Program Year 1999 Wagner-Peyser state planning instructions

Official letter (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/1997/TEGL2-97_Ch1.html):

U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Washington, D.C. 20210
CLASSIFICATION: ES
CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL: TEESS
ISSUE DATE: March 22, 1999
RESCISSIONS: None
EXPIRATION DATE: Continuing

TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 02-97, Change 1

TO: ALL STATE JPTA LIAISONS
ALL STATE WORKER ADJUSTMENT LIAISONS
ALL STATE WAGNER-PEYSER ADMINISTERING AGENCIES
ALL ONE-STOP CAREER CENTER SYSTEM LEADS

FROM: DAVID HENSON
Director, Office of Regional Management

SUBJECT: Instructions for Submission of State Plans Under Title II and Title III of the Job Training Partnership Act for Program Years (PY) 1998 and 1999; and PY 1999 Wagner-Peyser (W-P) Act Program Planning Guidelines

1. Purpose. To modify Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 2-97 in order to provide guidance for the preparation and submission of PY 1999 W-P Act Plans.

2. Added References. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 and the Planning Guidance and Instructions for Submission of the Strategic Five-Year Plan for Title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Workforce Investment Systems) and the Wagner-Peyser Act (herein referred to as the WIA Planning Guidance). The WIA Planning Guidance was approved by OMB (OMB Control No. 1205-0398).

3. Background. In February 1998, ETA issued TEGL No. 2-97, which provided consolidated guidance for the submission of State two-year plans (for PY 1998 and PY 1999) for Titles II and III of JTPA, and PY 1998 Planning and Review Guidance for W-P Act basic labor exchange activities. This issuance provides guidance for PY 1999 W-P Act Plan submission. Under WIA, the Federal Government, States, and local communities have an opportunity to enhance their One-Stop delivery systems so that workers receive the information, labor exchange services, and training that they need to obtain and keep good jobs, and employers acquire skilled workers. For PY 1999, States have three options for submitting their W-P Act Plans, as described herein.

4. Existing Waivers. With respect to a State that has been granted a waiver under the provisions relating to training and employment services of the Department of Labor in title I of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208: 110 Stat. 3009-234), the authority provided under such waiver shall continue in effect and apply for the duration of the initial waiver. As Work-Flex Partnership States, Iowa and Ohio have approved five-year waivers for Section 8 of the W-P Act.

5. W-P Act Waivers and State Plan Submissions. Under current authority, the Department may grant waivers to any of the statutory or regulatory requirements of Sections 8 through 10 of the W-P Act (excluding requirements relating to the provision of services to unemployment insurance claimants and veterans, and requirements relating to universal access to basic labor exchange services without cost to job seekers). Section 8 of the W-P Act sets forth the requirements relating to the State planning process. The waiver requests must be forwarded to the Secretary of Labor via the appropriate ETA Regional Administrator (RA) by the Governor of a State. After the State's waiver request is approved, the Governor may delegate authority to the operating agency head.
a. States granted waivers of W-P Act planning requirements for PY 1998 under Section 8 of the W-P Act, must submit a W-P Act Plan for PY 1999 (except for States listed in paragraph 3 above).
b. If the State plans to submit a request for waiver of W-P Act provisions or regulations (applicable to Sections 8 through 10), the State should notify the appropriate Regional Office (RO) by May 1 and indicate the statutory or regulatory waiver(s) to be requested. The State should also indicate when its waiver request will be submitted. The State must submit a plan to the Secretary to improve the statewide workforce development system that -
(1)  Identifies the statutory or regulatory requirements that are requested to be waived and the goals that the State or local area in the State, as appropriate, intends to achieve as a result of the waiver;
(2)  Describes the actions that the State or local area, as appropriate, has undertaken to remove State or local statutory or regulatory barriers;
(3)  Describes the goals of the waiver and the expected programmatic outcomes if the request is granted;
(4)   Describes the individuals impacted by the waiver; and
(5)  Describes the process used to monitor the progress in implementing such a waiver, and the process by which notice and an opportunity to comment on such request has been provided to the local board.
The Federal partner will make every effort to act upon waiver requests by July 1, 1999, if they are received by May 1, 1999.
c. In response to a request from a State, the ROs may extend the State's PY 1998 W-P Act Plan, if necessary, until action is taken on the State's waiver request. ROs that extend a State's PY 1998 W-P Act Plan in order to complete the waiver application review process or in anticipation of a waiver request that changes the State's process for W-P Act planning shall not grant an extension beyond September 30, 1999.
d. If the State is not submitting a waiver request, the State should submit its entire plan as described in paragraph 6 below.

