Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
International Trade Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Land Management Bureau
Minerals Management Service
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Final rule.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the FDIC) has adopted a rule regarding the treatment by the FDIC, as receiver or conservator of an insured depository institution, of financial assets transferred by the institution in connection with a securitization or in the form of a participation. The rule resolves issues raised by Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement No. 125, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishment of Liabilities (SFAS 125). The rule provides that with respect to financial assets transferred by an institution in connection with a securitization or in the form of a participation, and subject to certain conditions described in the rule, the FDIC will not seek to recover or reclaim such financial assets in exercising its statutory authority to repudiate contracts pursuant to section 11(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The rule also provides that the FDIC will not seek to enforce the “contemporaneous” requirement of sections 11(d)(9), 11(n)(4)(I), and 13(e). The final rule applies to securitizations and participations that are engaged in while the rule is in effect, even if the rule is later repealed or amended.
September 11, 2000.
Michael Krimminger, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, (202) 898-8950; Robert Storch, Division of Supervision, (202) 898-8906; or Thomas Bolt, Legal Division, (202) 736-0168, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429.
Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(1), the FDIC, when acting as conservator or receiver of any insured depository institution, has the power to disaffirm or repudiate any contract or lease (i) to which the institution is a party; (ii) the performance of which the conservator or receiver, in the conservator's or receiver's discretion, determines to be burdensome; and (iii) the disaffirmance or repudiation of which the conservator or receiver determines, in the conservator's or receiver's discretion, will promote the orderly administration of the institution's affairs. Repudiation of a contract relieves the FDIC from performing any unperformed obligations remaining under the contract. Repudiation also entitles the other party to the contract to a claim for damages, which are limited by statute to actual direct compensatory damages determined as of the date of the appointment of the receiver or conservator. See 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(3).
In addition, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(9), 1821(n)(4)(I), and 1823(e), no agreement that tends to diminish or defeat the FDIC's interest in an asset acquired from an insured depository institution is enforceable against the FDIC unless such agreement meets certain requirements. One of those requirements is that the agreement be executed by the depository institution and by any person claiming an adverse interest thereunder contemporaneously with the acquisition of the asset by the institution. This is referred to as the “contemporaneous” requirement.
Under generally accepted accounting principles, a transfer of financial assets is accounted for as a sale if the transferor surrenders control over the assets. One of the conditions for determining whether the transferor has surrendered control is that the assets have been isolated from the transferor,
Whether the legal isolation condition has been met is determined primarily from a legal perspective. This determination involves considerations of the kind of receivership into which the transferor may be placed and the powers of the receiver to reach assets that were transferred prior to its appointment. If the available evidence provides reasonable assurance that the transferred assets would be beyond the reach of the powers of a bankruptcy trustee or receiver for the transferor, then a determination that the transferred assets have been legally isolated is appropriate.
Where the transferor is an insured depository institution for which the FDIC may be appointed as conservator or receiver, the issue arises whether financial assets transferred by the institution in connection with a securitization or in the form of a participation would be put beyond the reach of the FDIC as conservator or receiver for the institution in light of (i) the statutory authority of the FDIC to repudiate contracts to which such institution is a party and (ii) the provisions of sections 11(d)(9), 11(n)(4)(I), and 13(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act regarding the enforceability of agreements against the FDIC. The specific issues are whether the FDIC might, in the exercise of its authority to repudiate contracts, avoid a transfer of financial assets in connection with a securitization or in the form of a participation, and recover such assets; and whether the FDIC might challenge the enforceability of an agreement executed in relation to a transfer of financial assets in connection with a securitization or a participation by asserting the “contemporaneous” requirement with respect to such an agreement.
The final rule resolves these issues by clarifying the powers of the FDIC as conservator or receiver with respect to financial assets transferred by an insured depository institution in connection with a securitization or in the form of a participation. The FDIC believes that this clarification should provide sufficient assurance to determine that the legal isolation condition is met.
In September 1999, the FDIC requested comments on a proposed rule
The proposed rule would not apply unless the insured depository institution received adequate consideration for the transfer of financial assets at the time of the transfer, and the documentation effecting the transfer of financial assets reflects the intent of the parties to treat the transaction as a sale, and not as a secured borrowing, for accounting purposes.
The proposed rule further provided that it shall not be construed as waiving, limiting or otherwise affecting the rights or powers of the FDIC to take any action or to exercise any power not specifically limited by this section, including, but not limited to, any rights, powers or remedies of the FDIC regarding transfers taken in contemplation of the institution's insolvency or with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the institution or the creditors of such institution, or that is a fraudulent transfer under applicable law.
The proposed rule clarified that although the repudiation of a securitization or participation will not affect transferred financial assets, repudiation will excuse the FDIC from performing any continuing obligations imposed by the securitization or participation. If the FDIC, in order to terminate such continuing obligations or duties, seeks to disaffirm or repudiate an agreement or contract under which an insured depository institution has transferred financial assets in connection with a securitization or in the form of a participation, the FDIC will not seek to reclaim, recover, or recharacterize as property of the institution or the receivership such financial assets.
The proposed rule further provided that the FDIC shall not seek to avoid an otherwise legally enforceable securitization agreement or participation agreement executed by an insured depository institution solely because such agreement does not meet the “contemporaneous” requirement of sections 11(d)(9), 11(n)(4)(I), and 13(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
The proposed rule was intended to apply to securitizations and participations that are engaged in by insured depository institutions while the rule is in effect, even if the rule is later repealed. Consequently, the last paragraph of the proposed rule provided that the rule would be effective unless repealed by the FDIC upon 30 days notice and opportunity for comment provided in the
The FDIC received 14 comment letters concerning the proposed rule. The vast majority of the commenters expressed support for the rule.
One commenter specifically requested that FDIC counsel issue, concurrently with the adoption of the rule, a legal opinion confirming that paragraph (g) of the rule will bind receivers or conservators appointed after the repeal or amendment of the rule. In this commenter's view, such an opinion would be necessary for legal specialists “* * * to render opinions that provide reasonable assurance that the legal isolation condition of SFAS 125 is met.” Other commenters disagreed with this view, but endorsed the issuance of an FDIC legal opinion if this would resolve the issue. Two commenters expressed the view that such an opinion was unnecessary.
The FDIC believes that the final rule more than adequately provides reasonable assurance as to how the FDIC as conservator or receiver of a depository institution would treat financial assets transferred by the institution in connection with a securitization or in the form of a participation. Paragraph (g) of the rule, the safe harbor provision for transfers made in connection with a securitization or in the form of a participation that was in effect before any repeal or amendment of the rule, is clear and unambiguous. The FDIC believes that an opinion by FDIC counsel that paragraph (g) will bind receivers or conservators appointed after any repeal or amendment of the rule would not add anything that is not already contained in the rule itself or in this preamble.
Other commenters sought clarification regarding the term “without recourse” used in the definition of participation. While the presence of recourse does not necessarily require that a transaction be characterized as a security interest instead of as a sale,
The final rule's definition of a participation as a transfer of an interest in a loan or a lease without recourse by the buyer against the lead should not exclude participations in which (a) the lead retains a subordinated interest in the obligation, against which losses are initially allocated; (b) the lead participated a loan in order to avoid a statutory lending limit violation, with the option of reacquiring some or all of the transferred interest when reacquisition would not result in a lending limit violation; or (c) the participation agreement provided for repurchase or compensation in connection with customary representations and warranties regarding the underlying asset. Thus, the meaning of the term “recourse”, as used in the final rule, differs from its meaning for purposes of the FDIC's risk-based capital standards, 12 CFR Part 325, Appendix A.
One commenter expressed concern regarding the effect of the proposed rule on (a) a transaction that purports to be a participation, but includes recourse against the lead, and (b) a transaction that purports to be a sale (not a participation) of all of a financial asset, but includes recourse against the seller. A transaction that purports to be a participation, but includes recourse against the lead, is not encompassed by the rule; the FDIC, under certain
On the other hand, a transaction that purports to be a sale (not a participation) of all of a financial asset, even if it includes recourse against the seller, which would be characterized as a sale under the general legal view, should not need to be encompassed by the rule; the FDIC would not be able to recover transferred assets as a result of repudiation. In the case of a completed sale, the FDIC would have nothing to repudiate if no further performance is required. Even in the case of a sale transaction that imposes some continuing obligation, a repudiation by the FDIC would relieve the FDIC from future performance, but generally should not result in a recovery of any property that was transferred by the institution before the appointment of the conservator or receiver.
The final rule is identical to the proposed rule except for the following. First, the proposed rule's definition of the term “participation” included language that referred to “the borrower's default” in describing the meaning of the term “without recourse”. Since a participation may involve a lease as well as a loan, the final rule refers to “a default on the underlying obligation” instead of “the borrower's default”.
Second, paragraph (g) of the final rule refers to any amendment of the rule, in addition to any repeal. Paragraph (g) of the final rule provides that any repeal or amendment of the rule by the FDIC shall not apply to any transfers of financial assets made in connection with a securitization or participation that was in effect before such repeal or amendment. The revision is intended to make paragraph (g) more effective as a safe harbor provision if the rule is ever repealed or amended in such a way as to preclude subsequent transfers of financial assets by depository institutions from satisfying the legal isolation requirement of SFAS 125. As a result of paragraph (g), if the FDIC is appointed as conservator or receiver of a depository institution after any repeal or amendment of the rule, the rule will continue to be effective with respect to a transfer that was made in connection with a securitization or participation in effect before the repeal or amendment. Thus, where a transfer of financial assets in connection with a securitization or in the form of a participation is made by a depository institution and the securitization or participation was in effect before any repeal or amendment of the rule by the FDIC, such transfer will continue to satisfy the legal isolation requirement notwithstanding the repeal or amendment.
The rule is not intended to describe the exclusive circumstances in which legal isolation may occur. For purposes of the rule, the term “special purpose entity” encompasses a trust (including a grantor or owner trust), a corporation, and a limited liability company or partnership organized in compliance with applicable state law.
No collection of information pursuant to section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The final rule is consistent with the FDIC's current practice and does not represent a change in the law with respect to securitizations and participations. Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 801
The FDIC has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
Banks, banking, Savings associations.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the FDIC Board of Directors amends 12 CFR part 360 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(1), 1821(d)(11), 1821(e)(1), 1821(e)(8)(D)(i), 1823(c)(4), 1823(e)(2); Sec. 401(h), Pub. L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 357.
(a)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) The most senior class of which at time of issuance is rated in one of the four highest categories assigned to long-term debt or in an equivalent short-term category (within either of which there may be sub-categories or gradations indicating relative standing) by one or more nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, or
(ii) Which are sold in transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering for purposes of section 4 of the
(5)
(b) The FDIC shall not, by exercise of its authority to disaffirm or repudiate contracts under 12 U.S.C. 1821(e), reclaim, recover, or recharacterize as property of the institution or the receivership any financial assets transferred by an insured depository institution in connection with a securitization or participation, provided that such transfer meets all conditions for sale accounting treatment under generally accepted accounting principles, other than the “legal isolation” condition as it applies to institutions for which the FDIC may be appointed as conservator or receiver, which is addressed by this section.
(c) Paragraph (b) of this section shall not apply unless the insured depository institution received adequate consideration for the transfer of financial assets at the time of the transfer, and the documentation effecting the transfer of financial assets reflects the intent of the parties to treat the transaction as a sale, and not as a secured borrowing, for accounting purposes.
(d) Paragraph (b) of this section shall not be construed as waiving, limiting, or otherwise affecting the power of the FDIC, as conservator or receiver, to disaffirm or repudiate any agreement imposing continuing obligations or duties upon the insured depository institution in conservatorship or receivership.
(e) Paragraph (b) of this section shall not be construed as waiving, limiting or otherwise affecting the rights or powers of the FDIC to take any action or to exercise any power not specifically limited by this section, including, but not limited to, any rights, powers or remedies of the FDIC regarding transfers taken in contemplation of the institution's insolvency or with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the institution or the creditors of such institution, or that is a fraudulent transfer under applicable law.
(f) The FDIC shall not seek to avoid an otherwise legally enforceable securitization agreement or participation agreement executed by an insured depository institution solely because such agreement does not meet the “contemporaneous” requirement of sections 11(d)(9), 11(n)(4)(I), and 13(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(9), (n)(4)(I), 1823(e).
(g) This section may be repealed or amended by the FDIC upon 30 days notice and opportunity for comment provided in the Federal Register, but any such repeal or amendment shall not apply to any transfers of financial assets made in connection with a securitization or participation that was in effect before such repeal or modification.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
This action amends the Class E airspace area at Washington Memorial Airport, Washington, MO. The FAA has developed Area Navigation (RNAV) Runway (RWY) 16 and RNAV RWY 34 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) to serve Washington Memorial Airport, Washington, MO. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to accommodate these SIAPs and for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at this airport. The enlarged area will contain the RNAV RWY 16 and RNAV RWY 34 SIAPs in controlled airspace. A review of the VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) or Global Positioning System (GPS) RWY 16 indicates the approach will be contained within the Class E airspace established in this rule. Therefore, the extension to the north is eliminated.
In addition a minor revision to the Airport Reference Point (ARP) is included in this document.
The intended effect of this rule is to provide controlled Class E airspace for aircraft executing RNAV RWY 16 and RNAV RWY 34 SIAPs, eliminate the extension to the north, revise the ARP and to segregate aircraft using instrument approach procedures in instrument conditions from aircraft operating in visual conditions.
This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, November 30, 2000.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before October 4, 2000.
Send comments regarding the rule in triplicate to: Manager, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, ACE-520, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket Number 00-ACE-24, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Regional Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours in the Air Traffic Division at the same address listed above.
Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.
The FAA has developed RNAV RWY 16 and RNAV RWY 34 SIAPs to serve the Washington Memorial Airport, Washington, MO. The amendment to Class E airspace at Washington, MO, will provide additional controlled airspace at and above 700 feet AGL in order to contain the SIAPs within controlled airspace, and thereby facilitate separation of aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). The amendment at Washington Memorial Airport, MO, will provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft operating under IFR, eliminate the extension to the north and revise the ARP. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.
Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 10, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is
The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. The amendment will enhance safety for all flight operations by designating an area where VFR pilots may anticipate the presence of IFR aircraft at lower altitudes, especially during inclement weather conditions. A greater degree of safety is achieved by depicting the area on aeronautical charts.
Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comments is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the
Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this action will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 00-ACE-24.” The postcard will be stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Washington Memorial Airport.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Final rule.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is amending the rules of practice in patent cases to adjust certain patent fee amounts to reflect fluctuations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The USPTO is also amending the description of two fees to reflect current business practice.
October 1, 2000.
Matthew Lee by telephone at (703) 305-8051, by fax at (703) 305-8007, or by e-mail at matthew.lee@uspto.gov.
This final rule adjusts our fees in accordance with the applicable provisions of title 35, United States Code, as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2000 (which incorporated the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999) (Public Law 106-113).
Patent fees are authorized by 35 U.S.C. 41 and 35 U.S.C. 376. A fifty percent reduction in the fees paid under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) and (b) by independent inventors, small business concerns, and nonprofit organizations who meet prescribed definitions is required by 35 U.S.C. 41(h)(1).
Subsection 41(f) of title 35, United States Code, provides that fees established under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) and (b) may be adjusted on October 1, 1992, and every year thereafter, to reflect fluctuations in the CPI over the previous twelve months.
Subsection 41(d) of title 35, United States Code, authorizes the Director to establish fees for all other processing, services, or materials related to patents to recover the average cost of providing these services or materials, except for the fees for recording a document affecting title, for each photocopy, for each black and white copy of a patent, and for library services.
Section 376 of title 35, United States Code, authorizes the Director to set fees for patent applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
Subsection 41(g) of title 35, United States Code, provides that new fee amounts established by the Director under section 41 may take effect thirty days after notice in the
The patent statutory fees established by 35 U.S.C. 41(a) and (b) will be adjusted on October 1, 2000, to reflect any fluctuations occurring during the previous twelve months in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U). In calculating these fluctuations, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that the USPTO should use CPI-U data as determined by the Secretary of Labor. In accordance with previous fee-setting methodology, the USPTO uses the Administration's projected CPI-U for the twelve-month period ending September 30, 2000, which is 2.68 percent. Based on this projection, patent statutory fees will be adjusted by 2.68 percent.
Certain patent processing fees established under 35 U.S.C. 41(d), 132(b), 376, and Public Law 103-465 (the Uruguay Round Agreements Act) will be adjusted to reflect fluctuations in the CPI.
Four patent service fees that are set by statute will not be adjusted. The four fees that are not being adjusted are the assignment recording fee, printed patent copy fee, photocopy charge fee, and library service fee.
The fee amounts were rounded by applying standard arithmetic rules so that the amounts rounded would be convenient to the user. Fees of $100 or more were rounded to the nearest $10. Fees between $2 and $99 were rounded to an even number so that any comparable small entity fee would be a whole number.
Any fee amount that is paid on or after the effective date of the fee increase will be subject to the new fees then in effect. For purposes of determining the amount of the fee to be paid, the date of mailing indicated on a proper Certificate of Mailing or Transmission, where authorized under 37 CFR 1.8, will be considered to be the date of receipt in our office. A Certificate of Mailing or Transmission under § 1.8 is not proper for items which are specifically excluded from the provisions of § 1.8. Items for which a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission under § 1.8 are not proper include, for example, for filing of Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) under § 1.53(d) and other national and international applications for patents. See 37 CFR 1.8(a)(2).
Under 37 CFR 1.10(a), any correspondence delivered by the “Express Mail Post Office to Addressee” service of the United States Postal Service (USPS) is considered filed or received in our office on the date of deposit with the USPS. The date of deposit with the USPS is shown by the “date-in” on the “Express Mail” mailing label or other official USPS notation.
To ensure clarity in the implementation of the new fees, a discussion of specific sections is set forth below.
Section 1.16, paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (f) through (i), are revised to adjust fees established therein to reflect fluctuations in the CPI.
Section 1.17, paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(5), (b) through (e), (m), (r), and (s), are revised to adjust fees established therein to reflect fluctuations in the CPI.
Section 1.18, paragraphs (a) through (c), are revised to adjust fees established therein to reflect fluctuations in the CPI.
Section 1.20, paragraphs (e) through (g), are revised to adjust fees established therein to reflect fluctuations in the CPI.
Section 1.21, paragraph (a)(6), is revised to amend the description to reflect current business practices.
Section 1.492, paragraphs (a), (b), and (d), are revised to adjust fees established therein to reflect fluctuations in the CPI.
This final rule contains no information collection within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Prior notice and opportunity for public comment for patent fee changes are not required by the Patent Statute or the Administrative Procedure Act. While the Patent Statute specifically requires that changes to patent fees shall not take effect “until at least 30 days after notice of the fee has been published in the
As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
A comparison of existing and new fee amounts is included as an Appendix to this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted.
(a) Basic fee for filing each application for an original patent, except provisional, design, or plant applications:
(b) In addition to the basic filing fee in an original application, except provisional applications, for filing or later presentation of each independent claim in excess of 3:
(d) In addition to the basic filing fee in an original application, except provisional applications, if the application contains, or is amended to contain, a multiple dependent claim(s), per application:
(f) Basic fee for filing each design application:
(g) Basic fee for filing each plant application, except provisional applications:
(h) Basic fee for filing each reissue application:
(i) In addition to the basic filing fee in a reissue application, for filing or later presentation of each independent claim which is in excess of the number of independent claims in the original patent:
3. Section 1.17 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(5), (b) through (e), (m), (r), and (s) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) For reply within second month:
(3) For reply within third month:
(4) For reply within fourth month:
(5) For reply within fifth month:
(b) For filing a notice of appeal from the examiner to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences:
(c) In addition to the fee for filing a notice of appeal, for filing a brief in support of an appeal:
(d) For filing a request for an oral hearing before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134:
(e) To request continued examination pursuant to § 1.114:
(m) For filing a petition for the revival of an unintentionally abandoned application or the unintentionally delayed payment of the issue fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) (§ 1.137(b)):
(r) For entry of a submission after final rejection under § 1.129(a):
(s) For each additional invention requested to be examined under § 1.129(b):
4. Section 1.18 is revised to read as follows:
(a) Issue fee for issuing each original or reissue patent, except a design or plant patent:
(b) Issue fee for issuing a design patent:
(c) Issue fee for issuing a plant patent:
5. Section 1.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) through (g) to read as follows:
(e) For maintaining an original or reissue patent, except a design or plant patent, based on an application filed on or after December 12, 1980, in force beyond four years; the fee is due by three years and six months after the original grant:
(f) For maintaining an original or reissue patent, except a design or plant patent, based on an application filed on or after December 12, 1980, in force beyond eight years; the fee is due by seven years and six months after the original grant:
(g) For maintaining an original or reissue patent, except a design or plant patent, based on an application filed on or after December 12, 1980, in force beyond twelve years; the fee is due by eleven years and six months after the original grant:
6. Section 1.21 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6) For requesting regrading of an examination under § 10.7(c):
7. Section 1.492 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) to read as follows:
(a) The basic national fee:
(1) Where an international preliminary examination fee as set forth in § 1.482 has been paid on the international application to the United States Patent and Trademark Office:
(2) Where no international preliminary examination fee as set forth in § 1.482 has been paid to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, but an international search fee as set forth in § 1.445(a)(2) has been paid on the international application to the United States Patent and Trademark Office as an International Searching Authority:
(3) Where no international preliminary examination fee as set forth in § 1.482 has been paid and no international search fee as set forth in § 1.445(a)(2) has been paid on the international application to the United States Patent and Trademark Office:
(4) Where an international preliminary examination fee as set forth in § 1.482 has been paid to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the international preliminary examination report states that the criteria of novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness), and industrial applicability, as defined in PCT Article 33 (1) to (4) have been satisfied for all the claims presented in the application entering the national stage (see § 1.496(b)):
(5) Where a search report on the international application has been prepared by the European Patent Office or the Japanese Patent Office:
(b) In addition to the basic national fee, for filing or later presentation of each independent claim in excess of 3:
(d) In addition to the basic national fee, if the application contains, or is amended to contain, a multiple dependent claim(s), per application:
The following appendix is provided as a courtesy to the public, but is not a substitute for the rules. It will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Communications Commission (the Commission) has previously permitted commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to offer fixed wireless services on a co-primary basis with commercial mobile services. In this document, the Commission determines that due to the evolving nature of fixed wireless services, it will decide the regulatory treatment of such services on a case-by-case basis. The Commission also amends its rules to clarify that fixed wireless services provided are not subject to the requirements for incidental communications services. Further, this document eliminates the notification requirement of submitting FCC Form 601 prior to the provision of incidental services.
Effective September 11, 2000.
Jeffrey Steinberg, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Commercial Wireless Division, at (202) 418-0896.
1. The
2. In the
3. Based on the record established in this proceeding, the Commission
4. Section 22.323 of the Commission's rules, permits Part 22 (Public Mobile Services) licensees to provide incidental communications services provided that (1) The costs of the incidental service are not borne by subscribers who do not use the service, (2) the quality of the primary service does not materially deteriorate, (3) the provision of the incidental service is not inconsistent with the Communications Act or Commission rules, and (4) the licensee notifies the Commission before providing the incidental service. Section 22.901(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 22.901(d), was amended in the
5. The Commission concludes that there is a need to clarify the relationship between incidental services provided under § 22.323 and co-primary fixed services offered pursuant to § 22.901(d). Therefore, the Commission amends its rules to clarify that CMRS providers who provide fixed services on a co-primary basis pursuant to § 22.901(d) are not subject to the requirements of § 22.323. In light of this clarification, the Commission does not eliminate § 22.323 as it applies to incidental services at this time. However, the Commission eliminates the notification requirement in § 22.323 because it currently serves no useful purpose and it is inconsistent with the premises of flexibility underlying this proceeding. In addition, the Commission will develop a more complete record and consider whether to delete, further amend, or replace § 22.323 as part of its current biennial review of all regulations that apply to providers of telecommunications service.
6. As required by Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for the First Report and Order was incorporated in the First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in WT Docket No. 96-6.
7. The Order on Reconsideration modifies and clarifies aspects of the regulatory regime governing the provision of co-primary fixed services and ancillary, auxiliary, and incidental services under part 22, as established in the First Report and Order. Specifically, the Commission clarifies that commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) providers who provide fixed services on a co-primary basis pursuant to § 22.901(d) of the rules are not subject to the requirements that govern provision of ancillary, auxiliary, and incidental services under § 22.323. The Commission also modifies § 22.323 by eliminating the requirement that carriers notify the Commission when providing ancillary, auxiliary, and incidental services. These actions are intended to clarify the Commission's rules and to eliminate an unnecessary notification requirement.
8. No petitions for reconsideration were filed in direct response to the FRFA. In the petition for partial reconsideration or clarification and in responsive pleadings, however, some issues were raised that might affect small entities. Specifically, some commenters argued that limiting the applicability of § 22.323, and in particular the notification requirement, would eliminate regulatory burdens that could deter CMRS providers, including small entities, from providing fixed wireless services. Other commenters, however, argued that § 22.323 protects CMRS providers, including small entities, that provide ancillary, auxiliary, and incidental services from unlawful attempts to impose State regulation.
9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by a rule. The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act.
10. The rule changes effectuated by this Order on Reconsideration apply to telecommunications service providers that are regulated under part 22 of the Commission's rules. These include providers of Cellular Radiotelephone, Paging and Radiotelephone (Common Carrier Paging), Air-Ground Radiotelephone, Offshore Radiotelephone, and Rural Radiotelephone services. In addition, pursuant to § 90.493(b) of the Commission's rules, paging licensees on exclusive channels in the 929-930 MHz bands are subject to the licensing, construction, and operation rules set forth in part 22.
11. Since the Commission does not define a small business with respect to cellular services, we utilize the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies—
12. The Commission has adopted, and the SBA has approved, a two-tier definition of small businesses in the context of auctioning licenses in the paging services. Under this definition, a small business is defined as either (1) an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $3 million, or (2) an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding calendar years of not more than $15 million. The Commission has estimated that as of January 1998, there were more than 600 paging companies in the United States.
13. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small business specific to the Air-Ground radiotelephone service.
14. This service operates on several ultra high frequency (UHF) TV broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small business specific to the Offshore radiotelephone service. Accordingly, we use the SBA definition applicable to radiotelephone companies,
15. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service.
16. The Order on Reconsideration does not impose any additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. The Order on Reconsideration eliminates a requirement that part 22 licensees notify the Commission before providing incidental services. As a result, no reporting or recordkeeping requirements remain under § 22.323 of the Commission's rules.
17. The Order on Reconsideration modifies § 22.901(d) to clarify that fixed wireless services provided on a co-primary basis are not subject to the requirements of § 22.323 for incidental communications services. Clarifying that carriers providing fixed wireless services on a co-primary basis pursuant to § 22.901(d) need not comply with the requirements of § 22.323 will provide further flexibility to CMRS carriers, including small entities, and is consistent with the Commission's intent in the First Report and Order. In addition, we amend § 22.323 to delete the requirement that carriers notify the Commission when providing incidental services. This change will reduce burdens on small entities and other providers subject to part 22 by eliminating an unnecessary notification requirement.
18. The Commission considered and rejected eliminating § 22.323 because it concluded that retaining § 22.323 is consistent with its decision in the First Report and Order not to alter the regulatory treatment of ancillary, auxiliary, and incidental fixed services that had been provided by CMRS providers under the rules. However, the Commission will consider the continued need for § 22.323 as part of its upcoming biennial review of all regulations that apply to providers of telecommunications service. The Commission also considered and rejected refining the notification requirement in § 22.323, finding that the notification requirement currently serves no useful purpose and therefore should be eliminated.
19. The Commission shall send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration, including this Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration, including the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of this Order on Reconsideration and Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
(b) The quality of the primary public mobile service does not materially deteriorate as a result of provision of incidental services, and neither growth nor availability of the primary public mobile service is significantly diminished as a result of provision of incidental services; and
(c) The provision of the incidental services is not inconsistent with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or with FCC rules and policies.
Cellular system licensees must provide cellular mobile radiotelephone service upon request to subscribers in good standing, including roamers, as provided in § 20.12 of this chapter. A cellular system licensee may refuse or terminate service, however, subject to any applicable state or local requirements for timely notification, to any subscriber who operates a cellular telephone in an airborne aircraft in violation of § 22.925 or otherwise fails to cooperate with the licensee in exercising operational control over mobile stations pursuant to § 22.927.
(d)
(1) Licensees must perform or obtain an engineering analysis to ensure that interference to the service of other cellular systems will not result from the implementation of co-primary fixed services or alternative cellular technologies.
(2) Alternative technology and co-primary fixed services are exempt from requirements for incidental communications services of § 22.323, the channeling requirements of § 22.905, the modulation requirements of § 22.915, the wave polarization requirements of § 22.367, the compatibility specification in § 22.933 and the emission limitations of §§ 22.357 and 22.917, except for emission limitations that apply to emissions outside the assigned channel block.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the geographical channel block layout for commercial aviation air-ground systems licensed in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. These systems provide telephone service over a wireless air-ground link to the telephones that are installed in commercial airliners for use by passengers during flights. The purpose of this action is to update the geographic channel block layout set forth in the Commission's rules such that it correctly lists the reference locations and channel block allotments for currently operating ground stations in this service.
Effective September 11, 2000.
B.C. “Jay” Jackson, Jr., Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-1309.
The action amends the geographical channel block layout for commercial aviation air-ground systems licensed in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service (47 CFR Part 22, Subpart G). These systems provide telephone service to the seat-back and bulkhead telephones installed in commercial airliners for use by passengers during flights. The wireless link between public telephone networks on the ground and an airborne aircraft so equipped is established by these systems. Each system comprises 50 or more full-power ground stations. Rule 47 CFR 22.859 requires, among other things, that each full-power ground station must (1) be located within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of one of the locations (defined by the geographic coordinates—latitude and longitude) listed in the geographic channel block layout set forth in that rule section, and (2) operate only on the channel block allotted in the geographic channel block layout for that location. As an exception, 47 CFR 22.859(b) provides that a full-power ground station may be established at a location that is more than 550 miles from all other full-power ground station locations on the same channel block. In 1993 and 1994, the commercial aviation air-ground system licensees filed petitions for rule making requesting various minor changes and corrections to a few of the locations and channel block allotments listed in 47 CFR 22.859. On various occasions since then, the licensees have requested and been granted special temporary authorizations waiving 47 CFR 22.859, allowing them to establish ground stations at locations that exceed, by a small margin, the 1.6 kilometer proximity requirement, and/or to operate on channel block assignments other than those listed in the geographic channel block layout. However, in each case, the intent of the rule (that all operating stations be located in close proximity in order to minimize interference due to Doppler frequency shift) continued to be served, and furthermore, all of the licensees concurred in the changes. Taking into account the accumulated location and channel block changes, this action amends 47 CFR 22.859 to conform and update it, so that the geographic channel block layout therein will correctly list the currently authorized locations and channel block allotments. This action was taken by the Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, pursuant to delegated authority (47 CFR 0.331), in a letter addressed to the commercial aviation air-ground radiotelephone system licensees. This letter, dated July 25, 2000 and released to the public on July 26, 2000, is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. A copy of the letter may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-3800.
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.
47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309, and 332.
Except as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, each ground station location must be within 1.6 kilometers (one mile) of one of the locations listed in this paragraph. The channel block allotted for each location must be used to provide service to airborne mobile stations in flight and may be used to provide service to airborne mobile stations on the ground.
All geographic coordinates are referenced to North American Datum 1983 (NAD83).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Interim rule.
This interim rule amends the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) by identifying who within NASA has the authority to approve Cost Accounting Standards waivers.
Interested parties should submit written comments to Joseph Le Cren, NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement, Contract Management Division (Code HK), Washington, DC 20546. Comments also may be submitted by e-mail to
Joseph Le Cren, (202) 358-0444.
A Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) interim rule was published in the June 6, 2000,
NASA certifies that this interim rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the NFS do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 418(d), NASA has determined that urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this interim rule. This action is necessary because this interim rule implements Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Pub. L. 106-65) and the FAR interim rule. Section 802 became effective 180 days after the date of enactment of Public Law 105-65 (October 5, 1999). The FAR interim rule that implements Section 802 became effective June 6, 2000. It is necessary that NASA publish an interim rule to amend NFS Part 1830 to implement the FAR interim rule. Public comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Government procurement.
42 U.S.C. 2473 (c)(1).
(a)(2) The Associate Administrator for Procurement is the only individual authorized to approve CAS waivers. Requests for waivers that meet the conditions in FAR 30.201-5(b) must be submitted to the Headquarters Office of Procurement (Code HK) at least 30 days before the anticipated contract award date.
(e) The Associate Administrator for Procurement will submit NASA's report to the CAS Board.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by Mr. Charles T. Gallagher of Gammatron, Inc. The petition, docketed on June 6, 2000, has been assigned Docket No. PRM-30-64. The petitioner requests that NRC modify its financial assurance and recordkeeping requirements for decommissioning to require financial assurance for all licensees, expand the method for payment of decommissioning for small business operators, and exempt licensees whose radioactive materials are categorized as greater than Class C waste.
Submit comments by October 25, 2000. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
For a copy of the petition, write to David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. This site allows you to upload comments as files in any format, if your web browser supports the function. For information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 e-mail:cag@nrc.gov.
The petition and copies of comments received may be inspected, and copied for a fee, at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7162 or Toll Free: 1-800-368-5642 or e-mail:dlm1@nrc.gov.
The petitioner, who is the holder of a radioactive license in the Agreement State of Texas, indicates that he and other Agreement State licensees were not given the opportunity by the Agreement State regulatory agencies to comment on the original proposed rules for financial assurance requirements. The petitioner asserts that NRC licensees hold only 27% of the radioactive licenses in the United States, while Agreement State licensees hold almost 75%. According to the petitioner, the Agreement State regulatory agencies failed to recognize the impact of the ruling on its licensees.
The NRC requires each holder of a specific license to provide financial assurance for decommissioning in accordance with the criteria set forth in § 30.35(c). Section 30.35(c) provides the minimum quantity levels of licensed material possessed by licensees above which financial assurance requirements are applicable. Also, § 30.35 (f)(1) and (2) requires that financial assurance for decommissioning be provided by one or more of the following methods: (1) prepayment; or (2) a surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method.
1. The petitioner believes that financial assurance requirements should be required for all licensees, irrespective of the quantity of licensed material a licensee may possess.
The petitioner agrees that funds should be available to decommission a facility; however, he believes that requiring security from specific types of licensees based on the quantity of licensed material is arbitrary. The petitioner believes that the premise is false that a licensee who is licensed for greater quantities is a greater financial risk than the licensee licensed for smaller quantities. According to the petitioner, the larger the quantity of radioactive material a licensee processes, the larger the licensee's safety program, the more careful the licensee's handling procedures, the more elaborate the licensee's equipment, and the more extensive the licensee's experience and education. As an example, the petitioner states that a 100 millicurie Cesium 137 source, that would not require any financial assurance, is quite capable of producing a million dollar decontamination problem, if handled improperly or by unauthorized persons.
2. The petitioner believes that the methods included in the rule by which a small business licensee can provide surety should be expanded over a longer timeframe.
The petitioner states that the rule requires that a surety payment be paid at one time, and that this requirement places an undue burden and insurmountable hardship on small businesses licensed by the NRC or by Agreement States. The petitioner states that the small business operator cannot obtain bonds and parent company guarantees like the large businesses and public institutions. The petitioner believes that if the financial assurance rules are to require licensees to clean up after themselves, then the rules must allow a method of financial assurance that does not force the small business licensee out of business. The petitioner notes that the Environmental Protection Agency and their designated state agencies allow payment to be made over the life of their facilities.
The petitioner acknowledges that the subject of the following recommendation is separate from the issues listed above.
3. The petitioner believes that licensees that use radioactive materials that fall into the category of “orphan waste” (greater than Class C) should be exempted from the regulations because,
The petitioner believes that a licensee that has “orphan waste” should not be required to calculate and fund its disposal when there is no disposal site to accept the waste. As an example, the petitioner notes that DOE has an Americium 241 neutron source recovery program that includes compiling a list of unwanted or abandoned AmBe sources throughout the U.S. and is actively consolidating these sources for the recovery of Am-241. The petitioner believes that by initiating this program, the DOE has effectively recognized its responsibility for their disposal.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Extension of comment period on proposed rules.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission published notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) concerning various aspects of a new regulatory framework on June 22, 2000 (63 FR 38985, 63 FR 39008, 63 FR 39027, and 63 FR 39033). The NPRMs provided that comments should be received on or before August 7, 2000. In response to requests from the Association for Investment Management Research and eight agricultural producer groups, the Commission has determined to extend the comment period until August 21, 2000.
Comments must be received on or before August 21, 2000.
As indicated in the NPRMs, comments should be submitted by the specified date to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. In addition, Comments may be sent by facsimile transmission to facsimile number (202) 418-5521, or by electronic mail to
Paul M. Architzel, Chief Counsel, Division of Economic Analysis, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1125 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. Telephone: (202) 418-5260. E-mail: [PArchitzel@cftc.gov].
Social Security Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
We are proposing to automatically adjust each year, based on any increases in the national average wage index, the average monthly earnings guideline we use to determine whether work done by persons with impairments other than blindness is substantial gainful activity; provide that we will ordinarily find that an employee whose average monthly earnings are not greater than the “primary substantial gainful activity amount” (currently $700) has not engaged in substantial gainful activity without considering other information beyond the employee's earnings; increase the minimum amount of monthly earnings that we consider shows that a person receiving title II Social Security benefits based on disability is performing or has performed “services” during a trial work period, and automatically adjust the amount each year thereafter; increase the maximum monthly and yearly Student Earned Income Exclusion amounts we use in determining Supplemental Security Income Program eligibility and payment amounts, and automatically adjust the monthly and yearly exclusion amounts each year thereafter.
We propose these revised rules as part of our efforts to encourage individuals with disabilities to test their ability to work and keep working. We expect that these changes will provide greater incentives for many beneficiaries to attempt to work or, if already working, to continue to work or increase their work effort.
In order for us to consider your comments on these specific proposals, we must receive them by October 10, 2000.
Submit comments in writing to the Commissioner of Social Security, P.O. Box 17703, Baltimore, MD 21235-7703; send by fax to (410) 966-2830; send by E-mail to “
For information specifically about these proposed rules, contact Ray Marzoli, Office of Employment Support Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 965-9826 or TTY (410) 966-6210. For information about eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet web site at SSAOnline at
The Social Security and the Supplemental Security Income programs (titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act)) provide benefits to disabled and blind individuals. Disability is generally defined under both programs as, “* * * inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment * * *.” The Medicare and Medicaid programs (titles XVIII and XIX of the Act) provide related medical benefits to disabled and blind individuals.
Under 20 CFR §§ 404.1572 and 416.972, the term “substantial gainful activity” means work activity that involves significant physical or mental effort and that is done for pay or profit. Work activity is gainful if it is the kind of work usually performed for pay or profit, whether or not profit is realized. Sections 223(d)(4)(A) and 1614(a)(3)(E) of the Social Security Act require the Commissioner to prescribe by regulations the criteria for determining when earnings demonstrate ability to engage in substantial gainful activity for a person with an impairment other than blindness.
In evaluating initial claims for disability, we make a determination whether the applicant for either Social Security benefits or Supplemental Security Income benefits is engaging in substantial gainful activity. We find applicants not to be disabled if they are working and performing substantial gainful activity, regardless of their medical condition. In addition, after an individual becomes entitled to title II Social Security benefits based on disability, we consider whether a person's earnings demonstrate the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity in determining ongoing entitlement to disability benefits. (We do not use substantial gainful activity as a measure for continuing eligibility for Supplemental Security Income benefits.) Under our current rules, if an individual's average monthly earnings were more than $700, we would ordinarily consider that the person engaged in substantial gainful activity. This earnings guideline level applies to all employees including those in sheltered workshops or comparable facilities and, in certain circumstances, to the self-employed.
We are proposing to provide for annual indexing of this level after reassessing the current earnings guidelines as part of our effort to improve incentives to encourage individuals with disabilities to work. We propose to adjust annually the substantial gainful activity amount for people with impairments other than blindness. Beginning January 1, 2001, the guideline would be the larger of the previous year's amount or an increased amount based on the Social Security national average wage index (See section 209(k)(1) of the Act).
Finally, because the Social Security Administration is committed to maintaining the substantial gainful activity amount as an indicator of an individual's ability to work, we will periodically review this level to determine if it continues to be a reasonable and meaningful indicator. These reviews will include collection and analysis of data, such as the number of beneficiaries (1) who earn wages, (2) with wages that exceed the trial work period services level, and (3) with wages that exceed the substantial gainful activity level; the duration of employment above the substantial gainful amount; and the average earnings of individuals achieving substantial gainful activity.
We use earnings guidelines to evaluate a person's work activity to determine whether the work activity is substantial gainful activity and therefore whether that person may be considered disabled under the law. A consistent method of adjusting substantial gainful activity earnings guidelines will benefit applicants and beneficiaries in future years. The national average wage index is a measure of wage growth and, therefore, provides a logical basis for adjusting the earnings guidelines used to indicate ability to work. Indexing would ensure that the substantial gainful activity amount is a uniformly representative indicator over time of an individual's ability to work.
Under this proposal, the substantial gainful activity amount would never be lower than the previous year's amount. However, there may be years when no increase results from the calculation. For a detailed discussion of how we calculate annual automatic adjustments, see our notice regarding cost-of-living increases and other determinations for the year 2000 that was published in the
We also propose to amend §§ 404.1574(b)(2) and (4) and 416.974(b)(2) and (4) to clarify, consistent with our longstanding policy, that ordinarily we will find any individual, whether engaged in competitive or sheltered work, to be engaging in substantial gainful activity when his or her earnings exceed the amounts for such earnings set out in §§ 404.1574(b)(2) and 416.974(b)(2). As a result of these clarifications, we intend to rescind the
Under our current rules, if an employee has earnings from work activities that average less than $300 a month, we generally consider that he or she is
We do not further evaluate work activity below the secondary substantial gainful activity amount unless there is evidence to the contrary showing that the person may be engaging in substantial gainful activity (e.g., an employee might be in a position to defer or suppress earnings). We examine further the work activity of employees who earned between the primary and secondary substantial gainful activity levels because our current rules provide that these earnings are not high or low enough to determine if substantial gainful activity exists. We are required to determine whether the work is substantial gainful activity by developing additional evidence. (A different rule currently applies to individuals employed in sheltered workshops or comparable facilities. For these people, earnings that are not greater than the
Because our experience suggests that the secondary substantial gainful activity amount is not as useful a tool as we would have liked, we propose to discontinue its use. Under this proposal, we would ordinarily consider that an employee whose earnings are equal to or less than the primary substantial gainful activity amount is not engaging in substantial gainful activity. We would perform additional development beyond looking at earnings only when circumstances indicate that such an employee may be engaging in substantial gainful activity or might be in a position to defer or suppress earnings. This regulatory change would not change our evaluation guidelines for the self-employed.
Our experience suggests that this regulatory change would affect few applicants and beneficiaries because few employees have been found to have performed substantial gainful activity on the basis of these secondary rules unless they were also in a position to defer or suppress earnings. We are making this proposal in order to simplify our rules and to improve our work efficiency. This proposed change would also eliminate the need for us to distinguish for earnings guidelines purposes between those employees who are in sheltered workshops or comparable facilities and those who are not. To discontinue these complex secondary guidelines, as proposed, would contribute toward improved public understanding of Social Security.
The trial work period is a work incentive. During the trial work period, a title II beneficiary may test his or her ability to work and still be considered disabled. We will not consider services performed during the trial work period as showing that the disability has ended until services have been performed in at least 9 months (not necessarily consecutive) in a rolling 60-month period.
Section 222(c)(2) of the Act provides that, for purposes of the trial work period, “the term ‘services’ means activity (whether legal or illegal) which is performed for remuneration or gain or is determined by the Commissioner of Social Security to be of a type normally performed for remuneration or gain.” As established in regulations, § 404.1592(b), we currently consider any month in which an employee earns more than $200 from his or her work to be a month of services for the trial work period.
We are proposing to revise this level as part of our effort to improve incentives to encourage individuals with disabilities to work. We propose to increase the monthly amount of earnings we consider to be “services” in a trial work period from $200 to $530 for the year 2001. We also propose, for each year thereafter, to adjust the amount to the higher of the previous year's amount or an increased amount based on the Social Security national average wage index.
Although the dollar amount which ordinarily represents substantial gainful activity has increased since 1990, the $200 amount that represents a month of trial work period services has remained the same since 1990. Beneficiaries are currently faced with exhausting months of a trial work period while earning as little as $200 a month, even on an intermittent basis. As a result, when beneficiaries are finally able to reach a higher earnings level, they may have already used up many or all of their 9 months of trial work. Increasing the trial work period services amount to $530 would allow more beneficiaries with disabilities to more realistically test their ability to work and would likely lead to work at levels closer to or at substantial gainful activity.
Automatic indexing would ensure that the trial work period services amount is a uniformly representative indicator over time of a trial work attempt. We would calculate the adjustments in essentially the same manner as we are proposing for increasing the substantial gainful activity amount. Under this proposal, the trial work period amount would never be lower than the previous year's amount. However, there may be years when no increase results from the calculation. For a detailed discussion of how we calculate annual automatic adjustments, see the
The legislative history of the trial work period provision indicates that Congress recognized and intended that the amount that constitutes trial work need not constitute substantial gainful activity. Congress enacted the trial work period as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1960. The accompanying House Ways and Means Committee report states, “Your committee intends that any months in which a disabled person works for gain, or does work of a nature generally performed for gain, be counted as a month of trial work. Thus the services rendered in a month need not constitute substantial gainful activity in order for the month to be counted as part of the trial-work effort.” H.R. Rep. No. 86-1799, at 13 (1960). This proposal would maintain the distinction between the trial work period services amount and the substantial gainful activity amount intended by Congress while providing disabled beneficiaries with greater incentives to test their ability to work.
Section 1612 of the Social Security Act establishes the definition of “
In response to increases in school expenses since that time, we are proposing to revise these levels as part of our effort to help Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries who are students finance their school attendance and encourage them to work. We propose to increase the earned income exclusion amount, beginning January 1, 2001, to $1,290 a month with an annual limit of $5,200. We are also proposing to make automatic adjustments to these amounts each year thereafter to the higher of the previous year's amounts or increased amounts based on the cost-of-living.
The cost-of-living adjustments would ensure that the amounts account for price inflation. We are proposing to use a similar method to that currently used to calculate annual cost-of-living adjustments in the Supplemental Security Income program Federal benefit rates. The only differences are that this calculation would use the calendar year 2001 amounts as the base amounts and any increases in these amounts would be rounded to the nearest $10. Under this proposal, these amounts would never be lower than the previous year's amounts. However,
We propose to revise §§ 404.1574(b)(2) and (4), and 416.974(b)(2) and (4) to adjust annually the earnings guidelines that we use to determine whether a non-blind employee is engaged in substantial gainful activity. Beginning January 2001, the guideline would be the higher of the previous year's amount or an increased amount based on the Social Security national average wage index. We also propose to amend §§ 404.1574(b)(2) and (4) and 416.974(b)(2) and (4) to clarify, consistent with our longstanding policy, that this guideline applies to earnings from sheltered work. (This standard also applies to the self-employed in certain circumstances by cross-references that have been and continue to be present in §§ 404.1575 and 416.975.)
We also propose to revise §§ 404.1574(b)(3) and (6), and 416.974(b)(3) and (6) to provide, beginning January 2001, that we will ordinarily find that an employee whose average monthly earnings are equal to or less than the “primary substantial gainful activity amount” set forth in §§ 404.1574(b)(2) and 416.974(b)(2) has not engaged in substantial gainful activity without considering other information beyond the employee's earnings. We also propose to make conforming changes to §§ 404.1574(b)(4) and 416.974(b)(4).
We also propose to revise § 404.1592 to increase from $200 to $530 the minimum amount of monthly earnings that we consider shows that a person is performing or has performed “services” for counting trial work period months, effective January 1, 2001. We also propose to adjust the amount annually to the higher of the previous year's amount or an increased amount based on the Social Security national average wage index, beginning January 1, 2002.
We also propose to revise § 416.1112(c)(3) to increase the maximum amount of the student earned income exclusion to $1,290 a month, not to exceed $5,200 per year, effective January 2001. We also propose to adjust these amounts annually to the higher of the previous year's amounts or increased amounts calculated in essentially the same manner as the annual cost-of-living adjustments to the Supplemental Security Income Program federal benefit rates, beginning January 1, 2002. This calculation would use the 2001 amounts as the base amounts and any increases in these amounts would be rounded to the nearest $10.
These regulations impose no new reporting/record-keeping requirements necessitating clearance by OMB.
Based on the costs associated with these proposed rules, the Social Security Administration has determined that they do not require an assessment of costs and benefits to society per Executive Order 12866 because they do not meet the definition of a “significant regulatory action.” These proposed rules also do not meet the definition of a “major rule” under 5 U.S.C. 801ff because the Social Security Administration's budget baseline assumes that substantial gainful activity amounts will keep pace with growth in average wages, and other provisions do not result in costs that exceed the threshold for what constitutes a “major rule”. In addition, the Social Security Administration has determined, as required under the aforementioned statute, that these regulations do not create any unfunded mandates for State or local entities under sections 202-205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995. The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed these proposed rules.
We have also determined that these proposed rules meet the plain language requirement of Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998. However, as noted earlier, we invite your comments on how to make these rules easier to understand.
We certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they primarily affect individuals who are applying for or receiving title II or title XVI benefits because of blindness or disability, and States which administer the Medicaid program and/or pay supplemental benefits to Supplemental Security Income eligible individuals.
Administrative practice and procedure, Death benefits, Disability benefits, Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Social Security.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Public assistance programs, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Social Security Administration proposes to amend parts 404 and 416 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for subpart P of part 404 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 202, 205(a), (b), and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a) and (i), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a), (b), and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a) and (i), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189.
2. Section 404.1574 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(6) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A) The amount for the previous year, or
(B) An amount adjusted for national wage growth, calculated by multiplying $700 by the ratio of the national average wage index for the year 2 calendar years
(3)
(4)
(6)
(i)
(ii)
(iii) Examples of other information we may consider include, whether—
(A) Your work is comparable to that of unimpaired people in your community who are doing the same or similar occupations as their means of livelihood, taking into account the time, energy, skill, and responsibility involved in the work, and
(B) Your work, although significantly less than that done by unimpaired people, is clearly worth the amounts shown in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, according to pay scales in your community.
3. Section 404.1592 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(A) Such amount for the previous year, or
(B) An amount adjusted for national wage growth, calculated by multiplying $530 by the ratio of the national average wage index for the year 2 calendar years before the year for which the amount is being calculated to the national average wage index for 1999. We will then round the resulting amount to the next higher multiple of $10 where such amount is a multiple of $5 but not of $10 and to the nearest multiple of $10 in any other case.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A) Such amount for the previous year, or
(B) An amount adjusted for national wage growth, calculated by multiplying $530 by the ratio of the national average wage index for the year 2 calendar years before the year for which the amount is being calculated to the national average wage index for 1999. We will then round the resulting amount to the next higher multiple of $10 where such amount is a multiple of $5 but not of $10 and to the nearest multiple of $10 in any other case.
1. The authority citation for Subpart I of Part 416 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c) and (d)(1), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c) and (d)(1), and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)-(e), 14(a) and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, 1382h note).
2. Section 416.974 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4) and (b)(6) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A) The amount for the previous year, or
(B) An amount adjusted for national wage growth, calculated by multiplying $700 by the ratio of the national average wage index for the year 2 calendar years before the year for which the amount is being calculated to the national average wage index for 1998. We will then round the resulting amount to the next higher multiple of $10 where such amount is a multiple of $5 but not of $10 and to the nearest multiple of $10 in any other case.
(3)
(4)
(6)
(i)
(ii)
(iii) Examples of other information we may consider include, whether—
(A) Your work is comparable to that of unimpaired people in your community who are doing the same or similar occupations as their means of livelihood, taking into account the time, energy, skill, and responsibility involved in the work, and
(B) Your work, although significantly less than that done by unimpaired people, is clearly worth the amounts shown in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, according to pay scales in your community.
3. The authority citation for Subpart K of Part 416 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 702(a)(5), 1602, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614(f), 1621, and 1631 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1381a, 1382, 1382a, 1382b, 1382c(f), 1382j, and 1383); sec. 211, Pub. L. 93-66, 87 Stat. 154 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note).
4. Section 416.1112 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) If you are a blind or disabled child who is a student regularly attending school as described in § 416.1861:
(i)
(A) The monthly and yearly amounts for the previous year, or
(B) Monthly and yearly maximum amounts increased for changes in the cost-of-living calculated in the same manner as the Federal benefit rates described in § 416.405, except that we will use the calendar year 2001 amounts as the base amounts and will round the resulting amount to the next higher multiple of $10 where such amount is a multiple of $5 but not of $10 and to the nearest multiple of $10 in any other case.
(ii)
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.
Proposed rules; extension of comment periods; close of records.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is announcing two-week extensions of the comment periods on two notices of proposed rulemakings which were both published in the
One proposal, “Determination of Concentration of Respirable Coal Mine Dust” announced that the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the average concentration of respirable dust to which each miner in the active workings of a coal mine is exposed can be accurately measured over a single shift. The Secretaries are proposing to rescind a previous 1972 finding by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, on the accuracy of single-shift sampling.
The other proposal, “Verification of Underground Coal Mine Operators' Dust Control Plans and Compliance Sampling for Respirable Dust” announced that MSHA would revoke existing operator respirable dust sampling procedures under parts 70 and 90, and would implement new regulations, under part 72, that would require each underground coal mine operator to have a verified mine ventilation plan.
These rulemaking records will remain open until September 8, 2000.
Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2000.
You may use mail, facsimile (fax), or electronic mail to send us your comments. Clearly identify your comments and send them—(1) By mail to Carol J. Jones, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631, Arlington, VA 22203; (2) By fax to MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 703-235-5551; or (3) By electronic mail to comments@msha.gov.
Carol J. Jones, Director; Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203-1984; 703-235-1910.
On July 7, 2000, (65 FR 42068), the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretaries) jointly published a notice of proposed rulemaking finding in accordance with sections 101 (30 U.S.C. 811) and 202(f)(2) (30 U.S.C. 842(f)(2)) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) that the average concentration of respirable dust to which each miner in the active workings of a coal mine is exposed can be accurately measured over a single shift. The Secretaries are proposing to rescind a 1972 finding by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, on the accuracy of such single-shift sampling.
On July 7, 2000, (65 FR 42122), we published a proposed rule which would revoke existing operator respirable dust sampling procedures under 30 CFR parts 70 and 90. The proposal would implement new regulations under which MSHA would verify the effectiveness of a mine operator's dust control parameters for mechanized mining units (MMUs) specified in the mine ventilation plan before these plans are approved. Verification sampling would be conducted under more typical production levels and for the actual length of the production shift.
We encourage the mining community to participate in the public hearings on the proposed rules. The hearings will be held as follows:
The post-hearing comment period and rulemaking records for “Determination of Concentration of Respirable Coal Mine Dust” (65 FR 42185) and “Verification of Underground Coal Mine Operators' Dust Control Plans and Compliance Sampling for Respirable Dust” (65 FR 42122) were both scheduled to close on August 24, 2000. However, in response to requests from the mining community for additional time to review the proposals and submit comments, both the rulemaking records are being extended for two weeks, until September 8, 2000.
The mining community is encouraged to submit their comments on or before that date.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; extension of comment dates.
In this document the Commission extends the comment cycle for a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) released by the Commission on June 30, 2000 in FCC 00-208. The Commission has extended the comment cycle to give the public more time to respond. The Commission extends the original comment date by twenty-five days to September 1, 2000. The reply comment date has been extended by eighteen days to September 15, 2000.
Submit comments on or before September 1, 2000 and reply comments on or before September 15, 2000.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554, Room TW-B204.
Gene Fullano (202) 418-7400 TTY: (202) 418-0484.
On June 30, 2000, the Commission released the
We extend the comment and reply comment dates to September 1 and September 15, 2000, respectively. All comments should be filed pursuant to the instructions provided in the
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of revision and clarification of requirements.
The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries (Joint Board) announces revised requirements relative to the waiver of Segment A of its basic (EA-1) examination and Segment A's sequel, the EA-1 examination.
Paulette Tino, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, 202-622-7192.
The Joint Board gives notice of a revision to the requirements relative to the waiver of Segment A of its basic (EA-1) examination, which was given for the last time in May 2000, and Segment A's sequel, the EA-1 examination, which will be given beginning in 2001 and thereafter.
Beginning in 2000, the Joint Board will grant a waiver of this examination to any applicant who has received credit from the Society of Actuaries for examinations 2 and 3 of the Society's new examination program.
The Joint Board also clarifies its position regarding the waiver of this examination on account of completed academic work. The Joint Board will grant a waiver to any applicant who has (i) received a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution, and (ii) completed the Joint Board's required courses through a combination of undergraduate and graduate education, provided that the applicant has obtained the graduate credits as part of a degree program, even if the applicant has not actually received a degree.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission will hold its 57th Meeting in Seattle WA on August 24, and 25, 2000.
The Meeting will be held at the Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington, 1013 NE. 40th Street, Seattle, WA 98105.
Topics for the meeting include Federal and State Agency reports, Congressional liaison reports, research reports on climate change in the Arctic and a visit is planned to the USCGC Healy.
Any person planning to attend the meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.
Contact Person for More Information: Dr. Garrett W. Brass, Executive Director, Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111, e-mail <g.brass@arctic.gov> or TDD 703-306-0090.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from Procurement List.
The Committee has received proposals to add to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete commodities previously furnished by such agencies.
September 11, 2000.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Louis R. Bartalot (703) 603-7740.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, all entities of the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following services have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46—48c) in connection with the commodities proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following commodities have been proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes from the Procurement List services previously furnished by such agencies.
September 11, 2000.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Louis R. Bartalot (703) 603-7740.
On April 21 and June 30, 2000, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (65 FR 21395 and 40608) of proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List:
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current contractors for the services.
3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46—48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are hereby added to the Procurement List:
This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action may not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on future contractors for the services.
3. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46—48c) in connection with the services deleted from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
Accordingly, the following services are hereby deleted from the Procurement List:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
On February 28, 2000, the Department of Commerce published in the
August 11, 2000.
Mark Ross or Richard Rimlinger, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4794 or (202) 482-4477, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (1999).
On January 13, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
On April 7, 2000, a company named Rhodia submitted a letter to the Department explaining that Rhone-Poulenc merged with Hoechst into a new group of companies called Aventis. Rhodia also explained that it was created as a result of the Aventis merger and is now the entity manufacturing ASM in France. Moreover, Rhodia stated that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR).
On May 9, 2000, the Department sent a no-shipment inquiry regarding Rhone-Poulenc and Rhodia to the U.S. Customs Service. The purpose of this inquiry was to determine whether the Customs Service suspended liquidation of entry summaries of ASM during the POR. The Customs Service did not identify any suspended entry summaries of ASM manufactured and/or exported by Rhone-Poulenc or Rhodia during the POR. Therefore, we have determined that there were no entries of subject merchandise by these companies into the customs territory of the United States during the POR.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole, or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Department concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. In light of the fact that we determined that the only company covered by the review did not enter the subject merchandise into the territory of the United States during the POR in question, we find that rescinding this review is appropriate. On July 14, 2000, we sent a letter to the petitioner to notify it of our findings and invited it to comment on our intent to rescind the review. The petitioner responded on July 18, 2000, stating that it does not object. Therefore, we are rescinding this administrative review.
The cash-deposit rate for Rhone-Poulenc/Rhodia will remain at 60 percent, the rate established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding (64 FR 66881, November 30, 1999). This notice is being published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative reviews and revocation of orders in part
On April 6, 2000, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The merchandise covered by these orders are ball bearings and parts thereof, cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof, and spherical plain bearings and parts thereof. The reviews cover 36 manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes, including corrections of certain programming and other clerical errors, in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Reviews.”
August 11, 2000.
Please contact the appropriate case analysts for the various respondent firms as listed below, at Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).
On April 6, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (65 FR 18033). The reviews cover 36 manufacturers/exporters. The period of review (POR) is May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary results. At the request of certain parties, we held hearings for Germany-specific issues on May 17, 2000, and for Japan-specific issues on May 22, 2000. The Department has conducted these administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
In our preliminary results, we rescinded the administrative review of NTN Germany on the basis that we had received timely withdrawal of the request for review. However, this conclusion was erroneous, since the petitioner, which has requested the review, had not withdrawn its request. Therefore, we reinstated NTN Germany in the pertinent review by letter to the company, dated May 2, 2000, and have included it in our final results of review.
The products covered by these orders, antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings), mounted or unmounted, and parts thereof, constitute the following classes or kinds of merchandise:
1.
Imports of these products are classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTSUS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.2580, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90.
2.
Imports of these products are classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.40.00, 8482.50.00, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.25, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6530, 8482.99.6560, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.93.5000, 8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90.
3.
Imports of these products are classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.50.10, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.30, 8485.90.00, 8708.93.5000, 8708.99.50, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90.
The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. They are not determinative of the products subject to the orders. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
Size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether the bearing is covered by one of the orders. These orders cover all the subject bearings and parts thereof (inner race, outer race, cage, rollers, balls, seals, shields,
For a listing of scope determinations which pertain to the orders, see the “Scope Determinations Memorandum” (Scope Memo) from the Antifriction Bearings Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated August 4, 2000, and hereby adopted by this notice. The Scope Memo is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is accessible on the Web at
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to these concurrent administrative reviews of the
The Department disregarded home-market sales that failed the cost test for the following firms and classes or kinds of merchandise for these final results of reviews:
In our preliminary results we stated our intent to revoke the order covering BBs from France as it pertains to the sales of these bearings by SNFA France. Since our preliminary findings regarding this request for revocation has been affirmed, based on our final results of review, we are revoking this order in part. The effective date of this revocation in part is May 1, 1999.
In addition, also in our preliminary results, we stated our intent not to revoke the order covering BBs from Italy as it pertained to sales of these bearings by Somecat. However, due to a recalculation of Somecat's margin, which resulted in a
In our preliminary results, we also stated our intent to revoke the antidumping duty order covering BBs from Romania as it pertains to TIE's sales of merchandise from those suppliers which supplied TIE during the time period that formed the basis for the revocation. The Department is not addressing the issue of revocation as it pertains to TIE Romania because the issue has been rendered moot by the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) determination in a sunset review pursuant to 751(c) of the Act that revocation of the order on AFBs from Romania would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See
The discussion of issues and comments pertaining to these revocations is contained in the “Revocation” section of the Decision Memo, which is accessible on the Web at
On June 28, 2000, the International Trade Commission (ITC), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain bearings from Japan, Romania, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time (65 FR 39925). Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1), the Department revoked the following orders on July 11, 2000: BBs from Romania, BBs and CRBs from Sweden, CRBs from France, CRBs and SPBs from Germany, CRBs from Italy, CRBs and SPBs from Japan, CRBs from the United Kingdom (65 FR 42667). The effective date of these sunset revocations is January 1, 2000.
