Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, FEDERAL REGULATIONS—DOL finalizes rescission of farmworker enforcement coordination rules despite opposition, (Aug 28, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

The Labor Department has finalized a rule eliminating a 46-year-old framework for coordinating migrant farmworker enforcement, despite warnings from advocates that the move could reduce transparency and accountability.

The U.S. Department of Labor has finalized a rule rescinding decades-old regulations that formally governed coordination among the agency’s enforcement arms on migrant and seasonal farmworker issues, rejecting arguments from farmworker advocates and state organizations that the framework remains an important source of accountability and transparency.

The final rule removes 29 CFR Part 42, a regulation adopted in 1980 that established a formal system for cooperation among the department’s Wage and Hour Division, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Employment and Training Administration in enforcing labor protections affecting migrant farmworkers.

The rule is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register August 31 and takes effect 30 days later.

National and regional committees. Under the rescinded framework, the department was required to maintain a National Farm Labor Coordinated Enforcement Committee and regional committees, develop national and regional enforcement plans, designate farm labor specialists and contact personnel, collect enforcement data for committee review, and hold regularly scheduled meetings, including meetings open to public attendance.

Labor officials said the requirements no longer reflect either the department’s organizational structure or its current enforcement practices. The agency pointed to references in the regulation to the now-defunct Employment Standards Administration and the repealed Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act and said the formal committee structure largely fell out of use decades ago.

Other coordination mechanisms. The department said it now coordinates enforcement through other mechanisms, including agriculture task forces, recurring interagency calls, joint investigations, enforcement referrals, stakeholder outreach efforts and programs developed under more recent statutory frameworks such as the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the H-2A agricultural guest worker program.

Urged not to eliminate. The rule drew opposition during the comment period. The department received eight comments, all urging it not to eliminate the regulation. Commenters included legal services organizations, worker advocates, a state workforce agency, a state interagency committee and an individual commenter.

Several organizations, including the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the National Employment Law Project, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid and Michigan’s Interagency Migrant Services Committee, argued that Part 42 served an important role in ensuring communication and coordination across agencies responsible for labor standards, workplace safety and employment services affecting agricultural workers.

Weakened oversight and accountability. Those groups contended that eliminating the regulation could weaken oversight and diminish formal mechanisms that help identify workplace violations and coordinate enforcement efforts. They pointed to the regulation’s purpose of bringing multiple agencies together around farmworker issues and argued that the framework remained important even if some of its structures had been used inconsistently.

Commenters also challenged the department’s decision to rescind the regulation rather than update it. Some urged DOL to modernize obsolete references and revise the framework to reflect current agency structures and statutes instead of abandoning it entirely. According to the final rule, commenters specifically suggested replacing outdated references to abolished agencies or repealed laws while preserving the regulation’s coordination requirements.

The department rejected that approach, saying the problem was not merely outdated terminology. Labor officials concluded that the regulation’s underlying structure no longer matches how the agency operates. Updating references, the department said, would not address the fact that the mandatory committees, planning requirements and other procedural features have not played a meaningful role in enforcement operations for many years.

Public participation lost? Another major point of opposition involved public participation. Organizations including CLASP and the Michigan Interagency Migrant Services Committee warned that rescission would eliminate public regional meetings required under Part 42 and reduce opportunities for farmworkers, advocacy groups and community organizations to engage directly with federal officials. The commenters argued that those meetings provided a structured venue for raising concerns and monitoring enforcement priorities.

Other engagement methods. The department acknowledged those concerns but said formal meeting requirements are no longer necessary to obtain stakeholder input. According to the final rule, DOL intends to continue engagement through stakeholder roundtables, listening sessions, conferences, direct outreach, virtual forums and other methods that officials described as more flexible and accessible than the regulatory framework established in 1980.

Part 42 compliance settlement. Commenters also raised concerns related to a 2024 settlement agreement that resolved litigation alleging the department had failed to comply with Part 42. Some argued that eliminating the regulation could conflict with that agreement. The department disagreed, stating that the 2024 court-approved settlement in Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Su expressly applied only while Part 42 remained in effect and unchanged, and therefore preserved the agency’s authority to modify or repeal the regulation through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

In response to broader claims that rescission was unjustified, DOL said the rule is based on the conclusion that Part 42 no longer serves a meaningful operational purpose, duplicates activities already occurring through other channels and imposes procedural requirements that do not contribute to enforcement outcomes. The agency emphasized that it has continued for years to carry out investigations, audits, inspections and other enforcement activities involving farmworker protections without relying on the structures mandated by Part 42.

The practical effects of the rule are largely internal to the department. The rescission does not alter substantive labor standards, workplace safety requirements, H-2A obligations or protections available to migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. Instead, it removes the formal procedures that previously governed how Labor Department agencies coordinate their activities in those areas.

News: AgencyNews FederalRegulations ImmigrationNews IndustryNewsTrends Procedure