6. W-P Act State Plans for PY 1999. Each State will prepare an annual plan for PY 1999 to provide services and activities within the State as authorized under Sections 7(a), 7(b), and 7(c) of the W-P Act.
Amendments to the W-P Act contained in WIA are effective July 1, 1999. ETA recognizes this effective date for W-P Act provisions, however ETA will raise no issues under 20 CFR 652 with States solely on the basis that they operate under JTPA during PY 1999. The operational rules governing W-P Act services required by WIA are reflected in 20 CFR, Section 652, Subpart C. States may present their W-P Act Plans in accordance with one of the options outlined in the WIA Planning Guidance or submit a separate W-P Act Plan in accordance with this TEGL.
States that opt to submit prior to May 1, 1999, either: (1) a full implementation plan, or (2) a transition plan that addresses all the W-P Act planning requirements, as described in Attachment A of the WIA Planning Guidance (published in the Federal Register on February 25, 1999), do not have to submit a separate W-P Act Plan. States that submit a full implementation or transition plan after May 1, 1999, or that do not implement WIA in PY 1999, should submit a separate W-P Act Plan no later than May 1, 1999, or if submitting a waiver request, ask for an extension from the Department per paragraph 5 above.
Notwithstanding the format in which the State plan is presented, the State must respond to the questions related to the delivery of W-P Act services contained in Attachment A, including assurances, of the WIA Planning Guidance. Attachment F1 extracts those questions which address the W-P Act planning requirements from Attachment A of the WIA Planning Guidance. This attachment is intended to assist States submitting a separate W-P Act Plan or a transition plan in identifying the W-P Act planning requirements. Additionally, for States submitting a separate W-P Act Plan, the plan's content should reflect the State Plan for Agriculture Services in Attachment F2.
One signed original and two copies of separately submitted State plans should be sent via a letter of transmittal to the appropriate Regional Office by May 1, 1999. Full implementation or transition plans should be submitted in accordance with instructions in the WIA Planning Guidance.

7. Inquiries. Requests for technical assistance or other inquiries should be directed to the Regional Office.

8. Attachments. 
F1.  W-P Act Questions in the WIA Planning Guidance
F2.  State Plan for Agriculture Services

Official Attachment F1 (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/1998/TEGL2-97_Ch1_Attach1.pdf):

TEGL 02-97, Chg 1   Attachment F1

        W-P Act Questions in WIA Planning Guidance
The following questions relating to the W-P Act have been
drawn from the WIA Planning Guidance. States should consider
these and other relevant questions in preparing their PY 1999
W-P Act Plan.

   Section                           Question
 Vision and    B. How will Wagner-Peyser Act and unemployment
    Goals      insurance services be fully integrated into the
               system?
 Assessment    B.(1)(h)(i) Describe major State policies and
               requirements that have been established to direct
               and support the development of a statewide workforce
               investment system not described elsewhere in this
               Plan. These policies may include, but are not
               limited to:
               ! Policies related to priority of service for . . .
               veterans or other groups under the Wagner-Peyser
               Act.
 Assessment    B.(2) Describe the current status of One-Stop
               implementation in the State, including:
               (b) The degree of existing collaboration for WIA
               Title I, the Wagner-Peyser Act, and all other
               required and optional partners.
 Assessment    B.(3)(e) Describe how the work test and feedback
               requirements (under §7(a)(3)(F) of the Wagner-Peyser
               Act) for all UI claimants are met. How is
               information provided to the UI agency regarding
               claimant registration, claimant job referrals, and
               the results of referrals?
 Assessment    B.(3)(f) Describe how the Wagner-Peyser Act staff
               participate (if applicable) in the conduct of the
               Eligibility Review Program reviews. Describe the
               follow-up that occurs to ensure that UI eligibility
               issues are resolved in accordance with section
               5(b)(2) of the Wagner-Peyser Act.
 Strategies    A.(4) Describe how any waivers or workflex authority
     for       (both existing and planned) will assist the State in
 Improvement   developing its workforce investment system.