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made revisions that have changed our results for certain firms. We have corrected programming and clerical errors in our preliminary results, where applicable. Any alleged programming or clerical errors about which we or the parties do not agree are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo, which is accessible on the Web at
We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999:
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/importer-or customer-specific assessment rate or value for subject merchandise.
With respect to export-price sales for these final results, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price) for each importer/customer by the total number of units sold to that importer/customer. We will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise on each of that importer's/customer's entries under the relevant order during the review period.
For constructed export-price (CEP) sales (sampled and non-sampled), we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. When an affiliated party acts as an importer for export-price sales we have included the applicable export-price sales in the assessment-rate calculation. We will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the relevant order during the review period (see 19 CFR 351.212(a)).
To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each respondent (
In order to derive a single deposit rate for each order for each respondent, we weight-averaged the export-price and CEP deposit rates (using the export price and CEP, respectively, as the weighting factors). To accomplish this when we sampled CEP sales, we first calculated the total dumping margins for all CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the sample CEP margins by the ratio of total days in the review period to days in the sample weeks. We then calculated a total net value for all CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the sample CEP total net value by the same ratio. We then divided the combined total dumping margins for both export-price and CEP sales by the combined total value for both export-price and CEP sales to obtain the deposit rate.
We will direct the Customs Service to collect the resulting percentage deposit rate against the entered customs value of each of the exporter's entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice. If an order has been revoked in part or in full, cash deposits will not be required on entries made after the effective date of the revocation, identified in the
Entries of parts incorporated into finished bearings before sales to an unaffiliated customer in the United States will receive the respondent's deposit rate applicable to the order.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative reviews for all shipments of antifriction bearings entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act unless the order has been revoked (see
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative reviews.
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3) or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
August 11, 2000.
John Drury at (202) 482-0195 or Linda Ludwig at (202) 482-3833, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order/finding for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days and for the final determination to 180 days (or 300 days if the Department does not extend the time limit for the preliminary determination) from the date of publication of the preliminary determination.
On December 28, 1999, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico, covering the period November 1, 1998 through October 31, 1999 (64 FR 72644). The preliminary results are currently due no later than August 1, 2000.
We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the original time limit. Therefore the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results until no later than November 29, 2000. See Decision Memorandum from Richard O. Weible to Joseph A. Spetrini, dated August 1, 2000, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results notice.
This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
August 11, 2000.
Craig Matney or Gregory Campbell, Office 1, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1778 or (202) 482-2239, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“Department”) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).
On July 17, 2000, the Department received petitions filed in proper form by Cummins-Allison Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner.” The Department received information supplementing the petitions throughout the initiation period.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioner alleges that imports of desktop note counters and desktop note scanners from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) and the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring or threaten to injure an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it represents, at a minimum, the required proportion of the United States industry with respect to the antidumping investigations that it has requested the Department to initiate (
The products covered by these investigations are commonly referred to as desktop note counters (“counters”) and desktop note scanners (“scanners”), whether assembled, partially assembled or unassembled, with or without operation-enabling software loaded. Counters and scanners are document handling machines that employ an electro-mechanical processing mechanism to accurately count currency bills, bank notes, coupons, script, or other value-based paper documents and to stack them in an organized fashion. The processing mechanism typically encompasses a feeder assembly from which documents are separated and introduced into the machine, a paper path through which the documents are fed, a transport mechanism, a sensing device located along the paper path that counts the documents, and a stacking location (or locations) that accepts the documents after counting and/or arranging them. Counters and scanners also have an integrated keypad, or keyboard, and a display panel. Both counters and scanners can incorporate a sensor device for detecting suspect (i.e., counterfeit) documents. Scanners have additional sensors, or scanning devices, that enable the machines to distinguish documents by denomination. Scanners and counters may consist of one or more stacker assemblies to accommodate bill sorting. The counters and scanners subject to these investigations are portable; they typically weigh less than 100 pounds and may be easily moved by hand from one location to another.
Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations are counters and scanners that are too large to be considered portable, or desktop, which are typically designed for very high volume use in regional and headquarter vaults of commercial banks and central bank vaults. However, the simple attachment of weights, stands, wheels, or similar devices does not, by itself, remove an otherwise portable counter or scanner from the scope of these investigations. Other document and currency handling machines, such as currency wrappers, currency verifiers, bundle counters, coin-handling machines, bill-accepting devices used in vending machines, and ATM machines, also are excluded from the scope of these investigations.
Imports of counters and scanners are currently classifiable under subheading 8472.90.9520 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.
During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the petitioner to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations (62 FR 27323), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calender days of publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and (2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the petitions have the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,”
The domestic like product referred to in the petitions is the single domestic like product defined in the “Scope of Investigations” section above. No party has commented on the petitions' definition of the domestic like product, and there is nothing on the record to indicate that this definition is inaccurate. The Department, therefore, has adopted the domestic like product definition set forth in the petitions.
Moreover, the Department has determined that the petitions contain adequate evidence of industry support; therefore, polling is unnecessary (
The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate these investigations. The petitioner, in determining normal value (“NV”) for Korea and the U.K., relied upon price data contained in confidential foreign market research reports filed with the Department. At the Department's request, the petitioner arranged for the Department to contact the author of each report to verify the accuracy of the data, the methodology used to collect the data, and the credentials of those gathering the market research.
The Department's discussions with the author of each market research report are summarized in separate memoranda entitled “
The petitioner asserts that the Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy country (“NME”) and, therefore, constructed NV based on the factors of production (“FOP”) methodology pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act. In previous cases, the Department has determined that the PRC is an NME.
In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner valued FOP for counters, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate country data. Citing past Department practice, the petitioner used India as the surrogate country. Direct materials values were based on price quotes obtained from a market research firm. For those direct materials for which prices in India were unavailable, the petitioner based the surrogate value on its own costs.
The petitioner identified two companies, Dong Bo and Toyocom, that produce subject merchandise in the PRC. According to the petitioner, Dong Bo sells subject merchandise directly to unaffiliated customers in the United States, whereas Toyocom sells subject merchandise through an affiliated reseller. For Dong Bo, the petitioner based export price (“EP”) on price quotes for Dong Bo counters obtained from a U.S. distributor. To calculate EP, the petitioner deducted from the price quote a distributor's gross margin (
Based on comparisons of EP, or CEP, to NV, calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for counters and scanners from the PRC range from 66.44 percent to 354.34 percent.
The petitioner identified five producers of counters in Korea, two of which were found to export subject merchandise to the United States. The petitioner obtained home market pricing data for Plus Banking Machine Company (“Plus”) and Shinsung Electronics Company, Ltd. (“Shinsung”), two producers/exporters of counters in Korea. However, because the petitioner was unable to obtain U.S. price quotes for Shinsung, it based NV on the HM price quotes from Plus for models identical to those offered for sale in the United States. To calculate NV, the petitioner made the following adjustments to the price quotes: (1) deducted HM imputed credit expenses and HM packing expenses; and (2) added U.S. imputed credit expenses and U.S. packing expenses.
The Department adjusted the petitioner's calculation of the U.S. imputed credit expense based on more contemporaneous and product-specific information (
The petitioner based EP on price quotes for two models of Plus counters obtained from several unaffiliated U.S. distributors. To calculate EP, the petitioner deducted distributor's gross margin and movement expenses (specifically, ocean freight, FOB charges, delivery charges, document and handling charges, clearance charges, insurance charges, and customs duties). The Department recalculated distributor's gross margin, indirect selling expenses and imputed credit expenses using more contemporaneous and product-specific data contained in the financial statements of the three U.S. office equipment distributors.
Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for counters and scanners from Korea range from 0 percent to 66.43 percent.
The petitioner identified De La Rue Cash Systems (“De La Rue”) as the sole producer of counters and scanners in the U.K. Therefore, the petitioner based NV on HM price quotes for sales of counters and scanners obtained directly from De La Rue. To calculate NV, the petitioner deducted from the price quotes foreign inland freight expenses, imputed credit expenses, HM packing expenses, and indirect selling expenses. The petitioner then made an adjustment for the difference in merchandise to account for certain features of the U.K. model that were absent from the U.S. comparison model, where applicable. Finally, the petitioner added U.S. packing expenses to the price quote. Because De La Rue sells subject merchandise in the home market directly to end users, the petitioner did not make any adjustments for distributor mark-up.
The petitioner used CEP as the basis for U.S. price because De La Rue sells counters and scanners in the U.S. to unaffiliated customers through a U.S.-based affiliated reseller (
The Department recalculated distributor's gross margin, indirect selling expenses and imputed credit expenses using more contemporaneous and product-specific data contained in financial statements of the three U.S. office equipment distributors.
Based on comparisons of CEP to NV, calculated in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for counters and scanners from the U.K. range from 35.93 percent to 173.14 percent.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of desktop note counters and desktop note scanners from the PRC, Korea, and the U.K. are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value
The petitions allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is evident in the declining trends in operating profit, sales volumes, market share, prices, and availability of research and development resources. The allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs import data, lost sales, and pricing information. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and have determined that these allegations are properly supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation (
Based upon our examination of the petitions on counters and scanners, we have found that the petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of counters and scanners from the PRC, Korea, and the U.K. are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the public version of each petition has been provided to the representatives of the PRC, Korea and the U.K. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of each petition to each exporter named in the petitions, as appropriate.
We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than August 31, 2000, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of counters and scanners from the PRC, Korea, and the U.K. are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
This notice is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of extension of time limit for the final results of antidumping duty administrative review.
The Department of Commerce is extending the time limit for the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review of the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide from Greece. The period of review is April 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999.
August 11, 2000.
Hermes Pinilla or Richard Rimlinger, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3477 or (202) 482-4477, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (1998).
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received a request to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide from Greece. On May 20, 1999, the Department initiated this administrative review covering the period April 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999. On May 8, 2000, the Department published the preliminary results of review in the
During this review complex issues have been raised regarding the viability of the foreign market and the comparability of the product sold in the exporting country. Due to the constraints on the resources available to analyze such issues appropriately, we require an extension. Therefore, because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act the Department is extending the time limit for the final results to be 180 days from the date of publication of the preliminary results. Therefore, our final results are due no later than November 6, 2000. This extension of the time limit is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
August 11, 2000.
John Brinkmann or Russell Morris, Group II, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2786.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).
The products covered by this order are large diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes produced, or equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. The scope of this order also includes all other products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. Specifically included within the scope of this order are seamless pipes greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end,
The seamless pipes subject to this order are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.30, 7304.10.10.45, 7304.10.10.60, 7304.10.50.50, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, and 7304.59.80.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).
Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is used primarily for line applications such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or utility distribution systems. Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard.
Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications.
Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification.
Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water.
Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers.
The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes in large diameters is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. A more minor application for large diameter seamless pipes is for use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, as well as in power generation plants and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.
The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below, whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this investigation. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below.
For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:
A. Boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications.
B. Finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”), if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications.
C. Products produced to the A-335 specification unless they are used in an application that would normally utilize ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications.
D. Line and riser pipe for deepwater application,
With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct the U.S. Customs Service (“U.S. Customs”) to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being utilized in a covered application. If such information is provided, the Department will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in a covered application as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-335 specification is being used in an A-106 application, it will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally the Department will require only the importer of record to certify to the end-use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, the
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.
In accordance with section 735(a) of the Act, on June 26, 2000, the Department published its affirmative final determination of the antidumping duty investigation of certain large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe from Mexico (
In accordance with section 735(e) of the Act, we have determined that a ministerial error was made in our final margin calculations. For a more detailed discussion of the ministerial error allegations,
On August 3, 2000, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) notified the Department that a U.S. industry is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A) of the Act by reason of imports of certain large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe from Mexico.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price or constructed export price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe from Mexico. This antidumping duty will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of imports of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 4, 2000, the date of publication of the Department's preliminary determination in the
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to certain large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe from Mexico, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect.
This order is issued and published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
August 11, 2000.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the time limit for the final results of the 1998-1999 antidumping duty administrative review for the antidumping order on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. This review covers the period March 1, 1998, through February 28, 1999. The extension is made pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (hereinafter, “the Act”).
Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202) 482-2243.
Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory time limit of 365 days. In the instant case, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory time limit.
Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time limits mandated by the Act (245 days from the last day of the anniversary month for preliminary results, 120 additional days for final results), in accordance with Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for the final results no later than October 4, 2000.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative review.
On April 6, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
August 11, 2000.
Michael Grossman or Darla Brown, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2786.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, this review covers Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari A.S. (BBBF) and Borusan Ihracat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S. (Dagitim), an affiliated trading company that exports BBBF-produced subject merchandise to the United States (
We published the preliminary results on April 6, 2000 (65 FR 18070). We invited interested parties to comment on the results. We received no comments from any of the parties.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions of the Act as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1, 1995. The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. All citations to the Department's regulations reference 19 CFR Part 351 (1999), unless otherwise indicated.
Imports covered by this review are shipments from Turkey of certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube, having an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not more than 16 inches, of any wall thickness. These products, commonly referred to in the industry as standard pipe and tube or structural tubing, are produced to various American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications, most notably A-53, A-120, A-135, A-500, or A-501. These products are classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as item number 7306.30.10. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
During the period of review (POR), BBBF exported subject merchandise to the United States through Dagitim, a trading company. A questionnaire response was required from Dagitim because the subject merchandise may be subsidized by means of subsidies provided to both the producer and the exporter. All subsidies conferred on the production and exportation of subject merchandise benefit the subject merchandise even if it is exported to the United States by an unaffiliated trading company rather than by the producer itself. Therefore, the Department calculates countervailable subsidy rates on the subject merchandise by cumulating subsidies provided to the producer, with those provided to the exporter.
Under section 351.107 of the Department's Regulations, when the subject merchandise is exported to the United States by a company that is not the producer of the merchandise, the Department may establish a “combination” rate for each combination of an exporter and supplying producer. However, as noted in the “Explanation of the Final Rules” (the Preamble to the Department's Regulations), there may be situations in which it is not appropriate or practicable to establish combination rates when the subject merchandise is exported by a trading company. In such situations, the Department will make exceptions to its combination rate approach on a case-by-case basis.
In this review, we determine that it is not appropriate to establish combination rates. This determination is based on the fact that the subsidies conferred upon the subject merchandise were received by the producer only. Therefore, combination rates would serve no practical purpose. Instead, we have only calculated one rate, for BBBF, the producer of the subject merchandise.
Despite a persistently high rate of inflation in Turkey, Turkish companies do not index any of the figures (other than fixed assets) in their financial statements to account for inflation. During the POR, Turkey continued to experience high inflation. Indexing the benefit and the sales figures will neutralize any potential distortion in our subsidy calculations caused by high inflation and the timing of the receipt of the subsidy.
Therefore, to calculate the
There were no comments submitted to the Department with respect to our preliminary results of review; therefore, based upon the questionnaire responses we determine the following:
In the preliminary results, we found that this program conferred countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise. Our review of the record has not led us to change any findings or calculations. Accordingly, the net subsidy for this program is 0.12 percent
In the preliminary results, we found that this program conferred countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise. Our review of the record has not led us to change any findings or calculations. Accordingly, the net subsidy for this program is 0.08 percent
In the preliminary results, we determined that the enabling legislation does not expressly limit access to an enterprise or industry; therefore, the subsidy is not
We have determined that the producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply for or receive benefits under the following programs during the POR:
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an
As provided for in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), any rate less than 0.5 percent
Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named.
We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. If such a review has not been conducted, the rate established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding pursuant to the statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments is applicable.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Commission announces the third meeting of the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) on diisononyl phthalate (DINP). The Commission appointed this CHAP to advise the Commission on any chronic hazards of cancer, birth defects, and gene mutations associated with children's products containing DINP.
The meeting will be held from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm on September 12 and from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm on September 13, 2000.
The meeting will be held in the fourth floor hearing room in the Commission's offices at 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Marilyn Wind, Directorate for Health Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone (301) 504-0477, ext. 1205; email mwind@cpsc.gov.
The Commission has been concerned with potential risks posed to children under 3 years of age by the plasticizer diisononyl phthalate (DINP), which is used to soften some children's teethers, rattles, and toys made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC). DINP can leach from such products when they are mouthed, causing some DINP to be absorbed through mucous membranes. DINP has been shown to cause liver and other organ toxicity in laboratory animals. Also, the Commission has received a petition (No. HP 99-1) from the National Environmental Trust and eleven other organizations asking that the Commission ban PVC in certain children's products.
The Commission appointed a seven-member CHAP to evaluate the existing scientific information regarding chronic hazards posed by DINP and the implications of these hazards on risk to children. The CHAP members were selected from scientists recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.
The third CHAP meeting will be from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm on September 12 and from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm on September 13, 2000. The purpose of the meeting is for the CHAP to discuss draft sections of the report they will submit to the Commission.
The meeting is open to the public. However, the CHAP will not entertain public comment during this meeting. The period for written public comment to the CHAP closed on June 13, 2000. Oral comment was also entertained by the CHAP on June 20, 2000 during its second meeting. See,
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice for public comments.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. This form is available in alternative formats. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY/TDD) may call (202) 565-2799 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
Currently, the Corporation is soliciting comments concerning the revision of its National Senior Service Corps Project Grant Application (OMB Control Number 3045-0035, with an expiration date of 12/31/2000). Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Send comments to the Corporation for National and Community Service, National Senior Service Corps, Attn: Peter L. Boynton, Program Officer, 1201 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20525.
Peter Boynton, (202) 606-5000, ext. 499, or e-mail to pboynton@cns.gov.
The Corporation is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's 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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The National Senior Service Corps Grant Application is submitted by prospective grantees to apply for or renew sponsorship of projects under the National Senior Service Corps Programs—the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), Foster Grandparent Program (FGP), Senior Companion Program (SCP), and/or Senior Corps Demonstration Program. The application serves as the foundation for making award decisions. Completion of the application is required to obtain or retain sponsorship of a Senior Corps local project.
The Corporation proposes to revise the National Senior Service Corps Grant Application in order to: (1) Reflect evolution in programming that places greater emphasis on measurable accomplishments and impact in the community and meeting the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA); (2) streamline the instructions for greater clarity and ease of completion; (3) eliminate redundant or unused sections and/or pages, such as the Five Element Statement page; (4) standardize submission of certain types of information, such as the Active Volunteer Station Lists; (5) strengthen the project work plan as a more comprehensive planning and reporting tool; and (6) update current page 13
Once finalized and approved, the Grant Application will be completed by all public and private, non-profit organizations applying for National Senior Service Corps sponsorship when the proposed grant start date will be July 1, 2001 or thereafter. Three year approval of the Grant Application is proposed.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice; correction.
The Corporation for National and Community Service published a document in the
For further information, contact Rhonda Taylor, (202) 606-5000, ext. 282. You may request this notice in an alternative format for the visually impaired by calling (202) 606-5000, ext. 262. The Corporation's T.D.D. number is (202) 565-2799 and is operational between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. local time in Washington, D.C.
In the
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the Navy's Advisory Subcommittee on Naval History, a subcommittee of the Department of Defense Historical Advisory Committee, is meeting to review Naval historical activities since the last meeting of the Advisory Subcommittee on Navy History on September 16 and 17, 1999, and to make comments and recommendations on these activities to the Secretary of the Navy. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 21, 2000, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and on Friday, September 22, 2000, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held in Building 1 of the Naval Historical Center, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC.
The Director of Naval History, 805 Kidder Breese Street, SE, Bldg. 57 Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC 20374-5060, or call Dr. William S. Dudley at telephone number (202) 433-2210.
This notice of meting is provided in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).
Take notice that on August 1, 2000, Discovery Gas Transmission LLC (Discovery), filed original and revised tariff sheets to remove tariff provisions that are inconsistent with the Commission's decision in Order No. 637 to remove the rate ceiling on capacity release transactions of less than one year, and to modify eligibility requirements for right of first refusal. Discovery proposes an effective date of September 1, 2000.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on July 25, 2000, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Company (FG&E of the Company), tendered for filing refund calculations discussed in the Company's January 21, 2000 Revisions to the Open Access Transmission Tariff filed in the above-referenced docket.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before August 17, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on July 31, 2000, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to become effective August 1, 2000.
National states that under Article II, Section 2, of the settlement, it is required to recalculate the maximum Interruptible Gathering (IG) rate monthly and to charge that rate on the first day of the following month if the result is an IG rate more than 2 cents above or below the IG rate as calculated under section 1 of Article II. The recalculation produced an IG rate of 19 cents per dth.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on August 1, 2000, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 360 and First Revised Sheet No. 362, with a proposed effective date of September 1, 2000.
National Fuel states that the purpose of the instant filing is to comply with Order No. 637 by reflecting the waiver of the rate ceiling, until September 30, 2002, for short-term capacity release transactions.
National Fuel states that copies of this filing were served upon its customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on August 1, 2000, Sabine Pipe Line LLC (Sabine) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective September 1, 2000:
Sabine states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's Orders Nos. 637 and 637-A issued February 9, 2000 and May 19, 2000, in Docket Nos. RM98-10-000, RM98-12-000, and RM98-10-001. Specifically, Sabine is revising its tariff in compliance with the Commission's orders revising capacity release regulations and the right of first refusal procedures.
Sabine states that copies of this filing are being mailed to its customers, state commissions and other interested parties. In accordance with the
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on July 31, 2000, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets contained in Appendix A of its filing.
The filing reflects the request of Texas Gas to be given approval to enter into negotiated rate transactions with its customers, per policies issued January 31, 1996 in Docket Nos. RM95-6 and RM96-7. The filing also modifies Texas Gas's tariff to expressly state in the tariff the types of generic discounts that may be agreed to by Texas Gas and its customers without the need to file the individual discount agreements as non-conforming service agreements.
Copies of the revised tariff sheets are being mailed to Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance.
Take notice that on July 31, 2000, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc. (Williams), tended for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets contained in Appendix A to its filing, to become effective September 1, 2000.
The filing reflects the request of Williams to be given approval to enter into negotiated rate transactions with its customers, per policies issued January 31, 1996 in Docket Nos. RM95-6 and RM96-7. The filing also modifies Williams's tariff to expressly state in the tariff the types of generic discounts that may be agreed to by Williams and its shippers without the need to file the individual discount agreements as non-conforming service agreements.
Copies of the revised tariff sheet are being mailed to Williams's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fedus/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of request for nominations.
As manager of the operations of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, EPA invites nominations of qualified candidates to consider for appointment to fill vacancies on the Board. Nominations are welcome on an ongoing basis. Current vacancies on this committee are scheduled to be filled by September 1, 2000.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of request for nominations.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to fill vacancies on the National and Governmental Advisory Committees to the U.S. Representative to the North American Commission for
Submit nominations to: Mark Joyce, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1601A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20004.
Mark Joyce, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1601A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004; telephone 202-564-9802; fax 202-501-0661; email
The National and Governmental Advisory Committees advise the Administrator of the EPA in the Administrator's capacity as the U.S. Representative to the Council of the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation. The Committees are authorized under Articles 17 and 18 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182 and as directed by Executive Order 12915, entitled “Federal Implementation of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.” The Committees are responsible for providing advice to the United States Representative on a wide range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory and economic issues related to implementation and further elaboration of the NAAEC. The National Advisory Committee consists of 12 representatives of environmental groups and non-profit entities, business and industry, and educational institutions. The Governmental Advisory Committee consists of 12 representatives from state, local and tribal governments. Members are appointed by the Administrator of EPA for a two year term with the possibility of reappointment. The Committees each meet 3 times annually.
Nominations for membership must include a resume describing the professional and educational qualifications of the nominee and the nominee's current business address and daytime telephone number.
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7167 or www.epa.gov/oeca/ofa.
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167.
An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20157).
ERP No. D-COE-E35085-MS Rating EU2, Destination Broadwater Project, Proposed Redevelopment and Construction of a large-scale Casino Destination Resort in Biloxi, Approval of Permits for Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act and Section 404 of the CWA, Harrison County, MS.
ERP No. D-COE-E36178-00 Rating LO, Wolf River Ecosystem Restoration, Memphis, Tennessee Feasibility Study, Marshall, Benton and Tippah Counties, MS and Shelby, Fayette and Harderman, TN.
ERP No. D-COE-H36108-NB Rating EC2, Sand Creek Watershed Restoration Project, To Develop Environmental Restoration, City of Wahoo, Saunders County, NB.
ERP No. D-NPS-E61075-FL Rating EC2, Dry Tortugas National Park General Management Plan, Implementation, Monroe County, FL.
ERP No. DS-NOA-E64016-FL Rating EC2, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), Comprehensive Management Plan, Updated Information, Proposal to Establish a No-Take Ecological Reserve in the Tortugas Region, FL.
ERP No. F-AFS-F65026-MN, Gunflint Corridor Fuel Reduction, Implementation, Superior National Forest, Gunflint Ranger District, Cook County, MN.
ERP No. F-DOE-E09804-FL, JEA Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) Combustor Project, 300 Megawatt-Electric, Coal and Petroleum Coke-Fired, CFB Combustor and Boiler to Repower an existing Steam Turbine at JEA's North-side Generating Station Construction and Operation, Funding, Jacksonville, Duval County, FL.
ERP No. F-FRC-K05055-CA, Potter Valley Project Proposed Changes in Minimum Flow Requirements, License Amendment, (FERC Project No. 77-110), Lake and Mendocino Counties, CA.
ERP No. F-TVA-E65054-TN, Tellico Reservoir Land Management Plan, Implementation of Seven Mainstream and Two Tributary Reservoirs, Blount, Loudon and Monroe, Tn.
ERP No. R-APH-A99020-00, Pipeline Safety: Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—Region X.
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Pogo Gold Mine Project in Delta Junction, Alaska.
In accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), EPA has identified a need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and therefore issues this Notice of Intent in accordance with 40 CFR 1507.7.
Matthew Harrington, EIS Project Officer, Office of Water, (M/S-130), U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone: (206) 553-0246.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will evaluate the impacts associated with the development of a 1.3 million ton per year gold mine in the Goodpaster Valley, 38 miles northeast of Delta Junction, Alaska. The project would consist of an underground mine designed to feed gold ore to the mill at an initial rate of approximately 2,500 tons per day (tpd). This would increase to 3,500 tpd over time. The property
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meetings.
EPA, supported by the Coast Guard and other Federal agencies, is hosting three regional public information hearings to gather information regarding the management of wastewater, solid waste, hazardous waste, and other discharges by cruise ships. These hearings are part of an information gathering effort to prepare an assessment of the quality and quantity, environmental impacts, existing control measures, and possible regulation of discharges from cruise ships. Information is being sought from the cruise ship industry, the public and other interested parties. These three information hearings will provide an opportunity for the interested public to provide input into our assessment of waste management on cruise ships.
See
See
For further information on the hearings or our approach to the assessment of cruise ship discharges, write to the Marine Pollution Control Branch, ATTN: Cruise Ships, US Environmental Protection Agency, MC 4504F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460, or send an email to Cruise.Ships@epa.gov. You may also call Dorn Carlson at telephone 202/260-6411, or Tom Charlton at telephone 202/260-6960. For information about a specific hearing, please call the Regional contact for that hearing: Los Angeles, CA, Allan Ota (EPA Region 9), 415/744-1980; Juneau, AK, Steve Torok (EPA Region 10), 907/586-7658; Miami, FL, Bob Howard (EPA Region 4), 404/562-9370.
1. Wednesday, September 6, 2000, Session I, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., and Session II, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., in Los Angeles, CA—Multipurpose Room, Port of Los Angeles, Port Plaza, 100 West 5th St., San Pedro, CA 90731.
2. Friday, September 8, 2000, Session I, from 12 Noon to 6 p.m., and Session II, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., in Juneau, AK—Centennial Hall, 101 Egan Drive, Sheffield Ballroom #3, Juneau, AK 99801.
3. Tuesday, September 12, 2000, Session I, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., and Session II, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Miami, FL—Embassy Suites Hotel, 3974 NW South River Drive, Miami, FL 33142.
Anyone who plans to speak at any of these hearings should write, call or email a request to speak to the address listed above in the
We will make every effort to accommodate your request, but because we do not know how many speakers will come forward, we cannot guarantee that you will be given all the time you request.
To assure that adequate time is alloted for each speaker, please send all requests to present oral comments at the public hearing by August 23, 2000.
To assure we have time to review all written information before completing our assessment, please send all written information by August 23, 2000.
The discharges of particular interest from cruise ships are gray water (wastewater from baths, sinks and galleys), black water (wastewater from toilets), oily bilge water, solid waste (
Specific information that we are requesting for wastewater, solid waste, and hazardous materials includes:
(1) Quantities and properties;
(2) Methods of discharge or disposal;
(3) Locations of discharge or disposal, such as outside of State waters, 10 miles from port, or in-port waste receptacles;
(4) Environmental impacts; and
(5) Existing regulatory or voluntary controls.
As we consider the range of environmental issues concerning these cruise ship discharges, we are also interested in learning about voluntary environmental management programs and standards used by various cruise ships. We are interested in hearing about new and alternative approaches being proposed or used by the cruise ship industry or by public-private partnerships. These approaches may include: environmental management systems based on ISO 14000 and/or the International Safety Management (ISM) System Code; environmental certification programs developed by Ship Classification Societies; and local or regional Memoranda of Understanding or other agreements between the industry, government, and other stakeholders. We are interested in a comprehensive picture of how various pollution prevention programs are currently being used and how these efforts might be advanced to protect the marine environment. In addition, we are soliciting comments on whether we should consider changes to existing controls or regulations or add new regulations for control of these discharges in order to more adequately protect the environment from the effects of these discharges.
We are not attempting to collect information or comment on air emissions from cruise ships, or on possible impacts of cruise ships other than from their waste management or discharge practices, at these public information hearings.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a meeting of the National Advisory Committee (NAC) and Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).
The National and Governmental Advisory Committees advise the Administrator of the EPA in the Administrator's capacity as the U.S. Representative to the Council of the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation. The Committees are authorized under Articles 17 and 18 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182 and as directed by Executive Order 12915, entitled “Federal Implementation of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.” The Committees are responsible for providing advice to the United States Representative on a wide range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory and economic issues related to implementation and further elaboration of the NAAEC. The National Advisory Committee consists of 12 representatives of environmental groups and non-profit entities, business and industry, and educational institutions. The Governmental Advisory Committee consists of 12 representatives from state, local and tribal governments.
The Committees will meet on Thursday, September 7, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., and on Friday, September 8, 2000 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The Embassy Suites Hotel at San Diego Bay, 601 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California. The meeting is open to the public, with limited seating on a first-come, first-served basis.
Mr. Mark Joyce, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. EPA, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, at (202) 564-9802.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces public meetings and a request for public comment sponsored by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). The meetings and the request for comments
Please see Attachment to this notice.
Please see Attachment to this notice for public meeting locations.
Al Zemsky, Senior External Advisor, Air Division, [AIR-1], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1262.
The WRAP, comprising governors from Western states, tribal leaders and federal agency representatives, is seeking public comment on a proposal to reduce regional emissions from stationary sources of sulfur dioxide (SO
The dates, times, and locations of the public meetings and the availability of the documents to be reviewed for comment are described in the Attachment to this notice.
42 U.S.C. 7401
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), comprising governors from 12 Western states, tribal leaders and federal agency representatives, is seeking public comment on a proposal to reduce regional emissions from stationary sources of sulfur dioxide (SO
The WRAP is seeking public comment on several documents, including: (1) The draft final recommendations; (2) a memorandum of understanding; and, (3) a draft model rule. Complete details of the program are available at
The WRAP was created as the successor organization to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC), which made over 70 recommendations in June 1996 for improving visibility in 16 national parks and wilderness areas on the Colorado Plateau. The Partnership promotes, supports and monitors implementation of those recommendations throughout the West.
Under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Regional Haze Rule, nine of the Western states have the option to comply using the GCVTC's regional visibility protection program. The optional program requires the establishment of a regional emission target for 2018, in addition to interim targets. The recommendations and options regarding the market trading program were developed over the last two years by WRAP committees comprising a diverse group of stakeholders including industry, environmental groups and academia.
Other pollutants and pollution sources—vehicles, fires, smaller industrial sources—will be addressed in programs over the next few years. The final WRAP recommendations will be submitted to EPA by October 2, 2000. EPA will consider the market trading program as part of its formal rulemaking process for the Regional Haze Rule.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of availability of a draft document for public review and comment.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of a Science Advisory Board (SAB) review draft of the Health Assessment Document for Diesel Exhaust (EPA/600/8-90/057E, July 2000) for public review and comment. The document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The public comment period begins August 11, 2000. Comments must be in writing and must be postmarked by September 29, 2000.
The primary distribution method for the SAB review draft document will be via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's (NCEA) web site at http://www.epa.gov/ncea under the What's New and Publications menus. A limited number of paper copies are available from NCEA's Technical Information Staff, (telephone: 202-564-3261; facsimile: 202-565-0050; e-mail: nceadc.comment@epa.gov). If you are requesting a paper copy, please provide your name, mailing address, and the title and number of the draft, Health Assessment Document for Diesel Exhaust (EPA/600/8-90/057E, July 2000).
Comments may be mailed to: Diesel Comments, NCEA-W/TIS (8623D), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Please note that all technical comments received in response to this notice will be placed in a public record. For that reason, commenters should not submit personal information (such as medical data or home address), Confidential Business Information, or information protected by copyright. Due to limited resources, acknowledgments will not be sent.
For information contact the Technical Information Staff, NCEA-W (8623D), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 202-564-3261; facsimile: 202-565-0050; e-mail: nceadc.comment@epa.gov.
This revised draft assessment updates an earlier draft (November 1999) by responding to peer-review comments dated February 2000 from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of the EPA's SAB. The assessment focuses on health hazards (hazard identification and dose-response analysis for the purpose of characterizing the risk of diesel exhaust exposure), and also provides background information about diesel engine emissions and exposure that is useful for putting the health information into context. EPA risk assessment methods and practices have been followed in identifying possible human chronic health hazards for adverse noncancer effects as well as carcinogenicity hazards. The Diesel Review Panel of the CASAC will meet later this year to review this draft Health Assessment Document for Diesel Exhaust. The meeting will be announced in a subsequent
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of proposed settlement.
Under Section 122(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to enter into a settlement to settle claims for response costs at the Geiger (C & M Oil) Superfund Site in Rantowles, Charleston County, South Carolina, with the following parties: Textron Inc. and Avco Corporation in Providence Rhode Island and Charleston Packaging Company, Inc., located in North Charleston, South Carolina.
EPA will consider public comments on the proposed settlement for thirty days. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. Copies of the proposed settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Waste Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, 404/562-8887.
Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor at the above address on or before September 11, 2000.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the sixth meeting of the Technological Advisory Council (“Council”), which will be held at the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, DC.
Wednesday, September 27, 2000 at 10 a.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. S.W., Room TW-C305, Washington DC 20554.
Kent Nilsson at knilsson@fcc.gov or 202-418-0845.
The Council was established by the Federal Communications Commission to provide a means by which a diverse array of recognized technical experts from a variety of interests such as industry, academia, government, citizens groups,
The purpose of this sixth meeting will be to hear and discuss the progress of the three focus groups established by the Council to consider the issues the FCC presented to it at its April 30, 1999 meeting. These issues include: (1) The current state of the art for software defined radios, cognitive radios, and similar devices, future developments for these technologies, and ways that the availability of such technologies might affect the FCC's traditional approaches to spectrum management; and the current state of knowledge of electromagnetic noise levels and the effects of such noise on the reliability of existing and future communications systems; (2) the current technical trends in telecommunications services, changes that might decrease, rather than increase, the accessibility of telecommunications services by persons with disabilities and ways the FCC might best communicate to designers of emerging telecommunications network architectures, the requirements for accessibility; and (3) the telecommunications common carrier network interconnection scenarios that are likely to develop, including the technical aspects of cross network (
Members of the general public may attend the meeting. The Federal Communications Commission will attempt to accommodate as many persons as possible. However, admittance will be limited to the seating available. Depending on the Council's progress at this meeting, public participation may be permitted at the discretion of the Council's Chairman.
Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e).
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of information collection to be submitted to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
In accordance with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Information about this submission, including copies of the proposed collection of information, may be obtained by calling or writing the FDIC contact listed above.
The collection ensures that law firms that seek to provide legal services to the FDIC meet the eligibility requirements established by Congress.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of New York, FEMA-1335-DR, dated July 21, 2000, and related determinations.
August 1, 2000.
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472; (202) 646-3772.
The notice of a major disaster for the State of New York is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 21, 2000:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of North Dakota FEMA-1334-DR, dated June 27, 2000, and related determinations.
August 2, 2000.
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472; (202) 646-3772.
The notice of a major disaster for the State of North Dakota is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 27, 2000:
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 25, 2000.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
10:00 a.m., Wednesday, August 16, 2000.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Closed.
1. Proposed acquisition of commercial check image services system within the Federal Reserve System.
2. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.
3. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204.
You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation's (ASPE) Office of Human Services Policy announces that it will award a non-
The purpose of this cooperative agreement is to support research to understand the impacts of welfare reform and welfare to work programs on low-income individuals, families, and the communities in which they live, with an emphasis on urban areas.
ASPE will have substantial involvement in all stages of the project, including: identifying potential questions that could be answered using the data; prioritizing among them based on the available resources; determining appropriate methods of data analysis; reviewing draft papers and reports; and assisting in their dissemination.
The goal of ASPE in entering into this cooperative agreement is to improve our understanding of the impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 in urban areas.
This cooperative agreement is authorized under section 1110 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1310) and the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-78).
Assistance will be provided to MDRC. No other applications are solicited. ASPE is committed to supporting high-quality research in the area of welfare policy, and has a particular interest in understanding the effects of welfare reform in urban areas. Most welfare reform studies to date have not been in large cities, and thus have not addressed the challenges posed by high levels of unemployment and by concentrated poverty. These questions are critical because caseloads have not declined as much in cities as in other parts of the country, and also because the lessons from urban areas may be applicable elsewhere in the case of an economic downturn.
ASPE believes that MDRC is uniquely qualified to work with ASPE to meet this goal for the following reasons:
1. The Project on Devolution and Urban Change presents a unique opportunity to learn about the implementation and impacts of welfare reform in four large urban areas “ Cleveland, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Miami. MDRC has an ongoing working relationship with key officials in each city and has already obtained commitments from the state and local governments in these areas to provide extensive longitudinal administrative data for research purposes.
2. This project brings together data from an unusually wide array of sources: longitudinal administrative data for all families receiving AFDC/TANF or Food Stamps dating back to 1992; survey data; an implementation study; neighborhood indicators; an institutional study focusing on local service providers; and an ethnographic study of a limited number of families. This will allow the researchers to capture effects that might be missed in one approach, and to improve our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. It is unlikely that this breadth of sources could be replicated. MDRC has assembled a multi-disciplinary team of distinguished researchers to collect and analyze this data.
3. This project leverages a substantial commitment of private sector funding. Of the total $20.4 million cost of the Project on Devolution and Urban Change, over $16 million has already been committed by private funders, with an additional $1.7 million in pending proposals. This funding allows for a breadth of research far beyond what could be purchased with the federal support alone.
4. MDRC is one of the pre-eminent institutions in the area of welfare and welfare-to-work research, having conducted projects in over 400 communities in 40 states. MDRC has developed a reputation for objective, high-quality work. This project will involve several of MDRC's senior researchers, as well as consultants who are recognized as leaders in their areas of concentration.
Approximately $900,000 is available in FY 2000 for a one-year project period of this cooperative agreement. A portion of this support is provided by the Administration for Children and Families, HHS, and the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
If you are interested in obtaining additional information regarding this project, contact Ms. Elizabeth Lower-Basch, Office of Human Services Policy, ASPE, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Room 404E, Washington, DC, 20201 or telephone: 202 690-6808.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, HHS.
Notice of September 7-8 and October 11-12 Meetings.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces the third and fourth meetings of the Technical Review Panel on the Medicare Trustees Reports (the Panel). These meetings are open to the public.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463 (the Federal Advisory Committee Act), the Panel was established on August 12, 1999, by the Secretary of HHS to review the methods and assumptions underlying the annual reports of the Board of Trustees of the Hospital Insurance and Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.
The third meeting will be held on September 7, 2000 (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and September 8, 2000 (9 a.m. to 1 p.m.). The fourth meeting will be held on October 11, 2000 (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and October 12, 2000 (9 a.m. to 1 p.m.).
The meeting will be held at the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) Headquarters, Conference Center, Room C-112, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland.
Ariel Winter, Executive Director, Technical Review Panel on the Medicare Trustees Reports, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 442E, 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20201, (202) 690-6860, medpanel@osaspe.dhhs.gov. Additional information is also available on the Panel's web site: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/medpanel.htm.
The Board of Trustees of the Medicare Trust Funds (the Hospital Insurance (HI) and Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Funds) report annually on the funds' financial condition. The reports
The panel's review will include the following four topics:
1. Medicare assumptions (
2. Projection methodology (how assumptions are used to make cost projections)
3. Long-range growth assumptions for HI and SMI
4. Use of stochastic forecasting techniques.
The Panel consists of six members who are experts in the fields of economics and actuarial science: Dale Yamamoto, F.S.A., M.A.A.A., F.C.C.A., E.A., B.S.—Chair; Len Nichols, Ph.D.; David Cutler, Ph.D.; Michael Chernew, Ph.D.; James Robinson, F.S.A., M.A.A.A., Ph.D.; and Alice Rosenblatt, F.S.A., M.A.A.A., M.A. The members' terms will end August 12, 2001. Sam Gutterman, F.S.A., F.C.A.S., M.A.A.A., M.A., is a consultant to the Panel.
The Panel's third meeting will be held on September 7, 2000 (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and September 8, 2000 (9 a.m. to 1 p.m.). The fourth meeting will be held on October 11, 2000 (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and October 12, 2000 (9 a.m. to 1 p.m.). The meetings will be held at the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) Headquarters, Conference Center, Room C-112, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland. The meetings are open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. The Panel's first meeting was held June 28-29, 2000, and the second meeting was held July 26-27, 2000.
At its third and fourth meetings, the Panel will discuss findings from its subgroups on the following five topics:
1. Medicare Assumptions
2. Projection Methodology
3. Long-Range Growth Assumptions
4. Uncertainty (stochastic forecasting, alternative assumptions, sensitivity)
5. Report Presentation Issues/Research and Data.
Individuals or organizations that wish to make 5-minute oral presentations on the agenda issues mentioned in this notice should contact the Executive Director by 5 p.m. on August 25, 2000. The number of oral presentations may be limited to the time available. A written copy of the presenters' oral remarks should be submitted to the Executive Director no later than 5 p.m. on August 31, 2000, for distribution to the Panel members.
Any interested member of the public may submit written comments to the Executive Director and Panel members for review. Comments should be received by the Executive Director by 5 p.m. on August 31, 2000, for distribution to the Panel members.
Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired and/or other special accommodation, should contact Ariel Winter at (202) 690-6860 by August 25, 2000.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.
This notice is published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to administrative delays.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Botanical Drug Products.” This draft guidance explains the circumstances under which FDA approval of a new drug application (NDA) is required for marketing of a botanical drug product and when such a product may be marketed under an over-the-counter (OTC) drug monograph. It also provides guidance to researchers and manufacturers on conducting initial and expanded clinical investigations of botanical drug products. After evaluating the comments it receives, FDA will issue this guidance in final form to encourage the submission of investigational new drug applications (IND's) for botanical drugs.
Submit written comments on the draft guidance by October 10, 2000. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Copies of this draft guidance for industry are available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm. Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Drug Information Branch (HFD-210), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist the office in processing your request. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Requests and comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Yuan-yuan Chiu, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-800), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-5918.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Botanical Drug Products.” Botanical products are finished, labeled products that contain vegetable matter, which may include plant material, algae, macroscopic fungi, or combinations of these substances. Botanical products may be intended for use as drugs, foods (including dietary supplements), or cosmetics.
This guidance is intended to encourage the clinical study and submission for marketing approval of botanical drug products. The guidance explains the circumstances under which FDA approval of an NDA is required for marketing a botanical drug and when such a drug may be marketed under an OTC drug monograph. The draft also provides scientific and regulatory guidance to sponsors about conducting initial and expanded clinical investigations of botanical drugs, including those botanical products currently lawfully marketed as foods and dietary supplements in the United States. In particular, the guidance provides information on how the agency will interpret and apply to botanical drugs certain provisions of existing regulations on the submission of IND's (21 CFR part 312).
This level 1 draft guidance is being issued in accordance with FDA's good guidance practices (62 FR 8961, February 27, 1997). The draft guidance represents the agency's current thinking on the development of botanical drug products. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes, regulations, or both.
Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments on the draft guidance by October 10, 2000. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The draft guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH.
The entire meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will take place via conference call with the members. A speaker phone will be installed in the conference room for the public to listen to the discussion.
An opportunity for a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) is available for collaboration with the NCI intramural Structural Biophysics Laboratory 9SBL) to rationally design agonists and antagonists to hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). Collaborative projects will focus upon cancer and/or areas of infectious diseases of high public health significance and high national and international priority.
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, PHS, DHHS.
Notice of an opportunity for Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA).
Pursuant to the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (FTTA, 15 U.S.C. 3710; and Executive Order 12591 of April 10, 1987, as amended by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995), the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the Public Health Service (PHS) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) seeks one Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company to rationally design agonists and antagonists to hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). The CRADA would have an expected duration of one (1) to five (5) years. The goals of the CRADA include the rapid publication of research results and timely commercialization of products, methods of treatment or prevention that may result from the research. The CRADA Collaborator will have an option to negotiate the terms of an exclusive or non-exclusive commercialization license to subject inventions arising under the CRADA and which are the subject of the CRADA Research Plan.
Proposals and questions about this CRADA opportunity may be addressed to Jeffrey W. Thomas, Technology Development and Commercialization Branch, National Cancer Institute-Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, Fairview Center, Room 502, Frederick, MD 21701 (phone: 301-846-5465; fax: 301-846-6820; e-mail: jeffreyt@ mail.nih.gov).
Scientific inquiries should be submitted to Dr. R. Andrew Byrd, Chief, Structural Biophysics Laboratory, National Cancer Institute-Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, Bldg. 538, Room 120, Frederick, MD 21702-1201 (phone: 301-846-1407; Fax: 301-846-6231; e-mail rabyrd@ ncifcrf.gov).
Inquiries regarding CRADA proposals and scientific matters may be forwarded at any time. Confidential, preliminary CRADA proposals, preferably two pages or less, must be submitted to the NCI on or before September 11, 2000. Guidelines for preparing final CRADA proposals will be communicated shortly thereafter to all respondents with whom initial confidential discussions will be have established sufficient mutual interest.
The Structural Biophysics Laboratory, DBS, NCI is seeking a collaborative partner to pursue the rational design of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) agonists and antagonists. HGF is a secreted, heparin-binding protein that stimulates mitogenesis, motogenesis, and morphogenesis in a wide spectrum of cellular targets including epithelial, endothelial, and hematopoietic cells, as well as hepatocytes. HGF and its receptor, c-Met, are essential for embryonic development, and HGF signaling contributes to tissue repair and organ homeostasis throughout adulthood. Inherited activating mutations in c-Met are associated with renal papillary carcinoma, and ligand-stimulated pathway activation has been implicated in the growth, neovascularization, invasiveness, and metastasis of several other human tumors. The restorative, as well as the deleterious potential of this pathway make it a promising target for therapeutic intervention against several degenerative and neoplastic diseases. The HGF gene encodes full-length HGF, and two truncated isoforms (NK1 and NK2) which consist of the N-terminal domain (N) linked to the first one (K1) or two (K1+K2) kringle domains. Both truncated isoforms are motogenic; NK1 also retains the mitogenic and morphogenic potency of HGF, while NK2 is a competitive antagonist of these activities. The primary heparin and receptor binding sites of HGF reside in the N and K1 domains, respectively. Three dimensional structures of N and NK1 obtained using NMR spectroscopy and X-ray crystallography suggest that ligand dimerization, augmented by heparin binding, may facilitate receptor activation. This information provides the basis for [1] determining the solution structure of an NK1-heparin complex; [2] locating K2 in NK2 to learn the structural basis for its antagonistic properties; [3] identifying receptor binding residues in K1, [4] creating NK1 and NK2 mutants with altered heparin and receptor binding properties, and [5] assessing these proteins as activators or inhibitors of HGF signaling using cultured cells and intact animals. Achieving these goals will help elucidate the mechanism by which HGF
The Structural Biophysics Laboratory, DBS, NCI is seeking a collaborative partner with experience in HGF molecular biology to design and construct cDNAs encoding mutant NK1 and NK2 proteins. The SBL will determine the structural basis for the antagonistic properties of the HGF domains based on the solution structure. The collaborating partner in conjunction with the SBL will identify mutants based on the structural data provided by SBL that have the potential to address the ideas noted above. The collaborating partner will create the identified mutants, perform the initial expression, purification, and biological characterization of mutant proteins. In addition the collaborating partner will evaluate the mutants to determine the HGF agonist/antagonist properties in cultured cell lines and mice. The SBL and collaborating partner will jointly assess and interpret the data to understand the role of HGF in c-Met activation and to develop reagents to modulate HGF signaling. Accordingly, DHHS now seeks collaborative arrangements for the joint SBL and collaborator discovery research and development of rationally designed agonists and antagonists to HGF. For collaborations with the commercial sector, a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) will be established to provide for equitable distribution of intellectual property rights developed under the research plan of the CRADA.
The role of the National Cancer Institute in this CRADA will include, but not be limited to:
1. Providing intellectual, scientific, and technical expertise and experience to the research project.
2. Providing the Collaborator with NMR solution structure information to assist in the design of HGF agonists and antagonists.
3. Planning research studies and interpreting research results.
4. Publishing research results.
The role of the CRADA Collaborator may include, but not be limited to:
1. Providing significant intellectual, scientific, and technical expertise or experience to the research project.
2. Providing essential research materials, such as enzymes or other reagents, extracts, compounds, hardware or software.
3. Planning research studies, preparing and providing mutants and interpreting research results.
4. Providing technical expertise and/or financial support (
5. Publishing research results.
Selection criteria for choosing the CRADA Collaborator may include, but not be limited to:
1. The ability to collaborate with NCI on research and development of this technology involving rational design of HGF agonists and antagonists. This ability can be demonstrated through experience, expertise, and the ability to contribute intellectually in this or related areas.
2. The demonstration of adequate resources to perform the research, development and commercialization of this technology (
3. The willingness to commit best effort and demonstrated resources to the research, development and commercialization of this technology as defined above.
4. The demonstration of expertise in the commercial development, production, marketing and sales of antitumor products.
5. The willingness to cooperate with the National Cancer Institute in the timely publication of research results.
6. The agreement to be bound by the appropriate DHHS regulations relating to human subjects, PHS policies relating to the use and care of laboratory animals, and the dissemination of research tools according to NIH policy.
7. The willingness to accept the legal provisions and language of the CRADA with only minor modifications, if any. These provisions govern the equitable distribution of patent rights to CRADA inventions. Generally, the rights of ownership are retained by the organization that is the employer of the inventor, with (1) the grant of a license for research and other Government purposes to the Government when the CRADA Collaborator's employee is the sole inventor, or (2) the grant of an option to elect an exclusive or non-exclusive license to the CRADA Collaborator when the Government employee is the sole inventor.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the National Advisory Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NACCAM).
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The public comments session is scheduled on August 28 from 1:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. Each speaker will be permitted 5 minutes for their presentation. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations are requested to notify Dr. Richard Nahin, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, NIH, 31 Center Drive, (MSC 2182), Building 31, Room 5B36, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 301-496-4792, Fax: 301-402-4741. Letters of intent to present comments, along with a brief description of the organization represented, should be received no later than 5 p.m. on August 23, 2000. Only one representative of an organization may present oral comments. Any person attending the meeting who does not request an opportunity to speak in advance of the meeting may be considered for oral presentation, if time permits, and at the discretion of the Chairperson. In addition, written comments may be submitted to Dr. Nahin at the address listed above up to ten calendar days (Sept. 8, 2000) following the meeting.
Copies of the meeting agenda and the roster of members will be furnished upon request by Dr. Richard Nahin, Executive Secretary, NACCAM, National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room 5B36, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 496-4792, Fax: 301-402-4741.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Mental Health Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552(c)(4) and 552(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the PubMed Central National Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, August 14, 2000, 3 p.m. to August 14, 2000, 4:30 p.m. NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on August 17, 2000. The meeting times and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless
August 11, 2000.
Clifford Taffet, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of competitive coal lease sale.
Notice is hereby given that certain coal resources in the Horse Creek Tract described below in Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming, will be offered for competitive lease by sealed bid in accordance with the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181
The lease sale will be held at 2 p.m., on Thursday, September 7, 2000. Sealed bids must be submitted on or before 4 p.m., on Wednesday, September 6, 2000.
The lease sale will be held in the First Floor Conference Room (Room 107) of the BLM, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003. Sealed bids must be submitted to the Cashier, BLM, Wyoming State Office, at the address given above.
Mavis Love, Land Law Examiner, or Melvin Schlagel, Coal Coordinator, at (307) 775-6258 and (307) 775-6257, respectively.
This coal lease sale is being held in response to a lease by application (LBA) filed by Antelope Coal Company of Gillette, Wyoming. The coal resources to be offered consist of all reserves recoverable by surface mining methods in the following-described lands located on the border of Campbell and Converse Counties, approximately 20 miles southeast of Wright, Wyoming:
Containing 2,818.695 acres.
All of the acreage offered has been determined to be suitable for mining except for areas located within 100 feet of the main railroad right-of-way along the tract's eastern edge. The surface estate of the tract is controlled by Antelope Coal Company and a private owner. There are no oil and gas wells on the tract.
The tract is adjacent to the Antelope mine and contains surface minable coal reserves in two primary seams currently being recovered in this mine. The Anderson seam averages about 39 feet thick and the Canyon seam averages about 33 feet thick on the LBA. The Anderson has a split averaging just over 5 feet thick in small portions of the LBA and the Canyon has two splits averaging just over 12 and 17 feet thick in small portions of the LBA. The overburden above the main seams is up to 300 feet thick on the LBA along the northern boundary with the Anderson seam outcropping along Antelope Creek. Interburden between the primary seams ranges between 25-90 feet thick.
The Horse Creek LBA coal is ranked as subbituminous C. The overall average quality of the in-place reserves is 8890 BTU/lb, 26.83% moisture, 4.28% ash, 0.22% sulfur, and 1.49% sodium in the ash. These quality averages place the coal reserves at the high end of the range of coal quality currently being mined in the southern Powder River Basin south of Wright, Wyoming.
The tract contains an estimated 275,577,000 tons of minable coal in the Anderson and Canyon seams. This estimate of reserves includes the splits off the main seams mentioned above but does not include any tonnage from localized seams or splits containing less than 5 feet of coal. Potential bidders must reduce this estimate to account for mining losses associated with multiple seam recovery. In addition, coal reserves along the eastern boundary of the tract within 100 feet of the railroad right-of-way have been excluded from the minable reserves.
Finally, the approved mine plan for the Antelope mine avoids disturbing the Antelope Creek Valley, so any coal resources beneath Antelope Creek have been excluded. The cumulative stripping ratio for the minable reserves is approximately 2.6:1 (BCY/Ton) which includes overburden and interburden.
The tract in this lease offering contains split estate lands. There are qualified surface owners as defined in the regulations at 43 CFR 3400.0-5. Consent granted by the qualified surface owners has been filed with and verified by the Bureau of Land Management. The lands included in the consent are shown below:
Containing 999.945 acres more or less.
The purchase price of the consent is set out in Exhibit B, Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of Real Estate, attached to the Qualified Surface Owner Consent document.
The tract will be leased to the qualified bidder of the highest cash amount provided that the high bid equals the fair market value of the tract and other applicable requirements are met. The minimum bid for the tract is $100 per acre or fraction thereof. No bid that is less than $100 per acre, or fraction thereof, will be considered. The bids should be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, or be hand delivered. The Cashier will issue a receipt for each hand-delivered bid. Bids received after 4 p.m., on Wednesday, September 6, 2000, will not be considered. The minimum bid is not intended to represent fair market value. The fair market value of the tract will be determined by the Authorized Officer after the sale.
The lease issued as a result of this offering will provide for payment of an annual rental of $3 per acre, or fraction thereof, and of a royalty payment to the United States of 12.5 percent of the value of coal produced by strip or auger mining methods and 8 percent of the value of the coal produced by underground mining methods. The value of the coal will be determined in accordance with 30 CFR 206.250.
Bidding instructions for the tract offered and the terms and conditions of the proposed coal lease are available from the BLM, Wyoming State Office at the addresses above. Case file documents, WYW141435, are available for inspection at the BLM, Wyoming State Office.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The following public lands, are located in Maricopa County, Arizona have been examined, and found suitable for lease or conveyance under the
America's Buffalo Soldiers Re-Enactors Association proposes to use the lands for an educational facility.
Containing approximately 320.22 acres.
The lease or conveyance would be subject to the following terms, conditions and reservations:
1. Provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and all applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior.
2. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the minerals.
3. A right-of-way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States.
Hector Abrego at the Phoenix Field Office, 2015 W. Deer Valley Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85027; (623) 580-5674.
Upon publication of this notice in the
Interested parties may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for an educational facility. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the land for an educational facility.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification will become effective 60 days from the date of publication in the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.
Notice.
This notice terminates Recreation and Public Purposes Classification (R&PP) NMNM 24542 in its entirety and opens the surface and mineral estate to entry for direct sale pursuant to sections 203 and 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1713, 1719).
Termination of the Classification is effective upon publication of this notice. The land will be open to entry at 8 a.m. on September 25, 2000.
BLM, Las Cruces Field Office, 1800 Marquess, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005-3371.
Tim Sanders, Supervisory Multi-Resource Specialist, (505) 525-4373.
the original R&PP Lease was issued on December 31, 1975, to Our Lady's Youth Center. The lease terminated on June 10, 1997. Our Lady's Youth Center was afforded the opportunity to purchase the surface and mineral estate at fair market value. A NORA was published in the
Containing 320.00 acres, more or less.
The sale is in conformance with the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Assessment. The land will continue to be used as part of Our Lady's Youth Center located on the adjacent private land. The disposal/classification is consistent with the Bureau's planning efforts, State and local government programs, and applicable regulations.
The land has been examined and found suitable for disposal by direct sale pursuant to sections 203 and 209 of FLPMA of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1713, 1716). The direct sale will be subject to:
1. A reservation to the United States of right-of-way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States in accordance with the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the proposed direct sale or termination of the R&PP Classification to the BLM Las Cruces field Office Manager, 1800 Marquess, Las Cruces, NM 88005-3371. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Las Cruces Field Office Manager at the above address, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action becomes the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
Notice of a revision to a currently approved information collection (OMB Control Number 1010-0071).
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are submitting to OMB for review and approval an information collection request (ICR), titled “30 CFR Part 203, Relief or Reduction in Royalty Rates.” We are also soliciting comments from the public on this ICR.
Submit written comments by September 11, 2000.
You may submit comments directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (1010-0071), 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Mail or hand carry a copy of your comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention: Rules Processing Team; Mail Stop 4024; 381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Alexis London, Rules Processing Team, telephone (703) 787-1600. You may also contact Alexis London to obtain a copy at no cost of our submission to OMB, which includes the regulations that require this information to be collected.
Section 302 of the DWRRA provides that new production from a lease in existence on November 28, 1995, in a water depth of at least 200 meters, and in the GOM west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude qualifies for royalty suspension in certain situations. To grant a royalty suspension, the Secretary must determine that the new production or development would not be economic in the absence of royalty relief. The Secretary must then determine the volume of production on which no royalty would be due in order to make the new production from the lease economically viable. This determination must be done on a case-by-case basis.
In addition, Federal policy and statute require us to recover the cost of services that confer special benefits to identifiable non-Federal recipients. The Independent Offices Appropriation Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), OMB Circular A-25, and the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-133 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996) authorize MMS to collect these fees to reimburse us for the cost to process applications or assessments.
Regulations at 30 CFR part 203 implement these statutes and policy and require respondents to pay a fee to request royalty relief. Section 30 CFR 203.3 states that, “We will specify the necessary fees for each of the types of royalty-relief applications and possible MMS audits in a Notice to Lessees. We will periodically update the fees to reflect changes in costs, as well as provide other information necessary to administer royalty relief.” Our submission to OMB requests approval of revised application fees and establishment of a new category of applications (special relief for marginal operations) and associated fee. The fee revisions are based on our experience in administering the program over the past several years.
We use the information to make decisions on the economic viability of leases requesting a suspension or elimination of royalty or net profit share. These decisions have enormous monetary impacts to both the lessee and the Federal Government. Royalty relief can lead to increased production of natural gas and oil, creating profits for lessees and royalty and tax revenues for the Government that they might not otherwise receive. We could not make an informed decision without the collection of information required by 30 CFR part 203.
Responses are required to obtain or retain a benefit. We protect proprietary information respondents submit according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and 30 CFR 203.63(b) and 30 CFR 250.196. No items of a sensitive nature are collected.
On May 11, 2000, we published a
(a) Application and audit fees. The total annual estimated cost burden for these fees is $345,600 (refer to burden chart).
(b) Cost of reports prepared by independent certified public accountants (CPA). Under § 203.81, a report prepared by an independent CPA must accompany the application and post-production report (except expansion project, short form, and preview assessment applications are excluded). The OCS Lands Act applications will require this report only once; the DWRRA applications will require this report at two stages—with the application and post-production development report for successful applicants. We estimate approximately seven submissions each year at an average cost of $45,000 per report, for a total estimated annual cost burden of $315,000.
If you wish to comment in response to this notice, send your comments directly to the offices listed under the
United States International Trade Commission.
August 17, 2000 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agenda for future meeting: none
2. Minutes
3. Ratification List
4. Inv. No. 731-TA-859 (Final) (Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on August 25, 2000.)
5. Outstanding action jackets:
1.) Document No. EC-00-013: Approval of final report in Inv. No. 332-409 (The Impact on the U.S. Economy of Including the United Kingdom in a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Canada, and Mexico).
