding the 

identification and inclusion of TANF 

employment, related support services 

and TANF intake functions as ‘‘career 

services,’’ that are required to be 

provided locally in one-stop centers. 

Other program specific information 

about the applicability of various career 

services is provided where needed in 

subsequent sections of this proposed 

rule. Proposed § 678.425 repeats the 

WIOA prohibition on one-stop partners 

requiring a particular sequence of 

services. Seamless service delivery, 

which is one of the underlying 

principles of the one-stop system, 

requires that appropriate services be 

made available to individuals based on 

their needs, and that multiple services 

can be provided simultaneously. 

Career services are identified in sec. 

134(c)(2) of WIOA. In addition to 

replacing core and intensive services as 

they were described in WIA, a number 

of new activities are included in the 

definition of ‘‘career services.’’ This 

section organizes WIOA careers services 

into three categories: (1) Career services 

that must be made available to all 

participants; (2) career services that 

must be made available if deemed 

appropriate and needed for an 

individual to obtain or retain 

employment; and (3) follow-up 

activities. The proposed regulation 

respectively designates these categories 

as: basic career services; individualized 

career services; and follow-up services. 

The activities included under these 

categories are identified in 

§§ 678.430(a), 678.430(b), and 

678.430(c), respectively. 

The proposed regulation reiterates the 

list of services included in the statute, 

and elaborates on some of the career 

services. Section 134(c)(2)(A)(x) of 

WIOA requires as a career service the 

provision of both information and 

assistance to customers regarding filing 

an UI claim. The proposed regulation at 

§ 678.430(a)(10) further provides that 

such assistance must be meaningful and 

provided by staff who are well trained 

in UC claims. This proposed paragraph 

reflects the Departments’ interpretation 

that the one-stop system established by 

WIOA is intended to provide 

participants with a seamless, one-stop 

experience that includes a professional 

level of service provided in a timely 

manner. Specifically, the Departments 

have concluded that individuals 

directly seeking career services from the 

one-stop system should receive more 

robust or ‘‘meaningful’’ service beyond 

what they could obtain on their own 

using self-service tools, such as public 

Web sites and phone numbers; instead, 

the Departments intend for them to 

receive meaningful staff assisted 

services if needed. In the context of 

providing assistance with UI claims, the 

proposed rule defines ‘‘meaningful 

assistance’’ as having staff well-trained 

in UC claims filing and the rights and 

responsibility of claimants available in 

the one-stop centers to provide 

customers with assistance in filing a 

claim if they request it or are identified 

as needing the service due to barriers 

such as limited English proficiency or 

disabilities. This staff can be UI staff 

placed in the one-stop or Wagner-Peyser 

or other one-stop partner staff who have 

been properly cross-trained to provide 

this service. Alternatively, meaningful 

assistance can also be provided by 

phone or by means of other technology, 

including computer access, as long as 

the assistance is provided by 

specifically identified staff and within a 

reasonable time. This means that if the 

customer is referred to a phone for UI 

claims assistance, it must be a phone 

line dedicated to serving one-stop 

customers. It cannot be simply placing 

the customer into the general State UI 

agency contact center’s phone queue. If 

the assistance is provided remotely 

using technology, it must be a 

technology that enables trained staff to 

provide the assistance. Examples of 

technology that enables remote 

assistance include live Web chat 

applications, video conference 

applications, or other similar 

technology. In addition to UI program 

funding, adult and dislocated worker 

funds may be used for these services as 

allowed in WIOA sec. 134(c)(2)(A)(x); 

Wagner-Peyser funds may be used for 

the provision of these services as 

allowed sec. 7(a)(3)(F) of the WagnerPeyser Act; or some combination of 

these three funding sources. It is 

important to acknowledge that the vast 

majority of UI claims filing will 

continue to be done remotely through 

self-service options. This proposed 

regulation does not require that States 

actively promote in-person claims filing 

through the one-stop centers. It does 

mean that assistance must be made 

available to customers who come to the 

one-stop for assistance in filing a UI 

claim and to customers that have been 

identified as having barriers to filing a 

UI claim without assistance. 

§ 678.435 What are the business 

services provided through the one-stop 

delivery system, and how are they 

provided? 

The one-stop 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. 

Proposed § 678.435(a) lists required 

business services. Proposed § 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. 

Section 134(d)(1)(A)(ix)(I) of WIOA 

provides additional flexibility to allow 

business-focused activities to be carried 

out by business intermediaries working 

in conjunction with the Local Board. 

Such activities can also be carried out 

through the use of economic 

development, philanthropic, and other 

public and private resources in a 

manner determined by the Local Board 

and in cooperation with the State. 

Proposed § 678.435(b) reiterates this 

flexibility. 

Proposed § 678.435(c) provides a nonexhaustive list of allowable business 

activities. In addition to traditional 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20602 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

employer services, such as customized 

screening and referral of candidates, this 

list includes activities specifically 

identified in sec. 134(d)(1)(A) of WIOA 

that demonstrate WIOA’s emphasis on 

innovative and regional strategies, such 

as regional labor market information, 

sector strategies, and development of 

career pathways. This list reflects 

activities specifically identified in 

WIOA and activities the Department 

had previously identified in 

administrative guidance under WIA. 

Proposed § 678.435(d) states that 

business services and strategies must be 

reflected in the local plan. 

§ 678.440 When may a fee be charged 

for the business services in 20 CFR 

678.435? 

Section 134(d)(1)(A)(ii) of WIOA 

allows customized employer-related 

services to be provided on a fee-forservice basis. Proposed § 678.440 

clarifies that there is no requirement 

that a fee-for-service be charged to 

employers. However, the Local 

Workforce Development Boards should 

examine available resources and assets 

to determine an appropriate cost 

structure. They may also provide such 

services for no fee. 

WIOA seeks to create a seamless 

service delivery system by linking and 

aligning one-stop partners. However, as 

described in § 678.425(a), eligibility and 

other requirements of one-stop partner 

programs continue to apply. Proposed 

§ 678.425(b) clarifies that resources of 

each partner may only be used to 

provide authorized services to eligible 

individuals. It also clarifies that 

seamless service delivery can still be 

provided through joint funding of 

shared services based on the relative 

benefit received by each program. For 

example, one-stop staff conducting 

intake for all programs could be a 

shared cost. Joint funding must be in 

compliance with Federal cost 

principles. 

4. Subpart C—Memorandum of 

Understanding for the One-Stop 

Delivery System 

This subpart describes the 

requirements for the MOU between the 

Local Board, CEO, and the one-stop 

partners relating to the operation of the 

one-stop delivery system in the local 

area. The Local Board acts as the 

convener of MOU negotiations and 

shaper of how local one-stop services 

are delivered. 

§ 678.500 What is the Memorandum of 

Understanding for the one-stop delivery 

system and what must be included in 

the Memorandum of Understanding? 

Proposed § 678.500 describes what 

must be included in the MOU executed 

between the Local Board, 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. Proposed § 678.500(a) establishes 

that two or more local areas in a region 

may develop a single joint MOU when 

the areas submit a regional plan. The 

Departments encourage regional 

planning, and allowing joint MOUs to 

support regional planning, particularly 

where local areas have the same onestop operator, are providing business 

services at a regional level, or have 

planned other joint activities typically 

discussed in an MOU. 

The MOU must include the 

provisions described in paragraphs (b) 

through (e) of the section, consistent 

with WIOA sec. 121(c)(2). As stated in 

proposed § 678.500(b), the MOU must 

include the final plan, or an interim 

plan if needed, on how the costs of the 

services and the operating costs of the 

one-stop system will be funded. Shared 

operating costs may include shared 

costs of the Local Board, as stated in 

proposed § 678.760. The MOU must also 

contain all of the information about 

infrastructure costs listed in proposed 

§ 678.755. When fully executed, the 

MOU must contain the signatures of the 

Local Board, one-stop partners, the 

CEO(s), and the period in which the 

agreement is effective, and the MOU 

must be periodically updated to reflect 

any changes in the signatories or onestop infrastructure funding. Signatures 

to the MOU indicate that the MOU has 

been executed. A lack of signatures for 

the MOU means that the Local Board 

has not established an MOU. 

§ 678.505 Is there a single 

Memorandum of Understanding for the 

local area, or must there be separate 

Memoranda of Understanding between 

the Local Board and each partner? 

Proposed § 678.505 establishes that a 

Local Board and one-stop partners may 

develop a single ‘‘umbrella’’ MOU that 

applies to all partners, or develop 

separate agreements between the Local 

Board 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. 

§ 678.510 How should the 

Memorandum of Understanding be 

negotiated? 

Proposed § 678.510 describes the 

collaborative and good-faith approach 

Local Boards and partners are expected 

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

may include fully and repeatedly 

engaging partners, transparently sharing 

information, and maintaining a shared 

focus on the needs of the customer. 

Proposed § 678.510(a) allows Local 

Boards, CEOs, and partners to request 

assistance from a State agency 

responsible for the program, the 

Governor, State Board, or other 

appropriate parties when negotiating the 

MOU. Proposed § 678.510(b) describes 

options for including the infrastructure 

cost plans in the MOU; the MOU may 

include an interim infrastructure 

funding plan in the MOU, as described 

in proposed § 678.715(c). This may be 

particularly needed if the local area uses 

the State infrastructure cost funding 

mechanism, as described in proposed 

§ 678.730, to enable the local area to 

move forward with implementing onestop service delivery in areas where 

there is agreement. The MOU must be 

amended once a final infrastructure cost 

plan is determined. Proposed 

§ 678.510(c) describes how to address 

MOU impasses. Consistent with WIA 

regulations, any local area in which a 

Local Board has failed to execute an 

MOU with all of the required partners 

is not eligible for State incentive grants 

and these sanctions are in addition to, 

not in lieu of, any other remedies that 

may be applicable to the Local Board or 

to each partner for failure to comply 

with any statutory requirements. 

5. Subpart D—One-Stop Operators 

This proposed subpart addresses the 

role and selection of one-stop operators. 

Unlike the other subparts in this 

proposed rule, this subpart is 

administered primarily by DOL. The 

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 

this proposed part, this portion of the 

preamble refers mainly to DOL. 

Under WIA, one-stop operators could 

be designated or certified through a 

competitive process, or they could be 

‘‘grandfathered’’ in from JTPA. Section 

121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA only allows for 

selection of a one-stop operator through 

a competitive process. This proposed 

regulation uses the term ‘‘selection’’ of 

one-stop operator through a competitive 

process, rather than ‘‘designation’’ or 

‘‘certification’’ to avoid confusion. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20603 

competitive process established by this 

proposed subpart requires States to 

follow the same policies and procedures 

they use for procurement from nonFederal funds. All other non-Federal 

entities, including subrecipients of a 

State (such as local areas), are required 

to use a competitive process based on 

the principles of competitive 

procurement in the Uniform 

Administrative Guidance set out at 2 

CFR 200.318–200.326. 

Unlike under WIA, there is no 

‘‘designation’’ or ‘‘certification’’ of an 

entity as a one-stop operator, including 

a Local Board. Section 107(g)(2) of 

WIOA states that a Local Board may be 

designated or certified as a one-stop 

operator only with the agreement of the 

CEO in the local area and the Governor. 

The DOL interprets this provision to 

create an additional check for situations 

where a Local Board is selected to be 

one-stop operator through the 

competitive process as required under 

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

described in this proposed subpart at 

§ 678.605(d). In these situations, it is 

appropriate to require that the Governor 

and chief local official to approve the 

selection. 

The DOL received many comments 

during consultations regarding the 

impact of competition on local services. 

This proposed subpart seeks to clarify 

and address those concerns. For 

example, some States shared concerns 

that the outcome of such a competition 

may result in the layoff of State merit 

staff. Proposed § 678.635 clarifies that 

merit staff may continue to work in the 

one-stop so long as a system for 

management of merit staff in accordance 

with State policies and procedures is 

established. This is consistent with how 

some local non-governmental one-stop 

operators manage merit staff currently 

under WIA. Local government staff may 

also work in the one-stop regardless of 

who the operator is, if they are 

responsible for delivering a one-stop 

partner program’s services. 

Additionally, Stakeholders have 

voiced concerns about the cost and 

burden associated with running a 

competition, as well as situations where 

there are a limited number of, or only 

one, possible provider(s). While 

procurement can take time, Local 

Boards are encouraged to perform 

extensive market research and prepare a 

thorough cost and price analysis to best 

identify the type of procurement most 

appropriate to minimize cost and 

burden of the competitive process. A 

Local Board has the flexibility to 

identify and implement the options set 

forth in proposed § 678.605(d). This 

may include a limited competition 

where a smaller number of providers, 

identified in market research, Requests 

of Information (ROI), and/or the cost 

price analysis, are identified and invited 

to apply. Sole source awards are 

allowable in only very limited 

circumstances. For example, concern 

about the time associated with 

competition or failure to plan sufficient 

time for a competition does not 

constitute an ‘‘unusual and compelling 

urgency’’ as defined in § 678.605(d). 

Thus, Local Boards retain flexibility to 

reduce burden while remaining 

consistent with the provisions of WIOA. 

WIOA describes a more robust role for 

Local Boards and partners to jointly 

develop local plans and one-stop MOUs, 

and the DOL and ED strongly 

recommend that Local Boards align 

these activities with the one-stop 

operator function and competitive 

process. Similarly, the competitive 

process can and should provide for a 

transition time that minimizes or 

eliminates disruption in services to 

participants. This can be achieved in a 

variety of ways, including provisions in 

the competition to ensure some staff 

continuity, transition time between 

operators, and requiring robust standard 

operating procedures to be developed by 

one-stop operators. 

Finally, numerous States and local 

agencies have inquired as to their 

eligibility to be a one-stop operator. 

There is nothing in the statute or in 

these proposed regulations that would 

prevent a State workforce agency or 

local agency from competing for and 

being selected as a one-stop operator. 

Because Local Board structures vary 

across State and local areas, in order to 

ensure there is no real or apparent 

conflict of interest, Local Boards (or 

State Boards in the case of single State 

areas) will need to have robust conflict 

of interest policies, as well as firewalls 

in place to ensure that development and 

conduct of the Board competition is 

kept separate and apart from the State 

or local agency, particularly if that 

entity is the current one-stop operator. 

Additionally, the firewalls and conflict 

of interest policy must ensure that, if 

selected as operator, there are internal 

controls to ensure that the agency, as 

operator, has oversight and management 

from a source other than itself. Use of 

internal controls and firewalls to avoid 

conflicts of interest are also addressed 

in proposed § 679.430. 

In sum, this proposed regulation 

represents the most flexibility that could 

be offered to Local Boards within the 

confines of the statutory requirement 

that one-stop operators be selected 

through a competitive process. 

§ 678.600 Who may operate one-stop 

centers? 

Proposed §§ 678.600(a)–(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 one-stop 

partners. Consortia, like single entities, 

must be selected through a competitive 

process. Proposed paragraph (c) lists the 

types of entities what may be selected 

to be the one-stop operator. These repeat 

the eligible entities from sec. 

121(d)(2)(B) of the statute, and also 

clarify that a Local Board, with the 

approval of the chief local elected 

official and the Governor, may serve as 

a one-stop operator, as stated in 

proposed paragraph (c)(6), and that 

another interested organization which is 

capable of carrying out the duties of 

one-stop operator may serve as the 

operator, as stated in proposed 

paragraph (c)(7). Proposed § 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. 

§ 678.605 How is the one-stop operator 

selected? 

Proposed § 678.605 requires the onestop operator to be selected through a 

competitive process conducted not less 

than every 4 years. As discussed above, 

the Departments interpret sec. 

121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA to require a 

competition for selection of a one-stop 

operator. Competition provides the best 

method of providing that Local Boards 

examine operator effectiveness. 

Additionally, regular competition 

allows Local Boards to make 

adjustments based on findings of the 

one-stop certification process described 

in proposed subpart F of this part, 

particularly to the role of the operator 

and other specifics that may shift as 

one-stop partners and the Local Board 

update their MOUs. The DOL received 

feedback that the burden of a 

competition every year would be large, 

and the Departments preliminarily 

concur. In looking at options, the 

Departments were concerned that a 

period of 3 years might also be too short 

because if a Local Board were to 

conduct a full competition with a 

Request for Proposals (RFP), it could 

take as long as 18 months and would 

result in a Board preparing for the next 

RFP before the current operator had an 

opportunity to demonstrate 

performance. Durations of 5 years or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20604 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

more presents a risk of having an 

ineffective operator in place for an 

extended period. Therefore, proposed 

§ 678.605 settled on a time period of 4 

years to ensure that there is a solid 

period of performance in which to 

evaluate effectiveness of the operator, 

including the results of the one-stop 

certification. This proposed section also 

provides flexibility to both States and to 

local areas to require or implement 

competitions more frequently than 

every 4 years. The Departments seeks 

comments regarding the length of time 

required between competitions for 

operators. 

Proposed §§ 678.605(a), (b), and (c) 

require the one-stop operator 

competition to be done through a 

competitive process. In most cases, the 

entity conducting the competition to 

procure a one-stop operator will be the 

Local Board, pursuant to its 

responsibility under sec. 107(d)(10)(A) 

of WIOA to select the one-stop 

operators. However, in some cases, such 

as when the one-stop is in a single State 

local area, a State entity might conduct 

the competition. If a State conducts the 

competition, the State must follow 

applicable State procurement laws. 

Other entities, including subrecipients 

of a State (such as local areas) must 

conduct the competition following the 

principles of competitive procurement 

in the Uniform Administrative 

Guidance at chapter II of 2 CFR. 

This should simplify implementation 

for Local Boards. The requirements of 

the competitive process identified in 

WIOA should be consistent with the 

principles of competitive procurement 

in the Uniform Administrative 

Guidance set out at 2 CFR parts 200 and 

2900. However, while the competitive 

process described in this proposed 

subpart is consistent with the principles 

of competitive procurement in the 

Uniform Administrative Guidance, not 

every particular requirement or process 

of that Guidance is applicable. This 

proposed subpart seeks to establish a 

particular competitive process that 

fulfills the requirements of sec. 

121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA for a competitive 

process, while remaining consistent 

with the principles set forth in the 

Uniform Administrative Guidance. The 

Departments want to make clear that the 

specific requirements of the Uniform 

Guidance are only applicable where the 

subpart specifically refers to it. This 

approach provides sufficient flexibility 

to enable a range of operators, including 

current one-stop operators, State 

agencies, or consortia of required 

partners to compete for and be selected 

as one-stop operator. The Departments 

seek comments regarding the nature and 

extent of the competitive process 

outlined in the proposed regulations. 

Proposed § 678.605(d) states that nonFederal entities, including subrecipients 

of a State (such as local areas) must first 

determine the nature of the competitive 

process to be used. The different 

processes that may be used are 

procurement by sealed bids or 

procurement by competitive proposals. 

Procurement by sole-source is permitted 

only under limited conditions. Because 

of the potential for abuse of the sole 

source selection method, DOL intends 

to set a high bar for justifying that there 

is only one possible operator. Local 

Boards cannot use their past experience 

with an entity being the one-stop 

operator or one response to Requests for 

Information (RFI) alone as justification. 

Robust market research, combined with 

other methods, including but not 

limited to an RFI and a detailed cost and 

price analysis, will help a Local Board 

meet the burden of demonstrating they 

meet the requirement of proposed 

§ 678.605(d)(3)(i) for utilizing sole 

source selection. Additionally, the Local 

Board must comply with its own 

procurement policies regarding sole 

source procurements. 

There are two scenarios listed in 

proposed paragraph (d)(3)(i) that justify 

the use of sole-source procurement, and 

as discussed the Departments envision 

limited use of these options. These two 

scenarios are consistent with the 

circumstances that justify sole source 

selection under the Uniform 

Administrative Guidance at 2 CFR 

200.320(f), with the important exception 

of 2 CFR 200.320(f)(3). Governors may 

not approve a written request for sole 

source selection of a Local Board unless 

it complies with § 678.605(d)(3). 

Proposed § 678.605(e) requires 

maintenance records, which are crucial 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart. 

§ 678.610 How is sole source selection 

of one-stop operators accomplished? 

Proposed § 678.610 explains how 

sole-source selection of one-stop 

operators is accomplished. It includes 

requirements about maintaining written 

documentation and developing 

appropriate conflict of interest policies. 

It states that a Local Board 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. The Governor must 

approve the conflict of interest policies 

the Local Board has in place when also 

serving as one-stop operator. This is 

consistent with DOL’s interpretation of 

sec. 107(g)(2) of WIOA—the section 

adds an additional check in the 

situations where a Local Board is 

selected to be operator. 

§ 678.615 Can an entity serving as onestop operator compete to be a one-stop 

operator under the procurement 

requirements of this subpart? 

Proposed § 678.615(a) states that 

Local Boards may compete to be 

selected as a one-stop operator only if 

appropriate firewalls and conflict of 

interest policies and procedures are in 

place. The Departments seek comments 

on whether and how a sufficient 

firewall could be established in such a 

competition, whether alternate entities 

could conduct the competition, and 

who those entities might be. 

Proposed § 678.615(b) allows State or 

local agencies to compete for, and be 

selected as, one-stop operators. 

However, the proposed paragraph 

recognizes that there would need to be 

strong firewalls, internal controls, and 

conflict of interest policies and 

procedures in place. There is precedent 

for State agencies applying and being 

selected as one-stop operators under 

WIA. For example, in one multi-county 

local area, the Local Board issued an 

RFP on a per county basis. In one 

county, a community action program 

was selected as the operator. In another 

county, the State workforce agency was 

selected as the operator. In this scenario, 

State workforce agency staff provides 

both WIA and Employment Services in 

the county where the agency was 

selected as one-stop operator. In a 

second example under WIA, from a 

single area State: the State Board (which 

also serves as the Local Board) issued an 

RFP for the entire State for adult and 

dislocated workers and a separate RFP 

for youth services. A non-profit entity 

was selected as the operator for adult 

and dislocated worker services. That 

non-profit then subcontracted with 

other non-profits to serve the different 

geographic regions of the State. The staff 

of the State workforce agency continues 

to provide the labor exchange services 

in the one-stop career centers. A State 

agency was selected as the youth 

provider. Additional sub-awards were 

made by that State agency to ensure that 

all ten youth program elements were 

available. 

However, in the above two scenarios 

and any scenario where the State agency 

is competing to be the one-stop 

operator, there is a high risk for conflict 

of interest, particularly in the case of 

single State areas. Therefore, proposed 

§ 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 perceived 

conflicts of interest that could arise for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20605 

a State or local agency applying to a 

competition run by a Local Board. 

The DOL notes that this proposed 

section is relevant to the 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 Boards and other 

current one-stop operators, may 

compete and be selected as operator 

under the competition requirements in 

this proposed subpart. However, like the 

entities specifically mentioned in this 

proposed section, 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. 

§ 678.620 What is the one-stop 

operator’s role? 

Proposed § 678.620(a) describes the 

role of the one-stop operator without 

prescribing a specific and uniform role 

across the system. The proposed 

minimum role that an operator must 

perform is coordination across one-stop 

partners and service providers. 

Additionally, the proposed paragraph 

(b) prohibits one-stop operators from 

assuming functions that are inherently 

the responsibility of the Local Board 

under proposed § 679.370. The DOL 

seeks comments as to whether all of the 

functions listed in proposed paragraph 

(b) are accurately described as inherent 

to the responsibility of a Local Board. 

As the one-stop system evolved under 

WIA, some of the Local Board 

responsibilities may have changed or 

been devolved to the operator or fiscal 

agent as well. 

§ 678.625 Can a one-stop operator also 

be a service provider? 

Proposed § 678.625 allows a one-stop 

operator to also be a service provider. 

However, the section clarifies that there 

must be firewalls in place to ensure that 

the operator is not conducting oversight 

of itself as 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 of service provider. 

This is consistent with the firewall and 

internal control provisions in proposed 

§ 679.430. 

§ 678.630 Can State merit staff still 

work in a one-stop where the operator 

is not a governmental entity? 

Proposed § 678.630 addresses the 

concern about whether State merit staff 

can continue to work in a one-stop 

where the operator is an entity other 

than the State. State merit staff support 

numerous programs at the one-stop 

career center, including Wagner-Peyser, 

Vocational Rehabilitation, UI, and the 

JVSG program. Some States have shared 

concerns that competition may result in 

the layoff of State merit staff. Proposed 

§ 678.630 clarifies that State merit staff 

may continue to work in the one-stop so 

long as a system for management of 

merit staff in accordance with State 

policies and procedures is established. 

This is consistent with how some local 

non-governmental one-stop operators 

manage merit staff currently under WIA. 

Local government staff may also work in 

the one-stop regardless of who the 

operator is, if they are responsible for 

delivering a one-stop partner program’s 

services. Nothing prohibits this from 

occurring, and there are numerous 

examples under WIA where this is 

currently occurring, including the above 

scenario of a single area State where the 

State Board (which also serves as the 

Local Board) issued an RFP for the 

entire State for adult and dislocated 

workers and a separate RFP for youth 

services. A non-profit entity was 

selected as the operator for adult and 

dislocated worker services. That nonprofit then subcontracted with other 

non-profits to serve the different 

geographic regions of the State. The staff 

of the State workforce agency continues 

to provide the labor exchange services 

in the one-stops due to the merit staffing 

requirements. In another multi-county 

local area, the Local Board issued an 

RFP for a single operator throughout the 

entire local area. A large-scale nonprofit was selected as the operator. 

Under the arrangement, State merit staff 

still provided labor exchange services 

because of the merit staffing 

requirement but under the operational 

direction of the one-stop operator. 

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, because State merit 

staff are governed by the requirements 

attached to specific programs that must 

be in the one-stop regardless of operator. 

§ 678.635 What is the effective date of 

the provisions of this subpart? 

To ensure an orderly transition, as 

authorized under sec. 503 of WIOA, 

proposed § 678.635(a) states that onestop operators selected through the 

competitive process described in this 

subpart need to be in place no later than 

July 1, 2017. This lengthy transition 

period serves several goals: (1) It allows 

sufficient time for State and local areas 

to prepare to transition to a competitive 

process, including conducting market 

research, RFIs, cost and price analysis, 

and competitions; (2) it reduces or 

eliminates the likelihood of disruption 

in services to participants as Local 

Boards have time to plan for and 

incorporate into the competition a plan 

for transition to a new provider; and (3) 

it allows State and local areas to have 

the WIOA Final Rule to use to guide the 

implementation of a competitive 

process. It is important for Local Boards 

to begin planning for competition 

immediately, and therefore proposed 

§ 678.635(b) states that Local Boards 

must engage in and be able to 

demonstrate they are planning for a 

competition for one-stop operator in PY 

2015 (July 1, 2015–June 30, 2016). 

6. Subpart E—One-Stop Operating Costs 

One-stop partner funding of 

infrastructure costs is 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; and 

(5) Ensure that costs are appropriately 

shared by one-stop partners by basing 

contributions on proportionate share of 

use, 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 Federal cost principles; 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. 

§ 678.700 What are one-stop 

infrastructure costs? 

Proposed § 678.700 provides the 

definition for infrastructure costs based 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20606 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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

to those items, the section adds common 

one-stop delivery system identifier 

costs. These costs are those associated 

with signage and other expenses related 

to the one-stop common identifier as 

required by sec. 121(e)(4) of WIOA. The 

Departments seek comments as to other 

common identifier costs, or other types 

of costs, to include in the definition of 

infrastructure costs. 

Jointly funding services is a necessary 

foundation for an integrated service 

delivery system. Proposed § 678.700(c) 

reiterates that all partner contributions 

to the costs of operating and providing 

services within the one-stop center 

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 costs that are 

allowable, reasonable, necessary and 

allocable. There are a variety of methods 

to allocate costs, for instance: Based on 

proportion of a partner program’s 

customers of all customers coming to 

the one-stop, proportion of partner 

program’s staff among all staff at the 

one-stop, or based on a partner 

program’s use of a particular expense 

item such as certain equipment. The 

DOL’s previous Financial Management 

Technical Assistance Guide published 

for WIA remains useful for cost 

allocation explanations. See http://

www.doleta.gov/grants/pdf/TAG_

PartI.pdf and http://www.doleta.gov/

grants/pdf/TAG_PartII_July2011.pdf. 

The DOL and ED jointly will update this 

guide and provide technical assistance 

on cost allocation. 

§ 678.705 What guidance must the 

Governor issue regarding one-stop 

infrastructure funding? 

Proposed § 678.705 addresses the 

requirement in sec. 121(h)(1)(B) of 

WIOA for the Governor to issue 

guidelines to State programs and 

guidance to local areas regarding 

infrastructure funding. The Departments 

have interpreted the statute also to 

require that the local areas follow these 

guidelines, and to allow the State 

grantee to monitor local areas for 

compliance with the Governor’s 

guidance. The proposed section 

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 general approach 

to the Governors’ guidance across 

States, and appropriate timeframes 

which then allow for one-stop 

certification, competition of one-stop 

operator, and inclusion of funding 

agreement terms into the local State 

plan. The proposed rule allows for 

different methods of reaching 

consensus, and different ways for the 

Governor to interact with a local area 

during the consensus-building process. 

The Departments seek comments about 

the types of information or requirements 

local areas would like to see included in 

guidance issued by the Governor. 

§ 678.710 How are infrastructure costs 

funded? 

Proposed § 678.710 indicates that sec. 

121(h)(1) of WIOA establishes two 

methods for funding the infrastructure 

costs of one-stop centers: A local onestop funding mechanism and a State 

one-stop funding mechanism. Both 

methods utilize the funds provided to 

one-stop partners by their authorizing 

legislations. There is no separate 

funding source for one-stop 

infrastructure costs. 

§ 678.715 How are one-stop 

infrastructure costs funded in the local 

funding mechanism? 

Proposed § 678.715 addresses the 

local funding mechanism. Local Boards, 

in consultation with CEOs, should 

engage one-stop partners early in 

discussions about one-stop center 

locations and other services, so that 

decisions about physical locations and 

services are cooperatively made, and 

can be financially supported by the 

partners within the workforce system. 

Under the local mechanism, local 

partners can contribute amounts in 

excess of the limitations contained 

under the State funded infrastructure 

mechanism at sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(ii) of 

WIOA, if the parties agree that is the 

proportionate share of their use for 

reasonable one-stop infrastructure costs 

and it is consistent with the Federal 

authorizing statute and other applicable 

legal requirements, including Federal 

cost principles Under this proposed 

paragraph, agreement is achieved when 

all of the one-stop partners sign the 

MOU with the Local Board, which 

includes a final agreement regarding 

funding of infrastructure that includes 

the elements listed in proposed 

§ 678.755, or an interim funding 

agreement that includes as many of 

these elements as possible. 

§ 678.720 What funds are used to pay 

for infrastructure costs in the local onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

Proposed § 678.720 explains the 

funding that one-stop partners can use 

to pay for infrastructure cost 

contributions. Partner programs can 

determine the funds they will use, but 

these funds must still meet the 

requirements of the program’s relevant 

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 

administer these programs and activities 

to meet all applicable legal requirements 

and goals. Different Federal statutes and 

regulations define administrative costs 

slightly differently. Some programs’ 

statutes and regulations define all of the 

infrastructure costs listed in § 678.700 

as administrative costs, some programs’ 

statutes and regulations define some of 

the infrastructure costs as 

administrative costs, and some as 

program costs. Under this proposed 

paragraph, one-stop partner programs 

must adhere to the administrative and 

program cost limitations of their 

program’s statutes and regulations. 

Proposed § 678.720(a) would give 

State agencies responsible for title II of 

WIOA or the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act of 2006 

(Perkins Act) great flexibility in 

determining how to pay for 

infrastructure costs under the local onestop funding mechanism. It would 

permit a State eligible agency under title 

II of WIOA to use Federal funds that 

were available for State administration 

of title II of WIOA. Similarly, proposed 

§ 678.720 would permit a State eligible 

agency under the Perkins Act to use 

Federal funds that were available for 

State administration of post-secondary 

level programs or activities. 

Additionally, proposed § 678.720 would 

permit a State eligible agency under title 

II of WIOA or the Perkins Act to use 

non-Federal funds that these State 

agencies contribute to meet these 

programs’ matching or maintenance of 

effort requirements in lieu of the State’s 

administrative funds from its Federal 

grants. Further, if a State eligible agency 

were to delegate to a local entity or a 

consortium of local entities the 

authority to serve as the local one-stop 

partner pursuant to proposed 

§ 678.415(b) and (e), the entity or 

consortium could contribute local 

administrative funds for title II of WIOA 

or the Perkins Act, respectively, to the 

infrastructure costs in lieu of a 

contribution from the State’s 

administrative funds from its Federal 

grants. The goal of providing the State 

agencies with this flexibility is to enable 

them to meet their responsibilities for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20607 

paying one-stop infrastructure costs in a 

manner that best allows them to meet 

their responsibilities as one-stop 

partners and grantees under title II of 

WIOA or the Perkins Act. The 

Departments seek public comment on 

whether the proposed regulation would 

achieve this goal. 

§ 678.725 What happens if consensus 

on infrastructure funding is not reached 

at the local level between the Local 

Board, chief elected officials, and onestop partners? 

Proposed § 678.725 states that failure 

to sign the MOU containing the final 

infrastructure funding agreement or 

interim agreement by the beginning of 

each PY would trigger the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism. The 

proposed section states that Local 

Boards must notify the State if they 

cannot reach consensus. This 

notification policy must be included in 

the Governor’s guidance, as required by 

proposed § 678.705(b)(3). The State 

monitors the local areas to address 

violations of State guidance. The 

Governor’s guidance might establish an 

earlier date for notification to the State 

of milestones or decision points in the 

negotiation process. 

§ 678.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

Proposed § 678.730 discusses the 

State infrastructure funding mechanism. 