  Section                             Question
Strategies    B.(2) How will the services provided by each of the
    for       required and optional One-Stop partners be
Improvement   coordinated and made available through the One-Stop
              system? Be sure to address how your State will
              coordinate Wagner-Peyser Act funds to avoid
              duplication of labor exchange services.
Strategies    B.(3) Specify how the State will use its 10 percent
    for       funds under section 7(b) of the Wagner-Peyser Act.
Improvement
Strategies    B.(6) Describe how the needs of employers will be
    for       determined in the local areas as well as on a
Improvement   statewide basis. Describe how services (e.g.,
              systems to determine general job requirements and
              list jobs), including Wagner-Peyser Act services,
              will be delivered to employers through the One-Stop
              system. How will the system streamline
              administration of federal tax credit programs within
              the One-Stop system to maximize employer
              participation?
Strategies    B.(7) Describe the reemployment services you will
    for       provide to Worker Profiling and Reemployment
Improvement   Services claimants in accordance with section
              3(c)(3) of the revised Wagner-Peyser Act.
Strategies    B.(8) Specifically describe the Wagner-Peyser Act-
    for       funded strategies you will use to serve persons with
Improvement   disabilities.
Strategies    B.(9) How will Wagner-Peyser Act funds be used to
    for       serve veterans? How will your State ensure that
Improvement   veterans receive priority in the One-Stop system for
              labor exchange services?
Strategies    B.(11) Describe how the State will provide Wagner-
    for       Peyser Act-funded services to the agricultural
Improvement   community--specifically, outreach, assessment and
              other services to migrant and seasonal farmworkers,
              and services to agricultural employers. How will
              you provide equitable services to this population in
              the One-Stop system?
Strategies    B.(12) Describe how Wagner-Peyser Act funds will
    for       provide a statewide capacity for a three-tiered
Improvement   labor exchange service strategy that includes
              (1) self-service, (2) facilitated self-help service,
              and (3) staff-assisted service. Describe your
              State's strategies to ensure that Wagner-Peyser Act-
              funded services will be delivered by public merit
              staffed employees.

  Section                             Question
Strategies    C.(2) How will your State improve its technical and
    for       staff capacity to provide services to customers and
Improvement   improve entered employment outcomes in accordance
              with section 3(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act? How
              will your State use technology such as Jobline,
              "swipe card" technology, a community voice mail
              system or other methods to build a mediated and
              electronic labor exchange network? How will the
              State use America's Job Bank/State Job Bank Internet
              linkages to encourage employers to enter their own
              job orders on the Internet?
Performance   C. Describe the system(s) by which your State
Management    measures customer satisfaction for both job seekers
              and employers (beyond those elements required by the
              Department). How will customer satisfaction data be
              evaluated, disseminated locally, and used to improve
              services and customer satisfaction? Describe any
              targeted applicant groups under WIA Title I, the
              Wagner-Peyser Act or Title 38 (Veterans Employment
              and Training Programs) that your State will track.
              If no system is currently in place, describe your
              State's timeframe and plan to collect this
              information.

Official Attachment F2 (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/1998/TEGL2-97_Ch1_Attach2.pdf):

TEGL 02-97, Change 1   Attachment F2

                STATE PLAN FOR AGRICULTURE SERVICES

I. Summary of State Plan Requirements. Each State agency, in its
State Plan, shall describe the activities planned for providing
services to the agricultural community, both agricultural employers
and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers (MSFWs). The plan shall contain
the following:

    A.   Assessment of need.   (See Part II)

    All States shall prepare a comprehensive assessment of need plan
    in accordance with Federal requirements at 20 CFR Part 653.

    B.   Outreach Plan.   (See Part III)

    All States shall prepare a comprehensive outreach plan in
    accordance with requirements at 20 CFR 653.107.

    C.   ES Services Provided to MSFWs.    (See Part IV)

    All States are to plan to meet at least the minimum requirements
    for providing services to MSFWs. All States are required to
    meet at least four of the five equity indicators. Significant
    MSFW States additionally must meet at least four of the seven
    minimum service level indicators.