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
Notice is hereby given that, on June 29, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ALABC intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 15, 1992, ALABC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 3, 2000. A notice has not yet been published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 27, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Application Service Provider Industry Consortium, Inc., intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On July 28, 1999, Application Service Provider Industry Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 19, 2000. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 15, 1999, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and The ATM Forum intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 19, 1993, The ATM Forum filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 21, 1998. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 7, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and The ATM Forum intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 19, 1993, The ATM Forum filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 7, 2000. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 12, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Notice is hereby given that, on December 29, 1997, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and The Frame Relay Forum intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 10, 1992, The Frame Relay Forum filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 10, 1997. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on November 16, 1999, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Gas Utilization Research Forum (“GURF”) intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On December 19, 1990, Gas Utilization Research Forum (“GURF”) filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 18, 1999. A notice has not yet been published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 27, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and InfiniBand Trade Association intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On January 21, 2000, InfiniBand Trade Association filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 21, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and J Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 9, 1999, J Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 20, 2000. A notice has not yet been published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 25, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Notice is hereby given that, on May 9, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Notice is hereby given that, on November 3, 1998, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Ole for Process Control Foundation intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On July 15, 1996, Ole for Process Control Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 18, 1996. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 15, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
The nature and objectives of the venture are (a) to educate the market, sponsor research, foster standards and articulate the measurable benefits of personalization technologies and techniques; (b) to serve as a forum for discussion of related issues, sponsor industry research, develop open standards and guidelines and promote best practices; and (c) to undertake such other activities as may from time to time be appropriate to further the purposes and achieve the goals set forth above.
Notice is hereby given that, on June 27, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of this group research project. Membership in the project remains open, and PCA intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On January 7, 1985, PCA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on February 14, 2000. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 19, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Salutation
On March 30, 1995, Salutation Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 20, 2000. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 23, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and SDMI intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 28, 1999, SDMI filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 27, 2000. A notice has not yet been published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 5, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
The nature and objectives of the venture are to conduct research on an ultra-wideband RF technology that will enable precise tracking, data telemetry, and wireless Local Area Network (LAN) applications to run on the same infrastructure and operate within the existing Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum. The initial application is anticipated to be in a hospital environment. The activities of this joint venture project will be partially funded by an award from the Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Secretary of Labor has determined that the renewal of the Native American Employment and Training Council is in the public interest consistent with the requirements of title I, section 166(h)(4) of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA).
The Council will provide advice to the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training regarding the overall operation and administration of the Native American employment and training programs authorized under WIA title I, section 166, as well as the implementation of other programs providing services to Native American youth and adults under this act. The Assistant Secretary views the Council as the primary vehicle to accomplish the Department's commitment to work in partnership with the Indian and Native American community on employment and training issues.
The Council shall consist of no fewer than 17 members representing Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. These members shall be appointed by the Secretary from among individuals nominated by Indian tribes or Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian organizations. An equitable geographic distribution will be sought, including representation of both tribes and non-tribal Native American organizations. Council members shall not be compensated and shall not be deemed to be employees of the United States.
The Council shall function solely as an advisory body, and in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Its charter will be filed under the Act 15 days from the date of this publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the renewal of the Native American Employment and Training Council. Such comments should be addressed to: James C. DeLuca, Chief, Division of Indian and Native American Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Room N-4641, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. The voice telephone number is (202) 219-8502, ext. 119 (this is not a toll-free number).
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension collection of the following information collections: (1) Claimant Medical Reimbursement Form (CA-915); and (2) NCPDC Universal Pharmacy Billing Form (79-1A). Copies of the proposed information collection requests can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before October 10, 2000.
Ms. Patricia A. Forkel, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-0339 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 693-1451.
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) (5 U.S.C. 8101,
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's 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,
The Department of Labor seeks the extension of approval to collect this information in order to carry out its responsibility to provide payment for certain covered medical services to injured employees who are covered under the FECA.
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) (5 U.S.C. 8101, et. seq.), and the Federal Black Lung Benefits provisions of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act (30 U.S.C. 901 et. seq.). These statutes provide, in addition to compensation for employment-related injury and/or disability, payment to providers for certain medical treatment and diagnostic services related to the injury or disability. To determine whether the medical bills submitted by providers of medical services, drugs, equipment, supplies, and other therapy are appropriate, both FECA and Black Lung Programs require that the provider billing the government supply certain information. The National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP) Universal Pharmacy Billing form (79-1A) is in common use by pharmacies throughout the nation and considered the universal billing form for pharmaceuticals. It is the bill format commonly accepted by Federal programs and private insurance carriers for the purpose of reimbursement of covered pharmaceuticals.
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's 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 submissions of responses.
The Department of Labor seeks the extension of approval to collect this information in order to carry out its responsibility to provide payment for
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in 29 CFR part 1, appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wages payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract work of the character and in the localities described therein.
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the public interest.
General wage determination decisions, and modifications and supersedes decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are effective from their date of notice in the
Any person, organization, or governmental agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department. Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC 20210.
The number of decisions listed in the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts” being modified are listed by Volume and State. Dates of publication in the
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under The Davis-Bacon and Related Acts.” This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.
The general wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts are available electronically by subscription to the FedWorld Bulletin Board System of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce at 1-800-363-2068
Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) 512-1800.
When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the seven separate volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates are distributed to subscribers.
National Archives and Records Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101.6, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Preservation. NARA uses the Committee's recommendations on NARA's implementation of strategies for
September 21, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, lecture rooms C & D, College Park, MD 20740-6001.
Alan Calmes, Preservation Officer, 301-713-7403.
The agenda for the meeting will be Options for Recovering Human Speech from Erased AudioTape: A Technical Discussion.
1. Current condition and history of examinations of the original tape.
2. Evaluation of new technologies for recovering human speech through non-destructive examination.
3. Feasibility of recovering human speech from the erased tape.
4. Recommendations regarding further examinations.
This meeting will be open to the public, but seating may be limited.
2:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 23, 2000.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, 1325 G Street, NW., Suite 800, Board Room, Washington, DC 20005.
Open/Closed.
Jeffrey T. Bryson, General Counsel/Secretary, 202-220-2372.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of August 4, 21, 28, September 4, 11, and 18, 2000.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of August 28.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 4.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 11.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 18.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (Recording)—(301) 415-1292.
Bill Hill (301) 415-1661.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to it, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations Branch, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301-415-1661). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or dkw@nrc.gov.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Request for comment.
Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model safety evaluation (SE) relating to the elimination of requirements on post accident sampling imposed on licensees through orders, license conditions, or technical specifications. The NRC staff has also prepared a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination relating to this matter. The purpose of these models is to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to remove requirements for the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS). Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the models apply could request amendments confirming the applicability of the SE and NSHC determination to their reactors and providing the requested plant-specific verifications and commitments. The NRC staff is requesting comments on the model SE and model NSHC determination prior to announcing their availability for referencing in license amendment applications.
The comment period expires September 11, 2000. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Comments may be submitted either electronically or via U.S. mail.
Submit written comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Hand deliver comments to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Comments may be submitted by electronic mail to CLIIP@nrc.gov.
William Reckley, Mail Stop: O-8E2, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-1323.
Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, “Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specification Changes for Power Reactors,” was issued on March 20, 2000. The consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) is intended to improve the efficiency and transparency of NRC licensing processes. This is accomplished by processing proposed changes to the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) in a manner that supports subsequent license amendment applications. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the STS following a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and finding that the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. This notice is soliciting comment on a proposed change to the STS that removes requirements for the PASS. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed change to the STS and to either reconsider the change or to proceed with announcing the availability of the change for proposed adoption by licensees. Those licensees opting to apply for the subject change to technical specifications are responsible for reviewing the staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant-specific information. Each amendment application made in response to the notice of availability would be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable rules and NRC procedures.
This notice involves the elimination of requirements for PASS and related administrative controls in technical specifications. This proposed change was proposed for incorporation into the standard technical specifications by the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) and the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) participants in the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF-366.
This proposed change to remove requirements for PASS from technical specifications (and other elements of the licensing bases) is applicable to plants with Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering designs.
To efficiently process the incoming license amendment applications, the staff requests each licensee applying for the changes addressed by TSTF-366 using the CLIIP to address the following plant-specific verifications and regulatory commitments. The CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternative approach or proposing the changes without the requested verifications and regulatory commitments. Variations from the approach recommended in this notice may, however, require additional review by the NRC staff and may increase the time and resources needed for the review. In making the requested regulatory commitments, each licensee should address: (1) That the subject capability exists (or will be developed) and will be maintained; (2) where the capability or procedure will be described (e.g., severe accident management guidelines, emergency operating procedures, emergency plan implementing procedures); and (3) a schedule for implementation. The amendment request need not provide details about designs or procedures.
Each licensee should verify that it has, and make a regulatory commitment to maintain (or make a regulatory commitment to develop and maintain):
a. contingency plans for obtaining and analyzing highly radioactive samples from the reactor coolant system, containment sump, and containment atmosphere;
b. a capability for classifying fuel damage events at the Alert level threshold (typically this is 300 μCi/ml dose equivalent iodine). This capability may use the normal sampling system and/or correlations of sampling or letdown line dose rates to coolant concentrations; and
c. the capability to monitor radioactive iodines that have been released to offsite environs.
The staff issued a
This notice requests comments from interested members of the public within 30 days of the date of publication in the
In the aftermath of the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), Unit 2, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) imposed requirements on licensees for commercial nuclear power plants to install and maintain the capability to obtain and analyze post-accident samples of the reactor coolant and containment atmosphere. The desired capabilities of the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) were described in NUREG-0737, “Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements.” The NRC issued orders to licensees with plants operating at the time of the TMI accident to confirm the installation of PASS capabilities (generally as they had been described in NUREG-0737). A requirement for PASS and related administrative controls was added to the technical specifications (TS) of the operating plants and was included in the initial TS for plants licensed during the 1980s and 90s. Additional expectations regarding PASS capabilities were included in Regulatory Guide 1.97, “Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants To Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident.”
Significant improvements have been achieved since the TMI accident in the areas of understanding risks associated with nuclear plant operations and developing better strategies for managing the response to potentially severe accidents at nuclear plants. Recent insights about plant risks and alternate severe accident assessment tools have led the NRC staff to conclude that some TMI Action Plan items can be revised without reducing the ability of licensees to respond to severe accidents. The NRC's efforts to oversee the risks associated with nuclear technology more effectively and to eliminate undue regulatory costs to licensees and the public have prompted the NRC to consider eliminating the requirements for PASS in TS and other parts of the licensing bases of operating reactors.
The staff has completed its review of the topical reports submitted by the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) and the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) that proposed the elimination of PASS. The justifications for the proposed elimination of PASS requirements center on evaluations of the various radiological and chemical sampling and their potential usefulness in responding to a severe reactor accident or making decisions regarding actions to protect the public from possible releases of radioactive materials. As explained in more detail in the staff's safety evaluations for the two topical reports, the staff has reviewed the available sources of information for use by decision-makers in developing protective action recommendations and assessing core damage. Based on this review, the staff found that the information provided by PASS is either unnecessary or is effectively provided by other indications of process parameters or measurement of radiation levels. The staff agrees, therefore, with the owners groups that licensees can remove the TS requirements for PASS, revise (as necessary) other elements of the licensing bases, and pursue possible design changes to alter or remove existing PASS equipment.
In a letter dated May 5, 1999 (as supplemented by letter dated April 14, 2000), the CEOG submitted the topical report CE NPSD-1157, Revision 1, “Technical Justification for the Elimination of the Post-Accident Sampling System From the Plant Design and Licensing Bases for CEOG Utilities.” A similar proposal was submitted on October 26, 1998 (as supplemented by letters dated April 28, 1999, April 10 and May 22, 2000), by the WOG in its topical report WCAP-14986, “Post Accident Sampling System Requirements: A Technical Basis.” The reports provided evaluations of the information obtained from PASS samples to determine the contribution of the information to plant safety and accident recovery. The reports considered the progression and consequences of core damage accidents and assessed the accident progression with respect to plant abnormal and emergency operating procedures, severe accident management guidance, and emergency plans. The reports provided the owners groups' technical justifications for the elimination for the various PASS sampling requirements. The specific samples and the staff's findings are described in the following evaluation.
The NRC staff prepared this model safety evaluation (SE) relating to the elimination of requirements on post accident sampling and solicited public comment [ FR ] in accordance with the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). The use of the CLIIP in this matter is intended to help the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to remove the PASS requirements from TS. Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which this model apply were informed [ FR ] that they could request amendments confirming the applicability of the SE to their reactors and providing the requested plant-specific verifications and commitments.
The technical evaluations for the elimination of PASS sampling requirements are provided in the safety evaluations dated May 16, 2000, for the CEOG topical report CE NPSD-1157 and June 14, 2000, for the WOG topical report WCAP-14986. The NRC staff's safety evaluations approving the topical reports are located in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) (Accession Numbers ML003715250 for CE NPSD-1157 and ML003723268 for WCAP-14986).
The ways in which the requirements and recommendations for PASS were incorporated into the licensing bases of commercial nuclear power plants varied as a function of when plants were licensed. Plants that were operating at the time of the TMI accident are likely to have been the subject of confirmatory orders that imposed the PASS functions described in NUREG-0737 as obligations. The issuance of plant specific amendments to adopt this change, which would remove PASS and related administrative controls from TS, would also supercede the PASS specific requirements imposed by post-TMI confirmatory orders.
As described in its safety evaluations for the topical reports, the staff finds that the following PASS sampling requirements may be eliminated for plants of Combustion Engineering and Westinghouse designs:
1. reactor coolant dissolved gases.
2. reactor coolant hydrogen.
3. reactor coolant oxygen.
4. reactor coolant pH.
5. reactor coolant chlorides.
6. reactor coolant boron.
7. reactor coolant conductivity.
8. reactor coolant radionuclides.
9. containment atmosphere hydrogen concentration.
10. containment oxygen.
11. containment atmosphere radionuclides.
12. containment sump pH.
13. containment sump chlorides.
14. containment sump boron.
15. containment sump radionuclides.
The staff agrees that sampling of radionuclides is not required to support emergency response decision making during the initial phases of an accident because the information provided by PASS is either unnecessary or is effectively provided by other indications of process parameters or measurement of radiation levels. Therefore, it is not necessary to have dedicated equipment to obtain this sample in a prompt manner.
The staff does, however, believe that there could be significant benefits to having information about the radionuclides existing post-accident in order to address public concerns and plan for long-term recovery operations. As stated in the safety evaluations for the topical reports, the staff has found that licensees could satisfy this function by developing contingency plans to describe existing sampling capabilities and what actions (e.g., assembling temporary shielding) may be necessary to obtain and analyze highly radioactive samples from the reactor coolant system (RCS), containment sump, and containment atmosphere. (See item 4.1 under Licensee Verifications and Commitments.) The contingency plans for obtaining samples from the RCS, containment sump, and containment atmosphere may also enable a licensee to derive information on parameters such as hydrogen concentrations in containment and boron concentration and pH of water in the containment sump. The staff considers the sampling of the containment sump to be potentially useful in confirming calculations of pH and boron concentrations and confirming that potentially unaccounted for acid sources have been sufficiently neutralized. The use of the contingency plans for obtaining samples would depend on the plant conditions and the need for information by the decision-makers responsible for responding to the accident.
In addition, the staff considers radionuclide sampling information to be useful in classifying certain types of events (such as a reactivity excursion or mechanical damage) that could cause fuel damage without having an indication of overheating on core exit thermocouples. However, the staff agrees with the topical reports' contentions that other indicators of failed fuel, such as letdown radiation monitors (or normal sampling system), can be correlated to the degree of failed fuel. (See item 4.2 under Licensee Verifications and Commitments.)
In lieu of the information that would have been obtained from PASS, the staff believes that licensees should maintain or develop the capability to monitor radioactive iodines that have been released to offsite environs. Although this capability may not be needed to support the immediate protective action recommendations during an accident, the information would be useful for decision makers trying to limit the public's ingestion of radioactive materials. (See item 4.3 under Licensee Verifications and Commitments.)
The staff believes that the changes related to the elimination of PASS that are described in the topical reports, related safety evaluations and this proposed change to TS are unlikely to result in a decrease in the effectiveness of a licensee's emergency plan. Each licensee, however, must evaluate possible changes to its emergency plan in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q) to determine if the change decreases the effectiveness of its site-specific plan. Evaluations and reporting of changes to emergency plans should be performed in accordance with applicable regulations and procedures.
The staff notes that redundant, safety-grade, containment hydrogen concentration monitors are required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(1), are addressed in NUREG-0737 Item II.F.1 and Regulatory Guide 1.97, and are relied upon to meet the data reporting requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section VI.2.a.(i)(4). The staff concludes that during the early phases of an accident, the safety-grade hydrogen monitors provide an adequate capability for monitoring containment hydrogen concentration. The staff sees value in maintaining the capability to obtain grab samples for complementing the information from the hydrogen monitors in the long term (i.e., by confirming the indications from the monitors and providing hydrogen measurements for concentrations outside the range of the monitors). As previously mentioned, the licensee's contingency plan (see item 4.1) for obtaining highly radioactive samples will include sampling of the containment atmosphere and may, if deemed necessary and practical by the appropriate decision-makers, be used to supplement the safety-related hydrogen monitors.
(A) The elimination of the TS and other regulatory requirements for PASS would result in additional changes to TS such as [e.g., the renumbering of sections or pages or the removal of references]. The changes are included in the licensee's application to revise the TS in order to take advantage of the CLIIP. The staff has reviewed the changes and agrees that the revisions are necessary due to the removal of the TS section on PASS. The changes do not revise technical requirements beyond that reviewed by the NRC staff in connection with the supporting topical reports or the preparation of the TS improvement incorporated into the CLIIP.
(B) The TS include an administrative requirement for a program to minimize to levels as low as practicable the leakage from those portions of systems outside containment that could contain highly radioactive fluids during a serious transient or accident. The program includes preventive maintenance, periodic inspections, and leak tests for the identified systems. PASS is specifically listed in TS [5.5.2] as falling under the scope of this requirement. The applicability of this specification depends on whether or not PASS is maintained as a system that is a potential leakage path.
(i) The licensee has stated that a plant change would be implemented such that PASS would not be a potential leakage path outside containment for highly radioactive fluids (e.g., the PASS piping that penetrates the containment would be cut and capped). The modification would be made during the implementation period for this amendment such that it is appropriate to delete the reference to PASS in TS [5.5.2]. Requirements in NRC regulations (e.g., 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J) and other TS provide adequate regulatory controls over the licensee's proposed modification to eliminate PASS as a potential leakage path.
(ii) The licensee has stated that a plant change might be implemented such that PASS would not be a potential leakage path outside containment for highly radioactive fluids (e.g., the PASS piping that penetrates the containment might be cut and capped). The modification would not be made during
The above phrase would make clear that TS [5.5.2] remains applicable to the PASS as long as it is a possible leakage path and reflects that the actual modification of the piping system may be scheduled beyond the implementation period for this amendment. Requirements in NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J) and other TS provide adequate regulatory controls over the licensee's modification to eliminate PASS as a potential leakage path. Following the modification to eliminate PASS as a potential leakage path, the licensee may elect (in order to maintain clarity and simplicity of the requirement) to revise TS [5.5.2] to remove the reference to PASS, including the phrase added by this amendment.
(iii) The licensee has stated that the configuration of the PASS will continue to be a potential leakage path outside containment for highly radioactive fluids (e.g., the PASS piping will penetrate the containment with valves or other components in the system from which highly radioactive fluid could leak). The licensee has [not proposed to change TS (5.5.2) or has changed TS (5.5.2) to revise the reference to this system from PASS to ( )]. The staff agrees [that TS 5.5.2 is not affected or that the change to revise the reference from PASS to ( )] is acceptable. A separate amendment request will be required if the licensee, subsequent to this amendment, decides to modify the plant to eliminate this potential leakage path and proposes to change the requirements of TS [5.5.2].
(C) [Note-optional section if licensee provides markup of affected Bases pages] The elimination of PASS requires that the licensee revise the discussion in the Bases section for TS [3.3.3, “Post Accident Monitoring Instrumentation”]. The current Bases mention the capabilities of PASS as part of the justification for allowing both hydrogen monitor channels to be out of service for a period of up to 72 hours. Although the licensee's application included possible wording for the revised Bases discussion for TS [3.3.3], the licensee will formally address the change to the Bases in accordance with [the Bases Control Program or its administrative procedure for revising Bases]. The staff does not believe that the Bases change will require prior NRC approval when evaluated against the criteria in 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, tests, and experiments,” and, therefore, agrees that the revision of the Bases to TS [3.3.3] should be addressed separately from this amendment and should be included in a future update of the TS Bases in accordance with [the Bases Control Program or the licensee's administrative controls].
As requested by the staff in the notice of availability for this TS improvement, the licensee has addressed the following plant-specific verifications and commitments.
4.1 Each licensee should verify that it has, and make a regulatory commitment to maintain (or make a regulatory commitment to develop and maintain), contingency plans for obtaining and analyzing highly radioactive samples of reactor coolant, containment sump, and containment atmosphere.
The licensee has [verified that it has or made a regulatory commitment to develop] contingency plans for obtaining and analyzing highly radioactive samples from the RCS, containment sump, and containment atmosphere. The licensee has committed to maintain the contingency plans within its [specified document or program]. The licensee has [implemented this commitment or will implement this commitment by (specified date)].
4.2 Each licensee should verify that it has, and make a regulatory commitment to maintain (or make a regulatory commitment to develop and maintain), a capability for classifying fuel damage events at the Alert level threshold (typically this is 300 μCi/ml dose equivalent iodine). This capability may utilize the normal sampling system and/or correlations of sampling or letdown line dose rates to coolant concentrations.
The licensee has [verified that it has or made a regulatory commitment to develop] a capability for classifying fuel damage events at the Alert level threshold. The licensee has committed to maintain the capability for the Alert classification within its [specified document or program]. The licensee has [implemented this commitment or will implement this commitment by (specified date)].
4.3 Each licensee should verify that it has, and make a regulatory commitment to maintain (or make a regulatory commitment to develop and maintain), the capability to monitor radioactive iodines that have been released to offsite environs.
The licensee has [verified that it has or made a regulatory commitment to develop] the capability to monitor radioactive iodines that have been released to offsite environs. The licensee has committed to maintain the capability for monitoring iodines within its [specified document or program]. The licensee has [implemented this commitment or will implement this commitment by (specified date)].
The NRC staff finds that reasonable controls for the implementation and for subsequent evaluation of proposed changes pertaining to the above regulatory commitments are provided by the licensee's administrative processes, including its commitment management program. Should the licensee choose to incorporate a regulatory commitment into the emergency plan, final safety analysis report, or other document with established regulatory controls, the associated regulations would define the appropriate change-control and reporting requirements. The staff has determined that the commitments do not warrant the creation of regulatory requirements (items requiring prior NRC approval of subsequent changes). The NRC staff has agreed that NEI 99-04, Revision 0, “Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitment Changes,” provides reasonable guidance for the control of regulatory commitments made to the NRC staff. (See letter dated March 31, 2000 from S. Collins, Director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to to R. Beedle, Nuclear Energy Institute (ADAMS Accession Number ML003696998)) The commitments should be controlled in accordance with the industry guidance or comparable criteria employed by a specific licensee. The staff may choose to verify the implementation and maintenance of these commitments in a future inspection or audit.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the [ ] State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had [(1) no comments or (2) the following comments—with subsequent disposition by the staff].
The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts and no
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
The PASS was originally designed to perform many sampling and analysis functions. These functions were designed and intended to be used in post accident situations and were put into place as a result of the TMI-2 accident. The specific intent of the PASS was to provide a system that has the capability to obtain and analyze samples of plant fluids containing potentially high levels of radioactivity, without exceeding plant personnel radiation exposure limits. Analytical results of these samples would be used largely for verification purposes in aiding the plant staff in assessing the extent of core damage and subsequent offsite radiological dose projections. The system was not intended to and does not serve a function for preventing accidents and its elimination would not affect the probability of accidents previously evaluated.
In the 20 years since the TMI-2 accident and the consequential promulgation of post accident sampling requirements, operating experience has demonstrated that a PASS provides little actual benefit to post accident mitigation. Past experience has indicated that there exists in-plant instrumentation and methodologies available in lieu of a PASS for collecting and assimilating information needed to assess core damage following an accident. Furthermore, the implementation of Severe Accident Management Guidance (SAMG) emphasizes accident management strategies based on in-plant instruments. These strategies provide guidance to the plant staff for mitigation and recovery from a severe accident. Based on current severe accident management strategies and guidelines, it is determined that the PASS provides little benefit to the plant staff in coping with an accident.
The regulatory requirements for the PASS can be eliminated without degrading the plant emergency response. The emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities. The elimination of the PASS will not prevent an accident management strategy that meets the initial intent of the post-TMI-2 accident guidance through the use of the SAMGs, the emergency plan (EP), the emergency operating procedures (EOP), and site survey monitoring that support modification of emergency plan protective action recommendations (PARs).
Therefore, the elimination of PASS requirements from Technical Specifications (TS) (and other elements of the licensing bases) does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
The elimination of PASS related requirements will not result in any failure mode not previously analyzed. The PASS was intended to allow for verification of the extent of reactor core damage and also to provide an input to offsite dose projection calculations. The PASS is not considered an accident precursor, nor does its existence or elimination have any adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the reactor core or post accident confinement of radionuclides within the containment building.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The elimination of the PASS, in light of existing plant equipment, instrumentation, procedures, and programs that provide effective mitigation of and recovery from reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact to the margin of safety. Methodologies that are not reliant on PASS are designed to provide rapid assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to mitigate the consequences of the accident. The use of a PASS is redundant and does not provide quick recognition of core events or rapid response to events in progress. The intent of the requirements established as a result of the TMI-2 accident can be adequately met without reliance on a PASS.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for reinstatement without change of an information collection. Standard Form 3112, CSRS/FERS Documentation in Support of Disability Retirement Application, collects information from applicants for disability retirement so that OPM can determine whether to approve a disability retirement. The applicant will only complete Standard Forms 3112A and 3112C. Standard Forms: 3112B, 3112D, and 3112E will be completed by the immediate supervisor and the employing agency of the applicant.
Approximately 13,450 applicants for disability retirement complete Standard Forms 3112A and 3112C annually. The estimated breakdown for these responses are as follows: CSRS (10,000) and FERS (3,450). The SF 3112A requires approximately 30 minutes to complete and the SF 3112C requires approximately 60 minutes to complete. The annual burden is 12,775 hours.
For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, or E-mail to mbtoomey@opm.gov
Comments on this proposal should be received on or before September 11, 2000.
Send or deliver comments to—
Donna G. Lease, Team Leader, Forms Analysis & Design, AMB, Budget & Administrative Services Division, (202) 606-0623.
Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.
Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by August 28, 2000, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C. 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After August 28, 2000, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.
DTE Energy Company (“DTE”), 2000 2nd Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226-1279, a public utility holding company claiming exemption from registration under section 3(a)(1) of the Act by rule 2 under the Act, has filed an application under sections 9(a)(2) and 10 of the Act.
DTE proposes to acquire all of the issued and outstanding voting securities of International Transmission Company (“ITC”) (“Acquisition”), which DTE states will own and operate substantially all of the transmission assets more particularly described below (“Assets”), currently owned by Detroit Edison Company (“Detroit”), a public utility subsidiary company of DTE. The Acquisition will be one in a series of transactions in a corporate reorganization of DTE.
The Acquisition will be effected under a separation and subscription agreement between Detroit and ITC (“Agreement”). Under the Agreement, Detroit will transfer the Assets to ITC at their actual depreciated value as of December 31, 1999 in a tax-free exchange for all of ITC's voting securities (“Securities”). Following the exchange, Detroit will distribute the Securities to DTE as a common stock dividend. Following the Acquisition, ITC will be a “public utility company,” as defined in the Act.
The Assets will include approximately 6,472 miles of transmission facilities with ratings from 120 Kv to 345 Kv. DTE states that the Assets will be interconnected with several regional utilities and transmission organizations.
DTE states that the Acquisition is a preliminary step that will allow it to establish ITC as an independent and efficient participant in the open transmission market contemplated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that then can be fairly priced by the product and capital markets. DTE states that it intends to later divest itself of ITC.
For the Commission by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change will establish a surety program, the DTC Profile Surety Program, which will be part of the Profile Modification System feature (“Profile”) of the Direct Registration System (“DRS”) of DTC.
In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statments.
Profile allows a DTC participant to electronically submit to a transfer agent who is a DRS limited participant an investor's instruction that the investor's share position be moved from the investor's DRS account with the DRS limited participant to the investor's broker-dealer's participant account at DTC (“participant Profile instruction”). Likewise, Profile allows a DRS limited participant to electronically submit an investor's instruction that the investor's share position be moved from the investor's broker-dealer's participant account at DTC to an account at the DRS limited participant (“limited participant Profile instruction”).
A participant submitting a participant Profile instruction to a DRS limited participant must agree to a PTS screen-based indemnity substantially in the following form (the “participant indemnity”):
(1) Participant represents that it has the authority and consent for the request appearing on the following screen from either (a) the registered owner on the participant's records or (b) a third party who has actual authority to act on behalf of the registered owner on the participant's records, and that all information shown is accurate and complete, except that, with respect to the taxpayer identification number included in such information, to the best knowledge of participant, such information is accurate and complete; and
(2) Participant indemnifies the issuer, its transfer agent and their respective officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, representatives, subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, successors and assigns against any breach of such representations in connection with the transaction that is the subject of such request.
A DRS limited participant submitting a limited participant Profile instruction to a participant must agree to a PTS screen-based indemnity substantially in the following form (the “limited participant indemnity”):
(1) Transfer agent represents that it has the authority and consent for the request appearing on the following screen from either (a) the registered owner on the transfer agent's records or (b) a third party who has actual authority to act on behalf of the registered owner on the transfer agent's records, and that all information shown is accurate and complete, except that, with respect to the taxpayer identification number included in such information, to the best knowledge of transfer agent, such information is accurate and complete; and
(2) Transfer agent indemnifies the participant and its respective officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, representatives, subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, successors and assigns against any breach of such representations in connection with the transaction that is the subject of such request.
At the time that DTC filed the proposed rule change for the establishment of Profile,
As a result, DTC is proposing to implement and administer the Profile Surety Program. Under the Profile Surety Program, any entity using DRS will be required to procure a surety bond in order to send electronic instructions through Profile. The surety company issuing the surety bond will either be a company selected by DTC as the administrator of the Profile Surety Program or, at the election of the entity participating in DRS, another surety company. If an entity participating in DRS elects to use another surety company, the surety company will be required to issue the surety bond in accordance with the terms and
The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC since the proposed rule change will give participants more efficient usage of DRS. The proposed rule change will be implemented consistently with the safeguarding of securities and funds in DTC's custody or control or for which it is responsible because the operation of DRS, as modified by the proposed rule change, will be similar to the current operation of DRS.
DTC perceives no adverse impact on competition by reason of the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change has been developed through discussions with several participants and DRS limited participants. Written comments from participants or others have not been solicited or received on the proposed rule change.
Within thirty-five days of the date of the publication of this notice in the
(a) By order approve the proposed rule change or
(b) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. section 553, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of DTC. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-DTC-00-09 and should be submitted by September 1, 2000.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
In FR Document 00-19771, the Release Number was incorrectly stated. The Release Number should read as follows: (Release No. 34-43091; File No. SR-MSRB-00-09)
In FR Document 00-19448, beginning on page 47530 for Wednesday, August 2, 2000, on page 47531, Rule D-12 was incorrectly stated. This provision should read as follows:
On page 47532, Rule G-8(g)(i) was incorrectly stated. This provision should read as follows:
On page 47533, Rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(7)(c) was incorrectly stated and should read as follows:
On page 47534, Rule G-15(a)(viii)(D) was incorrectly stated and should read as follows:
On page 47534, Rule G-15(a)(viii)(E)(3) was incorrectly stated and should read as follows:
On page 47535, Rule G-32(a)(i)(A) was incorrectly stated and should read as follows:
On page 47538, the first sentence of the second paragraph in column 2 was incorrectly stated. This sentence should read as follows:
On page 47550, the second to the last sentence in column 3 was incorrectly stated. This sentence should read as follows:
“All submissions should refer to the File No. SR-MSRB-00-06 and should be submitted by August 23, 2000.”
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The PCX is proposing to modify its Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services. The Exchange is also proposing to waive the monthly dues applicable to certain Exchange memberships.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Office of the Secretary, the PCX, and the Commission.
In its filling with the Commission, the PCX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The PCX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statement.
The Exchange is proposing to make the following changes to its Schedule of Fees and Charges:
The Exchange is proposing to eliminate or reduce various rates and charges applicable to the Exchange's options business. These include the elimination of the current fee for manual customer transactions and the elimination of the current ticket data entry fee. These changes are intended to make the Exchange's rates more competitive, in order to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange is also reducing its current market maker transaction charge and eliminating its current floor brokerage charge (applicable to executing floor brokers) in order to assure that its rates and charges are competitive with those of the other options exchanges. Finally, the Exchange is adopting a credit for Lead Market Makers (“LMMs”) who perform the service of operating the Limit Order Book—a service that was previously performed by Exchange staff. These charges are discussed separately below.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The Exchange is proposing to modify its fees applicable to its equities line of business in three respects. First, the Exchange is adopting new fees for the acquisition of Equity Trading Permits (“ETPs”). Second, the Exchange is adopting new specialist and floor broker fees that will apply to all equity specialists and floor brokers. These fees are intended to help the Exchange cover its costs and raise additional revenue. Third, the Exchange is proposing to amend its transaction fee schedule for orders in equity securities to eliminate the application of such fees to orders executed on behalf of PCX options market makers. These changes are discussed separately below.
(i)
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange is proposing to adopt new fees for ETPs and new fees for PCX equity floor brokers and specialists. These new fees are designed to provide the PCX with additional revenue for the Exchange's equities business while, at the same time, maintaining stability of rates to provide a smooth distribution of seats from the equities floors to the options floor. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to adopt new rates applicable to ETPs, which allow PCX specialists to trade equity securities on the equities floors of the Exchange.
The proposed rates will be phased in over six months as follows: the fee will be: $4,500 per month for the trade months of June, July and August, 2000; $3,000 per month for the trade months of September, October and November 2000; and $2,000 per month for the trade month of December 2000 and thereafter.
(ii)
(iii)
Currently, these orders, once executed, are subject to the PCX Equities—Exchange Transaction Fee Schedule. In order to recognize the contributions of the PCX options market makers to the overall revenues of the Exchange, PCX is proposing to eliminate the application of the PCX Equities—Exchange Transaction Fee schedule to equity orders sent by PCX options market makers to PCX Equities for execution.
The Exchange currently charges dues of $750 per month per Exchange membership. The Exchange is proposing to waive these dues for memberships that are unassigned,
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the PCX. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-PCX-00-16 and should be submitted by September 1, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated July 28, 2000, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby amended to include Yellow Medicine County, Minnesota as a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes beginning on May 17, 2000, and continuing through July 26. Please note the extension of the incident period and the expansion of the incident type to include tornadoes.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the previously designated location:
The economic injury number for South Dakota is 9I0300.
All other information remains the same,
Orange County and the contiguous counties of Alamance, Caswell, Chatham, Durham, and Person in the State of North Carolina constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by heavy rains and flooding that occurred on July 23 and 24, 2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on October 2, 2000 and for economic injury until the close of business on May 1, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308.
The interest rates are:
The numbers assigned to this disaster are 327406 for physical damage and 9I0100 for economic injury.
Wilson County and the contiguous counties of Cannon, Davidson, De Kalb, Rutherford, Smith, Sumner, and Trousdale in the State of Tennessee constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by a fire that occurred on July 24, 2000, in the City of Lebanon. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on October 2, 2000 and for economic injury until the close of business on May 1,
The interest rates are:
The numbers assigned to this disaster are 327505 for physical damage and 9I0200 for economic injury.
In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated July 26, 2000, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby amended to include Columbia, Iowa, and Waukesha Counties in the State of Wisconsin as a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding beginning on May 26, 2000 and continuing through July 19, 2000.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the contiguous Counties of Green Lake and Marquette in the State of Wisconsin may be filed until the specified date at the previously designated location. Any counties contiguous to the above-named primary counties and not listed herein have been previously declared.
All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for filing applications for physical damage is September 9, 2000 and for economic injury the deadline is April 11, 2001.
In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated July 19, 2000, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning on May 26, 2000 and continuing through July 19, 2000.
All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for filing applications for physical damage is September 9, 2000 and for economic injury the deadline is April 11, 2001.
The Georgia District Advisory Council, Regulatory Fairness Board will hold a public hearing on September 15, 2000, at 9 am located at the Georgia District Office Conference Room, at 233 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 1900, Atlanta, Georgia to receive comments and testimony from small businesses and representatives of trade associations concerning federal regulatory enforcement or compliance activities. These transcripts are subject only to limited review by the National Ombudsman.
For further information, call Charles E. Anderson, District Director, U.S. Small Business Administration at (404) 331-0266.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Proposed Collection; comment request.
The proposed information collection described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public comments on this proposed collection as provided by 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1). Requests for information, including copies of the information collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be directed to the Agency Clearance Officer: Wilma H. McCauley, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street (EB 5B), Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801; (423) 751-2523.
Comments should be sent to the Agency Clearance Officer no later than October 10, 2000.
This information is used by distributors of TVA power to assist in identifying and financing energy
The following agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. sections 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of interpretation.
The Coast Guard is issuing its interpretation of “intra-port transit” as used respecting the Port of New York. The Coast Guard defines the term as it has always defined it: to mean any transit between any two points within any of the areas designated in the rule. It is issuing this interpretation to ensure that every self-propelled vessel engaged in foreign commerce employs a pilot holding a properly endorsed Federal First Class Pilot's license while the vessel makes an “intra-port transit” on waters designated in that rule.
This notice is effective on August 11, 2000.
For questions on this notice, contact Lieutenant Alan Blume, Waterway Safety Program Manager, Office of Waterways Management Policy and Planning, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, telephone 202-267-0550, e-mail ablume@comdt.uscg.mil. For questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Dorothy Beard, Chief of Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.
On May 10, 1995, the Coast Guard published in the
The pilotage system of the United States is in fact parallel systems of complementary Federal and State laws on pilotage. Since 1789 the States have had primary responsibility for regulating the pilotage of foreign-flag and U.S.-flag vessels sailing under register (foreign-trade vessels). [See 46 U.S.C. 8501(a).] Governance of the pilotage of coastwise seagoing vessels is a Federal responsibility. [See 46 U.S.C. 8502(a).] The Federal government may regulate pilotage of foreign-trade vessels only when a State does not. [See 46 U.S.C. 8503(a).]
New York and New Jersey do not require State-licensed pilots aboard vessels engaged in foreign trade making intra-port transits in New York Harbor. The New Jersey statute states:
All masters of foreign vessels and vessels from a foreign port, and all vessels sailing under register, bound in or over the bar of Sandy Hook * * * shall take a licensed pilot * * * [N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12:8-35 (West 1992).]
The New York statute states:
Every foreign vessel and every American vessel under register entering or departing from the Port of New York by the way of Sandy Hook or by the way of Sands Point or Execution Rocks, shall take a Sandy Hook pilot licensed under the authority of this article or the laws of the State of New Jersey or a person heretofore licensed as a Hell Gate pilot. [N.Y. Nav. Law § 88(1) (McKinney 1993).]
Precisely in response to this gap, the Coast Guard implemented 46 CFR 15.1030. That rule remains effective until the States having jurisdiction, New York and New Jersey, implement superseding requirements for State-licensed pilots and notify the Coast Guard of that fact. [See 46 U.S.C. 8503(b).] When the Coast Guard implemented 46 CFR 15.1030, it considered implications for federalism and determined that there was no conflict between State and Federal law. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) had stated: “Since this [rule aims] primarily at requiring the use of Federal pilots in instances where State pilots are not required, the Coast Guard does not believe that the preparation of a Federalism Assessment is warranted.” [58 FR 36917] The NPRM had also stated: “This rule would not [impair] existing [S]tate laws.” [58 FR 36917] A review of the NPRM and the Final Rule [60 FR 24793] makes clear that the purpose of the rule is to fill the gap.
46 C.F.R. 15.1001 requires a pilot, who holds a Federal First Class Pilot's license, to be on board a foreign-trade vessel when transiting waters identified in area-specific rules—such as 46 CFR 15.1030, which applies to New York and New Jersey. The latter rule covers
The following U.S. navigable waters located within the States of New York and New Jersey when the vessel is making an intra-port transit, to include, but not limited to, a movement from a dock to a dock, from a dock to an anchorage, from an anchorage to a dock, or from an anchorage to an
Nothing in 46 CFR 15.1001 and 15.1030 precludes the Coast Guard from exercising jurisdiction over the holder of a Federal First Class Pilot's license acting under the authority of that license simply because a foreign-trade vessel is either inbound from, or outbound to, sea. “[I]ntra-port transit” as used in 46 CFR 15.1030 includes the movement of a foreign-trade vessel inbound from sea from the point where a State-licensed pilot ceases providing pilotage to another point within the identified areas (for instance a dock or anchorage). Likewise, “intra-port transit” as used there includes the movement of a foreign-trade vessel outbound to sea from a point within the identified areas (for instance a dock or anchorage) to the point where a State-licensed pilot begins providing pilotage.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of meetings.
The Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) and its working groups will meet to discuss various issues relating to shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway navigation and towing safety. All meetings will be open to the public.
TSAC will meet on Thursday, September 14, 2000 from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The working groups will meet on Wednesday, September 13, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. These meetings may close early if all business is finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before September 4, 2000. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or working groups should reach the Coast Guard on or before August 24, 2000.
TSAC will meet in the Jackson-Johnson rooms at the Holiday Inn, Mount Moriah; Memphis, TN. The working groups will begin meeting in the same rooms and may move to separate spaces designated at that time.
Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Mr. Gerald P. Miante, Commandant (G-MSO-1), Room 1210, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. This notice is available on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Mr. Gerald P. Miante, Assistant Executive Director, TSAC, telephone 202-267-0229, fax 202-267-4570, or e-mail at: gmiante@comdt.uscg.mil.
Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
The agenda tentatively includes the following:
(1) Report of the Voyage Planning Work Group.
(2) Report of the Electronic Charting Work Group.
(3) Report from the Tug Assistance and Remote Anchor Release Work Group.
(4) Report of the Communications Work Group.
(5) Report of the Casualty Analysis Work Group.
(6) Report of the Licensing Implementation Work Group.
(7) Project update on Cargo Securing Practices.
(8) Project update on the Interim Rule “Licensing and Manning for Officers of Towing Vessels.”
(9) Project update concerning Current Initiatives Regarding Crew Alertness.
(10) Project update on the Automated Information System (AIS).
(11) Project update on the International Maritime Information Safety System (IMISS).
(12) Presentation by the Gulf Coast Mariners Association on a booklet entitled “Mariners Speak Out.”
(13) Presentation by the Coast Guard of policy on the Clarification of the 12-hour Work Rule.
(14) Discussion on any task statements presented.
All meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meetings. If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please notify the Assistant Executive Director no later than September 4, 2000. Written material for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than August 21, 2000. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or working groups in advance of a meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Assistant Executive Director no later than August 21, 2000.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the Assistant Executive Director as soon as possible.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the revised current and future noise exposure maps submitted by the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority for Tampa International Airport under the provisions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-193) and 14 CFR Part 150 are in compliance with applicable requirements. The FAA also announces that it is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted for Tampa International Airport under Part 150 in conjunction
The effective date of the FAA's determination on the revised noise exposure maps and of the start of its review of the associated noise compatibility program is August 4, 2000. The public comment period ends October 3, 2000.
Mr. Tommy J. Pickering, P.E., Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822-5024, (407) 812-6331, Extension 29. Comments on the proposed noise compatibility program should also be submitted to the above office.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the revised noise exposure maps submitted for Tampa International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective August 4, 2000. Further, FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for that airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before February 1, 2001. This notice also announces the availability of this program for public review and comment.
Under Section 103 of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict noncompatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties to the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport.
An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to Title I of the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes for the reduction of existing noncompatible uses and for the prevention of the introduction of additional noncompatible uses.
Hillsborough County Aviation Authority submitted to the FAA on August 2, 2000, revised noise exposure maps, descriptions and other documentation which were produced during the Tampa International Airport FAR Part 150 noise study conducted between July 10, 1997, and August 1, 2000, and requested that the FAA review this material as the noise exposure maps, as described in Section 103(a)(1) of the Act, and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a noise compatibility program under Section 104(b) of the Act.
The FAA has completed its review of the revised noise exposure maps and related descriptions submitted by the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority. The specific maps under consideration are “2000 Existing Conditions Noise Exposure Map with Revised Noise Compatibility Program” and “2005 Five-Year Forecast Conditions Noise Exposure Map with Revised Noise Compatibility Program” in the noise compatibility program submission. The FAA has determined that these maps for Tampa International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on August 4, 2000. FAA's determination on the airport oprator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program.
If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under Section 103 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of Section 107 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator which submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under Section 103 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under Section 150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for Tampa International Airport, also effective on August 4, 2000. Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to the requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the revised program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before February 1, 2001.
The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 150, Section 150.33. The primary considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the level of aviation safety, create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, or by reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing noncompatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses.
Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed revised program with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the revised noise exposure maps, the FAA's evaluation of the maps, and the proposed noise compatibility program are available for examination at the following locations:
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
Notice of intent.
The Federal Aviation Administration announces that it will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for implementation of projects proposed in the Master Plan for Juneau International Airport.
Patti Sullivan, Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan Regional Airports Division, 222 West 7th Avenue, #14, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587; Telephone (907) 271-5454.
The Federal Aviation Administration will prepare and consider an EIS for implementation of proposed projects in the Master Plan Update for Juneau International Airport.
The Juneau International Airport Board completed its Master Plan Update in 1999. The Master Plan was accepted by the FAA in June of 2000. The Airport Layout Plan was conditionally approved November 24, 1999, subject to environmental analysis. Major airfield improvements proposed in the Master Plan and to be assessed in the EIS are a full Runway Safety Area, the east aviation development area, a snow removal equipment building, and an approach light system.
The Juneau International Airport Board conducted numerous workshops and a public hearing during the development of the Master Plan Study. To ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed projects are addressed and that all significant issues are identified, the FAA intends to consult and coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies which have jurisdiction by law or have specific expertise with respect to any environmental impacts associated with the proposed projects. The public and agency scoping meetings will be scheduled at a later date. Notification of the meetings will be published in the Juneau Empire and the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received and of dispositions of prior petitions.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption (14 CFR Part 11), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I), dispositions of certain petitions previously received, and corrections. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before September 4, 2000.
Send comments on any petition in triplicate to Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC-200), Petition Docket No. __, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
The petition, any comments received, and a copy of any final disposition are filed in the assigned regulatory docket and are available for examination in the Rules Docket (AGC-200), Room 915G, FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A), 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3132.
Cherie Jack, (202) 267-7271; Forest Rawls, (202) 267-8033; or Vanessa Wilkins, (202) 267-8029, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of § 11.27 of Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 11).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this Notice of Intent to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed transportation project to improve access into the gaming communities of Black Hawk and Central City within Gilpin County, Colorado.
Eva LaDow or Edrie Vinson, FHWA Colorado Division, 555 Zang Street, Room 250, Lakewood, Colorado 80228. Telephone (303) 969-6730 Extensions 341 and 378, respectively.
The FHWA in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation Region 1 will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to improve transportation access into the gaming communities of Black Hawk and Central City. The project area is located west of Denver and includes roadways within Jefferson, Gilpin and Clear Creek counties.
The two primary access routes to towns of Black Hawk and Central City (U.S. 6 and S.H. 119) are experiencing dramatically increased traffic volumes and accident levels since 1991 when limited stakes gaming was approved by the voters of Colorado. Both roadways are located within steep mountain canyons paralleling Clear Creek, and are primarily two-lane with narrow shoulders and limited passing locations. Some safety improvements including pull-outs, centerline rumble strips, guardrail, curve widening, passing lanes and intersection modifications have been constructed, but no overall plan for improving safety, accommodating future traffic growth and/or accommodating alternative modes of transportation has been developed.
Alternatives to be examined in this EIS include improvements to existing S.H. 119; new alignment corridors; alternative modes including busways and rail; Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) strategies. As required by NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), the EIS will also evaluate a “No Action” alternative as a baseline for comparing impacts of all alternatives.
The development of project alternatives is an ongoing process that will incorporate information identified during the public scoping process and from environmental and engineering evaluations. Public and agency input into the alternatives will be solicited through a series of public meetings, formation of a Technical Advisory Team (TAT), a project website and direct mailings including meeting announcements and newsletters. A public scoping open house was held on June 24, 2000 at the Gilpin County Library and at two casino locations in the towns of Black Hawk and Central City. Notices of this public meeting were mailed to local citizens, property owners and others and posted in local media. The many alternatives will be narrowed through a systematic screening process to a few recommended alternatives for full analysis in the draft EIS (DEIS). The DEIS will be available for public and agency review prior to a public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the Colorado Department of Transportation, Lisa Kassels, Project Manager CDOT Region 1, 18500 East Colfax Avenue, Aurora, CO 80011, (303) 757-9156 or lisa.kassels@dot.state.co.us.
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
Thrall Car Manufacturing Company (TCMC) seeks a permanent waiver of compliance with certain provisions of the
1. Use the reduced wording described in Parts 231.24 (j)(1) and 231.24 (j)(2) rather than 231.27 (j)(1) and (j)(2). Part 231.24 (j)(1) states “That portion of each end of car more than fifteen (15) feet above top of rail shall be painted with contrasting reflectorized paint and shall bear the words “No running board” to the left of center and “Excess height car” to the right of center.” Section 231.24 (j)(2) states “On each side-sill near end corner there shall be painted a yellow rectangular area with a three-fourths (
TCMC requests to use the wording in 231.24, regarding running boards, due to the cars not being so equipped.
2. TCMC requests that the word “material” be substituted for “paint” in this section to permit utilizing new technological advancements in reflectorization.
3. Section 231.24 (j)(2) requires that “On each side-sill near end corner there shall be painted a yellow rectangular area with a three-fourths (
4. TCMC requests that “contrasting color” borders be allowed on cars with dark exterior paint whereas a black border, required in 231.24 (j)(2) and 231.27 (j)(2), would not be readily visible.
5. TCMC requests that the maximum allowable misalignment between the front inside edge of the auto rack ladder stile to the inside edge of the flat car sill step be increased from the dimensions
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Statement of Process-Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection.
Written comments should be received on or before October 10, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Linda Barnes, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, (202) 927-8930.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Guy Hummel, Chief, Arson and Explosives Programs Division, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, (202) 927-7930.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice 97-45, Highly Compensated Employee Definition.
Written comments should be received on or before October 10, 2000, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the notice should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8816, Special Loss Discount Account and Special Estimated Tax Payments for Insurance Companies.
Written comments should be received on or before October 10, 2000, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 972, Consent of Shareholder To Include Specific Amount in Gross Income.
Written comments should be received on or before October 10, 2000, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Faye Bruce, (202) 622-6665, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8828, Recapture of Federal Mortgage Subsidy.
Written comments should be received on or before October 10, 2000, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Faye Bruce, (202) 622-6665, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of
Internal Revenue (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
This announcement serves as notice that the Internal Revenue Service is exploring the feasibility of eliminating modem speeds under 28.8Kbps for Electronic Filing. The Electronic Tax Administration (ETA) would like to solicit feedback from its customers on the minimum modem speed you are using and the minimum speed your business could support. Contact the individual listed below prior to September 4, 2000.
Questions or concerns should be directed to Dapheny McCray, Program Analyst, IRS, Electronic Tax Administration, OP:ETA:I:I, 5000 Ellin Road, Room C4-188, Lanham, MD 20706.
Questions or concerns will also be taken over the telephone. Call 202-283-0685 (not a toll-free number) or via email to:
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Final rule.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is issuing a Final Rule implementing provisions of titles I, III and V of the Workforce Investment Act. Through these regulations, the Department implements major reforms of the nation's job training system and provides guidance for statewide and local workforce investment systems that increase the employment, retention and earnings of participants, and increase occupational skill attainment by participants, and as a result, improve the quality of the workforce, reduce welfare dependency, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation. Key components of this reform include streamlining services through a One-Stop service delivery system, empowering individuals through information and access to training resources through Individual Training Accounts, providing universal access to core services, increasing accountability for results, ensuring a strong role for Local Boards and the private sector in the workforce investment system, facilitating State and local flexibility, and improving youth programs.
This Final Rule will become effective on September 11, 2000.
All comments received during the comment period following the publication of the Interim Final Rule (64 FR 18662,
Mr. Eric Johnson, Office of Career Transition Assistance, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-4231, Washington, DC 20210, Telephone: (202) 219-7831 (voice) (this is not a toll-free number) or 1-800-326-2577 (TDD).
This Final Rule does not add any new information collection requirements to those of the Interim Final Rule. Certain sections of this Final Rule, such as §§ 667.300, 667.900, 668.800, and 669.570 contain information collection requirements. These requirements have not been changed. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Labor submitted a copy of these sections to the Office of Management and Budget for review. No comments were received about and no changes have been made to the information collection requirements.
We have prepared documents providing guidance on specific information collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we submitted these documents to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review. Affected parties do not have to comply with the information collection requirements contained in this document until we publish in the
On August 7, 1998, President Clinton signed the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), comprehensive reform legislation that supersedes the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and amends the Wagner-Peyser Act. WIA also contains the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (title II) and the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 (title IV). Guidance or regulations implementing titles II and IV will be issued by the Department of Education.
WIA reforms Federal job training programs and creates a new, comprehensive workforce investment system. The reformed system is intended to be customer-focused, to help Americans access the tools they need to manage their careers through information and high quality services, and to help U.S. companies find skilled workers. This new law embodies seven key principles. They are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Many States and local areas have already taken great strides in implementing these principles, supported by grants from the Department of Labor (DOL) to build One-Stop service delivery systems and school-to-work transition systems. The Act builds on these reforms and ensures that they will be available throughout the country.
We wish to emphasize that DOL considers the reforms embodied in the Workforce Investment Act to be pivotal, and not “business as usual.” This legislation provides an unprecedented opportunity for major reforms that can result in a reinvigorated, integrated workforce investment system. States and local communities, together with business, labor, community-based organizations, educational institutions, and other partners, must seize this historic opportunity by thinking expansively as they design a customer-focused, comprehensive delivery system.
The success of the reformed workforce investment system is dependent on the development of true partnerships and honest collaboration at all levels and among all stakeholders. While the Workforce Investment Act and these regulations assign specific roles and responsibilities to specific entities, for the system to realize its potential necessitates moving beyond current categorical configurations and institutional interests. Also, it is imperative that input is received from all stakeholders and the public at each stage of the development of State and local workforce investment systems.
The cornerstone of the new workforce investment system is One-Stop service delivery which unifies numerous training, education and employment programs into a single, customer-friendly system in each community. The underlying notion of One-Stop is the coordination of programs, services and governance structures so that the customer has access to a seamless system of workforce investment services. We envision that a variety of programs could use common intake, case management and job development systems in order to take full advantage of the One-Stops' potential for efficiency and effectiveness. A wide range of services from a variety of training and employment programs will be available to meet the needs of employers and job seekers. The challenge in making One-Stop live up to its potential is to make sure that the State and Local Boards can effectively coordinate and collaborate with the network of other service agencies, including TANF agencies, transportation agencies and providers, metropolitan planning organizations, child care agencies, nonprofit and community partners, and the broad range of partners who work with youth.
The format, as well as the substance, of the Final Rule, reflects the Administration's commitment to regulatory reform and to writing regulations that are reader-friendly. We have attempted to make these regulations clear and easy to understand, as well as to anticipate issues that may arise and to provide appropriate direction. To this end, the regulatory text is presented in a “question and answer” format. We have organized the regulations in a way that will help those implementing the new system to recognize the various steps that must be taken to develop the organization and services that make up the workforce investment system. In many cases, the provisions of WIA are not repeated in these regulations. In response to comments, however, we determined that, in a number of instances, the regulations would provide context and be more reader-friendly if the Act's provisions were included in an answer rather than merely cross-referencing the statute.
Since the passage of the Workforce Investment Act in August of 1998, we have used a variety of means to initiate extensive coordination with other Federal agencies that have roles and responsibilities under WIA. In addition, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development continue to meet on a regular basis to resolve issues surrounding WIA implementation.
Before publishing the Interim Final Rule, we also requested and received input from a broad range of sources about how to structure guidance on how to comply with a number of WIA statutory provisions. We solicited broad input on WIA implementation through a variety of mechanisms: establishing a web site to encourage input; publishing a
On April 15, 1999, the Interim Final Rule was published in the
We reviewed every comment received during the comment period following publication of the Interim Final Rule, as well as the experience of early implementing States, and suggestions received from partners and stakeholders when considering whether the Final Rule should differ from the Interim Final Rule. These comments are discussed in the Summary and Explanation of the individual provisions of the Final Rule. Section 506(c)(1) of the Act required the Secretary of Labor to issue this Final Rule implementing provisions of the WIA under the Department's purview by December 31, 1999. While we were unable to meet this deadline, we have endeavored to issue this Final Rule as expeditiously as possible without compromising the quality of the document. Under Secretary of Labor's Order No. 4-75, the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training has been delegated the responsibility to carry out WIA policies, programs, and activities for the Secretary of Labor. We have determined that this Final Rule, as promulgated, complies with the WIA statutory mandate to issue a Final Rule and provides effective direction for the implementation of WIA programs.
This section contains our response to comments received on the Interim Final Rule during the comment period. The comments are discussed at considerable length in order to make clear our interpretation of WIA through these final regulations and of their application to some of the challenges that may arise in implementing the Act.
We have set regulations only where they are necessary to clarify or to explain how we intend to interpret the WIA statute, to provide context for interpretations or to provide a clear statement of the Act's requirements. In several instances—for example, the Indian and Native American Programs, and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Programs—the regulations were developed in consultation with advisory councils and are more comprehensive in order to assist those grantees. Consistent with the Act, the Final Rule provides the States and local governments with the primary responsibility to initiate and develop program implementation procedures and policy guidance regarding WIA administration.
There are a limited number of changes in the Final Rule because of our commitment to allowing maximum flexibility at the State and local level. Section 661.120 formalizes this flexibility in the regulations. A number of comments suggested that we specify certain groups of providers and participants and types of activities in numerous sections of the regulations. Among others, these comments suggested revising the regulations to: add new definitions, and additional State and local planning requirements; require States and locals to consult with specific organizations in order to fulfill the public comment process requirements; and identify certain types of programs, providers or participants, such as service learning opportunities, and nontraditional employment and training opportunities for women and dislocated homemakers, in matters where States and localities have discretion to define terms and make other discretionary decisions. To provide policy-making flexibility to States and local areas and to avoid suggesting that any one group or activity is more important than those not highlighted in the regulations, we have generally not made those changes. However, we do believe that consultation with and inclusion of these groups is important to obtaining the optimal functioning of the cooperative system envisioned by WIA. We fully expect that States and local areas will consult broadly before adopting plans and policies; and that their workforce investment systems will be structured to include all providers and programs that may help meet the needs of their populations, and equitably serve all population segments within their service areas.
In addition to the changes made based upon the comments received, in order to clarify policy and interpretation and improve upon the Rule's reader-friendly format, we have also made technical changes to correct typographical errors, such as consistent capitalization, abbreviations, grammatical corrections and citations, and for consistency with the regulations implementing the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA section 188, which were first published in the
When publishing a Final Rule following a comment period, it is customary to publish only changes made to the rule, however, in order to be more user-friendly, we are publishing the entire Rule, including those parts that have not been changed, for WIA titles I and V. This means that one document which contains all of the regulations and commentary may be consulted rather than needing to compare various documents. Similarly, the new Wagner-Peyser regulations at part 652 subpart C are republished in full.
Part 660 discusses the purpose of title I of the Workforce Investment Act and explains the format of the regulations governing title I.
A few commenters suggested we add the attainment of self-sufficiency to the description of the purpose of title I in § 660.100.
Part 660 also provides definitions which are not found in the Act, as well as some of the statutory definitions we felt should be added for emphasis or clarification. Sections 101, 142, 166(b), 167(h) 301 and 502 of the Act contain additional definitions. We received several comments on the definitions contained in § 660.300. One commenter suggested that we add “youth” to the definition of “employment and training activity”.
A commenter requested that we define the term “labor federation” as used in relation to nomination requirements for labor representatives to the State and Local Boards, stating “[i]t is our understanding that [this term] is intended to include AFL-CIO State Federations, State Building and Construction Trades Councils, AFL-CIO Central Labor Councils, and Local
We received several comments on the definition of “literacy”. One commenter suggested that the definition of “literacy” be expanded to mean the ability to read, write and speak in English or an individual's native language, if that is not English.
Another commenter suggested that the term “literacy” be amended to include computer literacy since it is an important and necessary workplace skill.
Among the regulatory definitions, we have defined the term “register” in order to clarify that programs do not need to register participants until they receive a core service beyond those that are self-service or informational. This point in time also corresponds to the point when the participants are counted for performance measurement purposes. A few commenters suggested that the term “register” be redefined to require all adults and dislocated workers who receive services, including those who only receive self-service or informational services, to be registered in order to track universal participation in the workforce investment system.
Another commenter suggested that the term “register” be more clearly defined, and requested a description of the differences between registration, enrollment and participation.
This commenter also suggested that we clarify that information on citizenship and selective service status be collected at the time of registration.
Section 189 of WIA provides that the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 453) must be complied with to receive any assistance or benefit under title I. In order to allow the greatest possible flexibility in the provision of services, we will not dictate specific ways to comply with this straightforward requirement.
Several commenters suggested adding definitions of “contract” and “commercial organization” or “for-profit entity” and modifying the definitions of “grant,” “subrecipient,” and “vendor” to ensure consistency with the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, (31 U.S.C. 6301), and to reduce confusion about what awards are subject to the uniform procurement requirements at 29 CFR 95.40 through 95.48 and 29 CFR 97.36, and what awards are not subject to these requirements.
Another commenter suggested defining the term “obligation” so that Individual Training Account (ITA) commitments could be treated as obligations for purposes of the reallotment and reallocation procedures
We have added a definition of “obligation” to § 660.300 which, for the purpose of reallotments under 20 CFR 667.150, specifically excludes: (1) Amounts allocated to a single local area State or to a balance of State local area administered by a unit of the State government; and (2) inter-agency transfers and other actions treated by the State as encumbrances against amounts reserved by the State under WIA sections 128(a) and 133(a) for Statewide workforce investment activities. These exclusions were also in effect under JTPA. The purpose of these exclusions is to treat similar financial transactions the same way in all States, even where a State only recognizes a financial transaction as a legally enforceable “obligation” if it involves an arms-length award to another party or if performance has already occurred. We also are adding the definition of “unobligated balance,” which appears at 29 CFR 97.3, for the convenience of the reader.