In establishing a State-funded 

alternative to the local one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism, the 

statute ensures infrastructure costs will 

still be funded if one-stop partners 

cannot agree on their contribution 

amounts to fund the infrastructure of 

the one-stop center. An important goal 

under both the local and State funding 

mechanisms is to ensure that each onestop partner contributes its 

proportionate share to the funding of 

one-stop infrastructure costs, consistent 

with the Federal cost principles. This is 

in alignment with the requirements in 

the new Uniform Requirements, cost 

principles and audit requirements 

issued on December 26, 2014 (2 CFR 

part 200). In the State infrastructure 

funding mechanism, the Governor 

determines how much each partner will 

contribute, as described in proposed 

§§ 678.735 and 678.740. The State Board 

determines how the contributed funds 

will be allocated out to local areas, as 

described in proposed § 678.745. 

§ 678.735 How are partner 

contributions determined in the State 

one-stop funding mechanism? 

In the State-funded option proposed 

in §§ 678.735(a)–(b), the Governor, after 

consultation with State and Local 

Boards and CEOs, will determine the 

amount each partner must contribute to 

assist in paying the infrastructure costs 

of one-stop centers. The Governor must 

calculate amounts based on the 

proportionate use of the one-stop 

centers by each partner and other factors 

stated in proposed § 678.735(a). 

Proposed § 678.735(b) clarifies that 

because Native American Program 

grantees under part 684 of this proposed 

rule have a government-to-government 

relationship, the Governor does not 

determine the contribution amounts for 

infrastructure grants from these 

grantees. The Native American 

Programs, as required one-stop partners, 

must contribute to infrastructure 

funding, and must negotiate with the 

Local Board on that contribution 

amount. The Local Board and Native 

American Program grantee can ask for 

assistance from the State in negotiating 

the MOU and infrastructure cost 

funding, and can also consult with DOL 

to resolve any impasse. 

Proposed § 678.735(c) includes the 

limitation for one-stop partners’ 

contributions, based on a percentage of 

their funding allocation, from sec. 

121(h)(2)(D)(ii) of WIOA. These 

limitations do not apply to the local 

one-stop funding mechanism. However, 

the use of a program partner’s funds 

must meet the requirements of the 

program’s authorizing statute, all other 

applicable legal requirements, and the 

requirements in this subpart. Proposed 

§ 678.735(c)(1) states that the cap on 

WIOA formula and Wagner-Peyser 

required contributions will not exceed 3 

percent of the amount of funds provided 

to carry out that program for a PY. 

Although WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(ii)(I) 

refers to a fiscal year, WIOA and 

Wagner-Peyser funds are provided on a 

PY basis (which is from July 1 through 

June 30 of the following year). 

Therefore, calculating on a fiscal year 

basis would cause numerous 

administrative difficulties, because the 

WIOA and Wagner-Peyser formula 

programs receive their appropriations at 

two different times during the fiscal 

year. This interpretation is consistent 

with the statute because under WIOA 

sec. 121(h)(1)(A)(ii) the determination of 

whether the State infrastructure funding 

mechanism will apply occurs on July 1, 

at the beginning of each PY. 

Proposed § 678.735(c)(2) includes a 

clarification that the 1.5 percent cap on 

contribution applies to the relevant 

education program and employment 

and training program of a required onestop partner. For instance, States receive 

a large block grant for delivering TANF 

services. The 1.5 percent cap on 

contributions applies to the 

employment and training activities 

under that grant, not the entire TANF 

grant. Proposed § 678.735(c)(3) states 

that the entities administering the 

Vocational Rehabilitation program must 

not be required to contribute more than 

a specific cap each year. In States where 

there are two Vocational Rehabilitation 

agencies (a general agency and a blind 

agency), the combined contribution 

from these programs cannot exceed the 

cap in the proposed rule, which is based 

on the total allotment to the State. 

Because there is a chance that the 

funding amount limitations would 

prevent the allocation from being fully 

funded, proposed § 678.735(d) allows 

the Governor to direct the local partners 

to reenter negotiations to resolve the 

shortage in a manner that is consistent 

with each partner’s program’s 

authorizing laws and regulations and all 

other applicable legal requirements, 

including the Federal cost principles, or 

to identify alternate infrastructure 

funding. When local partners reenter 

negotiations in this situation, the new 

negotiations should be conducted 

according to the same procedure as 

negotiations are conducted under the 

local funding mechanism, as discussed 

in proposed § 678.715. The limitations 

for one-stop partners’ contributions 

discussed in proposed § 678.735(c) do 

not apply to the local funding 

mechanism. If an agreement is still not 

reached, the Governor will reduce the 

allocation for total one-stop 

infrastructure funding for that local area 

to match the amount of available partner 

contributions under the cap. In 

implementing a one-stop infrastructure 

allocation by the Governor, although 

sec. 121(h)(3)(B) of WIOA refers to the 

Governor allocating out to local areas 

the funds provided under sec. 121(h)(1) 

of WIOA, which is the local funding 

allocation mechanism, that section as 

enacted would also require the 

Governor to allocate those funds to only 

the local areas that are not using the 

local funding mechanism. This 

incongruity seems a clear scrivener’s 

error—sec. 121(h)(3)(B) was meant to 

instruct the Governor to apply the 

allocation formula developed by the 

State Boards only to the local areas that 

are not subject to an agreement under 

the local funding mechanism. Proposed 

§§ 678.730 through 678.745 reflect this 

interpretation. 

§ 678.740 What funds are used to pay 

for infrastructure costs in the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism? 

Proposed § 678.740 describes the 

funds that one-stop partners can use to 

pay for infrastructure costs. For some 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20608 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

partner programs, some infrastructure 

costs are classified as program costs 

under the partners’ authorizing statute 

or implementing regulations, while 

other infrastructure costs are classified 

as administrative costs. In other partner 

programs, all infrastructure costs are 

classified as administrative costs. Onestop partner programs must follow their 

own program’s rules in classifying costs 

as program or administrative costs, and 

must adhere to their program’s 

administrative cost limit. 

Like proposed § 678.720(a), proposed 

§§ 678.740(c) and (d) would give State 

eligible agencies responsible for title II 

of WIOA and the Perkins Act great 

flexibility in determining how to pay for 

infrastructure costs under the State onestop funding mechanism. It would 

enable these State agencies to use 

Federal funds that were available for 

State administration of title II of WIOA 

or for the administration of postsecondary level programs and activities 

under the Perkins Act, as well as nonFederal funds that the partners 

contribute to meet these programs’ 

matching or maintenance of effort 

requirements. Further, as with 

§ 678.720(a), if a State eligible agency 

were to delegate to a local entity or a 

consortium of local entities authority to 

serve as the local one-stop partner 

pursuant to proposed §§ 678.415(b) and 

(e), the entity or consortium could 

contribute local administrative funds for 

title II of WIOA or the Perkins Act, 

respectively, to the infrastructure costs 

in lieu of a contribution from the State’s 

administrative funds from its Federal 

grants to be contributed to the one-stop 

infrastructure costs. 

The goal of providing the State 

agencies with this flexibility is to enable 

them to meet their responsibilities for 

paying one-stop infrastructure costs in a 

manner that best allows them to meet 

their responsibilities as one-stop 

partners and grantees under title II of 

WIOA or the Perkins Act. The 

Departments seek public comment on 

whether the proposed regulation would 

achieve this goal. 

§ 678.745 How is the allocation 

formula used by the Governor 

determined in the State one-stop 

funding mechanism? 

Proposed § 678.745 states that the 

State Board must establish an allocation 

formula, taking into account several 

requirements from WIOA 121(h)(3)(B), 

and the Governor will use the allocation 

formula to distribute funds to local areas 

that are opting to use the State 

infrastructure cost funding mechanism, 

so long as the distribution is consistent 

with the Federal cost principles for each 

affected partner program. 

§ 678.750 When and how can a onestop partner appeal a one-stop 

infrastructure amount designated by the 

State under the State infrastructure 

funding mechanism? 

Proposed § 678.750 requires an 

appeals process, as outlined in WIOA 

sec. 121(h)(2)(E), to be established by 

the Governor and proposes similar 

principles regarding timely resolution as 

those seen under other appeals 

processes, such as the WIA regulations 

at 20 CFR 661.280. The Departments 

seek comments regarding the proposed 

State infrastructure funding mechanism, 

and in how local areas with existing 

successful infrastructure cost 

agreements have funded these costs and 

what factors contributed to local areas’ 

success. 

§ 678.755 What are the required 

elements regarding infrastructure 

funding that must be included in the 

one-stop Memorandum of 

Understanding? 

Proposed § 678.755 explains what 

information the local areas must include 

about operating costs in the one-stop 

MOU, described in proposed § 678.500. 

Under the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, the partner 

contributions will be required to be 

included in the MOU. Once the State 

infrastructure funding mechanism is 

triggered, and the Governor determines 

each partner’s required funding 

contribution, the partners must include 

these in, and sign, the MOU. 

§ 678.760 How do one-stop partners 

jointly fund other shared costs under 

the Memorandum of Understanding? 

In addition to infrastructure, WIOA 

sec. 121(i)(1) requires that one-stop 

partners must contribute jointly to fund 

the cost of career services, and allows 

one-stop partners to jointly fund other 

shared services, such as intake, 

assessment, skill appraisals, 

identification of appropriate services, 

referrals, accommodations and other 

services, including business services. 

Shared operating costs may also include 

shared costs of the Local Board’s 

functions. Under proposed § 678.760, 

these costs must be determined as part 

of the MOU described in proposed 

§ 678.500 and be comprised of cash and 

noncash resources. Non-cash, or inkind, contributions may be such 

resources as space, equipment, staff to 

deliver shared services, and other 

examples. The Departments expect onestop partners to engage early with each 

other and the Local Board to identify 

services that benefit multiple 

populations and programs and could be 

jointly funded through the MOU. Such 

agreements improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the one-stop system, 

and benefit the system’s customers. 

WIOA neither requires programs to 

examine if other funds are available 

before using program funds to pay for a 

service, nor does it establish 

requirements that any program can only 

be a ‘‘payer of last resort.’’ One-stop 

partners may jointly fund services in a 

manner of their choosing that meets the 

requirements of this part, meets the 

Federal cost principles, and meets the 

requirements of the programs’ 

authorizing statutes and regulations. 

The DOL published Financial 

Management Technical Assistance 

Guides for use under WIA that are still 

useful in determining reasonable cost 

allocation methodologies, and how to 

jointly fund shared activities and 

services. See http://www.doleta.gov/

grants/pdf/TAG_PartI.pdf and http://

www.doleta.gov/grants/pdf/TAG_PartII_

July2011.pdf. The DOL will provide 

further technical assistance on this 

topic. 

7. Subpart F—One-Stop Certification 

Proposed part 678, subpart F 

implements the requirements in sec. 

121(g) of WIOA that the Local Board 

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 Departments seek 

comments on how local areas can best 

measure the customer satisfaction of 

individuals who utilize American Job 

Centers as an aspect of effectiveness. 

§ 678.800 How are one-stop centers 

and one-stop delivery systems certified 

for effectiveness, physical and 

programmatic accessibility, and 

continuous improvement? 

Proposed § 678.800(a) requires that 

State Boards establish criteria and 

procedures for certification, and allows 

Local Boards to use additional 

certification factors in order to respond 

to labor market, economic, and 

demographic conditions and trends in 

the local area. The criteria must assess 

the effectiveness, physical and 

programmatic accessibility, and 

continuous improvement of one-stop 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20609 

centers and the one-stop delivery 

systems. 

Proposed § 678.800(b) sets 

requirements for evaluations of 

effectiveness, including those mandated 

by sec. 121(g)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii) of WIOA. 

States may establish further 

effectiveness factors, and set specific 

standards for program coordination or 

integration. Program coordination 

standards might include customerfocused standards such as: front desk 

and intake staff are trained to complete 

an initial assessment of a participant’s 

needs and inform participants of the 

services available to them; intake forms 

and basic assessment tools and 

processes are harmonized across 

programs to minimize customers filling 

out multiple forms; and staff work in 

functional rather than program teams. 

Program coordination standards might 

also include operational standards such 

as: integrated resource teams such as 

those piloted in the Disability 

Employment Initiative or other methods 

are used to jointly fund services to meet 

the specific needs of individuals; 

resource rooms include high-quality upto-date information about the services 

and supportive services available to 

individuals; Web sites and materials for 

the one-stop provide information about 

the services and supports of all partner 

programs; and business services teams 

include representatives or otherwise 

integrate with key partner programs and 

represent the center as a whole. This 

paragraph also emphasizes the 

importance of maximizing access to 

services to all customers, particularly 

outside regular business hours. Access 

to services can be through a physical 

one-stop location, but can also be 

through online or phone access as 

discussed in the § 678.300(e) definition 

of ‘‘direct linkage,’’ as long as services 

are equally available to all customers, 

including those with disabilities. The 

Departments seek input on other 

important factors in making one-stop 

centers operate more efficiently and 

effectively, both for consideration as 

one-stop certification criteria and for 

general program implementation and 

management. 

Proposed paragraph § 678.800(c) 

describes evaluations of continuous 

improvement, including those 

mandated by sec. 121(g)(2)(B)(i) of 

WIOA. Continuous improvement 

requires local areas and one-stop centers 

to collect, analyze and use several types 

of data, from customer satisfaction and 

feedback to program and performance 

data. Professional development is a key 

feature of any continuous improvement 

loop, in order to ensure that staff are 

aware of the implications of recent 

evidence-based research, and can 

implement the latest policies and 

procedures established at the local, 

State and Federal levels. 

Proposed § 678.800(d) describes how 

Local Boards apply the certification 

criteria, including that Local Boards 

must assess the one-stop centers at least 

once every 3 years. This section also 

requires that any additional local 

criteria be reviewed and updated as part 

of the biennial review and modification 

process for updating local plans. This 

provision also explains that this 

certification must be completed for onestop centers to be eligible to receive 

infrastructure funds in the State 

infrastructure funding mechanism, as 

required by sec. 121(g)(4) of WIOA. 

Proposed § 678.800(e) emphasizes 

that all one-stops must be physically 

and programmatically accessible. The 

requirements related to accessibility are 

set forth in the regulations 

implementing WIOA sec. 188, at 29 CFR 

part 37. 

In addition to complying with the 

applicable architectural and 

programmatic accessibility requirements 

of the proposed regulations, one-stop 

centers and Boards may wish to 

consider the use of ‘‘universal design,’’ 

which designs inclusive space and 

materials to be available to individuals 

regardless of their range of abilities, 

mobility, age, language, learning style, 

intelligence, or educational level. 

Improved availability, a welcoming 

atmosphere, inclusive settings, and high 

quality customer service benefit all 

customers. Extensive technical 

assistance is available at www.ada.gov, 

and www.lep.gov. The Departments 

recommend that State Boards and Local 

Boards engage early with relevant Equal 

Opportunity officers in establishing the 

criteria for determining compliance 

with accessibility standards and other 

requirements related to providing equal 

opportunity, particularly for persons 

with disabilities. 

8. Subpart G—Common Identifier 

The proposed regulation in subpart G 

promotes increased public identification 

of the one-stop delivery system through 

use of a common identifier across the 

nation, consistent with sec. 121(e)(4) of 

WIOA. 

§ 678.900 What is the common 

identifier to be used by each one-stop 

delivery system? 

Proposed § 678.900(a) 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 Boards and 

Local Boards, and other stakeholders in 

the one-stop delivery system. As part of 

this consultation process, DOL engaged 

in a series of town hall meetings with 

State workforce agencies, and State and 

Local Workforce Boards, conducted in 

September and October 2014, in various 

cities across the country. In addition, 

two webinars were conducted on 

November 14 and December 9 with 

various stakeholders, including State 

agencies, State and Local Workforce 

Boards, and one-stop partners, and were 

open to the public. The topic of the 

webinar was dedicated solely to the 

topic of the common identifier for the 

one-stop delivery system. The DOL has 

also consulted with other departments 

and agencies, specifically ED and the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). The Departments also 

specifically request that the public or 

any interested stakeholder provide 

feedback and input as comments on the 

proposed ‘‘American Job Center’’ 

common identifier designation. 

‘‘American Job Center’’ is the common 

identifier that is currently being used by 

several one-stop delivery systems; 

furthermore, it has been promoted by 

the DOL and used by other Federal 

agencies since the issuance of Training 

and Employment Guidance Letter 

(TEGL) No. 36–11 on June 14, 2012. 

Continued use of the identifier 

‘‘American Job Center’’ will avoid the 

confusion of implementing a new 

common identifier; and several State 

and Local Boards have already begun 

incorporating the identifier in their 

products, materials, Web sites, and 

facilities. The Departments continue to 

seek feedback on the name and 

associated logo as part of the proposed 

rulemaking process. 

Proposed § 678.900(b) requires the use 

of ‘‘American Job Center’’ or the tagline 

‘‘a proud partner of the American Job 

Center network’’ on all one-stop 

delivery system products, programs, 

activities, services, facilities, and related 

property and materials to help inform 

system users that the products, 

programs, activities, services, facilities, 

and related property and materials are 

provided by and through the publically 

funded one-stop delivery system. The 

Departments will issue templates and 

designs of a logo, phrase, or other 

material for the one-stop delivery 

system to use to associate this common 

identifier with the system. Local Boards 

should immediately start the process of 

incorporating the identifier on products, 

programs, activities, services, and 

related and materials. Incorporating the 

identifier on facilities and related 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20610 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

property may take time. Local Boards 

may start the process of incorporating 

the identifier on facilities and property 

anytime, but must start this process at 

the time these regulations are published 

as a final rule, and fully implement the 

requirements listed in the final rule 

within PY 2016. 

Proposed paragraph § 678.900(c) 

allows the use of additional identifiers, 

per sec. 121(e)(4) of WIOA. 

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 present and future benefits 

and costs; directs that regulations be 

adopted 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 are to 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. OMB determines whether a 

regulatory action is significant and, 

therefore, 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 may: 

(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. 

Summary of the analysis. The 

Departments provide the following 

summary of the regulatory impact 

analysis: 

(1) The proposed joint rule is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f)(4) of E.O. 12866 and 

accordingly, OMB has reviewed the 

proposed rule. 

(2) The proposed joint rule would 

have no cost impact on small entities. 

(3) The proposed joint rule would not 

impose an unfunded mandate on 

Federal, State, local, or tribal 

governments as defined by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

In total, the Departments estimate that 

this joint NPRM would have an average 

annual cost of $147,128,434 and a total 

10-year cost of $1,154,622,032 (with 7- 

percent discounting). The largest 

contributor to the cost is the 

requirement related to evaluation of 

State programs, followed by the 

development of strategies to align 

technology and data systems across onestop partner programs. 

The Departments were unable to 

quantify estimates of several important 

benefits to society due to data 

limitations or lack of existing data or 

evaluation findings on particular items. 

Based on a review of empirical studies 

(primarily studies published in peerreviewed academic publications and 

studies sponsored by the Departments), 

the Departments identified a variety of 

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, in combination 

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. The Departments 

identified several channels through 

which these benefits might be achieved, 

including: (1) Better information about 

training providers will enable workers 

to make better-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. 

The Departments request comment on 

the costs and benefits of this NPRM 

with the goal of ensuring a thorough 

consideration and discussion at the final 

rule stage. 

1. Need for Regulation 

Section 503(f)(1) of WIOA requires 

publication of proposed implementation 

regulations. Implementing regulations 

are necessary in order for WIOA to be 

efficiently and effectively operated and 

such regulations will provide Congress 

and others with uniform information 

necessary to evaluate the outcomes of 

the new workforce law. 

2. Alternatives in Light of the Required 

Publication of Proposed 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. While WIOA provides little 

regulatory discretion, the Departments 

assessed, to the extent feasible, 

alternatives to the proposed regulations. 

In this NPRM, the Departments 

considered significant alternatives to 

accomplish the stated objectives of 

WIOA while also attempting to 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities. This analysis considered the 

extent to which WIOA’s prescriptive 

language presented any regulatory 

options that also would allow for 

achieving the statute’s articulated 

programmatic goals. In many instances, 

the Departments have reiterated WIOA’s 

language in the regulatory text and 

expansions are offered for clarification 

and guidance to the regulated 

community. The additional regulatory 

guidance should create more efficient 

administration of the program by 

reducing ambiguities and subsequent 

State and local revisions as a result of 

unclear statutory language. 

In addition, the Departments 

considered and, where feasible, 

proposed to issue sub-regulatory 

guidance in lieu of additional regulatory 

requirements. This policy option has 

two primary benefits to small entities. 

First, guidance will be issued following 

publication of the rules, thereby 

allowing States, local areas, and small 

entities additional time to prepare their 

compliance efforts. Second, this level of 

guidance is more flexible in nature 

allowing for faster modifications and 

any subsequent issuances, as necessary. 

The Departments considered three 

possible alternatives: 

(1) To implement the legislative 

changes prescribed in WIOA, as noted 

in this NPRM, thereby satisfying the 

legislative mandate; or 

(2) To take no action, that is, to 

attempt to implement WIOA utilizing 

existing Workforce Investment Act 

(WIA) regulations; or 

(3) To not publish any regulation and 

rescind existing WIA regulations, 

thereby ignoring the WIOA statutory 

requirement to publish implementing 

regulations and, thus forcing the 

regulated community to follow statutory 

language for implementation and 

compliance purposes. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20611 

1Based on internal Department of Education data. 

This figure includes the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and Palau. 

2Based on internal Department of Labor data. 

This figure includes the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. 

3Pursuant 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 Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, 

Continued 

The Departments considered these 

three options in accordance with the 

provisions of E.O. 12866 and chose to 

publish the WIOA NPRM, i.e., the first 

alternative. The Departments considered 

the second alternative, i.e., retain 

existing WIA regulations as the guide 

for WIOA implementation, but WIOA 

has changed WIA’s requirements 

substantially enough that new 

implementing regulations are necessary 

in order for the workforce system to 

achieve compliance. The Departments 

considered the third alternative, i.e., to 

not publish an implementing regulation 

and rescind existing WIA regulations, 

but rejected it because this option, in 

and of itself, does not provide sufficient 

detailed guidance to effectively 

implement the statutory requirements. 

Thus, regulations are necessary to 

achieve program compliance. 

In addition to the regulatory 

alternatives noted above, the 

Departments also considered whether 

certain aspects of WIOA could be 

phased-in over a prescribed period of 

time (different compliance dates), 

thereby allowing States and localities 

additional time for planning and 

successful implementation. As a policy 

option, this alternative appears 

appealing in a broad theoretical sense 

and, where feasible, the Departments 

have recognized and made allowances 

for different schedules of 

implementation. However, upon further 

discussion and in order to begin to 

achieve the intended legislative benefits 

of WIOA, additional implementation 

delays beyond those noted in this 

NPRM may create potentially more 

issues than the benefit of alternative 

starting dates. Specifically, many 

critical WIOA elements follow upon the 

implementation of other provisions and, 

therefore, discussions around delaying 

aspects became quite complicated. The 

interrelatedness of WIOA’s 

requirements suggested that the 

alternative of delaying aspects was not 

operationally feasible. 

Furthermore, the data necessary to 

fully review this option does not yet 

exist and will not until Local Workforce 

Development Boards (WDBs) conduct 

procurements and announce awards. 

Similarly, performance standards will 

be negotiated at a future time and based 

on a variety of factors including State 

and local economic conditions, 

resources, and priorities. Establishing 

proposed standards in advance of this 

statutorily-defined process may not be 

an efficient or effective action. The 

enforcement methods described in the 

proposed joint rule are a reflection of 

prescribed WIOA requirements and 

entity size should not in and of itself 

create alternative methods for 

compliance or different time periods for 

achieving compliance. Although the 

Departments have not determined 

sufficiently valid reasons for altering 

compliance timeframes in addition to 

those described in the proposed rule for 

small entities, we seek comment on this 

issue. 

The Departments’ initial impact 

analysis has concluded that by virtue of 

WIOA’s prescriptive language, 

particularly the requirement to publish 

implementing regulations within 180 

days, there are no viable regulatory 

alternatives available other than those 

discussed above. 

The Departments request comment on 

these or other alternatives, including 

alternatives on the specific proposed 

provisions contained in this NPRM, 

with the goal of ensuring a thorough 

consideration and discussion at the final 

rule stage. 

3. Analysis Considerations 

The Departments derived their 

estimates by comparing the existing 

baseline, i.e., the benefits and costs 

associated with current practices, which 

at a minimum, must comply with the 

2000 WIA Final Rule (65 FR 49294, 

Aug. 11, 2000), against the additional 

benefits and costs associated with 

implementation of the provisions 

contained in this WIOA-required joint 

NPRM. 

For a proper evaluation of the 

additional benefits and costs of this 

NPRM, the Departments explain how 

the required actions of States, WDBs, 

employers and training entities, 

government agencies, and other related 

entities are linked to the expected 

benefits and estimated costs. The 

Departments also considered, when 

appropriate, the unintended 

consequences of the proposed 

regulations introduced by this NPRM. 

The Departments make every effort, 

when feasible, to quantify and monetize 

the benefits and costs of the joint 

NPRM. The Departments were unable to 

quantify the benefits associated with the 

proposed rule because of data 

limitations and a lack of operational 

data or evaluation findings on the 

provisions of the proposed rule or 

WIOA in general. Therefore, the 

Departments describe the benefits 

qualitatively. The Departments followed 

the same approach when we were 

unable to quantify the costs. 

Throughout the benefit-cost analysis, 

the Departments made every effort to 

identify and quantify all potential 

incremental costs associated with the 

implementation of WIOA as distinct 

from what already exists under WIA, 

WIOA’s predecessor statute. Despite our 

best estimation efforts, however, the 

Departments might be double-counting 

some activities that are already 

happening under WIA. Thus, the costs 

itemized below represent an upper 

bound of the potential cost of 

implementing the statute. The 

Departments request comment on our 

cost estimates, specifically in terms of 

whether we have accurately captured 

the additional costs associated with 

implementation of WIOA. 

In addition to this joint NPRM, the 

Departments plan to propose separate 

NPRMs to implement program-specific 

requirements of WIOA that fall under 

each Department’s purview; see the 

Executive Summary section of this 

NPRM for details. While the 

Departments acknowledge that these 

proposed rules and their associated 

impacts are not wholly independent 

from one another, we are unaware of 

any reliable method of quantifying the 

effects of this interdependence. 

Therefore, this analysis does not capture 

the correlated impacts of the benefits 

and costs of this proposed joint rule and 

those associated with the other NPRMs. 

The Departments have made an effort to 

ensure there are no duplication of costs 

and benefits between this and the other 

NPRMs. We request comments from the 

public about the appropriateness of this 

assumption. 

In accordance with the regulatory 

analysis guidance contained in OMB 

Circular A–4 and consistent with the 

Departments’ practices in previous 

rulemakings, this regulatory analysis 

focuses on the likely consequences 

(benefits and costs that accrue to 

citizens and residents of the United 

States) of this WIOA-required NPRM. 

The analysis covers 10 years (2015 

through 2024) to ensure it captures 

major additional benefits and costs that 

accrue over time. The Departments 

express all quantifiable impacts in 2013 

dollars and use 3-percent and 7-percent 

discounting following OMB Circular 

A–4. 

Exhibit 1 presents the estimated 

number of entities expected to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20612 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

and the Virgin Islands. Twenty-four States have two 

designated State agencies for the VR program; 

therefore, there are a total of 80 VR agencies. The 

Departments note particularly that we have sought 

to avoid duplication of costs, given the fact that 

some States have two VR agencies. 

4States may elect to change the distribution of 

funds at the local level and appropriately document 

such changes in the State plans. However, as small 

entities are fully funded by the States, which are 

not small entities, the Departments do not 

anticipate any significant impact on small entities. 

5Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2013, National 

Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 

retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_

nat.htm. 6The wage rate for Federal employees is based on 

Step 5 of the General Schedule (source: OPM, 2013, 

Salary Table for the 2013 General Schedule, 

retrieved from: http://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2013/generalschedule/gs_h.pdf). 7BLS Employment Cost Index, 2013 Average 

Series ID CMU3010000000000D, 

CMU3010000000000P (source: Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, 2013 Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation, retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/

schedule/archives/ecec_nr.htm). 

8The 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 (1.55) instead of 

the private-sector wage factor (1.42) for all nonFederal employees to avoid underestimating the 

costs. 

experience an increase in level of effort 

(workload) due to the proposed 

regulations contained in this joint 

NPRM. These estimates are provided by 

the Departments and are used 

extensively throughout this analysis to 

calculate the estimated cost of each 

proposed provision. 

EXHIBIT 1—NUMBER OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY TYPE

Entity type Number of 

entities 

States impacted by Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) program requirements ........................................................ 1 57 

States impacted by DOL program requirements ................................................................................................................................. 2 56 

States impacted by Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program requirements ........................................................................................ 3 56 

States that need to develop and disseminate best practices ............................................................................................................. 40 

States that need low effort to implement software/IT systems ........................................................................................................... 20 

States that need high effort to implement software/IT systems .......................................................................................................... 15 

Workforce Development Boards .......................................................................................................................................................... 580 

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 new 

requirements imposed by WIOA. In 

accordance with OMB Circular A–4, the 

Departments 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 than that utilized 

for the distribution of funds under 

WIA.4 Final program year grant 

allocations will reflect WIOA 

requirements and are under 

development. 

One example of where impacts are 

discussed qualitatively, rather than 

quantified, concerns the expectation 

that available U.S. workers trained and 

hired who were previously unemployed 

will no longer need to seek new or 

continued unemployment insurance 

benefits. Assuming other factors remain 

constant, the Departments expect State 

unemployment insurance expenditures 

to decline because of the hiring of U.S. 

workers following WIOA 

implementation. The Departments, 

however, cannot quantify these transfer 

payments due to a lack of adequate data. 

In the subject-by-subject analysis, the 

Departments present the additional 

labor and other costs associated with the 

implementation of each of the proposed 

provisions in this NPRM. Exhibit 2 

presents the compensation rates for the 

occupational categories expected to 

experience an increase in level of effort 

(workload) due to the proposed rule. 

The Departments used wage rates from 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Mean 

Hourly Wage Rate for private and State 

and local employees.5 The Departments 

also used wage rates from the Office of 

Personnel Management’s Salary Table 

for the 2013 General Schedule for 

Federal employees.6 The Departments 

adjusted the wage rates using a loaded 

wage factor to reflect total 

compensation, which includes health 

and retirement benefits. For the State 

and local sectors, the Departments used 

a loaded wage factor of 1.55, which 

represents the ratio of total 

compensation 7 to wages.8 For Federal 

employees, we used a loaded wage 

factor of 1.69 based on internal data 

from DOL. The Departments then 

multiplied the loaded wage factor by 

each occupational category’s wage rate 

to calculate an hourly compensation 

rate. 

The Departments invite comments 

regarding the assumptions used to 

estimate the level of additional effort 

required for the various proposed new 

activities, as well as data sources for the 

wages and the loaded wage factors that 

reflect employee benefits used in the 

analysis. 

The Departments use the hourly 

compensation rates presented in Exhibit 

2 throughout this analysis to estimate 

additional labor costs for each proposed 

provision. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20613 

9BLS OES, May 2013, 44–0000 Office and 

Administrative Support Occupations (http://www.

bls.gov/oes/current/999201.htm#43-0000). 

10BLS OES, May 2013, 11–1021 General and 

Operations Managers (http://www.bls.gov/oes/

current/999201.htm#11-0000). 

11BLS OES, May 2013, 23–10111 Lawyers 

(http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/999201.htm#23- 

0000). 

12BLS OES, May 2013, 11–0000 Management 

Occupations (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/

999201.htm#11-0000). 

13BLS OES, May 2013, average for the following 

occupational categories weighted by the number of 

employees in State government: 15–1131 Computer 

Programmers (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/

999201.htm#15-0000); 15–1132 Software 

Developers, Applications (http://www.bls.gov/oes/

current/999201.htm#15-0000); 15–1133 Software 

Developers, Systems Software (http://www.bls.gov/ 

oes/current/999201.htm#15-0000); and 15–1134 

Web Developers (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/

999201.htm#15-0000). 

EXHIBIT 2—CALCULATION OF HOURLY COMPENSATION RATES

Position Grade 

level 

Average 

hourly wage 

Loaded wage 

factor 

Hourly 

compensation 

rate 

a B c = a × b 

State and Local Employees 

Administrative staff 9 ................................................................................................ N/A $17.96 1.55 $27.84 

Board staff 10 ............................................................................................................ ................ 45.32 1.55 70.25 

Legal counsel/staff 11 ............................................................................................... ................ 40.68 1.55 63.05

Local stakeholders 12 ............................................................................................... ................ 44.52 1.55 69.01

Managers 11 ............................................................................................................. ................ 45.32 1.55 70.25 

Technical staff 13 ...................................................................................................... ................ 43.38 1.55 67.24 

Federal Employees 

Federal positions ..................................................................................................... GS–13 38.92 1.69 65.77 

The section-by-section analysis 

presents the total incremental cost of the 

proposed joint rule relative to the 

baseline, i.e., the current practice under 

WIA. At a minimum, all affected entities 

are currently required to comply with 

the 2000 WIA Final Rule (65 FR 49294, 

Aug. 11, 2000); however, some affected 

entities may already be in compliance 

with aspects of the proposed joint rule. 

This analysis estimates the incremental 

cost that would be incurred by affected 

entities that are not yet in compliance 

with the proposed rule. The equation 

below shows the method by which the 

Departments calculated the incremental 

total cost for each provision over the 10- 

year analysis period. 