    States which expect to have difficulty in meeting the MSFW
    performance indicators shall describe the nature of the problem
    and the steps planned to meet the performance indicators.

    D.   ES Services Provided to Agricultural Employers.
         (See Part V)

    All States are required to describe efforts planned in providing
    ES services to agricultural employers in both those States with
    an adequate supply of U.S. workers and those where the supply
    appears to be inadequate.

E.   Other Plan Requirements

1.   State Monitor Advocate Approval/Comments.

All States are to provide a statement that the State Monitor
Advocate prepared or participated in the preparation of the
agricultural plan and has been afforded the opportunity to
approve and/or comment on the agricultural plan.

2. Consideration of Previous Year's Annual Monitor Advocate
Report.

All States are to provide a statement indicating that
consideration was given to the State Monitor Advocate's
recommendations as presented in the annual MSFW summary
developed under 20 CFR 653.109(t), in the preparation of this
plan.

3.   Affirmative Action Plan Review/Comments.
All States are to provide a statement indicating that, as per 20
CFR 653.111(4)(h), the State Monitor Advocate has been afforded
the opportunity to review and comment on the State's Affirmative
Action Plan, which is to be submitted as part of the State plan.
States with designated Significant Affirmative Action Local
Offices are required to submit an Affirmative Action Plan in
accordance with 20 CFR 653.111.

4.   Review and comment by JTPA, Section 402 grantees.

All States are to provide information indicating that JTPA,
Section 402 grantees, other appropriate MSFW groups, public
agencies, agricultural employer organizations and other
interested employer organizations, have been given the
opportunity to comment on the State Agricultural Services Plan,
including any required significant MSFW local office affirmative
action plans. A list of organizations from whom information and
suggestions for the plans were solicited,    any comments
received on the proposed plans and agency responses are to be
submitted with the plan.

II. Assessment of need. This assessment of need shall take into
account data supplied by JTPA 402 grantees, MSFW organizations,
employer organizations, Federal/State Agencies, Migrant Education
agency, etc. This assessment of need shall include:

    A. A review of the previous year's agricultural activity in
      the State.

         - Identify each major labor intensive crop activity in the
         previous year, indicating the months of heavy activity and
         the geographic area of prime activity.

    B.   A review of the previous year's MSFW activity in the
         State.

         - Estimate the agricultural labor employed in each of the
         crops identified in item II.A. Estimate the number of
         MSFWs involved in each, and indicate crop areas which
         experienced labor shortages.

    C.   A projected level of agricultural activity expected in the
         State in the coming year.

         - Identify any changes from last year's crop activities as
         described in item II.A

    D.   A projected number of MSFWs in the State in the coming year.
         - Identify any changes in the numbers of MSFWs involved in
         each crop activity as described in item II.A.

III. Outreach Plan. Each State shall prepare a comprehensive
outreach plan in accordance with Federal requirements at 20 CFR Part

653. The Outreach Plan must be based on the actual conditions which
exist in the particular State, taking into account the State Agency's
history of providing outreach services, the estimated number of MSFWs
in the State, and the need for outreach services in the State.

    The five States with the highest estimated year-round MSFW
    activities must assign full-time year-round staff to outreach
    activities. These States are designated each year by the
    Employment and Training Administration. The designations for PY
    1999 are provided in Table 5. The remainder of the significant
    MSFW States must make maximum efforts to hire outreach staff
    with MSFW experience for year-round positions and shall assign
    outreach staff to work full-time during the period of highest
    activity.

    Approval by the Regional Administrator will be based on the
    State adequately addressing the following features of the
    Outreach Plan:

      A.   Assessment of Available Resources. This assessment of the
           resources available for outreach shall include:

           1. The number of State Agency staff positions to be assigned
              to outreach activities. Indicate the full time
              equivalent positions for each local office to which staff
              are to be assigned, and the number of staff assigned to
              the State office for this purpose. The significant MSFW
              local offices listed in Table 4 should assign full-time
              staff for outreach duties during the peak seasons.

           2. Where the number of State Agency staff positions assigned
              to outreach activities is less than in the prior year,
              please explain the reason for the reduction, and the
              expected effect of the reduction on direct outreach
              activities.