With respect to the comment regarding defining commitments under ITA's as obligations, we are not aware of any unique characteristics of ITA's which necessitate expanding the definition of “obligation” provided in § 660.300 of these regulations. Commitments under ITA's should be treated the same way as similar commitments of the recipient's or subrecipient's non-WIA funds, whether as obligations or otherwise.
Other commenters suggested we include a definition of the term “individual with a disability” to encourage One-Stop center staff to have a knowledge and sensitivity to the needs of such individuals.
One commenter was concerned that the definition of “veteran” contained in section 101(49) of the Act was too broad and raised uncertainty as to which veterans were to be served under title I of WIA. The commenter suggested that we replace the definition in the Interim Final Regulations with the definition of “veteran” contained in title 38 of the U.S. Code since it provides more specificity and consistency between programs.
One commenter suggested that we add definitions of a sectoral employment intervention strategy and the self-sufficiency standard. A sectoral employment intervention strategy is an approach to community economic development that connects members of low-income communities to employment opportunities, self-sufficiency wages and/or advancement opportunities by both redirecting training resources and education, and facilitating direct linkages to employers in targeted regional industries. The self-sufficiency standard defines the minimum amount of cash resources needed for a family to meet its basic needs and be self-sufficient.
This part covers the critical underpinnings of how the Workforce Investment system is organized under WIA at the State and Local levels. Specifically, it consists of four subparts—General Governance Provisions, State Governance Provisions, Local Governance Provisions and Waiver Provisions. The General Governance subpart broadly describes the WIA system and describes the roles of the governmental partners. The State and Local Governance subparts cover the State and Local Workforce Investment Boards and the designation process, including alternative entities, and the planning requirements. The waiver subpart discusses the processes for obtaining general and work-flex waivers.
Subpart A describes the Workforce Investment system, and sets forth the roles of the government partners in the system: the Federal government, State governments and Local governments.
Section 661.120 provides authority to State and Local governments to establish their own policies, interpretations, guidelines and definitions relating to program operations under title I, as long as they are not inconsistent with WIA, these regulations, and Federal statutes and regulations governing One-Stop partner programs. The reference to Federal statutes and regulations governing One-Stop partner programs has been added to § 661.120 (a) and (b) as a reminder that State and local administration of the One-Stop system must be consistent with the requirements of the Federal law applicable to the partner's program. In the case of local governments such policies, interpretation, guidelines and definitions may not be inconsistent with State policies. This section has also been revised to correct an inconsistency between terms used in the question and answer. The question refers to “Local and State governmental partners” while the answer refers to Local and State Boards. We do not intend to exclude the Governors and local elective officials from the authority to develop State and local policies relating to WIA title I, provided those policies are consistent with the Act, regulations and, where appropriate, other State policies. Therefore, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to replace the phrases “Local
To assist with the State and local interpretations authorized under § 661.120, we have issued technical assistance guidance, with the participation of other Federal agencies, as appropriate, to help States and localities interpret WIA and the regulations. This guidance is not intended to limit State flexibility, but rather is intended to provide helpful models on which States and Local governments can rely to ensure that their own interpretations are not inconsistent with the Act and regulations. In our role as Federal partner we will continue to provide technical assistance to States and localities, in collaboration with other Federal agencies as appropriate, however we remain committed to the principles in the statute which allow and encourage flexibility.
A commenter suggested that the standard against which State and local policies, interpretations, etc. are measured under § 661.120 should be whether they are “consistent” with WIA and the regulations rather than “not inconsistent.” The commenter suggests that the current language may send an inappropriate message about the need to conform to statutory and regulatory requirements and may lead to differing interpretations of some provisions.
Several commenters expressed differing views regarding the relative roles of State and local partners in the One-Stop system. Some commenters requested that we expressly state that States and localities are equal partners in the One-Stop system, while others requested that we clarify that States have clear authority to promulgate interpretations and other guidance to State and local agencies.
According to one commenter, there may be confusion resulting from the language in WIA section 117(d)(3)(B)(i) that holds chief elected officials liable, as grant recipient, for misuse of local formula funds (unless the Governor agrees to undertake such liability). The commenter reported that some local areas were worried that this liability would be interpreted as the personal liability of the elected official.
WIA and these regulations provide significant flexibility to States and local areas to develop policies, interpretations, guidelines and definitions relating to program operations under WIA title I. Several commenters requested that we require that State and local boards include significant policies and interpretations in the State and local plans or consult with specified parties when developing these policies and interpretations. We do not believe we can mandate these suggestions, but encourage State and local boards to include in the plans any significant policies and interpretations etc., that are not already required to be included. Moreover, under §§ 661.200(j) and 661.305(d), the development of significant policies, interpretations, guidelines and definitions, as an activity of the boards must be done in an open manner. To emphasize this requirement, we have moved these requirements to new §§ 661.207 and 661.307, and have specified that the development of significant policies, interpretations, guidelines and definitions must be conducted in an open manner. We consider policies and interpretations etc,. relating to eligibility requirements and self-sufficiency standards to be the type of significant policies and interpretations etc., that must be developed in an open manner.
One commenter recommended that we require that any newly established State Board review and/or ratify any policies implemented by the entity acting as the Board during the State's transition to WIA.
The greatest number of comments on part 661 related to State and Local Board membership requirements. Many of the comments on State Boards are equally applicable to Local Boards. We have consolidated our discussion of State and Local Board membership
We received a large number of comments about the requirement, at §§ 661.200(b) and 661.315(a), that at least two or more members of the State and Local Boards be selected to represent the membership categories set forth at WIA sections 111(b)(1)(C) (iii)-(v) and 117(b)(2)(A) (ii)-(v), and that the Local Board contain at least one member representing each One-Stop partner. The comments reflect a tension between the need to provide States and Local areas with the flexibility needed to keep these Boards at a manageable size, with the need for specificity as to what level of participation is guaranteed to stakeholders in the Workforce Investment system. Many commenters felt that the two or more member requirement led to large, unwieldy-sized Boards and requested that this requirement be eliminated. Other commenters sought clarification of the number of members of each partner on the Local Board. Many commenters requested clarification about whether an individual seated on the State or Local Board could represent more than one entity or institution, particularly when multiple grantees of a One-Stop partner program are located in a local area.
Many commenters requested more specificity as to which entities are entitled to a seat on the Boards. For example, many commenters felt that the language in the preamble to the Interim Final Rule did not go far enough in recommending that States consider appointing representatives from both the designated State unit under section 101(a)(2)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act and from the State agency for the blind to represent programs that provide vocational rehabilitation services. These commenters recommended that we amend the regulations to change this recommendation into a requirement that States appoint representatives from both of these organizations. Others sought specific appointment of members representing community-based organizations (CBO's), mental health agencies, disabled youth and disabled youth service providers, disabled adults, literacy providers, non-labor construction workers, and other groups.
A partner program may feel that it should have the right to choose who sits on a State or Local Board as its representative. The regulations cannot provide this power to the partners, because WIA gives the authority to select State or Local Board members to the Governor or chief elected official (CEO), respectively. However, the Governor's and CEO's discretion to select individuals to serve as representatives of partner programs and other entities on State and Local Boards must be exercised in a manner that is consistent with the requirements set forth in WIA and these regulations. For One-Stop partner programs, the individual selected as the Local Board representative may or may not be the specific individual that each funded entity would prefer, but that individual must be an individual with “optimum policy-making authority” within an entity that receives funds or carries out activities under the partner program.
We recognize that the representation issue is a legitimate and serious concern. It is exacerbated by equally legitimate concerns over Board size, especially at the local level. We encourage as broad a representation as possible on all WIA Boards, especially representation of those entities identified as required partners in the Act. We expect that local workforce investment areas will follow the regulations and that States will ensure that all required partner programs have appropriate and effective representation on Local Boards. We encourage local parties to resolve issues of representation to their mutual satisfaction, in accordance with the Act and regulations. We view this generally as a matter of local implementation. We believe that consultation between Governors or CEO's and partner programs, and other organizations entitled to representation on the Boards, in the selection of Board representatives will help to develop positive relationships leading to more effective delivery of services, and we encourage such consultations. The final regulations attempt to facilitate this process by providing Local areas with flexibility for finding the right mix of representatives on the Local Board, while ensuring that the Board is an effective policy-making body by protecting the rights of all participants in the system and by stressing the requirement that members be individuals with optimum policy-making authority.
To this end, we have made several changes to the interim final rule. However, we did not change the requirement that each Board contain two or more members representing the groups specified in WIA sections 111(b)(1)(C) (iii)-(v) and 117(b)(2)(A) (ii)-(v). As indicated in the preamble to the Interim Final Rule, we are constrained by statutory language to follow this requirement. One commenter suggested that the provision at 1 U.S.C. 1 may provide justification for a more flexible interpretation of the membership requirement. While this provision provides the general rule that statutory reference to plurals includes the singular, we think that, in this instance, the context of WIA section 111 and 117, indicates that the term “representatives” was intended to mean two or more. The requirement that the Local Board contain at least one member representing each local One-Stop partner program is consistent with this interpretation. As is does for the other membership classes specified at WIA section 117(b)(2)(A) (ii) through (v), the Local Board must contain two or members representing the class of One-Stop partner programs identified at section 117(b)(2)(A)(vi). Because each One-Stop system will include many partners, the requirement that the class is represented by two or more members will neccesarily be met by one member representing each partner program. Consequently, we have not changed this requirement.
We have made several changes to clarify what is meant by representation on the State and Local Workforce Investment Boards. We have made changes to accommodate the concerns of those commenters who asked whether an individual seated on the Board could represent more than one entity or institution. While such “multiple entity” representation may not be appropriate in all cases, we believe that there may be instances when such representation may be an effective tool for reducing Board size while still ensuring that all parties entitled to representation receive effective representation. Therefore, we have added new paragraphs to §§ 661.200 and 661.315 to permit it when appropriate. For example, where the same State agency has authority for several One-Stop partner programs, such as a State employment security agency which oversees the employment service and unemployment insurance service, the head of the agency (or other official with optimum policy-making authority) may be appointed to the State Board to represent both of these programs. On the other hand, such “multiple entity” representation will not be appropriate where the individual so appointed does not have authority to make policy for all of the programs that s/he purportedly represents. For example, appointing a local business
We have added a new § 661.203, in which we have defined the terms “optimum policy-making authority” and “expertise relating to [a] program, service or activity” in order to assist States and Local areas in determining when such representation is appropriate. A representative with “optimum policy making authority” is an individual who can reasonably be expected to speak affirmatively on behalf of the entity he or she represents and to commit that entity to a chosen course of action. In the case of a One-Stop partner program, an individual who does not have “optimum policy-making authority” within an entity that receives funds or carries out activities under the partner program cannot serve as that program's representative on the Local Board. A representative with “expertise relating to [a] program, service or activity” includes a person who is an official with a One-Stop partner program and a person with documented expertise relating to the One-Stop partner program.
Finally, we have added new § 661.317 to clarify representation when there are several Local grantees or operating entities of a partner program in a One-Stop system. In such a case, the Local Board membership requirements may be met by the appointment of one member to represent all of the Local partner program entities. Also, § 661.317 permits the chief elected official to solicit nominations from One-Stop partner program entities to facilitate the selection of such representatives. Soliciting nominations from partner program entities may be useful to chief elected officials in identifying the individual who will be able to represent the program most effectively in the work of the Local Board. Of course, the chief elected official can opt to appoint more than one member to represent this program, if he or she so chooses and the selection criteria permit it.
To implement the policy described in the joint letter, dated March 24, 2000, from the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment and Training, the Assistant Secretary of Education for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and the Commissioner of the Rehabilitative Services Administration regarding Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) representation on State Boards, we have added a new paragraph (3) to § 661.200(i). Under this provision, if the director of the designated State unit, as defined in section 7(8)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act, does not represent the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services program (VR program) on the State Board, then the State must describe in its State Plan how the members of the State Board representing the VR program will effectively represent the interests, needs, and priorities of the VR program and how the employment needs of individuals with disabilities in the State will be addressed.
Other comments on the State and Local Board membership requirements questioned the different descriptions relating to the creation of State and Local Boards, the different processes for selecting the chairpersons of the Boards, and suggested that we mandate that the business majority requirement apply to any subcommittees of Boards.
A commenter suggested that we add sanctions provisions to make clear that the Governor can refuse to appoint to the State Board a representative of partners which have not cooperated in good faith with the One-stop system at the local level.
A commenter requested that we define the term “labor federation” as used in the nomination requirements for labor representatives to the State and Local Boards, stating “[i]t is our understanding that [this term] is intended to include AFL-CIO State Federations, State Building and Construction Trades Councils, AFL-CIO Central Labor Councils, and Local Building and Construction Trade Councils.”
There were several comments regarding the provision in §§ 661.210(d) and 661.330(c) about changes in the membership structure of an alternative entity serving as the State Workforce Investment Board or as a Local Workforce Investment Board. Two commenters thought that the rule was overly restrictive about permitting changes to alternative entities and suggested that we revise the Interim Final Rule to permit incremental changes to these entities so that at least some of the representational groups required by the WIA Board membership requirements could be added to existing entities, or that we permit incremental changes that increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the workforce investment system. A commenter noted that in single workforce investment areas states, where the State Board is acting as the Local Board under WIA section 117(c)(4), the use of an existing state board under the alternative entity provisions may exclude even more partners from participation on the board at the local level.
Other commenters identified the need for additional guidance as to what measures an alternative entity must take to ensure an ongoing role in the State or Local Workforce Investment system for any of the WIA-specified membership groups who are not represented on the alternative entity. As discussed below in relation to the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) program, commenters have sometimes found that it is difficult to ensure full and active participation in a One-Stop system when a partner or other membership group is not represented on an alternative entity.
A commenter requested that the provision of § 661.230(e)(2) describing the plan approval process be revised to more clearly indicate that the portion of the plan describing Wagner-Peyser Act activities, requirements and delivery of services is an integral part of the plan and not a separate plan.
Some commenters remarked that they found that the State Plan requirements focused on process and compliance rather than on strategic planning issues.
We received several comments on the need for specific public comment periods for State Plans, consistent with Local Plan requirements. Others felt that modifications as well as planning documents should be subject a public comment period.
Commenters suggested that we change § 661.220(d) to require that States submit to us all oral and written comments made during the public comment process, including comments made on drafts, and responses to those comments, that we review the responses as part of our plan review process, and that we specify that failure to actively consult with local areas is grounds for plan disapproval. Other commenters suggested that we mandate a 30-day review period as part of the State plan public comment process.
Section 661.240 contains provisions relating to unified plans, submitted under the authority of WIA section 501. On January 14, 2000, the Department, in partnership with the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, and with the assistance of the Office of Management and Budget, issued joint unified planning guidance entitled
One commenter remarked that the unified planning guidelines were too narrowly focused to lead to effective unified planning. Other comments on § 661.240 requested that we hold unified plans to the same public review and comment requirements as required of standalone WIA State plans, that we explain how to resolve different planning timetables for programs included in the unified plan, and that we provide incentives to encourage States to submit unified plans.
With regard to the substantive comments on § 661.240, WIA section 501(c)(1) provides that the portion of the unified plan covering a particular program or activity is still subject to the applicable planning requirements of the statute that authorizes the program. Therefore, for unified plans containing the State WIA/Wagner-Peyser Act plan, the WIA plan review and public comment requirements, at § 661.220(d) still apply. Similarly, while the WIA/Wagner-Peyser Act portion of the unified plan is submitted on a five-year planning cycle, the inclusion of a plan on a different planning cycle does not change the plan for that program to a five-year plan. We believe that the time saved through joint planning is itself a strong incentive towards engaging in unified planning. Joint planning also benefits States by leading to an improved use of State and Federal resources, increased coordination at the local level, and burden reduction through elimination of duplicate planning processes. These and other benefits of unified planning are discussed in the unified planning guidance at 65 FR 2464, 2468.
A commenter noted that the applicability of the automatic local area designation provisions for units of general local government of 500,000 or more may depend upon the population statistics used in making designations. An area may or may not be found to meet this threshold population level depending on whether 1990 Census data or more up-to-date estimates are used. The commenter suggested specifying certain data, or specifically delegating the authority to determine which data to use to the Governor.
A commenter noted that § 661.280(c) provides that, on appeal of a denial of a request for designation, the Secretary can require that an area be designated solely upon her finding that the area was not afforded the procedural rights guaranteed by the statute. The commenter suggested that, in that instance, a finding that the area meets the requirements for designation should also be required before the State can be ordered to designate the area.
Section 661.290 describes the State's authority to require regional planning by Local Boards. Paragraph (d) of this section provides that regional planning may not substitute for or replace local planning unless the Governor and all the affected CEO's agree to the substitution or replacement. A commenter opined that WIA does not give the Department the authority to undermine the State's authority to require regional planning in this way.
This subpart covers the designation of Local Workforce Investment areas and the responsibilities and membership requirements of Local Boards. Because many issues relating to Local Boards and alternative entities are equally applicable at the State and local level, comments on these issues are discussed above, under subpart B.
A few commenters asked for clarification as to what extent a chief elected official(s) may delegate their responsibilities under title I of WIA.
Some commenters requested a clarification of the role of the chief elected official as a One-Stop partner.
A commenter opined that the provision in § 661.310(c) that extended the service delivery restrictions of the Local Board to the staff of the Board is not supported by WIA.
However, we read the service delivery limitations in WIA section 117 as applying to the Local Board as an entity and not to the members of the Board as individuals. Therefore, members of the Local Board may not provide services in their capacity as a member of the Board. However, if an individual member of the Board is also an employee of a service provider, then as an employee of that service provider entity s/he may provide services on behalf of that entity. Of course, this must be consistent with federal, state and local conflict of interest requirements. The same rules apply to the staff of the Local Board. Members of the Local Board's staff may also be employees of the entity administering the local area's WIA grant. We acknowledge that many local areas use staff from inter-related agencies to provide support to the Local Board as well as the administrative entity for the grant recipient. When these roles are clearly defined, the fact that an individual works for both the Local Board and the entity administering the WIA grant does not preclude the entity from providing services.
One commenter suggested changes to § 661.335(b)(4) which lists “parents of eligible youth seeking assistance under subtitle B of title I of WIA” as required members of the youth council. The commenter expressed a fear that it will be difficult to find parents of participants and former participants who will be likely to make a positive contribution to the youth council. The commenter asked whether a local area will be penalized if it is unable to find parents and participants to serve on the youth council and suggests changing § 661.335(b)(4) to read “parents, that may include those of eligible youth seeking assistance. . . .”
Similarly, this commenter also requested a change to § 661.335(b)(5), which lists “Individuals, including former participants, and members who represent organizations that have experience relating to youth activities” as required members of the youth council. The suggestion would have § 661.335(b)(5) state “individuals, that may include former participants, and members who . . .” We have not made the commenter's change because the regulation already uses the phrase “individuals, including former participants . . . .”
A commenter disagreed with the provision, in § 661.345(c), that the Secretary performs the roles of the Governor in reviewing the local plan developed in a single local workforce investment area State, particularly regarding the review of the MOU's. The commenter compared this process with the process in other States where the Governor reviews locally developed MOU's submitted as part of the local plan. The commenter emphasized that development and review MOU's should remain as close as possible to the local level.
With regard to the required local plan contents of § 661.350, several commenters suggested that we encourage States to require additional items, such as a comprehensive assessment of activities in the local area, a description of services available to displaced homemakers, disadvantaged individuals and to other groups, a description of nontraditional training and employment activities, a local plan for the provision of supportive services, and to use a “sectoral approach” to link the needs of employers with the skills of workers.
A commenter requested that we add language to § 661.350(a)(3)(ii) to authorize the submission with the plan of a status report on MOU's when some MOU's are still in negotiation. The commenter stated that it appears that it will take some time to negotiate all the necessary MOU's and asks that we recognize this and permit the plan process to move forward.
There were a few comments about the requirements for local plan modifications at § 661.355. One commenter suggested that we drop, as unnecessary, the requirement in § 661.355 that the Governor establish procedures for modification of local plans.
A commenter suggested that we amend the illustrative list of the circumstances when a local plan modification may be required by the Governor, at § 661.355, to include changes to the membership structure of the Local Board among those circumstances.
Another commenter asked, regarding one of the existing circumstances in which a local plan modification may be required—at what point is a “change in the financing available to support WIA title I and partner-provided WIA services” significant enough to warrant a modification?
Subpart D indicates the elements of WIA and the Wagner-Peyser Act that may and may not be waived under either the general waiver authority of WIA section 189(i) or the work-flex provision at WIA section 192. In response to comments, we have made a technical correction in § 661.420, changing paragraph (g) to (f).
We received several comments about the exceptions to the Secretary's waiver authority, described at § 661.410, and work-flex waiver authority, described at § 661.430. Commenters requested that the regulation be amended to specify that the Secretary will not approve waivers of title I of the Rehabilitation Act, nor of the State merit staffing requirements of the Wagner-Peyser Act, and deleting the Older Americans Act from work-flex waiver authority.
Other commenters suggested that we define the existing exception prohibiting waivers of provisions relating to worker rights, participation and protections to prohibit waivers of provisions relating to labor nominations and appointments to State and Local Boards, opportunities for comment on State and local plans, and the certification process for eligible training providers. The commenters also requested that States be required to establish a public comment process, that includes comment from organized labor, on proposed waivers and a work-flex plan; and asked that we conduct periodic evaluation of the impact of waivers and work-flex activities.
We agree with the commenters' suggestion regarding the public comment process for waiver plans and work-flex plans. Section 661.430(e) already requires that the State work-flex plan undergo a public comment process, similar to that of the State five-year plan. While WIA section 189(i) does not specifically require that a stand-alone waiver plan go through a similar process (a waiver plan included within the State five-year plan would undergo public review along with the rest of that plan), the requirement for Local Board comment on the waiver plan at WIA section 189(i)(4)(B)(v) and the sunshine provisions for State and Local Board activities at WIA sections 111(g) and 117(e) indicate clear Congressional intent that major decisions involving the workforce investment system be made in a public and open manner. In our view, the decision to request a waiver of statutory or regulatory requirements is such a major decision. Accordingly, we have revised § 661.420(a)(5), to require a description of the process used to ensure meaningful public comment, including comment by business and organized labor, on the State waiver plan. Finally, we agree on the need for
The establishment of a One-Stop delivery system for workforce development services is a cornerstone of the reforms contained in title I of WIA. This delivery system streamlines access to numerous workforce investment and educational, and other human resource services, activities and programs. The Act's requirements build on reform efforts that are well established in all States through the Department's One-Stop grant initiative. Rather than requiring individuals and employers to seek workforce development information and services at several different locations, which is often costly, discouraging and confusing, WIA requires States and communities to integrate multiple workforce development programs and resources for individuals at the “street level” through a user friendly One-Stop delivery system. This system will simplify and expand access to services for job seekers and employers.
The Act specifies nineteen required One-Stop partners and an additional five optional partners to coordinate activities and streamline access to a range of employment and training services. WIA requires coordination among all Department of Labor funded programs as well as other workforce investment programs administered by the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development. WIA also encourages participation in the One-Stop delivery system by other relevant programs, such as those administered by the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Transportation, as well as the Corporation for National and Community Service. In addition, local areas are authorized to add additional partners as local needs may require. All of the Federal Agencies will continue to work together to ensure effective communication and collaboration at the Federal level in support of One-Stop service delivery.
In addition to the comprehensive centers, § 662.100(d) describes three other arrangements to supplement the comprehensive center. These supplemental arrangements include: (1) A network of affiliated sites that provide one or more of the programs, services and activities of the partners; (2) a network of One-Stop partners through which the partners provide services linked to an affiliated site and through which all individuals are provided information on the availability of core services in the local area; and (3) specialized centers that address specific needs. In essence, this structure may be described as a “one right door and no wrong door” approach. One-Stop partners have an obligation to ensure that core services that are appropriate for their particular populations are made available at one comprehensive center, and through additional sites, as described in the local plan and consistent with the local memorandum of understanding (MOU). If an individual enters the system through one of the network sites rather than the comprehensive One-Stop center, the individual may obtain certain services at the network site and must be able to receive information about how and where the other services provided through the One-Stop system may be obtained.
Some commenters expressed concern that the description in § 662.100 emphasizes physical locations rather than the development of systems. The commenters suggested that the regulations be expanded to provide that, in addition to the comprehensive center, it is expected that local areas will build a One-Stop system by developing affiliate relationships with existing public and private sector providers. The commenters further suggested that more examples should be offered as to how the centers and affiliates may mix and match services.
Commenters also requested clarification that physical co-location at the centers was not required for all of the services provided by a partner's program and that each partner was not required to be co-located at the centers.
Some commenters also expressed concern that the description of the One-Stop system did not address access for individuals with disabilities, and suggested that we reiterate the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the
One commenter suggested that the Governor has the authority under WIA to require that additional partners be included in all the local One-Stop delivery systems in the State and asks that the regulation include such authority. The commenter cites section 112(b)(8)(A) of WIA, which requires the State to describe in the State plan procedures to assure coordination and avoid duplication among specified programs, and section 117(b)(1) of WIA, which provides that the Governor establish criteria for the appointment of members of local boards, as the basis for this authority.
One commenter requested two clarifications about the partner representing the Adult Education and Literacy programs under title II of WIA. First, while the regulation specifies that the partner for those programs is the State eligible entity or an eligible provider designated by the State entity, the commenter suggested adding authority for the State entity to designate a consortium of eligible providers as the partner. Second, the commenter suggested clarifying that the State eligible entity also has the authority to designate the individual representing the partner on the local boards, not just the entity.
The second issue is addressed in the preamble discussion of 20 CFR part 661.
Another commenter noted that § 662.220(b)(3) only defines national programs under title I of WIA as required partners if such programs are present in the local area and suggested that the regulation apply the same condition to the other required partners.
Several commenters also noted that several of the programs identified as required partners may be administered by the same entity in the State or local area and the regulation should indicate that one individual from that entity may represent all such programs on the local board.
Several commenters expressed concerns about the required use of a portion of the partners' funds to support the One-Stop system. Some commenters suggested that certain authorizing laws, such as the Perkins Vocational Education Act, would not permit such
With respect to the responsibility to assist in maintaining the system, we believe that the requirement in § 662.230(a)(2)(i) that a portion of funds be used to “create and maintain” the One-Stop system is the appropriate interpretation of the statutory requirement in WIA section134(d)(1)(B) that a partner use a portion of funds to “establish” the One-Stop delivery system. There is nothing in WIA or the legislative history to suggest that “establish” refers to a one-time start-up activity. To the contrary, all of the partners' responsibilities apply as long as the One-Stop system is in operation and include participation in the operation of the One-Stop system (WIA section121(b)(1)(B)) and carrying out the MOU that includes the details on the funding of the system (WIA sec. 121(c)). We do not believe that Congress intended that the partners continue to participate in the operation of the one-stop system, but that their responsibility to use funds to support that system terminate as soon as some undefined start-up period is completed. Rather, we believe the only reasonable interpretation is that a required partner's responsibility to use a portion of funds to support the system continues along with the participation of the partner in the system. Therefore, we have not changed this provision of the regulations.
With respect to enforcement of these requirements, we are working with the other Federal agencies to ensure that all partner programs are aware of and carry out these requirements. We believe that full participation in the One-Stop system will be of great benefit to the partners' programs and to their participants, and, therefore, these requirements should be viewed as promoting a comprehensive and effective system of service delivery for each local area.
Section 662.240 addresses the core services applicable to a partner's program that are to be provided through the One-Stop system. Section 662.400(a) lists the core services that are described in section 134(d)(2) of WIA, and defines “applicable” to mean the services from that list that are authorized and provided under the partner programs. The extent to which core services are applicable to a partner program, as well as the manner in which services are provided, are determined by the program's authorizing statute.
Some commenters suggested we further define many of the listed core services. For example, one suggestion was to require career counseling to include a discussion of self-sufficiency standards to assist in setting long-term employment goals. Another suggestion was to require additional employment statistics information relating to high wage jobs and employment laws. Other suggestions included adding computer literacy to the initial assessment, and information relating to employment rights to follow-up services.
There were a number of comments on these provisions about the availability of core services and proportionate responsibility. Commenters questioned whether the requirement that partners provide core services at the One-Stop center went beyond the statute, and whether proportionate responsibility was required by the statute. Several commenters expressed concern that the concepts of proportionate responsibility and attributable individuals did not provide clear direction. In addition, some commenters requested clarification that not all applicants for a partner's program would be attributable to that program while others suggested the regulation should provide that only individuals enrolled in the program should be attributable. Finally, some commenters were concerned that proportionate responsibility would require undue tracking and recordkeeping.
The principle of a partner's responsibility for the proportionate use of these services by individuals attributable to the program of the partner is derived from general cost principles of the OMB circulars, as well our interpretation of the WIA provisions relating to the required provision of applicable core services. As noted above, we believe this is an equitable principle that is intended to ensure an appropriate level of participation by the partners in a manner that is fair to the partners. We do not want to prescribe how such proportionate use is to be calculated, but simply to identify options that we believe would be acceptable under the circulars for attributing individuals to a program. The regulation does not require that a particular option be used, only that the methods be described in the MOU. Therefore, whether attribution is based on enrollment in the program or some other basis is a matter to be determined locally among the partners. Tracking and recordkeeping will also be affected by how the local area chooses to determine proportionate use and we do not believe such requirements need be unduly burdensome. Consistent with our principle of writing these regulations to provide maximum State and local flexibility, the regulation seeks to balance the need for Federal guidance to ensure that the objectives of WIA are realized with the need for flexibility at the State and local level to tailor specific approaches to meet local needs. We do not want this flexibility to be used to avoid implementing the changes in service delivery required under WIA, but we also do not want to preclude innovative approaches to implementing those changes. Therefore, we intend to retain the regulatory requirements of this section and offer technical assistance to facilitate implementation.
Several commenters suggested that we maintain a flexible interpretation of the term “access” in § 662.260 when referring to the access to activities and services, other than the core services, that a partner must provide through the One-Stop system. These commenters expressed concern that a partner with a broad array of services could not provide all services at a single One-Stop center, and suggested that we encourage flexible delivery models, such as outstationing of staff or electronic access, to meet this requirement.
There were numerous comments about this section. Many of the comments about the requirement that each partner contribute a fair share to the operation of the One-Stop system based on proportionate use of the system by individuals attributable to the program of the partner were the same as or similar to the comments on proportionate responsibility under § 662.250. Some commenters suggested that the methodology for allocating costs of the One-Stop system be strengthened and clarified. Some commenters suggested prescribing particular approaches, such as requiring cost sharing only be based on real costs directly attributable to the use of One-Stop center space and utilities when the partners are co-located, while others suggested limiting the methods for attributing individuals to a program to services received after enrollment in the program. Some commenters suggested that the regulation provide for pooling of overhead costs and proportionate allocation of service costs. Some commenters expressed concern that the multiple cost allocation methodologies identified in the regulation were at odds with the proportionate use approach, while others expressed concern that the proportionate use approach required extensive recordkeeping and tracking. Some commenters stressed the need for time to determine baseline percentages of how many people each partner serves relative to the total traffic and suggested that we provide additional guidance on developing baselines. A commenter expressed concern that a proportionate cost allocation approach could cause discord and undercut collaboration and co-location, while other commenters expressed concern about whether this approach could be enforced.
In addition, some commenters suggested clarifying that operating costs include both administrative and programmatic costs. Other commenters suggested that the regulations allow the fair share to be contributed “in-kind”. Some commenters suggested removing the multiple methodologies described in the regulation while others expressed concern that without more specific requirements title I programs would end up paying all the costs.
Some commenters expressed concern that reliance on the OMB circulars based on benefit to the program would be a barrier to One-Stop delivery and suggested a new circular that would promote integrated service delivery should be developed. A number of commenters indicated that it was important that Federal agencies work together to present a coherent message in support of sharing costs and integrating programs and that technical assistance be provided to facilitate the development of acceptable cost allocation methodologies.
The proportionate use standard is not intended to be rigid and we do not believe the multiple methodologies identified in the regulation are inconsistent with that standard. The various methodologies offer different approaches that may be used in implementing these requirements. As indicated with respect to § 662.250, we do not believe that this standard necessarily requires extensive tracking and recordkeeping. The burdens attendant to the adoption of a particular cost allocation method are a legitimate factor to be considered in negotiating MOU's. We believe that local areas have the flexibility to refine and modify the cost allocation procedures as more experience is gained. For example, there is the flexibility to refine the development of baselines on proportionate use over time, and such adjustments may be facilitated if the funding arrangements in the MOU are revised annually.
Contrary to the concern that the proportionate use standard will promote discord and deter co-location and collaboration, we believe that standard provides an equitable framework which should assist local areas and partners in reaching agreement and within which a more detailed methodology may be developed that supports the particular design of the One-Stop system in each area. With respect to enforcement, we are working with other Federal agencies to develop models of acceptable methodologies and to assist in ensuring that partners are aware of the opportunities of the One-Stop delivery system and of their responsibilities under WIA.
On the question of the kinds of operating costs of the One-Stop system for which the One-Stop partners must contribute, we believe those costs are the common costs of operating the One-Stop system, and could include such items as space and occupancy costs, utilities, common supplies and equipment, a common receptionist, and other shared staff. However, these common costs will vary depending on the design of the One-Stop system and we intend to address these costs as part of the technical assistance that we are developing in partnership other federal agencies. Therefore, we have not modified the regulation to further define these costs.
On the question of whether the contribution of the partners to the operating costs of the One-Stop system may be “in-kind,” which we understand to mean provided with resources other than cash, we understand that the OMB circulars recognize the provision of noncash resources as acceptable in meeting certain costs. However, the contributions of partners may also consist of cash resources, or a mixture of cash and noncash resources. Rather, the determination regarding the forms of the contributions is a matter to be determined locally through the MOU negotiation process, taking into account the needs of the One-Stop system to ensure customer-friendly access to services and the proportionate responsibility of and resources available to the partners. We also intend to address this issue in the technical assistance we will provide with other agencies and have not modified the regulation.
On the issue of reliance on the OMB circulars, while the circulars do set parameters that relate the allocation of costs to the benefit received by a program, we believe they also allow flexibility to develop cost allocation methodologies that support integrated service delivery. We do not expect the issuance of a new circular to address One-Stop delivery, but, as noted above, we are working with OMB and other agencies to identify cost allocation methodologies that will be useful in a One-Stop environment.
Finally, we agree with the comment about the importance of Federal
There were several comments suggesting that we reiterate in several different sections of part 662 that the requirements of the laws authorizing the programs of the partner continue to apply. For example, commenters suggested that § 662.260, on access to services and § 662.300, on MOU's, be revised to specifically provide that the requirements of the laws authorizing the programs of the partner continue to apply.
Subpart C describes the requirements relating to the local Memorandum of Understanding MOU that governs the operation of the local One-Stop system. Section 662.300 addresses the contents of the MOU that must be executed between the Local Board, with the agreement of the local elected official, and the One-Stop partners. The MOU must describe the services to be provided through the One-Stop delivery system, the funding of the services and the operating costs of the system, the methods for referring individuals between the One-Stop operators and the partners and the duration of and procedures for amending the MOU. The MOU may also include other provisions about the operation of the One-Stop system that the parties consider appropriate. For example, the parties may use the MOU to address the coordination of equal opportunity responsibilities such as the handling of discrimination complaints or other grievances relating to the One-Stop system.
Section 662.310 provides that the local areas may develop a single umbrella MOU covering all partners and the Local Board, or separate MOU's between partners and the Local Board. In many areas, the umbrella approach may be the preferred means to facilitate a comprehensive and equitable resolution of the operational issues relating to the One-Stop, adding information specific to each individual partner organization. The regulation also emphasizes that it is a legal obligation for the partners and the Local Board to engage in good faith negotiation and reach agreement on the MOU. The partners and the Local Boards may seek the assistance of the appropriate State agencies, the Governor, State Board or other appropriate parties in reaching agreement. The State agencies, the State Board and the Governor may also consult with the appropriate Federal agencies to address impasse situations. If an impasse has not been resolved, in addition to any programmatic remedies that may be taken, parties that fail to execute an MOU may not be permitted to serve on the Local Board. In addition, if the Local Board has not executed an MOU with all required parties, the local area is not eligible for State incentive grants awarded for local coordination.
Several commenters suggested that the regulation provide that only required partners “in the area” must enter into the MOU and also requested clarification as to whether optional partners were required to enter into MOU's.
Some commenters indicated that the involvement of the chief elected official was critical to the successful development and implementation of MOU's and expressed concern that while the agreement of the chief elected official to the MOU was required under § 662.300, the chief elected official was not identified as a party to the MOU in § 662.310.
Some commenters stated that strong guidance and support for MOU's at the State level was essential and that a strategy should be developed to monitor and evaluate MOU's at the State and local levels. Other commenters suggested that local systems would benefit from MOU's that offer incentives or penalties to required partners depending on their performance relative to systemize performance. These commenters also suggested that the regulations should provide incentives to Governors to make MOU's and partnerships strong at the outset so that
With respect to the sanctions identified in § 662.310(c), we believe it is reasonable to interpret the reference to representatives of the One-Stop partners on the Local Board in WIA section 117(b)(2)(A)(vi) as referring to those One-Stop partners that meet the requirements for being partners in the local One-Stop system, including executing the MOU. Since the MOU is the vehicle through which the partner's role in the local system is detailed, the inability to reach agreement on that role means that an entity has not assumed the role of a One-Stop partner in that local system for purposes of representation on the Local Board.
On the question of allowing a “good faith” exception that would permit local areas to be eligible for a State coordination incentive grant even if the area has not executed an MOU with all required partners, we believe that such grants are only intended to be awarded to areas that demonstrate exemplary coordination activities that are in addition to meeting the minimum requirements for coordination under WIA. We believe that incentive grants are not intended to be awarded to areas that are unable to meet the minimum requirement that the local area have an MOU executed with all required partners, even if the Local Board has acted in good faith in attempting to reach agreement.
We also believe it should be noted that the sanctions specified in § 662.310(c) are in addition to rather than in lieu of any other remedies that may be applicable to the Local Board or to each of the partners for failure to comply with the Federal statutory requirement that they execute an MOU and have clarified this point in the regulation.
Some commenters suggested that the regulation specify that the details of the assessments of individuals seeking services through the One-Stop system be described in the MOU and that we set parameters that will help the States and localities reach agreement on assessment goals, tools and processes.
Some commenters suggested that the regulation be modified to require that the MOU's contain specific information on staffing arrangements, including assignment and supervision of staff, staff training and related personnel policies. In addition, these commenters suggested that the regulation require written concurrence from appropriate labor organizations when such arrangements affect their members or a collective bargaining agreement. These commenters also suggested that the MOU contain the assurances described in WIA section 181(b)(7) prohibiting the use of funds to assist, promote, or deter union organizing.
WIA section 181(b)(2)(B) provides that activities carried out with funds under title I of WIA must not impair collective bargaining agreements and that no activity inconsistent with the terms of a collective bargaining agreement may be undertaken without the written concurrence of the labor organization and employer concerned. Therefore, to the extent an MOU provides that title I funds be used in a manner inconsistent with a collective bargaining agreement, written concurrence is required. However, we do not believe it is necessary to restate this requirement in this section of the regulation since this requirement applies to all activities undertaken with title I funds.
Similarly, the prohibition on the use of title I funds to assist, promote or deter union organizing is applicable to the use of all WIA title I funds. However, since this prohibition applies to all WIA-funded activities, we do not believe that WIA requires that an assurance regarding this prohibition be written into each MOU. Local areas may be prudent in doing so, but the regulation has not been modified to require that the MOU contain such a written assurance.
Several commenters suggested that the final rule require MOU's to be available for public review and comment before execution, particularly to training providers.
Several commenters suggested that, due to potential shifts in the annual appropriations affecting the programs of the partners, the regulation require annual review of the MOU's by the parties. Other commenters suggested that due to the difficulty in reaching agreement and the need for stability, the regulation clarify that multi-year agreements are permissible.
This subpart addresses the role and selection of One-Stop operators. One-Stop operators are responsible for administering the One-Stop centers and their role may range from simply coordinating service providers in the center to being the primary provider of services at the center. The role is determined by the chief elected official. In areas where there is more than one comprehensive One-Stop center, there may be separate operators for each center or one operator for multiple centers. The operator may be selected by the Local Board through a competitive process, or the Local Board may designate a consortium that includes three or more required One-Stop partners as an operator. The Local Board itself may serve as a One-Stop operator only with the consent of the chief elected official and the Governor.
This subpart also addresses the “grandfathering” of existing One-Stop operators. Section 662.430 provides some continuity for areas that have already established One-Stop systems while ensuring that fundamental features of the new One-Stop system are incorporated. A local area does not have to comply with the One-Stop operator selection procedures if the One-Stop delivery system, of which the operator is a part, existed before August 7, 1998 (the date of the WIA's enactment). However, that One-Stop system must be modified to meet the WIA requirements about the inclusion of the required One-Stop partners and the MOU.
Some commenters suggested that the regulations be modified to allow for a system operator (rather than separate center operators) that may be responsible for the coordination of the entire local one-stop system, or the maintenance and development of the linkages and technology between centers.
Several commenters suggested that the regulations be modified to clarify that the public must have the opportunity to review and comment on documents relating to the selection of a One-Stop operator if a competitive selection process is used.
Some commenters suggested that the regulation describe the various financial assistance agreements that may be made with the One-Stop operator following the selection process. Specifically, the commenters suggested that the regulation identify grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts as the alternative arrangements and identify the OMB circulars that apply to each arrangement.
Some commenters suggested that we should encourage the grandfathering of One-Stop operators that were designated pursuant to a collaborative process. These commenters also suggested that § 662.430 appears to impose more requirements on the grandfathering of existing One-Stop operators than apply to new designations and that those requirements should be uniform.
This part of the regulations describes requirements relating to the services that are available for adults and dislocated workers. The required adult and dislocated worker services, described as core, intensive, and training services, form the backbone of the One-Stop delivery system for services to two workforce program customers, job seekers and employers. The WIA goal of universal access to core services is achieved, among other strategies, through close integration of services provided by the Wagner-Peyser, WIA adult and dislocated worker partners and other partners in the One-Stop center and system. Intensive and
These regulations also introduce the Individual Training Account (ITA), which is a key reform element of the Workforce Investment Act. Individuals will now be able to take a proactive role in choosing the training services which meet their needs. They will be provided with quality information on providers of training and, armed with effective case management, an ITA as the payment mechanism. These tools will enable them to choose the training provider that best serves their individual needs.
Along with part 664, this part contains most of the program service requirements that apply to WIA title I formula funds. WIA provides States and local areas with significant flexibility to deliver services in ways that best serve the particular needs of each State and local communities. These regulations support that principle; wherever possible, program design options and categories of service are defined broadly. States and local areas are reminded that they must use that flexibility in a manner that broadens the opportunities available under the Act to all customers. Recipients of financial assistance under WIA title I must be mindful of their responsibilities under the nondiscrimination provisions of section 188, and must not unfairly exclude individuals from opportunities or otherwise make decisions based upon race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, political affiliation or belief, disability status, or citizenship. The Department published comprehensive regulations implementing section 188 at 29 CFR part 37. 20 CFR 667.275 makes clear that all recipients of financial assistance under WIA title I must comply with 29 CFR part 37 when exercising the flexibility provided by WIA and this Final Rule.
One comment on § 663.100 noted that adult and dislocated worker programs are separate activities with separate funding streams, and asked whether they might each have separate representatives on the Local Board.
Another commenter observed that Individual Training Accounts were the only method for providing training specifically referenced in § 663.100(b)(3) and suggested that the Final Rule also list all training services, including contract training, OJT, and customized training.
Registration is an information collection process that documents a determination of eligibility. It is also the point at which performance accountability information begins to be collected. Individuals who are seeking information and who, therefore, do not require a significant degree of staff assistance, do not need to be registered. Accordingly, of the core services listed in the Act, only staff assisted services such as individualized job search services, career counseling, and job development will automatically require registration. Additional core services offered at the discretion of the State and Local Boards, and not listed in the Act, may or may not require registration, depending on the degree of staff assistance involved, and other established local policies. Participation in any intensive or training service, whether those specifically listed in the Act, or another offered at the State or Local Board's discretion, will always require registration.
In addition to the responsibility to register participants, EO data must be collected on every individual who is interested in being considered for WIA title I financially assisted aid, benefits, services, or training by a recipient, and who has signified that interest by submitting personal information in response to a request from the recipient. See 29 CFR 37.4 (definition of “applicant”) and 29 CFR 37.37(b)(2). The point at which such personal information should be collected is within the recipient's discretion; however, the recipient's request for and receipt of that information with regard to a specific individual triggers the accompanying responsibility to collect EO data at the same time. The EO data
Additional information needed to determine eligibility for assistance other than Title I of WIA available at the One-Stop site may also be determined at the same time. Program operators should determine what information they need for cost allocation purposes and when they can most efficiently collect it. Electronic records systems allow information to be collected incrementally as higher levels of assistance are provided.
One commenter felt that the rule at § 663.105(b), which requires registration for any service other than self-service or informational activities, is in conflict with the goal of universal access.
We received many comments expressing concern that there is no mechanism in the regulations to ensure that unregistered individuals receiving informational and self-help core services are benefitting from those services. Two comments suggested that One-Stops should either be required to track these individuals' outcomes or that the Department itself engage in some sort of periodic tracking. Another commenter questioned whether a State could collect this information independent of a regulatory requirement to do so.
We also received comments which argued that the existing data collection requirements are too burdensome and should be limited. In addressing the data collection requirements in the regulations, we have attempted to strike a reasonable balance which satisfies our reporting needs under WIA without over-burdening States and local areas. No change has been made to the Final Rule in response to these comments. We issued a
One commenter suggested that, in order to avoid redundancy, individuals eligible for TAA, or NAFTA-TAA, or those referred from the Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services initiative, should automatically be eligible for dislocated worker services and should be specifically included in § 663.115 in the Final Rule.
Acceptance of profiled and referred Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants as eligible dislocated workers is a decision to be made by Governors and Local Boards consistent with the definition at WIA Section 101(9). The policies and procedures established by Governors and Local Boards may include a policy that the UI profiling methodology and referral process meets the criteria in WIA Section 101(9). In such instances, no further documentation would be needed to establish the “unlikely to return” criterion at WIA section 101(9)(A)(iii). Other eligibility criteria could also be documented by the unemployment compensation system through this process. Since acceptance of TAA, NAFTA-TAA and UI profiling data to prove eligibility are matters for State or local decision, no change has been made to the Final Rule.
One comment suggested that language be added to § 663.105 in the Final Rule permitting the use by One-Stops of intake application data and other information collected by non-WIA funded providers for registration and eligibility determination.
Another comment suggested State and Local Boards should be prohibited from developing dislocated worker definitions that exclude groups of workers based on their industry, occupation, or union affiliation.
Many comments from the Vocational Rehabilitation system suggested that eligibility for Vocational Rehabilitation services must remain a distinct concept from eligibility determination for services under Title I of WIA.
Several commenters noted that, under § 663.115, Governors and Local Boards are allowed to develop policies and procedures for the interpretation of the dislocated worker eligibility criteria, and asked how disputes between these parties would be resolved.
One comment stated that dislocated worker programs serving union members must consult the union in the design and implementation of those programs.
One commenter requested that the regulations provide that where the Local Board wishes to pursue training services not listed in the Act, that such services must be identified in the Local Plan, and that a review process that includes consultation with labor organizations whose members have skills in the specific training being proposed by the One-Stop operator, prior to funding such activities.
Another commenter suggested that we amend the regulations to require One-Stop operators to consult with the appropriate labor organizations whose members have skills in the area in which the OJT or customized training is proposed in the development of the training contract. The comment does not limit this consultation to circumstances where a collective bargaining agreement is in effect.
One comment suggested that we define the term “substantial layoff,” as found in WIA Section 101(9)(B)(i) and § 663.115, to include situations in which employers use layoff status to avoid their WARN Act obligations to announce a plant closing or significant permanent downsizing.
The same commenter also suggested State and Local Boards be encouraged to develop the broadest possible definition of a general announcement of a plant closing, including information that is “public knowledge,” despite the failure of the employer to acknowledge the closing.
Several commenters recommended that we require State Plans to further discuss the eligibility of displaced homemakers and the service strategies for meeting this group's special needs.
One commenter supported the requirement that all three types of services, (core, intensive, and training), must be available through the One-Stop delivery system, but wanted the regulations to limit the provision of the “discretionary” services authorized under WIA section 134(e)(1) to those that do not reduce the availability or accessibility of other mandatory services to eligible participants under the Act.
We received many comments concerning our general approach to regulating participant progression through the sequence of services. The commenters were uniformly pleased that the regulations did not require a certain number of failed job search attempts or minimum lengths of time in one service tier before an individual could be found eligible for the next tier of services. Several commenters, however, felt we should do even more to ensure that the Act is not interpreted as a “work first” program. Some comments suggested that we should preclude State and Local Boards from establishing minimum time periods of participation in core and intensive services.
Core services also include assistance in establishing eligibility for the Welfare-to-Work program, and programs of financial aid for training and education programs. The specific form of this assistance is determined at the local level based on the participant's needs and in coordination with the other partner programs. This assistance may include: referrals to specific agencies; information relating to, or provision of, required applications or other forms; or specific on-site assistance.
Another core service is the provision of information relating to the availability of supportive services, including child care and transportation available in the local area, and referral to such services as appropriate. Local Boards are encouraged to establish strong linkages with a variety of supportive service programs and work supports, including child support, EITC, dependent care, housing, Food Stamps, Medicaid programs, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, that may benefit the customers they are serving at the One-Stop Center. Such programs provide key supports for low-income working families and families making the transition from welfare to self-sufficiency.
We also encourage Local Boards to establish strong linkages to child support agencies and organizations serving fathers. WIA services can help raise the employment and earnings of non-custodial fathers and fathers living with their children so that they can better support their children. Child support payments help low income single parents stabilize and raise their income. At the same time, it is important for One-Stop programs to be aware of the impact that child support requirements may have on non-custodial parents who may seek services.
One commenter recommended that the provision of “brokering services,” as presently performed by CBO's under JTPA be expressly permitted under Part 663. These services include facilitating and brokering relationships between low-income community residents, local businesses, and specialized groups, as well as referrals to groups to provide training and placement.
Commenting on § 663.150, one organization remarked on the importance of ensuring that individuals seeking assistance through core services be provided with opportunities for self-service, facilitated self-help, and staff-assisted services.
One commenter asked that the regulations provide a list of available followup services which could be provided to all adults and dislocated workers. The commenter also requested that the regulations ensure that followup services are provided to all participants.
Followup services could include, but are not limited to: additional career planning and counseling; contact with the participant's employer, including assistance with work-related problems that may arise; peer support groups; information about additional educational opportunities, and referral to supportive services available in the community. In determining the need for post-placement services, there may also be a review of the participant's need for supportive services to meet the participant's employment goals. As provided in § 663.815, financial assistance, such as needs-related payments, for employed participants is not an allowable follow-up service since, under WIA section 134(e)(3)(A), needs-related payments are restricted to unemployed persons who have exhausted or do not qualify for unemployment compensation and who need the payments to participate in training. We expect that the provision of training and supportive services after entry into unsubsidized employment (“post-placement”) will be limited, and will be part of the IEP, clearly documented in the participant case file. Such post-placement training and supportive services may be provided consistent with policies established by the State or Local Board, and determined to be necessary on an individual basis by the One Stop partner.
Several commenters noted there is no uniform understanding of “assessment” and that many One-Stop partners have different ideas of what assessment should entail. Some comments also asked for examples or additional guidance concerning best practices in this area.
Clarifying language has been added to the regulations at § 663.160 which states that initial assessment “provides preliminary information regarding the individual's skill levels, aptitudes, interests, (re)employability and other needs.” As a core service, the initial assessment is necessarily a brief, preliminary information gathering process that, among other things, will provide sufficient information about an individual's basic literacy and occupational skill levels to enable the One-Stop operator to make appropriate referrals to services available through the One-Stop and partner programs. Comprehensive assessment, which is an intensive service, is a more detailed examination of these issues and may explore any number of things relevant to the development of a person's IEP. These might include some combination or all of the following: educational attainment; employment history; more in-depth information about basic literacy and occupational skill levels; interests; aptitudes; family and financial situation; emotional and physical health, including disabilities; attitudes toward work; motivation; and supportive service needs. We expect that all partner agencies in the One-Stop, under any applicable State policies, will work to achieve consensus on the required components of the assessment system for the One-Stop system at any local level. In doing so, they should take into account any special assessment needs that may be experienced by individuals with disabilities and other populations with multiple barriers to employment. As we proceed with the implementation of WIA we will consider gathering “best practices” on the delivery of assessment services to share with the system.
One commenter suggested adding language to § 663.160 mandating that assessment and service strategies identified in IEPs conducted by a non-WIA program, satisfy the conditions of WIA, thereby making participants eligible for intensive and training services under the Act.
Several commenters supported § 663.250 which provides that there is no minimum amount of time for individuals to stay in core or intensive services, stating that this approach maximizes local flexibility and ensures that each person's needs are properly addressed. In general, the comments received on subpart B related both to expanding or limiting allowable intensive services, to listing specific populations as among those potentially eligible for intensive services, and to proposing definitions of “self sufficiency.”
We received several comments on the definition of intensive services at
On the suggestion of including ESL, VESL and Functional Context Education Programs that integrate literacy or ESL and job training as intensive services, we note that WIA section 134(d)(4)(D), which describes “Training services,” specifically includes adult education and literacy activities provided in combination with other job skills training. Such adult education and literacy training activities, when combined with a job may include ESL, and other needed educational services for participants, including reading and math literacy, as determined by Local Board policies, and the individual assessment. As indicated above, the list of intensive services is not all inclusive. However, language skills independent of skills training would appear to be of limited value in leading to (re)employability for individuals without significant work histories and occupational skills. We expect that basic language skills will be provided as a short-term prevocational service when part of an Individual Employment Plan in which such activities are followed by additional language skills training as a “training service,” in accordance with procedures established by the State or Local Board. Such determinations are for State and local decision-making. No change has been made in the Final Rule.
Several commenters expressed concern about the inclusion, at § 663.200(a), of internships and work experiences as intensive services, rather than as training services. Some commenters were concerned that participants could be exploited in unpaid work experience and recommended that we establish time limits (
A few commenters indicated that since internships and work experiences are designed to impart specific skill and behavioral competencies they should be defined as “training” rather than “intensive services.” One comment suggested that, consistent with prior JTPA provisions, work experience under WIA should be only for those individuals with no significant work history. Another comment asserted that, given the high cost of providing work experience, participants could be best served by job readiness or some other intensive service.
Two commenters indicated that internships and work experience must be measured through outcomes, including training-related placements, career ladders, and competencies. One of the commenters added that these must be paid activities. One commenter recommended that the Final Rule make clear that work experience could be with a public sector employer, including a service or conservation corps.
We believe that the use of unpaid internships and work experiences should be limited and based on a service strategy identified in an Individual Employment Plan, and combined with other services. We expect that such activities will be of limited duration, based on the needs of the individual participant. State and Local Boards are responsible for developing policies on the use, and duration, of both paid and unpaid internships and work experiences as a service strategy. Similarly, we expect that, along with other activities, State and Local Boards will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of intensive services, including internships and work experience, in responding to the needs of participants and the results on participant outcomes. While not minimizing the commenters' concerns, there are good examples of local programs using paid and unpaid work experience which respond to the needs of participants, for example the School-to-Work Opportunities initiative provided many young people the experience the needed to secure higher paying, higher skilled employment.
On the issue of defining internships and work experience as “training” rather than “intensive services,” we believe that such services may respond to the needs of particular clients which, when combined with core services already received and other intensive services, may result in positive employment outcomes without the need for “training” services. For other clients, such experiences may prove beneficial in identifying the need for, and referral to, needed training services consistent with the Individual Employment Plan. No change has been made in the Final Rule.
On the issue of limiting internships and work experience to the public and private non-profit sectors, we feel that such a limitation would unnecessarily restrict the employment opportunities for clients seeking services and, to a degree, limit customer choice since the majority of employment opportunities exist in the private for-profit sector. Nothing in the rule prevents Local Boards from providing work experience with community service or conservation
One commenter felt that the Final Rule must make clear that intensive services cannot be provided through individual training accounts or vouchers.
A number of commenters expressed concern that § 663.220(a) describes eligibility for unemployed individuals as simply requiring that they are unable to obtain employment through core services while § 663.220(b) describes employed and/or dislocated workers as in need of intensive services to obtain or retain employment that leads to self-sufficiency. Commenters felt this appeared to set a double standard and conflicted with the provisions of Titles II and IV of WIA which clearly tie self-sufficiency to employment in all cases. The commenters felt that these provisions might be interpreted to mean that unemployed individuals may be put in jobs that do not lead to self-sufficiency. Commenters recommended that the Final Rule provide that States and Local Boards may set their own standards for employment, e.g., using the Self-Sufficiency Standard for all job-seekers.
While it is true that the difference in eligibility for intensive services for unemployed and employed adults and dislocated workers might be interpreted to mean that unemployed individuals can be put in jobs which do not lead to self-sufficiency, we want to make clear that the eligibility criterion is a service requirement and not an employment outcome. Other provisions in WIA pertaining to wage and benefit requirements, which appear at WIA section 181, labor standards, at WIA section 181(b), employment in demand and growth occupations, at WIA section 134(c)(4)(G)(iii), and employment in jobs with upward mobility, at WIA section 195(1), to cite a few, all enhance opportunities for employment which allows for self-sufficiency. Additionally, the performance standard measures, at WIA section 136(b)(2)(A), will also be a spur to placing, and retaining, participants in jobs with good, self-sufficient wages. As the eligibility criteria are statutory requirements which the Secretary does not have authority to change, no change has been made to the Final Rule.
We agree with the suggestion the State and Local Boards be allowed to set their own standards for employment, using the self-sufficiency standard developed by the State or Local Boards for all employment. There is nothing in the Act or Interim Final Rule that would preclude such a policy as a goal for participant outcomes. Any such policy must meet the minimum requirements in § 663.230 for defining self-sufficiency. While statutory language prevents us from mandating such a policy, we do strongly recommend it. No change has been made to the Final Rule.
One commenter suggested that leaving it solely to the One-Stop operator to determine who is in need of more intensive or training services could be problematic, particularly if the operator is a for-profit entity which could financially benefit from limiting access to intensive and training services.
We received a few comments about to the sequencing of intensive and training services at § 663.240.
One commenter supported the requirement that participants must receive at least one intensive service such as development of individual employment plan or individual counseling and career planning before receiving training services. Another commenter wants an Individual Employment Plan to be required for any worker seeking intensive or training services.
One commenter acknowledged that the One-Stop partners, the Local Board, and the CEO must participate in the development of policies for eligibility beyond core services, but recommended that these policies must also be available for public review and comment to assure fairness in the selection process.
A few comments requested that a new sentence be added at the end § 663.220(b) to read: “Persons with disabilities and other special needs populations may also qualify for intensive services.”
From our review of the comments received on § 663.230, it appears that there is some confusion with respect to the term “self-sufficiency” and how it applies under WIA. A number of commenters are clearly under the mistaken impression that the provisions of §§ 663.220(b) and 663.230 treat “employment leading to self-sufficiency” as a performance outcome measure under WIA, which is not the case. The commenters raised the point that the manner in which self-sufficiency is defined could impact performance outcomes if standards are set low in one area and higher in another. If such measures will be used in comparisons across State and local lines, setting higher standards for employment that leads to self-sufficiency could negatively impact the outcomes achieved by the local system with higher standards.
WIA section 136 establish the WIA performance accountability system, including State and local performance measures intended to assess the effectiveness of States and local areas in achieving continuous improvement of WIA Title I-B funded workforce investment activities. Although the core indicators of performance for WIA adult and dislocated worker activities look at outcomes such as wage gain, job retention and other factors in determining successful performance of the programs; “self-sufficiency” is not one of the statutory core indicators. Section 663.230 is not intended to imply that this is the case.
Unlike predecessor employment and training programs, WIA opens up employment and training services to
As indicated above, the regulations at § 663.230 were developed with the recognition that the “self-sufficiency” definition would vary from State-to-State, and even from area-to-area within a State. Therefore, the regulations provide that, for the purposes of determining the eligibility of employed and dislocated workers for intensive services, State and Local Boards are responsible for establishing the criteria for determining whether employment leads to self-sufficiency. Accordingly, the regulation provides maximum flexibility, requiring only that self-sufficiency mean employment that pays at least 100 percent of the lower living standard income level (LLSIL).
In general, the majority of the comments received on § 663.230 dealt with two areas: (1) recommendations on factors that should be included in defining “self-sufficiency,” and (2) the need for a more reliable measure of self-sufficiency than the LLSIL.
A few commenters asked why, since the LLSIL takes family size and economic conditions into account, there was a need to require the use of other factors in determining self-sufficiency. The commenters also asked for clarification of the purpose of asking State and Local Boards to set additional criteria for self-sufficiency, as well as the benefit to a local system.
As indicated above, State and Local Boards are responsible for determining self-sufficiency and must develop criteria for making that determination. The reason for authorizing the State and Local Boards to develop criteria for making these determinations is that State and Local Boards are best able to judge such factors as the cost of living in a local area and the wages available in jobs in the local area. Thus, they are best able to set a standard for self-sufficiency that meet the needs of their local economy. The “benefit” to a local system is the flexibility provided to develop such criteria, above the established floor of the LLSIL, so that local conditions may be taken into account. Therefore, no change has been made to the Final Rule.
A number of commenters stated that since the regulations use self-sufficiency as a means to measure WIA success, it should be defined in an individualized way. Further, data collection systems must be able to account for higher living expenses experienced by persons with disabilities in any determination of “self-sufficiency”. One commenter added that Federal and State work incentives used by people with disabilities should not be viewed as lack of self-sufficiency. Another commenter said that self-sufficiency must also include measures for long-term success in the labor market.
One commenter noted that the regulations say that self-sufficiency for employed dislocated workers may be defined relative to a percentage of the layoff wage, and suggested specifying in the Final Rule that for displaced homemakers, self-sufficiency may be defined as a percentage of household income before displacement. One commenter indicated that the definition for self-sufficiency must include discrete measures for benefits, particularly health benefits. Also, the commenter suggested that we provide guidance and technical assistance to State and Local Boards to help them develop measures of self-sufficiency that are tied to family wage/benefit levels needed to live in local communities.
One commenter stated that the regulations must require Local Boards to consult with organized labor and community based organizations in the development of self-sufficiency measures, and wants the process for establishing and updating self-sufficiency measures included in the plan as well as all plan modifications.