Where, 

Al = Number of affected entities that would 

incur labor costs, 

Ni = Number of staff of labor type i, 

Hi = Hours required per staff of labor type i, 

Wi = Mean hourly wage of staff of labor type 

i, 

Li = Loaded wage factor of staff of labor type 

i, 

Aj = Number of affected entities incurring 

non-labor costs of type j, 

Cj = Non-labor cost of type j, 

i = Staff type, 

n = Number of staff types, 

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 3 for a summary of the 10-year 

cost of the proposed joint rule by 

provision). The total labor cost is the 

sum of the labor costs for each labor 

type i (e.g., administrative staff, counsel 

staff, and managers) multiplied by the 

number of affected entities that will 

incur labor costs, Al. The labor cost for 

each labor type i is calculated by 

multiplying the number of staff required 

to perform the proposed activity, Ni; the 

hours required per staff member to 

perform the proposed activity, Hi; the 

mean hourly wage of staff of labor type 

i, Wi; and the loaded wage factor of staff 

of labor type i, Li. The total non-labor 

cost is the sum of the non-labor 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. 

4. Subject-by-Subject Benefit-Cost 

Analysis 

The Departments’ analysis below 

covers the expected impacts of the 

following proposed provisions of the 

WIOA joint NPRM against the baseline 

of the current practice under WIA: (a) 

Time to Review the New Rule; (b) New 

Elements to State and Local Plans; (c) 

Development and Updating of State 

Performance Accountability Measures; 

(d) Identification and Dissemination of 

Best Practices; (e) Development of 

Strategies for Aligning Technology and 

Data Systems across One-stop Partner 

Programs to Enhance Service Delivery 

and Improve Efficiencies; (f) Unified or 

Combined State Plan; (g) Local Plan 

Revisions; (h) State Performance 

Accountability Measures; (i) 

Performance Reports; and (j) Evaluation 

of State Programs. 

The Departments emphasize that 

many of the proposed provisions in this 

WIOA-required joint NPRM are also 

existing requirements under WIA. For 

example, the requirement that States 

‘‘prepare performance reports’’ is a 

current requirement under WIA that 

States routinely undertake. Accordingly, 

our regulatory analysis focuses on 

‘‘new’’ benefits and costs that can be 

attributed exclusively to new 

requirements under WIOA, as addressed 

in this joint NPRM. Much of WIA’s 

infrastructure and operations are carried 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP16AP15.001</GPH>
20614 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

14The cost estimates in this analysis could be a 

little bit off due to rounding. 

forward under WIOA and, therefore, are 

not considered ‘‘new’’ cost burdens 

under this NPRM. 

a. Time To Review the New Rule 

Upon publication of this joint NPRM, 

the regulated community would need to 

learn about the new WIOA 

requirements, including the proposed 

regulations, and plan for compliance. 

Costs 

At the State level for DOL programs, 

the Departments estimated this labor 

cost by multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers per State 

(2) by the time required to read and 

review the new rule (20 hours), and 

then by the applicable hourly 

compensation rate. We multiplied this 

product ($8,189) by the number of 

States (56) to estimate this one-time cost 

of $458,582.14

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

labor cost by multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers per State 

(5) by the time required to read and 

review the new rule (40 hours) and then 

by the applicable hourly compensation 

rate. We performed the same calculation 

for the following occupational 

categories: counsel staff (1 legal counsel 

for 40 hours), technical staff (2 staff for 

40 hours), and administrative staff (5 

staff for 40 hours). We summed the 

labor cost for all four categories 

($27,518) and multiplied the result by 

the number of States (57) to estimate 

this one-time cost of $1,568,531. 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments multiplied 

the estimated average number of 

managers for all local entities within a 

State (40) by the time required to read 

and review the new rule (40 hours) and 

then by the hourly compensation rate. 

We repeated the calculation for the 

technical (40 staff for 40 hours) and 

administrative staff (40 staff for 40 

hours). We did not estimate legal 

counsel hours for local level AEFLA 

programs as our experience indicates 

that this labor category is typically 

engaged only at the State level. We 

summed the labor cost for all three 

categories of personnel ($264,517) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States (57). This calculation yields a 

total of $15,077,458 in labor costs in the 

first year of the rule. 

For State VR agencies, the 

Departments multiplied the estimated 

number of managers per VR agency (3) 

by the time required to read and review 

the new rule (20 hours) and then by the 

hourly compensation rate. We 

performed the same calculation for the 

counsel (1 staff for 40 hours) and 

technical staff (1 staff for 20 hours). We 

summed the labor cost for all three 

categories ($6,821) and multiplied the 

result by the number of VR agencies 

(80). The one-time cost is estimated to 

be $545,650. 

The sum of these costs yields a total 

one-time cost of $17,650,220 for 

individuals from State-level DOL 

programs, State and local level AEFLA 

programs, and State VR agencies to read 

and review the proposed new rule. Over 

the 10-year period of analysis these onetime costs result in an average annual 

cost of $1,765,022. 

b. New Elements to State and Local 

Plans 

WIOA sec. 102(b) establishes new 

major content areas of the Unified or 

Combined State Plan, which include 

strategic and operational planning 

elements. Strategic planning elements 

include State analyses of economic and 

workforce factors, an assessment of 

workforce development activities, 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 or Education, or 

other Secretaries, as appropriate. WIOA 

sec. 108(b) establishes strategic planning 

and operational elements for local 

plans. These requirements set the 

foundation for WIOA principles by 

fostering strategic alignment, improving 

service integration, and ensuring that 

the workforce system is industryrelevant, responding to the economic 

needs of the local workforce 

development area, and matching 

employers with skilled workers. 

Costs 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

labor cost by multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers per State 

(5) by the time required to develop, 

review, and revise the State Plan (40 

hours) and the hourly compensation 

rate. We performed the same calculation 

for the following occupational 

categories: counsel staff (1 staff for 20 

hours), technical staff (2 staff for 40 

hours), and administrative staff (5 staff 

for 20 hours). We summed the labor cost 

for all four categories ($23,473) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States (57) to estimate this biennial cost 

of $1,337,972. Over the 10-year period, 

this calculation yields an average 

annual cost of $668,986. 

The Departments estimated the 

consultant costs for the State-level 

AEFLA program by multiplying the 

consultant costs per State ($25,000) by 

the number of States (57). This 

calculation yields a biennial cost of 

$1,425,000. Over the 10-year period, 

this results in an average annual cost of 

$712,500. 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

cost by multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers for all local 

entities within a State (40) by the time 

required to develop, review, and revise 

the local plan (40 hours) and the hourly 

compensation rate. We repeated the 

calculation for the administrative staff 

(40 staff for 20 hours). We did not 

estimate any legal counsel or technical 

staff hours for local level AEFLA 

programs as our experience indicates 

that these labor categories are typically 

engaged only at the State level. We 

summed the labor cost for the two 

occupational categories ($134,664) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States (57). The biennial cost at the local 

level for the AEFLA program is 

estimated to be $7,675,848, which 

would result in an average annual cost 

of $3,837,924 over the 10-year period. 

For State VR agencies, the 

Departments estimated this cost by first 

multiplying the estimated number of 

managers per VR agency (1) by the time 

required to review and revise the State 

Plan (5 hours) and the hourly 

compensation rate. We performed the 

same calculation for the technical staff 

(1 staff for 5 hours). Summing the labor 

cost for both categories ($687) and 

multiplying the result by the number of 

VR agencies (80) results in a biennial 

cost of $54,994 for State VR agencies. 

Over the 10-year period, this calculation 

yields an average annual cost of 

$27,497. 

For State Boards, DOL estimates that 

there will be costs associated with State 

planning attributed to the extra effort to 

coordinate and develop a plan between 

the six core programs administered by 

the Departments of Education and 

Labor, respectively, which is a new 

requirement under WIOA. The 

Departments estimate the costs for this 

new requirement to coordinate among 

the six core programs in the State plan 

under (f) Unified or Combined State 

Plan and (g) Local Plan Revisions. 

WIOA requires more substantial labor 

market information (LMI) data be 

included in the State Plan than was 

required under WIA. This is a cost that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20615 

DOL estimates will impact the State 

level DOL core programs because the 

State typically provides the LMI data to 

local areas for the formulation of the 

local plan. Furthermore, WIOA will 

allow States to use existing data for their 

initial State Plan, so the additional cost 

will be offset substantially for the first 

State Plan required. For the required 

modification of State Plans and any 

subsequent State Plan under WIOA, the 

State will incur this cost to include 

substantial LMI data. 

For State-level DOL programs, the 

Departments estimated this cost by first 

multiplying the estimated number of 

technical staff per State (2) by the time 

required to review and revise the State 

Plan (16 hours) and the hourly 

compensation rate. We performed the 

same calculation for administrative staff 

(1 staff for 16 hours). Summing the labor 

cost for both categories ($2,597) and 

multiplying the result by the number of 

States (56) results in an annual cost of 

$145,435. 

The sum of these costs yields a total 

10-year cost of $53,923,423, or an 

average annual cost of $5,392,342, for 

individuals from the State and local 

level for all core programs to review and 

revise State and local plans to ensure 

they include the new elements. 

c. Development and Updating of State 

Performance Accountability Measures 

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 

core programs. The core programs are 

defined in WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii) to 

include the adult, dislocated worker, 

and youth programs under title I of 

WIOA, the AEFLA program under 

WIOA title II, the Wagner-Peyser 

program under the Wagner-Peyser Act 

as amended by WIOA title III, and the 

VR program under the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 as amended by WIOA title 

IV. With a few exceptions, including the 

local accountability system under WIOA 

sec. 116(c), the performance 

accountability requirements apply 

across all the core programs. 

Costs 

At the State level for DOL programs, 

the Departments estimated this labor 

cost by first multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers per State 

(1) by the time required to develop and 

update metrics and other accountability 

measures (32 hours) and the hourly 

compensation rate. We performed the 

same calculation for the technical (3 

staff for 80 hours) and administrative 

staff (1 staff for 32 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for all three categories 

($19,276) and multiplied the result by 

the number of States to estimate this 

annual cost of $1,079,459, or a total cost 

of $10,794,587 over the 10-year period. 

The Departments estimated the 

software and IT system cost for Statelevel DOL programs by multiplying the 

software and IT system cost ($100,000) 

by the number of States. This 

calculation yields an annual cost of 

$5,600,000 or a total cost of $56,000,000 

over the 10-year period. 

The Departments estimated the 

licensing fee costs for State-level DOL 

programs by multiplying the licensing 

fee costs ($50,000) by the number of 

States. This calculation yields an annual 

cost of $2,800,000 or a total cost of 

$28,000,000 over the 10-year period. 

The Departments estimated the 

consultant cost for State-level DOL 

programs by multiplying the consultant 

cost ($75,000) by the number of States. 

This calculation yields a one-time cost 

of $4,200,000, representing an average 

annual cost of $420,000 over the 10-year 

period. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

labor cost by first multiplying the 

estimated average number of managers 

per State (5) by the time required to 

develop and update metrics and other 

accountability measures (80 hours) and 

the hourly compensation rate. We 

repeated the calculation for the 

technical staff (2 staff for 80 hours) and 

administrative staff (5 staff for 80 

hours). We summed the labor cost for all 

three categories ($49,992) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States to estimate this one-time cost of 

$2,849,535. Over the 10-year period, 

this calculation yields an average 

annual cost of $284,954. 

The Departments estimated the 

consultant cost for the State-level 

AEFLA program by multiplying the 

consulting costs per State ($25,000) by 

the number of States. This calculation 

yields a one-time cost of $1,425,000. 

Over the 10-year period, this calculation 

yields an average annual cost of 

$142,500. 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

cost by first multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers for all local 

entities within a State (40) by the time 

required to participate in statewide 

stakeholder meetings and other 

activities to provide input for the 

development and updating of metrics 

and other accountability measures (80 

hours) and the hourly compensation 

rate. We performed the same calculation 

for the technical staff (40 staff for 80 

hours). We summed the labor cost for 

the two occupational categories 

($439,952) and multiplied the result by 

the number of States to estimate this 

one-time cost of $25,077,264. Over the 

10-year period, this calculation yields 

an average annual cost of $2,507,726. 

For State VR agencies, the 

Departments estimated this cost by first 

multiplying the estimated number of 

managers per VR agency (6) by the time 

required to develop and update metrics 

and other accountability measures (10 

hours) and the hourly compensation 

rate. We repeated the calculation for the 

technical staff (4 staff for 10 hours). We 

summed the labor cost for both 

categories ($6,904) and multiplied the 

result by the number of VR agencies to 

estimate this one-time cost as $552,346. 

The sum of these calculations yields 

a total first year costs of $43,583,603 

and a subsequent annual cost of 

$9,479,459 for individuals from the 

State and local level for all core 

programs to develop and update metrics 

and other accountability measures to 

assess the effectiveness of the core 

programs in the State. The estimated 

total 10-year cost of developing and 

updating State performance 

accountability measures is 

$128,898,731, resulting in average 

annual cost of $12,889,873. 

d. Identification and Dissemination of 

Best Practices 

Under WIOA sec. 101(d)(5), State 

Boards must assist Governors in the 

identification and dissemination of best 

practices, including practices for the 

effective operation of one-stop centers; 

the development of effective Local 

Boards; and the development of 

effective training programs that respond 

to real-time labor market analysis and 

support efficient placement of 

individuals into employment or career 

pathways. 

Costs 

The Departments estimated the labor 

cost for State WDB staff by multiplying 

the estimated average number of 

managers per State (1) by the time 

required to identify and disseminate 

information (20 hours) and the hourly 

compensation rate. We performed the 

same calculation for the technical staff 

(2 staff for 40 hours) and administrative 

staff (1 staff for 20 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for all three categories 

($7,341) and multiplied the result by the 

number of States that need to develop 

and disseminate best practices (40) to 

estimate an average annual cost of 

$293,632. 

This cost is likely a lower bound 

estimate because we did not include the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20616 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

15The Departments estimated the annual software 

and IT systems cost of this provision at the State 

level for the AEFLA program by multiplying the 

software and IT systems cost per State by the 

number of States ($150,000 × 57). This yields an 

average annual cost of $8,550,000. 

effort required for the entities that 

receive the best practices to implement 

them. The Departments did not have 

adequate data to estimate this 

implementation cost and invites the 

public to submit data sources or 

estimates for consideration during the 

final rule stage. 

e. Development of Strategies for 

Aligning Technology and Data Systems 

Across One-Stop Partner Programs To 

Enhance Service Delivery and Improve 

Efficiencies 

Under WIOA sec. 101(d)(8), State 

Boards must assist Governors in the 

development of strategies for aligning 

technology and data systems across onestop partner programs to enhance 

service delivery and improve 

efficiencies in reporting on performance 

accountability measures, including 

design 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. 

Costs 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

labor cost by first multiplying the 

estimated average number of managers 

per State (5) by the time required to 

develop strategies (40 hours) and the 

hourly compensation rate. We 

performed the same calculation for the 

technical staff (2 staff for 120 hours) and 

administrative staff (5 staff for 40 

hours). We summed the labor cost for all 

three categories ($35,754) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States to estimate a recurring annual 

cost of $2,037,987. 

The Departments estimated the 

software and IT systems cost for the 

State-level AEFLA program by 

multiplying the software and IT systems 

costs per State ($150,000) by the number 

of States. This calculation yields an 

estimated recurring annual cost of 

$8,550,000.15

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

cost by first multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers for all local 

entities within a State (40) by the time 

required to develop strategies (40 hours) 

and the hourly compensation rate. We 

performed the same calculation for the 

technical staff (40 staff for 120 hours). 

We summed the labor cost for the two 

occupational categories ($435,141) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States to estimate a recurring annual 

cost of $24,803,026. 

For State VR agencies, the 

Departments estimated this cost by first 

multiplying the estimated number of 

managers per VR agency (1) by the time 

required to develop strategies (8 hours) 

and the hourly compensation rate. We 

repeated the calculation for the legal 

staff (1 staff for 4 hours) and technical 

staff (1 staff for 16 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for the two categories 

($1,890) and multiplied the result by the 

number of VR agencies to estimate a 

recurring annual cost of $151,201. 

The Departments estimated the labor 

cost that State WDBs would incur by 

multiplying the estimated average 

number of WDB staff per State (1) by the 

time required to develop strategies (80 

hours) and the hourly compensation 

rate. We repeated the calculation for the 

technical staff (2 staff for 120 hours). We 

summed the labor cost for both 

categories ($21,757) and multiplied the 

result by the number of States to 

estimate this one-time cost of 

$1,218,394. 

The sum of these calculations yields 

a first year cost of $36,760,608 with 

subsequent annual costs of $35,542,213 

for individuals from the State and local 

level for all core programs to develop 

strategies for aligning technology and 

data systems across one-stop partner 

programs. The estimated total 10-year 

cost of developing and updating State 

performance accountability measures is 

$356,640,528, resulting in average 

annual cost of $35,664,053. 

f. Unified or Combined State Plan 

WIOA sec. 102 requires the Governor 

of each State to submit a Unified or 

Combined State Plan to the Secretary of 

the Department 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 (title I of WIOA); 

the AEFLA program (title II of WIOA); 

the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service 

(Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by title 

III of WIOA); and the VR program under 

title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

(as amended by title IV of WIOA). At a 

minimum, States must submit a Unified 

State Plan, which encompasses these six 

core programs. Although each of the 

core programs was required to submit 

State Plans under WIA and, thus, the 

submission of the plans does not 

represent an added cost under WIOA, 

some programs may experience 

additional costs related to the planning 

requirements unique to becoming part 

of a Unified or Combined State Plan 

under WIOA. 

As stated above, WIOA sec. 102 

requires, at a minimum, States to submit 

a Unified State Plan, which 

encompasses the six core programs 

under WIOA. Under WIOA sec. 103, 

States may submit, in the alternative, a 

Combined State Plan, which includes 

the six core programs of the Unified 

State Plan, plus one or more of the 

optional Combined State Plan programs 

described in WIOA sec. 103(a)(2). 

Costs 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

labor cost by first multiplying the 

estimated average number of managers 

per State (5) by the time required to 

participate in statewide stakeholder 

meetings and other activities to develop, 

review, and revise the State Plan (24 

hours) and the hourly compensation 

rate. We repeated the calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

counsel staff (1 staff for 8 hours), 

technical staff (2 staff for 24 hours), and 

administrative staff (5 staff for 16 

hours). We summed the labor cost for all 

four categories ($14,388) and multiplied 

the result by the number of States to 

estimate this one-time cost of $820,142. 

The Departments estimated the 

consultant costs for the State-level 

AEFLA program by multiplying the 

consultant costs per State ($25,000) by 

the number of States. This calculation 

yields a one-time cost of $1,425,000. 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

cost by first multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers for all local 

entities within a State (40) by the time 

required to participate in statewide 

stakeholder meetings and other 

activities to develop, review, and revise 

a Unified or Combined State plan (24 

hours) and the hourly compensation 

rate. We repeated the calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

counsel staff (3 staff for 8 hours), 

technical staff (40 staff for 24 hours), 

administrative staff (40 staff for 16 

hours), and local stakeholders (100 

stakeholders for 8 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for the five occupational 

categories ($217,221) and multiplied the 

result by the number of States to 

estimate this one-time cost of 

$12,381,609. 

For DOL’s State-level program costs 

associated with State WDBs, the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated average 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20617 

number of managers per State (2) by the 

time required to submit a Unified and 

Combined State Plan (20 hours) and the 

hourly compensation rate. We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

counsel staff (1 staff for 8 hours), 

technical staff (4 staff for 20 hours), and 

administrative staff (1 staff for 8 hours). 

We summed the labor cost for all four 

categories ($8,916) and multiplied the 

result by the number of States to 

estimate this cost of $499,301 that 

occurs in 2016 and 2020. 

For State VR agencies, the 

Departments estimated this cost by 

multiplying the estimated number of 

managers per VR agency (2) by the time 

required to engage in the planning 

process for Unified or Combined State 

Plans (7 hours) and the hourly 

compensation rate. We performed the 

same calculation for the technical staff 

(2 staff for 7 hours). We summed the 

labor cost for the two categories ($1,925) 

and multiplied the result by the number 

of VR agencies to estimate a recurring 

annual cost of $153,983. 

There is no additional cost to DOL 

State or local programs associated with 

this provision because these programs 

currently submit Unified or Combined 

State Plans under WIA. 

The sum of these calculations yields 

first year costs of $14,780,735 for 

individuals from the State and local 

level for all core programs to comply 

with this provision, subsequent annual 

costs of $153,983 for VR State agencies, 

and a total cost of $998,603 associated 

with State WDBs for years 2016 and 

2020. The estimated total 10-year cost of 

activities related to the submission of 

the States Unified or Combined State 

Plan is $17,165,187, resulting in average 

annual cost of $1,716,519. 

g. Local Plan Revisions 

WIOA sec. 108(b) establishes strategic 

planning and operational elements for 

local plans. These requirements set the 

foundation for WIOA principles, by 

fostering strategic alignment, improving 

service integration, and ensuring that 

the workforce system is industryrelevant, responding to the economic 

needs of the local workforce 

development area, and matching 

employers with skilled workers. The 

previously developed local plans under 

WIA will have to be revised to address 

new issues and submitted every 4 years. 

Costs 

For DOL’s local-level program costs 

associated with local WDBs, the 

Departments estimated this cost by first 

multiplying the estimated average 

number of managers per local WDB (2) 

by the time required to revise and 

submit an updated local plan (20) and 

the hourly compensation rate. We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

counsel staff (1 staff for 8 hours), 

technical staff (4 staff for 20 hours), and 

administrative staff (1 staff for 8 hours). 

We summed the labor cost for all four 

categories ($8,916) and multiplied the 

result by the number of local WDBs 

(580) to estimate this cost of $5,171,336, 

which occurs twice during the analysis 

period (2016 and 2020). 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

cost by first multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers for all local 

entities within a State (40) by the time 

required to develop, review, revise, and 

submit an updated local plan (24 hours) 

and the hourly compensation rate. We 

performed the same calculation for the 

following occupational categories: 

technical staff (40 staff for 24 hours), 

administrative staff (40 staff for 16 

hours), and local stakeholders (100 

stakeholders for 8 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for all four categories 

($215,708) and multiplied the result by 

the number of States to estimate this 

one-time cost as $12,295,351. 

These particular projected costs 

pertain solely to locally-administered 

programs and do not impact the core 

programs at the State level. 

The sum of these calculations yields 

a total 10-year cost of $22,638,023, 

which results in an average annual cost 

of $2,263,802 for individuals from the 

local WDBs and the local AEFLA 

programs to revise and submit updated 

local plans. 

h. State Performance Accountability 

Measures 

WIOA sec. 116(b) 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 

core programs. Under that provision, 

States must include primary indicators 

of performance in their Unified or 

Combined State Plans, and may identify 

additional indicators of performance for 

the six core programs. These indicators 

must be included in the Unified or 

Combined State Plan. 

Costs 

At the State level for DOL programs, 

the Departments estimated this labor 

cost by first multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers per State 

(1) by the time required to comply with 

increased data collection and processing 

requirements (32 hours) and the hourly 

compensation rate. We performed the 

same calculation for the technical staff 

(3 staff for 80 hours) and administrative 

staff (1 staff for 32 hours). We summed 

the labor cost for all three categories 

($19,276) and multiplied the result by 

the number of States to estimate this 

annual cost of $96,380. 

The Departments estimated the 

software and IT system cost for Statelevel DOL programs by multiplying the 

software and IT system cost ($100,000) 

by the number of States expected to 

submit data (5). This calculation yields 

an annual cost of $500,000. 

The Departments estimated the 

licensing fee costs for State-level DOL 

programs by multiplying the licensing 

fee costs ($50,000) by the number of 

States expected to submit data (5). This 

calculation yields an annual cost of 

$250,000. 

The Departments estimated the 

consultant cost for State-level DOL 

programs by multiplying the consultant 

cost ($75,000) by the number of States 

expected to submit data. This 

calculation yields a one-time cost of 

$375,000. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

labor cost by first multiplying the 

estimated average number of managers 

per State (5) by the time required to 

obtain these data (7 hours) and the 

hourly compensation rate. We 

performed the same calculation for 

technical staff (2 staff for 7 hours) and 

administrative staff (5 staff for 7 hours). 

We summed the labor cost for all three 

categories ($4,374) and multiplied the 

result by the number of States expected 

to submit additional data to estimate 

this one-time cost as $21,871. 

For State VR agencies, the 

Departments estimated the cost to 

obtain quarterly State unemployment 

insurance wage data by first multiplying 

the estimated number of managers per 

VR agency (2) by the time required to 

obtain these data (20 hours) and the 

hourly compensation rate. We 

performed the same calculation for the 

counsel staff (1 staff for 20 hours) and 

technical staff (2 staff for 20 hours). We 

summed the labor cost for all three 

categories ($6,760) and multiplied the 

result by the number of VR agencies 

expected to provide additional 

information (7) to estimate this one-time 

cost as $47,323. 

For State VR agencies, the 

Departments estimated the cost to 

obtain additional information for new 

data fields by multiplying the estimated 

number of technical staff per VR agency 

(60) by the time required to obtain these 

data (9 hours) and the hourly 

compensation rate. We multiplied the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20618 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

16To estimate the software, IT, and consultant 

cost of this provision at the State-level for DOL 

programs, the Departments first estimated the 

software, IT, and consultant cost for low-effort 

States by multiplying the non-labor cost per loweffort State by the number of low-effort States 

($200,000 × 20 = $4,000,000). We estimated the 

software, IT, and consultant program cost for higheffort States by multiplying the non-labor cost per 

high-effort State by the number of high-effort States 

($1,000,000 × 15 = $15,000,000). We summed these 

non-labor costs for low- and high-effort States 

($4,000,000 + $15,000,000), yielding an estimated 

annual software, IT, and consultant cost of 

$19,000,000. 

result ($36,309) by the number of VR 

agencies expected to provide additional 

information to estimate this annual cost 

as $254,163. 

The Departments estimated the 

software and IT costs for State VR 

agencies to obtain additional 

information for new data fields by 

multiplying the software and IT costs 

($5,000) by the number of VR agencies 

expected to provide additional 

information. This calculation yields a 

one-time cost of $35,000. 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

labor cost by multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers for all local 

entities within a State (40) by the time 

required to obtain additional 

information (7 hours) and the hourly 

compensation rate. We performed the 

same calculation for technical staff (40 

staff for 7 hours). We summed the labor 

cost for these categories ($38,496) and 

multiplied the number of States 

expected to provide additional 

information (5) to estimate this one-time 

cost of $192,479. 

The sum of these calculations yields 

a total 10-year cost of $11,677,110, 

which results in an average annual cost 

of $1,167,711 for individuals from the 

State and local levels for core programs 

to comply with increased data 

collection and processing requirements. 

i. Performance Reports 

Under WIOA sec. 116(d), States must 

make available performance reports for 

local areas and for ETPs under title I of 

the WIOA. WIOA also requires that 

States cooperate in evaluations of State 

programs overseen by the Departments 

of Labor and Education. Section 

116(d)(1) of WIOA requires the 

Departments to provide a performance 

reporting template for the performance 

reports required in WIOA secs. 

116(d)(2)–(4). 

Costs 

At the Federal level, the Departments 

estimated this labor cost by first 

multiplying the estimated average 

number of GS–13 Step 5 managers (1) by 

the time required to develop the 

reporting template (60 hours) and the 

hourly compensation rate. We 

performed the same calculation for the 

Federal staff labor category (10 staff for 

120 hours). We summed the labor cost 

of these two categories to estimate this 

one-time cost of $82,870. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

labor cost by first multiplying the 

estimated average number of managers 

per State (5) by the time required to 

develop the reporting template (40 

hours) and the hourly compensation 

rate. We performed the same calculation 

for the technical staff (2 staff for 40 

hours) and administrative staff (5 staff 

for 40 hours). We summed the labor cost 

for all three categories ($24,996) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States to estimate this one-time cost of 

$1,399,772. 

The Departments estimated the 

software and IT system cost for the 

State-level AEFLA programs by 

multiplying the software and IT system 

cost ($1,750,000) by the number of 

States. This calculation yields a onetime cost of $99,750,000, resulting in an 

average annual cost of $9,975,000 over 

a 10-year period. 

The Departments estimated the 

licensing fees for the State-level AEFLA 

programs by multiplying the per-State 

licensing fees ($25,000) by the number 

of States. This calculation yields a 

recurring annual cost of $1,425,000. 

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

labor cost by multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers for all local 

entities within a State (40) by the time 

required to participate in statewide 

stakeholder meetings and other 

activities to develop, review, and revise 

the reporting template (40 hours) and 

the hourly compensation rate. We 

multiplied the product by the number of 

States to estimate this one-time cost of 

$6,406,435. 

The sum of these calculations yields 

a total one-time cost of $107,639,077 for 

individuals from the Federal, State, and 

local levels to develop the reporting 

templates and an annual cost of 

$1,425,000 for licensing fees. The 10- 

year total costs result in an average 

annualized cost of $12,188,908. 

j. Evaluation of State Programs 

WIOA sec. 116(e)(1) requires States to 

conduct ongoing evaluations of 

activities carried out in the State under 

the core programs. To comply with 

WIOA sec. 116(e)(4), States must, to the 

extent practicable, cooperate in the 

conduct of evaluations (including 

related research projects) provided for 

by the Secretary of Labor or the 

Secretary of Education under the 

provisions of Federal law identified in 

WIOA sec. 116(e)(1); WIOA secs. 169 

and 242(c)(2)(D); secs. 12(a)(5), 14, and 

sec. 107 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 (29 U.S.C. 709(a)(5), 711, 727) 

(applied with respect to programs 

carried out under title I of that Act (29 

U.S.C. 720 et seq.)); 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)). 

Costs 

At the State level for DOL programs, 

the Departments estimated this labor 

cost by first multiplying the estimated 

average number of managers per State 

(1) by the time required to evaluate 

ongoing program activities (20 hours) 

and the hourly compensation rate. We 

performed the same calculation for the 

technical staff (2 staff for 20 hours) and 

administrative staff (1 staff for 10 

hours). We summed the labor cost for all 

three categories ($4,373) and multiplied 

the result by the number of States to 

estimate this annual cost of $244,880. 

At the State level for DOL programs, 

the Departments estimated the software, 

IT system, and consultant costs for both 

‘‘low-effort’’ States, those with either 

smaller populations or more robust 

existing IT system infrastructure, and 

for ‘‘high-effort’’ States with larger 

populations or limited IT system 

infrastructure. We first multiplied the 

software, IT system, and consultant 

costs for low-effort States ($200,000) by 

the number of low-effort States (20). We 

performed the same calculation for 

high-effort States (15 States at 

$1,000,000 each). We summed these 

costs for both State categories to 

estimate an annual cost of 

$19,000,000.16 This estimate represents 

the cost associated with the proposed 

joint rule beyond the IT expenditures 

currently incurred by State workforce 

agencies. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated the 

labor cost by first multiplying the 

estimated average number of managers 

per State (5) by the time required to 

evaluate ongoing program activities (120 

hours) and the hourly compensation 

rate. We performed the same calculation 

for the technical staff (2 staff for 80 

hours) and administrative staff (5 staff 

for 80 hours). We summed the labor cost 

for all three categories ($64,041) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States to estimate an annual cost of 

$3,650,339. 

At the State level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated the 

software and IT system costs by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20619 

17To estimate the software and IT system cost of 

this provision at the State-level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments multiplied the software 

and IT system cost per State by the number of States 

($250,000 × 57). This yields an annual software and 

IT system cost of $14,250,000. 

multiplying the software and IT system 

costs ($250,000) by the number of 

States. This calculation yields an annual 

cost of $14,250,000.17

At the local level for the AEFLA 

program, the Departments estimated this 

labor cost by first multiplying the 

estimated average number of managers 

for all local entities within a State (40) 

by the time estimated to collect, review, 

and revise data provided for the 

evaluation of ongoing program activities 

(120 hours) and the hourly 

compensation rate. We performed the 

same calculation for the technical staff 

(40 staff for 80 hours) and 

administrative staff (40 staff for 80 

hours). We summed the labor cost for all 

three categories ($641,427) and 

multiplied the result by the number of 

States to estimate an annual cost of 

$36,561,350. 

For State VR agencies, the 

Departments estimated this labor cost by 

first multiplying the estimated average 

number of managers per VR agency (1) 

by the time estimated to evaluate 

ongoing program activities (1 hour) and 

the hourly compensation rate. We 

performed the same calculation for the 

technical staff (1 staff for 13 hours) and 

administrative staff (1 staff for 2 hours). 

We summed the labor cost for all three 

categories ($1,000) and multiplied the 

result by the number of VR agencies to 

estimate an annual cost of $80,002. 

The sum of these calculations yields 

a total annual cost of $73,786,572, 

resulting in a total cost over the 10-year 

period of $737,865,722, for individuals 

from the State and local levels for all 

core programs to evaluate ongoing 

program activities. 

5. Summary of Analysis 

Exhibit 3 summarizes the annual and 

total costs of the proposed joint rule. 

The exhibit provides the total 10-year 

costs and the average annualized costs 

for each provision of the proposed joint 

rule. The exhibit also presents a highlevel 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 the 

proposed joint rule over the 10-year 

period of analysis at $147.1 million. The 

largest contributor to this cost is the 

provision related to the evaluation of 

State programs, which is estimated at 

$73.8 million per year. The next largest 

cost results from the development of 

strategies for aligning technology and 

data systems across one-stop partner 

programs at an estimated $35.7 million 

per year, followed by the average cost of 

developing and updating State 

performance accountability measures at 

an estimated $12.9 million per year. 

