Browse regulations

This regulation establishes performance accountability requirements for state workforce development programs under WIOA and related Acts. It defines participant eligibility, mandates six primary performance indicators (employment rates, earnings, credential attainment, skill gains, and employer retention), requires states to negotiate performance targets, submit detailed annual reports, and imposes financial sanctions on states that fail to report or meet adjusted performance levels.

Federal micromanagement of state workforce programsThrough performance metrics, reporting mandates, and sanctions—violates Tenth Amendment federalism and substitutes bureaucratic measurement for local knowledge. The $2 trillion+ annual regulatory burden includes this 185,000-page labyrinth that distorts incentives toward gaming metrics rather than genuine service. Performance targets inevitably become the target (Goodhart's Law), incentivizing states to cream clients, define 'participants' narrowly, and manipulate data rather than help the hardest-to-serve. The statistical adjustment model cannot capture Hayek's 'knowledge problem' of local labor markets. The sanction regime expands federal control over state programs through coercive conditional funding. States should design their own accountability systems through competition and citizen oversight—not federal mandates that increase compliance costs, especially for small providers, and protect bureaucratic interests over actual outcomes.

Regulation mandates states submit 4-year Unified or Combined State Plans to coordinate six core workforce development programs (WIOA adult, dislocated worker, youth, adult education, Wagner-Peyser, vocational rehab) plus optional partner programs. Requires extensive strategic and operational planning elements, multi-agency federal approval, public comment processes, and biennial modifications.

Imposes massive hidden compliance costs on states ($2T+ nationwide regulatory burden) while violating Tenth Amendment federalism. The elaborate federal planning process creates a bureaucratic labyrinth that consumes resources better spent on direct services, stifles state innovation, and centralizes knowledge that only local actors possess. Federal approval requirements enable regulatory capture—incumbent workforce development contractors influence rules to protect their market position. Small states with limited administrative capacity bear disproportionate costs. States could voluntarily coordinate programs without federal mandates; mandatory planning achieves nothing that market competition and inter-state policy experimentation wouldn't produce more efficiently. The hidden tax of compliance exceeds any marginal coordination benefits.

Implements WIOA Title I through regulations governing workforce development programs. Establishes definitions, state/local workforce board governance, performance accountability, funding rules, administrative requirements, and program-specific provisions for adults, dislocated workers, youth, and special populations. Also covers Wagner-Peyser Employment Service and nondiscrimination requirements.

Federalizes workforce development, violating Tenth Amendment. Imposes $2T+ compliance burden on states, localities, and organizations. Knowledge problem prevents efficient resource allocation; distorts markets, creates dependency, crowds out private/state solutions, invites regulatory capture. Costs far outweigh benefits.

This regulation establishes a complex bureaucratic Complaint System for the Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service, requiring state workforce agencies to maintain detailed logs, process complaints (with special provisions for migrant/seasonal farmworkers), conduct investigations, hold hearings, and report quarterly to federal overseers. The system covers complaints about job referrals, employer violations of ES regulations, certain employment-related laws, and discrimination, with multiple tiers of review from local offices to state agencies to federal regional offices.

This regulation imposes massive administrative burdens on state agencies through excessive documentation, tracking, and reporting requirements, with questionable benefits. The 2-year statute of limitations, differential treatment of migrant workers, mandatory hearings, and multi-layered federal oversight create a costly bureaucracy that likely deters employer participation in the job referral system. The hidden compliance costs burden taxpayers and small businesses while doing little to improve actual employment outcomes. The system exemplifies regulatory overreach—solving a non-existent problem with a labyrinthine process that violates the rule of law through its incomprehensible complexity.

This regulation creates a comprehensive federal mandate requiring State Workforce Agencies to provide special outreach, services, and monitoring for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers (MSFWs). It establishes State Monitor Advocate positions with full-time staffing requirements in high-activity states, mandates extensive outreach efforts with multilingual staff, requires detailed data collection on MSFW outcomes, and imposes service level requirements. The goal is to ensure MSFWs receive workforce development services equitable to non-MSFWs, accounting for language barriers and mobility.

This regulation represents federal overreach into state workforce development systems, imposing substantial compliance costs and creating an expensive bureaucratic superstructure. The mandate violates equal protection principles by requiring differential treatment based on ethnicity/occupation and violates Tenth Amendment federalism by commandeering state agencies to implement a federal preference program. The hidden tax burden exceeds any marginal benefit, as existing anti-discrimination laws already protect farmworkers. The permanent advocacy structure creates regulatory capture incentives and distorts labor markets by privileging one group over others. The complex reporting requirements overwhelm state agencies while producing data primarily useful to bureaucrats, not job seekers.

Regulation implements Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service program requiring states to provide labor exchange services, bringing together job seekers and employers through federally-mandated systems and administrative requirements including staffing, reporting, audits, and integration with Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act one-stop delivery system.

Obsolete federal intrusion into labor markets that duplicates efficient private job-matching services, imposes heavy administrative costs on states, and violates federalism principles. Modern technology platforms (LinkedIn, Indeed, etc.) and free markets already provide superior labor exchange without taxpayer burden or regulatory compliance costs.

This regulation implements automatic inflation adjustments for civil monetary penalties under the False Claims Act and related provisions. It sets historical penalty scales for different time periods and establishes a formula for annual adjustments based on CPI changes, with publication requirements in the Federal Register.