One commenter, while appreciative that self-sufficiency as it relates to intensive services is set at the lower living standard income level, added that research has shown that a “true” standard for self-sufficiency should be even higher, at 150 percent of the lower living standard. The comment concluded that this level has a potential for setting a high bar for measuring success under WIA—sending a signal that the system has not succeeded when individuals end up in minimum wage jobs. The commenter urged that the regulations require that the Local Plans spell out how the local areas will define self-sufficiency, so that it may be subject to public comment and review. Another commenter felt that the LLSIL is not a reliable measure of self-sufficiency, and recommended that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) develop a new LLSIL that reflects the costs of self-sufficiency for today's families, including the cost of child care. Until such a measure is developed it was recommend that the self-sufficiency floor be set at 150% of the LLSIL.
One commenter wanted to know what action we will take if the State Board and the Local Board decide to set different criteria for self-sufficiency and they do not agree?
One commenter felt that using the minimum requirement of the LLSIL will result in various definitions for different individuals, depending on the size of the family, and suggested it is more reasonable to use a percentage of the area's average annual income.
One commenter would like the definition of low-income to be changed to 100 percent of LLSIL, rather than 70 percent.
We received comments on the definition of an Individual Employment Plan at § 663.245. One commenter recommended inserting, “including support services” between the words “appropriate combination of services” and “for” in order to ensure that the potential need for supportive services is discussed and that appropriate information, supportive services and referrals for services are provided. Another commenter suggested replacing the word “strategy” with “process” to convey a more interactive mode between case manager and client.
One commenter felt that the employment goals should include earning a self-sufficiency wage. States should be encouraged to pursue innovative strategies to meet that goal, as provided for in the Act, including access to training and employment in nontraditional fields for women, entrepreneurship training and asset-building instruction and guidance.
Some comments addressed § 663.250, which provides that there is no minimum length of time a participant must spend in intensive services.
One commenter recommended that, even though § 663.250 places no minimum time limit for participation in intensive services before receiving training services, local One-Stop systems be urged to provide sufficient intensive services to ensure that individuals are well prepared for training and long term employment opportunities. Another commenter said that States and Local Boards must be precluded from establishing minimum and maximum time periods for participation in intensive services.
A commenter recommended that States be required to establish measures for determining the ongoing effectiveness of intensive services to assure that participants receive the maximum benefit.
One commenter asked that we clarify in the Final Rule that, under WIA, training may be provided to both employed and incumbent workers.
“Employed” adults and dislocated workers may also receive training services through the One-Stop system under WIA when certain conditions are met. These individuals must meet the statutory definition of an eligible adult or dislocated worker and, to receive intensive services, and ultimately training, an employed individual must be determined by a One-Stop operator to be in need of such services to obtain or retain employment that leads to self-sufficiency. Funding for these activities comes from the “formula” funds provided to the Workforce Investment Area.
One commenter felt that, in order to protect participants, any training service that a Local Board offers that is in addition to those listed in the Act must be identified in the Local Plan so that there can be public review and comment. Similarly, any additional training services that are offered after the approval of the Local Plan must also be subject to public review and comment.
Two commenters suggested that the regulations should list non-traditional job training, including entrepreneurial training, asset building, financial literacy training, micro enterprise
We received numerous comments about the impact of training eligibility criteria on individuals with disabilities. The commenters were concerned about the requirement that eligible individuals must be found to have the skills and qualifications to successfully participate in the selected program of training services. Commenters felt that this could limit the opportunities available for disabled persons.
One comment suggested that § 663.310 was not sufficiently specific in linking training services to occupations in demand, as required by the Act.
We received a number of comments about the effects of the requirement that training programs selected must be directly linked to demand occupations in the local area, or in another area to which the individual is willing to relocate, on individual with disabilities. Commenters felt that this could restrict persons with disabilities from participating in the title I program and suggested granting a waiver of the requirement in appropriate cases.
We think that the commenters' concerns about the occupations in demand requirement are misplaced. As discussed above, the requirement for training eligibility is that the training must be linked to an employment opportunity available in the local community or in a place to which the participant is willing to relocate. The phrase on which the commenters focus, the occupations in demand requirement, is an eligibility condition for receipt of an ITA. Thus, a participant may be eligible for and receive training in any occupation (job) that is available to the participant. If the job is not in an occupation in demand, the participant may not be able to have the training funded through an ITA, but may still receive the training through one of the exceptions to ITA's, for example, through contracted training provided by a CBO with demonstrated effectiveness in serving populations with special needs. No change has been made to the regulations.
There were several other more general comments about the criteria governing training eligibility. One commenter urged that training services be linked with employment opportunities in high
Similarly, another comment suggested that § 663.310(c) be modified to clarify that training should only be for employment opportunities “that provide a self-sufficiency wage.” We agree, in concept, that the ultimate goal for all employment, whether under WIA or any other program, should be self-sufficiency for the job seeker. We expect that State and Local Boards will consider a wide range of issues including training for jobs that allow participants the opportunity to attain self-sufficiency. Section 663.310, as written, is essentially a recitation of the Act's training eligibility provisions. No change has been made to the Final Rule.
One comment suggested that the One-Stop partners, the Local Board, and the chief elected official must participate in the development of training eligibility policies, and that those policies must also be made available for public review and comment to assure fairness in the selection process.
Another commenter suggested that Title I of the Act “radically” and “bureaucratically” restricts access to job skills training, and believed that the regulations require unemployed individuals to accept any job available, regardless of whether that job enables the participant to rise above the poverty level or not.
Section 134(d)(4)(B) of WIA requires the coordination of training costs with funds available under other Federal programs. To avoid duplicate payment of costs when an individual is eligible for both WIA and other assistance, including a Pell Grant, § 663.320(b) requires that program operators and training providers coordinate by entering into arrangements with the entities administering the alternate sources of funds, including eligible providers administering Pell Grants. These entities should consider all available sources of funds, excluding loans, in determining an individual's overall need for WIA funds. The exact mix of funds should be determined based on the availability of funding for either training costs or supportive services, with the goal of ensuring that the costs of the training program the participant selects are fully paid and that necessary supportive services are available so that the training can be completed successfully. This determination should focus on the needs of the participant; simply reducing the amount of WIA funds by the amount of Pell Grant funds is not permitted. Participation in a training program funded under WIA may not be conditioned on applying for or using a loan to help finance training costs.
With such coordination and arrangements, the WIA counselor is likely to know the amount of WIA funds available to the WIA participant when calculating the amount of financial assistance needed for the participant to complete the training program successfully. The WIA counselor needs to work with the WIA participant to calculate the total funding resources available as well as to assess the full “education and education related costs” (training and supportive services costs) incurred if the participant is to complete the chosen program. This also ensures both that duplicate payments of training costs are not made and that the amount of WIA funded training is not reduced by the amount of Federal student financial assistance in violation of 20 U.S.C. 1087uu.
It is important to note that the Pell Grant is not school-based; rather, it is a portable grant for which preliminary eligibility can, and should, be determined before the participant enrolls in a particular school or training program. The Free Application for Student Aid (FASA), which is used to establish Pell Grant eligibility, should be readily available at all One-Stop centers for assistance in the completion of these “gateway” financial aid applications.
Section 663.320(c) implements the requirements of WIA section 134(d)(4)(B)(ii). This section permits a WIA participant to enroll in a training program with WIA funds while an application for Pell Grant funds is pending, but requires that the local
In the limited cases where contracts are used rather than ITA's, the contracts negotiated by the One-Stop center must prohibit training institutions or organizations from holding the student liable for outstanding charges. Otherwise, the performance agreements would be undercut because the incentive for the institution or organization to perform would be removed. Also, the practice of withholding Pell Grants from students is prohibited by the U.S. Department of Education.
We received a few comments on Pell Grant issues. One commenter stated that WIA section 134(d)(4)(B) does not require disbursement from that portion of Pell paid to WIA participants for education-related expenses. The commenter recommended that, although the issue was discussed in the preamble to the Interim Final Rule, the rule should be modified to state that the training provider must reimburse only for “tuition portion” of the Pell grant. The commenter also raised the issue of the need for reimbursement arrangements for WIA funds used to “underwrite the training” with training provider while Pell funding is pending. The commenter also requested clarification on whether tuition costs include or exclude specifically required fees for lab, supplies and other fees. Another commenter noted that the regulations appear to assign the One-Stop operator the responsibility for making arrangements with training providers to process reimbursements when WIA participants enroll in training while their application for a Pell Grant is pending. This precludes the other One-Stop partners from having this responsibility. The commenter recommended that we replace all references in the regulations that assign specific responsibilities to the One-Stop operator with language that allows for flexibility.
One commenter felt that the accountability requirements in the Act and regulations deny States and Local Boards the flexibility needed to ensure that individuals have enough financial power over their use of ITA's, but believes that this is a necessary result of the accountability requirements of the Act and regulations. The commenter suggested that, to accomplish the desired flexibility, Congress and the Department must lower performance and accountability expectations.
One commenter, which favored retention of the regulatory language authorizing interim payments, seemed to believe that such a payment methodology would also apply to the supportive services that an ITA participant might be receiving.
Another commenter recommended that the regulations require an ITA payment system that incorporates independent verification procedures that will ensure that the training provider has measured and certified the training received. That same commenter also suggested we establish a payment system that is efficient and easy to use while providing the strongest fiscal controls to prevent abuse.
National data collection and evaluation of the new ITA system: There were also comments urging us to collect information on the actual costs of training and to conduct evaluations of the relationship between training and job placement, as well as the relationship between the amount and duration of ITA's and the success of workers in securing jobs that provide self-sufficiency. Additionally, the commenter asked us to establish a system to collect information on outcomes for ITA's including the relationship of training to job placement.
Two other commenters suggested that the regulations authorize the use of ITA's to pay the full cost of customized training programs in which tuition is not otherwise charged.
A commenter recommended that the limits on ITA's be as flexible as possible to allow workers to invest in training that will lead to a living wage and long-term self sufficiency and a second urged State and Local Boards to consider the needs of different populations in setting limits.
To ensure that State and Local Board are able to make informed decisions about how effectively different populations can be served under an ITA system, commenters recommended that we encourage State and Local Boards to gather data from training providers and other stakeholders on the actual costs of and time needed for training. One commenter focused this concern on low-income unemployed individuals. The commenter asked that we include affirmative examples to States and Local Boards in regulations or in guidance to ensure that such limitations do not impede the success of intervention. Other commenters suggested that there is evidence that previously established limits have been too restrictive to effectively serve low income populations.
We have begun to develop additional information about ITA's, including information drawn from a new ITA demonstration that will explore a number of approaches to the administration of ITA's and provide a laboratory for stakeholders and local operators to visit and observe. We will use this information to provide guidance to the system through conference workshops.
Numerous comments concerned § 663.420, which gives the State or Local Board the authority to establish limits on the dollar amount and the duration of an ITA. Several commenters were concerned that cost and duration limitations on ITA's will limit customer choice. They were especially concerned that cost limitations would be set too low to provide a range of eligible training providers from which to choose. The commenters voiced concern that the cost limitations could be set at amounts less than the actual cost of training services. They requested that we provide regulations or guidance to ensure that ITA administration does not become a limiting factor in serving job seekers. Similarly, many commenters felt that limits on the amount and duration of an ITA conflicted with Title I of the Rehabilitation Act and limits informed choice of individuals with disabilities.
We have added language to § 663.420(c) to clarify that any ITA limitations that are established may provide for exceptions to the limitations in individual cases. We believe that more effective programs will include this type of flexible limitation policies, so that individuals are not excluded from training solely because of an ITA limitation. In establishing guidance or limits on training funding, a number of factors may be taken into consideration, such as the skill shortages identified by local employers, the costs of training to address these occupations in demand, and the training needs and interests of the participants. The availability of other funding resources should also be considered in the development of the training portion of the Individual Development Plan, including Rehabilitation Act funds, TANF, Pell Grants, and other Federal and State funding. Coordination and cost sharing between Local Boards and Rehabilitation Act grantees as well as other partners with training funds is a matter for local negotiation and inclusion in the MOU. 20 CFR part 662 contains a detailed discussion of MOUs.
DOL's WIA title I performance accountability specifications do not measure cost per participant, therefore, the setting of cost limitations for ITA's will not have an impact on the performance accountability system. The decision to establish cost and duration limitations should be made after fully considering their benefits to the overall workforce system and their effects on individuals and populations in need of training. In making such decisions, State and Local Boards should consider all public costs, not simply available WIA funds, the value of such training in contributing to the competitiveness of local businesses that may be “at risk” or may be expanding and other economic development benefits.
One commenter suggested that the language in § 663.420(a) which gives the State or Local Board responsibility for establishing dollar and duration limits be revised to give the Local Board the sole responsibility.
One commenter asked how disagreements between a State and Local Board over the establishment of limits to ITA's would be resolved.
Although discussing limits to ITA's, one commenter suggested that State and Local Boards be required to establish criteria and written policies governing access to and the distribution of ITA's and that the process for developing these policies be required to include consultation with appropriate labor organizations. Further, the commenter suggested that such policies be available to the interested parties, the general public and all individuals served through the One-Stop system.
We believe that access to and distribution of ITA's is based broadly on the Local Board's policy decision about the amount of funding to be devoted to training services and, more narrowly, on individual participants' need for training and their eligibility for it. We strongly encourage Local Boards to consult with a variety of organizations, including organized labor, when making policy decisions concerning ITA's. No change has been made to the Final Rule.
A commenter recommended that we should include a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of union affiliation in the selection of training programs.
Another commenter requested authority for training providers to reject students with ITA's where they think the student will not succeed in, or benefit by, the program.
Numerous comments recommended that the list of special participant populations be expanded to include individuals with disabilities who require multiple services over extended periods of time. Other commenters recommended that the list also be expanded to include older individuals or low income older individuals. Two commenters disagreed, in part, with the recommendation that individuals with disabilities be included as a special participant populations. They made the point that such individuals should not be automatically perceived as a special participant population and excluded from benefitting from ITA's.
In addition, we would like to clarify that within the special participant populations that are listed in the Act and that are identified by the Governor, there will be individuals for whom an ITA is the most appropriate avenue to employment. We encourage One-Stop operators and intensive service providers to consider all training options when working with special participant populations. It is important that consumer reports reflect adequate information to determine the appropriateness of training provided by an eligible training provider with regard to accessibility, auxiliary aids and services, etc., to enable customers with special needs to make an informed choice.
One commenter recommended that the Governor be required to solicit comments from key stakeholders, including business, organized labor, and CBO's, when identifying additional populations.
Criteria for “Demonstrated Effectiveness”: Section 663.430(a)(3), provides that when the exception for special populations is used, the Local Board must have in place criteria it developed to determine “demonstrated effectiveness,” particularly as it applies to the special participant population it proposes to serve. This determination is in addition to meeting the requirements for qualifying as an eligible training provider. The criteria listed in the regulation are illustrative and Local Boards should develop specific criteria applicable to their local areas.
One commenter suggested that, in selecting CBO's as training providers through a contract for services to serve special participant populations, State and Local Boards should be able to consider quality training even if that training program is not included on the eligible provider list.
One commenter felt that one of the criteria of demonstrated effectiveness established in § 663.430(a)(3), “financial stability,” was too restrictive and should not be a factor in considering CBO's which have a record of providing crucial services to disadvantaged groups.
The same commenter also recommended that we change § 663.430(a)(3)(ii) to establish, as an alternative to the listed program measures, the criterion of a demonstrated ability to do outreach to and serve populations that face multiple barriers.
Another commenter suggested expanding the criteria for demonstrated performance to include the attainment of a self sufficiency wage.
One commenter suggested expanding the criteria for demonstrated performance to include the demonstrated ability to serve “hard to serve” populations.
4.
A commenter expressed concern that, if the same entities that establish ITA's also offer training, they will have the potential to steer individuals toward their own training services.
Another commenter asked how customer choice requirements apply to incumbent workers.
In contrast, when a One-Stop operator determines that an employed worker meets the eligibility criteria, established under WIA Sec. 134(d)(3)(A)(ii), for training with local (formula) funds, that worker should is no different from any other worker found eligible for training services and must enjoy the same degree of consumer choice as any other person eligible for training. An Individual Employment Plan would be developed for the employed worker as part of the intensive services provided to the participant and a training plan, if so indicated, developed in the same manner as for any other participant. Since the customer choice requirements do not apply to incumbent worker training, no change has been made to the regulations.
In response to the second comment, the “exhausted funds” language of § 663.440(c) is not intended to contradict, and must be read in conjunction with, the Local Board's authority to determine the appropriate mix of core, intensive and training services in the local area, described in § 663.145(a). In recognition of this, we have changed § 663.440(c) to clarify that a One-Stop operator must refer an individual to training and establish an ITA except when the Local Board determines that training funds have been exhausted.
The commenter also suggested that the costs of referral to training be borne by the One-Stop operator.
Another commenter suggested that in order to assure “true” customer choice, the consumer information provided by the Local Board should include a listing of the types of jobs into which providers have placed people and the wages earned in those jobs.
Another commenter supported the requirement in § 663.430(a)(2) for a public comment period of 30 days before a Local Board can determine that there is an insufficient number of eligible training providers in the local area to accomplish the purposes of ITA's.
Subpart E describes the methods by which organizations qualify as eligible providers of training services under WIA. It also describes the roles and responsibilities of Local Boards and the State in managing this process. Although no single entity has full responsibility for the entire process, the State must play a leadership role in ensuring the success of the eligible provider system. The Governor establishes minimum performance levels for initial determination of non-Higher Education Act/registered apprenticeship providers and for all subsequent eligibility determinations. The Local Board may establish additional local performance levels for subsequent eligibility determinations. The eligible provider process requires a collaborative effort among the State, Local Boards, and other partners. The regulations attempt to amplify and clarify the intent of the Act, by linking statutory language on eligible providers in WIA section 122 with the provisions covering Individual Training Accounts
Before publication of the Interim Final Rule, some traditional providers of training under previous workforce programs, such as community-based organizations, expressed concern that they would face difficulties in participating in this system. The regulations clarify that such organizations have the opportunity to deliver training funded under WIA, provided that they deliver services that customers value and meet training performance requirements. It is important that States provide access to these organizations in order to maximize customer choice. States should provide access to a broad and diverse range of providers, including CBO's, while maintaining the quality and integrity of training services.
A commenter recommended that the Act and the regulations for subpart E be changed to permit use of a competitive procurement process, such as that permitted for youth providers in the Act, since the identification of eligible training providers for adult training services was viewed as “overly complicated.”
Several commenters suggested that language should be added in § 663.500 and throughout the subpart to clarify that programs, not providers, are made eligible, and that eligibility is not automatically conferred on all of an eligible provider's programs.
•
• providers are eligible to provide training services
• the Local Board and the Governor may require application information on providers as institutions, in addition to information regarding programs;
• application requirements for all
• providers submit performance information on
• providers may continue to be eligible if at least one of their programs is eligible (even if other of their programs are determined ineligible and removed from the local and State lists); and
• State and local lists must include information on eligible training
A number of commenters wanted us to add specific language in § 663.500 and throughout this subpart on the need to assure that there is diversity in the types of programs offered and in entrance requirements, that community-based organizations are included, and that nontraditional employment for women be a suggested focus for new training providers.
A number of commenters were concerned that the requirements in section 122 of the Act and all of §§ 663.500 through 663.595 of the regulations would be in conflict with “informed choice” requirements in title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by title IV of the Workforce Investment Act. Commenters noted that State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agencies have their own vendor approval procedures, maintain their own vendor lists, and that some organizations that work with persons with disabilities may not be on a WIA eligible training provider list.
Both title I of WIA and Section 102(d) of the Rehabilitation Act (title IV of WIA) contain provisions that we believe are intended to serve the same goal—providing participants with the opportunity and the means to make informed choices about the services they receive. Title I of WIA mandates that training be delivered in a manner that maximizes consumer choice and requires the use of ITA's, provision of descriptive and performance information on eligible providers and programs, and delivery of intensive services, such as assessment and case management. Similarly, section 102(d) of the Rehabilitation Act requires State VR agencies to implement policies to
We encourage State VR agencies and WIA systems to harmonize and coordinate their respective policies and procedures on informed consumer choice and the creation of lists of, and information on, eligible or approved providers of training services. Both systems could explore, for example, common application requirements or approval criteria for vendors of training services, expediting the application or approval process to assure timely inclusion of vendors from the partner system, providing outreach to their respective providers on how they can become eligible or approved under the partner's system, and creation of a common, accessible consumer information system on programs and providers that can be used by participants in both WIA title I and VR as they exercise their choice.
As we noted earlier, we encourage Governors and Local Boards to ensure that the eligible training provider system provides access to a broad diversity of programs that can accommodate the varying needs, career interests and preferences of priority groups under WIA. We encourage Governors and Local Boards to make sure that State and local WIA procedures, while maintaining the quality and integrity of training services, afford adequate and timely opportunities for applications from training programs and providers serving individuals with disabilities. Also, when developing initial and subsequent eligibility procedures, under §§ 663.515(c)(1)(I) and 663.535 (a)(1), Governors must solicit and take into consideration the recommendations of providers. We encourage Governors to extend this opportunity to providers offering training services to individuals with disabilities. Since we do not see a conflict between WIA's customer choice and VR's informed choice requirements, no change has been made to the Final rule.
A commenter suggested that § 663.505 (b)(2)(iii), be revised to specifically mention service or conservation corps as other eligible providers of training services.
One commenter wanted us to ensure that CBO's, whose eligibility is discussed in § 663.505(b)(2)(v), are not left out as eligible training providers simply because they are not “automatically” eligible under WIA section 122(b)(1).
A number of comments criticized § 663.510 for failing to address States' and Local Boards' responsibility to ensure that available training options include nontraditional occupational training for women, small business development and other programs targeting particular populations or industrial sectors for which there may be high demand. Commenters asked that the Final Rule include language requiring States and localities to ensure that the eligibility determination process assures the availability of non-traditional training options for women. One commenter wanted the regulations to require States and Local Boards to conduct outreach to CBO's that provide services to disadvantaged populations to help them apply for certification and contracts.
One commenter requested that the regulations clarify that cost and performance information is required for
One commenter was concerned that, as local lists are combined to form a State list, as discussed in § 663.510, some programs and providers could be included for which a Local Board would not want to allow customers to use title I training funds. The commenter further recommended that the regulations give final authority to Local Boards to choose what programs and providers to include on a local list.
The Act, at section 122(e)(4)(b), requires that individuals eligible to receive training have the opportunity to select any eligible provider from any local area that is included on the State list. Local Boards are required to make this list available to the local One-Stop system. We believe that, to maximize customer choice, Local Boards must ensure that participants are informed about the State and local lists, encouraged to use them, and informed of their right to choose any programs on the list. For individuals determined eligible for training services, there are only three conditions a Local Board can impose on participants using ITA's: the training must be in an occupation for which there is demand, the individual must have the qualifications to succeed in the program, and the selection occurs after consultation with a case manager. Since Local Boards must allow title I funds to be used in the programs selected by training participants if these three conditions are met, Local Boards should ensure that the participants select the provider that best suits their individual needs especially when the provider is not located in the local area. Local Boards are encouraged to consider:
•
•
•
Because the Act encourages broad customer choice, we do not think it appropriate to change the regulations. State and Local Boards have the flexibility to help individuals to make the best choice for their circumstances.
A commenter wanted § 663.510 to ensure that Local Boards have the flexibility to set policy on providers and programs that reflects local conditions and that the State cannot add its own providers to the State list.
We recognize that, during both initial and subsequent eligibility, there may be programs which a Local Board believes are valuable in meeting local workforce needs that do not meet performance levels (or other criteria) and, therefore, cannot be included on the local list. To avoid this situation, we encourage local Boards to make their recommendations on the Governor's initial eligibility procedures, an opportunity which Governors are required to make available to Local Boards under § 663.515(c)(1)(I). As discussed earlier, in order to ensure access to a broad array of programs that can meet customer's diverse skill needs, career interests, and preferences, we also encourage Local Boards, to provide outreach and technical assistance to providers.
We recognize that, in other instances, a Local Board may reluctantly have to include programs or providers which it believes are questionable on the local list. To avoid individuals selecting questionable programs or providers or to prevent any problems if they are selected, we encourage Local Boards to explore the approaches suggested above, for enhancing the quality of information, providing high quality case management and guidance, and creating procedures to enhance performance. Since the regulation accurately reflects the statutory requirements, no change has been made to the Final rule.
One commenter was concerned that the Preamble and § 663.510(b) were inconsistent in discussing the need for setting performance levels for initial eligibility.
Another commenter stated that the process for determining eligible providers, as described in § 663.510, should be as transparent as possible, and allow qualified providers to become eligible while setting sufficient thresholds to limit participation of unqualified providers.
Some commenters questioned whether §§ 663.510(c)(2) and 663.515(d) give too much authority to designated State agency by authorizing it to
We agree that the roles of the State agency and Local Boards may overlap in determining if programs meet performance levels and in verifying performance information, and we encourage States and Local Boards to work toward eliminating needless duplication. The Act does not, however, authorize the State to review Local Boards' determinations of programs that do not meet the performance levels and are, therefore, neither included on local lists nor forwarded to the State. No change has been made to this aspect of the Final rule.
We encourage State WIA systems to work with State public education, and licensing authorities to harmonize, coordinate, or strengthen requirements for all types of programs and providers, since the strictness and consistency of approval, licensing and accreditation for providers and programs varies widely between—and even within—States. Similarly, requirements for certificate programs, offered at both HEA-eligible and non-HEA-eligible providers, vary widely in terms of length, content, and rigor.
Another commenter asked that §§ 663.515 and 663.535 require the Governor to allow sufficient time for labor organizations and businesses to provide comments on initial and subsequent eligibility procedures and suggested a minimum of 30 days. The commenter also wanted the regulations to require that State and local labor federations be part of the consultation process.
A commenter suggested that Governor's procedures for initial eligibility require evidence that training providers have consulted with labor organizations who represent workers having the skills in which training is proposed.
One commenter was concerned that the 30 days, permitted in section 122(e) of the Act, for the State agency to determine if programs submitted by Local Boards meet the performance criteria for initial and subsequent eligibility, was insufficient. The commenter recommended that State agencies be given 90 days.
A number of commenters expressed suspicion that initial eligibility procedures, by providing complete discretion to Governors and Local Boards, would result in programs being determined eligible on the basis of arbitrary performance and cost thresholds, and thus lead to “creaming”
As noted earlier, we strongly encourage outreach and technical assistance by States and Local Boards to providers in order to assure that WIA participants have access to a broad range of programs. Also, we strongly encourage CBO's to take advantage of the public comment and consultation required to be provided by the Governor in the development of procedures for initial eligibility for non-HEA, non-NAA programs and subsequent eligibility for all programs. No change has been made to the Final rule.
One commenter requested clarification on how both initial and subsequent eligibility under WIA fits with requirements of State and national systems for accreditation, approval, and performance information. Several commenters recommended that the WIA system for collecting and disseminating performance information be used in other systems.
Several commenters were concerned that provider requirements at § 663.535 will not take into account the characteristics of the population served and the difficulties in serving these populations.
One commenter recommended that the law and regulations be changed so that information on all participants in a program, which may be difficult to obtain, is not required.
One commenter recommended that Governors be allowed to require additional verifiable performance information describing the demographics of the populations served in a training program, including age, race, national origin, English proficiency, sex, and disability. The commenter further recommended that all such information be included in the consumer reports system.
Several commenters wanted the regulations to require Governors and Local Boards to demonstrate how local area factors and population characteristics are considered in determining performance levels for subsequent eligibility as well as requiring that Governors and Local Boards to demonstrate that the most disadvantaged are being served.
A number of commenters noted that § 663.540 does not define what constitute “extraordinary costs” and that differences of opinion on this matter should be an allowable basis to appeal denial or termination of eligibility. Some commenters recommended that training providers be given explicit authority to present to their Local Board and Governor evidence of extraordinary costs and that a response should be required within a reasonable period of time. They further suggested that, if additional resources or cost-effective data collection methods were not provided, the provider would be exempted from submitting the performance information. One commenter recommended that providers which, after presenting evidence of extraordinary costs involved in providing performance information, receive neither additional resources nor cost-effective information-collection methods, should be exempted from submitting information on their programs' performance and that such programs should remain eligible. By contrast, one commenter wanted to assure there were limits on the amount of funds Governors must offer to training providers who need additional funds to collect performance information.
One commenter noted that the criteria for termination of eligibility do not address situations in which institutions lose their license to operate, when they or their programs lose accreditation, or State educational agency approval, and when providers violate State or local laws.
The same commenter noted that § 663.565(b)(1) requires that Local Boards must remove programs that do not meet performance levels from the local list, while, under § 663.565(b)(2), States only may remove such programs from the State list, which could result in incompatible State and local lists and in Local Boards being sued by providers.
Several commenters asked that “program entrance requirements” be added to the list of information that can be included in consumer reports in § 663.570 and further suggested that information be required to be presented “in user-friendly format and language, taking into consideration the literacy levels, languages and developmental stages of the communities to be served.” In addition, a few commenters asked that the regulations mention that information about nontraditional occupational training and placement of women in nontraditional jobs be specifically identified as appropriate information related to the objectives of the Act.
One commenter noted that the Preamble to the Interim Final rule, page 18673, column three, lines 8-11, should have said that the Governor has the option to require performance information of providers of OJT and customized training.
We received a substantial number of comments on the priority issue. Many commenters voiced their support for interpretation that adult funds will generally be limited and for clarifying the State's and local areas' role in prioritizing the use of these funds for TANF recipients and other low-income individuals. Many other commenters believed that we should not write any regulations at all on this section of the statute.
Some commenters requested further guidance and technical assistance regarding the process described at § 663.600(b), (c), and (d) that permits the priority for services to the recipients of public assistance and low income individuals to be exercised while still serving other eligible individuals. A number of these commenters supported the “cone of service” concept that provides universal service to the largest number of individuals and, through a process of determining individuals' employment service needs and their eligibility, leads to reduce numbers of individuals receiving services as the services become more staff intensive, longer in duration, and more costly. They asked that priority guidance be based on this concept.
We used the “cone of service” concept to illustrate an estimated distribution of service needs by One-Stop customers. It was not intended to convey a scheme of priority of service. The distribution of service needs in a local area may vary from the pure “cone” in areas with a number of job seekers with extensive barriers to employment or in areas of highly educated, self-directed job seekers. The “cone” illustration is not intended to be applied as strict percentages of service provision to the pool of eligibles candidates for services. Rather each local area must assess the needs of its workforce and determine the most appropriate distribution of services against projected levels of service needs. However, recognizing the important role that the adult and dislocated worker funds play in the One-Stop system, § 662. 250(a) requires these programs to provide all of the required core services in each of the comprehensive One-Stop centers. The fact that WIA adult funds may be used to provide core services on a universal basis is one of the key reform elements of the legislation, and augments the investment traditionally provided by the Wagner-Peyser Act. No change has been made to the Final Rule.
Commenters expressed concern that the priority requirement would be implemented by establishing an arbitrary minimum standard, such as establishing a percentage of participants or funds that must be targeted to TANF and other low-income job seekers, which could become a “check off” rather than a thoughtful balancing of needs. Commenters also were concerned
Other commenters requested assurance in the regulations that if local entities determine that there is not limited funding, that we would not reevaluate their determination at a later date and find the local area out of compliance.
Commenters suggested that we add language to the regulations that would require the mix of individuals served by the local One-Stop system to reflect the demographic characteristics of the eligible population in the community and that the local plan provide an interpretation of the priority as applied to the demographics of the area.
We received a number of comments about the definition of “public assistance” as it relates to individuals served under the priority provision. Commenters stated the belief that while application of the priority could result in improved access to persons with disabilities, the potential for this increased access is dependent, to some degree, on the application of a broad definition of public assistance. WIA section 101(37), defines public assistance to mean “Federal, State or local government cash payments for which eligibility is determined by a needs or income test.” The commenters requested a definition that specifically recognizes other forms of assistance such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) as well as “other funding used heavily by persons with disabilities.”
On the other hand, the statute would not permit a state or local definition that included programs providing benefits that are not cash payments, or programs that are not needs or income-based. For example, SSDI payments are not income tested, and, therefore, cannot be considered public assistance under WIA. However, as a practical matter, SSDI beneficiaries may still qualify for priority under WIA. For example, SSDI beneficiaries might be determined to be eligible under the priority for WIA services as “other low income individuals” based on their income, under 20 CFR 663.640, which provides for the individual with a disability to be considered a low income individual even if the family income does not meet the income eligibility criteria when the individual's own income meets the income criteria. Similarly, Medicaid and Medicare benefits are not considered public assistance as defined under WIA. Medicare is a medical insurance for which individuals are eligible based their having attained the age of 65 and contributed to the fund during their employment. There is no needs or income test to determine an individual's receipt of Medicare benefits. Furthermore, while Medicaid eligibility is dependent upon an income test, it fails to meet the second part of the WIA definition. Under Medicaid, there is no cash payment provided to the individual, rather payments representing reimbursements of medical expenses are paid directly to the medical services provider. However, individuals receiving Medicaid or Medicare payments may still be determined appropriate for the WIA service priority as “other low income individuals” based on their income. No change has been made to the Final rule.
A commenter suggested that § 663.620(a), which provides that Welfare-to-Work participants may be referred to receive WIA training, should include a statement that such funding assistance is not available under Welfare-to-Work or should clarify that § 663.620 is an exception to § 663.310(d), if that is the intent.
Sections 663.700 through 663.720 are the regulatory provisions for conducting on-the-job (OJT) and customized training activities. They include specific information regarding general, contract, and employer payment requirements. Unlike JTPA, WIA does not limit OJT to six months. However, as specified in WIA § 101(31)(C), it is limited in duration as appropriate for the occupation being trained for. Section 663.705 establishes requirements that permit OJT contracts for employed workers.
One commenter supported the brevity of the regulations related to OJT. A second commenter apparently construed the language in § 663.700(a) that states that, “A contract may be developed * * *” to mean that the use of contracts for the development and delivery of OJT is optional.
That same commenter also suggested that the regulations be amended to require that the OJT contract contain detailed information on the skills and competencies to be acquired, the time frame for acquiring them, and sufficient documentation to demonstrate that workers received bonafide training and acquired the competencies.
We received comments which recommended that the regulations require local programs, in entering into OJT contracts or undertaking customized training, give priority to employers who: offer wages and benefits that lead to family self sufficiency; ensure long term self sufficiency for their employees; exhibit a strong pattern of union management cooperation; and after upgrading existing employees through OJT, backfill vacancies with public assistance recipients and other low income persons.
Commenters recommended that the regulations be revised to eliminate from consideration for an OJT contract or for customized training any employer which has violated: anti-discrimination statutes; labor and employment laws; environmental laws; or health and safety laws.
29 CFR 37.20(a)(1) contains an assurance regarding nondiscrimination and equal opportunity. Under 29 CFR 37.20(a)(2), this assurance is considered incorporated by operation of law, and may be incorporated by reference, in documents that make WIA Title I financial assistance available, such as OJT contracts.
A commenter recommended that we add a requirement that employers be required to retain, or transition to new upgraded jobs with wages and benefits commensurate with their new skills, those workers who receive customized retraining.
A commenter requested that the regulations require that a system be in place to assure that customized training funds are used to supplement rather than supplant an employer's own training.
A commenter suggested that the performance outcomes of employers who have OJT contracts should be considered public documents and made available for review and comment. At the same time, the commenter cautioned that the confidentiality of participant records must be preserved.
A commenter recommended that we modify the regulations to require that local programs conduct retention services with individuals placed in OJT to determine whether the OJT requirements and nondiscrimination and other employment rights are satisfied.
A commenter suggested that to assure compliance with WIA section 181(b)(7), OJT and customized training contracts be required to include a provision guarantees that customized training funds or subsidies will not be used directly or indirectly to assist, promote or deter union organizing.
Several commenters urged that we drop the requirements in §§ 663.705 and 663.720, that in order for employed workers to be determined eligible for OJT and for customized training they must not be earning a self-sufficient wage as determined by the Local Board. The commenters observed that there is no specific wage criterion on OJT and customized training eligibility in WIA, and that it would limit customized training available for skill upgrading for new technology and new job skills noted in § 663.720(c). The commenters believed that such a limitation on customized training could also affect the linkages with employers and economic development efforts.
We received a comment requesting that we add language to the regulations to assure that labor organizations who operate training programs be considered eligible to operate customized training programs.
We received a comment suggesting that States must be encouraged to provide incentive and performance rewards to those local areas which provide substantial supportive services.
A comment asked that the local supportive services policy be required to address service delivery and procedures for referrals.
A commenter asked that the regulations be changed to require that Local Boards must fund supportive services, and, particularly, needs-related payments, when other resources are not available.
A commenter noted the different time requirements for training enrollments for TAA and NAFTA-TAA, as compared to WIA, and asked that the requirements be aligned to permit more complete assistance to dislocated workers eligible for TAA and NAFTA-TAA.
We received two other comments about the eligibility requirements for dislocated workers to receive needs-related payments found in § 663.825. One comment indicated that references to TAA seemed to be intended for TRA. A second comment noted a missing reference to training as an eligibility requirement for needs-related payments by those dislocated workers who are unemployed and who did not qualify for unemployment compensation or trade readjustment allowances.
One comment was received in regard to § 663.840 asking that all needs-related payments and support services “packages” be required to be comparable to the applicable weekly level of the unemployment compensation benefit.
The regulations for youth activities reflect the intent of the legislation by moving away from one-time, short-term interventions and toward a systematic approach that offers youth a broad range of coordinated services. This includes opportunities for assistance in academic and occupational learning; development of leadership skills; and preparation for further education, additional training, and eventual employment. Rather than supporting separate, categorical programs, the regulations for youth activities are written to facilitate the provision of a menu of varied services that may be provided in combination or alone at different times during a youth's development.
The youth council, (the local entity responsible for recommending and coordinating youth policies and programs), a new entity created in WIA, serves as a catalyst for this broad change. The regulations support that legislative intent.
Flexibility for local program operators to conduct youth programs is key to WIA and these regulations. We encourage local decision-making in developing policy, youth program design within the statutory framework, and determining appropriate program offerings for each individual youth. We expect that these programs and activities will provide needed guidance for youth that is balanced with appropriate consideration of each youth's involvement in his or her training and educational plan. Further, the regulations support strong connections between youth program activities and the One-Stop service delivery system, so that youth learn early in their development how to access the services of the One-Stop system and continue to use those services throughout their working lives.
Subpart A explains the purpose of youth councils which are created at section 117(h) of the Act and discussed in 20 CFR 661.335 and 661.340 of the local governance regulations in part 661. The youth council is a new feature of the workforce investment system that helps develop youth employment and training policy, brings a youth development perspective to the establishment of that policy, establishes linkages with other local youth services organizations, and takes into account a range of issues that can have an impact on the success of youth in the labor market.
There were several comments about the youth councils. One commenter suggested requiring that the youth council include representatives from organized labor, particularly from recognized apprenticeship programs and teachers' unions.
Other commenters asked that we require that youth be included as full members of these councils at all levels. A number of other commenters encouraged us to require that youth with disabilities are members of the youth councils
Section 664.110 discusses oversight responsibilities for youth programs and activities. Working with the youth council, the Local Board has responsibility for oversight of youth programs. As required by WIA section 117(d)(4), § 664.110(b) requires local program oversight to be conducted in consultation with the CEO. In order to make § 664.110(c) consistent with § 664.110(b), a commenter recommended revising § 664.110(c) to add that the Local Board should consult with the CEO about delegating its responsibility for oversight of youth programs to the youth council.
A commenter requested that we provide guidance to youth councils on identifying and certifying eligible non-traditional training providers to ensure that youth are able to pursue non-traditional employment. The commenter feels that more information is needed on non-traditional training, specifically guidance on non-traditional employment for women.
Subpart B provides regulations under which youth are determined eligible for WIA youth services. A commenter requested that we amend the criteria in § 664.200 so that a low-income youth, regardless of any other barriers may participate in the youth employment programs funded through WIA. The commenter feels that youth served by their agency do not meet the barrier to employment eligibility criteria to allow them to participate in WIA youth activities.
We received a comment suggesting that we make the definition of basic literacy skills at § 664.205 consistent with the definition of basic skills deficient in section 101(4) the Act, in order to eliminate confusion.
Under section 101(13)(C)(vi) of the Act, a low income youth is eligible for services if he or she requires additional assistance to complete an educational program, or to secure and hold employment. We envision that Local Boards will define this term, however, under § 664.210, if the State sets policy regarding this provision, the policy must be described in the State Plan.
Section 664.215 requires that all youth participants be registered by collecting information for supporting eligibility determinations, as well as Equal Opportunity (EO) data. We received a number of comments asking that we make the policy that all youth must be registered to participate in youth programs consistent with the adult policy, allowing the same exceptions to the registration requirement.
EO data must be collected for every individual who is interested in being considered for WIA title I financially assisted aid, benefits, services, or training by a recipient, and who has signified that interest by submitting personal information in response to a request by the recipient. See 29 CFR 37.4 (definition of “applicant”) and 29 CFR 37.37. This includes all youth participants. We will issue further guidance regarding this data collection requirement.
Section 129(c)(5) of the Act provides that up to five percent of youth participants served in a local area may be individuals who do not meet the income criterion for eligible youth, if they meet one or more of the criteria specified in section 129(c)(5)(A) through (H) of the Act, restated in the regulations at § 664.220. Local Boards may define the term “serious barriers to employment” and describe it in the Local Plan. One commenter also supported WIA's requirements that allow individuals with one or more disabilities, including learning disabilities, to be eligible under the exception to permit five percent of youth participants to be individuals who do not meet the income criteria.
Section 664.240 explains that eligibility for free school lunches is not a substitute for income eligibility under the Act. When drafting the Interim Final Regulations, we received suggestions that program operators be allowed to use eligibility for free lunch as a substitute for determining eligibility under the Act, and encouraging us to seek a technical amendment to include such a provision in the legislation. Several commenters again made requests that we pursue a technical amendment on the free lunch and reduced lunch eligibility issue and suggested that eligibility for these programs be used to determine eligibility for WIA youth services.
Section 664.250 provides that a youth with a disability whose family income exceeds maximum income levels under the Act may qualify for services if the individual's own income meets the income criteria established in WIA section 101(25)(F), or the eligibility criteria for cash payments under any Federal, State or Local public assistance program. (WIA section 101(25)(B).) One commenter strongly supported WIA's recognition, in the Act and the regulations, of the need for youth with disabilities to receive youth services.
Sections 664.300, 664.310, and 664.320 address issues related to out-of-school youth. Section 101(33) of the Act defines “out-of-school youth” as: eligible youth who are school dropouts or who have received a secondary school diploma or its equivalent, but are basic skills deficient, unemployed, or underemployed. “School dropout” is defined in WIA section 101(39) and § 664.310. Youth enrolled in alternative schools are not school dropouts.
We received a number of comments requesting that we seek a technical amendment to WIA that would allow youth attending alternative schools to be included in the definition of “school dropout.” The commenters felt that this would permit Local Boards to provide services to more youth in alternative educational environments and to design programs that take advantage of local resources and best meet the needs of local youth.
We also received comments suggesting that § 664.310 should make it clear that, for the purposes of determining whether a youth in an alternative school can be considered out-of-school, their dropout status should be determined at the point of intake.
At least thirty percent of the total youth allocation (except for local area expenditures for administrative purposes) must be spent on services for out-of-school youth. This 30 percent, like the remaining 70 percent, need not be spent proportionally between summer and year-round activities. The Local Board, in consultation with the chief elected official, determines the distribution of funds. There is no separate summer program under WIA. Therefore, there is no exemption from the 30 percent requirement for funds spent on summer employment opportunities. A single allocation of youth funds, at least 30 percent of which must be spent on out-of-school youth, is available to local areas for year-round and summer employment opportunities.
The features of the youth program design are outlined in section 129(c) of the Act. While the Act specifies three program design categories and ten
A commenter suggested that, to avoid confusion, we should clarify the number of youth elements that are required and the entity responsible for providing the ten elements. The commenter also suggested replacing the term “local program” in § 664.410 with either “local workforce investment board” or “local workforce investment area” to identify the entity responsible for making the ten elements available.
Redesignated § 664.405 discusses the three categories required under WIA section 129(c)(1) which provide the framework for youth program design. They are: (1) An objective assessment of each participant; (2) individual service strategies; and (3) services that prepare youth for postsecondary educational opportunities, link academic and occupational learning, prepare youth for employment, and provide connections to intermediary organizations linked to the job market and employers.
A commenter asked us to clarify that the requirement, in WIA section 123, that eligible providers of only the ten required program elements be identified by awarding grants or contracts on a competitive basis, does not apply to the design framework component of the program.
A commenter requested that we clarify that developing a career goal for each youth could be part of the individual's service strategy rather than an immediate requirement to identify a career goal because many young people 14 years and above do not know what they want to do.
Redesignated § 664.405(c) requires Local Boards to establish linkages to entities that will foster the participation of eligible youth. We received several comments stating that youth programs should be designed to address the needs of teen parents (such as child care, flexibility in schedule), to combat the occupational segregation which contributes to low wages of women and that training should be evaluated for access to non-traditional jobs and career paths for women and girls. The commenters also suggested that we add language to this section to provide for linking youth programs with educational institutions, child care facilities, and other entities to meet women-specific needs.
Section 129(c)(3) of the Act requires that Local Boards ensure that eligible youth receive information and referrals, including information on the full array of appropriate services available to them and referrals to appropriate training and educational programs. Youth program providers must ensure that eligible applicants who do not meet the enrollment requirements of their program or who cannot be served by their program are referred for additional assessment and program placement. This language is included in redesignated § 664.405(d) to emphasize the importance of referrals as a part of overall youth program design. To further promote the concept of seamless One-Stop service delivery, One-Stop operators are encouraged to send those youth assessments that are completed at the One-Stop center to other training and educational programs to which the youth is referred.
Section 129(c)(2) of the Act lists 10 program elements that must be generally available to youth through local programs. A commenter asked for clarification on the number of youth elements required and whether these elements must be provided to every youth participant.
Sections 664.420 through 664.470 further define and discuss five program elements: leadership development, positive social behaviors, supportive services, followup services, and work experiences.
Under WIA section 129(c)(2)(F) and § 664.410, youth programs must make leadership development opportunities available. The Act gives the following examples of leadership activities:
One commenter suggested that the examples of leadership development opportunities should include actual opportunities for youth to assume leadership roles, such as: involving participants in program governance and decision making, entrepreneurship training and peer leadership opportunities.
A commenter suggested that the rules define “positive social behaviors” and make it clear that positive social behaviors are outcomes of leadership opportunities. The commenter recommended a new definition of positive social behavior which includes some of the following activities: maintaining healthy lifestyles, including being drug and alcohol free; maintaining positive relationships with responsible adults and peers; contributing to the well-being of one's community; voting; being committed to learning and academic success; remaining non-delinquent; and postponed and responsible parenting.
Another of the ten required program elements is supportive services. Section 101(46) of the Act defines supportive services to include services such as transportation, child care, dependent care, housing, and needs-related payments, that are necessary to participate in activities authorized under title I of the Act. Section 664.440 elaborates on the definition of supportive services as it applies to youth. Such services may include: linkages to community services; referrals to medical services; and assistance with work attire and work-related tool costs, including such items as eye glasses and protective eye gear. Child support, EITC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program are among the programs with which Local Boards are encouraged to coordinate. We have made a slight modification to this section which previously referred to assistance with transportation, dependent care and housing “costs”. We have removed the reference to “costs” for the services since WIA title I funds may be used to provide services such as on-site child care as well as to directly provide or reimburse the costs of these services.
Section 664.450 requires that followup services be provided to all youth participants for not less than 12 months after the completion of participation, as appropriate. The appropriate scope of followup services must be based on the needs of the individual participant. Followup services have proved to be effective. Evaluation studies such as Abt Associates' Final Report on the National JTPA Study, have shown disappointing results for short-term job training programs for youth. In contrast, programs such as STRIVE and the Children's Village have shown much success with longer-term followup strategies. A 1993 study by MDRC showed that the programs of the Center for Employment Training, which feature close ties to the private sector and a strong job placement component with followup with employers, increased the earnings of enrollees by $3,000 a year over a control group during the last two years of a four-year evaluation.
Section 664.450(a)(1) provides that followup may include leadership development or supportive service activities, as well as other allowable activities, and provides additional examples of permissible followup services. The list is intended to present examples of followup services; other types of followup services may be determined at the local level.
Section 664.450(b) clarifies that all youth participants must receive some form of followup services. Such services must be for a minimum of 12 months. Followup services for youth who participate in only summer employment activities may, however, be less intensive than for those youth who participate in other types of activities. Program operators are encouraged to consider the intensity of the services provided and the needs of the individual youth in determining the appropriate level of followup services.
A commenter suggested revising the sentence referring to less intensive followup services for youth who have only participated in summer employment opportunities, to say that the scope and intensity of these followup services should be consistent with each participant's individual service strategy.
Sections 664.460 and 664.470 address work experiences for youth. Work experiences are planned, structured learning experiences that take place in a workplace for a limited period of time. The regulations do not specify a particular time limit for work experiences. A commenter requested that we place a maximum time limit on work experiences (no more than 30 days), and require that all work experiences be paid, with priority given to employers who have evidenced a commitment to training for their own workers and union management approaches to training.
As provided in Section 129(c)(2)(D) of the Act, work experiences may be paid or unpaid, as appropriate. A commenter suggested that we clarify that work experiences are appropriate and desirable activities for many youth throughout the year.
Section 664.460 provides that work experiences may be in the private for-profit sector, the nonprofit sector, or the public sector, and gives examples of the types of activities that work experiences may include, such as internships and job shadowing. A few commenters recommended adding other examples to § 664.600 to expand the types of acceptable work experiences. They suggested that the definition of work experiences should make it clear that paid or unpaid community service programs, such as youth services or conservation corps, are valid examples of work experiences, and suggested that language be added to encourage Local Boards to maximize the use of paid work experiences in summer conservation corps programs managed by qualified State, local, non-profit or Federal agencies, as key element or strategy. In addition, a commenter proposed that the regulations encourage Local Boards to maximize collaboration with federal agencies that operate summer youth conservation corps program.
A few commenters also endorsed the principle that decisions regarding OJT for youth participants should be left to Local Boards.
Section 664.470 provides that youth funds may be used to pay the wages of youth in work experiences, including in the private, for-profit sector, under conditions designed to protect youth and incumbent workers when the purpose of the work experiences is to provide youth with opportunities for career exploration and skill development and not to benefit the employer. If an unpaid work experience creates an employer/employee relationship, federal wage standards may apply. This relationship is determined under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
One commenter asked that we clarify the statement that the purpose of work experiences is not to benefit the employer although the employers may, in fact, benefit from activities performed by the youth, stating that § 664.460 (c) is ambiguous.
Under the criteria of section 101(13) of the Act, an eligible youth is an individual 14 through 21 years of age. Adults are defined in section 101(1) of the Act as individuals age 18 and older. Section 664.500(b) clarifies that eligible youth who are 18 through 21 years old may participate in youth and adult programs concurrently, as appropriate for the individual. Such individuals must meet the eligibility requirements under the applicable youth or adult criteria for the services received. Local program operators must identify and track the funding streams for services provided to individuals who participate in youth and adult programs concurrently, ensuring non-duplication of services.
A commenter asked that we make it clear that out-of-school youth may enroll in adult programs under Titles I and Title II of the Act.
A commenter suggested that youth co-enrolled in both youth and adult programs should also be offered the complete services available to youth.
Section 664.510 provides that ITA's are not an authorized use of youth funds. One commenter stated that WIA is silent on the use of ITA's for youth and this should be a State or local decision. This commenter felt that since it is allowable to enroll 18 year old youth in both youth and adult programs, the use of ITA's should be allowed as an activity for 18-21 year old youth enrolled only in youth funded activities. Another commenter asked that we reverse the rule disallowing ITA's for youth participants not eligible for training services under the adult and dislocated worker programs.
Subpart F provides clarification about summer employment opportunities for youth. Commenters expressed concern that WIA does not have a separate funding authorization for summer youth employment and training programs. A commenter also felt that without a separate authorization, the summer youth employment program could find
A commenter also asked that a new paragraph (e) be added to § 664.600 to require each local area to report yearly on the number of youth participants who are provided summer employment opportunities.
We received numerous inquiries about whether the Act would allow cities and counties to continue to operate their summer employment opportunity activities.
A commenter also suggested that we clarify that local government units operating summer youth employment opportunities as a consortium may provide summer youth opportunities without competitive bidding.
One commenter requested that we allow the selection of private sector unsubsidized employment opportunities to be excluded from the competitive process.
Some commenters suggested that the description of summer youth employment should make it clear that youth service and conservation corps constitute valid summer employment opportunities. They also recommended that we encourage Local Boards to maximize collaboration with Federal agencies that operate summer youth conservation corps programs.
The core indicators specified in section 136 of the Act apply to the youth program as a whole, including all youth program activities. This is consistent with the intent of the Act to move from a focus on separate, categorical programs to a more systematic approach to workforce investment and serving the needs of youth. Summer employment opportunities, then, are to be viewed as one element among many available to youth as a part of a menu of activities offered by the Local Board. Section 664.620 indicates that participants in summer activities, as part of the overall youth program, are required to be included in the same core indicators of performance as the other youth activities.
A commenter thought that performance measures in Title I and Title II should be the same for youth because youth can be simultaneously enrolled in both programs.
Subpart G explains that the chief elected official (as the local grant recipient for the youth program), is a required One-Stop partner, is subject to the One-Stop provisions related to required partners, described in 20 CFR part 662, and is responsible for connecting the youth program and its activities to the One-Stop system. In addition to the provisions of 20 CFR part 662, links between the youth program and the One-Stop system may include those that facilitate:
• The coordination of youth activities;
• Connections to the job market and employers;
• Access for eligible youth to information and services; and
• Other activities designed to achieve the purposes of the youth program.
Under section 134(d)(2) of the Act, adults have access to core services in One-Stop centers without regard to eligibility. Adults are defined under the Act as persons aged 18 and above. Section 664.710 of the regulations clarifies that local area youth, including youth under age 18 who are not eligible under the title I youth program, may receive services through the One-Stop centers; however, services for such youth must be funded from sources that do not restrict eligibility for services, such as the Wagner-Peyser Act. We believe that WIA's intent is to introduce youth, particularly out-of-school youth, to the services of the One-Stop system early in their development and to encourage the use of the One-Stop system as an entry point to obtaining education, training, and job search services.
Commenters suggested that One-Stop Centers should make significant efforts to make their programs and services accessible to youth and work with local school systems to reach eligible youth. One of the commenters also suggested amending § 664.700(b)(2) to add the local school systems to the linkage requirement, and to require One-Stops to provide materials at low literacy and developmentally diverse levels. To better serve participants of all ages, staff should be trained on the developmental stages of youth and adulthood. A commenter also stated that it is important that, in all cases, written material and/or electronically accessed information available at one-stop centers and throughout the system be written at no more than a fifth grade reading level and, where appropriate, also available in languages other than English spoken by a majority of potential customers.
This subpart explains that competitive procedures for awarding Youth Opportunity Grants will be established by the Secretary. It also restates statutory language about the eligibility of Local Boards and other entities in high poverty areas to apply for Youth Opportunity Grants. Provisions of the Act regarding eligibility for services under Youth Opportunity Grants and the process for establishing performance measures are clarified in §§ 664.800 to 664.830. We view these grants as a distinct opportunity to provide a variety of needed services to youth in high poverty areas, building on the current successful activities and innovations already at work in many communities.
This part addresses the funds reserved at the State level for statewide workforce investment activities under WIA sections 128(a) and 133(a)(2).
Subpart A provides a general description of Statewide activities conducted with the up to 15 percent of the funds which the Governor may reserve from the youth, adult and dislocated worker funding streams (“15 percent funds”), and the up to an additional 25 percent of dislocated worker funds which the Governor may reserve for Statewide activities.
Section 665.110(b) explains that the 15 percent reserved funds may be pooled and expended on workforce investment activities without regard to the source of the funding. For example, funds reserved from the adult funding stream may be used to carry out Statewide youth activities and vice versa. We believe that the use of these funds can provide critical leadership in the development and continuous improvement of a comprehensive workforce investment system for each State and, as a result, create a national system to which job seekers and workers can look to for expert assistance, and employers can look to for a qualified workforce. This issue is also addressed in 20 CFR 667.130(b).
We did not receive any comments on this subpart and no changes have been made in the final regulations.
Subpart B discusses required and optional activities conducted with funds reserved from the three title I funding streams (youth, adults, and dislocated workers).
States are also required to provide additional assistance to local areas that have high concentrations of eligible youth. This activity is one way States can help local areas maximize the number of youth served under title I of WIA. Another required activity, rapid response, is discussed in subpart C of part 665.
Section 665.200(b) discusses the States' responsibility for disseminating information about eligible providers of training services for adults, dislocated workers and youth, including the statewide list of eligible providers and information on performance and program cost. One commenter stated that, when discussing statewide dissemination strategies, the regulation should encourage States to disseminate information in different languages, for different reading levels, and to use radio and television public service announcements to reach as wide and diverse an audience as possible.
Section 665.200(c) discusses conducting evaluations (WIA section 136(e)) of workforce investment activities for adults, dislocated workers and youth as one of the eight required Statewide activities. One commenter suggested that “high wages” be specified as part of “high-level outcomes” which result from the improvements identified in the evaluations.
Another commenter expressed concern that, under a universal access system and uniform performance standards, special populations with significant barriers to employment will experience difficulties in learning about, accessing and receiving appropriate services. The commenter suggested that the final regulations encourage evaluations of the delivery of workforce investment activities to economically disadvantaged and other special populations.
Other commenters suggested that, for the purposes of awarding incentive grants, the final regulations should define the term “exemplary performance,” used at § 665.200(d)(3), in a way that will reward local areas that assist a significant percentage of individuals to meet their self-sufficiency standard (i.e., to earn wages needed to cover costs for various family sizes and types, without governmental assistance).
Section 665.200(e) provides for technical assistance to local areas that fail to meet local performance measures. A commenter indicated that such technical assistance must include capacity building for Local Board members to help improve services and performance.
Under their capacity-building function (one of the allowable Statewide workforce investment activities), states may also conduct activities and implement programs designed to promote access to and coordination among supportive services and work supports administered by other state agencies. Because supportive service and work support programs are vital for low-income families making the transition to self-sufficiency, efforts to integrate and coordinate such programs at the state level will greatly enhance the capacity of One-Stop providers to serve their participants successfully.
One commenter suggested that States consult and coordinate allowable Statewide workforce investment activities with State labor federations and appropriate labor organizations, especially in the case of incumbent worker training. The same commenter also suggested that States be required to provide assurances that capacity building and technical assistance funds are used to enhance participation of all stakeholders, including organized labor.
One commenter suggested that States must consult on policies governing incumbent worker training with organized labor representatives, especially those whose members have the skills in which training is proposed. In addition, the commenter suggested that written concurrence on the training programs must be provided by the unions whose members are being affected by these programs.
Several commenters suggested that we add illustrative language to the list of optional Statewide activities specified in § 665.210 to identify and encourage the selection of particular programs or types of providers that may be funded with the State's 15 percent reserve funds.
One commenter asked that the following language be added to § 665.210(b)(1) regarding staff development and training: “particularly for non-profit community-based organizations that serve disadvantaged populations to assist them in being certified as eligible providers and to comply with data collection requirements.” The commenter also suggested that language in § 665.210(e) should specifically mention that the support provided to local areas for identifying eligible training providers should include outreach efforts to community-based organizations that serve disadvantaged (minority, immigrant, low-income, disabled) populations.
Another commenter suggested that § 665.210(b)(2) should specifically list programs provided by State and local youth service and conservation corps as examples of exemplary program activities.
A commenter noted that §§ 665.200(b)(1) and 665.210(f) provide for nontraditional training and employment in both required and allowable Statewide workforce investment activities. The commenter suggested that we should provide more specific guidance on how States should provide opportunities for training for non-traditional employment at the State and local levels.
One commenter indicated that § 665.210(f) should list entrepreneurship and asset-building initiatives as examples of innovative programs for displaced homemakers.
The same commenter suggested that § 665.210(f) should specify that when a State is implementing programs to increase the number of individuals trained for and placed in non-traditional employment, special attention should be given to low-income individuals and recipients of public assistance.
Another commenter suggested that the listing of required and allowable Statewide workforce investment activities should specify that the needs of older workers can be addressed with these resources.
One commenter suggested adding language to § 665.210(b)(2) that encourages States to continue exemplary programs funded through targeted JTPA funds as they transition to WIA so that individuals currently participating in such exemplary programs may continue to receive services and avoid abrupt termination.
One commenter suggests that § 665.210(d) either provide more information on the reference to Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities in relation to innovative incumbent worker initiatives, or delete the reference entirely, because this reference could not be located in the WIA legislation.
In order to clarify the statutory provisions in WIA section 134(a)(3)(A)(iv)(I) and (II), which separates the establishment and implementation of programs targeted to Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities from the implementation of innovative incumbent worker training programs, we are breaking paragraph (d) of § 665.210 into two paragraphs to clarify that these are two separate allowable activities.
One commenter suggested that § 665.210(g) should specify entrepreneurship and asset-building training as types of employment and training activities which the State can use its reserve funds to provide to adult and dislocated workers.
Section 665.220 sets standards for determining the eligibility of incumbent workers served with Statewide funds. Commenters pointed out that § 665.220 contains no income requirements in the definition of incumbent worker for Statewide workforce activities, but imposes a “self-sufficient” wage level in customized training for an eligible employed individual at the local level under § 663.720. They suggested that the same requirements should hold at the State and local levels.
Subpart C addresses the use of funds that must be reserved (up to 25 percent of dislocated worker funds allotted to States under section 132(b)(2)(B) of WIA) to provide rapid response assistance.
Section 665.300 describes what rapid response activities are and who is responsible for providing them. Rapid response assistance begins at the dislocation site as soon as a State has received a WARN notice, a public announcement or other information that a mass dislocation or plant closure is scheduled to take place. We believe that this early intervention feature for dislocated workers, if provided in a comprehensive and systematic manner through collaboration between the State and Local Boards, One-Stop partners and other applicable entities, is critical to enabling workers to minimize the duration of unemployment following layoff. We strongly urge States and Local Boards to implement processes that allow for core services to be an integral part of rapid response assistance, preferably on-site, if the size of the dislocation or other factors warrant it. Further, WIA defines “dislocated worker” at section 101(9) in a way that permits funds to be used for intensive and training services for workers: (1) as soon as they have layoff notices; or (2) six months (180 days) before layoff if employed at a facility that has made a general announcement that it will close within 180 days.
We believe that this is a critical period for workers, States, Local Boards, One-Stop operators and partners to begin to make important decisions. One important decision is whether there are enough formula funds in the State (at the State or local levels) to adequately serve the workers being dislocated, or whether national emergency grant funds, authorized under WIA section 173 and discussed in 20 CFR part 671, must be requested in a timely manner so that all services are available to the workers when they need them.