EXHIBIT 3—COST OF THE PROPOSED DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND LABOR JOINT RULE BY PROVISION

Total 10-year 

cost 

(undiscounted) 

Average annual 

cost 

(undiscounted) 

Percent of 

total cost Qualitative benefit highlights 

(a) Time to Review the New Rule ................ $17,650,220 $1,765,022 1.20 General requirement. 

(b) New Elements to State and Local Plans 53,923,423 5,392,342 3.67 Enhanced data for management decisionmaking and policy integration. 

(c) Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Measures.128,898,731 12,889,873 8.76 Clear articulation of expectations and outcomes for evaluation and accountability 

purposes. 

(d) Identification and Dissemination of Best 

Practices.

2,936,320 293,632 0.20 Mission clarification and system building. 

(e) Development of Strategies for Aligning 

Technology and Data Systems across 

One-stop Partner Programs to Enhance 

Service Delivery and Improve Efficiencies.

356,640,528 35,664,053 24.24 More efficient use of public resources; enhanced customer service; improved program management based on actual client 

data. 

(f) Unified or Combined State Plan .............. 17,165,187 1,716,519 1.17 Avoided program service duplication; enhanced internal State planning; avoided 

‘‘silos’’ and service duplications; more efficient use of public resources. 

(g) Local Plan Revisions ............................... 22,638,023 2,263,802 1.54 Continued accountability and linkage to outcomes and customer service. 

(h) State Performance Accountability Measures.11,677,110 1,167,711 0.79 Improved policy and management decisionmaking from measure data. 

(i) Performance Reports ............................... 121,889,077 12,188,908 8.28 Better management and policy decisions 

using outcome data; improved service 

and placements; more accountability. 

(j) Evaluation of State Programs .................. 737,865,722 73,786,572 50.15 Improved service delivery and customer 

service; enhanced policy-making and system building; more accountability. 

Total ....................................................... 1,471,284,341 147,128,434 100.00 

Note: Totals might not sum due to rounding. 

Exhibit 4 summarizes the first-year 

cost for each provision of the proposed 

joint rule. The Departments estimate the 

total first-year cost of the proposed joint 

rule at $320.6 million. The largest 

contributor to the first-year cost is the 

provision related to performance report 

development at $109.1 million. The 

next largest first-year cost results from 

evaluating State programs, amounting to 

$73.8 million, followed by the cost of 

developing and updating State 

performance accountability measures at 

$43.6 million. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20620 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

18 Department of Labor et. al. ‘‘What Works In Job 

Training: A Synthesis of the Evidence.’’ July 2014. 

19 Ibid. 

20 Decker, Paul T. and Jillian A. Berk. 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. 

21Hollenbeck, Kevin, Daniel Schroeder, 

Christopher T. King, and Wei-Jang Huang. ‘‘Net 

Impact Estimates for Services Provided through the 

Workforce Investment Act.’’ Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Labor, 2005. Available at http://

wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?

fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_id=2367&

mp=y&start=81&sort=7. 

22Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, and 

Kenneth R. Troske. ‘‘Workforce Investment Act 

EXHIBIT 4—FIRST-YEAR COST OF THE PROPOSED JOINT RULE BY PROVISION

Total first-year 

cost 

Percent of 

total first-year 

cost 

(a) Time to Review the New Rule ........................................................................................................................... $17,650,220 5.50 

(b) New Elements to State and Local Plans ........................................................................................................... 10,639,250 3.32 

(c) Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Measures .................................................... 43,583,603 13.59 

(d) Identification and Dissemination of Best Practices ............................................................................................ 293,632 0.09 

(e) Development of Strategies for Aligning Technology and Data Systems across One-stop Partner Programs 

to Enhance Service Delivery and Improve Efficiencies ....................................................................................... 36,760,608 11.47 

(f) Unified or Combined State Plan ......................................................................................................................... 14,780,735 4.61 

(g) Local Plan Revisions .......................................................................................................................................... 12,295,351 3.83 

(h) State Performance Accountability Measures ..................................................................................................... 1,772,217 0.55 

(i) Performance Reports .......................................................................................................................................... 109,064,077 34.02 

(j) Evaluation of State Programs ............................................................................................................................. 73,786,572 23.01 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 320,626,265 100.00 

Note: Totals might not sum due to rounding. 

Exhibit 5 summarizes the annual and 

total costs of the proposed joint 

Departments of Labor and Education 

rule. The total (undiscounted) cost of 

the rule sums to $1.5 billion over the 10- 

year analysis period, which amounts to 

an average annual cost of $147.1 million 

per year. In total, the 10-year discounted 

costs of the proposed rule range from 

$1.2 billion to $1.3 billion (with 7- and 

3-percent discounting, respectively). 

To contextualize the cost of the 

proposed joint rule, the average annual 

budget for WIA implementation over the 

past three years for the Departments of 

Labor and Education combined was $6.4 

billion. Thus, the annual additional cost 

of implementing this proposed rule is 

between 2.6 percent and 2.7 percent of 

the current WIA budget (with 3 percent 

and 7 percent discounting, respectively). 

EXHIBIT 5—MONETIZED COSTS OF DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR AND EDUCATION PROPOSED JOINT RULE

(2013 DOLLARS) 

Year Total costs 

2015 ...................................... $320,626,265 

2016 ...................................... 127,597,475 

2017 ...................................... 132,420,653 

2018 ...................................... 121,926,838 

2019 ...................................... 132,420,653 

2020 ...................................... 127,597,475 

2021 ...................................... 132,420,653 

2022 ...................................... 121,926,838 

2023 ...................................... 132,420,653 

2024 ...................................... 121,926,838 

Undiscounted 10-year Total 1,471,284,341 

10-year Total with 3% Discounting ............................. 1,316,646,285 

10-year Total with 7% Discounting ............................. 1,154,622,032 

10-year Average ................... 147,128,434 

Annualized with 3% Discounting ............................. 154,351,111 

Annualized with 7% Discounting ............................. 164,392,201 

Note: Totals might not sum due to rounding. 

Benefits 

The Departments were unable to 

quantify the benefits associated with the 

proposed joint rule because of data 

limitations and a lack of operational 

(WIOA) data or evaluation findings on 

the provisions of the proposed joint 

rule. Thus, the Departments cannot 

provide monetary estimates of several 

important benefits to society, including 

the increased employment opportunities 

for unemployed or under-employed U.S. 

workers, enhanced ETP process, and 

evaluation of State programs. In support 

of a State’s strategic plan and goals, 

State-conducted evaluation and research 

of programs would 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 and, thus, potentially lead 

to higher employment rates and 

earnings among participants. 

Implementing various innovations that 

have been tested and found effective 

could also 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 and use to improve 

participant results, lower unit costs, or 

increase the number served. 

The Departments invite comments 

regarding possible data sources or 

methodologies for estimating these 

benefits. In addition, the Departments 

invite comments regarding other 

benefits that might arise from the 

proposed joint rule and how these 

benefits could be estimated. 

The Departments provide a qualitative 

description of the anticipated WIOA 

benefits below. These qualitative 

forecasts are predicated on program 

experience and are outcomes for which 

data will only become available after 

implementation. Although these studies 

are largely based on programs and their 

existing requirements under WIA, they 

capture the essence of the societal 

benefits that can be expected from this 

proposed joint rule. 

Training’s impact on 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.18 However, the study noted 

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.19 The WIA youth 

program remains largely untested.20

One study found that WIA training 

services increase placement rates by 4.4 

percent among adults and by 5.9 percent 

among dislocated workers,21 while 

another study concluded that placement 

rates are 3 to 5 percent higher among all 

training recipients.22


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20621 

Non-Experimental Net Impact Evaluation.’’ 

Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, LLC, 2009. 23Park, Jooyoun. ‘‘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, 

2011. 24 Ibid. 25 Jackson, Russell H., Jamie Diamandopoulos, 

Carol Pistorino, Paul Zador, John Lopdell, Juanita 

Lucas-McLean, and Lee Bruno. ‘‘Youth Opportunity 

Grant Initiative (YO).’’ Houston, TX: Decision 

Information Resources, Inc., 2008. Available at 

http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_

Documents/YO%20Impact%20and%20Synthesis

%20Report.pdf. 

26Office of Policy Development and Research, 

U.S. Department of Labor. ‘‘Five-Year Research and 

Evaluation Strategic Plan Program Years 2012– 

2017.’’ May 2013. Available at http://wdr.doleta.

gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_result

Details&pub_id=2516&mp=y. 

27Barnow, Burt, and Daniel Gubits. ‘‘Review of 

Recent Pilot, Demonstration, Research, and 

Evaluation Initiatives to Assist in the 

Implementation of Programs under the Workforce 

Investment Act.’’ Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins 

University, 2003. Available at http://wdr.doleta.

gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_

puListingDetails&pub_id=2365&mp=y&start=81&

sort=7. 

28 Ibid. 

29Earnings Progression among Workforce 

Development Participants: Evidence from 

Washington State.’’ Eugene, OR: University of 

Oregon, 2011. Available at http://wdr.doleta.gov/

research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListing

Details&pub_id=2468&mp=y&start=1&sort=7. 

30Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, and 

Kenneth R. Troske. ‘‘Workforce Investment Act 

Non-Experimental Net Impact Evaluation.’’ 

Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, LLC, 2009. 

31Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, and 

Kenneth R. Troske. ‘‘Workforce Investment Act 

Non-Experimental Net Impact Evaluation.’’ 

Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, LLC, 2009. 

Available at http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/

FullText_Documents/Workforce%20Investment%20

Act%20Non-Experimental%20Net%20Impact%20

Evaluation%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

32 Gritz, Mark, and Terry Johnson. ‘‘National Job 

Corps Study: Assessing Program Effects on Earnings 

for Students Achieving Key Program Milestones.’’ 

Seattle, WA: Battelle Memorial Institute, 2001. 

Available at http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/

keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListing

Details&pub_id=2257&mp=y&start=141&sort=7. 

33Hollenbeck, Kevin, Daniel Schroeder, 

Christopher T. King, and Wei-Jang Huang. ‘‘Net 

Impact Estimates for Services Provided through the 

Workforce Investment Act.’’ Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Labor, 2005. Available at http://wdr.

doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/

Net%20Impact%20Estimates

%20for%20Services%20Provided

%20through%20the%20Workforce%20Investment

%20Act-%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

34Needels, Karen, Jeanne Bellotti, Mina Dadgar, 

and Walter Nicholson. ‘‘Evaluation of the Military 

Base National Emergency Grants: Final Report.’’ 

Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, 2006. 

35Reder, Stephen. Portland State University. 

2013. Briefs available at http://LINCS.ed.gov. 

36 Johnson, Terry, Mark Gritz, Russell Jackson, 

John Burghardt, Carol Boussy, Jan Leonard, and 

Carlyn Orians. ‘‘National Job Corps Study: Report 

on the Process Analysis.’’ Princeton, NJ: 

Mathematica Policy Research, 1999. Available at 

http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?

fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_

id=2213&mp=y&start=201&sort=7. 

37Reder, Stephen. Portland State University. 

2013. Briefs available at http://LINCS.ed.gov. 

38 Ibid. 

Participants in occupational training 

had a ‘‘5 percentage points higher 

reemployment rate than those who 

received no training, and reemployment 

rates were highest among recipients of 

on-the-job training, a difference of 10 to 

11 percentage points.’’ 23 However, the 

study found that training did not 

correspond to higher employment 

retention or earnings.24 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.25 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.26

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.27

WIA training increased participants’ 

quarterly earnings by $660; these 

impacts persisted beyond 2 years and 

were largest among women.28 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 only 

received 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.29 WIA training 

services also improved participants’ 

long-term wage rates, doubling earnings 

after 10 quarters over those not 

receiving training services.30 However, 

WIA participants who did not receive 

training 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.31

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 

did not complete training experienced 

no increase.32

Another publication also noted that 

on average, adults experienced a $743 

quarterly post-exit earnings boost.33

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.34

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 

provided strong evidence for the need 

for and economic value of adult basic 

skills. One study shows that not only do 

individuals who participate in adult 

basic skills training programs have 

higher future earnings, but income 

premiums are higher with more 

intensive participation. At 100 hours or 

more, the average treatment effect 

corresponded to $9,621 in 2013 

dollars.35

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.36

Studies examining the impact of 

participation on literacy proficiency 

determined that individuals who 

participated in adult basic skills 

programs tended to have higher levels of 

future literacy proficiency.37 Additional 

studies examined the impact of 

participation in adult basic skills 

training on General Education 

Development credential attainment and 

concluded that rates were elevated by 

0.20 and 0.32 by adult basic skills 

program participation.38 Another study 

found a robust impact of adult basic 

skills program participation on 

engagement in post-secondary 

education. The findings show that the 

programs increase adult basic skills 

students’ success in the early stages of 

post-secondary engagement and serve as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20622 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

39 Ibid. 

40 Greenstone, Michael, and Adam Looney. 

‘‘Building America’s Job Skills with Effective 

Workforce Programs: A Training Strategy to Raise 

Wages and Increase Work Opportunities.’’ 

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2011. 

41 Jacobson, Louis, Robert LaLonde, and Daniel 

Sullivan. ‘‘Policies to reduce high-tenured 

displaced workers’ earnings losses through 

retraining.’’ Discussion Paper 2011–11, The 

Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution, 

Washington, DC, 2011. 

42Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, Kenneth 

R. Troske, Kyung-Seong Jeon, Daver C. Kahvecioglu. 

2009 (November). ‘‘New Estimates of Public 

Employment and Training Program Net Impacts: A 

Nonexperimental Evaluation of the Workforce 

Investment Act Program.’’ Discussion Paper 4569, 

Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, 

Germany. 

43Courty, Pascal, and Gerald Marschke. ‘‘Making 

Government Accountable: Lessons from a Federal 

Job Training Program.’’ Public Administration 

Review 67.5 (2007): 904–916. 

44Heckman, James J., Carolyn Heinrich, and 

Jeffrey A. Smith. 1997. ‘‘Assessing the Performance 

of Performance Standards in Public Bureaucracies.’’ 

American Economic Review 87(2): 389–95. 

45 Ibid. 

46 Ibid. 

47 Dunham, Kate, Melissa Mack, Jeff Salzman, and 

Andrew Wiegand. ‘‘Evaluation of the WIA 

Performance Measurement System: Survey Report.’’ 

Oakland, CA: SPR Associates, 2005. Available at 

http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/

keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListing

Details&pub_id=2408&mp=y&start=41&sort=7. 

48Hollenbeck, Kevin, Daniel Schroeder, 

Christopher T. King, and Wei-Jang Huang. ‘‘Net 

Impact Estimates for Services Provided through the 

Workforce Investment Act.’’ Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Labor, 2005. Available at http://wdr.

doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/

Net%20Impact%20Estimates%20for%20Services%

20Provided%20through%20the%

20Workforce%20Investment%20Act-%20Final%

20Report.pdf. 

49Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, and 

Kenneth R. Troske. ‘‘Workforce Investment Act 

Non-Experimental Net Impact Evaluation.’’ 

Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, LLC, 2009. 

Available at http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/

keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_

puListingDetails&pub_id=2419&mp=y&start=41&

sort=7. 

50 Kosanovich, William, Heather Fleck, Berwood 

Yost, Wendy Armon, and Sandra Siliezar. 

‘‘Comprehensive Assessment of Self-Employment 

Assistance Programs.’’ Arlington, VA: DTI 

Associates, 2002. Available at http://wdr.doleta.

gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_

puListingDetails&pub_id=2293&mp=y&start=121&

sort=7. 

51Poe-Yamagata, Eileen, Jacob Benus, Nicholas 

Bill, Hugh Carrington, Marios Michaelides, and Ted 

effective tools for nontraditional student 

populations.39

The following are channels through 

which these benefits might be achieved: 

Better information for workers. The 

accountability measures would provide 

workers with higher-quality 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 would 

help trainees and providers target their 

efforts and develop reasonable 

expectations about outcomes. 

Consumers of educational services, 

including 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.40 Given these 

information gaps and financial 

pressures, it is important that displaced 

workers learn of the economic returns to 

various training plans.41 Still, one study 

determined 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.42

State performance accountability 

measures. This requirement would 

include significant data collection for 

Local Boards to address performance 

measures for the core programs in their 

jurisdictions. This data collection would 

permit the State WDBs to assess 

performance across each State. Training 

providers would be required to provide 

data to Local Boards, which would 

represent a cost in the form of increased 

data collection and processing. 

Employers and employees also would 

have to provide information to the 

training providers, which would take 

time. This provision, in combination 

with the Board membership provision 

requiring employer/business 

representation, 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 

could divert resources from training 

activities.43

Before-after earning metrics capture 

the contribution of training to earnings 

potential and minimize incentives to 

select only training participants with 

high initial earnings.44 The study found 

that value added net of social cost is one 

objective that is too difficult to measure 

on a regular basis. With the exception of 

programs in a few States, current 

incentives do not reward enrollment of 

the least advantaged.45 In addition, the 

study noted evidence that the 

performance-standards can be ‘‘gamed’’ 

in an attempt to maximize their centers’ 

measured performance.46

Pressure to meet performance levels 

could lead providers to focus on offering 

services to participants most likely to 

succeed. For example, current 

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.47

The following subsections present 

additional channels by which economic 

benefits may be associated with various 

aspects of the proposed joint 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 

$951.48 However, another study found 

that training in the WIA dislocated 

worker program had a net benefit close 

to zero or even negative.49

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.50

Workers with disabilities. A study of 

individuals with disabilities enrolled in 

training for a broad array of occupations 

(including wastewater treatment, auto 

body repair, meat cutter/wrapper, 

clerical support staff, surgical tools 

technician, and veterinary assistant) 

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 NPRM, the 

Departments have determined that the 

societal benefits justify the anticipated 

costs. 

Transfers 

The Reemployment and Eligibility 

Assessment program was effective in 

assisting claimants to exit the 

unemployment insurance program and 

avoid exhausting regular unemployment 

insurance benefits in Florida, Idaho, and 

Nevada. By avoiding unemployment 

insurance benefit exhaustion, the 

program led to reductions in the 

likelihood of receiving Extended 

Unemployment Compensation benefits. 

There exists notable evidence that the 

Reemployment and Eligibility 

Assessment program is cost-effective.51


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20623 

Shen. ‘‘Impact of the Reemployment and Eligibility 

Assessment (REA) Initiative.’’ IMPAQ International, 

2011. Available at http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/

keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_

puListingDetails&pub_

id=2487&mp=y&start=21&sort=7. 

52 In terms of VR grantees, they are State 

government entities and, by definition, are not 

small entities. 

The program reduced unemployment 

insurance 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 

proposes to 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 

NPRM. 

Affected Small Entities 

The proposed 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 Board, with the approval of the 

chief local 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. 

The proposed joint 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.52

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. The Departments 

have highlighted costs that are new to 

WIOA implementation and this NPRM. 

Therefore, the Departments expect that 

the WIOA joint NPRM will have no cost 

impact on small entities. 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

The Departments have determined 

that this proposed joint rulemaking 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 Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., include minimizing the 

paperwork burden on affected entities. 

The PRA requires certain actions before 

an agency can adopt or revise a 

collection of information, including 

publishing for public comment a 

summary of the collection of 

information and a brief description of 

the need for and proposed use of the 

information. 

As part of continuing efforts to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, the 

Departments conduct preclearance 

consultation activities to provide the 

general 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: (1) The 

public understands the collection 

instructions; (2) respondents can 

provide the requested data in the 

desired format; (3) reporting burden 

(time and financial resources) is 

minimized; (4) respondents clearly 

understand the collection instruments; 

and (5) the Departments can properly 

assess the impact of collection 

requirements on respondents. 

Furthermore, the PRA requires all 

Federal agencies to analyze proposed 

regulations for potential time burdens 

on the regulated community created by 

provisions in the proposed regulations, 

which require the submission of 

information. The information collection 

requirements must also be submitted to 

the OMB for approval. 

The Departments note that 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). 

The information collections in this 

joint NPRM are summarized in the 

section-by-section discussion of this 

NPRM, Section IV. The table below 

captures the current and proposed 

burden hours associated with the 

information collections. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20624 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

CURRENT AND PROPOSED INFORMATION COLLECTION BURDENS

OMB Approval No. 

Annual burden 

hours currently 

approved 

Annual burden 

hours proposed 

for new 

requirements 

under WIOA 

Change 

1205–0420—WIOA Common Performance Management and Information and Reporting for Core Programs ..................................................................................... 0 2,351,905 * 2,351,905 

1205–4NEW—Required Elements for Submission of the Unified or Combined 

State Plan and Plan Modifications under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act ................................................................................................................ 0 3,279 ** 3,279 

Total .................................................................................................................... 0 2,355,184 2,355,184 

* OMB 1205–0420 will be the information collection for the common performance accountability data collected under sec. 116 of WIOA. Hours 

associated with this information collection represent the burden associated with reporting the new common performance data elements by the 

core programs. Burden hours associated with program-specific reporting for each of the core programs, which are currently approved and will 

continue in addition to the common performance reporting, will be reported and summarized in other NPRMs published elsewhere in this Federal 

Register. The currently-approved program-specific data reporting that will continue, as applicable, for the core programs include: 

• Control Number 1205–0420, Workforce Investment Act Management Information and Reporting System, with an annual burden of 508,589; 

• Control Number 1205–0240, Labor Exchange Reporting System, with an annual burden of 568,192; 

• Control Number 1830–0027, Measures and Methods for the National Reporting System for Adult Education, with an annual burden of 5,700; 

and 

• Control Number 1820–0508, RSA–911 Case Service Report, with an annual burden of 6,500. 

The Departments anticipate that the above collections may be phased out or modified, as appropriate, as the WIOA performance measures 

are fully implemented. 

The above-described currently-approved reporting burdens are presented here in order to provide respondents full transparency of the complete reporting burden that is imposed by WIOA, both in terms of the new common performance data elements as well as program-specific reporting requirements. However, to be clear, the net new burden as listed in the table above only reflects the additional burden imposed by the 

new common performance reporting requirements, set forth at sec. 116 of WIOA, that are applicable to all core programs. 

** OMB 1205–4NEW is the information collection for the submission of the Unified or Combined State Plan under secs. 102 and 103 of WIOA, 

which will replace the following currently-approved State Plan collections for the core programs: 

• Control Number 1205–0398, Planning Guidance and Instructions for Submission of the Strategic State Plan and Plan Modifications for Title I 

of the Workforce Investment Act and Wagner-Peyser Act, with an annual burden of 2,280; 

• Control Number 1830–0026, Adult Education and Family Literacy Act State Plan, with an annual burden of 2,565; and 

• Control Number 1820–0500, 1820–0500, State Plan for the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program and Supplement for the Supported 

Employment Services Program (now referred under WIOA as the VR services portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan), with an annual 

burden of 2,000. 

In an effort to give full meaning to the 

requirement that States submit a Unified 

or Combined State Plan, the 

Departments propose to consolidate all 

currently-approved program-specific 

State Plan submissions for each of the 

core programs into one information 

collection instrument. To that end, the 

total burden hours associated with this 

proposed new consolidated information 

collection is the sum of the additional 

burden required to satisfy the integrated 

strategic and operational planning 

requirements (see table above) plus the 

currently-approved requirements (see 

bullets above). However, to be clear, the 

net additional burden to respondents is 

only that associated with the new 

planning requirements. 

Agency: DOL–ETA. 

Title of Collection: WIOA Common 

Performance Management and 

Information and Reporting for Core 

Programs 

OMB Control Number: 1205–0420. 

Description: This new information 

collection will collect common 

performance data required under sec. 

116 of WIOA from all core programs, 

including WIOA adult and dislocated 

workers, youth, Wagner-Peyser, Adult 

Education and Literacy, Eligible 

Training Providers, and Vocational 

Rehabilitation Services programs. The 

Departments of Education and Labor 

will use a common approach to 

standardize the quarterly, as 

appropriate, and annual reporting of 

common data elements for all core 

programs and Eligible Training 

Providers. These data are in addition to 

other performance data reported by each 

of the core programs under current and 

proposed regulations discussed in 

program-specific NPRMs available 

elsewhere in this Federal Register. 

Affected Public: State, local and tribal 

governments, private sector. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits (WIOA sec. 

116). 

Total Estimated Number of 

Respondents Annually: 53 for DOL 

programs, 80 for RSA, 57 for OCTAE (no 

additional respondents resulting from 

this proposed rulemaking). 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 722—each DOL and RSA 

respondent reports 5 times per year 

(quarterly plus annually); and each 

OCTAE respondent reports only 

annually (no additional responses 

resulting from this proposed 

rulemaking). 

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 

2,351,905 hours. This includes hours 

estimated for both collecting the 

information and reporting. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $0 (no change as a result of this 

proposed rulemaking). 

Proposed Regulations Containing 

Information Collections Approved 

Under this Control Number: 20 CFR part 

680 (Adult, Dislocated Workers, and 

Eligible Training Providers); 20 CFR 

part 681 (Youth); 20 CFR part 652 

(Wagner-Peyser); 34 CFR parts 462 and 

463 (Office of Career, Technical, and 

Adult Education); and 34 CFR part 361 

(Rehabilitation Services 

Administration). 

Title of Collection: Required Elements 

for Submission of the Unified or 

Combined State Plan and Plan 

Modifications under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act: 

Wagner-Peyser and WIOA Title I 

programs (Department of Labor) and 

Vocational Rehabilitation and Adult 

Education programs (Department of 

Education). 

OMB Control Number: 1205–4NEW. 

Description: The proposed rule would 

require each State (which includes 

applicable outlying areas) to submit a 

Unified or Combined State Plan that 

fosters strategic alignment of the core 

programs, which include the title I 

adult, dislocated worker, and youth 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20625 

programs; title II adult education and 

literacy programs; the Wagner-Peyser 

program as amended by title III of 

WIOA; and the title IV Vocational 

Rehabilitation program. The Unified or 

Combined State Plan requirements 

improve service integration and ensure 

that the workforce system is industryrelevant and responds to the economic 

needs of the State and matches 

employers with skilled workers. The 

Unified or Combined State Plan would 

describe how the State will develop and 

implement a unified, integrated service 

delivery system rather than separately 

discuss the State’s approach to 

operating each core program 

individually. This consolidated 

information collection implements secs. 

102 and 103 of WIOA. The Unified or 

Combined State Plan would replace the 

planning requirements collected under 

the currently-approved program-specific 

State Plan information collections. 

While each State, at a minimum, must 

submit a Unified State Plan covering all 

core programs, sec. 103 of WIOA 

permits a State to submit a Combined 

State Plan that would include the core 

programs plus one or more additional 

Federal programs listed in sec. 103(b). If 

the State chooses to include these 

programs, the Combined Plan will 

include all of the common planning 

elements included in the Unified State 

Plan, and an additional element 

describing how the State will coordinate 

the additional programs with the core 

programs (WIOA sec. 103(b)(3)). 

As with the Unified State Plan 

collection for the core programs 

described above, the total burden 

associated with the Combined State 

Plan would represent the total burden 

for the new (additional) WIOA planning 

requirements (as described in the table 

above), plus an additional 0.25 hours 

per Combined State Plan to account for 

the one additional new question that 

will be included in Combined State 

Plans. The burden required for fulfilling 

the program-specific State Plan 

requirements (for the non-core 

additional programs that may be 

included in the Combined State Plan) 

will continue to be separately accounted 

for under the non-core programs’ 

existing, approved Information 

Collections. Those existing Information 

Collections are described in the table 

below for reference: 

Additional program control No. 

Approved 

burden 

hours 

Control Number 1830–0029, 

Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 

109–270) State Plan Guide .. 2,240 

Control Number 0970–0145, 

Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) State 

Plan Guidance ...................... 594 

Control Number 0584–0083, 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Operating 

Guidelines, Forms, and 

Waivers, Program and Budget Summary Statement ......... 1431 

Control Number 1225–0086, 

Grant Application Requirements for the Jobs for Veteran State Grants Program .. 1620 

Control Number 1205–0132, 

Unemployment Insurance 

State Quality Service Plan 

Planning and Reporting 

Guidelines ............................. 1530 

Control Number 1205–0040, 

Senior Community Service 

Employment Program Performance Measurement System ........................................ 406 

Control Number 0970–0382, 

Community Services Block 

Grant (CSBG) Program 

Model Plan Applications ....... 112 

The table does not include the 

additional programs that may be part of 

a Combined State Plan but do not have 

currently-approved planning 

requirements of their own, such as the 

Housing and Urban Development 

Employment and Training Programs and 

the Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Program. Because these programs do not 

have currently-approved planning 

collections, the additional burden hours 

would be the total additional burden 

associated with the new unified 

planning requirements set forth in the 

table above that would be true for any 

program included in the Unified or 

Combined State Plan. 

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. (This is the 

annualized number of respondents.) 

Fifty-seven jurisdictions submit a plan 

the first year and all 57 are required to 

submit an update in the third year of the 

planning cycle. No submissions are 

required the second year. This is the 

same as the current planning 

documents. (No additional respondents 

resulting from this proposed 

rulemaking.) 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 38 (Annualized as described 

above; no additional responses resulting 

from this proposed rulemaking). 

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 

3,279. This number includes the hours 

for all the jurisdictions to submit a 

Unified State Plan, plus an additional 

0.25 hours for each respondent 

submitting a Combined State Plan. We 

estimate that 10 respondents will 

submit a Combined State Plan. It also 

includes the estimate that all 

respondents will submit an update in 

the third planning year, which is 

estimated to require a third of the hours 

compared to submitting the initial plan. 

Then the number has been annualized 

over 3 years. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $0 (no change as a result of this 

proposed rulemaking). 

Proposed Regulations Containing 

Information Collections Approved 

Under this Control Number: 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. Department of Education 

programs—34 CFR parts 361, 462 and 

463. 

Interested parties may obtain a copy 

free of charge of one or more of the 

information collection requests 

submitted to the OMB on the 

reginfo.gov Web site at http://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

From the Information Collection Review 

tab, select Information Collection 

Review. Then select the applicable 

Department (e.g., Department of 

Education or Department of Labor) from 

the Currently Under Review dropdown 

menu, and lookup the Control Number. 

A free copy of the requests may also be 

obtained by contacting the person 

named in the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble. 

As noted in the ADDRESSES section of 

this joint NPRM, interested parties may 

send comments about the information 

collections to the applicable Department 

throughout the 60-day comment period 

and/or to the OMB within 30 days of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. In order to help ensure 

appropriate consideration, comments 

should mention the applicable OMB 

Control Number(s). The Departments 

and OMB are particularly interested in 

comments that: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Departments, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20626 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

Departments’ estimate of the burden of 

the proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

The Departments note that in order to 

meet WIOA requirements, the 

information collections mentioned in 

this NPRM need to be in place prior to 

the final rule taking effect. The 

Departments will follow PRA 

requirements in clearing the collections 

(emergency procedures, as appropriate), 

including providing appropriate public 

engagement and taking into account the 

comments received as part of this 

rulemaking. 

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 WIOA joint NPRM in light 

of these requirements and have 

determined that, with the enactment of 

WIOA and its clear requirement to 

publish national implementing 

regulations, E.O. sec. 3(b) has been fully 

reviewed and its requirement satisfied. 

Accordingly, the Departments have 

reviewed this WIOA-required joint 

NPRM and have determined that the 

proposed rulemaking has no Federalism 

implications. The proposed joint 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 determined that this proposed rule 

does not have a sufficient Federalism 

implication to warrant the preparation 

of a summary impact statement. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This Act 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 are accordingly not 

considered unfunded mandates. 

Similarly, Migrant and Seasonal 

Farmworker activities are authorized 

and funded under the WIOA program as 

is currently 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 NPRM. 

WIOA contains language establishing 

procedures regarding the eligibility of 

training providers to receive funds 

under the WIOA program and also 

contains clear State information 

collection requirements for training 

entities (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. 

The Departments following 

consideration of these factors have 

determined that this proposed joint rule 

contains 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 

The Departments drafted this joint 

NPRM 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 proposed 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 

proposed joint rule in light of this 

requirement and determined that the 

joint NPRM would not have a negative 

effect on families. 

I. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

The Departments reviewed this 

proposed joint rule under the terms of 

E.O. 13175 and have determined it 

would have no tribal implications in 

addition to those created through the 

reimbursement of WIA and future 

WIOA program expenses via Federally 

disbursed formula grant funds. 

However, the proposed joint rule would 

have substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian Tribes. 

As a result, a tribal summary impact 

statement has been prepared. 

Prior to developing the proposed joint 

rule, the Department of Labor held three 

events to talk with the tribal institutions 

about their concerns about the current 

state of Indian and Native American 

Programs (INAP) as well as what 

concerns they see in the future. These 

three events consisted of a consultation 

webinar and two in-person town hall 

meetings. The consultation webinar, 

entitled ‘‘Listening session on Indian 

and Native American Programs,’’ 

occurred on September 15, 2014. Two 

other consultations were held, including 

an October 21, 2014, town hall meeting 

with Indian and Native American (INA) 

leaders and membership organizations 

serving Indians and Native Americans, 

Hawaiians, and Alaskan Natives, and a 

formal consultation December 17, 2014, 

with members of the Native American 

Employment and Training Advisory 

Council to the Secretary of Labor. 

The Department of Labor received 

feedback from the INA community and 

the public that established several areas 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20627 

of interest concerning the Department of 

Labor’s relationship with INA Tribes 

and tribal governments. These areas of 

interest are summarized below. 

Services Received in American Job 

Centers 

Specifically, the INA community 

expressed interest in learning how 

American Job Centers will account for 

the use of their INA funding dollars and 

how to ensure that the funds intended 

for the INA population will be 

dedicated to that population. In 

addition, several individuals expressed 

concerns that INA individuals that enter 

an American Job Center may not get the 

general assistance that is intended for 

all people that seek assistance. In other 

words, several commenters wanted to 

ensure that INA individuals should 

receive assistance intended for other 

populations for which they may qualify 

when seeking service. Finally, several 

commenters were interested in learning 

more about how INA programs may be 

required to contribute to American Job 

Center infrastructure funding and how 

American Job Centers will account for 

INA members served to ensure that the 

American Job Center network is 

responding to the relevant INA 

population needs. 