This is a neutral, mechanical adjustment that maintains the real deterrent value of existing penalties against inflation without imposing any new compliance burdens or expanding regulatory reach. Deleting it would gradually weaken enforcement of fraud and false claims laws while delivering no meaningful cost savings or liberty benefits.

Mandates the Railroad Retirement Board to maintain a government-administered registry of railroad employees with one+ year of service, indicating 'first right of hire' preferences. The Board provides employee listings to railroads upon request and may notify employees of job vacancies. This creates a government-controlled hiring preference system with seniority-based advantages.

Creates a government-mandated labor market distortion by forcing railroads to use a federally-administered hiring system that privileges incumbent workers with seniority over more qualified candidates or new entrants. This violates free market principles by removing employers' freedom to hire based on merit, imposes bureaucratic costs on taxpayers, and entrenches barriers to entry that protect established workers at the expense of competition, consumer welfare, and economic efficiency. The regulation enshrines regulatory capture by institutionalizing insider preferences that the market would naturally arbitrate.

Procedural regulation governing how the Railroad Retirement Board administers contested employer status determinations, benefit repayments, and contribution assessments under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. Establishes examiner hearings, record-keeping requirements, exception processes, and finality of Board decisions with judicial review.

This is procedural overhead for a single-industry unemployment program that creates unnecessary bureaucratic layers, specialized legal complexity, and compliance costs without improving outcomes. The same administrative functions could be handled through simplified, uniform procedures under standard administrative law, avoiding the deadweight loss of a separate regulatory apparatus for railroads alone. Industry-specific administrative regimes protect incumbents and raise barriers to entry.

Defines 'employer' for Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act purposes, covering railroads, affiliated companies, associations, and union organizations, with specific exclusions for electric railways and coal mining operations. Establishes who must comply with federal unemployment insurance requirements for railroad workers.

This federal unemployment insurance regime preempts state systems, imposing a parallel bureaucracy on railroad employers. The complex definition creates compliance burdens and regulatory arbitrage opportunities while undermining federalist principles - unemployment insurance is a traditional state function absent any interstate spillover justification. The Act's costs (administrative overhead, mandatory contributions) ultimately raise transportation costs for all Americans with no clear market failure warranting exclusive federal control. Repealing would allow states to tailor unemployment systems to local conditions or eliminate them entirely through legislative choice.

Defines key terms for the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, including 'employer', 'Board', 'person', 'United States', 'State', 'employment', and 'local lodges and divisions'.

Removing these definitions would create legal ambiguity, leading to inconsistent enforcement and costly litigation. They provide necessary clarity for the railroad unemployment insurance system, and their minimal burden is vastly outweighed by the benefits of predictable interpretation.

The regulation defines creditable 'service' under the Railroad Retirement Act, specifying what counts toward benefit eligibility including reported months, deemed months, prior service before 1937, military service, employee representative service, and verification procedures.

This regulation sustains a special-interest retirement program that distorts railroad labor markets, imposes hidden taxes on employers and employees, creates administrative inefficiencies, and undermines individual responsibility by mandating government-run benefits contrary to free-market principles.

Defines key terms used in Railroad Retirement Board regulations via cross-references to the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 and other CFR parts. Includes definitions for 'Act', 'Employer', 'Employee', 'Service', 'Compensation', 'Board', 'Company', 'United States', 'Carrier', 'Person', 'General Committee', and 'Local lodges and divisions'.

Definitions-only regulation adds to regulatory bloat without independent benefit; cross-references create complexity and ambiguity, and courts can interpret statutory terms without agency-defined meanings. Its existence expands the CFR's page count and entrenches bureaucratic interpretation over clear law.

Procedural regulations governing petitions for temporary duty suspensions or reductions under the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act. The rule establishes filing requirements, deadlines, information specifications, comment procedures, and reporting timelines for the International Trade Commission's processing of petitions to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. It covers who may petition, required certifications, article description standards, handling of overlapping petitions, and confidential business information protocols.

While the regulation facilitates tariff reductions (pro-trade), it institutionalizes a special interest petition process that bypasses the constitutional requirement that 'all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives' (Art. I, Sec. 7). This creates a backdoor for narrow interests to seek preferential tariff treatment through bureaucratic channels rather than through open legislative debate. The unseen cost is perpetuating a mercantilist system where specific goods receive targeted relief based on lobbying power rather than principled free trade. True deregulation would abolish the petition process entirely and require Congress to reduce tariffs across the board through transparent legislation, eliminating the $2 trillion+ in hidden compliance costs across the entire trade regulation apparatus. The administrative state should not be adjudicating trade preferences.

Procedures for investigating allegations of evasion of antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. Defines who may file allegations, filing requirements, investigation processes, confidentiality protections, CBP's information-gathering authority, and consequences for non-cooperation.

This regulation establishes a structured, rule-of-law framework for enforcing existing trade remedy laws. Deleting it would either create an enforcement void—encouraging widespread evasion, unfair competition, and revenue loss—or force arbitrary, non-transparent enforcement. While the underlying AD/CVD system itself distorts free trade, this procedural mechanism ensures that any enforcement follows predictable, fair processes with due process safeguards. A society committed to limited government must still enforce valid laws through established procedures rather than undermining legal certainty.