Section 665.320 provides details on rapid response activities that may be provided in addition to the required activities described in § 665.310.
One commenter indicated that the current regulations do not include language about the for-profit business sector participation in planning and implementing Rapid Response activities. The commenter would like the regulations to emphasize that there is an important role for private for-profit businesses in this effort. A commenter thought the Job Service Employer Committee (JSEC) employers can provide assistance in designing rapid response services to help affected workers and employers. Another commenter suggested that the regulations specify a similar role for labor organizations. The commenter went on to state that we should consider providing a portion of our incentive grant funds for comprehensive rapid response services, including the participation of the State labor federation in Statewide rapid response.
On the issue of using incentive grant funds to encourage States to include labor (or business) participation, we believe that the commenter's suggestion has merit. However, we have chosen not to define innovative programs in the regulations so that we can provide the States the opportunity to experiment with a wide variety of programs. We will develop guidelines (under 20 CFR 666.220) for incentive grants. We may decide to provide examples of innovative programs, such as the establishment of State labor liaisons with State rapid response activities, in the application guidelines. This provision remains unchanged in the final regulation.
Section 665.300(c) requires a State to establish a rapid response dislocated worker unit to carry out Statewide rapid response activities. One commenter suggested requiring the State to maintain an identifiable dislocated worker unit or a State entity that has the responsibility for carrying out rapid response activities and that such responsibilities should not be devolved to other entities.
A commenter wanted on-site contact, which is required by section 101(38)(A) of the Act and § 665.310(a), to require contact with the bargaining agent when an affected employer has a collective bargaining agreement and that such on-site contact must take place within 48 hours of the State receiving the notice/announcement of layoff. The commenter also asserted that the bargaining agent must be contacted at the outset and involved as a full partner in the development of programs and services that affect its members.
This same commenter suggested that the dislocated worker unit be required to provide information to all workers and companies about the opportunities available under the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and the NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) programs as part of rapid response (19 U.S.C. § 2271,
A commenter noted that § 665.310(a)(5) provides that required rapid response activities include “available resources to meet the short and long-term assistance needs of affected workers.” The commenter asked whether this means that rapid response funds must be used to provide needs-related payments and, if so, asked that the regulations be revised to reflect this. Another commenter argued that States must not be allowed to use rapid response funds for core, intensive or training services, but should maximize the integration of these services with its rapid response activities at the local level.
A commenter indicated that the items listed in § 665.320 are positive and pro-active approaches to rapid response, however, the commenter would like us to add an additional provision to § 665.320 to require that labor organizations whose members are affected by a layoff be consulted in the development and design of all rapid response and dislocated worker programs.
Section 665.330 addresses the linkage of rapid response assistance and WIA title I assistance to NAFTA-TAA. This linkage is a requirement under NAFTA-TAA and is an important feature of the One-Stop service delivery system. One commenter indicated that unions whose members have been affected by NAFTA must be consulted in the design and implementation of programs to assist their members and that this same provision must also apply to TAA participants as well.
Section 665.330 requires rapid response to be available when the Governor makes a preliminary finding that NAFTA-TAA certification criteria have been met. A commenter suggested that the final rule clearly state that the Secretary makes the final determination on NAFTA-TAA eligibility for a group of workers covered by a petition.
This part presents the performance accountability requirements under title I of the Act. It largely summarizes the statutory language in the Act, and establishes the framework for definitions, guidelines and instructions that we will issue later to implement and carry out the requirements of the Act. WIA's purpose is to provide workforce investment activities that improve the quality of the workforce. We are strongly committed to a system-wide continuous improvement approach, grounded upon proven quality principles and practices.
The development and establishment of a performance accountability system that reflects this commitment requires collaboration with representatives of appropriate Federal agencies, and representatives of States and political subdivisions, business and industry, labor organizations, employees, eligible providers of employment and training activities, including those serving hard to serve and non-traditional participants, educators, and participants, with expertise regarding workforce investment policies and workforce investment activities. During the period since the passage of the Workforce Investment Act, we have published a series of consultation papers to engage the system in a dialogue and to seek input into the establishment of a performance accountability system. On March 24, 1999, two consultation papers, “Performance Accountability Measurement for the Workforce Investment System” and “Reaching Agreement on State Adjusted Levels of Performance,” were published in the
The comments received in response to the publication of the five consultation papers, plus the comments received in response to the publication of the Interim Final Rule and the input from the Town Hall meetings have been instrumental in the development and dissemination of guidance to the system on performance accountability. The substance of comments received in response to the publication of the Interim Final Regulations are discussed in this preamble, and reflected in the final regulations. We continue discussions with our other federal partner agencies to expand agreement on common definitions and measures, and further guidance will be made continually available, reflecting on-going consultation with our partners and stakeholders.
Several comments suggested changes to the core indicators of performance to include part time employment, or to focus on non-traditional employment. Other comments requested the addition of new measures, for example for placement in non-traditional jobs, provision of services to low income people, and the inclusion of part-time employment as a placement measure. There were comments about the addition of a youth measure relating to placement in employment that creates a career path leading to long term self-sufficiency.
Some comments requested greater specificity and clarity for the definitions of the measures.
However, in response to a specific comment that attainment of basic skills was too general and not necessarily related to program services, we clarified the measure for younger youth, at § 666.100(a)(3)(i), to reflect the basic program design for youth that establishes one or more goals for participants each year. Attainment of basic skills goals, and, as appropriate, work readiness or occupational skills goals, is, therefore, a more accurate way to describe the measure, but it is limited to no more than three goals per year. Use of the term “goals” in reference to these difference skills acknowledges that obtaining skills, especially for younger youth, is an incremental process. This concept is described in more detail in TEGL 7-99.
A number of comments noted that the core performance indicators are not all directly related to the Vocational Rehabilitation program of services under title IV of WIA, taking the position that Vocational Rehabilitation performance indicators must remain separate from title I WIA performance indicators.
Three comments described the 15 core indicators of performance and 2 customer satisfaction indicators required in § 666.100 as excessive and too complex.
The decision to measure customer satisfaction for job seekers and workers separately from employers was made after considerable consultation with the system. The two customer satisfaction measures are intended to provide more meaningful feedback to the States and the workforce investment system as a whole by acknowledging the different expectations held by the two very different customer groups. We believe that this is a reasonable and practical interpretation of the statutory requirement to have customer satisfaction measures for employers and participants.
Thus, the regulations were drafted to track the provisions in the Act by applying the core measures to the different programs, and to clarify that the application of the core measures, along with satisfaction measures for each of the key customer groups, requires the separate measurements identified in § 666.100(a).
One comment questioned whether the requirement that additional indicators “must” be included in the State Plan was consistent with the language in the Act, citing section 136(b)(2)(C) of WIA which provides that “A state may identify in the state plan additional indicators for workforce investment activities authorized under this subtitle.”
A number of comments suggested that there should be a performance indicator for the self-service and informational activities so important to the system and the customers.
However, we realize that some assessment of the value of these services is important for determining what resources are devoted to these types of activities. We will convene a workgroup of Federal, State and local representatives to discuss the issue of self-service measures in the Fall of 2000. We anticipate that this workgroup will develop a menu of optional self-service measures that States and local areas can utilize.
In consultation with the system, and using the experience of early implementing States, we developed a list of possible factors that may be considered when negotiating levels of performance. The list, which was published in TEGL 8-99, is not intended to be prescriptive or exhaustive, but to suggest the kinds of information that might be considered.
Thus, “differences in economic conditions” might include:
• the unemployment rate;
• the rate of job creation or loss; and/or
• the rate of new business start-ups.
The negotiations can take into account “differences in participant characteristics,” which might include:
• indicators of welfare dependency;
• indicators of educational level;
• indicators of poor work history;
• indicators of basic skills deficiency;
• indicators of disability;
• indicators of age; and/or
• creation of a “hardest-to-serve” index.
The kinds of factors related to “proposed service mix and strategies” might include:
• percentage of WIA Title I B funds to be used for core, intensive, and training services;
• extent of follow-up services planned;
• extent and type of experimental or pilot programs planned; and/or
• extent to which non-WIA Title I B funds are available for training or other services.
Other factors that might be considered when proposing and negotiating performance levels could include:
• community factors such as the availability of transportation and daycare;
• policy objectives such as application of Malcolm Baldrige criteria, pursuit of new or enhanced partnerships, or piloting of new programs or activities.
ETA Regional Offices will work with the individual States to identify baseline data, using experience under the Job Training Partnership Act. The establishment of baselines, and the process for proposing and negotiating levels of performance is addressed in Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 8-99. Those negotiated levels of performance may be revised, as provided for in § 666.130.
Some commenters suggested that incremental increases in negotiated levels of performance not be the only way to consider and demonstrate continuous improvement. Other comments observed that the continuous improvement requirements were not well defined and did not encourage the State and local partners and stakeholders to take a larger role in defining system accountability.
A number of comments took exception to the provision that all youth must be registered and included in the measures of performance, but that adults and dislocated workers who participate exclusively in self-service or informational activities are excluded from registration and are, therefore, not included in the performance accountability system.
To help clarify the issue of registration, we have added a new paragraph (a)(2) to § 666.140 to explain that “self-service and informational
Other comments suggested a need to provide a system-wide measurement for participants who received services under programs operated by the partners, and a need to clarify when to measure performance that could be applied across the system by all States.
We have provided additional guidance in the instructions for the standardized record, including guidance to clarify when to begin measuring results achieved for those performance indicators that are to be measured following the receipt of service in Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 7-99. This guidance was repeated in a document published in the April 3, 2000,
We received comments that reliance on the UI wage data will be plagued by problems of uncovered employment, out-of-state employment, incomplete reporting, and other issues that may make comparisons difficult.
Other comments urged specific regulatory language regarding the confidentiality of wage records, both from commenters who wished to access the data, as well as from commenters who wanted to ensure protection for the employers and workers.
We received several comments about the implementation of the performance requirements during the first year following implementation of WIA. The comments suggested that incentives and sanctions be delayed for a year.
Some comments pointed out that the States are very different, and that the principle of State and local flexibility means that not only will performance vary from State to State, but the quality of the data and the methods for capturing the data used to measure performance will vary as well. For these reasons, the commenters took exception to comparing a State's relative performance to other States' performance when determining the amount that would be available under an incentive grant award.
We received several comments suggesting that the limited experience in using wage records to measure performance, plus the energy and resources being focused on the creation of new partnerships and the establishment of new customer-focused, streamlined service designs, may have a negative impact on performance, possibly exposing States to sanctions. The comments proposed delaying the application of sanctions until baseline data could be developed, and States would be better prepared to negotiate realistic levels of performance against which they would be measured.
Section 666.300 explains that each local workforce investment area will be subject to the same 15 core performance indicators and two customer satisfaction indicators that States are required to address. Governors may elect to apply additional performance indicators to local areas. Section 666.310 states that local performance levels will be based on the State adjusted levels of performance and negotiated by the Local Board and chief elected official and the Governor to account for variations in local conditions.
Some commenters were concerned that local programs and partners were going to be faced with performance levels imposed as a result of negotiations between the State and the Department, and suggested that establishment of performance standards should be negotiated at the local Workforce Board level first.
Section 666.400(a) restates local area eligibility for State incentive grants. Under section 666.400(b) the amount of funds available for incentive grants and specific criteria to be used are determined by the Governor. Section 666.420 also explains that local areas failing to meet agreed-upon levels of performance will receive technical assistance for any program year. Governors must take corrective actions for local areas failing to meet the required indicators for two consecutive years.
We received one comment on incentive grants being available to only States or local Workforce Investment Areas. The commenter requested that Indian and Native American grantees who meet or exceed their performance standards during a program year be eligible to receive incentive grants.
This part establishes the administrative provisions that apply to all WIA title I programs conducted at the Federal, State and local levels, and to continued service to Job Training Partnership Act enrollees.
Subpart A addresses fund availability. One commenter expressed concern about the appeals processes associated with the selection of grantees under the Indian and Native American (INA) and National Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP) (formerly known as the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker program).
Several commenters asked for information about the treatment of summer youth funds for the years 1999 and 2000.
One commenter thought that WIA Youth funds should be distributed in July instead of April because the summer youth employment program is not authorized for the Summer of 2000.
We received many comments about expected reductions in State allotments and within-State allocations due to the application of the allotment and allocation factors prescribed by sections 128 and 133 of WIA—the relative number of unemployed individuals, the relative excess number of unemployed individuals, and the relative number of disadvantaged individuals. Beginning with the third year of WIA, workforce investment areas will be allocated at least 90 percent of the average of the two preceding years' allocations of Adult funds and Youth funds as a “hold harmless”. (WIA sections 128(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 133(b)(2)(A)(ii)). However, many grantees expect to experience severe funding reductions and possible service interruptions in their workforce programs in the first two years of WIA.
Section 667.140 describes the authority of Local Boards to transfer funds between programs. We received several comments suggesting that the regulation authorize local areas to transfer funds between the Youth funding stream and either Adult funds or Dislocated worker funds.
Section 667.150, which covers allotments, recapture of unobligated balances of allotments, and reallotments is being modified to exclude certain amounts from coverage by the recapture provision, namely: (1) amounts allocated to a single State local area or to a balance of State local area administered by a unit of the State government; and (2) inter-agency transfers and other actions treated by the State as encumbrances against amounts reserved by the State under WIA sections 128(a) and 133(a) for Statewide workforce investment activities. The reasons for this modification are discussed earlier in this preamble in the discussion on the addition of a definition of “obligation” to § 660.300.
Section 667.170 sets forth our authority to perform a responsibility review of potential grant applicants. We may review any information that has come to our attention as part of an assessment of applicant's responsibility to administer Federal funds. The responsibility tests include the items set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(14). In this section, the term “include” is used as it is throughout the Interim Final Rule, to indicate an illustrative, but not exhaustive list of examples. One commenter requested clarification of § 667.170(a) about the identity of the party(ies) subject to the responsibility review requirements, particularly with regard to the taking of “final agency action.”
1.
We have updated references to the nondiscrimination regulations at 29 CFR part 37 in paragraph 667.200(f) and made three other changes to § 667.200 to correct inadvertent errors in the Interim Final Rule. The first is to include commercial organizations among the types of organizations listed in § 667.200(a)(2), which specifies the covered organizations identified at 29 CFR 95.1. The second change is to insert a new paragraph (a)(7) in § 667.200, to indicate that interest income earned on funds received under this title is to be treated as program income, as required by WIA section 195(7)(B)(iii) and to renumber the existing paragraph (a)(7) as (a)(8).
The third change is to insert a new paragraph (c)(6) in § 667.200, which provides that the costs of claims against the Government, including appeals to the Administrative Law Judges, are unallowable costs. This provision clarifies our long-standing application of the cost principles of OMB Circulars A-87 and A-122, and A-21, which was inadvertently left out of the Interim Final Rule. The provision distinguishes the allowable costs of informally resolving findings from audits and monitoring reviews from the unallowable costs of making formal claims against the Government at a later point in the process.
Several comments suggested including specific requirements in § 667.200(a) about the use and contents of particular types of agreements between particular types of organizations for providing goods and services for WIA purposes. Section 667.200 incorporates the uniform administrative requirements at 29 CFR Parts 95 and 97 into these regulations by reference, including requirements covering procurement actions by grantees and subrecipients. Most of these comments want us to require grantees and subrecipients to increase the opportunities for potential providers to compete to provide services to grantees, subrecipients, and participants, including the operation of One-Stop centers. One commenter wanted us to clarify whether the uniform procurement requirements apply to the selection of one-stop operators and service providers. Other commenters wanted us to require DOL direct grantees to require their subgrantees to make all awards to one-stop operators and service providers in accordance with the Department's uniform procurement procedures. Another commenter wanted us to say as little as possible on the subject due to the complexity of local procurement rules and the inevitable conflicts which would result from issuance of additional Federal requirements.
We received a number of comments on cost allocation issues particular to WIA and One-Stop organizations. One comment suggested that we should seek the issuance of special cost principles for One-Stops using cost allocation basis other than benefits received, or other widely used basis.
One commenter thought it was inconsistent to require in § 667.200(a)(3) that procurement and other relationships between governments be conducted on a cost-reimbursement basis, while also requiring in § 667.200(a)(6) that any excess of revenue over costs earned by governmental or non-profit organizations be treated as program income.
One commenter proposed that we establish audit requirements for contractors which are commercial organizations. Section 667.200(b)(2) makes commercial organizations which are subrecipients subject to audit requirements like those applicable to governmental and non-profit recipients and subrecipients.
2.
Paragraph (c), which excepts hardware and software costs of participant tracking and monitoring systems from the administrative cost limitation, has been removed from the final regulation. This provision became unnecessary after administrative costs were redefined in response to public comments and our own re-examination of how administrative costs were defined in other DOL-funded programs and the programs of other partner agencies whose programs were represented in One-Stop centers.
A common criticism of the administrative cost definition in the Interim Final Rule was that redefining administrative costs and, in particular, treating the cost of first tier supervision of direct program staff as program costs would have little impact on total administrative costs or compliance with the administrative cost limitation. The same criticism was directed at the treatment of computer hardware/software costs incurred for participant tracking and monitoring as excepted from the administrative cost limitation. One comment recommended saying that all staff costs associated with the tracking and monitoring of participants should be classified as program (non-administrative) costs; another commenter suggested that all tracking and monitoring system development and utilization costs be charged to program costs.
We received numerous suggestions on how particular categories of costs should be defined. Many, but not all of these suggestions were based on the effect such changes would have on compliance with the administrative cost limitation. For example, one comment suggested either treating all One-Stop or contractor costs as programmatic, or retaining the 15 percent cost limitation under JTPA title III; several comments recommended treating all costs incurred by One-Stop operators and service providers as program costs regardless of the functions they were performing. Several comments were directed to obtaining clarification of the phrase “direct provision of workforce investment activities” in § 667.220(c)(1), and to associate the term with the activities of One-Stop operators and service providers. Several commenters suggested that the “intended purpose” language in § 667.220(c)(5) should be clarified so that administrative costs would not have to be broken out from contracts with for-profit organizations. One comment requested that a clear distinction be made between tracking and monitoring costs on the one hand and program monitoring costs on the other.
Several commenters suggested that other Federal agencies' criteria for administrative costs in grants to other One-Stop partners are more liberal than DOL's criteria, especially their criteria for costs incurred by service providers and other contractors. A few commenters suggested that no costs incurred by for-profit contractors should be treated as administrative. One comment suggested that all continuous improvement costs be charged to training (program) based on language in § 666.120(a) relating improvement to program participation rather than systemic changes. Finally, one commenter suggested that all reasonable administrative costs be funded, or that we reduce our level of expectations with regard to oversight, procurement, and fiscal requirements.
The enumerated administrative functions performed by the identified
Two types of costs that were specifically previously classified as administrative costs, preparing program-level budgets and program plans, and negotiating MOU's and other program-level agreements, are now classified as program costs, even though they are often associated with general organizational management. Costs of such activities as information systems development and operation, travel, and continuous improvement are charged to program costs or administration, according to whether the underlying functions which they support are classified as programmatic or administrative. For example, the costs of developing an information system which serves both administrative functions and the tracking and monitoring of participants would be allocated between program costs and administrative costs in proportion to the utilization of the system for each intended purpose.
We believe that these changes in the definition of administrative costs not only address the varying concerns and perspectives expressed in the comments, but also take advantage of the opportunities for simplifying program administration offered by the changes in the way program services will be delivered under WIA. Under WIA, the role of the One-Stop center operator is broader than just that of provider of programmatic services; it is also responsible for the operation of the One-Stop center and the coordination of all activities within the center. The definition of administrative costs in this Final Rule was tested using a sample drawn from a group of JTPA subrecipients whose administrative costs had previously been reviewed to test the Interim Final Rule definition of administrative costs. The results showed a significant reduction in the level of administrative costs at all but one of the sampled sites. That site was one in which all JTPA activities were provided by the subrecipient, which is quite unlike the service delivery methodology envisioned by WIA. These results indicate that local areas should be able to operate within the WIA cost limitations, using the revised definition of administrative costs at § 667.220.
Section 667.260 prohibits the use of WIA funds for the purchase or construction of facilities or buildings with certain exceptions. This is an exception to the generally applicable cost principles, incorporated by reference in § 667.200(c), under which such costs are allowable with prior grantor approval as direct costs, provided they are not specifically prohibited, as they are here. We received several comments asking that we clarify or expand the exception to the purchase and construction ban under which the costs of repairs, alterations, and renovations are allowable for grantee-owned buildings acquired with JTPA, Wagner-Peyser, or UI grant funds to also cover leased buildings. Several comments suggested permitting the use of WIA funds for capital costs and current operating costs of leased and “loaned” buildings.
In general, repairs and alterations are current operating costs; use of WIA funds for such costs is not restricted in the statute or in these regulations. Renovation costs are usually capital expenditures. Capital expenditures, that is expenditures of $5,000 or more which increase the value or a useful life of property, are subject to the restrictions of § 667.260(b), which apply to grantee/subrecipient-owned real property. In response to the comments, this paragraph has been clarified to explicitly cover renovations to grantee/subrecipient-owned real property acquired with JTPA, Wagner-Peyser, or UI grant funds. Neither the Act nor the regulation restricts the use of WIA funds for capital expenditures or current operating costs of leased and loaned properties. Consequently, these expenditures are allowable if consistent with generally applicable grantee/subrecipient policy relating to leased premises and lease cost adjustments for tenant expenditures for improvements to the landlord's property, and if consistent with the other provisions of § 667.260(b).
One comment suggested that ETA consider an additional exception to the prohibition of building or buying real property in the case of capital leases.
One comment suggested changing § 667.262, which covers employment generating activities (EGA), to include contacts with labor organizations and resource centers, and contacts with joint labor-management committees under permissible employer outreach and job development activities.
One comment suggested making an exception to the prohibition in § 667.264 against foreign travel in the case of cross-border official business conducted by border State staff.
Section 667.268 which prohibits the use of WIA funds to encourage business relocation, provided several comments asking if there is a national site where interested parties can obtain information relative to the relocating establishment requirements of § 667.268.
A commenter suggested adding consultation with labor organizations and councils to the pre-award review of new and expanded establishments in § 667.268.
A comment, which concerned the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act to training activities, is not dealt with here because it is a subject which is considered in connection with training program requirements rather than general administrative requirements.
Section 667.275(a) provides that recipients must comply with the section 188 nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of the Act and its implementing regulations at 29 CFR part 37. This provision is substantially similar to that found in § 627.210, the companion section of the regulations implementing the JTPA. Slight modifications have been made to the language to eliminate any possible confusion about who is covered by section 188 and 29 CFR part 37. In the context of those provisions, a recipient is any entity that receives financial assistance, as defined in 29 CFR 37.4, under title I of the Act (except for the ultimate beneficiary), whether the assistance comes directly from the Department, through the Governor, or through another recipient. A variety of terms not specifically listed in the definition at 29 CFR 37.4, such as vendors or subrecipients, may be used to identify such entities. However, any entity that receives financial assistance under title I of WIA is a recipient and is, therefore, subject to section 188 of WIA and its implementing regulations at 29 CFR part 37, and to § 667.275 of this part, to the extent that those entities participate in the One-Stop delivery system.
Several comments on §§ 667.270 and 667.275 suggested enhancing the protections afforded incumbent workers against displacement, and the non-discrimination and equal opportunity protections afforded participants through such means as the Department notifying employees about these protections or requiring the States to do so, requiring One-Stops to provide information on the availability of non-traditional opportunities for women in order to reduce the incidence of gender-tracking, specifying coverage of OJT or other employer-provider services to individuals in these provisions, and banning the use of WIA funds to subsidize new employees that an employer would have hired without WIA support.
Section 667.300 indicates that we will issue instructions and formats for financial, participant and performance reporting. A request for public comment on the Department's WIA Standardized Record Data, Quarterly Summary Report, and Annual Report was published in the
Section 667.300(e), concerning the Annual Performance Progress Report, specifies the situations under which a sanction, including a possible reduction in the subsequent year's grant amount, may be imposed. Two comments expressed concern that unspecified verification procedures would be used for imposing sanctions and that there needed to be flexibility in the imposition of sanctions.
Other comments suggested the due date for financial reports be extended past the 45 days stated in the regulation, but no specific reason for an extended time period was given.
We have modified § 667.410(b) to include a reference to 29 CFR part 37 relating to the State's monitoring system. Subpart C of 29 CFR part 37 contains additional provisions regarding
A commenter suggested allowing 90 days instead of 60 for commenting on and taking appropriate corrective action on findings from monitoring and investigative reports.
Section 667.600 describes the grievance and complaints procedures required by WIA. We have revised § 667.600(g)(1) to clarify that complaints alleging discrimination must be handled in accordance with procedures that meet the requirements of 29 CFR part 37. Paragraph 667.600(g)(2) gives the address of the Department of Labor's Civil Rights Center, where individuals can send questions or complaints alleging violation of WIA section 188. The address is: U.S. Department of Labor, Civil Rights Center, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N4123, Washington, DC 20210. Individuals may also contact the Civil Rights Center by telephone at 202-219-6118 (voice) or 1-800-326-2577 (TTY/TDD).
We received numerous comments on grievance procedure requirements for States, local areas, and other direct recipients. Most concerned assuring that participants and other potential greivants receive sufficient notice of their rights in a format understandable to youth or to persons with limited English proficiency. Some comments asked that we impose a requirement on grantees and subrecipients that they require One-Stops and other providers to notify participants of their appeal rights. Other comments urged us to establish particular requirements governing procedures to be used for assuring procedural due process, conducting investigations, adjudicating complaints, conducting discovery, providing for informal hearings, enforcement, review by United States courts, protection against retaliation, and the use of mediators. Some commenters sought clarification or greater specificity in particular areas, such as coverage of employers of participants, and particular sanctions available against non-compliant employers. One comment objected to using the denial of procedural rights as a ground for appeals of local area designations to the Secretary under section 116(a)(5) of the Act.
This subpart addresses sanctions and corrective actions, waiver of liability, advance approval of contemplated corrective actions, as well as the offset and State deduction provision. We have modified § 667.700(a) and (b) to clarify that the processes outlined in 29 CFR part 37 must be followed in matters involving claims of discrimination. The only comments received on this subpart were on § 667.705(c), which requires CEO's of local governments comprising a WIA local area to specify the joint liability of such local governments in a written agreement. Two of the comments took opposing positions on whether there should be any joint liability at all. The third comment said the regulation should “clarify” the local governments’ liability for misuse of funds.
Sections 667.700 and 667.710 have been revised to more accurately specify the Grant Officer's and the Secretary's authority to impose corrective actions, including plan revocations and reorganizations, directly against local areas, and to terminate or suspend financial assistance. As revised, § 667.700(d) provides that if the Governor does not promptly take corrective actions against a local area for substantial violations of WIA and its regulations, the Grant Officer, under WIA section 184(b)(3), may impose corrective actions directly against the local area. Sections 667.700(c) and 667.710(c) provide that if the Governor
This subpart specifies those actions which may be appealed to the Department's Office of Administrative Law Judge (OALJ), and the rules of procedure and timing of decisions for OALJ hearings. Section 667.825 sets forth special requirements that apply to reviews of NFJP and INA grant selections. A change has been made to § 667.105 (discussed above, in subpart A), which relates to this provision. We have corrected an error in § 667.830(b), to provide that any appeal accepted by the Administrative Review Board must be decided within 180 days of acceptance, as required by WIA section 186(c). Section 667.840 also provides for an alternate dispute resolution process. In addition, § 667.850 describes the authority for judicial review of a final order of the Secretary.
One commenter recommended increasing DOL's burden of production in OALJ appeals to require presentation of a prima facie case.
Section 667.900 indicates that a Governor may reserve up to two percent of Program Years 1998 and 1999 JTPA formula funds, of which not less than 50% must be made available to local entities, for expenditure on WIA transition planning activities. It specifies that the source of funds may be any one or more of JTPA's titles or subtitles. It includes a provision that expressly excludes funds so reserved from any calculation of compliance with JTPA cost limitations. The Governor must decide to make the funds available to one or more local entities. These might include a local JTPA entity, a local entity established for the purpose of operating WIA programs, or any other local entity.
One commenter suggested replacing the references to program years 1998 and 1999 with fiscal year references.
Another comment suggested clarifying which local entities were to receive transition funding from the State.
We have received a number of questions about how JTPA enrollees are to be transitioned over to WIA. We have responded to several situations in a Question and Answer format which can be found through our website at http://usworkforce.org/q&a-transition.htm. In order to emphasize the importance of ensuring a smooth transition from JTPA to WIA for participants, we have added a new § 667.910 clarifying that all JTPA participants who are enrolled in JTPA must be grandfathered into WIA. These participants can complete the JTPA services specified in their individual service strategy, even if that service strategy is not allowable under WIA, or if the participant is not eligible to receive these services under WIA.
This part establishes the operation of employment and training programs for Indians and Native Americans under the authority of section 166 of the Act. This part is broken into subparts dealing with: purposes and policies; service delivery systems; customer services; youth services; services to communities; grantee accountability; planning and funding; administration; and miscellaneous provisions such as waivers. In crafting these regulations, we have attempted to organize part 668 in a way which is relatively easy to follow and as comprehensive as possible without repeating major sections of the general WIA administrative regulations contained in part 667. Cross-references to that part are provided in the body of these regulations, when appropriate.
During the comment period on the WIA Interim Final Rule, we received written comments submitted by more than one hundred current JTPA Indian and Native American grantees. In addition, we held several “town hall” meetings in “Indian Country” which produced additional comments submitted in writing or presented orally in the course of discussion of relevant issues. We also received input from the Native American Employment and Training Council (the Advisory Council) and its regulations work group. We will discuss the most frequently raised issues first and then discuss the other comments.
We have condensed the remaining comments into several major areas of general concern to most commenters. Issues involving administrative cost limitations and representation on State and Local Workforce Investment Boards are primary concerns of some section 166 grantees. They are concerned with regulations outside of part 668, and so are covered as part of the general discussion.
The issue which concerned commenters most was the administrative cost rate, and its application to section 166 grantees under WIA. Commenters expressed the concern that section 166 grantees would be held to a 10% administrative cost limitation. They viewed this limitation as providing inadequate funding for the administrative work they have to do to administer their grants. They pointed out that the WIA requirements for active partnership in local Workforce Investment Areas and for negotiating One-Stop MOU's, place new administrative burdens on section 166 grantees. Some commenters suggested that the regulations adopt a 20% limitation on administrative costs.
The rules relating to the participation of INA grantees in the state and local workforce investment system generated many comments. Below, we discuss issues relating to alternative entities and representation on State Boards, Local Boards and Youth Councils. Similar issues are discussed in relation to the National Farmworker Jobs Program in the preamble to part 669, and for the workforce investment system in general in the preamble to part 661.
Indian and Native American grantees expressed concern over the effects of the designation of alternative entities under WIA on their ability to play a partnership role in the local workforce investment system. Although alternative entities are permitted by section 117(i) of WIA, commenters feel that alternative entities violate WIA section 117(b)(2)(A)(vi) which mandates that each Local Board contain “a representative of each of the one-stop partners”. Since section 121(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Act identifies section 166 grantees as mandatory (“required”) partners in the One-Stop System, most grantees feel this requires that they be given a seat on their Local Board.
We expect that local workforce investment areas will follow the regulations and that the States will ensure that all partners have appropriate and effective representation on Local Boards or alternate entities. We encourage local parties to resolve issues of representation to their mutual satisfaction, in accordance with the Act and regulations.
Several grantees expressed a belief that there is no requirement for Native American representation on the State Workforce Investment Boards. Others were concerned that Governors were appointing individuals to represent INA grantees who did not have INA program expertise. Although not specifically required in the statute, our grantees have expressed the desire that the Final Rule include at least the encouragement (if not the requirement) that all types of WIA grantees (Indians, farmworkers, etc.) at least be represented on the State Board by a member of that class of service provider.
In many cases, there will not be a lead State agency with responsibility for Indian and Native American programs, so the interests of section 166 grantees will be represented by a person having expertise in Indian and Native American programs. While we encourage Governors to appoint a representative nominated by Indian and Native American programs and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker programs to represent those programs on State Boards, we cannot require them to do so. We have, however, revised the regulations in 20 CFR part 661 to clarify the requirements for representation of One-Stop partner programs on the State Board. Under new 20 CFR 661.203(b), the representation of a One-stop partner program may be fulfilled by an official from the program partner, such as the section 166 grantee, or the Governor may appoint a representative in the State having “documented expertise relating to” the required partner program in the State. An agency official or other individual representing a One-stop partner program also must be an official with optimum policy-making authority in the organization he or she represents. As defined in 20 CFR 661.203(a), a representative with “optimum policy making authority” is an individual who can reasonably be expected to speak affirmatively on behalf of the entity he or she represents and to commit that entity to a chosen course of action. We think that these new definitions will provide grantees with significant assurance of appropriate and effective representation on the State Boards.
Several grantees have expressed the desire that the regulations be revised to suggest that, where appropriate, tribal entities be included on State and Local Boards as employers, which would be especially appropriate for some tribes with significant economic development activities which may make them a significant employer in their portion of the State.
Many grantees have commented that States and local areas are not clear on the WIA representation requirements even where Local Boards are newly created and must meet the representation requirements of the Act. Questions have arisen about whether Local Boards must include all section 166 grantees in their area, or just “a
Nor are we able to change the regulations to permit a One-stop partner program to choose who it wishes to represent it. While we cannot require that the CEO select a representative nominated by the grantee to represent it/them on the Local Board, there are significant protections in the Act and regulations to assure that grantees are properly represented. The CEO has discretion in determining who to appoint to a Local Board. That discretion is, however, constrained by the requirement in WIA section 117(b)(3) and in 20 CFR 661.315 that the representative of a partner have “optimum policymaking authority within” the partner entity. In cases where there is a single section 166 grantee in a local area, the CEO's discretion is quite limited. In cases where there are more than one grantee in the local area, the CEO's discretion is a little broader since, as provided in 20 CFR 661.317, the CEO is only required to appoint one representative of the partner program. In either case, however, the interests of section 166 grantees must be represented by an individual who has optimum policymaking authority and, therefore, can knowledgeably and effectively represent the partners' interests.
Commenters asked for clarification of the role of the youth councils in the WIA process, and especially the role of section 166 grantees in the youth councils. For example, to what degree will the youth council “coordinate” youth activities in a local area? Will section 166 grantees who sit on the local board be entitled to sit on the youth council if they provide services to youth, but don't get supplemental youth services funding (such as an urban grantee)? To what degree will a section 166 grantee which receives supplemental youth services funding be required to “coordinate” its youth program with or through the youth council?
Those section 166 grantees which serve reservation areas will have to include a section on the provision of supplemental youth services in their comprehensive services plan, as required by §§ 668.420, 668.710, and 668.720. While the section 166 youth program is separate from the WIA title I youth program, and is not subject to any mandatory authority of the youth council, we encourage section 166 grantees to coordinate their provision of supplemental youth services with other providers of youth services in the local area.
Following is a discussion of a variety of other comments on the Interim Final Rule. The comments are organized by the subparts of the Interim Final regulations to which they pertain.
When the regulations were drafted, we did not anticipate that any extremely small entities (
Accordingly, § 668.200(b)(3) is revised to provide that the exception will apply to grantees wishing to participate in the demonstration program if all resources to be consolidated total at least $100,000, with at least $20,000 derived from section 166 funds as determined by the most recent Census data. The revised regulation also provides that exceptions to this $20,000 limit may be made for those entities which are close to the limit and which have demonstrated the capacity to administer Federal funds and operate a successful employment and training program.
The issue of State-recognized tribes is a point of contention in “Indian Country,” because of the inconsistent nature of the process of State recognition between different States. There are great differences between State-recognized tribes which exercise certain quasi-governmental authority and provide their members with services, and those entities designated as State-recognized for purely political or social/cultural purposes. The majority of commenters favored the elimination of any priority for State-recognized tribes as such, reasoning that they could still qualify as Indian-controlled organizations.
The regulations work group pointed out that the designation priorities in § 668.210(a) do not specifically mention situations, which occur primarily in Oklahoma, where grantees are designated to serve only their own tribal members in a given county or counties.
Section 668.240 describes the process for applying for designation as an INA grantee. We have added a new paragraph to this section specifying that the assurance contained in the WIA nondiscrimination regulations at 29 CFR 37.20 must be contained in the application for financial assistance.
A comment on the funding formula, found at § 668.296, is discussed below in subpart G, under the heading Cost of Living Factor.
In the implementation discussions held around the country, several grantees recommended that we require that States with significant Native American populations expend a percentage of their total State WIA budgets on Native American clients which would correspond to their percentage of State population, and that Local Workforce Investment Boards not be allowed to refer all Native American applicants to the local section 166 grantee for services.
The regulations work group suggested that the Interim Final Rule, at § 668.340(d)(8), appears to allow the attainment of a GED only in conjunction with other training services, and not as a stand-alone objective.
We have inserted the term “WIA” before “funds” to more clearly indicate that the requirement that funds be used for activities in addition to those otherwise available applies to WIA funds.
The requirements for negotiation of MOU's have been a source of confusion to some grantees, especially the provision in § 668.360 concerning the “field office” requirement. Grantees have asked for further definition of this term, and have asked about the status of grantees which have no “field offices” as such, but whose service area includes all or part of several local workforce investment areas. Grantees also raised questions about the provision of services, the design of the One-Stop system, and the nature of the MOU within States with only one local area.
Commenters questioned the reason for elimination of Community Service Employment (CSE) and lamented its demise, questioning what would become of CSE participants when the transition to WIA occurred.
Grantees raised questions about the supplemental youth services funding formula, specifically about the formula's relation to participant eligibility for program services. The grantees argued that, since services are to be limited to “(economically) disadvantaged youth,” the funding formula should be based on the number of economically disadvantaged youth residing “on or near” the reservation, rather than on the total number of youth, as is currently the case.
One commenter was concerned that the projected funding for the supplemental youth services program will be slightly less than what is currently available for the JTPA title II-B program, which will make it impossible to operate a year-round youth effort (since the current allotment is not sufficient to finance the tribe's Summer Youth Program under JTPA).
Several commenters noted that supplemental youth services funding is only being made available to grantees who serve reservations, and urged that we broaden the definition of “on or near” to include urban/suburban/rural areas within a specified distance of a reservation, and make non-tribal grantees serving these areas eligible to receive supplemental youth services funds and to provide youth services in those areas.
We have made a technical correction to move a misplaced phrase in § 668.500(b). In addition, we have moved § 668.630(i) to § 668.350 as new paragraph (g), where a cross reference to 20 CFR 667.266, about limitations on sectarian activities set forth in 29 CFR 37.6(f), has been added.
Members of the Native American Employment and Training Council suggested that § 668.720(c) seems to require that a detailed administrative budget must be submitted as part of the Comprehensive Services Plan. This could present grantees with an extra planning burden which had never been required under JTPA and is not in keeping with other recent planning decisions which require that the grantee justify the need for administrative costs based on actual costs.
A commenter recommended that we build a cost-of-living factor into the funding formula (which is described at § 668.296) so that grantees serving areas which are more costly could receive additional funds to offset the high cost of living (primarily in urban areas).
Commenters questioned why “incentive grants” are not being made available to section 166 grantees who exceed their planned performance levels.
One commenter suggested that costs associated with enrolled tribal members be charged back to their tribes, or that tribes be required to pay employment and training costs for their tribal members participating in programs operated by urban grantees.
We have revised § 668.740(a)(1) to clarify that plans must include information specified in these regulations as well as Departmental planning guidance.
Finally, we have removed § 668.200(a) which refers to designation criteria for PY 1999. We have also removed from §§ 668.720(e) and 668.730(b) references to planning requirements applicable only to PY 1999.
We received many other comments as part of this process. However, they involved such topics as reporting requirements, including frequency and specific data elements, section 166 performance measures and standards, and the closeout of JTPA section 401 grants. While important to the overall scope of program transition and implementation, these issues are not covered in these regulations. These and other programmatic details will be handled administratively through DINAP Bulletins or other policy guidance, issued after consultation with the grantee community.
On August 27, 1999, the Secretary's Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Advisory Committee voted to name the job training portion of the workforce investment program for farmworkers, “The National Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP)”. We have incorporated the name in the definitions section, § 660.300, to establish the NFJP as the farmworker training and assistance program that is a required One-Stop partner, and to distinguish the NFJP from the other workforce investment grants and activities funded under WIA section 167, such as the farmworker housing assistance grants. We have adopted the NFJP name in the portions of the 20 CFR Part 669 regulations that apply exclusively to the NFJP, and the NFJP name is used to identify the program in this preamble.
The comments we received about the regulations governing the operation of the National Farmworker Jobs Program under WIA section 167 primarily came from the current NFJP grantee community. The grantees submitted written comments during the formal comment period. Additionally, we consulted with the migrant and seasonal farmworker grantee community during ETA's Seasonal Farmworker Program National Conference and through the Secretary's Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Program Advisory Committee. The comments reflect a substantial level of interest in how the regulations will impact the program as it implements under the Workforce Investment Act. The commenters seek to make the WIA regulations' impact on their ability to serve their farmworker customers under WIA as positive for the farmworkers as possible.
During these consultations, the NFJP grantees reported on their initial experiences in seeking partnership participation on Workforce Investment
The grantees reported that they most often encountered an adverse negotiating climate in those States and local workforce investment areas where the States have exercised their authority under the alternative entity provisions of WIA sections 111(e) and 117(i) (20 CFR 661.210 and 661.330, respectively) by approving existing boards to serve as the State and/or Local Workforce Investment Boards under WIA. The grantees reported that some States and Boards exercise the alternative entity option in a manner that seriously impairs the NFJP grantee's ability to participate as a One-Stop partner by failing to provide an opportunity for good faith negotiation over the terms of the MOU. Consequently, the necessary arrangements for making the services of the local One-Stop Centers available to the farmworker customers served by the NFJP program grantee may be inadequately developed.
Through a motion unanimously passed by the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Employment and Training Advisory Committee, MSFW grantees communicated their concerns in a letter to Secretary Alexis Herman, dated September 27, 1999. In their letter, the grantees made specific recommendations for changes to the Interim Final Rule that may be summarized as follows: (1) To clarify that the composition of State Workforce Investment Boards must include representation from the required partner; (2) where the State Board is established under the alternative entity authority of WIA section 111(e), the States be advised through policy guidance that representation of farmworker and other subtitle D operators is the “preferred response to the spirit of the Act”; and (3) that where a Local Workforce Board is an approved alternative entity, there must be a way to ensure that an ongoing role is actually provided to the required partners that are not members of the alternative entity, or provision for regulatory relief from the required partner obligations should be available for the national grantees. These issues and other comments are discussed below.
As discussed above, the rules relating to the participation of NFJP grantees in the state and local workforce investment system generated many comments from the NFJP community. Below, we discuss issues relating to alternative entities and representation on State Boards and Local Boards. Similar issues are discussed in relation to the WIA section 168 Indian and Native American Program in the preamble to part 668, and for the workforce investment system in general in the preamble to part 661.
The answer to the representational issue raised by the Farmworker Advisory Committee is found within the design of the One-Stop system and in the requirement that it be operated through the collaboration of the required partners. In order for a partner's participation to be viable, the regulations provide that the partner must have representation in the One-Stop system, either through Local Board representation or, when the partner is not represented on an alternative entity, through an on-going role in the workforce investment system.
We are not able to change the regulations to permit One-stop partner programs to choose whom they wish to represent them. Under WIA, the authority to select State and local board members lies with the Governor and local chief elected official, respectively. However, there are objective standards to ensure that all parties have a voice in the workforce investment system through
As discussed in the preamble to 20 CFR part 661, above, changes have been made to the regulations governing board membership to clarify the role of One-stop partner representatives. For example, when there is more than one partner program grantee in a local area, 20 CFR 661.317 permits the appointment of one member to represent the group of grantees. This section also authorizes the chief elected official to solicit nominations from One-Stop partner program entities to facilitate the selection of such representatives. Of course, the chief elected official can opt to appoint more than one member to represent this program, if he or she so chooses and the selection criteria permit it. Also, as discussed below, we have added new regulations defining the terms “optimal policy-making authority” and “expertise relating to [a] program, service or activity.”
The Farmworker Advisory Committee commenters indicated that the Interim Final Rule is unclear as to whether representation on the State Boards is mandatory for all required partners such as the national program partners. As a result, the commenters reported that many States are claiming to represent the NFJP on the State's Workforce Investment Board through a non-partner surrogate, possibly a State agency representative having familiarity with farmworker or related agricultural issues, such as the State Monitor Advocate or a representative from the State's Farm Bureau.
Without the clarification that representation must be specific to the required partner program, appointments made to represent the interests of a required partner could include a person who may have no vested interest to represent the partner. This condition, which leaves the required national partners vulnerable to the consequences of unqualified representation, is what the NFJP grantees reported has been occurring initially in some States. An agency official or other individual representing a One-stop partner program must be an official with optimum policy-making authority in the organization he or she represents. As defined in 20 CFR 661.205(a), a representative with “optimum policy making authority” is an individual who can reasonably be expected to speak affirmatively on behalf of the entity he or she represents and to commit that entity to a chosen course of action.
Commenters reported that the national programs, possibly without exception, are not included on a Local Workforce Investment Board where the Local Board is an alternative entity approved by the Governor under WIA section 117(i) (and under 20 CFR 661.330). This is to be expected because the composition of Local Boards approved under the alternative entity provision is derived from arrangements developed under JTPA, and the JTPA did not provide for the participation of the national programs in local workforce systems as now required by WIA. However, where the membership of the approved alternative entity does not provide for the representation required by WIA section 117(b), the Interim Final Rule at § 661.330(b)(2) required Local Boards to “ensure an ongoing role for any such group in the local workforce investment system” which is not represented on the alternative entity Local Board.
The commenters found that the use of the word “group” in the Interim Final Rule, to be too generalized to make a clear requirement that the local workforce investment plan must provide an ongoing role for each unrepresented partner category whenever the membership requirement of WIA section 117(b)(2) is not matched by the incumbent membership of the alternative entity Local Board. At the National Conference, the commenters described instances of alternative entity boards refusing to negotiate MOU's with their NFJP program representatives. They pointed out that in the instance of a required partner, a Local Board cannot have established a working relationship or demonstrated that it has provided for an ongoing role for the unrepresented partner until it has attempted good faith negotiations of an MOU with that partner.
In connection with the reports from NFJP grantees of the instances where they had been approached by State and Local Boards with non-negotiable terms or they were not offered an ongoing role, the grantee commenters expressed their concern over how such practices might influence the outcome of the next NFJP competition in the State. The commenters explained that where the State does not foster an environment supporting good faith negotiations between its State and Local Boards and the non-governmental NFJP grantee, the consequent nonparticipation by the NFJP grantee in the State's local workforce investment systems could be viewed unfavorably. The commenters were concerned that such a condition could result in an unfair rating of the incumbent non-State agency grantee.
Several non-NFJP commenters raised a question about the relationship between the Judge Richey Court Order and the NFJP for serving migrant and seasonal farmworkers under WIA section 167. The comments basically inquire whether the NFJP is the program for farmworkers under WIA, and, as such, whether it brings to an end the system of monitor advocates created by the Order.
The States are required to make the services of the One-Stop systems in the State available to all job seekers in an equitable fashion. The services available from the Adult and Dislocated Workers program, from the Job Service, and from all other DOL-funded Workforce Investment System partners in the State, must be available to farmworkers in an equitable fashion, appropriate to their needs as job seekers as well as to their needs as farmworkers. Judge Richey's decision in the case brought against the Employment Service required the entire system to serve farmworkers equitably. That requirement has not changed under WIA.
The commenters noted several typographical errors and suggested clarifications in the definitions for the farmworker program in § 669.110 of the Interim Final Rule.
Questions about the characterization of emergency assistance as a form of related assistance in § 669.360 led some commenters to ask about the nature of related assistance and what other services it includes.
There were a variety of comments asking that we define certain terms related to participant eligibility, in particular that we specify which dependents of a farmworker are eligible for NFJP assistance and that we add an adjustment for family-size to the definition of “disadvantaged” for eligibility purposes. Other comments raised a variety of issues that include: clarification of the floating 12 month eligibility determination period; allowing for exceptions to the eligibility period for formerly institutionalized and hospitalized applicants; identifying the qualifying farmwork occupations and defining the farmwork thresholds—expressed in terms of income from farmwork and time employed in farmwork—that must be met by an applicant to qualify as a farmworker who is eligible for NFJP services.
The comments about the clarification of the floating 12 month eligibility determination period, formerly institutionalized and hospitalized applicants, identifying the qualifying farmwork occupations and defining the farmwork thresholds topics will be addressed in policy guidance on participant eligibility. Grantees should refer to WIA nondiscrimination regulations, at 29 CFR 37.8, for guidance on whether an extension of the eligibility period for formerly institutionalized and hospitalized participants may be a form of reasonable accomodation.
The commenters raised a related concern that allowance be made for situations where a farmworker may be disqualified by the income of an abusive spouse and the family unit may technically remain in place. The commenters prefer that there be the flexibility available to accommodate such situations where appropriate.
We have removed the definition of “Department” from § 669.110 since it appears in 20 CFR 660.300. In addition, we have added a new paragraph (e) to § 669.170 clarifying that the Department's regulations implementing the nondiscrimination provisions in WIA section 188 (29 CFR part 37) apply to NFJP grants.
Commenters reported that there was confusion between the NFJP grantees and the States and Local Boards over the areas within the States where the NFJP grantee is a mandatory partner in the local One-Stop system. The grantees asked that the regulations be amended to clarify that the NFJP is a One-Stop partner in those local workforce investment areas where the NFJP operates by serving NFJP customers, not necessarily where there is “field office” presence, as provided in § 669.220(a) of the Interim Final Rule.
Commenters questioned the consistency of classifying emergency assistance as a form of related assistance and of classifying certain non-occupational training activities as training services. Specifically, the commenters questioned the classification of “workplace safety” training and “farmworker pesticide training” as training services in § 669.410(a)(2) of the Interim Final Rule. The commenters suggested that the designation of emergency assistance as a form of related assistance, without further clarifying the nature of related assistance, also contributed to the confusing organization of the service classifications.
To resolve the confusing classifications, we have decided to combine the short-term, non-occupational skills training activities with supportive services such as emergency assistance. This will form a classification of congruous services that historically have been provided to MSFW's and that are uniquely required by them. To accomplish this, we have amended § 669.310 to create a fourth basic service component of the NFJP service delivery strategy, called “related assistance services.” Related assistance consists of short-term forms of direct assistance to eligible farmworkers and their family members. The related assistance services are ones that stabilize farmworkers' agricultural employment. The activities include such services as emergency assistance, English language instruction, short duration basic education, workplace safety training, farmworker pesticide safety instruction, and farmworker housing development assistance. The services under related assistance encompass all the activities formerly classified under JTPA as “services-only.” Related assistance activities also include the non training-related “enhancement-only” services that were recognized under JTPA. These forms of assistance predominantly assist farmworkers to maintain their current lifestyle within the agricultural community by supporting them in their endeavors to remain employed in farmwork, thereby contributing collaterally to the economic stabilization of the agricultural community. Related assistance services also may be used to support farmworkers who have enrolled in either intensive or training services.
To establish the “related assistance services” category, we made a number of changes. We added a definition of “related assistance,” as described above, in § 669.110. Related assistance services are identified in § 669.310 as one of the four basic components of the NFJP service delivery strategy. A new § 669.430 is added to classify the activities that are included in related assistance services as described above. The description of training services in § 669.410 has been revised to reflect that training services are activities focusing on occupational training, including basic education activity. A new § 669.440 provides that related assistance services may be provided at any time there is a need identified for any eligible farmworker or family member. This includes farmworker youth enrolled in the MSFW Youth program. Accordingly, we added a clause to § 669.680 clarifying that the related assistance services available under § 669.430 are authorized under the MSFW Youth program. The need for related assistance may be documented by the grantee or in a statement by the farmworker that is acceptable to the grantee.
We also added a definition for “farmworker housing development assistance” as requested by comments made at the National Conference. Finally, a technical correction is made by adding the word “grantee” to § 669.360(b) where it was omitted from the Interim Final Rule.
We received a number of comments about the treatment of work experience in the Interim Final Rule. The comments addressed two issues. One issue is the authorization under § 669.370(b)(3)(i) to develop arrangements with private for-profit businesses to host work experience activities. The commenters were concerned that this will lead to abuse of program resources by providing favored businesses with free, albeit unskilled, WIA-funded laborers. Commenters were also concerned that the authorization for unpaid work experience contained in the definition could lead to abuses.
We have changed § 669.370(b)(3)(i) to authorize NFJP work experience in the for-profit sector only when there is a system described in the approved grant plan for the use of for-profit businesses to host the structured learning experience for NFJP participants. Similarly, to reconcile the authorization for unpaid work experience to the requirement in § 669.370(b)(3)(ii), which establishes a minimum compensation rate for paid work experience, we have revised § 669.370(b)(3)(ii) to require that the grantee's unpaid work experience activity be described in the approved grant plan. To be acceptable, the plan must show how the work experience participation at a for-profit host or in an unpaid activity will provide tangible benefits to the work experience participant. The plan must show that such benefits will be commensurate
We also received comments about the classification of work experience as an intensive service under § 669.370. A number of commenters urged that work experience be considered a training service. Some commenters explained that work experience is effectively used to “train” farmworker participants on the different working conditions of non-agricultural work environments, since the participants have developed the basic workplace-values from their farmwork experiences.
WIA section 134(d)(4)(D) does recognize “job readiness training” as a training service. Job readiness training provides, through classroom lecture and role play, the development of the same set of skills and understanding to be acquired through work experience. It is generally offered as pre-vocational world-of-work skills that may include showing up on time, work place attitudes and behaviors, and the like. Job readiness training usually does not include an associated work component, but it may.
For these reasons, we have made no change to the Final Rule about the classification of work experience as an intensive service.
The issue on which we received the largest number of comments during the formal comment period is the administrative costs limitation. The Interim Final Rule, at 20 CFR 667.210(b), provides that the administrative costs for the NFJP “will be identified in the grant or contract award document.” In the guidance (Farmworker Bulletin No. 99-04) to grantees for preparation of their 1999 Program Year plans, we established an administrative cost limitation policy for those grantees implementing WIA for the 1999 Program Year. The policy limited the amount budgeted for administration to 20 percent, with costs over 15 percent requiring justification satisfactory to the Grant Officer. It was anticipated that, after WIA transition, the rates could be expected to fall. The grantees have traditionally operated within a 20 percent limitation for administrative costs, without having to justify the administrative cost rates to the Department.
The grantees' comments on administrative costs limitations were based on the historical context of this stated policy. They expressed concern that a 10-15% administrative costs limitation was unjust because of the state-wide scope of most NFJP operations and the continuing need to participate in the business of the State Board and to serve on and negotiate MOU's with numerous Local Boards.
This part provides regulations for the Job Corps program, authorized in title I, subtitle C of WIA. The regulations address the scope and purpose of the Job Corps program and provide requirements relating to selection of sites for Job Corps centers; selection and funding of service providers; screening, selection and assignment of eligible youth to Job Corps centers; operation of Job Corps centers; and required services for Job Corps students. This part also provides regulations covering new WIA requirements such as the establishment of a business and community liaison, and an industry council for each Job Corps center, and the focus on accountability, including specific performance measures for Job Corps centers and service providers. Our intent in these regulations is to incorporate the requirements of title I, subtitle C of the Act, and to describe the programs and services which must be available for Job Corps students, as well as the requirements dictated by the unique residential environment of a Job Corps center (such as provision of meals, transportation, recreational activities and related services).
Subpart A describes the purpose of the program and provides definitions. Section 670.100 explains that references in this part referring to guidelines or procedures issued by the Secretary mean that the Job Corps Director will issue such guidelines. Section 670.130 specifies that the Job Corps Director has been delegated authority to carry out the Secretary's responsibilities under title I, subtitle C of the Act for the operation of the Job Corps program. As section 670.100 explains, procedures guiding day-to-day operations are provided in a Policy and Requirements Handbook (PRH). The PRH includes minimum program requirements and expected outcomes for specific program components, such as education and training, student support, and administration. In addition, general guidance and best practices are provided in a number of program areas in Job Corps Technical Assistance Guides issued by the Job Corps Director.
The regulatory provision on program purpose (§ 670.110) incorporates the Act's intent that Job Corps will operate as a national, residential program in partnership with States and local communities. This partnering relationship is carried throughout various sections of part 670, such as in requirements for Job Corps centers and service providers to serve on local youth councils, to operate as a One-Stop partner, and to work with employers.
During the development of the Interim Final Rule, several parties noted that the regulations in this subpart provide that Job Corps is a national program which operates in partnership with States, communities, Local Boards, youth councils, One-Stop centers and
Subpart B describes how sites for Job Corps centers are selected, the handling of capital improvements and new construction on Job Corps centers, and responsibilities for facility protection and maintenance. The requirements in this subpart are not significantly different from the corresponding requirements in the JTPA Job Corps regulations.
Subpart C describes entities which are eligible to receive funds to operate Job Corps centers and to provide operational support services. It also describes how contract center operators and operational support service contractors are selected, emphasizing the requirements for competitive contract awards. Section 670.300 specifically describes the kinds of entities that are eligible to receive funds to operate centers and provide training and operational support services as specified in sections 147(a) and (d), 145(a)(3) and 149(b) of the Act.
One commenter suggested that § 670.300 be revised to expand the list of entities eligible to receive funds to operate centers and provide training and operational support services by adding “including service or conservation corps” to paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of that section.
New requirements, including consultation with the appropriate Governor, center industry council, and Local Board in development of requests for proposals for center operators, are included in § 670.310(a). In addition, § 670.310(c), restates the criteria, specified in WIA section 147(a)(2)(B), that must be included in center requests for proposals. These criteria include an assessment of providers' past performance, their ability to coordinate Job Corps center activities with State and local activities (including One-Stop centers), and their ability to provide vocational training that reflects employment opportunities in areas where students will seek jobs. Several commenters recommended adding a fifth criterion category to § 670.310(c) that would require that criteria for selection of center operators include the degree to which the entity would provide access to non-traditional jobs and career paths for women and girls.
Subpart D describes who is eligible for Job Corps under WIA and provides additional factors which must be considered in selecting an eligible applicant for enrollment. This subpart also discusses who will conduct outreach and admissions activities for the Job Corps, and the responsibilities of those organizations. Section 670.450(a) describes the new requirements of section 145(c) of WIA for an assignment plan for Job Corps centers. Assignment plans will be developed and used to establish a target for each Job Corps center for the percentage of students enrolled who will come from the State or Department of Labor region in which the center is located, and the regions surrounding the center. In addition, § 670.450(b) and (c) addresses the requirement of section 145(d) of the Act which requires that students be assigned to the center closest to their homes, with consideration given to the special needs of applicants or their parents or guardians, as listed in the regulation, when making assignments. Section 670.490 provides authorization for extensions of enrollment of students for up to one year in special cases, such as when additional time is required for a student to complete an advanced program or to reasonably accommodate a student's disability.
Several commenters supported the regulatory exclusion in § 670.400 of an upper age limit for an otherwise Job Corps eligible individual with a disability. Several other commenters noted that parenting and child care responsibility in the Job Corps program are mentioned in §§ 670.400 (eligibility), 670.410(c) (factors for selection of applicants for enrollment), 670.460 (nonresidential enrollment), and 670.550 (center responsibility to assist students with child care needs), and suggested that the regulations be clarified to require contractors to provide on-site or nearby child care for students.
Subpart E describes the services and types of training each Job Corps center must provide, as well as center responsibilities in the administration of work-based learning. This subpart also describes the residential support services Job Corps centers must provide, and centers' responsibility for student accountability. Under § 670.520, required residential support services include providing a safe, secure environment, an ongoing counseling program, food service, access to medical care, recreation, leadership programs for students and a student welfare association. In addition, centers must account for the whereabouts, participation, and status of students while they are enrolled in Job Corps.
Section 670.555 discusses religious rights of students. Based on comments received, § 670.555 has been revised to clarify that students may file a complaint under the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 37 if they believe their religious rights have been violated.
Subpart E establishes requirements for Job Corps centers to have student behavior management systems. Section 670.540 describes Job Corps' zero tolerance policy for violence, drugs, and unauthorized goods. The regulatory language in this section continues current requirements for automatic dismissal of students who commit specific offenses (the one strike and you're out policy) specified in the Policy and Requirements Handbook (PRH) in Job Corps' zero tolerance policy. The Secretary will issue procedures which continue this practice. Section 670.540(b) also addresses the requirements of section 145(a)(2) of the Act for drug testing of all students. Section 670.545 of this subpart also contains requirements to ensure that students are provided due process in disciplinary actions. This process includes center fact-finding and behavior review boards, notification of potential penalties and appeal procedures, including going to a regional appeal board.
Subpart E section 670.560 also addresses the authorization, provided in section 156 of the Act, for experimental, research and demonstration projects related to the Job Corps program.
Subpart F includes authorization of leave for students from center activities, and provisions of cash allowances, bonuses and clothing for students. In addition to being eligible to receive transportation, students are eligible for other benefits, including basic living allowances to cover personal expenses, such as toiletries, snacks, etc., in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary. The allowance and bonus system is structured to provide incentives for specific accomplishments of students, such as vocational completion. Students are also provided with a modest clothing allowance to enable them to obtain clothes that are appropriate for class and for the workplace.
Subpart G discusses placement services for graduates of the Job Corps program in accordance with section 149 of the Act. The regulations focus on graduates, which is a significant change from previous Job Corps policy and practice, since placement services have traditionally been provided for all students who leave Job Corps, no matter how long they were enrolled or how much of the program they completed. The regulatory language in subpart G is substantially different from the language in the JTPA Job Corps regulations in order to reflect this new emphasis on providers of services to graduates. This subpart also discusses who provides placement services, and the responsibilities of Job Corps placement agencies in placing graduates in jobs.
The authority provided in section 149(d) of the Act, to allow for placement of former students (non-graduates), is reflected in §§ 670.710 and 670.720; however, placement services are not required for anyone other than graduates. Implementation of new requirements for provision of 12 months of continued services for graduates and for 6 and 12 month follow-up tracking of graduates placed in jobs (§ 670.980 (a)(4) and (a)(5)) will require a realignment of existing financial resources to support these new initiatives. The ability to provide placement services for former students in addition to the required placement services for graduates will be contingent on having the funding resources to do so. We anticipate that some funds used in the past to provide placement services for all former enrollees will have to be realigned to support the new required services for graduates, therefore, it is likely that the level of placement services for graduates and for former enrollees will differ.