Funding per Participant was Low for 

INA Programs Especially When 

Compared to Other Job Training 

Programs 

Many commenters expressed concern 

that the funds made available on a perparticipant basis for INA programs were 

not sufficient to meet the needs of the 

populations being served. Specifically, 

many commenters stated that funds 

available for INA youth are inadequate 

to fully meet their needs. In addition, 

commenters felt that more funds were 

needed for INA job training programs to 

ensure that career pathway training 

could be carried out. Several 

commenters compared the cost per 

participant funding for other programs, 

such as Job Corps, as evidence of the 

lack of funding for INA programs. The 

commenters went on to request a 

comparison of other WIA-funded 

programs and the INA programs. 

Finally, one commenter felt that because 

of the lack of funds, INA youth were 

being served instead of INA adults. 

The majority of comments focused on 

the use of new funding streams and the 

requirements attached to those funds. 

Commenters expressed concern about 

the issue of using and transferring 

WIOA funding to support activities 

under Indian Employment, Training, 

and Related Services Demonstration Act 

of 1992, as amended (Pub. L. 102–477). 

Specifically, commenters talked about 

the importance of flexibility in 

adherence to the requirements because 

Pub. L. 102–477 programs are tribal 

programs, may be located in rural areas, 

and have been effectively and efficiently 

reporting through existing processes, 

including a single reporting feature in 

the annual report. Additionally, 

commenters suggested that vocational 

rehabilitation, adult education reentry, 

and other applicable job/educationrelated program funding also should be 

allowed to support Pub. L. 102–477 

programs. Clarity around which funding 

streams are allowable also was 

suggested. Commenters also expressed 

hope that the Department of Education 

will integrate Carl D. Perkins funding 

under Pub. L. 102–477 which allows 

Federally-recognized Tribes and Alaska 

Native entities to combine formulafunded Federal grant funds 

administered by the Department of 

Interior, which are employment and 

training-related into a single plan with 

a single budget and a single reporting 

system. Commenters noted that the 

Native American Career and Technical 

Education Program (NACTEP) is a 

required partner and that NACTEP has 

limited the partner funds available to 

fund supportive services and work 

experiences. One commenter asked if 

statutory language regarding key 

investments in vulnerable populations 

would result in an increase in funding 

for Division of Indian and Native 

American Programs (DINAP) programs. 

Lastly, it was suggested that the 166 

Advisory Council continue, and DINAP 

programs continue to be staffed with 

Native Americans and Native American 

Chiefs. 

Concerns About the Effects of the New 

Performance Reporting Requirements 

Established in WIOA on the INA 

Community 

Many commenters expressed concern 

that INA programs would not be able to 

meet the performance reporting 

requirements established by WIOA for 

several reasons, including limited funds 

to train individuals for the new 

performance standards and the need to 

purchase new technology and 

equipment to meet the reporting 

requirements. In addition, several 

commenters said that INA programs will 

have to be more selective in determining 

eligibility for training programs because 

of insufficient funding and the 

increased focus on performance 

outcomes. 

Lack of Funding To Hire and Effectively 

Train Staff and Ensuring Policy is 

Responsive to INA Community Needs 

Commenters stated concerns that INA 

programs will not be able to achieve 

expected performance levels because 

they lacked funding to adequately staff 

programs. Several commenters stated 

concerns about the limited number of 

staff, increased training needs for staff, 

and the need to ensure that technical 

assistance is made available to staff. 

Specifically, commenters are concerned 

that INA programs may transition 

slower than States to the new WIOA 

requirements because of funding and 

staff needs. In addition, they stated that 

INA programs need more funds to 

implement new administrative tasks as 

well as provide services to the INA 

community. 

Working With States and Other 

Programs 

Commenters expressed concerns 

about States’ accountability to the INA 

community and how to make other 

training programs administered by the 

State work comprehensively with INA 

programs. Others encouraged flexibility 

and freedom in funding in working with 

these same entities and lauded this 

flexibility as a way to get more out of 

funds. Furthermore, the commenters 

emphasized how important it is for INA 

leaders to have a voice in the policy and 

guidance formulation process so that 

policy is directly responsive to the 

needs and funding has to go hand in 

hand with the needs identified. Some 

commenters suggested an ongoing 

dialogue between INA leaders, 

Workforce Investment Boards, local and 

State agencies, and the American Job 

Centers to discuss training and 

education that leads to jobs. Some 

commenters asserted that State-run 

programs need to be more accountable 

for how they interact with INA 

populations. Other commenters 

expressed frustration that some State 

programs do not see a need to work with 

INA programs because the States think 

that the INA programs get money from 

other sources, such as casinos. Many of 

the commenters said that they wanted 

better collaboration with State-run 

programs and increased networking 

among INA programs and State 

agencies. Finally, one commenter stated 

that collaboration between INA 

programs and the State-run training 

systems would make services to 

individuals more efficient because it 

would prevent ‘‘double-dipping’’ in 

programs. The Department invites 

public comment about what can be done 

to address the areas summarized above. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20628 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

J. Executive Order 12630 (Government 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights) 

The Departments have determined 

that this joint NPRM 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 WIOA joint NPRM was drafted 

and reviewed in accordance with E.O. 

12988, Civil Justice Reform, and the 

Departments have determined that the 

proposed rule will not unduly burden 

the Federal court system. The proposed 

WIOA regulations were written to 

minimize litigation and to the extent 

feasible, provide a clear legal standard 

for affected conduct, and have been 

reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguities. 

L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy 

Supply) 

This joint NPRM was drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with E.O. 

13211, Energy Supply. The Departments 

have determined the joint NPRM 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 proposes to amend 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 is the purpose 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 workforce investment activities in 

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 Literacy 

Program in Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title II? 

676.120 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service programs in title III of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act? 

676.125 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the State Vocational Rehabilitation 

program in Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title IV? 

676.130 What is the 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 submission and 

approval process of the Combined State 

Plan? 

676.145 What are the requirements for 

modifications of the Combined State 

Plan? 

Authority: Secs. 503, 102, 103, Pub. L. 

113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014). 

§ 676.100 What is the purpose 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 

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 optional 

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 joint planning guidelines issued by 

the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary 

of Education. 

(b) The Governor of each State must 

submit, in accordance with § 676.130, a 

Unified or Combined 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; 

(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; 

(3) The Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Services programs 

amended by title III of WIOA and 

administered by the U.S. Department of 

Labor; and 

(4) The State Vocational 

Rehabilitation program amended by title 

IV of WIOA and administered by the 

U.S. Department of Education. 

(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 

guidance issued by the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20629 

(2) Strategies for aligning the core 

programs and optional programs, 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 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 and others 

deemed necessary by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education under sec. 

102(b)(2)(E)(x) of WIOA; and 

(v) 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. 

§ 676.110 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

workforce investment activities in 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

title I? 

The program-specific requirements for 

the adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

workforce investment activities that 

must be included in the Unified State 

Plan are described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of 

WIOA. Additional planning 

requirements may be required by the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education in accordance with joint 

planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 

Education. 

§ 676.115 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act 

program in 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)(D)(ii) 

and 102(b)(2)(C) 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. 

(c) With regard to the description 

required under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of 

WIOA pertaining to the integration of 

workforce and education data on core 

programs, unemployment insurance 

programs, and education through postsecondary education, for title II of 

WIOA, the Unified State Plan must 

include how the State will ensure 

interoperability of data systems in the 

reporting on core indicators of 

performance and performance reports 

required to be submitted by the State. 

§ 676.120 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service 

programs in title III of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Services programs amended by title III 

are subject to requirements in sec. 

102(b) of WIOA and any additional 

requirements imposed by the Secretary 

of Labor under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii) of 

WIOA, in accordance with joint 

planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 

Education. 

§ 676.125 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the State Vocational Rehabilitation program 

in 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 

of 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 secs. 102(b) and 103 of 

WIOA. 

§ 676.130 What is the submission and 

approval process of the Unified State Plan? 

(a) The Unified State Plan described 

in § 676.105 must be submitted in 

accordance with planning guidelines 

issued jointly by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Education which explain the 

submission and approval process in 

WIOA sec. 102(c). 

(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) The subsequent Unified State Plan 

must be submitted no later than 120 

days prior to the end of the 4-year 

period described in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. 

(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of 

this section, ‘‘program year’’ means July 

1 through June 30 of any year. 

(c) 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 

Boards 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 Board 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. 

(d) 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. 

(e) The Unified State Plan is subject 

to the approval of both the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of Education. 

(f) Before the Secretary of Labor and 

the Secretary of Education approve the 

Unified State Plan, the vocational 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20630 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

rehabilitation 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. 

(g) The Secretary of Labor and the 

Secretary of Education will review and 

approve the Unified State Plan within 

90 days of receipt by the appropriate 

Secretary, 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. 

(h) If neither the Secretary of Labor 

nor the Secretary of Education makes 

the written determination described in 

paragraph (g) 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 Board 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 adjusted 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 

Board or alternative entity, and similar 

substantial changes to the State’s 

workforce investment system. 

(c) Modifications to the Unified State 

Plan are subject to the same public 

review and comment requirements in 

§ 676.130(c) that apply to the 

development of the original Unified 

State Plan. 

(d) Unified State Plan modifications 

must be approved by the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of 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 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. 

(b) A State that submits a Combined 

State Plan covering an activity or 

program described in paragraph (d) of 

this section that is approved under 

WIOA sec. 103(c) or determined 

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 optional programs and 

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

WIOA. The optional 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 1956 (42 

U.S.C. 3056 et seq.); 

(9) Employment and training 

activities carried out by the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development; 

(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, as explained in 

the joint planning guidance issued by 

the Secretaries; 

(2) For the optional programs, 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 

guidance issued by the Secretaries; 

(3) A description of joint planning 

methods across all programs included in 

the Combined 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 optional program included in 

the Combined State Plan remains 

subject to the applicable programspecific 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20631 

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. 

§ 676.143 What is the 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 the 

joint planning guidelines, which will 

further explain the submission and 

approval procedures for the Combined 

State Plan, issued by the Secretaries. 

(b) 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 determining 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. 

(c) 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 plan is received by the 

appropriate Secretary from the State, 

except as provided in paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(2) If an appropriate Secretary other 

than the Secretary of Labor or the 

Secretary of Education has authority to 

approve or determine complete a 

portion of the Combined State Plan for 

a program or activity described in 

§ 676.140(d), that portion of the plan 

must be reviewed, and approved, 

disapproved, or have a determination of 

completeness, by the appropriate 

Secretary within 120 days beginning on 

the day the plan is received by the 

appropriate Secretary from the State 

except as provided in paragraph (e) of 

this section. 

(d) The review and determination of 

approval or disapproval, or 

determination of completeness, of the 

relevant portion of the Combined State 

Plan must occur within 90 days for all 

Department of Labor and Education 

programs included in the State Plan and 

within 120 days for the programs 

administered by other Federal Agencies 

unless the appropriate Secretary 

determines in writing within that period 

that: 

(1) The 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 

determining the plan’s completeness, if 

any, under such law; 

(2) The portion of the 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 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. 

(e) If the Secretary of Labor, the 

Secretary of Education, or the 

appropriate Secretary does not make the 

written determination described in 

paragraph (d) of this section within the 

relevant period of time after submission 

of the Plan, that portion of the 

Combined State Plan over which the 

Secretary has jurisdiction will be 

considered approved. 

(f) Special rule. In paragraphs (d)(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 the end of the first 2-year 

period of any 4-year Combined State 

Plan. The State Board must review the 

Combined State Plan, and the Governor 

must submit a modification of the 

Combined State Plan to reflect changes 

in labor market and economic 

conditions or in other factors affecting 

the implementation of the Combined 

State Plan. 

(b) In addition to the required 

modification review described in 

paragraph (a) 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 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 optional programs or 

activities described in § 676.140(d) that 

are included in the Combined State Plan 

or may comply with the procedures and 

requirements applicable to only the 

particular optional program or activity; 

and 

(2) Must submit, in accordance with 

the procedure described in § 676.143, 

any other modification, amendment, or 

revision required by the Federal law 

authorizing, or applicable to, the 

program or activity described in 

§ 676.140(d). If the underlying 

programmatic requirements change 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 optional program or 

activity and other legal requirements 

applicable to such program or activity. 

A State also may amend its Combined 

State Plan to add an optional 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 

§ 676.130(c) except that, if the 

modification, amendment, or revision 

affects the administration of a particular 

optional program and has no impact on 

the Combined State Plan as a whole or 

the integration and administration of the 

core and optional programs at the State 

level, a State may comply instead with 

the procedures and requirements 

applicable to the particular optional 

program. 

(e) Modifications for the core program 

portions of the Combined State Plan 

must be approved by the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20632 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Combined State Plan described in sec. 

102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA. 

(f) Modifications for the portions of 

the Combined State Plan for any 

optional program or activity described 

in § 676.140(d) must be submitted for 

approval by only the appropriate 

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 optional 

program if the modification, 

amendment, or revision affects the 

administration of only that particular 

optional program and has no impact on 

the Combined State Plan as a whole or 

the integration and administration of the 

core and optional programs at the State 

level. 

■ 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 measurement and 

reporting requirements? 

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 require additional 

indicators of performance? 

677.170 How are State adjusted 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 What State actions are subject to 

a financial sanction under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

677.185 When are sanctions applied for 

failure to 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? 

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 title I, III, and IV 

programs? 

677.240 What are the requirements for data 

validation of State annual performance 

reports? 

Authority: Secs. 503, 116, 189, Pub. L. 

113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014). 

§ 677.150 What definitions apply to 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

performance measurement and reporting 

requirements? 

(a) Participant. A reportable 

individual who has received staffassisted services 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 an 

individual who has an approved and 

signed Individualized Plan for 

Employment (IPE) and has begun to 

receive services. 

(2) The following individuals are not 

Participants: 

(i) Individuals who have not 

completed at least 12 contact hours in 

the Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act (AEFLA) program; 

(ii) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; and 

(iii) Individuals who only receive 

information services or activities. 

(3) 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 core program, 

including: 

(1) Individuals who provide 

identifying information; 

(2) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; and 

(3) Individuals who only receive 

information on services or activities. 

(c) Exit. As defined for the purpose of 

performance calculations, exit is the 

point after which an individual who has 

received services through any program 

meets the following criteria: 

(1) For the adult, dislocated worker, 

and youth programs under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA) title I, the AEFLA program 

under WIOA title II, and the 

Employment Services authorized by the 

Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by 

WIOA title III, exit date is the last date 

of service: 

(i) The exit date cannot be determined 

until 90 days of no services has elapsed. 

At that point the exit date is applied 

retroactively to the last date of service. 

(A) Ninety days of no service does not 

include self-service or information-only 

activities or follow-up services and 

(B) There are no future services 

planned, excluding follow-up services. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2)(i) For the VR program as amended 

by WIOA title IV: 

(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 Vocational 

Rehabilitation program if the 

individual’s service record is closed 

because the individual has achieved a 

supported employment outcome in an 

integrated setting but not in competitive 

integrated employment. 

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 

under title I of WIOA, the AEFLA 

program under title II of WIOA, the 

Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by title 

III of WIOA, and the VR program as 

amended by WIOA. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20633 

(1) The six primary indicators for 

performance 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) The percentage of participants 

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. A participant who has 

obtained a secondary school diploma or 

its recognized equivalent is only 

included in this measure 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; 

(v) The percentage of participants 

who during a program year, are in an 

education or training program that leads 

to a recognized post-secondary 

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. 

(vi) Effectiveness in serving 

employers, based on indicators 

developed as required by sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(iv) of WIOA. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) The indicators in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section 

apply to the adult, dislocated worker, 

AEFLA and VR programs. 

(c) The indicators in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi) of this 

section apply to the Employment 

Services. 

(d) For the youth program under title 

I of WIOA, the 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 participants 

who obtained a recognized postsecondary credential or a secondary 

school diploma, or its recognized 

equivalent, during participation or up to 

1 year after exit. A participant who has 

obtained a secondary school diploma or 

its recognized equivalent is only 

included in this measure 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 post-secondary 

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; 

(6) Effectiveness in serving employers, 

based on indicators developed as 

required by sec. 116(b)(2)(iv) of WIOA. 

§ 677.160 What information is required for 

State performance reports? 

(a) Section 116(d)(2) of WIOA requires 

States to submit a State performance 

report. The State performance report 

must be submitted annually using a 

template the Departments 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 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 

and exiters who received career and 

training services for the most recent 

program year and the three preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program; 

(4) Information on the performance 

levels achieved for the primary 

indicators consistent with § 677.155 for 

career 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 obtained unsubsidized 

employment related to the training 

received (often referred to as trainingrelated employment) through WIOA 

title I–B programs; 

(6) 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, as 

applicable to the program; 

(7) The average cost per participant 

for those participants who received 

career and training services, 

respectively, during the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years for, 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 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 Education and 

Labor, which may include information 

on reportable individuals as determined 

by the Secretaries. 

§ 677.165 May a State require additional 

indicators of performance? 

States may identify additional 

indicators of performance for the six 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20634 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

core programs. These indicators must be 

included in the Unified or Combined 

State Plan. 

§ 677.170 How are State adjusted levels of 

performance for primary indicators 

established? 

(a) A State must submit in the State 

Plan expected levels of performance on 

the primary indicators for each core 

program as required by sec. 116(b)(iv) of 

WIOA as explained in joint guidance 

issued by the Secretaries of Education 

and Labor. 

(1) The initial State Plan submitted 

under WIOA must contain expected 

levels of performance for the first 2 

years of the State Plan period. 

(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) The State must reach agreement on 

levels of performance with the 

Secretaries of Education and Labor for 

each of the core programs based on the 

following factors: 

(1) How the levels of performance 

compare with State adjusted levels of 

performance established for other 

States; 

(2) The application of an objective 

statistical model established by the 

Secretaries of Education and Labor, 

subject to paragraph (d) of this section; 

(3) How the 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 levels 

assist the State in meeting the 

performance goals established by the 

Secretaries of Education and Labor for 

the core programs in accordance with 

the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993, and its 

amendments. 

(c) An objective statistical adjustment 

model will be developed and 

disseminated by the Secretaries. The 

model will be based on: 

(1) Differences among States in actual 

economic conditions, including 

unemployment rates and job losses or 

gains in particular industries; and 

(2) The characteristics of participants, 

including: 

(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 is necessary to populate the 

model and apply it to the programs; 

(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, used before the beginning of a 

program year in order to establish State 

performance targets for the upcoming 

program year; and 

(3) subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, used to revise performance 

levels at the end of a program year based 

on actual circumstances, consistent with 

sec. 116(b)(3)(vii) of WIOA. 

(e) States must comply with these 

requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as 

explained in joint guidance issued by 

the Departments of Education and 

Labor. 

§ 677.175 What responsibility do States 

have to use quarterly wage record 

information for performance 

accountability? 

(a) States must, consistent with State 

laws, use quarterly wage record 

information in measuring the progress 

on State adjusted levels of performance 

for the primary indicators outlined in 

§ 677.155 and local performance 

indicators identified in § 677.205. 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. 

(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 eligible 

training providers. The Governor or 

such agency [or appropriate State entity] 

is responsible for: 

(1) Facilitating data matches; and 

(2) Data quality reliability, protection 

against disaggregation that would 

violate privacy. 

Subpart B—Sanctions for State 

Performance and the Provision of 

Technical Assistance 

§ 677.180 What State actions are subject 

to a financial sanction under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

The following failures by a State are 

subject to financial sanction under 

WIOA sec. 116(d): 

(a) The failure by a State to submit the 

State annual performance report 

required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2); or 

(b) The failure by a State to 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 

failure to report? 

(a) Sanctions will be applied when a 

State fails to submit the State annual 

performance reports required under sec. 

116(d)(2) of WIOA. It is a failure 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 assessed 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 

impacts. 

(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 of a potential impact on 

the ability to submit their State annual 

performance reports by no later than 30 

days prior to the established deadline in 

order to not be considered failing to 

report. 

(2) In circumstances where 

unexpected events occur within the 30- 

day period before the deadline for 

submission of the State annual 

performance reports, the Secretary of 

Labor and Secretary of Education will 

review requests for extending the 

reporting deadline in accordance with 

the Departments’ procedures explained 

in guidance on reporting timelines. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20635 

§ 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 

conditions experienced during a 

program year and characteristics of 

participants, annually at the close of 

each program year. 

(b) States that fail 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) State failure to meet adjusted 

levels of performance will be 

determined through three criteria: 

(1) Overall State program scores, 

based on the percent achieved by a 

program on each of the six primary 

indicators compared to the adjusted goal 

for each primary indicator. The average 

of the percentage of the adjusted goal 

achieved for each primary indicator will 

constitute the overall program score for 

the State; 

(2) Overall State indicator scores, 

based on the percent achieved by each 

program on each of the individual 

primary indicators compared to the 

adjusted goal. The average of the 

percentage of the adjusted goal achieved 

for each of the six core programs’ will 

constitute an overall indicator score for 

the State; and 

(3) Individual indicator scores, based 

on the percent achieved by each 

program on each of the individual 

primary indicators compared to the 

adjusted goals. 

(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 

90 percent of the overall State program 

score, 90 percent of the overall State 

indicator score, or 50 percent on any 

individual indicator score for the same 

program or indicator. 

§ 677.195 What should States expect when 

a sanction is applied to the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment? 

(a) The Secretary of Labor and the 

Secretary of Education will reduce the 

Governor’s Reserve Allotment by 5 

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; or 

(2) The State fails to meet State 

adjusted levels of performance for the 

same primary performance indicator(s) 

under either § 677.190(d)(1) or 

§ 677.190(d)(2) for the second 

consecutive year as defined in 

§ 677.190. 

(b) If the State fails under paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section in the same 

program year, the Secretary of Labor and 

the Secretary of 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, dependent upon the 

impacted program, 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 U.S. Department 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 program score and overall 

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? 

(a) Each local workforce investment 

area in a State under title I of WIOA is 

subject to the same primary indicators 

of performance for the core programs for 

WIOA title I under § 677.155(a)(1) and 

(d) 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 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 provide information on the actual 

performance levels for the local area 

based on quarterly wage records 

consistent with the requirements for 

States under § 677.175. 

(e) The local area performance report 

must include: 

(1) Performance levels achieved by 

the local area for the indicators for the 

adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

programs under title I of WIOA in 

§ 677.155(a)(1) and (3); 

(2) Performance levels achieved by 

the local area for the adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth programs under title 

I of WIOA in § 677.160(a); 

(3) The percentage of a local area’s 

allotment under WIOA sec. 128(b) and 

sec. 133(b) that the local area spent on 

administrative costs; and 

(4) 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). 

(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 the 

Department of Labor. 

§ 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 the § 677.170 must be: 

(1) Used to establish local 

performance targets for the upcoming 

program year; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20636 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Used to revise performance levels 

at the end of a program year based on 

actual circumstances, consistent with 

WIOA sec. 116(c)(3). 

(b) The Governor, Local Board, and 

chief elected official must reach 

agreement on local targets and levels 

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 conditions 

experienced. 

(c) The negotiations process described 

in paragraph (b) of this section must be 

developed by the Governor and 

disseminated to all Local Boards and 

chief elected officials. 

(d) The Local Boards may apply 

performance measures to service 

providers that differ from the 

performance measures that apply to the 

local area. These performance measures 

should be established after considering: 

(1) The established local performance 

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. The 

Governor may use non-Federal funds to 

create incentives for Local Boards to 

implement pay-for-performance 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 Boards. 

(b) Pay-for-performance contract 

strategies must be implemented in 

accordance with §§ 683.500 through 

683.530 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 

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 in meeting levels of 

performance for a local area before 

negotiating the adjusted levels of 

performance for the 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 

levels of performance agreed to under 

§ 677.210 for the primary indicators of 

performance for the adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth programs 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 Board, 

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 Board 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 Board 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 

Board and chief elected official to the 

Secretary under § 683.650 of this 

chapter; and 

(2) Must be submitted by certified 

mail, return receipt requested, to the 

Secretary, 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 Board and chief elected 

official, the Secretary must make a final 

decision within 30 days. In making this 

determination the Secretary may 

consider any comments submitted by 

the Governor in response to the appeals. 

(d) The decision by the Governor to 

impose a reorganization plan 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)(B)(ii). 

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 will 

disseminate including through 

electronic means, the eligible training 

provider performance reports for 

eligible training providers 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 

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); and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20637 

(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 in a program 

of study (or the equivalent). 

(b) Registered apprenticeship 

programs are not required to submit 

performance information. See § 680.470 

of this chapter. 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 electronic 

access to the public eligible training 

provider 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 the Department of Labor. 

(e) The Governor may designate one 

or more State agencies such as a State 

education agency or State educational 

authority to assist in overseeing eligible 

training provider performance and 

facilitating the production and 

dissemination of eligible training 

provider performance reports. These 

agencies may be the same agencies that 

are designated as responsible for 

administering the eligible training 

providers 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 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 

eligible training provider 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 

title I, III, and IV programs? 

(a) On a quarterly basis, each State 

must submit to the Secretary of Labor or 

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 a core 

program administered by the Secretary 

of Labor or Education. Such records 

submitted to the Department of Labor 

must be submitted in one record that is 

integrated across all core Department of 

Labor programs. 

(b) For individual records submitted 

to the Secretary of Labor, records must 

be integrated across all core programs 

administered by the Secretary of Labor 

in one single file. 

(c) States must comply with any other 

requirements from sec. 116(d)(2) of 

WIOA as explained in guidance issued 

by the Department of Labor. 

§ 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 Education or Secretary of 

Labor, to submit complete annual 

performance reports that contain 

information that is valid and reliable. 

(b) If a State fails to meet standards in 

paragraph (a) of this section as 

determined by the Secretary of Labor or 

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 Secretary of Labor and the 

Secretary of Education will provide 

training and technical assistance to 

States in order to implement this 

section. 

■ 3. Add part 678 to read as follows: 

PART 678—DESCRIPTION OF THE 

ONE–STOP 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 

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? 

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 separate Memoranda of 

Understanding between the Local Board 

and each partner? 

678.510 How should 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 How is sole source selection of 

one-stop operators accomplished? 

678.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop 

operator compete to be a one-stop 

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 where the operator is not a 

governmental entity? 

678.635 What is the effective date of the 

provisions of this subpart? 

Subpart E—One-Stop Operating Costs 

678.700 What are 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 Board, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners? 

678.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

678.735 How are partner contributions 

determined in the State one-stop funding 

mechanism? 

678.740 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

678.745 How is the allocation formula used 

by the Governor determined in the State 

one-stop funding mechanism? 

678.750 When and how can a one-stop 

partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20638 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 business 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 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 in sec. 

188 and its implementing regulations at 

29 CFR part 37. 

(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 jobseeker 

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 Wagner-Peyser employment 

services; 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 Board may establish other service 

hours at other times to accommodate the 

schedules of individuals who work on 

regular business days. The State Board 

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 programs and services 

means having either: Program staff 

physically present at the location; 

having partner program staff physically 

present at the one-stop appropriately 

trained to provide information to 

customers about the programs, services, 

and activities available through partner 

programs; or providing direct linkage 

through technology to program staff 

who can provide meaningful 

information or services. 

(1) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ means 

providing direct connection at the onestop, 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. 

(2) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ does not 

include providing a phone number or 

computer Web site that can be used at 

an individual’s home; providing 

information, pamphlets, or materials; or 

making arrangements for the customer 

to receive services at a later time or on 

a different day. 

(e) All comprehensive one-stop 

centers must be physically and 

programmatically accessible to 

individuals with disabilities, as 

described in § 678.800. 

§ 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 jobseeker 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 

should be implemented in a manner 

that supplements and enhances 

customer access to services. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20639 

(b) As described in § 678.315, WagnerPeyser employment services cannot be a 

stand-alone affiliated site. 

(c) States, in conjunction with the 

Local Workforce Development Boards, 

must examine lease agreements and 

property holdings throughout the onestop delivery system in order to use 

property in an efficient and effective 

way. Where necessary and appropriate, 

States and Local Boards must take 

expeditious steps to align lease 

expiration dates with efforts to 

consolidate one-stop operations into 

service points where Wagner-Peyser 

employment services are collocated 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 § 678.800. 

§ 678.315 Can a stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment service office be 

designated as an affiliated one-stop site? 

(a) Separate stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment services offices are 

not permitted under WIOA, as also 

described in § 652.202 of this chapter. 

(b) If Wagner-Peyser employment 

services are provided at an affiliated 

site, there must be at least one other 

partner in the affiliated site with staff 

physically present 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 WagnerPeyser employment services and any of 

these three programs are provided at an 

affiliated site, an additional partner 

must have staff present 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 must be connected 

to, such as having processes in place to 

make referrals to, the comprehensive 

and any appropriate affiliate one-stop 

centers. Wagner-Peyser 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 

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 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) Employment services authorized 

under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 

49 et seq.); 

(3) Adult education and literacy 

activities authorized under title II of 

WIOA; 

(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation 

program authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 

720 et seq.); 

(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 post-secondary 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. (WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(xiii)). 

(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 opt to be a one-stop partner, or to 

work in collaboration with the one-stop 

center. 

§ 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 system if the Local 

Board and chief elected official(s) 

approve the entity’s participation. 

(b) Additional partners may include: 

(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 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 § 678.405, and therefore 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20640 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

should be the partner. Specific entities 

for particular programs are identified in 

paragraph (b) 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 onestop partner are not applicable to such 

program or activity in that local onestop system. 

(b) For title II of WIOA, the entity 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 may delegate its 

responsibilities under paragraph (a) of 

this section to one or more eligible 

providers or consortium of eligible 

providers. 

(c) For the Vocational Rehabilitation 

program, authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act, 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, 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 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 State eligible agency. The 

State eligible agency may delegate its 

responsibilities under paragraph (a) of 

this section to one or more State 

agencies, eligible recipients at the postsecondary level, or consortia of eligible 

recipients at the post-secondary level. 

§ 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; (WIOA sec. 

121(b)(1)(A)(i).) 

(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 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 Boards 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 in 

proportion to the relative benefits; 

(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). 

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

(c) Enter into an MOU with the Local 

Board relating to the operation of the 

one-stop system that meets the 

requirements of § 678.500(d); 

(d) Participate in the operation of the 

one-stop system consistent with the 

terms of the MOU, requirements of 

authorizing laws, the Federal cost 

principles, and all other applicable legal 

requirements; (WIOA sec. 

121(b)(1)(A)(iv)); and 

(e) Provide representation on the State 

and Local Workforce Development 

Boards as required and participate in 

Board committees as needed. (WIOA 

secs. 101(b)(iii) and 107(b)(2)(C) and 

(D)) 

§ 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. (WIOA 

sec. 121(e)(1)(A).) 

§ 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; 

(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 

training services by program and type of 

providers; 

(8) Provision of information, in usable 

and understandable formats and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20641 

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 Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families, and 

other supportive services and 

transportation provided through that 

program; 

(10) Provision of information and 

assistance regarding filing claims for 

unemployment compensation, by which 

the one-stop must provide 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); 

(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. 

§ 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 businesses, 

specifically labor exchange activities 

and labor market information described 

in §§ 678.430(a)(4)(ii) and 678.430(a)(6). 

Local areas must establish and develop 

relationships and networks with large 

and small employers and their 

intermediaries. (WIOA sec. 

134(c)(1)(A)(iv).) Local areas also must 

develop, convene, or implement 

industry or sector partnerships. (WIOA 

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

(b) Customized business services may 

be provided to employers, employer 

associations, or other such organizations 

(WIOA sec. 134(d)(1)(A)(ii)). 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; or 

(vi) Explaining labor laws to help 

employers comply with 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 

Board, or through the use of economic 

development, philanthropic, and other 

public and private resources in a 

manner determined appropriate by the 

Local Board 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 post-secondary 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20642 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 Board 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 

Board. The Local Workforce 

Development Board 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. 

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 Board, 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) A final plan, or an interim plan if 

needed, on how the costs of the services 

and the operating costs of the system 

will be funded, 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. (WIOA sec. 121(c).) 

(d) When fully executed, the MOU 

must contain the signatures of the Local 

Board, 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 separate Memoranda of 

Understanding between the Local 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 Board, chief elected 

official and all partners. Alternatively, 

the Local Board (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 Board 

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 should the Memorandum of 

Understanding be negotiated? 

(a) WIOA emphasizes full and 

effective partnerships between Local 

Boards, chief elected officials, and onestop partners. Local Boards and partners 

must enter into good-faith negotiations. 

Local Boards, chief elected officials, and 

one-stop partners may also request 

assistance from a State agency 

responsible for administering the 

partner program, the Governor, State 

Board, or other appropriate parties on 

other aspects of the MOU. 

(b) Local Boards and one-stop 

partners must establish, in the MOU, a 

final plan for how the Local Board and 

programs will fund the infrastructure 

costs of the one-stop centers. If a final 

plan regarding infrastructure costs is not 

complete when other sections of the 

MOU are ready, an interim 

infrastructure cost plan may be included 

instead, as described in § 678.715(c). 

Once the final infrastructure cost plan is 

approved, the Local Board and one-stop 

partners must amend the MOU to 

include the final plan for funding 

infrastructure costs of the one-stop 

centers, including a description of the 

funding mechanism established by the 

Governor relevant to the local area. 

Infrastructure cost funding is described 

in detail in subpart E of this part. 