           3. Resources to be made available through existing
              cooperative agreements with public and private community
              service agencies and MSFW groups. (States are encouraged
              to initiate cooperative agreements with 402 grantees for
              outreach positions).

      B.   Numerical Goals. The anticipated results of the outreach
           efforts to be provided in item A. These goals shall
           include:

           1. The number of MSFWs to be contacted during the
              program year by ES staff, listed by local office where
              outreach staff is assigned, as well as State office.
           2. The number of staff days (based on 8 hour days) to be
              utilized for outreach, listed by local office where
              outreach staff is assigned, as well as the State office.
           3. The number of MSFWs planned to be contacted by other
              agencies under cooperative arrangements.
      C.   Proposed Outreach Activities. Describe the outreach efforts
           to be provided by the ES staff indicated in item B. These
           efforts shall include those described in 20 CFR 653.107(i-
           p). Also, describe any coordinated plans and activities
           with other agencies where possible surplus of workers may
           exist.

IV.   ES Services Provided to MSFWs.

      A.   Plan Data for the Upcoming Year.

      If a State's estimated plan data for the current year indicate
      difficulty in meeting equity indicators, minimum services
      levels, or planned levels of activity, the following items must
      be included in a narrative plan:

   a. A description of the problems;

   b. Specific steps planned to meet minimum service
      levels; and

   c. Specific steps planned to meet equity level of
      services.

Federal regulations at 20 CFR 653.112 require the establishment
of performance indicators reflecting equity and the measurement
of minimum levels of service. The indicators established by ETA
include five ES-controlled indicators to measure equity of
service, and seven minimum service level indicators. All States
are required to meet at least four of the five equity
indicators. Significant MSFW States additionally are required
to meet at least four of the seven minimum service level
indicators.

The seven minimum service level indicators are listed on Table

3. These standards are set to encourage appropriate service to
MSFWs and to assure the continuation of such services. The
minimum service levels are established annually.

The standards are set at a level high enough to encourage low
performing States to improve their performance, but not
so high as to make achievement extraordinarily difficult.

     The five equity indicators for all States are:

          -   Ratio of non-MSFWs to MSFWs referred to jobs.
          -   Ratio of non-MSFWs to MSFWs for whom service is provided.
          -   Ratio of non-MSFWs to MSFWs referred to supportive
              services.
          -   Ratio of non-MSFWs to MSFWs counseled.
          -   Ratio of non-MSFWs to MSFWs for whom a job development
              contact was made.

     B.   Significant MSFW Local Office Affirmative Action Plans.
     Significant MSFW local offices which are required to develop and
     submit an Affirmative Action Plan were designated in accordance
     with 20 CFR 653.111. The designations for PY 1998 of
     Affirmative Plan offices are provided in Table 2.

     The Affirmative Action Plan must include a comparison of the
     racial and ethnic composition of the workforce and that of the
     local office staff. When the comparison shows an under-
     representation of a racial or ethnic group in the local office,
     the plan must establish a reasonable timetable with goals to
     remedy the imbalance.

V.   ES Services Provided to Agricultural Employers.

     A.   Data Analysis

          1. Previous year's history (based on PY 98 actual data):

              a. Number of agricultural job orders and openings
              received
              b. Number of agricultural job orders filled
              c. Percent filled [(b/a) x 100]
              d. Number of interstate clearance orders received
              e. Number of interstate clearance orders initiated

          2. Plan for upcoming year (based on estimated data).

              a. Number of agricultural job orders expected to be
              received
              b. Number of agricultural job orders projected to be
              filled
              c. Percent to be filled [(b/a) x 100]
              d. Estimated number of interstate clearance orders
              State will receive
              e. Estimated number of interstate clearance orders
              the State will initiate

     B.   Narrative Description

     All States shall provide a description of their efforts in
     providing ES services to agricultural employers, including both

      those with an adequate supply of U.S. workers and those where
      the supply may be inadequate. These efforts should include:

           -    A description of how the State agency plans to provide ES
                services to agricultural employers.

           -    A description of the process used to identify
                agricultural employers expected to utilize MSFWs.