Subpart G discusses section 148(d) of the Act, which requires provision of 12 months of continued service for graduates. Sections 670.740 and 670.750 discuss this requirement and who may provide those services. Provision of 12 months of continued services is a new requirement, which requires a new level of effort for Job Corps service providers. As discussed above, this will likely divert some funding resources which have been used in the past for provision of placement services for all students. As we implement the new requirement for 12 months of continued services for graduates, we will use various approaches in order to learn what these services should consist of and how best to procure and provide them. We anticipate that provision of continued services for graduates may be handled by placement and support contractors, by Job Corps centers, and/or by One-Stops.
Subpart H describes new requirements for Job Corps representatives to serve on local youth councils, as provided for in section 117(h) of the Act, as well as for center business and community liaisons, and for center industry councils, as provided for in WIA sections 153 and 154, respectively. Section 670.800(f) describes the role and responsibilities of center industry councils, as prescribed in section 154(c) of the Act, to analyze labor market information and identify job opportunities in areas where students will seek employment and the skills needed for those jobs, and to recommend changes in center vocational training offerings as appropriate. The intent of this subpart is to provide regulatory language to tie Job Corps centers more closely to their local communities and local employers to ensure that the vocational and other training students receive will enable them to obtain meaningful jobs in their home communities upon graduation.
Subpart I provides requirements relating to Tort Claims (§§ 670.900 and .905), Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) benefits for students (§§ 670.910 through 930), safety and health (§ 670.935), and law enforcement jurisdiction on Job Corps center property (§ 670.940).
Subpart I also discusses financial management responsibilities of Job Corps center operators and other Job Corps service providers, as well as Federal audit requirements.
Subpart I also incorporates specific requirements relating to performance assessment and accountability contained in section 159(c) of the Act, as well as requirements for performance improvement plans, as provided for in WIA section 159(f)(2), for Job Corps center operators or other service providers who fail to meet expected levels of performance. Sections 670.975 and 670.980 describe how performance of the Job Corps program will be assessed and the required indicators of performance. Indicators of performance include: placement rates of graduates in jobs, including jobs related to vocational training received; average wage at placement at six months and twelve months after job entry; retention in employment six and twelve months after job entry; the number of graduates who achieved job readiness and employment skills; and the number who entered postsecondary or advanced training programs.
Subpart I includes requirements relating to student records and disclosure of information about Job Corps students. It also contains the procedures that center operators and service providers must follow when resolving complaints and disputes of students and other parties.
Section 170 of WIA provides for technical assistance, and section 171 provides for demonstration, pilot, multiservice, research and multistate projects. Although we have not regulated on these sections, it is again important to note these activities for the general workforce investment system.
Section 170(a) provides that the Secretary will provide, coordinate and support the development of training, technical assistance, staff development and other activities to States and localities, and in particular, assist States in making transitions from carrying out JTPA to carrying out activities under title I of WIA.
Section 170(b) provides that a portion of the funds reserved by the Secretary under WIA section 132(a)(2) be used to: (1) Assist States that do not meet the State performance measures for dislocated workers; (2) assist other States, local areas and other entities involved in providing assistance for dislocated workers and promote continuous improvement to dislocated workers under title I of WIA; or (3) assist staff who provide rapid response services, including training of those staff in proven methods of promoting, establishing and assisting labor-management or transition committees to plan for effective adjustment assistance for workers impacted by dislocation events.
Section 171(a), (b) and (c) of WIA describe employment and training projects which may be funded, as well as the processes for such funding. Section 171(d) provides for dislocated worker demonstration projects and pilot projects, multiservice and multistate projects. The purpose of dislocated worker demonstration projects is to test innovative approaches that address priorities established by the Secretary, are consistent with the goals described in WIA, and subsequently may prove beneficial in providing adjustment assistance to larger dislocated worker populations. Generally, projects will be funded as a result of competitive solicitations published in the
Part 671 describes the availability of a portion of the funds reserved by the Secretary under WIA section 132(a)(2)(A) for assistance to dislocated workers.
Part 671 contains limited regulations about dislocated worker funds reserved for national emergency grants. Section 173 of WIA authorizes the Secretary to award discretionary funds to serve dislocated workers in certain situations. These regulations describe circumstances under which funds may be available, including to provide employment and training assistance to workers affected by major economic dislocations (such as plant closures, mass layoffs, closures or realignments of military installations, dislocations due to federal policies, etc.); and to provide assistance to Governors of States when FEMA has determined that a major disaster, as defined in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122 (1) and (2)), has occurred in the area.
These regulations emphasize the importance of rapid response assistance for the development of requests for national emergency funds. We set a high priority on the early collection of information about workers being laid off, so that requests for funds will be made promptly when it is determined that there are insufficient State and local formula funds available to meet the needs of workers being laid off. This process ensures that there are funds available in the local area when the workers first need the assistance. Early intervention to assist workers being dislocated is critical to enable them to find or qualify for new jobs as soon as possible after the dislocation occurs. While these regulations highlight some of the key elements and requirements for applying for national emergency funds, guidelines to apply for national emergency funds will be published separately in the
We received several comments on § 671.120, including requests that we add language to allow labor organizations the opportunity to comment on and grieve decisions regarding eligible applications to the Department, and that we add language that cites labor organizations as an example of an organization with unique capabilities to respond to a dislocation.
Section 671.140(c)(1) describes the deadline for a National Emergency Grant participant to be enrolled in training to be eligible for needs-related payments under the grant. The current deadline is by the end of the 6th week following the date of grant award. Comments focused on extending this deadline. The commenters viewed the time frame as overly restrictive, given the new requirements under WIA, such as receipt of core and intensive services and the use of ITA's.
In amending the Wagner-Peyser Act in title III of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, Congress intended to encourage coordination in the planning and delivery of Wagner-Peyser Act and WIA title I services, while retaining State agency administration of a separate Wagner-Peyser Act program and funding stream for the delivery of services in a One-Stop environment. The amendments to the Wagner-Peyser Act require the State agency to provide labor exchange services delivered by State merit-staff employees as part of a One-Stop delivery system, and to ensure that the delivery of services funded under the Wagner-Peyser Act is coordinated with other One-Stop partner programs in accordance with a five-year strategic plan.
The rules governing the operation of the basic labor exchange program have been located in 20 CFR part 652, subpart A for many years and are well known to State agencies administering the Wagner-Peyser Act. The rules governing Wagner-Peyser Act services in a One-Stop delivery system environment, as required by WIA, are contained in subpart C of 20 CFR part 652.
The final regulations at part 652 subpart A contain revisions that update definitions and update references in administrative provisions.
Under the authority of the Wagner-Peyser Act, the Governor is required to designate a State agency to administer funds authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act and to provide labor exchange services to employers and job seekers, including unemployment insurance (UI) claimants, veterans, migrant and seasonal farmworkers, and persons with disabilities.
We received no written comments about the Interim Final Rule's changes to subpart A. However, we have made some technical changes to conform the regulations to WIA requirements. The words “Planning and” are removed from the heading of subpart A to reflect the previous removal of §§ 652.6 and 652.7 that discussed planning. Regulations for State plans are now located in subpart C at §§ 652.211 through 652.214. The definition of State Job Training Coordinating Council (SJTCC), at § 652.1, is removed. Citation errors are corrected in the revision to § 652.5.
Technical changes to § 652.8, Administrative Provisions, consist of revised references to specified federal regulations and OMB Circular A-87 (Revised). We have made a technical change to § 652.8(j)(1), to clarify that Wagner-Peyser Act grantees are required to comply with all applicable Federal nondiscrimination laws, including laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of the factors specified in the regulation. As it is used in the WIA regulations, the term “including” in this provision is used to indicate an illustrative, but not exhaustive list of examples. Additionally, the term “handicap” has been changed to “disability” to correspond to the phrase normally used in laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap or disability.
Part 652, subpart C, describes requirements for the establishment and functioning of State Wagner-Peyser Act services in a One-Stop delivery system environment. Governors must designate a State agency responsible for administering Wagner-Peyser Act funds as a distinct funding source. The rule requires that the State agency retain responsibility for, and oversight of, all Wagner-Peyser Act labor exchange services provided through the One-Stop delivery system.
Funds allocated to States under section 7(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act must be used by the State agency to provide the three methods of labor exchange services (self-service, facilitated self-help service, and staff-assisted service) in at least one comprehensive physical center in each local workforce investment area during normal and customary hours of operation, and in accordance with a local Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Within the local area, there also may be affiliated sites, as described in § 652.202(b), that provide the labor exchange services described at section 7(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act. In accordance with the local MOU, and, consistent with State and Local Plans, these affiliated sites should be an important part of the State's network of local sites that provide job seekers and employers multiple access points to One-Stop partners' services through the One-Stop delivery system. We have revised §§ 652.202 and 652.207 to add the word “comprehensive” which was omitted in error in the Interim Final Rule. To ensure coordination of service delivery with title I of WIA, we have revised § 652.202(b)(1) to reference § 652.207(b). For the same reason, we have revised § 652.202(b)(2) to reference 20 CFR 662.100. Finally, we emphasize that Wagner-Peyser Act funded services must be available to and accessible by individuals with disabilities.
We received comments about funds authorized under section 7 of the Wagner-Peyser Act. One commenter expressed concern that § 652.205 had given State legislatures the authority to distribute funds under section 7(c) of the Wagner-Peyser Act.
Another commenter suggested that § 652.206 clearly indicate the limitations on the use of funds under section 7(b) of the Wagner-Peyser Act.
Wagner-Peyser Act funds must be used to provide core services and may be used to provide applicable intensive services, as defined in title I of WIA. One commenter asked that core and intensive services be defined in the regulations and asked how it would be determined whether to provide intensive services.
Two commenters suggested that Wagner-Peyser Act resources should be used solely, or to the greatest extent possible, to provide the core services delivered through the One-Stop delivery system.
One commenter suggested that the term “other activities” referred to at section 3(c)(3) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, be specified in the regulations.
The commenter also expressed concern about the availability of Wagner-Peyser Act funds to provide reemployment services to UI claimants who are required to participate in reemployment services as a condition for receipt of benefits.
One commenter identified the need to make clear that the detailed Wagner-Peyser Act plan is part of the Strategic Five-Year Plan for Title I of the Workforce Investment Act and the Wagner-Peyser Act submitted by the Governor in accordance with WIA regulations at 20 CFR 661.220.
We received several comments about the Secretary's authority under sections 3(a) and 5(b) of the Wagner-Peyser Act to require the delivery of labor exchange services by merit-staff employees. Section 652.215 of the final regulations reflects the Department's authority under the Wagner-Peyser Act, affirmed in
Two commenters suggested that § 652.215 be clarified to stipulate that Wagner-Peyser Act services must be delivered by merit-staff employees of a State agency. Three commenters suggested that the interpretation of the merit-staffing requirement be broadened specifically to include units of general local government.
Under section 3(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, prior to issuance of the Interim Final Rule, the Department authorized demonstrations of the effective delivery of Wagner-Peyser Act services utilizing non-State agency employees in the States of Colorado, Massachusetts, and Michigan. These three demonstrations were permitted as exceptions to the long-standing policy described above in order to assess the effectiveness of alternative delivery systems. We have determined that these three demonstrations reflect a sufficient range of delivery options utilizing non-State agency employees to determine whether using such employees is an effective and efficient way to deliver Wagner-Peyser services. Therefore, the Department is not authorizing other States to demonstrate Wagner-Peyser Act service delivery using non-State agency employees. Failure to comply with the State merit staffing requirements of § 652.215 may result in revocation of authority to draw down Wagner-Peyser Act funds, disallowance of costs, and/or decertification of a State to receive Wagner-Peyser Act funds.
One commenter suggested that the Department develop federal procedures to ensure compliance with State merit-staffing requirements.
One commenter suggested that the provision in § 652.216 which limits the ability of a One-Stop operator, other than the State agency, to provide only guidance to State agency merit-staff employees is contrary to the concept of service integration by preventing the operator from providing supervision to all employees in the One-Stop center. Other commenters recommended that the regulations remain silent on the issue of guidance. Another suggestion was that labor unions, whose members and/or bargaining agreements are affected by the terms of a local MOU that defines “guidance,” must provide written concurrence.
Finally, a commenter indicated that the wording regarding delegation to “any other public agency” contained in the parenthetical phrase in § 652.216 of the Interim Final Rule may appear to be contradictory.
We received a number of comments that did not pertain directly to 20 CFR part 652 subpart A or C, but which did refer to the Wagner-Peyser Act. One was a question of whether priority of service to veterans under the Wagner-Peyser Act has been maintained.
Another commenter asked whether the current migrant and seasonal farmworkers' regulations for the Employment Service remain in effect.
A commenter expressed concern about the lack of a limit on administrative costs for Wagner-Peyser Act services as well as the lack of a requirement to track the income of job seekers.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended in 1996 (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), requires the Federal government to anticipate and minimize the impact of rules and paperwork requirements on small entities. “Small entities” are defined as small businesses (those with fewer than 500 employees, except where otherwise provided), small non-profit organizations (those with fewer than 500 employees, except where otherwise provided) and small governmental entities (those in areas with fewer than 50,000 residents). We have assessed the potential impact of this Final Rule by consulting with a wide range of small entities, in order to identify and address any areas of concern. Based on that assessment, we certify that the Final Rule, as promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We are transmitting a copy our certification to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The WIA Final Rule implements major reforms to the nation's job training system. The WIA will provide resources to States, localities, and other entities, including small entities, to assist youth, adults, and dislocated workers in preparing for, obtaining and retaining employment. This Rule sets forth the rights, responsibilities and conditions under which State and local governments may receive grants to operate programs in local workforce investment areas with these funds. Governments in local workforce investment areas are not small governmental entities. These areas generally have a population of at least 500,000 and are intended to replace existing service areas under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) which generally have a population of at least 200,000. Consequently, we do not
As during the development of the Interim Final Rule, we also provided a number of opportunities, through a variety of media, for the input of small businesses, non-profits and any other interested parties. These opportunities included town hall meetings spanning the nation in eleven locations, and an interactive web site providing ETA policy and responses to questions from the public. Additionally, in order to solicit comments from the widest possible audience, we broadly disseminated our developing policies through the publication of consultation documents which were available on the Internet, published in the
The Final Rule provides significant flexibility to States and local governments to design programs and to determine policy and spending priorities for the use of WIA grant funds. This policy-making flexibility is embodied in 20 CFR 661.120. The Rule provides States and local governments with additional flexibility to design systems that meet the specific needs of each State and local area through the general and work-flex waiver provisions at 20 CFR 661.410 and 661.430. We have taken steps to further ameliorate any potential burdens through 20 CFR 667.210 of the Final Rule, which provides that States and localities may use a portion of their grant funds (up to five percent at the State level and up to ten percent at the local level) for management and administration of the grant, rather than for the direct provision of services to participants. Because the WIA statutory limit on administrative costs is lower than the existing JTPA limit, we extensively consulted with States and localities about the regulatory definition of these administrative costs to ensure that this cost category is defined as flexibly as possible. We also initiated a pilot study of ten JTPA service delivery areas (SDA's), to assess the Interim Final Rule's definition of administrative costs. As a result of those consultations and our study, we made significant adjustments to the definition of administrative costs in the Final Rule in order to take account of the practical realities of implementing and maintaining this new system.
A portion of WIA funds is available to certain communities in direct grants from the Department. We have consulted with representatives of the migrant and seasonal farm worker community, and Indian and Native American tribal governments to minimize any burdens that provisions of the Rule would have on those communities. The Rule also provides limited authority to these grantees to receive waivers of certain provisions of the Rule, to lessen any burden on these communities.
To further ameliorate any burden on WIA direct grantees, the Rule permits direct grantees to use a portion of WIA funds for administrative costs expenditure. Unlike formula funds, the administrative cost limit for direct grantees is not specified in the Rule but will be negotiated in the grant agreement to take into account individual circumstances. Due to some confusion, new regulatory provisions have been added to expressly state this. Similarly, the period of availability for expenditure of grant funds is established in the grant agreement rather than set by Rule to take into account individual circumstances. Based on provisions such as these, we have concluded that the Rule will not place undue burdens on small entities. In addition, under the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. Chapter 8), we have determined that this Final Rule is not a “major rule,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). We certify that this Final Rule has been assessed in accordance with Pub. L. 105-227, 112 Stat. 2681, for its effect on family well-being.
Under Executive Order 12866, we have evaluated this Final Rule and have determined its provisions are consistent with the statement of regulatory philosophy and principles promulgated by the Executive Order. The Department of Labor is required by statute to prescribe regulations for the WIA program. We have made every reasonable effort to obtain input in a purposeful manner from a variety of interested parties (State and local government officials, community-based organizations, Intergovernmental Organizations, other stakeholders, and the general public). The WIA grants increase the resources available to the public and private organizations that promote long-term employment and self-sufficiency. We have determined the Final Rule will not have an adverse effect in a material way on the nation's economy.
We have developed the Final Rule in close consultation with the Department of Education, and with other interested Federal agencies. Based on those consultations, we have determined that this Final Rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with any action taken or planned by another Federal Agency.
This Final Rule implements the Workforce Investment Act, which is the first major reform of the nation's job training and employment system in over 15 years. Consequently, this Final Rule raises novel policy issues. Therefore, this is a significant regulatory action which has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Final Rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
If a covered agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement, section 205 of UMRA further requires that it select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with the statutory requirements. In addition, section 203 of UMRA requires a plan for informing and advising any small government that may be significantly or uniquely impacted.
We have determined that the WIA Final Rule will not mandate the expenditure by the State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year. Accordingly, we have not prepared a budgetary impact statement, specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered, or prepared a plan for informing and
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and will not unduly burden the Federal court system. The regulation has been written so as to minimize litigation and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and has been reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities.
There are some federalism implications in this rule, for example, the regulations implementing sections 3(a) and 5(b) of the Wagner-Peyser Act may have a direct effect on the States' personnel management policies. Specifically, 20 CFR 652.215 and 652.216, reiterate, in regulation, the long-standing policy of requiring that the delivery of Wagner-Peyser Act labor exchange services be provided by State merit staff employees in the context of the One-Stop delivery system. Since the implementation of the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, there has been an uninterrupted application of this requirement as a condition imposed upon States for receipt of grants for the administration of Wagner-Peyser Act services. The requirement that job finding, placement, and reemployment services funded under the Wagner-Peyser Act, including services to veterans, be delivered by merit-staff employees was affirmed by the Federal District Court in
Throughout the development of the Interim Final Rule and the Final Rule, we participated in numerous consultations with State and local officials, including organizations representing elected officials, about these particular provisions as well as the regulations in general. These consultations began with the development of the Interim Final Rule before the issuance of Executive Order 13132 and continued throughout the rulemaking process. The groups consulted included the National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of State Legislators, the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Black Mayors. Perhaps because 20 CFR 652.215 and 652.216 merely reiterate the long-standing policy of the Department, State and local government officials and representatives did not raise any concerns with this on-going policy. During these consultations we did receive questions regarding the scope and duration of the three demonstrations authorized by the Secretary, to which we promptly responded. Although not from State and local government officials, we did receive some written comments on these provisions. These are discussed and responded to in detail in the preamble section on part 652.
After consulting with the groups specified above, and carefully examining and considering all of the concerns raised, we have revised 20 CFR 652.215 to more clearly state our long-standing policy position that Wagner-Peyser Act services must be delivered by merit-staff employees of a State agency. Since the beginning of the Federal-State Wagner-Peyser Act program, we have required that annual State Wagner-Peyser Act service plans include a merit system of personnel administration. To ensure consistency in the application of merit personnel systems and to promote greater statewide administrative efficiency, merit-staff employees of the State agency must deliver Wagner-Peyser Act services, as a condition for receipt of grants. Under 20 CFR 652.216 non-merit staff employees are not prohibited from providing guidance to merit staff employees. We have determined that State merit-staffing preserves and maintains competence, impartiality, and nonpartisanship in the administration of Wagner-Peyser Act services to job seekers and employers as part of the One-Stop delivery system.
Under section 3(a) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, before issuance of the Interim Final Rule, the Department authorized demonstrations of the effective delivery of Wagner-Peyser Act services using non-State agency employees in the States of Colorado, Massachusetts, and Michigan. These three demonstrations were permitted as exceptions to the long-standing policy described above in order to assess the effectiveness of alternative delivery systems. We have determined that these three demonstrations reflect a sufficient range of delivery options using non-State agency employees to determine whether using such employees is an effective and efficient way to deliver Wagner-Peyser services. No additional demonstrations will be authorized.
We, therefore, have promulgated these regulations only after extensive consultations as well as initiating actual demonstrations in three States.
WIA became effective upon the date of enactment, August 7, 1998. We determined, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), that the statutory mandate to promulgate regulations within 180 days of the enactment of the statute constituted good cause for waiving notice and comment proceeding in order for the timely issuance of regulations to assist States in operating under WIA as early as possible. Congress also recognized this urgency in section 506(c) of the Act, by specifically authorizing the issuance of an Interim Final Rule. The Interim Final Rule set a comment period to elicit any concerns raised by the rule for consideration in the development of this Final Rule. We provided a comment period of 90 days to provide a significant period for public input into any revisions to part 652, and parts 660 through 671 for the Final Rule. We fully reviewed all comments received, and considered the input provided by our State, local and Federal partners through our many consultations. This Final Rule will become effective on September 11, 2000.
The program is listed in the
Employment, Grant programs, Job training programs, Labor.
Sec. 506(c), Pub. L. 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c).
The purpose of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) is to provide workforce investment activities that increase the employment, retention and earnings of participants, and increase occupational skill attainment by participants, which will improve the quality of the workforce, reduce welfare dependency, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation's economy. These goals are achieved through the workforce investment system. (WIA sec. 106.)
The regulations found in 20 CFR parts 660 through 671 set forth the regulatory requirements that are applicable to programs operated with funds provided under title I of WIA. This part 660 describes the purpose of that Act, explains the format of these regulations and sets forth definitions for terms that apply to each part. Part 661 contains regulations relating to Statewide and local governance of the workforce investment system. Part 662 describes the One-Stop system and the roles of One-Stop partners. Part 663 sets forth requirements applicable to WIA title I programs serving adults and dislocated workers. Part 664 sets forth requirements applicable to WIA title I programs serving youth. Part 665 contains regulations relating to Statewide activities. Part 666 describes the WIA title I performance accountability system. Part 667 sets forth the administrative requirements applicable to programs funded under WIA title I. Parts 668 and 669 contain the particular requirements applicable to programs serving Indians and Native Americans and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers, respectively. Parts 670 and 671 describe the particular requirements applicable to the Job Corps and other national programs, respectively. In addition, part 652 describes the establishment and functioning of State Employment Services under the Wagner-Peyser Act, and 29 CFR part 37 contains the Department's nondiscrimination regulations implementing WIA section 188.
In addition to the definitions set forth at WIA section 101, the following definitions apply to the regulations in 20 CFR parts 660 through 671:
Sec. 506(c), Pub. L. 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c).
Under title I of WIA, the workforce investment system provides the framework for delivery of workforce investment activities at the State and local levels to individuals who need those services, including job seekers, dislocated workers, youth, incumbent workers, new entrants to the workforce, veterans, persons with disabilities, and employers. Each State's Governor is required, in accordance with the requirements of this part, to establish a State Board; to designate local workforce investment areas; and to oversee the creation of Local Boards and One-Stop service delivery systems in the State.
(a) Successful governance of the workforce investment system will be achieved through cooperation and coordination of Federal, State and local governments.
(b) The Department of Labor sees as one of its primary roles providing leadership and guidance to support a system that meets the objectives of title I of WIA, and in which State and local partners have flexibility to design systems and deliver services in a manner designed to best achieve the
(c) The Secretary, in consultation with other Federal Agencies, as appropriate, may publish guidance on interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions. State and local policies, interpretations, guidelines and definitions that are consistent with interpretations contained in such guidance will be considered to be consistent with the Act for purposes of § 661.120.
(a) Local areas should establish policies, interpretations, guidelines and definitions to implement provisions of title I of WIA to the extent that such policies, interpretations, guidelines and definitions are not inconsistent with the Act and the regulations issued under the Act, Federal statutes and regulations governing One-Stop partner programs, and with State policies.
(b) States should establish policies, interpretations, guidelines and definitions to implement provisions of title I of WIA to the extent that such policies, interpretations, guidelines and definitions are not inconsistent with the Act and the regulations issued under the Act, as well as Federal statutes and regulations governing One-Stop partner programs.
(a) The State Board is a board established by the Governor in accordance with the requirements of WIA section 111 and this section.
(b) The membership of the State Board must meet the requirements of WIA section 111(b). The State Board must contain two or more members representing the categories described in WIA section 111(b)(1)(C)(iii)-(v), and special consideration must be given to chief executive officers of community colleges and community based organizations in the selection of members representing the entities identified in WIA section 111(b)(1)(C)(v).
(c) The Governor may appoint any other representatives or agency officials, such as agency officials responsible for economic development, child support and juvenile justice programs in the State.
(d) Members who represent organizations, agencies or other entities must be individuals with optimum policy making authority within the entities they represent.
(e) A majority of members of the State Board must be representatives of business. Members who represent business must be individuals who are owners, chief executive officers, chief operating officers, or other individuals with optimum policy making or hiring authority, including members of Local Boards.
(f) The Governor must appoint the business representatives from among individuals who are nominated by State business organizations and business trade associations. The Governor must appoint the labor representatives from among individuals who are nominated by State labor federations.
(g) The Governor must select a chairperson of the State Board from the business representatives on the board.
(h) The Governor may establish terms of appointment or other conditions governing appointment or membership on the State Board.
(i) For the programs and activities carried out by One-Stop partners, as described in WIA section 121(b) and 20 CFR 662.200 and 662.210, the State Board must include:
(1) The lead State agency officials with responsibility for such program, or
(2) In any case in which no lead State agency official has responsibility for such a program service, a representative in the State with expertise relating to such program, service or activity.
(3) If the director of the designated State unit, as defined in section 7(8)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act, does not represent the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services program (VR program) on the State Board, then the State must describe in its State plan how the member of the State Board representing the VR program will effectively represent the interests, needs, and priorities of the VR program and how the employment needs of individuals with disabilities in the State will be addressed.
(j) An individual may be appointed as a representative of more than one entity if the individual meets all the criteria for representation, including the criteria described in paragraphs (d) through (f) of this section, for each entity. (WIA sec. 111)
For purposes of selecting representatives to State and local workforce investment boards:
(a) A representative with “optimum policy making authority” is an individual who can reasonably be expected to speak affirmatively on behalf of the entity he or she represents and to commit that entity to a chosen course of action.
(b) A representative with “expertise relating to [a] program, service or activity” includes a person who is an official with a One-stop partner program and a person with documented expertise relating to the One-stop partner program.
The State Board must assist the Governor in the:
(a) Development of the State Plan;
(b) Development and continuous improvement of a Statewide system of activities that are funded under subtitle B of title I of WIA, or carried out through the One-Stop delivery system, including—
(1) Development of linkages in order to assure coordination and nonduplication among the programs and activities carried out by One-Stop partners, including, as necessary, addressing any impasse situations in the development of the local Memorandum of Understanding; and
(2) Review of local plans;
(c) Commenting at least once annually on the measures taken under section 113(b)(14) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act;
(d) Designation of local workforce investment areas,
(e) Development of allocation formulas for the distribution of funds for adult employment and training activities and youth activities to local areas, as permitted under WIA sections 128(b)(3)(B) and 133(b)(3)(B);
(f) Development and continuous improvement of comprehensive State performance measures, including State adjusted levels of performance, to assess the effectiveness of the workforce investment activities in the State, as required under WIA section 136(b);
(g) Preparation of the annual report to the Secretary described in WIA section 136(d);
(h) Development of the Statewide employment statistics system described in section 15(e) of the Wagner-Peyser Act; and
(i) Development of an application for an incentive grant under WIA section 503. (WIA sec. 111(d).)
The State Board must conduct its business in an open manner as required by WIA section 111(g), by making available to the public, on a regular basis through open meetings, information about the activities of the State Board. This includes information about the State Plan prior to submission of the plan; information about membership; the development of significant policies, interpretations, guidelines and definitions; and, on request, minutes of formal meetings of the State Board.
(a) The State may use any State entity that meets the requirements of WIA section 111(e) to perform the functions of the State Board.
(b) If the State uses an alternative entity, the State workforce investment plan must demonstrate that the alternative entity meets all three of the requirements of WIA section 111(e). Section 111(e) requires that such entity:
(1) Was in existence on December 31, 1997;
(2)(i) Was established under section 122 (relating to State Job Training Coordinating Councils) or title VII (relating to State Human Resource Investment Councils) of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C.1501
(ii) Is substantially similar to the State Board described in WIA section 111(a), (b), and (c) and § 661.200; and
(3) Includes, at a minimum, two or more representatives of business in the State and two or more representatives of labor organizations in the State.
(c) If the alternative entity does not provide for representative membership of each of the categories of required State Board membership under WIA section 111(b), the State Plan must explain the manner in which the State will ensure an ongoing role for any unrepresented membership group in the workforce investment system. The State Board may maintain an ongoing role for an unrepresented membership group, including entities carrying out One-stop partner programs, by means such as regularly scheduled consultations with entities within the unrepresented membership groups, by providing an opportunity for input into the State Plan or other policy development by unrepresented membership groups, or by establishing an advisory committee of unrepresented membership groups.
(d) If the membership structure of the alternative entity is significantly changed after December 31, 1997, the entity will no longer be eligible to perform the functions of the State Board. In such case, the Governor must establish a new State Board which meets all of the criteria of WIA section 111(b).
(e) A significant change in the membership structure includes any significant change in the organization of the alternative entity or in the categories of entities represented on the alternative entity which requires a change to the alternative entity's charter or a similar document that defines the formal organization of the alternative entity, regardless of whether the required change to the document has or has not been made. A significant change in the membership structure is considered to have occurred when members are added to represent groups not previously represented on the entity. A significant change in the membership structure is not considered to have occurred when additional members are added to an existing membership category, when non-voting members are added, or when a member is added to fill a vacancy created in an existing membership category.
(f) In 20 CFR parts 660 through 671, all references to the State Board also apply to an alternative entity used by a State.
(a) The Governor of each State must submit a State Workforce Investment Plan (State Plan) in order to be eligible to receive funding under title I of WIA and the Wagner-Peyser Act. The State Plan must outline the State's five year strategy for the workforce investment system.
(b) The State Plan must be submitted in accordance with planning guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor. The planning guidelines set forth the information necessary to document the State's vision, goals, strategies, policies and measures for the workforce investment system (that were arrived at through the collaboration of the Governor, chief elected officials, business and other parties), as well as the information required to demonstrate compliance with WIA, and the information detailed by WIA and the WIA regulations, including 29 CFR part 37, and the Wagner-Peyser Act and the Wagner-Peyser regulations at 20 CFR part 652:
(c) The State Plan must contain a description of the State's performance accountability system, and the State performance measures in accordance with the requirements of WIA section 136 and 20 CFR part 666.
(d) The State must provide an opportunity for public comment on and input into the development of the State Plan prior to its submission. The opportunity for public comment must include an opportunity for comment by representatives of business, representatives of labor organizations, and chief elected official(s) and must be consistent with the requirement, at WIA section 111(g), that the State Board makes information regarding the State Plan and other State Board activities available to the public through regular open meetings. The State Plan must describe the State's process and timeline for ensuring a meaningful opportunity for public comment.
(e) The Secretary reviews completed plans and must approve all plans within ninety days of their submission, unless the Secretary determines in writing that:
(1) The plan is inconsistent with the provisions of title I of WIA or the WIA regulations, including 29 CFR part 37. For example, a finding of inconsistency would be made if the Secretary and the Governor have not reached agreement on the adjusted levels of performance under WIA section 136(b)(3)(A), or there is not an effective strategy in place to ensure development of a fully operational One-Stop delivery system in the State; or
(2) The portion of the plan describing the detailed Wagner-Peyser plan does not satisfy the criteria for approval of such plans as provided in section 8(d) of the Wagner-Peyser Act or the Wagner-Peyser regulations at 20 CFR part 652.
(3) A plan which is incomplete, or which does not contain sufficient information to determine whether it is consistent with the statutory or regulatory requirements of title I of WIA or of section 8(d) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, will be considered to be inconsistent with those requirements.
(a) The State may submit a modification of its workforce investment plan at any time during the five-year life of the plan.
(b) Modifications are required when:
(1) Changes in Federal or State law or policy substantially change the assumptions upon which the plan is based.
(2) There are changes in the Statewide vision, strategies, policies, performance indicators, 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.
(3) The State has failed to meet performance goals, and must adjust service strategies.
(c) Modifications are required in accordance with the Wagner-Peyser provisions at 20 CFR 652.212.
(d) Modifications to the State Plan are subject to the same public review and comment requirements that apply to the development of the original State Plan.
(e) State Plan modifications will be approved by the Secretary based on the approval standard applicable to the original State Plan under § 661.220(e).
(a) A State may submit to the Secretary a unified plan for any of the programs or activities described in WIA section 501(b)(2). This includes the following DOL programs and activities:
(1) The five-year strategic WIA and Wagner-Peyser plan;
(2) Trade adjustment assistance activities and NAFTA-TAA;
(3) Veterans' programs under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 41;
(4) Programs authorized under State unemployment compensation laws;
(5) Welfare-to-Work (WtW) programs; and
(6) Senior Community Service Employment Programs under title V of the Older Americans Act.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) A State may submit, as part of the unified 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. These plans include such things as the WIA plan, or the WtW plan. They do not include jointly executed funding instruments, such as grant agreements, or Governor/Secretary Agreements or items such as corrective actions plans.
(2) A state may submit a unified plan meeting the requirements of the Interagency guidance entitled
(c) A State which submits a unified plan covering an activity or program described in subsection 501(b) of WIA that is approved under subsection 501(d) of the Act will not be required to submit any other plan or application in order to receive Federal funds to carry out the activity or program.
(d) Each portion of a unified plan submitted under paragraph (a) of this section is subject to the particular requirements of Federal law authorizing the program. All grantees are still subject to such things as reporting and record-keeping requirements, corrective action plan requirements and other generally applicable requirements.
(e) A unified plan must contain the information required by WIA section 501(c) and will be approved in accordance with the requirements of WIA section 501(d).
(a) The Governor must designate local workforce investment areas in order for the State to receive funding under title I of WIA.
(b) The Governor must take into consideration the factors described in WIA section 116(a)(1)(B) in making designations of local areas. Such designation must be made in consultation with the State Board, and after consultation with chief elected officials. The Governor must also consider comments received through the public comment process described in the State workforce investment plan under § 661.220(d).
(c) The Governor may approve a request for designation as a workforce investment area from any unit of general local government, including a combination of such units, if the State Board determines that the area meets the requirements of WIA section 116(a)(1)(B) and recommends designation.
(d) The Governor of any State that was a single service delivery area State under the Job Training Partnership Act as of July 1, 1998, and only those States, may designate the State as a single local workforce investment area State. (WIA sec.116.)
The requirements for automatic designation relating to units of local government with a population of 500,000 or more and to rural concentrated employment programs are contained in WIA section 116(a)(2). The Governor has authority to determine the source of population data to use in making these designations.
The requirements for temporary and subsequent designation relating to areas that had been designated as service delivery areas under JTPA are contained in WIA section 116(a)(3).
(a) A unit of local government (or combination of units) or a rural concentrated employment program grant recipient (as described at WIA section 116(a)(2)(B), which has requested but has been denied its request for designation as a workforce investment area under §§ 661.260 through 661.270, may appeal the decision to the State Board, in accordance with appeal procedures established in the State Plan.
(b) If a decision on the appeal is not rendered in a timely manner or if the appeal to the State Board does not result in designation, the entity may request review by the Secretary of Labor, under the procedures set forth at 20 CFR 667.640(a).
(c) The Secretary may require that the area be designated as a workforce investment area, if the Secretary determines that:
(1) The entity was not accorded procedural rights under the State appeals process; or
(2) The area meets the automatic designation requirements at WIA section 116(a)(2) or the temporary and subsequent designation requirements at WIA section 116(a)(3), as appropriate.
(a) The State may require Local Boards within a designated region (as defined at 20 CFR 660.300) to:
(1) Participate in a regional planning process that results in regional performance measures for workforce investment activities under title I of WIA. Regions that meet or exceed the regional performance measures may receive regional incentive grants;
(2) Share, where feasible, employment and other types of information that will assist in improving the performance of
(3) Coordinate the provision of WIA title I services, including supportive services such as transportation, across the boundaries of local areas within the designated region.
(b) Two or more States may designate a labor market area, economic development region, or other appropriate contiguous subarea of the States as an interstate region. In such cases, the States may jointly exercise the State's functions described in this section.
(c) Designation of intrastate regions and interstate regions and their corresponding performance measures must be described in the respective State Plan(s). For interstate regions, the roles of the respective Governors, State Boards and Local Boards must be described in the respective State Plans.
(d) Unless agreed to by all affected chief elected officials and the Governor, these regional planning activities may not substitute for or replace the requirements applicable to each local area under other provisions of the WIA. (WIA sec. 116(a).)
(a) The Local Workforce Investment Board (Local Board) is appointed by the chief elected official in each local area in accordance with State criteria established under WIA section 117(b), and is certified by the Governor every two years, in accordance with WIA section 117(c)(2).
(b) In partnership with the chief elected official(s), the Local Board sets policy for the portion of the Statewide workforce investment system within the local area.
(c) The Local Board and the chief elected official(s) may enter into an agreement that describes the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties.
(d) The Local Board, in partnership with the chief elected official, develops the local workforce investment plan and performs the functions described in WIA section 117(d). (WIA sec.117 (d).)
(e) If a local area includes more than one unit of general local government in accordance with WIA section 117 (c)(1)(B), the chief elected officials of such units may execute an agreement to describe their responsibilities for carrying out the roles and responsibilities. If, after a reasonable effort, the chief elected officials are unable to reach agreement, the Governor may appoint the members of the local board from individuals nominated or recommended as specified in WIA section 117(b).
(f) If the State Plan indicates that the State will be treated as a local area under WIA title I, the Governor may designate the State Board to carry out any of the roles of the Local Board.
(a) WIA section 117(d) specifies that the Local Board is responsible for:
(1) Developing the five-year local workforce investment plan (Local Plan) and conducting oversight of the One-Stop system, youth activities and employment and training activities under title I of WIA, in partnership with the chief elected official;
(2) Selecting One-Stop operators with the agreement of the chief elected official;
(3) Selecting eligible youth service providers based on the recommendations of the youth council, and identifying eligible providers of adult and dislocated worker intensive services and training services, and maintaining a list of eligible providers with performance and cost information, as required in 20 CFR part 663, subpart E;
(4) Developing a budget for the purpose of carrying out the duties of the Local Board, subject to the approval of the chief elected official;
(5) Negotiating and reaching agreement on local performance measures with the chief elected official and the Governor;
(6) Assisting the Governor in developing the Statewide employment statistics system under the Wagner-Peyser Act;
(7) Coordinating workforce investment activities with economic development strategies and developing employer linkages; and
(8) Promoting private sector involvement in the Statewide workforce investment system through effective connecting, brokering, and coaching activities through intermediaries such as the One-Stop operator in the local area or through other organizations, to assist employers in meeting hiring needs.
(b) The Local Board, in cooperation with the chief elected official, appoints a youth council as a subgroup of the Local Board and coordinates workforce and youth plans and activities with the youth council, in accordance with WIA section 117(h) and § 661.335.
(c) Local Boards which are part of a State designated region for regional planning must carry out the regional planning responsibilities required by the State in accordance with WIA section 116(c) and § 661.290. (WIA sec. 117.)
The Local Board must conduct its business in an open manner as required by WIA section 117(e), by making available to the public, on a regular basis through open meetings, information about the activities of the Local Board. This includes information about the Local Plan prior to submission of the plan; information about membership; the development of significant policies, interpretations, guidelines and definitions; and, on request, minutes of formal meetings of the Local Board.
(a) A Local Board may not directly provide core services, or intensive services, or be designated or certified as a One-Stop operator, unless agreed to by the chief elected official and the Governor.
(b) A Local Board is prohibited from providing training services, unless the Governor grants a waiver in accordance with the provisions in WIA section 117(f)(1). The waiver shall apply for not more than one year. The waiver may be renewed for additional periods, but for not more than one additional year at a time.
(c) The restrictions on the provision of core, intensive, and training services by the Local Board, and designation or certification as One-Stop operator, also apply to staff of the Local Board. (WIA sec. 117(f)(1) and (f)(2).)
(a) The membership of Local Board must be selected in accordance with criteria established under WIA section 117(b)(1) and must meet the requirements of WIA section 117(b)(2). The Local Board must contain two or more members representing the categories described in WIA section 117(b)(2)(A)(ii)—(v), and special consideration must be given to the entities identified in WIA section 117(b)(2)(A)(ii), (iv) and (v) in the selection of members representing those categories. The Local Board must contain at least one member representing each One-Stop partner.
(b) The membership of Local Boards may include individuals or representatives of other appropriate
(c) Members who represent organizations, agencies or other entities must be individuals with optimum policy making authority within the entities they represent.
(d) A majority of the members of the Local Board must be representatives of business in the local area. Members representing business must be individuals who are owners, chief executive officers, chief operating officers, or other individuals with optimum policymaking or hiring authority. Business representatives serving on Local Boards may also serve on the State Board.
(e) Chief elected officials must appoint the business representatives from among individuals who are nominated by local business organizations and business trade associations. Chief elected officials must appoint the labor representatives from among individuals who are nominated by local labor federations (or, for a local area in which no employees are represented by such organizations, other representatives of employees). (WIA sec. 117(b).)
(f) An individual may be appointed as a representative of more than one entity if the individual meets all the criteria for representation, including the criteria described in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, for each entity.
When there is more than one grant recipient, administrative entity or organization responsible for administration of funds of a particular One-stop partner program in the local area, the chief elected official may appoint one or more members to represent all of those particular partner program entities. In making such appointments, the local elected official may solicit nominations from the partner program entities.
The Local Board must elect a chairperson from among the business representatives on the board. (WIA sec. 117(b)(5).)
The Local Board is appointed by the chief elected official(s) in the local area in accordance with State criteria established under WIA section 117(b), and is certified by the Governor every two years, in accordance with WIA section 117(c)(2). The criteria for certification must be described in the State Plan. (WIA sec. 117(c).)
(a) The State may use any local entity that meets the requirements of WIA section 117(i) to perform the functions of the Local Board. WIA section 117(i) requires that such entity:
(1) Was established to serve the local area (or the service delivery area that most closely corresponds to the local area);
(2) Was in existence on December 31, 1997;
(3)(i) Is a Private Industry Council established under section 102 of the Job Training Partnership Act, as in effect on December 31, 1997; or
(ii) Is substantially similar to the Local Board described in WIA section 117 (a), (b), and (c) and (h)(1) and (2); and,
(4) Includes, at a minimum, two or more representatives of business in the local area and two or more representatives of labor organizations nominated by local labor federations or employees in the local area.
(b)(1) If the Governor certifies an alternative entity to perform the functions of the Local Board; the State workforce investment plan must demonstrate that the alternative entity meets the requirements of WIA section 117(i), set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) If the alternative entity does not provide for representative membership of each of the categories of required Local Board membership under WIA section 117(b), including all of the One-stop partner programs, the local workforce investment plan must explain the manner in which the Local Board will ensure an ongoing role for the unrepresented membership group in the local workforce investment system.
(3) The Local Board may provide an ongoing role for an unrepresented membership group, including entities carrying out One-stop partner programs, by means such as regularly scheduled consultations with entities within the unrepresented membership groups, by providing an opportunity for input into the local plan or other policy development by unrepresented membership groups, or by establishing an advisory committee of unrepresented membership groups. The Local Board must enter into good faith negotiations over the terms of the MOU with all entities carrying out One-stop partner programs, including programs not represented on the alternative entity.
(c) If the membership structure of an alternative entity is significantly changed after December 31, 1997, the entity will no longer be eligible to perform the functions of the Local Board. In such case, the chief elected official(s) must establish a new Local Board which meets all of the criteria of WIA section 117(a), (b), and (c) and (h)(1) and (2).
(d) A significant change in the membership structure includes any significant change in the organization of the alternative entity or in the categories of entities represented on the alternative entity which requires a change to the alternative entity's charter or a similar document that defines the formal organization of the alternative entity, regardless of whether the required change to the document has or has not been made. A significant change in the membership structure is considered to have occurred when members are added to represent groups not previously represented on the entity. A significant change in the membership structure is not considered to have occurred when additional members are added to an existing membership category, when non-voting members (including a Youth Council) are added, or when a member is added to fill a vacancy created in an existing membership category.
(e) In 20 CFR parts 660 through 671, all references to the Local Board must be deemed to also apply to an alternative entity used by a local area. (WIA sec. 117(i).)
(a) A youth council must be established as a subgroup within each Local Board.
(b) The membership of each youth council must include:
(1) Members of the Local Board, such as educators, which may include special education personnel, employers, and representatives of human service agencies, who have special interest or expertise in youth policy;
(2) Members who represent service agencies, such as juvenile justice and local law enforcement agencies;
(3) Members who represent local public housing authorities;
(4) Parents of eligible youth seeking assistance under subtitle B of title I of WIA;
(5) Individuals, including former participants, and members who represent organizations, that have
(6) Members who represent the Job Corps, if a Job Corps Center is located in the local area represented by the council.
(c) Youth councils may include other individuals, who the chair of the Local Board, in cooperation with the chief elected official, determines to be appropriate.
(d) Members of the youth council who are not members of the Local Board must be voting members of the youth council and nonvoting members of the Local Board.
The youth council is responsible for:
(a) Coordinating youth activities in a local area;
(b) Developing portions of the local plan related to eligible youth, as determined by the chairperson of the Local Board;
(c) Recommending eligible youth service providers in accordance with WIA section 123, subject to the approval of the Local Board;
(d) Conducting oversight with respect to eligible providers of youth activities in the local area, subject to the approval of the Local Board; and
(e) Carrying out other duties, as authorized by the chairperson of the Local Board, such as establishing linkages with educational agencies and other youth entities.
(a) WIA section 118 requires that each Local Board, in partnership with the appropriate chief elected officials, develops and submits a comprehensive five-year plan to the Governor which identifies and describes certain policies, procedures and local activities that are carried out in the local area, and that is consistent with the State Plan.
(b) The Local Board must provide an opportunity for public comment on and input into the development of the local workforce investment plan prior to its submission, and the opportunity for public comment on the local plan must:
(1) Make copies of the proposed local plan available to the public (through such means as public hearings and local news media);
(2) Include an opportunity for comment by members of the Local Board and members of the public, including representatives of business and labor organizations;
(3) Provide at least a thirty (30) day period for comment, beginning on the date on which the proposed plan is made available, prior to its submission to the Governor; and
(4) Be consistent with the requirement, in WIA section 117(e), that the Local Board make information about the plan available to the public on a regular basis through open meetings.
(c) The Local Board must submit any comments that express disagreement with the plan to the Governor along with the plan.
(a) The local workforce investment plan must meet the requirements of WIA section 118(b). The plan must include:
(1) An identification of the workforce investment needs of businesses, job-seekers, and workers in the local area;
(2) An identification of current and projected employment opportunities and job skills necessary to obtain such opportunities;
(3) A description of the One-Stop delivery system to be established or designated in the local area, including:
(i) How the Local Board will ensure continuous improvement of eligible providers of services and ensure that such providers meet the employment needs of local employers and participants; and
(ii) A copy of the local Memorandum(s) of Understanding between the Local Board and each of the One-Stop partners concerning the operation of the local One-Stop delivery system;
(4) A description of the local levels of performance negotiated with the Governor and the chief elected official(s) to be used by the Local Board for measuring the performance of the local fiscal agent (where appropriate), eligible providers, and the local One-Stop delivery system;
(5) A description and assessment of the type and availability of adult and dislocated worker employment and training activities in the local area, including a description of the local ITA system and the procedures for ensuring that exceptions to the use of ITA's, if any, are justified under WIA section 134(d)(4)(G)(ii) and 20 CFR 663.430;
(6) A description of how the Local Board will coordinate local activities with Statewide rapid response activities;
(7) A description and assessment of the type and availability of youth activities in the local area, including an identification of successful providers of such activities;
(8) A description of the process used by the Local Board to provide opportunity for public comment, including comment by representatives of business and labor organizations, and input into the development of the local plan, prior to the submission of the plan;
(9) An identification of the fiscal agent, or entity responsible for the disbursal of grant funds;
(10) A description of the competitive process to be used to award grants and contracts for activities carried out under this subtitle I of WIA, including the process to be used to procure training services that are made as exceptions to the Individual Training Account process (WIA section 134(d)(4)(G)),
(11) A description of the criteria to be used by the Governor and the Local Board, under 20 CFR 663.600, to determine whether funds allocated to a local area for adult employment and training activities under WIA sections 133(b)(2)(A) or (3) are limited, and the process by which any priority will be applied by the One-Stop operator;
(12) In cases where an alternate entity functions as the Local Board, the information required at § 661.330(b), and
(13) Such other information as the Governor may require.
(b) The Governor must review completed plans and must approve all such plans within ninety days of their submission, unless the Governor determines in writing that:
(1) There are deficiencies identified in local workforce investment activities carried out under this subtitle that have not been sufficiently addressed; or
(2) The plan does not comply with title I of WIA and the WIA regulations, including the required consultations, the public comment provisions, and the nondiscrimination requirements of 29 CFR part 37.
(c) In cases where the State is a single local area:
(1) The Secretary performs the roles assigned to the Governor as they relate to local planning activities.
(2) The Secretary issues planning guidance for such States.
(3) The requirements found in WIA and in the WIA regulations for consultation with chief elected officials apply to the development of State and local plans and to the development and operation of the One-Stop delivery system.
(d) During program year 2000, if a local plan does not contain all of the elements described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Governor may approve a local plan on a transitional basis. A transitional approval under this paragraph is considered to be a written determination that the local plan is not
The Governor must establish procedures governing the modification of local plans. Situations in which modifications may be required by the Governor include significant changes in local economic conditions, changes in the financing available to support WIA title I and partner-provided WIA services, changes to the Local Board structure, or a need to revise strategies to meet performance goals.
(a) The purpose of the general statutory and regulatory waiver authority is to provide flexibility to States and local areas and enhance their ability to improve the statewide workforce investment system.
(b) A waiver may be requested to address impediments to the implementation of a strategic plan, including the continuous improvement strategy, consistent with the key reform principles of WIA. These key reform principles include:
(1) Streamlining services and information to participants through a One-Stop delivery system;
(2) Empowering individuals to obtain needed services and information to enhance their employment opportunities;
(3) Ensuring universal access to core employment-related services;
(4) Increasing accountability of States, localities and training providers for performance outcomes;
(5) Establishing a stronger role for Local Boards and the private sector;
(6) Providing increased State and local flexibility to implement innovative and comprehensive workforce investment systems; and
(7) Improving youth programs through services which emphasize academic and occupational learning.
(a) The Secretary may waive any of the statutory or regulatory requirements of subtitles B and E of title I of WIA, except for requirements relating to:
(1) Wage and labor standards;
(2) Non-displacement protections;
(3) Worker rights;
(4) Participation and protection of workers and participants;
(5) Grievance procedures and judicial review;
(6) Nondiscrimination;
(7) Allocation of funds to local areas;
(8) Eligibility of providers or participants;
(9) The establishment and functions of local areas and local boards;
(10) Procedures for review and approval of State and Local plans; and
(b) The Secretary may waive any of the statutory or regulatory requirements of sections 8 through 10 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49g-49i) except for requirements relating to:
(1) The provision of services to unemployment insurance claimants and veterans; and
(2) Universal access to the basic labor exchange services without cost to job seekers.
(c) The Secretary does not intend to waive any of the statutory or regulatory provisions essential to the key reform principles embodied in the Workforce Investment Act, described in § 661.400, except in extremely unusual circumstances where the provision can be demonstrated as impeding reform. (WIA sec. 189(i).)
(a) A Governor may request a general waiver in consultation with appropriate chief elected officials:
(1) By submitting a waiver plan which may accompany the State's WIA 5-year strategic Plan; or
(2) After a State's WIA Plan is approved, by directly submitting a waiver plan.
(b) A Governor's waiver request may seek waivers for the entire State or for one or more local areas.
(c) A Governor requesting a general waiver must submit to the Secretary a plan to improve the Statewide workforce investment system that:
(1) Identifies the statutory or regulatory requirements for which a waiver is requested and the goals that the State or local area, as appropriate, intends to achieve as a result of the waiver and how those goals relate to the Strategic Plan goals;
(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 affected by the waiver; and
(5) Describes the processes used to:
(i) Monitor the progress in implementing the waiver;
(ii) Provide notice to any Local Board affected by the waiver;
(iii) Provide any Local Board affected by the waiver an opportunity to comment on the request; and
(iv) Ensure meaningful public comment, including comment by business and organized labor, on the waiver.
(d) The Secretary issues a decision on a waiver request within 90 days after the receipt of the original waiver request.
(e) The Secretary will approve a waiver request if and only to the extent that:
(1) The Secretary determines that the requirements for which a waiver is requested impede the ability of either the State or local area to implement the State's plan to improve the Statewide workforce investment system;
(2) The Secretary determines that the waiver plan meets all of the requirements of WIA section 189(i)(4) and §§ 661.400 through 661.420; and
(3) The State has executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary requiring the State to meet, or ensure that the local area meets, agreed-upon outcomes and to implement other appropriate measures to ensure accountability.
(f) The Secretary will issue guidelines under which the States may request general waivers of WIA and Wagner-Peyser requirements. (WIA sec. 189(i).)
(a) A State may submit to the Secretary, and the Secretary may approve, a workforce flexibility (work-flex) plan under which the State is authorized to waive, in accordance with the plan:
(1) Any of the statutory or regulatory requirements under title I of WIA applicable to local areas, if the local area requests the waiver in a waiver application, except for:
(i) Requirements relating to the basic purposes of title I of WIA;
(ii) Wage and labor standards;
(iii) Grievance procedures and judicial review;
(iv) Nondiscrimination;
(v) Eligibility of participants;
(vi) Allocation of funds to local areas;
(vii) Establishment and functions of local areas and local boards;
(viii) Review and approval of local plans;
(ix) Worker rights, participation, and protection; and
(x) Any of the statutory provisions essential to the key reform principles
(2) Any of the statutory or regulatory requirements applicable to the State under section 8 through 10 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49g-49i), except for requirements relating to:
(i) The provision of services to unemployment insurance claimants and veterans; and
(ii) Universal access to basic labor exchange services without cost to job seekers; and
(3) Any of the statutory or regulatory requirements under the Older Americans Act of 1965 (OAA) (42 U.S.C. 3001
(i) The basic purposes of OAA;
(ii) Wage and labor standards;
(iii) Eligibility of participants in the activities; and
(iv) Standards for agreements.
(b) A State's workforce flexibility plan may accompany the State's five-year Strategic Plan or may be submitted separately. If it is submitted separately, the workforce flexibility plan must identify related provisions in the State's five-year Strategic Plan.
(c) A workforce flexibility plan submitted under paragraph (a) of this section must include descriptions of:
(1) The process by which local areas in the State may submit and obtain State approval of applications for waivers;
(2) The statutory and regulatory requirements of title I of WIA that are likely to be waived by the State under the workforce flexibility plan;
(3) The statutory and regulatory requirements of sections 8 through 10 of the Wagner-Peyser Act that are proposed for waiver, if any;
(4) The statutory and regulatory requirements of the Older Americans Act of 1965 that are proposed for waiver, if any;
(5) The outcomes to be achieved by the waivers described in paragraphs (c)(1) to (4) of this section including, where appropriate, revisions to adjusted levels of performance included in the State or local plan under title I of WIA; and
(6) The measures to be taken to ensure appropriate accountability for Federal funds in connection with the waivers.
(d) The Secretary may approve a workforce flexibility plan for a period of up to five years.
(e) Before submitting a workforce flexibility plan to the Secretary for approval, the State must provide adequate notice and a reasonable opportunity for comment on the proposed waiver requests under the workforce flexibility plan to all interested parties and to the general public.
(f) The Secretary will issue guidelines under which States may request designation as a work-flex State.
(a)(1) Under work-flex waiver authority a State must not waive the WIA, Wagner-Peyser or Older Americans Act requirements which are excepted from the work-flex waiver authority and described in § 661.430(a).
(2) Requests to waive statutory and regulatory requirements of title I of WIA applicable at the State level may not be granted under work-flex waiver authority granted to a State. Such requests may only be granted by the Secretary under the general waiver authority described at §§ 661.410 through 661.420.
(b) As required in § 661.430(c)(5), States must address the outcomes to result from work-flex waivers as part of its workforce flexibility plan. Once approved, a State's work-flex designation is conditioned on the State demonstrating it has met the agreed-upon outcomes contained in its workforce flexibility plan.
Section 506(c), Pub. L. 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c).
(a) In general, the One-Stop delivery system is a system under which entities responsible for administering separate workforce investment, educational, and other human resource programs and funding streams (referred to as One-Stop partners) collaborate to create a seamless system of service delivery that will enhance access to the programs' services and improve long-term employment outcomes for individuals receiving assistance.
(b) Title I of WIA 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 workforce development services that are accessible to individuals seeking assistance.
(c) The system must include at least one comprehensive physical center in each local area that must provide the core services specified in WIA section 134(d)(2), and must provide access to other programs and activities carried out by the One-Stop partners.
(d) While each local area must have at least one comprehensive center (and may have additional comprehensive centers), WIA section 134(c) allows for arrangements to supplement the center. These arrangements may include:
(1) A network of affiliated sites that can provide one or more partners' programs, services and activities at each site;
(2) A network of One-Stop partners through which each partner provides services that are linked, physically or technologically, to an affiliated site that assures individuals are provided information on the availability of core services in the local area; and
(3) Specialized centers that address specific needs, such as those of dislocated workers.
(e) The design of the local area's One-Stop delivery system, including the number of comprehensive centers and the supplementary arrangements, must be described in the local plan and be consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding executed with the One-Stop partners.
(a) WIA section 121(b)(1) identifies the entities that are required partners in the local One-Stop systems.
(b) The required partners are the entities that are responsible for administering the following programs and activities in the local area:
(1) Programs authorized under title I of WIA, serving:
(i) Adults;
(ii) Dislocated workers;
(iii) Youth;
(iv) Job Corps;
(v) Native American programs;
(vi) Migrant and seasonal farmworker programs; and
(vii) Veterans' workforce programs; (WIA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(i));
(2) Programs authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49
(3) Adult education and literacy activities authorized under title II of WIA; (WIA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(iii));
(4) Programs authorized under parts A and B of title I of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 720
(5) Welfare-to-work programs authorized under sec. 403(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)
(6) Senior community service employment activities authorized under title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056
(7) Postsecondary vocational education activities under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2301
(8) Trade Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance activities authorized under chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271
(9) Activities authorized under chapter 41 of title 38, U.S.C. (local veterans' employment representatives and disabled veterans outreach programs); (WIA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(ix));
(10) Employment and training activities carried out under the Community Services Block Grant (42 U.S.C. 9901
(11) Employment and training activities carried out by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; (WIA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(xi)); and
(12) Programs authorized under State unemployment compensation laws (in accordance with applicable Federal law); (WIA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(xii).)
(a) WIA provides that other entities that carry out a human resource 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) TANF programs authorized under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601
(2) Employment and training programs authorized under section 6(d)(4) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4));
(3) Work programs authorized under section 6(o) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o));
(4) Programs authorized under the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501
(5) Other appropriate Federal, State or local programs, including programs related to transportation and housing and programs in the private sector. (WIA sec. 121(b)(2).)
(c) The State may require that one or more of the programs identified in paragraph (b) of this section be included as a partner in all of the local One-Stop delivery systems in the State.
(a) The “entity” that carries out the program and activities listed in §§ 662.200 and 662.210 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 § 662.200 is not carried out in a local area, the requirements relating to a required One-Stop partner are not applicable to such program or activity in that local One-Stop system.
(b)(1) For title II of WIA, the entity that carries out the program for the purposes of paragraph (a) is the State eligible entity. The State eligible entity may designate an eligible provider, or a consortium of eligible providers, as the “entity” for this purpose;
(2) For title I, Part A, of the Rehabilitation Act, the entity that carries out the program for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section is the designated State agency or designated unit specified under section 101(a)(2) that is primarily concerned with vocational rehabilitation, or vocational and other rehabilitation, of individuals with disabilities; and
(3) Under WIA, the national programs, including Job Corps, the WIA Indian and Native American program, the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers program, and the Veterans' Workforce Investment program, are required One-Stop partners. Local Boards must include them in the One-Stop delivery system where they are present in their local area. In local areas where the national programs are not present, States and Local Boards should take steps to ensure that customer groups served by these programs have access to services through the One-Stop delivery system.
All required partners must:
(a) Make available to participants through the One-Stop delivery system the core services that are applicable to the partner's programs; (WIA sec. 121(b)(1)(A).)
(b) Use a portion of funds made available to the partner's program, to the extent not inconsistent with the Federal law authorizing the partner's program, to:
(1) Create and maintain the One-Stop delivery system; and
(2) Provide core services; (WIA sec. 134(d)(1)(B).)
(c) Enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Local Board relating to the operation of the One-Stop system that meets the requirements of § 662.300, including a description of services, how the cost of the identified services and operating costs of the system will be funded, and methods for referrals (WIA sec. 121(c));
(d) Participate in the operation of the One-Stop system consistent with the terms of the MOU and requirements of authorizing laws; (WIA sec. 121(b)(1)(B).) and
(e) Provide representation on the Local Workforce Investment Board. (WIA sec. 117(b)(2)(A)(vi).)
(a) The core services applicable to any One-Stop partner program are those services described in paragraph (b) of this section, that are authorized and provided under the partner's program.
(b) The core services identified in section 134(d)(2) of the WIA are:
(1) Determinations of whether the individuals are eligible to receive assistance under subtitle B of title I of WIA;
(2) Outreach, intake (which may include worker profiling), and orientation to the information and other services available through the One-Stop delivery system;
(3) Initial assessment of skill levels, aptitudes, abilities, and supportive service needs;
(4) Job search and placement assistance, and where appropriate, career counseling;
(5) Provision of employment statistics information, including the provision of accurate information relating to local, regional, and national labor market areas, including—
(i) Job vacancy listings in such labor market areas;
(ii) Information on job skills necessary to obtain the listed jobs; and
(iii) Information relating to local occupations in demand and the earnings and skill requirements for such occupations;
(6) Provision of program performance information and program cost information on:
(i) Eligible providers of training services described in WIA section 122;
(ii) Eligible providers of youth activities described in WIA section 123;
(iii) Providers of adult education described in title II;
(iv) Providers of postsecondary vocational education activities and vocational education activities available to school dropouts under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2301
(v) Providers of vocational rehabilitation program activities described in title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 720
(7) Provision of information on how the local area is performing on the local performance measures and any additional performance information with respect to the One-Stop delivery system in the local area;
(8) Provision of accurate information relating to the availability of supportive services, including, at a minimum, child care and transportation, available in the local area, and referral to such services, as appropriate;
(9) Provision of information regarding filing claims for unemployment compensation;
(10) Assistance in establishing eligibility for—
(i) Welfare-to-work activities authorized under section 403(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)) available in the local area; and
(ii) Programs of financial aid assistance for training and education programs that are not funded under this Act and are available in the local area; and
(11) Followup services, including counseling regarding the workplace, for participants in workforce investment activities authorized under subtitle (B) of title I of WIA who are placed in unsubsidized employment, for not less than 12 months after the first day of the employment, as appropriate.