(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2).) 

(c) The Local Board must report to the 

State Board, Governor, and relevant 

State agency when MOU negotiations 

with one-stop partners have reached an 

impasse. 

(1) The Local Board and partners must 

document the negotiations and efforts 

that have taken place in the MOU. The 

State Board, 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 Board must report 

failure to execute an MOU with a 

required partner to the Governor, State 

Board, and the State agency responsible 

for administering the partner’s program. 

Additionally, if the State cannot assist 

the Local Board in resolving the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20643 

impasse, the Governor or the State 

Board 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 Board, with the approval 

of the chief local 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 Boards 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 

Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR chapter II, 

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 Board 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 Board 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 the principles of 

competitive procurement in the 

Uniform Administrative Guidance set 

out at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326. 

(d) Entities described in paragraph (c) 

of this section must first determine the 

nature of the process to be used to 

comply with sec. 121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA. 

The acceptable processes are: 

(1) Procurement by sealed bids; 

(2) Procurement by competitive 

proposals; or 

(3) Procurement by sole source, 

permitted only if: 

(i) Analysis of market conditions and 

other factors lead to a determination 

that it is necessary to use sole-source 

procurement because: 

(A) There is only one entity that could 

serve as an operator; or 

(B) Unusual and compelling urgency 

will not permit a delay resulting from 

competitive solicitation; or 

(ii) Results of the competition 

conducted under paragraphs (d)(1) or (2) 

of this section were determined to be 

inadequate. 

(e) 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 How is sole source selection of 

one-stop operators accomplished? 

(a) As set forth in § 678.605(d)(3), 

under certain conditions, sole source 

procurement is an allowable method of 

procurement. 

(b) In the event that sole source 

procurement is determined necessary 

and reasonable, in accordance with 

§ 678.605(d)(3), 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 Board can 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 Board must 

establish sufficient conflict of interest 

policies and procedures and they must 

be approved by the Governor. 

§ 678.615 Can an entity serving as onestop operator compete to be a one-stop 

operator under the procurement 

requirements of this subpart? 

(a) Local Boards can 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 can 

compete for and be selected as one-stop 

operators by the Local Board, 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 State areas 

where the State Board serves as the 

Local Board, 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 conflict 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 Boards may 

establish additional roles of one-stop 

operator, including, but not limited to: 

Coordinating service providers within 

the center and across the one-stop 

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. The competition for a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20644 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

one-stop operator must clearly articulate 

the role of the one-stop operator. 

(b) 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; 

and develop and submit budget for 

activities of the Local Board in the local 

area. An 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 

§ 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 Board 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 conflict of 

interest. 

§ 678.630 Can State merit staff still work in 

a one-stop where the operator is not a 

governmental entity? 

Yes. State merit staff can continue to 

perform functions and activities in the 

one-stop career center. The Local Board 

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 may be included in the 

competition for and final contract with 

the one-stop operator. 

§ 678.635 What is the effective date of the 

provisions of this subpart? 

(a) No later than June 30, 2017, onestop operators selected under the 

competitive process described in this 

subpart must be in place and operating 

the one-stop. 

(b) By June 30, 2016, every Local 

Board 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 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 Boards 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 

Board, and Local Boards, and consistent 

with guidance and policies provided by 

the State Board, 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 

consistent with Office of Management 

and Budget 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 Boards, 

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 benefits 

received, and consistent with Federal 

cost principles. 

(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 in 

proportion to relative benefits received, 

consistent with Federal cost principles; 

and 

(3) The timelines regarding 

notification to the Governor for not 

reaching local agreement and triggering 

the State-funded infrastructure 

mechanism described in § 678.730, and 

timelines for a one-stop partner to 

submit an appeal in the State-funded 

infrastructure 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 Board, 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 onestop funding mechanism must meet all 

of the following requirements: 

(1) The infrastructure costs are funded 

through cash and fairly evaluated inkind 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 Board 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20645 

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 relative benefits 

received, and must 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 and equitable 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 

fully described in § 678.755, the Local 

Board 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 

Board 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 agreement must be 

finalized within 6 months of when the 

MOU is signed. If the infrastructure 

interim infrastructure agreement is not 

finalized within that timeframe, the 

Local Board must notify the Governor, 

as described in § 678.725. 

§ 678.720 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the local one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the local one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, one-stop partner 

programs can determine what funds 

they will use to fund 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 nonFederal resources, statutory limitations 

on administrative costs, and all other 

applicable legal requirements. In the 

case of partners administering adult 

education and literacy programs 

authorized by title II of WIOA or the 

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006, these funds may 

include Federal funds that are available 

for State administration of adult 

education and literacy programs 

authorized by title II of WIOA or for 

State administration of post-secondary 

level programs and activities under the 

Perkins Act, and non-Federal funds that 

the partners contribute to meet these 

programs’ matching or maintenance of 

effort requirements. These funds also 

may include local administrative funds 

available to local entities or consortia of 

local entities that have been delegated 

authority to serve as one-stop local 

partners by a State eligible agency as 

permitted by § 678.415(b) and (e). 

(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 onestop 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 by or benefit to 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 chapter II, 

including the Federal cost principles. 

§ 678.725 What happens if consensus on 

infrastructure funding is not reached at the 

local level between the Local Board, chief 

elected officials, and one-stop partners? 

If, after July 1, 2016, and each 

subsequent July 1, the Local Board, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners do not reach consensus on 

methods of sufficiently funding local 

infrastructure through the local 

infrastructure cost funding mechanism, 

and include that consensus agreement 

in the signed MOU, then the Local 

Board must notify the Governor and the 

Governor must administer funding 

through the State one-stop funding 

mechanism, as described in § 678.730. 

(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)) 

§ 678.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, the Governor, after 

consultation with the chief elected 

officials, Local Boards, and the State 

Board, determines one-stop partner 

contributions, based upon a 

methodology where infrastructure costs 

are charged to each partner in 

proportion to relative benefits received 

and consistent with the partner 

program’s authorizing laws and 

regulations, 2 CFR chapter II, including 

the Federal cost principles, and other 

applicable legal requirements described 

in § 678.735(a). 

(b) The State Board develops an 

allocation formula to allocate funds to 

local areas to support the infrastructure 

costs for local area one-stop centers for 

all local areas that did not use the local 

funding mechanism, and the Governor 

uses that formula to allocate the funds. 

This is described in detail in § 678.745. 

§ 678.735 How are partner contributions 

determined in the State one-stop funding 

mechanism? 

(a) In the State one-stop funding 

mechanism, the Governor, after 

consultation with State and Local 

Boards and chief elected officials, will 

determine the amount each partner 

must contribute to assist in paying the 

infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. 

The Governor must calculate amounts 

based on the proportionate use of the 

one-stop centers by each partner, 

consistent with chapter II of title 2, 

Code of Federal Regulations (or any 

corresponding similar regulation or 

ruling), taking 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 Board, or information technology 

systems. The Governor will also take 

into account the statutory requirements 

for each partner program, all other 

applicable legal requirements, and the 

partner program’s ability to fulfill such 

requirements. 

(b) In certain situations, the Governor 

does not determine the infrastructure 

cost contributions for one-stop partner 

programs. 

(1) The Governor will not determine 

the contribution amounts for 

infrastructure funds for Native 

American grantees described in 20 CFR 

part 684. (WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(iii).) 

The appropriate portion of funds to be 

provided by Native American 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 a State in which the State 

constitution or a State statute places 

policy-making authority that is 

independent of the authority of the 

Governor in an entity or official with 

respect to the funds provided for adult 

education and literacy activities, postsecondary career and technical 

education activities, or vocational 

rehabilitation services, the chief officer 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20646 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

of that entity or the official must 

determine the contribution amounts for 

infrastructure funds in consultation 

with the Governor. (WIOA sec. 

121(h)(2)(C)(ii).) 

(c) Limitations. Per WIOA sec. 

122(h)(2)(D), the amount established by 

the Governor under paragraph (a) of this 

section may not exceed the following 

caps: 

(1) WIOA formula programs and 

employment service. The portion of 

funds required to be contributed under 

the WIOA youth, adult, or dislocated 

worker programs, or under the WagnerPeyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.) must 

not exceed 3 percent of the amount of 

Federal funds provided to carry out that 

program in the State for a program year. 

(2) Other one-stop partners. 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 education program or 

employment and training program in 

the State for a fiscal year. For purposes 

of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006, the cap on 

contributions is determined based on 

the funds made available for State 

administration of post-secondary level 

programs and activities. 

(3) Vocational rehabilitation. Within a 

State, the entity or entities 

administering the programs described in 

WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(iv) the allotment 

is based on the one State allotment, 

even in instances where that allotment 

is shared between two State agencies, 

and will not be required to provide from 

that program a cumulative portion that 

exceeds— 

(i) 0.75 percent of the amount of 

Federal funds provided to carry out 

such program in the State for Fiscal 

Year 2016; 

(ii) 1.0 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2017; 

(iii) 1.25 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2018; and 

(iv) 1.5 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2019 and 

following years. 

(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 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 

§ 678.735(a)). 

(d) If the above limitations result in 

funding less than each partner’s 

proportionate share and contribute to 

inadequate funding of the allocation 

amount determined under § 678.745(b), 

the Governor may direct the Local 

Board, chief elected officials, and onestop partners to reenter negotiations to 

reduce the infrastructure costs to reflect 

the amount of funds that are available 

for such costs, discuss proportionate 

share of each one-stop partner, or to 

identify alternative sources of financing 

for one-stop infrastructure funding, but, 

in any event, a partner will only be 

required to pay an amount that is 

consistent with the proportionate 

benefit received by the partner, the 

program’s authorizing laws and 

regulations, the Federal cost principles, 

and other applicable legal requirements. 

(1) The Local Board, chief elected 

officials, and one-stop partners, after 

renegotiation, may come to agreement 

and sign an MOU and proceed under 

the local one-stop funding mechanism. 

(2) If after renegotiation, agreement 

amongst partners still cannot be reached 

or alternate financing identified, the 

Governor may adjust the specified 

allocation, in accordance with the 

amounts available and the limitations 

described in § 678.735(c). 

§ 678.740 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, infrastructure costs 

for WIOA title I programs, including 

Native American Programs described in 

20 CFR part 684, can 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.) 

can also be paid using program funds, 

administrative funds, or both. (WIOA 

sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(II).) 

(b) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

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. 

(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(I).) 

(c) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

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 State administration or from nonFederal funds that the partner 

contributes to meet the program’s 

matching or maintenance of effort 

requirement. Infrastructure costs for title 

II of WIOA may also be paid from funds 

available for local administration of 

programs and activities to eligible 

providers or consortia of eligible 

providers delegated responsibilities to 

act as a local one-stop partner pursuant 

to § 678.415(b). 

(d) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, infrastructure costs 

for the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act of 2006 must 

be paid from the Federal funds that are 

available for State administration of 

post-secondary level programs and 

activities under the Perkins Act, or from 

non-Federal funds that the partner 

contributes to meet the program’s 

matching or maintenance of effort 

requirement. Infrastructure costs for the 

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006 may also be paid 

from funds available for local 

administration of post-secondary level 

programs and activities to eligible 

recipients or consortia of eligible 

recipients delegated responsibilities to 

act as a local one-stop partner pursuant 

to § 678.415(e). 

§ 678.745 How is the allocation formula 

used by the Governor determined in the 

State one-stop funding mechanism? 

(a) The State Board must develop an 

allocation formula to be used by the 

Governor to allocate funds to the local 

areas that did not successfully use the 

local funding mechanism. The 

allocation formula must take into 

account the number of one-stop centers 

in a local area, the population served by 

such centers, the services provided by 

such centers, and other factors relating 

to the performance of such centers that 

the State Board determines are 

appropriate and that are consistent with 

Federal cost principles. (WIOA sec. 

121(h)(3)(B).) 

(b) Using the funds contributed by the 

one-stop partners described in 

§ 678.735, the Governor will then use 

this formula to allocate funds to the 

local areas that did not use the local 

funding mechanism to fund one-stop 

center infrastructure costs, so long as 

that funding distribution is consistent 

with Federal cost principles for each of 

the affected one-stop partners. 

§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20647 

infrastructure costs. This appeal process 

must be described in the Unified State 

Plan. (WIOA secs. 121(h)(2)(E) and 

102(b)(2)(D)(i)(IV).) 

(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), or the cost 

contribution caps in § 678.735(c). 

(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 

one-stop infrastructure 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 relative benefits 

received, and that complies with 

chapter II of title 2 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (or any 

corresponding similar regulation or 

ruling). 

(c) Identification of all one-stop 

partners, chief elected officials, and 

Local Board participating in the 

infrastructure funding arrangement. 

(d) Steps the Local Board, chief 

elected officials, and one-stop partners 

used to reach consensus or an assurance 

that the local area followed the guidance 

for the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding process. 

(e) Description of the process to be 

used between 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, which must include applicable 

career services. 

(b) Additionally, one-stop partners 

may jointly fund shared services to the 

extent consistent with their programs’ 

Federal authorizing statutes and other 

applicable legal requirements. Shared 

services’ costs may include the costs of 

shared services that are authorized for 

and may be commonly provided 

through the one-stop 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 one-stop partners, and business 

services. Shared operating costs may 

also include shared costs of the Local 

Board’s functions. 

(c) These shared costs 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 chapter II of title 2 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (or any 

corresponding similar regulation or 

ruling) requiring that costs are 

reasonable, necessary, and allocable. 

(d) 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 Board, in consultation 

with chief elected officials and Local 

Boards, must establish objective criteria 

and procedures for Local Boards to use 

when certifying one-stop centers. 

(1) The State Board 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 Board’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 Board is the onestop operator as described in § 679.410 

of this chapter, the State Board 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 maximum access to 

partner program services even outside 

regular business hours. 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 37. 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; 

and 

(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. 

(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 

20 CFR part 677. 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(d) Local Boards 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 Board. The Local Board may 

establish additional criteria, or set 

higher standards for service 

coordination, than those set by the State 

criteria. Local Boards 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 Boards must certify one-stop 

centers in order to be eligible to receive 

infrastructure funds in the State 

infrastructure funding mechanism 

described in § 678.730. 

(e) All one-stop centers must comply 

with applicable physical accessibility 

requirements, as set forth in 29 CFR part 

37. 

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 July 1, 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 products, 

programs, activities, services, facilities, 

and related property and materials used 

in the one-stop system. 

(c) 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 

proposes to amend 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 of 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 is the purpose 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 workforce investment activities in 

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 in Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title II? 

361.120 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service programs in title III of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act? 

361.125 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the State Vocational Rehabilitation 

program in Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title IV? 

361.130 What is the 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 submission and 

approval process of the Combined State 

Plan? 

361.145 What are the requirements for 

modifications of the Combined State 

Plan? 

Subpart D—Unified and Combined 

State Plans Under Title I of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act 

§ 361.100 What is the purpose 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 

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 optional 

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 joint planning guidelines issued by 

the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary 

of Education. 

(b) The Governor of each State must 

submit, in accordance with § 361.130, a 

Unified or Combined 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; 

(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; 

(3) The Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Services programs 

amended by title III of WIOA and 

administered by the U.S. Department of 

Labor; and 

(4) The State Vocational 

Rehabilitation program amended by title 

IV of WIOA and administered by the 

U.S. Department of Education. 

(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 

guidance issued by the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20649 

(2) Strategies for aligning the core 

programs and optional programs, 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 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 and others 

deemed necessary by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education under sec. 

102(b)(2)(E)(x) of WIOA; and 

(v) 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. 

§ 361.110 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

workforce investment activities in 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

title I? 

The program-specific requirements for 

the adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

workforce investment activities that 

must be included in the Unified State 

Plan are described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of 

WIOA. Additional planning 

requirements may be required by the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education in accordance with joint 

planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 

Education. 

§ 361.115 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act 

program in 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)(D)(ii) 

and 102(b)(2)(C) 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. 

(c) With regard to the description 

required under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of 

WIOA pertaining to the integration of 

workforce and education data on core 

programs, unemployment insurance 

programs, and education through postsecondary education, for title II of 

WIOA, the Unified State Plan must 

include how the State will ensure 

interoperability of data systems in the 

reporting on core indicators of 

performance and performance reports 

required to be submitted by the State. 

§ 361.120 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service 

programs in title III of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Services programs amended by title III 

are subject to requirements in sec. 

102(b) of WIOA and any additional 

requirements imposed by the Secretary 

of Labor under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii) of 

WIOA, in accordance with joint 

planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 

Education. 

§ 361.125 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the State Vocational Rehabilitation program 

in 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 

of 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 secs. 102(b) and 103 of 

WIOA. 

§ 361.130 What is the submission and 

approval process of the Unified State Plan? 

(a) The Unified State Plan described 

in § 361.105 must be submitted in 

accordance with planning guidelines 

issued jointly by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Education which explain the 

submission and approval process in 

WIOA sec. 102(c). 

(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) The subsequent Unified State Plan 

must be submitted no later than 120 

days prior to the end of the 4-year 

period described in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. 

(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of 

this section, ‘‘program year’’ means July 

1 through June 30 of any year. 

(c) 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 

Boards 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 Board 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. 

(d) 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. 

(e) The Unified State Plan is subject 

to the approval of both the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of Education. 

(f) Before the Secretary of Labor and 

the Secretary of Education approve the 

Unified State Plan, the vocational 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

rehabilitation 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. 

(g) The Secretary of Labor and the 

Secretary of Education will review and 

approve the Unified State Plan within 

90 days of receipt by the appropriate 

Secretary, 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. 

(h) If neither the Secretary of Labor 

nor the Secretary of Education makes 

the written determination described in 

paragraph (g) 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 Board 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 adjusted 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 

Board or alternative entity, and similar 

substantial changes to the State’s 

workforce investment system. 

(c) Modifications to the Unified State 

Plan are subject to the same public 

review and comment requirements in 

§ 361.130(c) that apply to the 

development of the original Unified 

State Plan. 

(d) Unified State Plan modifications 

must be approved by the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of 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. 

(b) A State that submits a Combined 

State Plan covering an activity or 

program described in paragraph (d) of 

this section that is approved under 

WIOA sec. 103(c) or determined 

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 optional programs and 

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

WIOA. The optional 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 1956 (42 

U.S.C. 3056 et seq.); 

(9) Employment and training 

activities carried out by the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development; 

(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 § 361.105, as explained in 

the joint planning guidance issued by 

the Secretaries; 

(2) For the optional programs, 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 

guidance issued by the Secretaries; 

(3) A description of joint planning 

methods across all programs included in 

the Combined 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 optional program included in 

the Combined State Plan remains 

subject to the applicable programspecific 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20651 

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. 

§ 361.143 What is the 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 the 

joint planning guidelines, which will 

further explain the submission and 

approval procedures for the Combined 

State Plan, issued by the Secretaries. 

(b) 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 determining 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. 

(c) 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 plan is received by the 

appropriate Secretary from the State, 

except as provided in paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(2) If an appropriate Secretary other 

than the Secretary of Labor or the 

Secretary of Education has authority to 

approve or determine complete a 

portion of the Combined State Plan for 

a program or activity described in 

§ 361.140(d), that portion of the plan 

must be reviewed, and approved, 

disapproved, or have a determination of 

completeness, by the appropriate 

Secretary within 120 days beginning on 

the day the plan is received by the 

appropriate Secretary from the State 

except as provided in paragraph (e) of 

this section. 

(d) The review and determination of 

approval or disapproval, or 

determination of completeness, of the 

relevant portion of the Combined State 

Plan must occur within 90 days for all 

Department of Labor and Education 

programs included in the State Plan and 

within 120 days for the programs 

administered by other Federal Agencies 

unless the appropriate Secretary 

determines in writing within that period 

that: 

(1) The 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 

determining the plan’s completeness, if 

any, under such law; 

(2) The portion of the 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 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. 

(e) If the Secretary of Labor, the 

Secretary of Education, or the 

appropriate Secretary does not make the 

written determination described in 

paragraph (d) of this section within the 

relevant period of time after submission 

of the Plan, that portion of the 

Combined State Plan over which the 

Secretary has jurisdiction will be 

considered approved. 

(f) Special rule. In paragraphs (d)(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 the end of the first 2-year 

period of any 4-year Combined State 

Plan. The State Board must review the 

Combined State Plan, and the Governor 

must submit a modification of the 

Combined State Plan to reflect changes 

in labor market and economic 

conditions or in other factors affecting 

the implementation of the Combined 

State Plan. 

(b) In addition to the required 

modification review described in 

paragraph (a) 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 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 optional programs or 

activities described in § 361.140(d) that 

are included in the Combined State Plan 

or may comply with the procedures and 

requirements applicable to only the 

particular optional program or activity; 

and 

(2) Must submit, in accordance with 

the procedure described in § 361.143, 

any other modification, amendment, or 

revision required by the Federal law 

authorizing, or applicable to, the 

program or activity described in 

§ 361.140(d). If the underlying 

programmatic requirements change 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 optional program or 

activity and other legal requirements 

applicable to such program or activity. 

A State also may amend its Combined 

State Plan to add an optional 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 

§ 361.130(c) except that, if the 

modification, amendment, or revision 

affects the administration of a particular 

optional program and has no impact on 

the Combined State Plan as a whole or 

the integration and administration of the 

core and optional programs at the State 

level, a State may comply instead with 

the procedures and requirements 

applicable to the particular optional 

program. 

(e) Modifications for the core program 

portions of the Combined State Plan 

must be approved by the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Combined State Plan described in sec. 

102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA. 

(f) Modifications for the portions of 

the Combined State Plan for any 

optional program or activity described 

in § 361.140(d) must be submitted for 

approval by 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 optional 

program if the modification, 

amendment, or revision affects the 

administration of only that particular 

optional program and has no impact on 

the Combined State Plan as a whole or 

the integration and administration of the 

core and optional programs at the State 

level. 

■ 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 measurement and 

reporting requirements? 

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 require additional 

indicators of performance? 

361.170 How are State adjusted 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 What State actions are subject to a 

financial sanction under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

361.185 When are sanctions applied for 

failure to report? 

361.190 When are sanctions applied for 

failure to achieve adjusted levels of 

performance? 

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? 

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 title I, III, and IV 

programs? 

361.240 What are the requirements for data 

validation of State annual performance 

reports? 

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 measurement and reporting 

requirements? 

(a) Participant. A reportable 

individual who has received staffassisted services 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 an 

individual who has an approved and 

signed Individualized Plan for 

Employment (IPE) and has begun to 

receive services. 

(2) The following individuals are not 

Participants: 

(i) Individuals who have not 

completed at least 12 contact hours in 

the Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act (AEFLA) program; 

(ii) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; and 

(iii) Individuals who only receive 

information services or activities. 

(3) 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 core program, 

including: 

(1) Individuals who provide 

identifying information; 

(2) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; and 

(3) Individuals who only receive 

information on services or activities. 

(c) Exit. As defined for the purpose of 

performance calculations, exit is the 

point after which an individual who has 

received services through any program 

meets the following criteria: 

(1) For the adult, dislocated worker, 

and youth programs under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA) title I, the AEFLA program 

under WIOA title II, and the 

Employment Services authorized by the 

Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by 

WIOA title III, exit date is the last date 

of service: 

(i) The exit date cannot be determined 

until 90 days of no services has elapsed. 

At that point the exit date is applied 

retroactively to the last date of service. 

(A) Ninety days of no service does not 

include self-service or information-only 

activities or follow-up services and 

(B) There are no future services 

planned, excluding follow-up services. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2)(i) For the VR program as amended 

by WIOA title IV: 

(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 Vocational 

Rehabilitation program if the 

individual’s service record is closed 

because the individual has achieved a 

supported employment outcome in an 

integrated setting but not in competitive 

integrated employment. 

§ 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 under title I of WIOA, 

the AEFLA program under title II of 

WIOA, the Wagner-Peyser Act as 

amended by title III of WIOA, and the 

VR program as amended by WIOA. 

(1) The six primary indicators for 

performance 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) The percentage of participants 

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. A participant who has 

obtained a secondary school diploma or 

its recognized equivalent is only 

included in this measure if the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20653 

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; 

(v) The percentage of participants 

who during a program year, are in an 

education or training program that leads 

to a recognized post-secondary 

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. 

(vi) Effectiveness in serving 

employers, based on indicators 

developed as required by sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(iv) of WIOA. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) The indicators in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section 

apply to the adult, dislocated worker, 

AEFLA and VR programs. 

(c) The indicators in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi) of this 

section apply to the Employment 

Services. 

(d) For the youth program under title 

I of WIOA, the 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 participants 

who obtained a recognized postsecondary credential or a secondary 

school diploma, or its recognized 

equivalent, during participation or up to 

1 year after exit. A participant who has 

obtained a secondary school diploma or 

its recognized equivalent is only 

included in this measure 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 post-secondary 

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; 

(6) Effectiveness in serving employers, 

based on indicators developed as 

required by sec. 116(b)(2)(iv) of WIOA. 

§ 361.160 What information is required for 

State performance reports? 

(a) Section 116(d)(2) of WIOA requires 

States to submit a State performance 

report. The State performance report 

must be submitted annually using a 

template the Departments 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 

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 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 

and exiters who received career and 

training services for the most recent 

program year and the three preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program; 

(4) Information on the performance 

levels achieved for the primary 

indicators consistent with § 361.155 for 

career 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 obtained unsubsidized 

employment related to the training 

received (often referred to as trainingrelated employment) through WIOA 

title I–B programs; 

(6) 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, as 

applicable to the program; 

(7) The average cost per participant 

for those participants who received 

career and training services, 

respectively, during the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years for, 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 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 Education and 

Labor, which may include information 

on reportable individuals as determined 

by the Secretaries. 

§ 361.165 May a State require additional 

indicators of performance? 

States may identify additional 

indicators of performance for the six 

core programs. These indicators must be 

included in the Unified or Combined 

State Plan. 

§ 361.170 How are State adjusted levels of 

performance for primary indicators 

established? 

(a) A State must submit in the State 

Plan expected levels of performance on 

the primary indicators for each core 

program as required by sec. 116(b)(iv) of 

WIOA as explained in joint guidance 

issued by the Secretaries of Education 

and Labor. 

(1) The initial State Plan submitted 

under WIOA must contain expected 

levels of performance for the first 2 

years of the State Plan period. 

(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) The State must reach agreement on 

levels of performance with the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Secretaries of Education and Labor for 

each of the core programs based on the 

following factors: 

(1) How the levels of performance 

compare with State adjusted levels of 

performance established for other 

States; 

(2) The application of an objective 

statistical model established by the 

Secretaries of Education and Labor, 

subject to paragraph (d) of this section; 

(3) How the 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 levels 

assist the State in meeting the 

performance goals established by the 

Secretaries of Education and Labor for 

the core programs in accordance with 

the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993, and its 

amendments. 

(c) An objective statistical adjustment 

model will be developed and 

disseminated by the Secretaries. The 

model will be based on: 

(1) Differences among States in actual 

economic conditions, including 

unemployment rates and job losses or 

gains in particular industries; and 

(2) The characteristics of participants, 

including: 

(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 is necessary to populate the 

model and apply it to the programs; 

(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, used before the beginning of a 

program year in order to establish State 

performance targets for the upcoming 

program year; and 

(3) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, used to revise performance 

levels at the end of a program year based 

on actual circumstances, consistent with 

sec. 116(b)(3)(vii) of WIOA. 

(e) States must comply with these 

requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as 

explained in joint guidance issued by 

the Departments of Education and 

Labor. 

§ 361.175 What responsibility do States 

have to use quarterly wage record 

information for performance 

accountability? 

(a) States must, consistent with State 

laws, use quarterly wage record 

information in measuring the progress 

on State adjusted levels of performance 

for the primary indicators outlined in 

§ 361.155 and local performance 

indicators identified in § 361.205. 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. 

(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 eligible 

training providers. The Governor or 

such agency [or appropriate State entity] 

is responsible for: 

(1) Facilitating data matches; 

(2) Data quality reliability, protection 

against disaggregation that would 

violate privacy. 

§ 361.180 What State actions are subject 

to a financial sanction under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

The following failures by a State are 

subject to financial sanction under 

WIOA sec. 116(d): 

(a) The failure by a State to submit the 

State annual performance report 

required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2); or 

(b) The failure by a State to 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 

failure to report? 

(a) Sanctions will be applied when a 

State fails to submit the State annual 

performance reports required under sec. 

116(d)(2) of WIOA. It is a failure 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 assessed 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 

impacts. 

(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 of a potential impact on 

the ability to submit their State annual 

performance reports by no later than 30 

days prior to the established deadline in 

order to not be considered failing to 

report. 

(2) In circumstances where 

unexpected events occur within the 30- 

day period before the deadline for 

submission of the State annual 

performance reports, the Secretary of 

Labor and Secretary of Education will 

review requests for extending the 

reporting deadline in accordance with 

the Departments’ procedures explained 

in guidance on reporting timelines. 

§ 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 

conditions experienced during a 

program year and characteristics of 

participants, annually at the close of 

each program year. 

(b) States that fail 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) State failure to meet adjusted 

levels of performance will be 

determined through three criteria: 

(1) Overall State program scores, 

based on the percent achieved by a 

program on each of the six primary 

indicators compared to the adjusted goal 

for each primary indicator. The average 

of the percentage of the adjusted goal 

achieved for each primary indicator will 

constitute the overall program score for 

the State; 

(2) Overall State indicator scores, 

based on the percent achieved by each 

program on each of the individual 

primary indicators compared to the 

adjusted goal. The average of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20655 

percentage of the adjusted goal achieved 

for each of the six core programs’ will 

constitute an overall indicator score for 

the State; and 

(3) Individual indicator scores, based 

on the percent achieved by each 

program on each of the individual 

primary indicators compared to the 

adjusted goals. 

(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 

90 percent of the overall State program 

score, 90 percent of the overall State 

indicator score, or 50 percent on any 

individual indicator score for the same 

program or indicator. 

§ 361.195 What should States expect when 

a sanction is applied to the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment? 

(a) The Secretary of Labor and the 

Secretary of Education will reduce the 

Governor’s Reserve Allotment by 5 

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; or 

(2) The State fails to meet State 

adjusted levels of performance for the 

same primary performance indicator(s) 

under either § 361.190(d)(1) or (2) for 

the second consecutive year as defined 

in § 361.190. 

(b) If the State fails under paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section in the same 

program year, the Secretary of Labor and 

the Secretary of 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, dependent upon the 

impacted program, 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 U.S. Department of Labor 

imposes in accordance with the 

provisions of § 683.800 of this chapter. 

§ 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 program score and overall 

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? 

(a) Each local workforce investment 

area in a State under title I of WIOA is 

subject to the same primary indicators 

of performance for the core programs for 

WIOA title I under § 361.155(a)(1) and 

(d) 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 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 provide information on the actual 

performance levels for the local area 

based on quarterly wage records 

consistent with the requirements for 

States under § 361.175. 

(e) The local area performance report 

must include: 

(1) Performance levels achieved by 

the local area for the indicators for the 

adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

programs under title I of WIOA in 

§ 361.155(a)(1) and (3); 

(2) Performance levels achieved by 

the local area for the adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth programs under title 

I of WIOA in § 361.160(a); 

(3) The percentage of a local area’s 

allotment under WIOA sec. 128(b) and 

sec. 133(b) that the local area spent on 

administrative costs; and 

(4) 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). 

(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 the 

Department of Labor. 

§ 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 the § 361.170 must be: 

(1) Used to establish local 

performance targets for the upcoming 

program year, and 

(2) Used to revise performance levels 

at the end of a program year based on 

actual circumstances, consistent with 

WIOA sec. 116(c)(3). 

(b) The Governor, Local Board, and 

chief elected official must reach 

agreement on local targets and levels 

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 conditions 

experienced. 

(c) The negotiations process described 

in paragraph (b) of this section must be 

developed by the Governor and 

disseminated to all Local Boards and 

chief elected officials. 

(d) The Local Boards may apply 

performance measures to service 

providers that differ from the 

performance measures that apply to the 

local area. These performance measures 

should be established after considering: 

(1) The established local performance 

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. The 

Governor may use non-Federal funds to 

create incentives for Local Boards to 

implement pay-for-performance contract 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20656 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 Boards. 

(b) Pay-for-performance contract 

strategies must be implemented in 

accordance with §§ 683.500 through 

683.530 of this chapter 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 

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 in meeting levels of 

performance for a local area before 

negotiating the adjusted levels of 

performance for the 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 

levels of performance agreed to under 

§ 361.210 for the primary indicators of 

performance for the adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth programs 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 Board, 

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. 

§ 361.225 Under what circumstances may 

local areas appeal a reorganization plan? 

(a) The Local Board 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 Board 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 

Board and chief elected official to the 

Secretary under § 683.650 of this 

chapter; and 

(2) Must be submitted by certified 

mail, return receipt requested, to the 

Secretary, 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 Board and chief elected 

official, the Secretary must make a final 

decision within 30 days. In making this 

determination the Secretary may 

consider any comments submitted by 

the Governor in response to the appeals. 

(d) The decision by the Governor to 

impose a reorganization plan 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)(B)(ii). 

§ 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 will 

disseminate including through 

electronic means, the eligible training 

provider performance reports for 

eligible training providers 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 

§ 361.175 and with respect to each 

program of study that is eligible to 

receive funds under WIOA: 

(1) The total number of participants 

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); 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 in a program 

of study (or the equivalent). 

(b) Registered apprenticeship 

programs are not required to submit 

performance information. See § 680.470 

of this chapter. 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 electronic 

access to the public eligible training 

provider 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 the Department of Labor. 