           -    A description of the process for linking available
                workers with the employers, including the cooperation
                with or the creation of coordinating bodies to assure
                programs are coordinated and to insure programs respond
                to local needs. These coordinating groups may consist of
                organizations such as the Employment Service, 402
                grantees, agricultural employers, migrant education
                groups, migrant health groups, etc.

           -    Describe the process of how the State will promote ES
                services available to agricultural employers, e.g.,
                participation in employer conferences, development of
                marketing tools, labor exchange information to employers,
                recruitment of U.S. workers, etc.

           -    Where an H-2A program operated in the State in the
                previous year, explain efforts to increase U.S. worker
                participation.
VI.   Enclosures to State Plan for Agricultural Services:
Table 1.       Significant MSFW States for PY 1999

Table 2.       Affirmative Action Plan Significant MSFW Local Offices
Table 3.       Minimum Service Level Indicators for PY 1999

Table 4.   Significant MFSW Local Offices and Bilingual Offices,
           by Region

Table 5.   States with the Highest Estimated Year-Round MSFW
           Activities

                                                             Table 1

                       SIGNIFICANT MSFW STATES FOR PY 1999

      State                   MSFW Applicants

1.    California                         33,656
2.    Texas                              31,239
3.    Florida                            20,664
4.    Washington                         17,379
5.    North Carolina                     13,359
6.    Michigan                           12,785
7.    Arizona                             9,007
8.    Puerto Rico                         7,870
9.    Georgia                             7,071
10.   Oregon                              5,404
11.   South Carolina                      4,247
12.   Virginia                            3,457
13.   Minnesota                           2,612
14.   Idaho                               2,379
15.   New Mexico                          2,283
16.   Ohio                                2,128
17.   New York                            1,883
18.   Pennsylvania                          850
19.   Illinois                              813
20.   Wisconsin                             729

                                                                                     Table 2

           AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN SIGNIFICANT MSFW LOCAL OFFICES
                    (TOP 20% OF MSFW ACTIVITY NATIONWIDE)

Local Office               Region              MSFW Applications
McAllen, TX                  VI                    7,159
Weslaco, TX                         VI                    6,210
Edinburg, TX                 VI                    5,984
Eagle Pass, TX               VI                    3,630
Brownsville, TX              VI                    2,602
Sunnyside, WA                 X                    3,480
Yakima, WA                    X                    2,929
Moses Lake, WA                X                    2,748
Wanatchee, WA                 X                    2,593

Total MSFW Applications:                             37,335

Federal regulations at 20 CFR 653.111 (b)(1) requires that "Affirmative Action Plan" local
offices be designated each year. For purposes of this provision, these local offices mean
those representing the top 20% of MSFW activity nationally.

Total MSFW applications nationwide in PY 98 = 188,655

188,655 x 20% = 37,773

                                                                                     Table 3

                   MINIMUM SERVICE INDICATOR LEVELS FOR PY 1999

In accordance with federal regulations at 20 CFR 653.112, the following are the services and
minimum levels that Significant MSFW States are to meet on providing services to MSFWs:
(1)    Individuals placed in a job;
(2)    Individuals placed in a job with a wage exceeding the federal minimum wage by at
       least 50 cents/hour;
(3)    Placed in long-term (over 150 days) non-agricultural jobs;

                     (1)                 (2)                 (3)
State            MSFW              Placed $.50         Placed in
                 Placed %          Above Federal       Long-term
                                   Minimum Wage        Non-Ag Job

California     42.5                       14.0%               4.9%
Texas          42.5                       14.0                8.2
Florida        42.5                       14.0                6.0
Washington     42.5                       14.0                3.3
North Carolina 42.5                       14.0                5.0
Michigan       42.5                       14.0                3.8
Arizona        42.5                       14.0                3.8
Puerto Rico    42.5                       12.0                4.2
Georgia        42.5                        9.0                3.0
Oregon         42.5                       14.0                6.2
Indiana        42.5                       14.0
South Carolina 42.5                       14.0                3.9
Virginia       42.5                       14.0                5.2
Minnesota      42.5                       14.0                4.3
Idaho          42.5                       14.0                7.3
New Mexico     42.5                       14.0                3.0
Ohio           42.5                        4.0                4.0
New York       42.5                       14.0                6.5
Wisconsin      42.5                       14.0                3.3
North Dakota 42.5                         14.0                4.5

(4)     Review of significant MSFW local offices: 100% for all Significant States

The determination for the following were established by the States commencing with PY
1996:
(5)   Field checks on agricultural clearance orders;
(6)   Outreach contacts per staff day; and
(7)   Processing of complaints.