(e) The Governor may designate one 

or more State agencies such as a State 

education agency or State educational 

authority to assist in overseeing eligible 

training provider performance and 

facilitating the production and 

dissemination of eligible training 

provider performance reports. These 

agencies may be the same agencies that 

are designated as responsible for 

administering the eligible training 

providers 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 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 

eligible training provider list and the 

information required to accompany the 

list, as provided in § 680.500 of this 

chapter. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20657 

§ 361.235 What are the reporting 

requirements for individual records for core 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

title I, III, and IV programs? 

(a) On a quarterly basis, each State 

must submit to the Secretary of Labor or 

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 a core 

program administered by the Secretary 

of Labor or Education. Such records 

submitted to the Department of Labor 

must be submitted in one record that is 

integrated across all core Department of 

Labor programs. 

(b) For individual records submitted 

to the Secretary of Labor, records must 

be integrated across all core programs 

administered by the Secretary of Labor 

in one single file. 

(c) States must comply with any other 

requirements from sec. 116(d)(2) of 

WIOA as explained in guidance issued 

by the Department of Labor. 

§ 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 Education or Secretary of 

Labor, to submit complete annual 

performance reports that contain 

information that is valid and reliable. 

(b) If a State fails to meet standards in 

paragraph (a) of this section as 

determined by the Secretary of Labor or 

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 Secretary of Labor and the 

Secretary of Education will provide 

training and technical assistance to 

States in order to implement this 

section. 

■ 7. Add subpart F to part 361 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart F—Description of the One-Stop 

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 

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 separate Memoranda of 

Understanding between the Local Board 

and each partner? 

361.510 How should 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 How is sole source selection of 

one-stop operators accomplished? 

361.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop 

operator compete to be a one-stop 

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 where the operator is not a 

governmental entity? 

361.635 What is the effective date of the 

provisions of this subpart? 

361.700 What are 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 Board, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners? 

361.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

361.735 How are partner contributions 

determined in the State one-stop funding 

mechanism? 

361.740 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

361.745 How is the allocation formula used 

by the Governor determined in the State 

one-stop funding mechanism? 

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? 

Subpart F—Description of the OneStop 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 business 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20658 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 in sec. 

188 and its implementing regulations at 

29 CFR part 37. 

(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 jobseeker 

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 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 §§ 361.400 through 361.410, 

including Wagner-Peyser employment 

services; 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 Board may establish other service 

hours at other times to accommodate the 

schedules of individuals who work on 

regular business days. The State Board 

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 programs and services 

means having either: Program staff 

physically present at the location; 

having partner program staff physically 

present at the one-stop appropriately 

trained to provide information to 

customers about the programs, services, 

and activities available through partner 

programs; or providing direct linkage 

through technology to program staff 

who can provide meaningful 

information or services. 

(1) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ means 

providing direct connection at the onestop, 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. 

(2) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ does not 

include providing a phone number or 

computer Web site that can be used at 

an individual’s home; providing 

information, pamphlets, or materials; or 

making arrangements for the customer 

to receive services at a later time or on 

a different day. 

(e) All comprehensive one-stop 

centers must be physically and 

programmatically accessible to 

individuals with disabilities, as 

described in § 361.800. 

§ 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 jobseeker 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 

should be implemented in a manner 

that supplements and enhances 

customer access to services. 

(b) As described in § 361.315, WagnerPeyser employment services cannot be a 

stand-alone affiliated site. 

(c) States, in conjunction with the 

Local Workforce Development Boards, 

must examine lease agreements and 

property holdings throughout the onestop delivery system in order to use 

property in an efficient and effective 

way. Where necessary and appropriate, 

States and Local Boards must take 

expeditious steps to align lease 

expiration dates with efforts to 

consolidate one-stop operations into 

service points where Wagner-Peyser 

employment services are collocated 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 § 361.800. 

§ 361.315 Can a stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment service office be 

designated as an affiliated one-stop site? 

(a) Separate stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment services offices are 

not permitted under WIOA, as also 

described in. 

(b) If Wagner-Peyser employment 

services are provided at an affiliated 

site, there must be at least one other 

partner in the affiliated site with staff 

physically present 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 WagnerPeyser employment services and any of 

these three programs are provided at an 

affiliated site, an additional partner 

must have staff present 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 must be connected 

to, such as having processes in place to 

make referrals to, the comprehensive 

and any appropriate affiliate one-stop 

centers. Wagner-Peyser 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 

employment services, local veterans’ 

employment representatives, disabled 

veterans’ outreach program specialists, 

and unemployment compensation. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20659 

§ 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 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) Employment services authorized 

under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 

49 et seq.); 

(3) Adult education and literacy 

activities authorized under title II of 

WIOA; 

(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation 

program authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 

720 et seq.); 

(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 post-secondary 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. (WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(xiii)). 

(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 opt to be a one-stop partner, or to 

work in collaboration with the one-stop 

center. 

§ 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 system if the Local 

Board and chief elected official(s) 

approve the entity’s participation. 

(b) Additional partners may include: 

(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 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 § 361.405, 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 

should be the partner. Specific entities 

for particular programs are identified in 

paragraph (b) 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 onestop partner are not applicable to such 

program or activity in that local onestop system. 

(b) For title II of WIOA, the entity 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 may delegate its 

responsibilities under paragraph (a) of 

this section to one or more eligible 

providers or consortium of eligible 

providers. 

(c) For the Vocational Rehabilitation 

program, authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act, 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, 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 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 State eligible agency. The 

State eligible agency may delegate its 

responsibilities under paragraph (a) of 

this section to one or more State 

agencies, eligible recipients at the postsecondary level, or consortia of eligible 

recipients at the post-secondary level. 

§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20660 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

appropriate locations; (WIOA sec. 

121(b)(1)(A)(i).) 

(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 Boards 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 in 

proportion to the relative benefits; 

(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). 

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

(c) Enter into an MOU with the Local 

Board relating to the operation of the 

one-stop system that meets the 

requirements of § 361.500(d); 

(d) Participate in the operation of the 

one-stop system consistent with the 

terms of the MOU, requirements of 

authorizing laws, the Federal cost 

principles, and all other applicable legal 

requirements; (WIOA sec. 

121(b)(1)(A)(iv)) and 

(e) Provide representation on the State 

and Local Workforce Development 

Boards as required and participate in 

Board committees as needed. (WIOA 

secs. 101(b)(iii) and 107(b)(2)(C) and 

(D)) 

§ 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. (WIOA 

sec. 121(e)(1)(A).) 

§ 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; 

(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 

training 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 Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families, and 

other supportive services and 

transportation provided through that 

program; 

(10) Provision of information and 

assistance regarding filing claims for 

unemployment compensation, by which 

the one-stop must provide 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20661 

employment goals, including the list of, 

and information about, the eligible 

training providers (as described in); 

(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); 

(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. 

§ 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 businesses, 

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. (WIOA sec. 

134(c)(1)(A)(iv)). Local areas also must 

develop, convene, or implement 

industry or sector partnerships. (WIOA 

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

(b) Customized business services may 

be provided to employers, employer 

associations, or other such organizations 

(WIOA sec. 134(d)(1)(A)(ii)). 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; or 

(vi) Explaining labor laws to help 

employers comply with 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 

Board, or through the use of economic 

development, philanthropic, and other 

public and private resources in a 

manner determined appropriate by the 

Local Board 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 post-secondary 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. 

§ 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 Board 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 

Board. The Local Workforce 

Development Board 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. 

§ 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 Board, 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) A final plan, or an interim plan if 

needed, on how the costs of the services 

and the operating costs of the system 

will be funded, 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; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20662 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(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. (WIOA sec. 121(c).) 

(d) When fully executed, the MOU 

must contain the signatures of the Local 

Board, 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 separate Memoranda of 

Understanding between the Local 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 Board, chief elected 

official and all partners. Alternatively, 

the Local Board (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 Board 

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 should the Memorandum of 

Understanding be negotiated? 

(a) WIOA emphasizes full and 

effective partnerships between Local 

Boards, chief elected officials, and onestop partners. Local Boards and partners 

must enter into good-faith negotiations. 

Local Boards, chief elected officials, and 

one-stop partners may also request 

assistance from a State agency 

responsible for administering the 

partner program, the Governor, State 

Board, or other appropriate parties on 

other aspects of the MOU. 

(b) Local Boards and one-stop 

partners must establish, in the MOU, a 

final plan for how the Local Board and 

programs will fund the infrastructure 

costs of the one-stop centers. If a final 

plan regarding infrastructure costs is not 

complete when other sections of the 

MOU are ready, an interim 

infrastructure cost plan may be included 

instead, as described in § 361.715(c). 

Once the final infrastructure cost plan is 

approved, the Local Board and one-stop 

partners must amend the MOU to 

include the final plan for funding 

infrastructure costs of the one-stop 

centers, including a description of the 

funding mechanism established by the 

Governor relevant to the local area. 

Infrastructure cost funding is described 

in detail in subpart E of this part. 

(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2).) 

(c) The Local Board must report to the 

State Board, Governor, and relevant 

State agency when MOU negotiations 

with one-stop partners have reached an 

impasse. 

(1) The Local Board and partners must 

document the negotiations and efforts 

that have taken place in the MOU. The 

State Board, 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 Board must report 

failure to execute an MOU with a 

required partner to the Governor, State 

Board, and the State agency responsible 

for administering the partner’s program. 

Additionally, if the State cannot assist 

the Local Board in resolving the 

impasse, the Governor or the State 

Board 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 Board, with the approval 

of the chief local 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 Boards 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); 

(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, the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 

chapter II, 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 Board 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20663 

a Local Board 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 the principles of 

competitive procurement in the 

Uniform Administrative Guidance set 

out at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326. 

(d) Entities described in paragraph (c) 

of this section must first determine the 

nature of the process to be used to 

comply with sec. 121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA. 

The acceptable processes are: 

(1) Procurement by sealed bids; 

(2) Procurement by competitive 

proposals; or 

(3) Procurement by sole source, 

permitted only if: 

(i) Analysis of market conditions and 

other factors lead to a determination 

that it is necessary to use sole-source 

procurement because: 

(A) There is only one entity that could 

serve as an operator; or 

(B) Unusual and compelling urgency 

will not permit a delay resulting from 

competitive solicitation; or 

(ii) Results of the competition 

conducted under paragraphs (d)(1) or (2) 

of this section were determined to be 

inadequate. 

(e) 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 How is sole source selection of 

one-stop operators accomplished? 

(a) As set forth in § 361.605(d)(3), 

under certain conditions, sole source 

procurement is an allowable method of 

procurement. 

(b) In the event that sole source 

procurement is determined necessary 

and reasonable, in accordance with 

§ 361.605(d)(3) of this section, 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 for 

demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflict of interest. 

(d) A Local Board can 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 Board must 

establish sufficient conflict of interest 

policies and procedures and they must 

be approved by the Governor. 

§ 361.615 Can an entity serving as onestop operator compete to be a one-stop 

operator under the procurement 

requirements of this subpart? 

(a) Local Boards can 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 for demonstrating 

internal controls and preventing conflict 

of interest. 

(b) State and local agencies can 

compete for and be selected as one-stop 

operators by the Local Board, 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 for 

demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflict of interest. 

(c) In the case of single State areas 

where the State Board serves as the 

Local Board, 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 for 

demonstrating internal controls and 

preventing conflict 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 Boards may 

establish additional roles of one-stop 

operator, including, but not limited to: 

Coordinating service providers within 

the center and across the one-stop 

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. The competition for a 

one-stop operator must clearly articulate 

the role of the one-stop operator. 

(b) 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; 

and develop and submit budget for 

activities of the Local Board in the local 

area. An 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 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 Board level regarding 

oversight, monitoring, and evaluation of 

performance of the service provider. 

The firewalls must conform to the 

specifications in for demonstrating 

internal controls and preventing conflict 

of interest. 

§ 361.630 Can State merit staff still work in 

a one-stop where the operator is not a 

governmental entity? 

Yes. State merit staff can continue to 

perform functions and activities in the 

one-stop career center. The Local Board 

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 may be included in the 

competition for and final contract with 

the one-stop operator. 

§ 361.635 What is the effective date of the 

provisions of this subpart? 

(a) No later than June 30, 2017, onestop operators selected under the 

competitive process described in this 

subpart must be in place and operating 

the one-stop. 

(b) By June 30, 2016, every Local 

Board 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 one-stop infrastructure 

costs? 

(a) Infrastructure costs of one-stop 

centers are nonpersonnel costs that are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20664 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 Boards 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 

Board, and Local Boards, and consistent 

with guidance and policies provided by 

the State Board, 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 

consistent with Office of Management 

and Budget 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 Boards, 

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 benefits 

received, and consistent with Federal 

cost principles. 

(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 in 

proportion to relative benefits received, 

consistent with Federal cost principles; 

and 

(3) The timelines regarding 

notification to the Governor for not 

reaching local agreement and triggering 

the State-funded infrastructure 

mechanism described in § 361.730, and 

timelines for a one-stop partner to 

submit an appeal in the State-funded 

infrastructure 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 Board, 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 onestop funding mechanism must meet all 

of the following requirements: 

(1) The infrastructure costs are funded 

through cash and fairly evaluated inkind 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 Board 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 relative benefits 

received, and must 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 and equitable 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 

fully described in § 361.755, the Local 

Board 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 

Board 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 agreement must be 

finalized within 6 months of when the 

MOU is signed. If the infrastructure 

interim infrastructure agreement is not 

finalized within that timeframe, the 

Local Board 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 one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, one-stop partner 

programs can determine what funds 

they will use to fund 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 nonFederal resources, statutory limitations 

on administrative costs, and all other 

applicable legal requirements. In the 

case of partners administering adult 

education and literacy programs 

authorized by title II of WIOA or the 

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006, these funds may 

include Federal funds that are available 

for State administration of adult 

education and literacy programs 

authorized by title II of WIOA or for 

State administration of post-secondary 

level programs and activities under the 

Perkins Act, and non-Federal funds that 

the partners contribute to meet these 

programs’ matching or maintenance of 

effort requirements. These funds also 

may include local administrative funds 

available to local entities or consortia of 

local entities that have been delegated 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20665 

authority to serve as one-stop local 

partners by a State eligible agency as 

permitted by § 361.415(b) and (e). 

(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 onestop 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 by or benefit to 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 chapter II, 

including the Federal cost principles. 

§ 361.725 What happens if consensus on 

infrastructure funding is not reached at the 

local level between the Local Board, chief 

elected officials, and one-stop partners? 

If, after July 1, 2016, and each 

subsequent July 1, the Local Board, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners do not reach consensus on 

methods of sufficiently funding local 

infrastructure through the local 

infrastructure cost funding mechanism, 

and include that consensus agreement 

in the signed MOU, then the Local 

Board must notify the Governor and the 

Governor must administer funding 

through the State one-stop funding 

mechanism, as described in § 361.730. 

(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)) 

§ 361.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, the Governor, after 

consultation with the chief elected 

officials, Local Boards, and the State 

Board, determines one-stop partner 

contributions, based upon a 

methodology where infrastructure costs 

are charged to each partner in 

proportion to relative benefits received 

and consistent with the partner 

program’s authorizing laws and 

regulations, 2 CFR chapter II, including 

the Federal cost principles, and other 

applicable legal requirements described 

in § 361.735(a). 

(b) The State Board develops an 

allocation formula to allocate funds to 

local areas to support the infrastructure 

costs for local area one-stop centers for 

all local areas that did not use the local 

funding mechanism, and the Governor 

uses that formula to allocate the funds. 

This is described in detail in § 361.745. 

§ 361.735 How are partner contributions 

determined in the State one-stop funding 

mechanism? 

(a) In the State one-stop funding 

mechanism, the Governor, after 

consultation with State and Local 

Boards and chief elected officials, will 

determine the amount each partner 

must contribute to assist in paying the 

infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. 

The Governor must calculate amounts 

based on the proportionate use of the 

one-stop centers by each partner, 

consistent with chapter II of title 2, 

Code of Federal Regulations (or any 

corresponding similar regulation or 

ruling), taking 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 Board, or information technology 

systems. The Governor will also take 

into account the statutory requirements 

for each partner program, all other 

applicable legal requirements, and the 

partner program’s ability to fulfill such 

requirements. 

(b) In certain situations, the Governor 

does not determine the infrastructure 

cost contributions for one-stop partner 

programs. 

(1) The Governor will not determine 

the contribution amounts for 

infrastructure funds for Native 

American grantees described in. (WIOA 

sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(iii).) The appropriate 

portion of funds to be provided by 

Native American 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 a State in which the State 

constitution or a State statute places 

policy-making authority that is 

independent of the authority of the 

Governor in an entity or official with 

respect to the funds provided for adult 

education and literacy activities, postsecondary career and technical 

education activities, or vocational 

rehabilitation services, the chief officer 

of that entity or the official must 

determine the contribution amounts for 

infrastructure funds in consultation 

with the Governor. (WIOA sec. 

121(h)(2)(C)(ii).) 

(c) Limitations. Per WIOA sec. 

122(h)(2)(D), the amount established by 

the Governor under paragraph (a) of this 

section may not exceed the following 

caps: 

(1) WIOA formula programs and 

employment service. The portion of 

funds required to be contributed under 

the WIOA youth, adult, or dislocated 

worker programs, or under the WagnerPeyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.) must 

not exceed 3 percent of the amount of 

Federal funds provided to carry out that 

program in the State for a program year. 

(2) Other one-stop partners. 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 education program or 

employment and training program in 

the State for a fiscal year. For purposes 

of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006, the cap on 

contributions is determined based on 

the funds made available for State 

administration of post-secondary level 

programs and activities. 

(3) Vocational rehabilitation. Within a 

State, the entity or entities 

administering the programs described in 

WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(iv) the allotment 

is based on the one State allotment, 

even in instances where that allotment 

is shared between two State agencies, 

and will not be required to provide from 

that program a cumulative portion that 

exceeds— 

(i) 0.75 percent of the amount of 

Federal funds provided to carry out 

such program in the State for Fiscal 

Year 2016; 

(ii) 1.0 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2017; 

(iii) 1.25 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2018; and 

(iv) 1.5 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2019 and 

following years. 

(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 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 

§ 361.735(a)). 

(d) If the above limitations result in 

funding less than each partner’s 

proportionate share and contribute to 

inadequate funding of the allocation 

amount determined under § 361.745(b), 

the Governor may direct the Local 

Board, chief elected officials, and onestop partners to reenter negotiations to 

reduce the infrastructure costs to reflect 

the amount of funds that are available 

for such costs, discuss proportionate 

share of each one-stop partner, or to 

identify alternative sources of financing 

for one-stop infrastructure funding, but, 

in any event, a partner will only be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20666 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

required to pay an amount that is 

consistent with the proportionate 

benefit received by the partner, the 

program’s authorizing laws and 

regulations, the Federal cost principles, 

and other applicable legal requirements. 

(1) The Local Board, chief elected 

officials, and one-stop partners, after 

renegotiation, may come to agreement 

and sign an MOU and proceed under 

the local one-stop funding mechanism. 

(2) If after renegotiation, agreement 

amongst partners still cannot be reached 

or alternate financing identified, the 

Governor may adjust the specified 

allocation, in accordance with the 

amounts available and the limitations 

described in § 361.735(c). 

§ 361.740 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, infrastructure costs 

for WIOA title I programs, including 

Native American Programs described in, 

can 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.) 

can also be paid using program funds, 

administrative funds, or both. (WIOA 

sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(II).) 

(b) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

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. 

(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(I).) 

(c) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

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 State administration or from nonFederal funds that the partner 

contributes to meet the program’s 

matching or maintenance of effort 

requirement. Infrastructure costs for title 

II of WIOA may also be paid from funds 

available for local administration of 

programs and activities to eligible 

providers or consortia of eligible 

providers delegated responsibilities to 

act as a local one-stop partner pursuant 

to § 361.415(b). 

(d) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, infrastructure costs 

for the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act of 2006 must 

be paid from the Federal funds that are 

available for State administration of 

post-secondary level programs and 

activities under the Perkins Act, or from 

non-Federal funds that the partner 

contributes to meet the program’s 

matching or maintenance of effort 

requirement. Infrastructure costs for the 

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006 may also be paid 

from funds available for local 

administration of post-secondary level 

programs and activities to eligible 

recipients or consortia of eligible 

recipients delegated responsibilities to 

act as a local one-stop partner pursuant 

to § 361.415(e). 

§ 361.745 How is the allocation formula 

used by the Governor determined in the 

State one-stop funding mechanism? 

(a) The State Board must develop an 

allocation formula to be used by the 

Governor to allocate funds to the local 

areas that did not successfully use the 

local funding mechanism. The 

allocation formula must take into 

account the number of one-stop centers 

in a local area, the population served by 

such centers, the services provided by 

such centers, and other factors relating 

to the performance of such centers that 

the State Board determines are 

appropriate and that are consistent with 

Federal cost principles. (WIOA 

121(h)(3)(B)) 

(b) Using the funds contributed by the 

one-stop partners described in 

§ 361.735, the Governor will then use 

this formula to allocate funds to the 

local areas that did not use the local 

funding mechanism to fund one-stop 

center infrastructure costs, so long as 

that funding distribution is consistent 

with Federal cost principles for each of 

the affected one-stop partners. 

§ 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. (WIOA secs. 121(h)(2)(E) and 

102(b)(2)(D)(i)(IV).) 

(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), or the cost 

contribution caps in § 361.735(c). 

(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. 

(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 

one-stop infrastructure 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 relative benefits 

received, and that complies with 

chapter II of title 2 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (or any 

corresponding similar regulation or 

ruling). 

(c) Identification of all one-stop 

partners, chief elected officials, and 

Local Board participating in the 

infrastructure funding arrangement. 

(d) Steps the Local Board, chief 

elected officials, and one-stop partners 

used to reach consensus or an assurance 

that the local area followed the guidance 

for the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding process. 

(e) Description of the process to be 

used between 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, which must include applicable 

career services. 

(b) Additionally, one-stop partners 

may jointly fund shared services to the 

extent consistent with their programs’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20667 

Federal authorizing statutes and other 

applicable legal requirements. Shared 

services’ costs may include the costs of 

shared services that are authorized for 

and may be commonly provided 

through the one-stop 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 one-stop partners, and business 

services. Shared operating costs may 

also include shared costs of the Local 

Board’s functions. 

(c) These shared costs 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 chapter II of title 2 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (or any 

corresponding similar regulation or 

ruling) requiring that costs are 

reasonable, necessary, and allocable. 

(d) 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 Board, in consultation 

with chief elected officials and Local 

Boards, must establish objective criteria 

and procedures for Local Boards to use 

when certifying one-stop centers. 

(1) The State Board 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 Board’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 

accessibility, and continuous 

improvement. 

(3) When the Local Board is the onestop operator as described in, the State 

Board 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 maximum access to 

partner program services even outside 

regular business hours. 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 37. 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; 

and 

(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. 

(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. 

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 Boards 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 Board. The Local Board may 

establish additional criteria, or set 

higher standards for service 

coordination, than those set by the State 

criteria. Local Boards must review and 

update the criteria every 2 years as part 

of the Local Plan update process 

described in § 361.580. Local Boards 

must certify one-stop centers in order to 

be eligible to receive infrastructure 

funds in the State infrastructure funding 

mechanism described in § 361.730. 

(e) All one-stop centers must comply 

with applicable physical accessibility 

requirements, as set forth. 

§ 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 July 1, 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 products, 

programs, activities, services, facilities, 

and related property and materials used 

in the one-stop system. 

(c) 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 is the purpose 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 workforce investment activities in 

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 in Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act title II? 

463.120 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Service programs in title III of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act? 

463.125 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan 

for the State Vocational Rehabilitation 

program in Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act title IV? 

463.130 What is the 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 submission and 

approval process of the Combined State 

Plan? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20668 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

463.145 What are the requirements for 

modifications of the Combined State 

Plan? 

Subpart H—Unified and Combined 

State Plans Under Title I of the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act 

§ 463.100 What is the purpose 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 

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 

§ 463.105(b), and additional optional 

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 joint planning guidelines issued by 

the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary 

of Education. 

(b) The Governor of each State must 

submit, in accordance with § 463.130, a 

Unified or Combined 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; 

(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; 

(3) The Wagner-Peyser Act 

Employment Services programs 

amended by title III of WIOA and 

administered by the U.S. Department of 

Labor; and 

(4) The State Vocational 

Rehabilitation program amended by title 

IV of WIOA and administered by the 

U.S. Department of Education. 

(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 

guidance issued by the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of 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 optional programs, 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 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 and others 

deemed necessary by the Secretaries of 

Labor and Education under sec. 

102(b)(2)(E)(x) of WIOA; and 

(v) 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. 

§ 463.110 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

workforce investment activities in 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

title I? 

The program-specific requirements for 

the adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

workforce investment activities that 

must be included in the Unified State 

Plan are described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of 

WIOA. Additional planning 

requirements may be required by the 

Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of 

Education in accordance with joint 

planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 

Education. 

§ 463.115 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act 

program in 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)(D)(ii) 

and 102(b)(2)(C) 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. 

(c) With regard to the description 

required under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of 

WIOA pertaining to the integration of 

workforce and education data on core 

programs, unemployment insurance 

programs, and education through postVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Apr 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM 16APP2

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20669 

secondary education, for title II of 

WIOA, the Unified State Plan must 

include how the State will ensure 

interoperability of data systems in the 

reporting on core indicators of 

performance and performance reports 

required to be submitted by the State. 

§ 463.120 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service 

programs in title III of the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

Wagner-Peyser Act Employment 

Services programs amended by title III 

are subject to requirements in sec. 

102(b) of WIOA and any additional 

requirements imposed by the Secretary 

of Labor under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii) of 

WIOA, in accordance with joint 

planning guidelines issued by the 

Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 

Education. 

§ 463.125 What are the program-specific 

requirements in the Unified State Plan for 

the State Vocational Rehabilitation program 

in 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 

of 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 secs. 102(b) and 103 of 

WIOA. 

§ 463.130 What is the submission and 

approval process of the Unified State Plan? 

(a) The Unified State Plan described 

in § 463.105 must be submitted in 

accordance with planning guidelines 

issued jointly by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Education which explain the 

submission and approval process in 

WIOA sec. 102(c). 

(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) The subsequent Unified State Plan 

must be submitted no later than 120 

days prior to the end of the 4-year 

period described in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. 

(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of 

this section, ‘‘program year’’ means July 

1 through June 30 of any year. 

(c) 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 

Boards 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 Board 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. 

(d) 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. 

(e) The Unified State Plan is subject 

to the approval of both the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of Education. 

(f) Before the Secretary of Labor and 

the Secretary of Education approve the 

Unified State Plan, the vocational 

rehabilitation 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. 

(g) The Secretary of Labor and the 

Secretary of Education will review and 

approve the Unified State Plan within 

90 days of receipt by the appropriate 

Secretary, 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. 

(h) If neither the Secretary of Labor 

nor the Secretary of Education makes 

the written determination described in 

paragraph (g) 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 Board 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 adjusted 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 

Board or alternative entity, and similar 

substantial changes to the State’s 

workforce investment system. 

(c) Modifications to the Unified State 

Plan are subject to the same public 

review and comment requirements in 

§ 463.130(c) that apply to the 

development of the original Unified 

State Plan. 

(d) Unified State Plan modifications 

must be approved by the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of 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. 

(b) A State that submits a Combined 

State Plan covering an activity or 

program described in paragraph (d) of 

this section that is approved under 

WIOA sec. 103(c) or determined 

complete under the law relating to the 

program will not be required to submit 

any other plan or application in order to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20670 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 optional programs and 

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

WIOA. The optional 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 1956 (42 

U.S.C. 3056 et seq.); 

(9) Employment and training 

activities carried out by the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development; 

(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, as explained in 

the joint planning guidance issued by 

the Secretaries; 

(2) For the optional programs, 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 

guidance issued by the Secretaries; 

(3) A description of joint planning 

methods across all programs included in 

the Combined 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 optional program included in 

the Combined State Plan remains 

subject to the applicable programspecific 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. 

§ 463.143 What is the 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 the 

joint planning guidelines, which will 

further explain the submission and 

approval procedures for the Combined 

State Plan, issued by the Secretaries. 

(b) 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 determining 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. 

(c) 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 plan is received by the 

appropriate Secretary from the State, 

except as provided in paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(2) If an appropriate Secretary other 

than the Secretary of Labor or the 

Secretary of Education has authority to 

approve or determine complete a 

portion of the Combined State Plan for 

a program or activity described in 

§ 463.140(d), that portion of the plan 

must be reviewed, and approved, 

disapproved, or have a determination of 

completeness, by the appropriate 

Secretary within 120 days beginning on 

the day the plan is received by the 

appropriate Secretary from the State 

except as provided in paragraph (e) of 

this section. 

(d) The review and determination of 

approval or disapproval, or 

determination of completeness, of the 

relevant portion of the Combined State 

Plan must occur within 90 days for all 

Department of Labor and Education 

programs included in the State Plan and 

within 120 days for the programs 

administered by other Federal Agencies 

unless the appropriate Secretary 

determines in writing within that period 

that: 

(1) The 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 

determining the plan’s completeness, if 

any, under such law; 

(2) The portion of the 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 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20671 

approval of a plan or application, if any, 

under such law. 

(e) If the Secretary of Labor, the 

Secretary of Education, or the 

appropriate Secretary does not make the 

written determination described in 

paragraph (d) of this section within the 

relevant period of time after submission 

of the Plan, that portion of the 

Combined State Plan over which the 

Secretary has jurisdiction will be 

considered approved. 

(f) Special rule. In paragraphs (d)(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 the end of the first 2-year 

period of any 4-year Combined State 

Plan. The State Board must review the 

Combined State Plan, and the Governor 

must submit a modification of the 

Combined State Plan to reflect changes 

in labor market and economic 

conditions or in other factors affecting 

the implementation of the Combined 

State Plan. 

(b) In addition to the required 

modification review described in 

paragraph (a) 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 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 optional programs or 

activities described in § 463.140(d) that 

are included in the Combined State Plan 

or may comply with the procedures and 

requirements applicable to only the 

particular optional program or activity; 

and 

(2) Must submit, in accordance with 

the procedure described in § 463.143, 

any other modification, amendment, or 

revision required by the Federal law 

authorizing, or applicable to, the 

program or activity described in 

§ 463.140(d). If the underlying 

programmatic requirements change 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 optional program or 

activity and other legal requirements 

applicable to such program or activity. 

A State also may amend its Combined 

State Plan to add an optional 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 

§ 463.130(c) except that, if the 

modification, amendment, or revision 

affects the administration of a particular 

optional program and has no impact on 

the Combined State Plan as a whole or 

the integration and administration of the 

core and optional programs at the State 

level, a State may comply instead with 

the procedures and requirements 

applicable to the particular optional 

program. 

(e) Modifications for the core program 

portions of the Combined State Plan 

must be approved by the Secretary of 

Labor and the Secretary of 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 Administration 

for modification of any portion of the 

Combined State Plan described in sec. 

102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA. 

(f) Modifications for the portions of 

the Combined State Plan for any 

optional program or activity described 

in § 463.140(d) must be submitted for 

approval by 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 optional 

program if the modification, 

amendment, or revision affects the 

administration of only that particular 

optional program and has no impact on 

the Combined State Plan as a whole or 

the integration and administration of the 

core and optional programs at the State 

level. 

■ 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 measurement and 

reporting requirements? 

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 require additional 

indicators of performance? 

463.170 How are State adjusted 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 What State actions are subject to a 

financial sanction under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

463.185 When are sanctions applied for 

failure to 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? 

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 title I, III, and IV 

programs? 

463.240 What are the requirements for data 

validation of State annual performance 

reports? 

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 measurement and reporting 

requirements? 

(a) Participant. A reportable 

individual who has received staffassisted services 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 an 

individual who has an approved and 

signed Individualized Plan for 

Employment (IPE) and has begun to 

receive services. 

(2) The following individuals are not 

Participants: 

(i) Individuals who have not 

completed at least 12 contact hours in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20672 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act (AEFLA) program; 

(ii) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; and 

(iii) Individuals who only receive 

information services or activities. 

(3) 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 core program, 

including: 

(1) Individuals who provide 

identifying information; 

(2) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; and 

(3) Individuals who only receive 

information on services or activities. 

(c) Exit. As defined for the purpose of 

performance calculations, exit is the 

point after which an individual who has 

received services through any program 

meets the following criteria: 

(1) For the adult, dislocated worker, 

and youth programs under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA) title I, the AEFLA program 

under WIOA title II, and the 

Employment Services authorized by the 

Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by 

WIOA title III, exit date is the last date 

of service: 

(i) The exit date cannot be determined 

until 90 days of no services has elapsed. 

At that point the exit date is applied 

retroactively to the last date of service. 

(A) Ninety days of no service does not 

include self-service or information-only 

activities or follow-up services and 

(B) There are no future services 

planned, excluding follow-up services. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2)(i) For the VR program as amended 

by WIOA title IV: 

(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 Vocational 

Rehabilitation program if the 

individual’s service record is closed 

because the individual has achieved a 

supported employment outcome in an 

integrated setting but not in competitive 

integrated employment. 

§ 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 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 

under title I of WIOA, the AEFLA 

program under title II of WIOA, the 

Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by title 

III of WIOA, and the VR program as 

amended by WIOA. 

(1) The six primary indicators for 

performance 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) The percentage of participants 

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. A participant who has 

obtained a secondary school diploma or 

its recognized equivalent is only 

included in this measure 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; 

(v) The percentage of participants 

who during a program year, are in an 

education or training program that leads 

to a recognized post-secondary 

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. 

(vi) Effectiveness in serving 

employers, based on indicators 

developed as required by sec. 

116(b)(2)(A)(iv) of WIOA. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) The indicators in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section 

apply to the adult, dislocated worker, 

AEFLA and VR programs. 