                                                                               Table 4

       Significant MSFW Local Offices and Bilingual Offices by Region for PY 1999

REGION I                 West Virginia            South Carolina
                         Martinsburg              Aiken
None                                              Beaufort
                                                  Charleston
REGION II                REGION IV                Spartanburg
                                                  Sumter
Puerto Rico              Florida
Aguadilla                Apopka
Arecibo/Manati           Apollo Beach             REGION V
Caguas                   Belle Glade
Guayama                  Bradenton                Illinois
Humacao                  Fort Pierce              Danville
Mayaguea/San German      Homestead                Kankakee
Ponce/Coamo              Immokalee                Murphysboro
Bayamon                  Naples                   Peoria
Rio Pinenros             Plant City
Yancio                   Quincy                   Michigan
                         Sebring                  Sidney
New York                 Wauchula
Albion/Elba              Winterhaven              Minnesota
Hudson                                            Crookston
Kingston                 Georgia                  East Grand Forks
Lockport                 Americus                 Fergus Falls
Pine Island              Bainbridge               Moorhead
Newark                   Cordele                  Owatonna
Riverhead                Douglas                  Willmar
                         Moulrtrie
New Jersey               Vidalia                  Wisconsin
Hammonton                Statesboro               Beaver Dam
Vineline/Bridgeton                                Wautoma
                         North Carolina
REGION III               Clinton                  REGION VI
                         Dunn
Delaware                 Elizabethtown            New Mexico
Dover                    Greenville               Deming
                         Hendersonville           Las Cruces
Maryland                 Kenansville
Crisfield                Mt. Olive
                         Washington
Virginia                 Wilson
Exmore                   Smithfield
Winchester

REGION VI (Con't)

Texas                      Montana          California (Con't)
                           Sidney           Visalia
Brownsville                                 Wasco
Canutillo                  REGION IX        Watsonville
Carrizo Springs                             Woodland
Crystal City               Arizona
Del Rio                    Coolidge         REGION X
Eagle Pass                 Douglas
Edinburg                   Wilcox           Idaho
Fabens                     Yuma             Burley
Floydada                   Maryvale         Canyon County
Harlingen                  Mesa             Magic Valley
Hereford                                    Emmett
Laredo                     California       Payette
Lamesa                     Bakesfield       Rexburg
McAllen                    Blythe
Muleshoe                   Chico            Oregon
Pecos                      Colusa           Hood River
Plainview                  Delano           Madras
Raymondville               El Centro        Milton-Freewater
Rio Grande City            Fresno (West)    Woodburn
Uvalde                     Gilroy
Weslaco                    Hanford
                           Hollister
REGION VII                 Huron            Washington
                           Indio            Bellingham
None                       Lakeport         Columbia Gorge
                           Lamont           Moses Lake
REGION VIII                Lodi             Mount Vernon
                           Los Banos        Okanogan
Colorado                   Madera           Sunnyside
Brighton                   Manteca          Tri-Cities
Delta                      Marysville       Walla Walla
Greeley                    Mendota          Wanatchee
Lamar                      Merced           Yakima
Monte Vista                Modesto
Rocky Ford                 Oxnard
                           Porterville
North Dakota               Salinas
Grafton                    Sanger
                           Santa Maria
Utah                       Turlock
Brigham City        Ukia

                                                                                        Table 5

                  STATES WITH HIGHEST ESTIMATED MSFW ACTIVITY

The following are the five States with the highest year-round MSFW activity:

California
Florida
North Carolina
Texas
Washington

In accordance with federal regulations at 20 CFR 653.107(i), these States must assign full
time year round staff to outreach duties. The remainder of the significant MSFW States shall
make maximum efforts to hire outreach staff with MSFW experience for year-round positions
and shall assign outreach staff to work full time during the period(s) of the highest activity.
Such outreach staff shall be bilingual if warranted by the characteristics of the MSFW
population in the State, and shall spend a majority of their time in the field.