(c) The indicators in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi) of this 

section apply to the Employment 

Services. 

(d) For the youth program under title 

I of WIOA, the 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 participants 

who obtained a recognized postsecondary credential or a secondary 

school diploma, or its recognized 

equivalent, during participation or up to 

1 year after exit. A participant who has 

obtained a secondary school diploma or 

its recognized equivalent is only 

included in this measure 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 post-secondary 

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; 

(6) Effectiveness in serving employers, 

based on indicators developed as 

required by sec. 116(b)(2)(iv) of WIOA. 

§ 463.160 What information is required for 

State performance reports? 

(a) Section 116(d)(2) of WIOA requires 

States to submit a State performance 

report. The State performance report 

must be submitted annually using a 

template the Departments 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 for all of the core programs 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20673 

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 

and exiters who received career and 

training services for the most recent 

program year and the three preceding 

program years, as applicable to the 

program; 

(4) Information on the performance 

levels achieved for the primary 

indicators consistent with § 463.155 for 

career 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 obtained unsubsidized 

employment related to the training 

received (often referred to as trainingrelated employment) through WIOA 

title I–B programs; 

(6) 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, as 

applicable to the program; 

(7) The average cost per participant 

for those participants who received 

career and training services, 

respectively, during the most recent 

program year and the 3 preceding 

program years for, 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 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 Education and 

Labor, which may include information 

on reportable individuals as determined 

by the Secretaries. 

§ 463.165 May a State require additional 

indicators of performance? 

States may identify additional 

indicators of performance for the six 

core programs. These indicators must be 

included in the Unified or Combined 

State Plan. 

§ 463.170 How are State adjusted levels of 

performance for primary indicators 

established? 

(a) A State must submit in the State 

Plan expected levels of performance on 

the primary indicators for each core 

program as required by sec. 116(b)(iv) of 

WIOA as explained in joint guidance 

issued by the Secretaries of Education 

and Labor. 

(1) The initial State Plan submitted 

under WIOA must contain expected 

levels of performance for the first 2 

years of the State Plan period. 

(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) The State must reach agreement on 

levels of performance with the 

Secretaries of Education and Labor for 

each of the core programs based on the 

following factors: 

(1) How the levels of performance 

compare with State adjusted levels of 

performance established for other 

States; 

(2) The application of an objective 

statistical model established by the 

Secretaries of Education and Labor, 

subject to paragraph (d) of this section; 

(3) How the 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 levels 

assist the State in meeting the 

performance goals established by the 

Secretaries of Education and Labor for 

the core programs in accordance with 

the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993, and its 

amendments. 

(c) An objective statistical adjustment 

model will be developed and 

disseminated by the Secretaries. The 

model will be based on: 

(1) Differences among States in actual 

economic conditions, including 

unemployment rates and job losses or 

gains in particular industries; and 

(2) The characteristics of participants, 

including: 

(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 is necessary to populate the 

model and apply it to the programs; 

(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, used before the beginning of a 

program year in order to establish State 

performance targets for the upcoming 

program year; and 

(3) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, used to revise performance 

levels at the end of a program year based 

on actual circumstances, consistent with 

sec. 116(b)(3)(vii) of WIOA. 

(e) States must comply with these 

requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as 

explained in joint guidance issued by 

the Departments of Education and 

Labor. 

§ 463.175 What responsibility do States 

have to use quarterly wage record 

information for performance 

accountability? 

(a) States must, consistent with State 

laws, use quarterly wage record 

information in measuring the progress 

on State adjusted levels of performance 

for the primary indicators outlined in 

§ 463.155 and local performance 

indicators identified in § 463.205. 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. 

(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 eligible 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20674 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

training providers. The Governor or 

such agency [or appropriate State entity] 

is responsible for: 

(1) Facilitating data matches; 

(2) Data quality reliability, protection 

against disaggregation that would 

violate privacy. 

§ 463.180 What State actions are subject 

to a financial sanction under Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act? 

The following failures by a State are 

subject to financial sanction under 

WIOA sec. 116(d): 

(a) The failure by a State to submit the 

State annual performance report 

required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2); or 

(b) The failure by a State to 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 

failure to report? 

(a) Sanctions will be applied when a 

State fails to submit the State annual 

performance reports required under sec. 

116(d)(2) of WIOA. It is a failure 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 assessed 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 

impacts. 

(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 of a potential impact on 

the ability to submit their State annual 

performance reports by no later than 30 

days prior to the established deadline in 

order to not be considered failing to 

report. 

(2) In circumstances where 

unexpected events occur within the 30- 

day period before the deadline for 

submission of the State annual 

performance reports, the Secretary of 

Labor and Secretary of Education will 

review requests for extending the 

reporting deadline in accordance with 

the Departments’ procedures explained 

in guidance on reporting timelines. 

§ 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 

conditions experienced during a 

program year and characteristics of 

participants, annually at the close of 

each program year. 

(b) States that fail 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) State failure to meet adjusted 

levels of performance will be 

determined through three criteria: 

(1) Overall State program scores, 

based on the percent achieved by a 

program on each of the six primary 

indicators compared to the adjusted goal 

for each primary indicator. The average 

of the percentage of the adjusted goal 

achieved for each primary indicator will 

constitute the overall program score for 

the State; 

(2) Overall State indicator scores, 

based on the percent achieved by each 

program on each of the individual 

primary indicators compared to the 

adjusted goal. The average of the 

percentage of the adjusted goal achieved 

for each of the six core programs’ will 

constitute an overall indicator score for 

the State; and 

(3) Individual indicator scores, based 

on the percent achieved by each 

program on each of the individual 

primary indicators compared to the 

adjusted goals. 

(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 

90 percent of the overall State program 

score, 90 percent of the overall State 

indicator score, or 50 percent on any 

individual indicator score for the same 

program or indicator. 

§ 463.195 What should States expect when 

a sanction is applied to the Governor’s 

Reserve Allotment? 

(a) The Secretary of Labor and the 

Secretary of Education will reduce the 

Governor’s Reserve Allotment by 5 

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; or 

(2) The State fails to meet State 

adjusted levels of performance for the 

same primary performance indicator(s) 

under either § 463.190(d)(1) or (2) for 

the second consecutive year as defined 

in § 463.190. 

(b) If the State fails under paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section in the same 

program year, the Secretary of Labor and 

the Secretary of 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, dependent upon the 

impacted program, 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 U.S. Department of Labor 

imposes in accordance with the 

provisions of § 683.800 of this chapter. 

§ 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 program score and overall 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20675 

§ 463.205 What performance indicators 

apply to local areas? 

(a) Each local workforce investment 

area in a State under title I of WIOA is 

subject to the same primary indicators 

of performance for the core programs for 

WIOA title I under § 463.155(a)(1) and 

(d) 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 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 provide information on the actual 

performance levels for the local area 

based on quarterly wage records 

consistent with the requirements for 

States under § 463.175. 

(e) The local area performance report 

must include: 

(1) Performance levels achieved by 

the local area for the indicators for the 

adult, dislocated worker, and youth 

programs under title I of WIOA in 

§ 463.155(a)(1) and (3); 

(2) Performance levels achieved by 

the local area for the adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth programs under title 

I of WIOA in § 463.160(a); 

(3) The percentage of a local area’s 

allotment under WIOA sec. 128(b) and 

sec. 133(b) that the local area spent on 

administrative costs; and 

(4) 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). 

(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 the 

Department of Labor. 

§ 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 the § 463.170 must be: 

(1) Used to establish local 

performance targets for the upcoming 

program year, and 

(2) Used to revise performance levels 

at the end of a program year based on 

actual circumstances, consistent with 

WIOA sec. 116(c)(3). 

(b) The Governor, Local Board, and 

chief elected official must reach 

agreement on local targets and levels 

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 conditions 

experienced. 

(c) The negotiations process described 

in paragraph (b) of this section must be 

developed by the Governor and 

disseminated to all Local Boards and 

chief elected officials. 

(d) The Local Boards may apply 

performance measures to service 

providers that differ from the 

performance measures that apply to the 

local area. These performance measures 

should be established after considering: 

(1) The established local performance 

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. The 

Governor may use non-Federal funds to 

create incentives for Local Boards to 

implement pay-for-performance 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 Boards. 

(b) Pay-for-performance contract 

strategies must be implemented in 

accordance with §§ 683.500 through 

683.530 of this chapter 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 

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 in meeting levels of 

performance for a local area before 

negotiating the adjusted levels of 

performance for the 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 

levels of performance agreed to under 

§ 463.210 for the primary indicators of 

performance for the adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth programs 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 Board, 

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. 

§ 463.225 Under what circumstances may 

local areas appeal a reorganization plan? 

(a) The Local Board 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 Board 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 

Board and chief elected official to the 

Secretary under § 683.650 of this 

chapter; and 

(2) Must be submitted by certified 

mail, return receipt requested, to the 

Secretary, 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 Board and chief elected 

official, the Secretary must make a final 

decision within 30 days. In making this 

determination the Secretary may 

consider any comments submitted by 

the Governor in response to the appeals. 

(d) The decision by the Governor to 

impose a reorganization plan becomes 

effective at the time it is issued and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20676 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

remains effective unless the Secretary of 

Labor rescinds or revises the 

reorganization plan under WIOA sec. 

116(g)(2)(B)(ii). 

§ 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 will 

disseminate including through 

electronic means, the eligible training 

provider performance reports for 

eligible training providers 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 

§ 463.175 and with respect to each 

program of study that is eligible to 

receive funds under WIOA: 

(1) The total number of participants 

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); 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 in a program 

of study (or the equivalent). 

(b) Registered apprenticeship 

programs are not required to submit 

performance information. See § 680.470 

of this chapter. 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 electronic 

access to the public eligible training 

provider 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 the Department of Labor. 

(e) The Governor may designate one 

or more State agencies such as a State 

education agency or State educational 

authority to assist in overseeing eligible 

training provider performance and 

facilitating the production and 

dissemination of eligible training 

provider performance reports. These 

agencies may be the same agencies that 

are designated as responsible for 

administering the eligible training 

providers 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 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 

eligible training provider list and the 

information required to accompany the 

list, as provided in § 680.500 of this 

chapter. 

§ 463.235 What are the reporting 

requirements for individual records for core 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

title I, III, and IV programs? 

(a) On a quarterly basis, each State 

must submit to the Secretary of Labor or 

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 a core 

program administered by the Secretary 

of Labor or Education. Such records 

submitted to the Department of Labor 

must be submitted in one record that is 

integrated across all core Department of 

Labor programs. 

(b) For individual records submitted 

to the Secretary of Labor, records must 

be integrated across all core programs 

administered by the Secretary of Labor 

in one single file. 

(c) States must comply with any other 

requirements from sec. 116(d)(2) of 

WIOA as explained in guidance issued 

by the Department of Labor. 

§ 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 Education or Secretary of 

Labor, to submit complete annual 

performance reports that contain 

information that is valid and reliable. 

(b) If a State fails to meet standards in 

paragraph (a) of this section as 

determined by the Secretary of Labor or 

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 Secretary of Labor and the 

Secretary of Education will provide 

training and technical assistance to 

States in order to implement this 

section. 

■ 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 

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 

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 separate Memoranda of 

Understanding between the Local Board 

and each partner? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20677 

463.510 How should 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 How is sole source selection of 

one-stop operators accomplished? 

463.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop 

operator compete to be a one-stop 

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 where the operator is not a 

governmental entity? 

463.635 What is the effective date of the 

provisions of this subpart? 

463.700 What are 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 Board, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners? 

463.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

463.735 How are partner contributions 

determined in the State one-stop funding 

mechanism? 

463.740 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

463.745 How is the allocation formula used 

by the Governor determined in the State 

one-stop funding mechanism? 

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? 

361.760 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? 

Subpart J—Description of the OneStop 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 business 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 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 in sec. 

188 and its implementing regulations at 

29 CFR part 37. 

(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 jobseeker 

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 § 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 §§ 463.400 through 463.410, 

including Wagner-Peyser employment 

services; 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 Board may establish other service 

hours at other times to accommodate the 

schedules of individuals who work on 

regular business days. The State Board 

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 programs and services 

means having either: Program staff 

physically present at the location; 

having partner program staff physically 

present at the one-stop appropriately 

trained to provide information to 

customers about the programs, services, 

and activities available through partner 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20678 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

programs; or providing direct linkage 

through technology to program staff 

who can provide meaningful 

information or services. 

(1) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ means 

providing direct connection at the onestop, 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. 

(2) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ does not 

include providing a phone number or 

computer Web site that can be used at 

an individual’s home; providing 

information, pamphlets, or materials; or 

making arrangements for the customer 

to receive services at a later time or on 

a different day. 

(e) All comprehensive one-stop 

centers must be physically and 

programmatically accessible to 

individuals with disabilities, as 

described in § 463.800. 

§ 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 jobseeker 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 

should be implemented in a manner 

that supplements and enhances 

customer access to services. 

(b) As described in § 463.315, WagnerPeyser employment services cannot be a 

stand-alone affiliated site. 

(c) States, in conjunction with the 

Local Workforce Development Boards, 

must examine lease agreements and 

property holdings throughout the onestop delivery system in order to use 

property in an efficient and effective 

way. Where necessary and appropriate, 

States and Local Boards must take 

expeditious steps to align lease 

expiration dates with efforts to 

consolidate one-stop operations into 

service points where Wagner-Peyser 

employment services are collocated 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 § 463.800. 

§ 463.315 Can a stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment service office be 

designated as an affiliated one-stop site? 

(a) Separate stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment services offices are 

not permitted under WIOA, as also 

described in § 652.202 of this chapter. 

(b) If Wagner-Peyser employment 

services are provided at an affiliated 

site, there must be at least one other 

partner in the affiliated site with staff 

physically present 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 WagnerPeyser employment services and any of 

these three programs are provided at an 

affiliated site, an additional partner 

must have staff present 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 must be connected 

to, such as having processes in place to 

make referrals to, the comprehensive 

and any appropriate affiliate one-stop 

centers. Wagner-Peyser 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 

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 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) Employment services authorized 

under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 

49 et seq.); 

(3) Adult education and literacy 

activities authorized under title II of 

WIOA; 

(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation 

program authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 

720 et seq.); 

(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 post-secondary 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. (WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(xiii)). 

(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 opt to be a one-stop partner, or to 

work in collaboration with the one-stop 

center. 

§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20679 

sector, may serve as additional partners 

in the one-stop system if the Local 

Board and chief elected official(s) 

approve the entity’s participation. 

(b) Additional partners may include: 

(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 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 § 463.405, 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 

should be the partner. Specific entities 

for particular programs are identified in 

paragraph (b) 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 onestop partner are not applicable to such 

program or activity in that local onestop system. 

(b) For title II of WIOA, the entity 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 may delegate its 

responsibilities under paragraph (a) of 

this section to one or more eligible 

providers or consortium of eligible 

providers. 

(c) For the Vocational Rehabilitation 

program, authorized under title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act, 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, 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 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 State eligible agency. The 

State eligible agency may delegate its 

responsibilities under paragraph (a) of 

this section to one or more State 

agencies, eligible recipients at the postsecondary level, or consortia of eligible 

recipients at the post-secondary level. 

§ 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; (WIOA sec. 

121(b)(1)(A)(i).) 

(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 Boards 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 in 

proportion to the relative benefits; 

(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). 

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

(c) Enter into an MOU with the Local 

Board relating to the operation of the 

one-stop system that meets the 

requirements of § 463.500(d); 

(d) Participate in the operation of the 

one-stop system consistent with the 

terms of the MOU, requirements of 

authorizing laws, the Federal cost 

principles, and all other applicable legal 

requirements; (WIOA sec. 

121(b)(1)(A)(iv)) and 

(e) Provide representation on the State 

and Local Workforce Development 

Boards as required and participate in 

Board committees as needed. (WIOA 

secs. 101(b)(iii) and 107(b)(2)(C) and 

(D)) 

§ 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. (WIOA 

sec. 121(e)(1)(A).) 

§ 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; 

(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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(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 

training 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 Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families, and 

other supportive services and 

transportation provided through that 

program; 

(10) Provision of information and 

assistance regarding filing claims for 

unemployment compensation, by which 

the one-stop must provide 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); 

(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. 

§ 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 businesses, 

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. (WIOA sec. 

134(c)(1)(A)(iv)). Local areas also must 

develop, convene, or implement 

industry or sector partnerships. (WIOA 

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

(b) Customized business services may 

be provided to employers, employer 

associations, or other such organizations 

(WIOA sec. 134(d)(1)(A)(ii)). 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; or 

(vi) Explaining labor laws to help 

employers comply with 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20681 

Federal cost principles. These business 

services may be provided through 

effective business intermediaries 

working in conjunction with the Local 

Board, or through the use of economic 

development, philanthropic, and other 

public and private resources in a 

manner determined appropriate by the 

Local Board 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 post-secondary 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. 

§ 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 Board 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 

Board. The Local Workforce 

Development Board 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. 

§ 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 Board, 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) A final plan, or an interim plan if 

needed, on how the costs of the services 

and the operating costs of the system 

will be funded, 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. (WIOA sec. 121(c).) 

(d) When fully executed, the MOU 

must contain the signatures of the Local 

Board, 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 separate Memoranda of 

Understanding between the Local 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 Board, chief elected 

official and all partners. Alternatively, 

the Local Board (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 Board 

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 should the Memorandum of 

Understanding be negotiated? 

(a) WIOA emphasizes full and 

effective partnerships between Local 

Boards, chief elected officials, and onestop partners. Local Boards and partners 

must enter into good-faith negotiations. 

Local Boards, chief elected officials, and 

one-stop partners may also request 

assistance from a State agency 

responsible for administering the 

partner program, the Governor, State 

Board, or other appropriate parties on 

other aspects of the MOU. 

(b) Local Boards and one-stop 

partners must establish, in the MOU, a 

final plan for how the Local Board and 

programs will fund the infrastructure 

costs of the one-stop centers. If a final 

plan regarding infrastructure costs is not 

complete when other sections of the 

MOU are ready, an interim 

infrastructure cost plan may be included 

instead, as described in § 463.715(c). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20682 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Once the final infrastructure cost plan is 

approved, the Local Board and one-stop 

partners must amend the MOU to 

include the final plan for funding 

infrastructure costs of the one-stop 

centers, including a description of the 

funding mechanism established by the 

Governor relevant to the local area. 

Infrastructure cost funding is described 

in detail in subpart E of this part. 

(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2).) 

(c) The Local Board must report to the 

State Board, Governor, and relevant 

State agency when MOU negotiations 

with one-stop partners have reached an 

impasse. 

(1) The Local Board and partners must 

document the negotiations and efforts 

that have taken place in the MOU. The 

State Board, 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 Board must report 

failure to execute an MOU with a 

required partner to the Governor, State 

Board, and the State agency responsible 

for administering the partner’s program. 

Additionally, if the State cannot assist 

the Local Board in resolving the 

impasse, the Governor or the State 

Board 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 Board, with the approval 

of the chief local 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 Boards 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 

Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR chapter II, 

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 Board 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 Board 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 the principles of 

competitive procurement in the 

Uniform Administrative Guidance set 

out at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326. 

(d) Entities described in paragraph (c) 

of this section must first determine the 

nature of the process to be used to 

comply with sec. 121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA. 

The acceptable processes are: 

(1) Procurement by sealed bids; 

(2) Procurement by competitive 

proposals; or 

(3) Procurement by sole source, 

permitted only if: 

(i) Analysis of market conditions and 

other factors lead to a determination 

that it is necessary to use sole-source 

procurement because: 

(A) There is only one entity that could 

serve as an operator; or 

(B) Unusual and compelling urgency 

will not permit a delay resulting from 

competitive solicitation; or 

(ii) Results of the competition 

conducted under paragraphs (d)(1) or (2) 

of this section were determined to be 

inadequate. 

(e) 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 How is sole source selection of 

one-stop operators accomplished? 

(a) As set forth in § 463.605(d)(3), 

under certain conditions, sole source 

procurement is an allowable method of 

procurement. 

(b) In the event that sole source 

procurement is determined necessary 

and reasonable, in accordance with 

§ 463.605(d)(3), 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 Board can 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 Board must 

establish sufficient conflict of interest 

policies and procedures and they must 

be approved by the Governor. 

§ 463.615 Can an entity serving as onestop operator compete to be a one-stop 

operator under the procurement 

requirements of this subpart? 

(a) Local Boards can 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 can 

compete for and be selected as one-stop 

operators by the Local Board, as long as 

appropriate firewalls and conflict of 

interest policies and procedures are in 

place. These policies and procedures 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20683 

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 State areas 

where the State Board serves as the 

Local Board, 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 conflict 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 Boards may 

establish additional roles of one-stop 

operator, including, but not limited to: 

Coordinating service providers within 

the center and across the one-stop 

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. The competition for a 

one-stop operator must clearly articulate 

the role of the one-stop operator. 

(b) 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; 

and develop and submit budget for 

activities of the Local Board in the local 

area. An 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 

§ 679.430 of this chapter 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 Board 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 conflict of 

interest. 

§ 463.630 Can State merit staff still work in 

a one-stop where the operator is not a 

governmental entity? 

Yes. State merit staff can continue to 

perform functions and activities in the 

one-stop career center. The Local Board 

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 may be included in the 

competition for and final contract with 

the one-stop operator. 

§ 463.635 What is the effective date of the 

provisions of this subpart? 

(a) No later than June 30, 2017, onestop operators selected under the 

competitive process described in this 

subpart must be in place and operating 

the one-stop. 

(b) By June 30, 2016, every Local 

Board 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 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 Boards 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 

Board, and Local Boards, and consistent 

with guidance and policies provided by 

the State Board, 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 

consistent with Office of Management 

and Budget 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 Boards, 

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 benefits 

received, and consistent with Federal 

cost principles. 

(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 in 

proportion to relative benefits received, 

consistent with Federal cost principles; 

and 

(3) The timelines regarding 

notification to the Governor for not 

reaching local agreement and triggering 

the State-funded infrastructure 

mechanism described in § 463.730, and 

timelines for a one-stop partner to 

submit an appeal in the State-funded 

infrastructure mechanism. 

§ 463.710 How are infrastructure costs 

funded? 

Infrastructure costs are funded either 

through the local funding mechanism 

described in § 463.715 or through the 

State funding mechanism described in 

§ 463.730. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20684 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

§ 463.715 How are one-stop infrastructure 

costs funded in the local funding 

mechanism? 

(a) In the local funding mechanism, 

the Local Board, 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 onestop funding mechanism must meet all 

of the following requirements: 

(1) The infrastructure costs are funded 

through cash and fairly evaluated inkind 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 Board 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 relative benefits 

received, and must 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 and equitable 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 

fully described in § 463.755, the Local 

Board 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 

Board 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 agreement must be 

finalized within 6 months of when the 

MOU is signed. If the infrastructure 

interim infrastructure agreement is not 

finalized within that timeframe, the 

Local Board 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 one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, one-stop partner 

programs can determine what funds 

they will use to fund 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 nonFederal resources, statutory limitations 

on administrative costs, and all other 

applicable legal requirements. In the 

case of partners administering adult 

education and literacy programs 

authorized by title II of WIOA or the 

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006, these funds may 

include Federal funds that are available 

for State administration of adult 

education and literacy programs 

authorized by title II of WIOA or for 

State administration of post-secondary 

level programs and activities under the 

Perkins Act, and non-Federal funds that 

the partners contribute to meet these 

programs’ matching or maintenance of 

effort requirements. These funds also 

may include local administrative funds 

available to local entities or consortia of 

local entities that have been delegated 

authority to serve as one-stop local 

partners by a State eligible agency as 

permitted by §§ 463.415(b) and (e). 

(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 onestop 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 by or benefit to 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 chapter II, 

including the Federal cost principles. 

§ 463.725 What happens if consensus on 

infrastructure funding is not reached at the 

local level between the Local Board, chief 

elected officials, and one-stop partners? 

If, after July 1, 2016, and each 

subsequent July 1, the Local Board, 

chief elected officials, and one-stop 

partners do not reach consensus on 

methods of sufficiently funding local 

infrastructure through the local 

infrastructure cost funding mechanism, 

and include that consensus agreement 

in the signed MOU, then the Local 

Board must notify the Governor and the 

Governor must administer funding 

through the State one-stop funding 

mechanism, as described in § 463.730. 

(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)) 

§ 463.730 What is the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, the Governor, after 

consultation with the chief elected 

officials, Local Boards, and the State 

Board, determines one-stop partner 

contributions, based upon a 

methodology where infrastructure costs 

are charged to each partner in 

proportion to relative benefits received 

and consistent with the partner 

program’s authorizing laws and 

regulations, 2 CFR chapter II, including 

the Federal cost principles, and other 

applicable legal requirements described 

in § 463.735(a). 

(b) The State Board develops an 

allocation formula to allocate funds to 

local areas to support the infrastructure 

costs for local area one-stop centers for 

all local areas that did not use the local 

funding mechanism, and the Governor 

uses that formula to allocate the funds. 

This is described in detail in § 463.745. 

§ 463.735 How are partner contributions 

determined in the State one-stop funding 

mechanism? 

(a) In the State one-stop funding 

mechanism, the Governor, after 

consultation with State and Local 

Boards and chief elected officials, will 

determine the amount each partner 

must contribute to assist in paying the 

infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. 

The Governor must calculate amounts 

based on the proportionate use of the 

one-stop centers by each partner, 

consistent with chapter II of title 2, 

Code of Federal Regulations (or any 

corresponding similar regulation or 

ruling), taking 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 Board, or information technology 

systems. The Governor will also take 

into account the statutory requirements 

for each partner program, all other 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20685 

applicable legal requirements, and the 

partner program’s ability to fulfill such 

requirements. 

(b) In certain situations, the Governor 

does not determine the infrastructure 

cost contributions for one-stop partner 

programs. 

(1) The Governor will not determine 

the contribution amounts for 

infrastructure funds for Native 

American grantees described in 20 CFR 

part 684. (WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(iii).) 

The appropriate portion of funds to be 

provided by Native American 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 a State in which the State 

constitution or a State statute places 

policy-making authority that is 

independent of the authority of the 

Governor in an entity or official with 

respect to the funds provided for adult 

education and literacy activities, postsecondary career and technical 

education activities, or vocational 

rehabilitation services, the chief officer 

of that entity or the official must 

determine the contribution amounts for 

infrastructure funds in consultation 

with the Governor. (WIOA sec. 

121(h)(2)(C)(ii).) 

(c) Limitations. Per WIOA sec. 

122(h)(2)(D), the amount established by 

the Governor under paragraph (a) of this 

section may not exceed the following 

caps: 

(1) WIOA Formula programs and 

employment service. The portion of 

funds required to be contributed under 

the WIOA youth, adult, or dislocated 

worker programs, or under the WagnerPeyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.) must 

not exceed 3 percent of the amount of 

Federal funds provided to carry out that 

program in the State for a program year. 

(2) Other one-stop partners. 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 education program or 

employment and training program in 

the State for a fiscal year. For purposes 

of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006, the cap on 

contributions is determined based on 

the funds made available for State 

administration of post-secondary level 

programs and activities. 

(3) Vocational rehabilitation. Within a 

State, the entity or entities 

administering the programs described in 

WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(iv) the allotment 

is based on the one State allotment, 

even in instances where that allotment 

is shared between two State agencies, 

and will not be required to provide from 

that program a cumulative portion that 

exceeds— 

(i) 0.75 percent of the amount of 

Federal funds provided to carry out 

such program in the State for Fiscal 

Year 2016; 

(ii) 1.0 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2017; 

(iii) 1.25 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2018; and 

(iv) 1.5 percent of the amount 

provided to carry out such program in 

the State for Fiscal Year 2019 and 

following years. 

(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 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 

§ 463.735(a)). 

(d) If the above limitations result in 

funding less than each partner’s 

proportionate share and contribute to 

inadequate funding of the allocation 

amount determined under § 463.745(b), 

the Governor may direct the Local 

Board, chief elected officials, and onestop partners to reenter negotiations to 

reduce the infrastructure costs to reflect 

the amount of funds that are available 

for such costs, discuss proportionate 

share of each one-stop partner, or to 

identify alternative sources of financing 

for one-stop infrastructure funding, but, 

in any event, a partner will only be 

required to pay an amount that is 

consistent with the proportionate 

benefit received by the partner, the 

program’s authorizing laws and 

regulations, the Federal cost principles, 

and other applicable legal requirements. 

(1) The Local Board, chief elected 

officials, and one-stop partners, after 

renegotiation, may come to agreement 

and sign an MOU and proceed under 

the local one-stop funding mechanism. 

(2) If after renegotiation, agreement 

amongst partners still cannot be reached 

or alternate financing identified, the 

Governor may adjust the specified 

allocation, in accordance with the 

amounts available and the limitations 

described in § 463.735(c). 

§ 463.740 What funds are used to pay for 

infrastructure costs in the State one-stop 

infrastructure funding mechanism? 

(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, infrastructure costs 

for WIOA title I programs, including 

Native American Programs described in 

20 CFR part 684, can 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.) 

can also be paid using program funds, 

administrative funds, or both. (WIOA 

sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(II).) 

(b) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

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. 

(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(I).) 

(c) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

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 State administration or from nonFederal funds that the partner 

contributes to meet the program’s 

matching or maintenance of effort 

requirement. Infrastructure costs for title 

II of WIOA may also be paid from funds 

available for local administration of 

programs and activities to eligible 

providers or consortia of eligible 

providers delegated responsibilities to 

act as a local one-stop partner pursuant 

to § 463.415(b). 

(d) In the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding mechanism, infrastructure costs 

for the Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act of 2006 must 

be paid from the Federal funds that are 

available for State administration of 

post-secondary level programs and 

activities under the Perkins Act, or from 

non-Federal funds that the partner 

contributes to meet the program’s 

matching or maintenance of effort 

requirement. Infrastructure costs for the 

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Act of 2006 may also be paid 

from funds available for local 

administration of post-secondary level 

programs and activities to eligible 

recipients or consortia of eligible 

recipients delegated responsibilities to 

act as a local one-stop partner pursuant 

to § 463.415(e). 

§ 463.745 How is the allocation formula 

used by the Governor determined in the 

State one-stop funding mechanism? 

(a) The State Board must develop an 

allocation formula to be used by the 

Governor to allocate funds to the local 

areas that did not successfully use the 

local funding mechanism. The 

allocation formula must take into 

account the number of one-stop centers 

in a local area, the population served by 

such centers, the services provided by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20686 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

such centers, and other factors relating 

to the performance of such centers that 

the State Board determines are 

appropriate and that are consistent with 

Federal cost principles. (WIOA 

121(h)(3)(B)) 

(b) Using the funds contributed by the 

one-stop partners described in 

§ 463.735, the Governor will then use 

this formula to allocate funds to the 

local areas that did not use the local 

funding mechanism to fund one-stop 

center infrastructure costs, so long as 

that funding distribution is consistent 

with Federal cost principles for each of 

the affected one-stop partners. 

§ 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. (WIOA secs. 121(h)(2)(E) and 

102(b)(2)(D)(i)(IV).) 

(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), or the cost 

contribution caps in § 463.735(c). 

(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 § 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 

one-stop infrastructure 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 relative benefits 

received, and that complies with 

chapter II of title 2 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (or any 

corresponding similar regulation or 

ruling). 

(c) Identification of all one-stop 

partners, chief elected officials, and 

Local Board participating in the 

infrastructure funding arrangement. 

(d) Steps the Local Board, chief 

elected officials, and one-stop partners 

used to reach consensus or an assurance 

that the local area followed the guidance 

for the State one-stop infrastructure 

funding process. 

(e) Description of the process to be 

used between 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, which must include applicable 

career services. 

(b) Additionally, one-stop partners 

may jointly fund shared services to the 

extent consistent with their programs’ 

Federal authorizing statutes and other 

applicable legal requirements. Shared 

services’ costs may include the costs of 

shared services that are authorized for 

and may be commonly provided 

through the one-stop 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 one-stop partners, and business 

services. Shared operating costs may 

also include shared costs of the Local 

Board’s functions. 

(c) These shared costs 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 chapter II of title 2 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (or any 

corresponding similar regulation or 

ruling) requiring that costs are 

reasonable, necessary, and allocable. 

(d) 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 Board, in consultation 

with chief elected officials and Local 

Boards, must establish objective criteria 

and procedures for Local Boards to use 

when certifying one-stop centers. 

(1) The State Board 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 Board’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 Board is the onestop operator as described in § 679.410 

of this chapter, the State Board 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 maximum access to 

partner program services even outside 

regular business hours. 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 37. 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; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 20687 

(3) Administering programs in the 

most integrated setting appropriate; 

(4) Communicating with persons with 

disabilities as effectively as with others; 

and 

(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. 

(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 

20 CFR part 677. 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 Boards 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 Board. The Local Board may 

establish additional criteria, or set 

higher standards for service 

coordination, than those set by the State 

criteria. Local Boards must review and 

update the criteria every 2 years as part 

of the Local Plan update process 

described in § 463.580. Local Boards 

must certify one-stop centers in order to 

be eligible to receive infrastructure 

funds in the State infrastructure funding 

mechanism described in § 463.730. 

(e) All one-stop centers must comply 

with applicable physical accessibility 

requirements, as set forth in 29 CFR part 

37. 

§ 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 July 1, 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 products, 

programs, activities, services, facilities, 

and related property and materials used 

in the one-stop system. 

(c) One-stop partners, States or local 

areas may use additional identifiers on 

their products, programs, activities, 

services, facilities, and related property 

and materials. 

Thomas E. Perez, 

Secretary of Labor. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05528 Filed 4–2–15; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P; 4510–FN–P; 4510–FT–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2