(a) At a minimum, the core services that are applicable to the program of the partner under § 662.220, and that are in addition to the basic labor exchange services traditionally provided in the local area under the Wagner-Peyser program, must be made available at the comprehensive One-Stop center. These services must be made available to individuals attributable to the partner's program who seek assistance at the center. The adult and dislocated worker program partners are required to make all of the core services listed in § 662.240 available at the center in accordance with 20 CFR 663.100(b)(1).
(b) The applicable core services may be made available by the provision of appropriate technology at the comprehensive One-Stop center, by co-locating personnel at the center, cross-training of staff, or through a cost reimbursement or other agreement between service providers at the comprehensive One-Stop center and the partner, as described in the MOU.
(c) The responsibility of the partner for the provision of core services must be proportionate to the use of the services at the comprehensive One-Stop center by the individuals attributable to the partner's program. The specific method of determining each partner's proportionate responsibility must be described in the MOU.
(d) For purposes of this part, individuals attributable to the partner's program may include individuals who are referred through the comprehensive One-Stop center and enrolled in the partner's program after the receipt of core services, who have been enrolled in the partner's program prior to receipt of the applicable core services at the center, who meet the eligibility criteria for the partner's program and who receive an applicable core service, or who meet an alternative definition described in the MOU.
(e) Under the MOU, the provision of applicable core services at the center by the One-Stop partner may be supplemented by the provision of such services through the networks of affiliated sites and networks of One-Stop partners described in WIA section 134(c)(2).
In addition to the provision of core services, One-Stop partners must provide access to the other activities and programs carried out under the partner's authorizing laws. The access to these services must be described in the local MOU. 20 CFR part 663 describes the specific requirements relating to the provision of core, intensive, and training services through the One-Stop system that apply to the adult and the dislocated worker programs authorized under title I of WIA. Additional requirements apply to the provision of all labor exchange services under the Wagner-Peyser Act. (WIA sec. 134(c)(1)(D).)
The MOU must describe the particular funding arrangements for services and operating costs of the One-Stop delivery system. Each partner must contribute a fair share of the operating costs of the One-Stop delivery system proportionate to the use of the system by individuals attributable to the partner's program. There are a number of methods, consistent with the
No, the requirements of the partner's program continue to apply. The Act intends to create a seamless service delivery system for individuals seeking workforce development services by linking the One-Stop partners in the One-Stop delivery system. While the overall effect is to provide universal access to core services, the resources of each partner may only be used to provide services that are authorized and provided under the partner's program to individuals who are eligible under such program. (WIA sec. 121(b)(1).)
(a) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 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.
(b) The MOU must contain the provisions required by WIA section 121(c)(2). These provisions cover services to be provided through the One-Stop delivery system; the funding of the services and operating costs of the system; and methods for referring individuals between the One-Stop operators and partners. The MOU's provisions also must determine the duration and procedures for amending the MOU, and may contain any other provisions that are consistent with WIA title I and the WIA regulations agreed to by the parties. (WIA sec. 121(c).)
(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, or the Local Board, chief elected official and the partners may decide to enter into separate agreements between the Local Board (with the agreement of the chief elected official) and one or more partners. Under either approach, the requirements described in this subpart apply. Since funds are generally appropriated annually, financial agreements may be negotiated with each partner annually to clarify funding of services and operating costs of the system under the MOU.
(b) WIA emphasizes full and effective partnerships between Local Boards, chief elected officials and One-Stop partners. Local Boards and partners must enter into good-faith negotiations. Local Boards, chief elected officials and partners may request assistance from a State agency responsible for administering the partner program, the Governor, State Board, or other appropriate parties. The State agencies, the State Board, and the Governor may also consult with the appropriate Federal agencies to address impasse situations after exhausting other alternatives. The Local Board and partners must document the negotiations and efforts that have taken place. Any failure to execute an MOU between a Local Board and a required partner must be reported by the Local Board and the required partner to the Governor or State Board, and the State agency responsible for administering the partner's program, and by the Governor or the State Board and the responsible State agency to the Secretary of Labor and to the head of any other Federal agency with responsibility for oversight of a partner's program. (WIA sec. 121(c).)
(c) If an impasse has not been resolved through the alternatives available under this section any partner that fails to execute an MOU may not be permitted to serve on the Local Board. In addition, 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 awarded on the basis of local coordination of activities under 20 CFR 665.200(d)(2). 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 the statutory requirement.
(a) The One-Stop operator is the entity that performs the role described in paragraph (c) of this section. The types of entities that may be selected to be the One-Stop operator include:
(1) A postsecondary educational institution;
(2) An Employment Service agency established under the Wagner-Peyser Act on behalf of the local office of the agency;
(3) A private, nonprofit organization (including a community-based organization);
(4) A private for-profit entity;
(5) A government agency; and
(6) Another interested organization or entity.
(b) One-Stop operators may be a single entity or a consortium of entities and may operate one or more One-Stop centers. In addition, there may be more than one One-Stop operator in a local area.
(c) The agreement between the Local Board and the One-Stop operator shall specify the operator's role. That role may range between simply coordinating service providers within the center, to being the primary provider of services within the center, to coordinating activities throughout the One-Stop system. (WIA sec. 121(d).)
(a) The Local Board, with the agreement of the chief elected official, must designate and certify One-Stop operators in each local area.
(b) The One-Stop operator is designated or certified:
(1) Through a competitive process,
(2) Under an agreement between the Local Board and a consortium of entities that includes at least three or more of the required One-Stop partners.identified at § 662.200, or
(3) Under the conditions described in §§ 662.420 or 662.430. (WIA sec.121(d), 121(e) and 117(f)(2))
(c) The designation or certification of the One-Stop operator must be carried out in accordance with the “sunshine provision” at 20 CFR 661.307.
(a) The Local Board may be designated or certified as the One-Stop operator only with the agreement of the chief elected official and the Governor.
(b) The designation or certification must be reviewed whenever the biennial certification of the Local Board is made under 20 CFR 663.300(a). (WIA sec. 117(f)(2).)
Under WIA section 121(e), the Local Board, the chief elected official and the Governor may agree to certify an entity that has been serving as a One-Stop operator in a One-Stop delivery system established prior to the enactment of WIA (August 7,1998) to continue to serve as a One-Stop operator without meeting the requirements for designation under § 662.410(b) if the local One-Stop delivery system is modified, as necessary, to meet the other requirements of this part, including the requirements relating to the inclusion of One-Stop partners, the execution of the MOU, and the provision of services.(WIA sec. 121(e).)
Section 506(c), Pub. L. 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c).
(a) The One-Stop system is the basic delivery system for adult and dislocated worker services. Through this system, adults and dislocated workers can access a continuum of services. The services are organized into three levels: core, intensive, and training.
(b) The chief elected official or his/her designee(s), as the local grant recipient(s) for the adult and dislocated worker programs, is a required One-Stop partner and is subject to the provisions relating to such partners described in 20
(1) Core services for adults and dislocated workers must be made available in at least one comprehensive One-Stop center in each local workforce investment area. Services may also be available elsewhere, either at affiliated sites or at specialized centers. For example, specialized centers may be established to serve workers being dislocated from a particular employer or industry, or to serve residents of public housing.
(2) The One-Stop centers also make intensive services available to adults and dislocated workers, as needed, either by the One-Stop operator directly or through contracts with service providers that are approved by the Local Board.
(3) Through the One-Stop system, adults and dislocated workers needing training are provided Individual Training Accounts (ITA's) and access to lists of eligible providers and programs of training. These lists contain quality consumer information, including cost and performance information for each of the providers' programs, so that participants can make informed choices on where to use their ITA's. (ITA's are more fully discussed in subpart D of this part.)
(a) Registration is the process for collecting information to support a determination of eligibility. This information may be collected through methods that include electronic data transfer, personal interview, or an individual's application.
(b) Adults and dislocated workers who receive services funded under title I other than self-service or informational activities must be registered and determined eligible.
(c) EO data must be collected on every individual who is interested in being considered for WIA title I financially assisted aid, benefits, services, or training by a recipient, and who has signified that interest by submitting personal information in response to a request from the recipient.
To be eligible to receive core services as an adult in the adult and dislocated worker programs, an individual must be 18 years of age or older. To be eligible for the dislocated worker programs, an eligible adult must meet the criteria of § 663.115. Eligibility criteria for intensive and training services are found at §§ 663.220 and 663.310.
(a) To be eligible to receive core services as a dislocated worker in the adult and dislocated worker programs, an individual must meet the definition of “dislocated worker” at WIA section 101(9). Eligibility criteria for intensive and training services are found at §§ 663.220 and 663.310.
(b) Governors and Local Boards may establish policies and procedures for One-Stop operators to use in determining an individual's eligibility as a dislocated worker, consistent with the definition at WIA section 101(9). These policies and procedures may address such conditions as:
(1) What constitutes a “general announcement” of plant closing under WIA section 101(9)(B)(ii) or (iii); and
(2) What constitutes “unemployed as a result of general economic conditions in the community in which the individual resides or because of natural disasters” for determining the eligibility of self-employed individuals, including family members and farm or ranch hands, under WIA section 101(9)(C).
(a) Yes, there are two significant differences from the eligibility requirements under the Job Training Partnership Act.
(b) Under the dislocated worker program in JTPA, displaced homemakers are defined as “additional dislocated workers” and are only eligible to receive services if the Governor determines that providing such services would not adversely affect the delivery of services to the other eligible dislocated workers. Under WIA section 101(9), displaced homemakers who meet the definition at WIA section 101(10) are eligible dislocated workers without any additional determination.
(c) The definition of displaced homemaker under JTPA included individuals who had been dependent upon public assistance under Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as well as those who had been dependent on the income of another family member. The definition in WIA section 101(10) includes only those individuals who were dependent on a family member's income. Those individuals who have been dependent on public assistance may be served in the adult program.
(a) WIA title I formula funds allocated to local areas for adults and dislocated workers must be used to provide core, intensive and training services through the One-Stop delivery system. Local Boards determine the most appropriate mix of these services, but all three types must be available for both adults and dislocated workers. There are different eligibility criteria for each of these types of services, which are described at §§ 663.110, 663.115, 663.220 and 663.310.
(b) WIA title I funds may also be used to provide the other services described in WIA section 134(e):
(1) Discretionary One-Stop delivery activities, including:
(i) Customized screening and referral of qualified participants in training services to employment; and
(ii) Customized employment-related services to employers on a fee-for-service basis that are in addition to labor exchange services available to employers under the Wagner-Peyser Act.
(2) Supportive services, including needs-related payments, as described in subpart H of this part.
(a) At a minimum, all of the core services described in WIA section 134(d)(2) and 20 CFR 662.240 must be provided in each local area through the One-Stop delivery system.
(b) Followup services must be made available, as appropriate, for a minimum of 12 months following the first day of employment, to registered participants who are placed in unsubsidized employment.
Core services must be provided through the One-Stop delivery system. Core services may be provided directly by the One-Stop operator or through contracts with service providers that are approved by the Local Board. The Local Board may only be a provider of core services when approved by the chief elected official and the Governor in accordance with the requirements of WIA section 117(f)(2) and 20 CFR 661.310.
(a) Yes, at a minimum, an individual must receive at least one core service, such as an initial assessment or job
(b) A determination of the need for intensive services under § 663.220, as established by the initial assessment or the individual's inability to obtain employment through the core services provided, must be contained in the participant's case file.
There is no Federally-required minimum time period for participation in core services before receiving intensive services. (WIA sec. 134(d)(3).)
(a) Intensive services are listed in WIA section 134(d)(3)(C). The list in the Act is not all-inclusive and other intensive services, such as out-of-area job search assistance, literacy activities related to basic workforce readiness, relocation assistance, internships, and work experience may be provided, based on an assessment or individual employment plan.
(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, work experience is a planned, structured learning experience that takes place in a workplace for a limited period of time. Work experience may be paid or unpaid, as appropriate. A work experience workplace may be in the private for profit sector, the non-profit sector, or the public sector. Labor standards apply in any work experience where an employee/employer relationship, as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, exists.
(a) Intensive services must be provided through the One-Stop delivery system, including specialized One-Stop centers. Intensive services may be provided directly by the One-Stop operator or through contracts with service providers, which may include contracts with public, private for-profit, and private non-profit service providers (including specialized service providers), that are approved by the Local Board. (WIA secs. 117(d)(2)(D) and 134(d)(3)(B).)
(b) The Local Board may only be a provider of intensive services when approved by the chief elected official and the Governor in accordance with WIA section 117(f)(2) and 20 CFR 661.310.
There are two categories of adults and dislocated workers who may receive intensive services:
(a) Adults and dislocated workers who are unemployed, have received at least one core service and are unable to obtain employment through core services, and are determined by a One-Stop operator to be in need of more intensive services to obtain employment; and
(b) Adults and dislocated workers who are employed, have received at least one core service, and are determined by a One-Stop operator to be in need of intensive services to obtain or retain employment that leads to self-sufficiency, as described in § 663.230.
State Boards or Local Boards must set the criteria for determining whether employment leads to self-sufficiency. At a minimum, such criteria must provide that self-sufficiency means employment that pays at least the lower living standard income level, as defined in WIA section 101(24). Self-sufficiency for a dislocated worker may be defined in relation to a percentage of the layoff wage. The special needs of individuals with disabilities or other barriers to employment should be taken into account when setting criteria to determine self-sufficiency.
(a) Yes, at a minimum, an individual must receive at least one intensive service, such as development of an individual employment plan with a case manager or individual counseling and career planning, before the individual may receive training services.
(b) The case file must contain a determination of need for training services under § 663.310, as identified in the individual employment plan, comprehensive assessment, or through any other intensive service received.
The individual employment plan is an ongoing strategy jointly developed by the participant and the case manager that identifies the participant's employment goals, the appropriate achievement objectives, and the appropriate combination of services for the participant to achieve the employment goals.
There is no Federally-required minimum time period for participation in intensive services before receiving training services. The period of time an individual spends in intensive services should be sufficient to prepare the individual for training or employment. (WIA sec. 134(d)(4)(A)(i).)
Training services are listed in WIA section 134(d)(4)(D). The list in the Act is not all-inclusive and additional training services may be provided.
Training services may be made available to employed and unemployed adults and dislocated workers who:
(a) Have met the eligibility requirements for intensive services, have received at least one intensive service under § 663.240, and have been determined to be unable to obtain or retain employment through such services;
(b) After an interview, evaluation, or assessment, and case management, have been determined by a One-Stop operator or One-Stop partner, to be in need of training services and to have the skills and qualifications to successfully complete the selected training program;
(c) Select a program of training services that is directly linked to the employment opportunities either in the local area or in another area to which the individual is willing to relocate;
(d) Are unable to obtain grant assistance from other sources to pay the costs of such training, including such sources as Welfare-to-Work, State-funded training funds, Trade Adjustment Assistance and Federal Pell Grants established under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, or require WIA assistance in addition to other sources of grant assistance, including Federal Pell Grants (provisions relating to fund coordination are found at
(e) For individuals whose services are provided through the adult funding stream, are determined eligible in accordance with the State and local priority system, if any, in effect for adults under WIA section 134(d)(4)(E) and § 663.600. (WIA sec. 134(d)(4)(A).)
(a) WIA funding for training is limited to participants who:
(1) Are unable to obtain grant assistance from other sources to pay the costs of their training; or
(2) Require assistance beyond that available under grant assistance from other sources to pay the costs of such training. Program operators and training providers must coordinate funds available to pay for training as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) Program operators must coordinate training funds available and make funding arrangements with One-Stop partners and other entities to apply the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. Training providers must consider the availability of other sources of grants to pay for training costs such as Welfare-to-Work, State-funded training funds, and Federal Pell Grants, so that WIA funds supplement other sources of training grants.
(c) A WIA participant may enroll in WIA-funded training while his/her application for a Pell Grant is pending as long as the One-Stop operator has made arrangements with the training provider and the WIA participant regarding allocation of the Pell Grant, if it is subsequently awarded. In that case, the training provider must reimburse the One-Stop operator the WIA funds used to underwrite the training for the amount the Pell Grant covers. Reimbursement is not required from the portion of Pell Grant assistance disbursed to the WIA participant for education-related expenses. (WIA sec. 134(d)(4)(B).)
Except under the three conditions described in WIA section 134(d)(4)(G)(ii) and § 663.430(a), the Individual Training Account (ITA) is established for eligible individuals to finance training services. Local Boards may only provide training services under § 663.430 if they receive a waiver from the Governor and meet the requirements of 20 CFR 661.310 and WIA section 117(f)(1). (WIA sec. 134(d)(4)(G).)
The ITA is established on behalf of a participant. WIA title I adult and dislocated workers purchase training services from eligible providers they select in consultation with the case manager. Payments from ITA's may be made in a variety of ways, including the electronic transfer of funds through financial institutions, vouchers, or other appropriate methods. Payments may also be made incrementally; through payment of a portion of the costs at different points in the training course. (WIA sec. 134(d)(4)(G).)
(a) Yes, the State or Local Board may impose limits on ITA's, such as limitations on the dollar amount and/or duration.
(b) Limits to ITA's may be established in different ways:
(1) There may be a limit for an individual participant that is based on the needs identified in the individual employment plan; or
(2) There may be a policy decision by the State Board or Local Board to establish a range of amounts and/or a maximum amount applicable to all ITA's.
(c) Limitations established by State or Local Board policies must be described in the State or Local Plan, respectively, but should not be implemented in a manner that undermines the Act's requirement that training services are provided in a manner that maximizes customer choice in the selection of an eligible training provider. ITA limitations may provide for exceptions to the limitations in individual cases.
(d) An individual may select training that costs more than the maximum amount available for ITAs under a State or local policy when other sources of funds are available to supplement the ITA. These other sources may include: Pell Grants; scholarships; severance pay; and other sources.
(a) Contracts for services may be used instead of ITA's only when one of the following three exceptions applies:
(1) When the services provided are on-the-job training (OJT) or customized training;
(2) When the Local Board determines that there are an insufficient number of eligible providers in the local area to accomplish the purpose of a system of ITA's. The Local Plan must describe the process to be used in selecting the providers under a contract for services. This process must include a public comment period for interested providers of at least 30 days;
(3) When the Local Board determines that there is a training services program of demonstrated effectiveness offered in the area by a community-based organization (CBO) or another private organization to serve special participant populations that face multiple barriers to employment, as described in paragraph (b) in this section. The Local Board must develop criteria to be used in determining demonstrated effectiveness, particularly as it applies to the special participant population to be served. The criteria may include:
(i) Financial stability of the organization;
(ii) Demonstrated performance in the delivery of services to hard to serve participant populations through such means as program completion rate; attainment of the skills, certificates or degrees the program is designed to provide; placement after training in unsubsidized employment; and retention in employment; and
(iii) How the specific program relates to the workforce investment needs identified in the local plan.
(b) Under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, special participant populations that face multiple barriers to employment are populations of low-income individuals that are included in one or more of the following categories:
(1) Individuals with substantial language or cultural barriers;
(2) Offenders;
(3) Homeless individuals; and
(4) Other hard-to-serve populations as defined by the Governor.
(a) Training services, whether under ITA's or under contract, must be provided in a manner that maximizes informed consumer choice in selecting an eligible provider.
(b) Each Local Board, through the One-Stop center, must make available to customers the State list of eligible providers required in WIA section 122(e). The list includes a description of the programs through which the providers may offer the training services, the information identifying eligible providers of on-the-job training and customized training required under WIA section 122(h) (where applicable), and the performance and cost information about eligible providers of training services described in WIA sections 122 (e) and (h).
(c) An individual who has been determined eligible for training services under § 663.310 may select a provider described in paragraph (b) of this section after consultation with a case manager. Unless the program has exhausted training funds for the program year, the operator must refer the individual to the selected provider, and establish an ITA for the individual to pay for training. For purposes of this paragraph, a referral may be carried out by providing a voucher or certificate to the individual to obtain the training.
(d) The cost of referral of an individual with an ITA to a training provider is paid by the applicable adult or dislocated worker program under title I of WIA.
The workforce investment system established under WIA emphasizes informed customer choice, system performance, and continuous improvement. The eligible provider process is part of the strategy for achieving these goals. Local Boards, in partnership with the State, identify training providers and programs whose performance qualifies them to receive WIA funds to train adults and dislocated workers. In order to maximize customer choice and assure that all significant population groups are served, States and local areas should administer the eligible provider process in a manner to assure that significant numbers of competent providers, offering a wide variety of training programs and occupational choices, are available to customers. After receiving core and intensive services and in consultation with case managers, eligible participants who need training use the list of these eligible providers to make an informed choice. The ability of providers to successfully perform, the procedures State and Local Boards use to establish eligibility, and the degree to which information, including performance information, on those providers is made available to customers eligible for training services, are key factors affecting the successful implementation of the Statewide workforce investment system. This subpart describes the process for determining eligible training providers.
(a) Eligible providers of training services are described in WIA section 122. They are those entities eligible to receive WIA title I-B funds to provide training services to eligible adult and dislocated worker customers.
(b) In order to provide training services under WIA title I-B, a provider must meet the requirements of this subpart and WIA section 122.
(1) These requirements apply to the use of WIA title I adult and dislocated worker funds to provide training:
(i) To individuals using ITA's to access training through the eligible provider list; and
(ii) To individuals for training provided through the exceptions to ITA's described at § 663.430 (a)(2) and (a)(3).
(2) These requirements apply to all organizations providing training to adult and dislocated workers, including:
(i) Postsecondary educational institutions providing a program described in WIA section 122(a)(2)(A)(ii);
(ii) Entities that carry out programs under the National Apprenticeship Act (29 U.S.C. 50
(iii) Other public or private providers of a program of training services described in WIA section 122(a)(2)(C);
(iv) Local Boards, if they meet the conditions of WIA section 117(f)(1); and
(v) Community-based organizations and other private organizations providing training under § 663.430.
(c) Provider eligibility procedures must be established by the Governor, as required by this subpart. Different procedures are described in WIA for determinations of “initial” and “subsequent” eligibility. Because the processes are different, they are discussed separately.
A program of training services is one or more courses or classes, or a structured regimen, that upon successful completion, leads to:
(a) A certificate, an associate degree, baccalaureate degree, or
(b) The skills or competencies needed for a specific job or jobs, an occupation, occupational group, or generally, for many types of jobs or occupations, as recognized by employers and determined prior to training.
(a) The State and the Local Boards each have responsibilities for managing the eligible provider process.
(b) The Governor must establish eligibility criteria for certain providers to become initially eligible and must set minimum levels of performance for all providers to remain subsequently eligible.
(c) The Governor must designate a State agency (called the “designated State agency”) to assist in carrying out WIA section 122. The designated State agency is responsible for:
(1) Developing and maintaining the State list of eligible providers and programs, which is comprised of lists submitted by Local Boards;
(2) Determining if programs meet performance levels, including verifying the accuracy of the information on the State list in consultation with the Local Boards, removing programs that do not meet program performance levels, and taking appropriate enforcement actions, against providers in the case of the intentional provision of inaccurate information, as described in WIA section 122(f)(1), and in the case of a substantial violation of the requirements of WIA, as described in WIA section 122(f)(2);
(3) Disseminating the State list, accompanied by performance and cost information relating to each provider, to One-Stop operators throughout the State.
(d) The Local Board must:
(1) Accept applications for initial eligibility from certain postsecondary institutions and entities providing apprenticeship training;
(2) Carry out procedures prescribed by the Governor to assist in determining the initial eligibility of other providers;
(3) Carry out procedures prescribed by the Governor to assist in determining the subsequent eligibility of all providers;
(4) Compile a local list of eligible providers, collect the performance and cost information and any other required information relating to providers;
(5) Submit the local list and information to the designated State agency;
(6) Ensure the dissemination and appropriate use of the State list through the local One-Stop system;
(7) Consult with the designated State agency in cases where termination of an eligible provider is contemplated because inaccurate information has been provided; and
(8) Work with the designated State agency in cases where the termination of an eligible provider is contemplated because of violations of the Act.
(e) The Local Board may:
(1) Make recommendations to the Governor on the procedures to be used in determining initial eligibility of certain providers;
(2) Increase the levels of performance required by the State for local providers to maintain subsequent eligibility;
(3) Require additional verifiable program-specific information from local
(a) To be eligible to receive adult or dislocated worker training funds under title I of WIA, all providers must submit applications to the Local Boards in the areas in which they wish to provide services. The application must describe each program of training services to be offered.
(b) For programs eligible under title IV of the Higher Education Act and apprenticeship programs registered under the National Apprenticeship Act (NAA), and the providers or such programs, Local Boards determine the procedures to use in making an application. The procedures established by the Local Board must specify the timing, manner, and contents of the required application.
(c) For programs not eligible under title IV of the HEA or registered under the NAA, and for providers not eligible under title IV of the HEA or carrying out apprenticeship programs under NAA:
(1) The Governor must develop a procedure for use by Local Boards for determining the eligibility of other providers, after
(i) Soliciting and taking into consideration recommendations from Local Boards and providers of training services within the State;
(ii) Providing an opportunity for interested members of the public, including representatives of business and labor organizations, to submit comments on the procedure; and
(iii) Designating a specific time period for soliciting and considering the recommendations of Local Boards and provider, and for providing an opportunity for public comment.
(2) The procedure must be described in the State Plan.
(3)(i) The procedure must require that the provider must submit an application to the Local Board at such time and in such manner as may be required, which contains a description of the program of training services;
(ii) If the provider provides a program of training services on the date of application, the procedure must require that the application include an appropriate portion of the performance information and program cost information described in § 663.540, and that the program meet appropriate levels of performance;
(iii) If the provider does not provide a program of training services on that date, the procedure must require that the provider meet appropriate requirements specified in the procedure. (WIA sec. 122(b)(2)(D).)
(d) The Local Board must include providers that meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section on a local list and submit the list to the designated State agency. The State agency has 30 days to determine that the provider or its programs do not meet the requirements relating to the providers under paragraph (c) of this section. After the agency determines that the provider and its programs meet(s) the criteria for initial eligibility, or 30 days have elapsed, whichever occurs first, the provider and its programs are initially eligible. The programs and providers submitted under paragraph (b) of this section are initially eligible without State agency review. (WIA sec. 122(e).)
Yes, under WIA section 122(c)(5), the Governor must require training providers to submit performance information and meet performance levels annually in order to remain eligible providers. States may require that these performance requirements be met one year from the date that initial eligibility was determined, or may require all eligible providers to submit performance information by the same date each year. If the latter approach is adopted, the Governor may exempt eligible providers whose determination of initial eligibility occurs within six months of the date of submissions. The effect of this requirement is that no training provider may have a period of initial eligibility that exceeds eighteen months. In the limited circumstance when insufficient data is available, initial eligibility may be extended for a period of up to six additional months, if the Governor's procedures provide for such an extension.
(a) The Governor must develop a procedure for the Local Board to use in determining the subsequent eligibility of all eligible training providers determined initially eligible under § 663.515 (b) and (c), after:
(1) Soliciting and taking into consideration recommendations from Local Boards and providers of training services within the State;
(2) Providing an opportunity for interested members of the public, including representatives of business and labor organizations, to submit comments on such procedure; and
(3) Designating a specific time period for soliciting and considering the recommendations of Local Boards and providers, and for providing an opportunity for public comment.
(b) The procedure must be described in the State Plan.
(c) The procedure must require that:
(1) Providers annually submit performance and cost information as described at WIA section 122(d)(1) and (2), for each program of training services for which the provider has been determined to be eligible, in a time and manner determined by the Local Board;
(2) Providers and programs annually meet minimum performance levels described at WIA section 122(c)(6), as demonstrated utilizing UI quarterly wage records where appropriate.
(d) The program's performance information must meet the minimum acceptable levels established under paragraph (c)(2) of this section to remain eligible;
(e) Local Boards may require higher levels of performance for local programs than the levels specified in the procedures established by the Governor. (WIA sec.122(c)(5) and (c)(6).)
(f) The State procedure must require Local Boards to take into consideration:
(1) The specific economic, geographic and demographic factors in the local areas in which providers seeking eligibility are located, and
(2) The characteristics of the populations served by programs seeking eligibility, including the demonstrated difficulties in serving these populations, where applicable.
(g) The Local Board retains those programs on the local list that meet the required performance levels and other elements of the State procedures and submits the list, accompanied by the performance and cost information, and any additional required information, to the designated State agency. If the designated State agency determines within 30 days from the receipt of the information that the program does not meet the performance levels established under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the program may be removed from the list. A program retained on the local list and not removed by the designated State agency is considered an eligible program of training services.
(a) Eligible providers of training services must submit, at least annually, under procedures established by the Governor under § 663.535(c):
(1) Verifiable program-specific performance information, including:
(i) The information described in WIA section 122(d)(1)(A)(i) for all
(ii) The information described in WIA section 122(d)(1)(A)(ii) relating only to individuals receiving assistance under the WIA adult and dislocated worker program who are participating in the applicable program of training services; and
(2) Information on program costs (such as tuition and fees) for WIA participants in the program.
(b) Governors may require any additional verifiable performance information (such as the information described at WIA section 122(d)(2)) that the Governor determines to be appropriate to obtain subsequent eligibility, including information regarding all participating individuals as well as individuals receiving assistance under the WIA adult and dislocated worker program.
(c) Governors must establish procedures by which providers can demonstrate if the additional information required under paragraph (b) of this section imposes extraordinary costs on providers, or if providers experience extraordinary costs in the collection of information. If, through these procedures, providers demonstrate that they experience such extraordinary costs:
(1) The Governor or Local Board must provide access to cost-effective methods for the collection of the information; or
(2) The Governor must provide additional resources to assist providers in the collection of the information from funds for Statewide workforce investment activities reserved under WIA sections 128(a) and 133(a)(1).
(d) The Local Board and the designated State agency may accept program-specific performance information consistent with the requirements for eligibility under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 from a provider for purposes of enabling the provider to fulfill the applicable requirements of this section, if the information is substantially similar to the information otherwise required under this section.
(a) The designated State agency must maintain a list of all eligible training programs and providers in the State (the “State list”).
(b) The State list is a compilation of the eligible programs and providers identified or retained by local areas and that have not been removed under §§ 663.535(g) and 663.565.
(c) The State list must be accompanied by the performance and cost information contained in the local lists as required by § 663.535(e). (WIA sec. 122(e)(4)(A).)
(a) The designated State agency must disseminate the State list and accompanying performance and cost information to the One-Stop delivery systems within the State.
(b) The State list and information must be updated at least annually.
(c) The State list and accompanying information form the primary basis of the One-Stop consumer reports system that provides for informed customer choice. The list and information must be widely available, through the One-Stop delivery system, to customers seeking information on training outcomes, as well as participants in employment and training activities funded under WIA and other programs.
(1) The State list must be made available to individuals who have been determined eligible for training services under § 663.310.
(2) The State list must also be made available to customers whose training is supported by other One-Stop partners.
(a) Yes. A training provider must deliver results and provide accurate information in order to retain its status as an eligible training provider.
(b) If the provider's programs do not meet the established performance levels, the programs will be removed from the eligible provider list.
(1) A Local Board must determine, during the subsequent eligibility determination process, whether a provider's programs meet performance levels. If the program fails to meet such levels, the program must be removed from the local list. If all of the provider's programs fail to meet such levels, the provider must be removed from the local list.
(2) The designated State agency upon receipt of the performance information accompanying the local list, may remove programs from the State list if the agency determines the program failed to meet the levels of performance prescribed under § 663.535(c). If all of the provider's programs are determined to have failed to meet the levels, the designated State agency may remove the provider from the State list.
(3) Providers determined to have intentionally supplied inaccurate information or to have subsequently violated any provision of title I of WIA or the WIA regulations, including 29 CFR part 37, may be removed from the list in accordance with the enforcement provisions of WIA section 122(f). A provider whose eligibility is terminated under these conditions is liable to repay all adult and dislocated worker training funds it received during the period of noncompliance.
(4) The Governor must establish appeal procedures for providers of training to appeal a denial of eligibility under this subpart according to the requirements of 20 CFR 667.640(b).
The consumer reports system, referred to in WIA as performance information, is the vehicle for informing the customers of the One-Stop delivery system about the performance of training providers and programs in the local area. It is built upon the State list of eligible providers and programs developed through the procedures described in WIA section 122 and this subpart. The consumer reports system must contain the information necessary for an adult or dislocated worker customer to fully understand the options available to him or her in choosing a program of training services. Such program-specific factors may include overall performance, performance for significant customer groups (including wage replacement rates for dislocated workers), performance of specific provider sites, current information on employment and wage trends and projections, and duration of training programs.
(a) Local Boards may supplement the information available from the State list by providing customers with additional information to assist in supporting informed customer choice and the achievement of local performance measures (as described in WIA section 136).
(b) This additional information may include:
(1) Information on programs of training services that are linked to occupations in demand in the local area;
(2) Performance and cost information, including program-specific performance and cost information, for the local outlet(s) of multi-site eligible providers; and
(3) Other appropriate information related to the objectives of WIA, which may include the information described in § 663.570.
Yes, individuals may choose any of the eligible providers and programs on the State list. A State may also establish a reciprocal agreement with another State(s) to permit providers of eligible training programs in each State to accept individual training accounts provided by the other State. (WIA secs. 122(e)(4) and (e)(5).)
Yes, CBO's may apply and they and their programs may be determined eligible providers of training services, under WIA section 122 and this subpart. As eligible providers, CBO's provide training through ITA's and may also receive contracts for training special participant populations when the requirements of § 663.430 are met.
For OJT and customized training providers, One-Stop operators in a local area must collect such performance information as the Governor may require, determine whether the providers meet such performance criteria as the Governor may require, and disseminate a list of providers that have met such criteria, along with the relevant performance information about them, through the One-Stop delivery system. Providers determined to meet the criteria are considered to be identified as eligible providers of training services. These providers are not subject to the other requirements of WIA section 122 or this subpart.
(a) WIA states, in section 134(d)(4)(E), that in the event that funds allocated to a local area for adult employment and training activities are limited, priority for intensive and training services funded with title I adult funds must be given to recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals in the local area.
(b) Since funding is generally limited, States and local areas must establish criteria by which local areas can determine the availability of funds and the process by which any priority will be applied under WIA section 134(d)(2)(E). Such criteria may include the availability of other funds for providing employment and training-related services in the local area, the needs of the specific groups within the local area, and other appropriate factors.
(c) States and local areas must give priority for adult intensive and training services to recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals, unless the local area has determined that funds are not limited under the criteria established under paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) The process for determining whether to apply the priority established under paragraph (b) of this section does not necessarily mean that only the recipients of public assistance and other low income individuals may receive WIA adult funded intensive and training services when funds are determined to be limited in a local area. The Local Board and the Governor may establish a process that gives priority for services to the recipients of public assistance and other low income individuals and that also serves other individuals meeting eligibility requirements.
No, the statutory priority applies to adult funds for intensive and training services only. Funds allocated for dislocated workers are not subject to this requirement.
(a) The local Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program operator is a required partner in the One-Stop delivery system. 20 CFR part 662 describes the roles of such partners in the One-Stop delivery system and applies to the Welfare-to-Work program operator. WtW programs serve individuals who may also be served by the WIA programs and, through appropriate linkages and referrals, these customers will have access to a broader range of services through the cooperation of the WtW program in the One-Stop system. WtW participants, who are determined to be WIA eligible, and who need occupational skills training may be referred through the One-Stop system to receive WIA training, when WtW grant and other grant funds are not available in accordance with § 663.320(a). WIA participants who are also determined WtW eligible, may be referred to the WtW operator for job placement and other WtW assistance.
(b) The local TANF agency is specifically suggested under WIA as an additional partner in the One-Stop system. TANF recipients will have access to more information about employment opportunities and services when the TANF agency participates in the One-Stop delivery system. The Governor and Local Board should encourage the TANF agency to become a One-Stop partner to improve the quality of services to the WtW and TANF-eligible populations. In addition, becoming a One-Stop partner will ensure that the TANF agency is represented on the Local Board and participates in developing workforce investment strategies that help cash assistance recipients secure lasting employment.
Displaced homemakers may be eligible to receive assistance under title I in a variety of ways, including:
(a) Core services provided by the One-Stop partners through the One-Stop delivery system;
(b) Intensive or training services for which an individual qualifies as a dislocated worker/displaced homemaker if the requirements of this part are met;
(c) Intensive or training services for which an individual is eligible if the requirements of this part are met;
(d) Statewide employment and training projects conducted with reserve funds for innovative programs for displaced homemakers, as described in 20 CFR 665.210(f).
Yes, even if the family of an individual with a disability does not meet the income eligibility criteria, the individual with a disability is to be considered a low-income individual if the individual's own income:
(a) Meets the income criteria established in WIA section 101(25)(B); or
(b) Meets the income eligibility criteria for cash payments under any Federal, State or local public assistance program. (WIA sec. 101(25)(F).)
(a) On-the-job training (OJT) is defined at WIA section 101(31). OJT is provided under a contract with an employer in the public, private non-profit, or private sector. Through the OJT contract, occupational training is provided for the WIA participant in
(b) The local program must not contract with an employer who has previously exhibited a pattern of failing to provide OJT participants with continued long-term employment with wages, benefits, and working conditions that are equal to those provided to regular employees who have worked a similar length of time and are doing the same type of work. (WIA sec. 195(4).)
(c) An OJT contract must be limited to the period of time required for a participant to become proficient in the occupation for which the training is being provided. In determining the appropriate length of the contract, consideration should be given to the skill requirements of the occupation, the academic and occupational skill level of the participant, prior work experience, and the participant's individual employment plan. (WIA sec. 101(31)(C).)
OJT contracts may be written for eligible employed workers when:
(a) The employee is not earning a self-sufficient wage as determined by Local Board policy;
(b) The requirements in § 663.700 are met; and
(c) The OJT relates to the introduction of new technologies, introduction to new production or service procedures, upgrading to new jobs that require additional skills, workplace literacy, or other appropriate purposes identified by the Local Board.
(a) On-the-job training payments to employers are deemed to be compensation for the extraordinary costs associated with training participants and the costs associated with the lower productivity of the participants.
(b) Employers may be reimbursed up to 50 percent of the wage rate of an OJT participant for the extraordinary costs of providing the training and additional supervision related to the OJT. (WIA sec. 101(31)(B).)
(c) Employers are not required to document such extraordinary costs.
Customized training is training:
(a) That is designed to meet the special requirements of an employer (including a group of employers);
(b) That is conducted with a commitment by the employer to employ, or in the case of incumbent workers, continue to employ, an individual on successful completion of the training; and
(c) For which the employer pays for not less than 50 percent of the cost of the training. (WIA sec. 101(8).)
Customized training of an eligible employed individual may be provided for an employer or a group of employers when:
(a) The employee is not earning a self-sufficient wage as determined by Local Board policy;
(b) The requirements in § 663.715 are met; and
(c) The customized training relates to the purposes described in § 663.705(c) or other appropriate purposes identified by the Local Board.
No, funds provided to employers for OJT or customized training must not be used to directly or indirectly assist, promote or deter union organizing.
Supportive services for adults and dislocated workers are defined at WIA sections 101(46) and 134(e)(2) and (3). They include services such as transportation, child care, dependent care, housing, and needs-related payments, that are necessary to enable an individual to participate in activities authorized under WIA title I. Local Boards, in consultation with the One-Stop partners and other community service providers, must develop a policy on supportive services that ensures resource and service coordination in the local area. Such policy should address procedures for referral to such services, including how such services will be funded when they are not otherwise available from other sources. The provision of accurate information about the availability of supportive services in the local area, as well as referral to such activities, is one of the core services that must be available to adults and dislocated workers through the One-Stop delivery system. (WIA sec. 134(d)(2)(H).)
(a) Supportive services may only be provided to individuals who are:
(1) Participating in core, intensive or training services; and
(2) Unable to obtain supportive services through other programs providing such services. (WIA sec. 134(e)(2)(A) and (B).)
(b) Supportive services may only be provided when they are necessary to enable individuals to participate in title I activities. (WIA sec. 101(46).)
(a) Local Boards may establish limits on the provision of supportive services or provide the One-Stop operator with the authority to establish such limits, including a maximum amount of funding and maximum length of time for supportive services to be available to participants.
(b) Procedures may also be established to allow One-Stop operators to grant exceptions to the limits established under paragraph (a) of this section.
Needs-related payments provide financial assistance to participants for the purpose of enabling individuals to participate in training and are one of the supportive services authorized by WIA section 134(e)(3).
Adults must:
(a) Be unemployed,
(b) Not qualify for, or have ceased qualifying for, unemployment compensation; and
(c) Be enrolled in a program of training services under WIA section 134(d)(4).
To receive needs related payments, a dislocated worker must:
(a) Be unemployed, and:
(1) Have ceased to qualify for unemployment compensation or trade readjustment allowance under TAA or NAFTA-TAA; and
(2) Be enrolled in a program of training services under WIA section 134(d)(4) by the end of the 13th week after the most recent layoff that resulted in a determination of the worker's eligibility as a dislocated worker, or, if later, by the end of the 8th week after the worker is informed that a short-term layoff will exceed 6 months; or
(b) Be unemployed and did not qualify for unemployment
Yes, payments may be provided if the participant has been accepted in a training program that will begin within 30 calender days. The Governor may authorize local areas to extend the 30 day period to address appropriate circumstances.
(a) The payment level for adults must be established by the Local Board.
(b) For dislocated workers, payments must not exceed the greater of either of the following levels:
(1) For participants who were eligible for unemployment compensation as a result of the qualifying dislocation, the payment may not exceed the applicable weekly level of the unemployment compensation benefit; or
(2) For participants who did not qualify for unemployment compensation as a result of the qualifying layoff, the weekly payment may not exceed the poverty level for an equivalent period. The weekly payment level must be adjusted to reflect changes in total family income as determined by Local Board policies. (WIA sec. 134(e)(3)(C).)
Sec. 506(c), Pub. L. 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c).
(a) The duties and membership requirements of the youth council are described in WIA section 117(h) and 20 CFR 661.335 and 661.340.
(b) The purpose of the youth council is to provide expertise in youth policy and to assist the Local Board in:
(1) Developing and recommending local youth employment and training policy and practice;
(2) Broadening the youth employment and training focus in the community to incorporate a youth development perspective;
(3) Establishing linkages with other organizations serving youth in the local area; and
(4) Taking into account a range of issues that can have an impact on the success of youth in the labor market. (WIA sec. 117(h).)
(a) The Local Board, working with the youth council, is responsible for conducting oversight of local youth programs operated under the Act, to ensure both fiscal and programmatic accountability.
(b) Local program oversight is conducted in consultation with the local area's chief elected official.
(c) The Local Board may, after consultation with the CEO, delegate its responsibility for oversight of eligible youth providers, as well as other youth program oversight responsibilities, to the youth council, recognizing the advantage of delegating such responsibilities to the youth council whose members have expertise in youth issues. (WIA sec. 117(d); 117(h)(4).)
An eligible youth is defined, under WIA sec. 101(13), as an individual who:
(a) Is age 14 through 21;
(b) Is a low income individual, as defined in the WIA section 101(25); and
(c) Is within one or more of the following categories:
(1) Deficient in basic literacy skills;
(2) School dropout;
(3) Homeless, runaway, or foster child;
(4) Pregnant or parenting;
(5) Offender; or
(6) Is an individual (including a youth with a disability) who requires
(a) Definitions and eligibility documentation requirements regarding the “deficient in basic literacy skills” criterion in § 664.200(c)(1) may be established at the State or local level. These definitions may establish such criteria as are needed to address State or local concerns, and must include a determination that an individual:
(1) Computes or solves problems, reads, writes, or speaks English at or below the 8th grade level on a generally accepted standardized test or a comparable score on a criterion-referenced test; or
(2) Is unable to compute or solve problems, read, write, or speak English at a level necessary to function on the job, in the individual's family or in society. (WIA secs. 101(19), 203(12).)
(b) In cases where the State Board establishes State policy on this criterion, the policy must be included in the State plan. (WIA secs. 101(13)(C)(i), 101(19).)
Definitions and eligibility documentation requirements regarding the “requires additional assistance to complete an educational program, or to secure and hold employment” criterion of § 664.200(c)(6) may be established at the State or local level. In cases where the State Board establishes State policy on this criterion, the policy must be included in the State Plan. (WIA sec. 101(13)(C)(iv).)
(a) Yes, all youth participants must be registered.
(b) Registration is the process of collecting information to support a determination of eligibility.
(c) Equal opportunity data must be collected during the registration process on any individual who has submitted personal information in response to a request by the recipient for such information.
Yes, up to five percent of youth participants served by youth programs in a local area may be individuals who do not meet the income criterion for eligible youth, provided that they are within one or more of the following categories:
(a) School dropout;
(b) Basic skills deficient, as defined in WIA section 101(4);
(c) Are one or more grade levels below the grade level appropriate to the individual's age;
(d) Pregnant or parenting;
(e) Possess one or more disabilities, including learning disabilities;
(f) Homeless or runaway;
(g) Offender; or
(h) Face serious barriers to employment as identified by the Local Board. (WIA sec. 129(c)(5).)
No, the barriers listed in §§ 664.200 and 664.220 are not the same. Both lists of eligibility barriers include school dropout, homeless or runaway, pregnant or parenting, and offender, but each list contains barriers not included on the other list.
No, the criteria for income eligibility under the National School Lunch Program are not the same as the Act's income eligibility criteria. Therefore, the school lunch list may not be used as a substitute for income eligibility to determine who is eligible for services under the Act.
Yes, even if the family of a disabled youth does not meet the income eligibility criteria, the disabled youth may be considered a low-income individual if the youth's own income:
(a) Meets the income criteria established in WIA section 101(25)(B); or
(b) Meets the income eligibility criteria for cash payments under any Federal, State or local public assistance program. (WIA sec. 101(25)(F).)
An out-of-school youth is an individual who:
(a) Is an eligible youth who is a school dropout; or
(b) Is an eligible youth who has either graduated from high school or holds a GED, but is basic skills deficient, unemployed, or underemployed. (WIA sec. 101(33).)
A school dropout is defined as an individual who is no longer attending any school and who has not received a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent. A youth's dropout status is determined at the time of registration. A youth attending an alternative school at the time of registration is not a dropout. An individual who is out-of school at the time of registration and subsequently placed in an alternative school, may be considered an out-of-school youth for the purposes of the 30 percent expenditure requirement for out-of-school youth. (WIA sec. 101(39).)
(a) Yes, the 30 percent requirement applies to the total amount of all funds allocated to a local area under WIA section 128(b)(2)(A) or (b)(3), except for local area expenditures for administrative purposes under 20 CFR 667.210(a)(2).
(b) Although it is not necessary to ensure that 30 percent of such funds spent on summer employment opportunities (or any other particular element of the youth program) are spent on out-of-school youth, the funds spent on these activities are included in the total to which the 30 percent requirement applies.
(c) There is a limited exception, at WIA section 129(c)(4)(B), under which certain small States may apply to the Secretary to reduce the minimum amount that must be spent on out-of-school youth. (WIA sec. 129(c)(4).)
A local youth program is defined as those youth activities offered by a Local Workforce Investment Board for a designated local workforce investment area, as specified in 20 CFR part 661.
(a) The design framework of local youth programs must:
(1) Provide an objective assessment of each youth participant, that meets the requirements of WIA section
(2) Develop an individual service strategy for each youth participant that meets the requirements of WIA section 129(c)(1)(B), including identifying an age-appropriate career goal and consideration of the assessment results for each youth; and
(3) Provide preparation for postsecondary educational opportunities, provide linkages between academic and occupational learning, provide preparation for employment, and provide effective connections to intermediary organizations that provide strong links to the job market and employers.
(4) The requirement in WIA section 123 that eligible providers of youth services be selected by awarding a grant or contract on a competitive basis does not apply to the design framework component, such as services for intake, objective assessment and the development of individual service strategy, when these services are provided by the grant recipient/fiscal agent.
(b) The local plan must describe the design framework for youth program design in the local area, and how the ten program elements required in § 664.410 are provided within that framework.
(c) Local Boards must ensure appropriate links to entities that will foster the participation of eligible local area youth. Such links may include connections to:
(1) Local area justice and law enforcement officials;
(2) Local public housing authorities;
(3) Local education agencies;
(4) Job Corps representatives; and
(5) Representatives of other area youth initiatives, including those that serve homeless youth and other public and private youth initiatives.
(d) Local Boards must ensure that the referral requirements in WIA section 129(c)(3) for youth who meet the income eligibility criteria are met, including:
(1) Providing these youth with information regarding the full array of applicable or appropriate services available through the Local Board or other eligible providers, or One-Stop partners; and
(2) Referring these youth to appropriate training and educational programs that have the capacity to serve them either on a sequential or concurrent basis.
(e) In order to meet the basic skills and training needs of eligible applicants who do not meet the enrollment requirements of a particular program or who cannot be served by the program, each eligible youth provider must ensure that these youth are referred:
(1) For further assessment, as necessary, and
(2) To appropriate programs, in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(f) Local Boards must ensure that parents, youth participants, and other members of the community with experience relating to youth programs are involved in both the design and implementation of its youth programs.
(g) The objective assessment required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section or the individual service strategy required under paragraph (a)(2) of this section is not required if the program provider determines that it is appropriate to use a recent objective assessment or individual service strategy that was developed under another education or training program. (WIA section 129(c)(1).)
(a) Yes, local programs must make the following services available to youth participants:
(1) Tutoring, study skills training, and instruction leading to secondary school completion, including dropout prevention strategies;
(2) Alternative secondary school offerings;
(3) Summer employment opportunities directly linked to academic and occupational learning;
(4) Paid and unpaid work experiences, including internships and job shadowing, as provided in §§ 664.460 and 664.470;
(5) Occupational skill training;
(6) Leadership development opportunities, which include community service and peer-centered activities encouraging responsibility and other positive social behaviors;
(7) Supportive services, which may include the services listed in § 664.440;
(8) Adult mentoring for a duration of at least twelve (12) months, that may occur both during and after program participation;
(9) Followup services, as provided in § 664.450; and
(10) Comprehensive guidance and counseling, including drug and alcohol abuse counseling, as well as referrals to counseling, as appropriate to the needs of the individual youth.
(b) Local programs have the discretion to determine what specific program services will be provided to a youth participant, based on each participant's objective assessment and individual service strategy. (WIA sec. 129(c)(2).)
Leadership development opportunities are opportunities that encourage responsibility, employability, and other positive social behaviors such as:
(a) Exposure to postsecondary educational opportunities;
(b) Community and service learning projects;
(c) Peer-centered activities, including peer mentoring and tutoring;
(d) Organizational and team work training, including team leadership training;
(e) Training in decision-making, including determining priorities; and
(f) Citizenship training, including life skills training such as parenting, work behavior training, and budgeting of resources. (WIA sec. 129(c)(2)(F).)
Positive social behaviors are outcomes of leadership opportunities, often referred to as soft skills, which are incorporated by many local programs as part of their menu of services. Positive social behaviors focus on areas that may include the following:
(a) Positive attitudinal development;
(b) Self esteem building;
(c) Openness to working with individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds;
(d) Maintaining healthy lifestyles, including being alcohol and drug free;
(e) Maintaining positive relationships with responsible adults and peers, and contributing to the well being of one's community, including voting;
(f) Maintaining a commitment to learning and academic success;
(g) Avoiding delinquency;
(h) Postponed and responsible parenting; and
(i) Positive job attitudes and work skills. (WIA sec. 129(c)(2)(F).)
Supportive services for youth, as defined in WIA section 101(46), may include the following:
(a) Linkages to community services;
(b) Assistance with transportation;
(c) Assistance with child care and dependent care;
(d) Assistance with housing;
(e) Referrals to medical services; and
(f) Assistance with uniforms or other appropriate work attire and work-related tools, including such items as eye glasses and protective eye gear. (WIA sec. 129(c)(2)(G).)
(a) Follow-up services for youth may include:
(1) The leadership development and supportive service activities listed in §§ 664.420 and 664.440;
(2) Regular contact with a youth participant's employer, including assistance in addressing work-related problems that arise;
(3) Assistance in securing better paying jobs, career development and further education;
(4) Work-related peer support groups;
(5) Adult mentoring; and
(6) Tracking the progress of youth in employment after training.
(b) All youth participants must receive some form of follow-up services for a minimum duration of 12 months. Follow-up services may be provided beyond twelve (12) months at the State or Local Board's discretion. The types of services provided and the duration of services must be determined based on the needs of the individual. The scope of these follow-up services may be less intensive for youth who have only participated in summer youth employment opportunities. (WIA sec. 129(c)(2)(I).)
(a) Work experiences are planned, structured learning experiences that take place in a workplace for a limited period of time. As provided in WIA section 129(c)(2)(D) and § 664.470, work experiences may be paid or unpaid.
(b) Work experience workplaces may be in the private, for-profit sector; the non-profit sector; or the public sector.
(c) Work experiences are designed to enable youth to gain exposure to the working world and its requirements. Work experiences are appropriate and desirable activities for many youth throughout the year. Work experiences should help youth acquire the personal attributes, knowledge, and skills needed to obtain a job and advance in employment. The purpose is to provide the youth participant with the opportunities for career exploration and skill development and is not to benefit the employer, although the employer may, in fact, benefit from the activities performed by the youth. Work experiences may be subsidized or unsubsidized and may include the following elements:
(1) Instruction in employability skills or generic workplace skills such as those identified by the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS);
(2) Exposure to various aspects of an industry;
(3) Progressively more complex tasks;
(4) Internships and job shadowing;
(5) The integration of basic academic skills into work activities;
(6) Supported work, work adjustment, and other transition activities;
(7) Entrepreneurship;
(8) Service learning;
(9) Paid and unpaid community service; and
(10) Other elements designed to achieve the goals of work experiences.
(d) In most cases, on-the-job training is not an appropriate work experiences activity for youth participants under age 18. Local program operators may choose, however, to use this service strategy for eligible youth when it is appropriate based on the needs identified by the objective assessment of an individual youth participant. (WIA sec. 129(c)(2)(D).)
Funds under the Act may be used to pay wages and related benefits for work experiences in the public; private, for-profit or non-profit sectors where the objective assessment and individual service strategy indicate that work experiences are appropriate. (WIA sec. 129(c)(2)(D).)
(a) Yes, under the Act, eligible youth are 14 through 21 years of age. Adults are defined in the Act as individuals age 18 and older. Thus, individuals ages 18 through 21 may be eligible for both adult and youth programs. There is no specified age for the dislocated worker program.
(b) Individuals who meet the respective eligibility requirements may participate in adult and youth programs concurrently. Concurrent enrollment is allowable for youth served in programs under WIA titles I or II. Such individuals must be eligible under the youth or adult/dislocated worker eligibility criteria applicable to the services received. Local program operators may determine, for individuals in this age group, the appropriate level and balance of services under the youth, adult, dislocated worker, or other services.
(c) Local program operators must identify and track the funding streams which pay the costs of services provided to individuals who are participating in youth and adult/dislocated worker programs concurrently, and ensure that services are not duplicated.
No, however, individuals age 18 and above, who are eligible for training services under the adult and dislocated worker programs, may receive Individual Training Accounts through those programs. Requirements for concurrent participation requirements are set forth in § 664.500. To the extent possible, in order to enhance youth participant choice, youth participants should be involved in the selection of educational and training activities.
(a) Yes, Local Boards are required to offer summer youth employment opportunities that link academic and occupational learning as part of the menu of services required in § 664.410(a).
(b) Summer youth employment must provide direct linkages to academic and occupational learning, and may provide other elements and strategies as appropriate to serve the needs and goals of the participants.
(c) Local Boards may determine how much of available youth funds will be used for summer and for year-round youth activities.
(d) The summer youth employment opportunities element is not intended to be a stand-alone program. Local programs should integrate a youth's participation in that element into a comprehensive strategy for addressing the youth's employment and training needs. Youths who participate in summer employment opportunities must be provided with a minimum of twelve months of followup services, as required in § 664.450. (WIA sec. 129(c)(2)(C).)
Chief elected officials and Local Boards are responsible for ensuring that the local youth program provides summer employment opportunities to youth. The chief elected officials (which may include local government units operating as a consortium) are the grant recipients for local youth funds, unless another entity is chosen to be grant recipient or fiscal agent under WIA section 117(d)(3)(B). If, in the administration of the summer employment opportunities element of the local youth program, providers other than the grant recipient/fiscal agent, are used to provide summer youth employment opportunities, these
Yes, the summer employment opportunities element is one of a number of activities authorized by the WIA youth program. WIA section 136(b)(2) (A)(ii) and(B) provides specific core indicators of performance for youth, and requires that all participating youth be included in the determination of whether the local levels of performance are met. Program operators can help ensure positive outcomes for youth participants by providing them with continuity of services.
(a) The chief elected official (or designee, under WIA section 117(d)(3)(B)), as the local grant recipient for the youth program is a required One-Stop partner and is subject to the requirements that apply to such partners, described in 20 CFR part 662.
(b) In addition to the provisions of 20 CFR part 662, connections between the youth program and the One-Stop system may include those that facilitate:
(1) The coordination and provision of youth activities;
(2) Linkages to the job market and employers;
(3) Access for eligible youth to the information and services required in §§ 664.400 and 664.410; and
(4) Other activities designed to achieve the purposes of the youth program and youth activities as described in WIA section 129(a). (WIA secs. 121(b)(1)(B)(i); 129.)
Yes, however, One-Stop services for non-eligible youth must be funded by programs that are authorized to provide services to such youth. For example, basic labor exchange services under the Wagner-Peyser Act may be provided to any youth.
(a) Youth Opportunity Grants are awarded through a competitive selection process. The Secretary establishes appropriate application procedures, selection criteria, and an approval process for awarding Youth Opportunity Grants to applicants which can accomplish the purpose of the Act and use available funds in an effective manner in the Solicitation for Grant Applications announcing the competition.
(b) The Secretary distributes grants equitably among urban and rural areas by taking into consideration such factors as the following:
(1) The poverty rate in urban and rural communities;
(2) The number of people in poverty in urban and rural communities; and
(3) The quality of proposals received. (WIA sec.169(a) and (e).)
(a) A Local Board is eligible to receive a Youth Opportunity Grant if it serves a community that:
(1) Has been designated as an empowerment zone (EZ) or enterprise community (EC) under section 1391 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(2) Is located in a State that does not have an EZ or an EC and that has been designated by its Governor as a high poverty area; or
(3) Is one of two areas in a State that has been designated by the Governor as an area for which a local board may apply for a Youth Opportunity Grant, and that meets the poverty rate criteria in section 1392 (a)(4), (b), and (d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(b) An entity other than a Local Board is eligible to receive a grant if that entity:
(1) Is a WIA Indian and Native American grant recipient under WIA section 166; and
(2) Serves a community that:
(i) Meets the poverty rate criteria in section 1392(a)(4), (b), and (d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(ii) Is located on an Indian reservation or serves Oklahoma Indians or Alaska Native villages or Native groups, as provided in WIA section 169 (d)(2)(B). (WIA sec. 169(c) and (d).)
All individuals ages 14 through 21 who reside in the community identified in the grant are eligible to receive services under the grant. (WIA sec. 169(a).)
(a) The Secretary negotiates performance measures, including appropriate performance levels for each indicator, with each selected grantee, based on information contained in the application.
(b) Performance indicators for the measures negotiated under Youth Opportunity Grants are the indicators of performance provided in WIA sections 136(b)(2)(A) and (B). (WIA sec. 169(f).).
Section 506(c), Pub. L. 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c).
Statewide workforce investment activities include Statewide employment and training activities for adults and dislocated workers, as described in WIA section 134(a), and Statewide youth activities, as described in WIA section 129(b). They include both required and allowable activities. In accordance with the requirements of this subpart, the State may develop policies and strategies for use of
(a) Except for the Statewide rapid response activities described in paragraph (c) of this section, Statewide workforce investment activities are supported by funds reserved by the Governor under WIA section 128(a).
(b) Funds reserved by the Governor for Statewide workforce investment activities may be combined and used for any of the activities authorized in WIA sections 129(b), 134(a)(2)(B) or 134(a)(3)(A) (which are described in §§ 665.200 and 665.210), regardless of whether the funds were allotted through the youth, adult, or dislocated worker funding streams.
(c) Funds for Statewide rapid response activities are reserved under WIA section 133(a)(2) and may be used to provide the activities authorized at section 134(a)(2)(A) (which are described in §§ 665.310 through 665.330). (WIA secs. 129(b), 133(a)(2), 134(a)(2)(B), and 134(a)(3)(A).)
Required Statewide workforce investment activities are:
(a) Required rapid response activities, as described in § 665.310;
(b) Disseminating:
(1) The State list of eligible providers of training services (including those providing non-traditional training services), for adults and dislocated workers;
(2) Information identifying eligible providers of on-the-job training (OJT) and customized training;
(3) Performance and program cost information about these providers, as described in 20 CFR 663.540; and
(4) A list of eligible providers of youth activities as described in WIA section 123;
(c) States must assure that the information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section is widely available.
(d) Conducting evaluations, under WIA section 136(e), of workforce investment activities for adults, dislocated workers and youth, in order to establish and promote methods for continuously improving such activities to achieve high-level performance within, and high-level outcomes from, the Statewide workforce investment system. Such evaluations must be designed and conducted in conjunction with the State and Local Boards, and must include analysis of customer feedback, outcome and process measures in the workforce investment system. To the maximum extent practicable, these evaluations should be conducted in coordination with Federal evaluations carried out under WIA section 172.
(e) Providing incentive grants:
(1) To local areas for regional cooperation among Local Boards (including Local Boards for a designated region, as described in 20 CFR 661.290);
(2) For local coordination of activities carried out under WIA; and
(3) For exemplary performance by local areas on the performance measures.
(f) Providing technical assistance to local areas that fail to meet local performance measures.
(g) Assisting in the establishment and operation of One-Stop delivery systems, in accordance with the strategy described in the State workforce investment plan. (WIA sec. 112(b)(14).)
(h) Providing additional assistance to local areas that have high concentrations of eligible youth.
(i) Operating a fiscal and management accountability information system, based on guidelines established by the Secretary after consultation with the Governors, chief elected officials, and One-Stop partners, as required by WIA section 136(f). (WIA secs. 129(b)(2), 134(a)(2), and 136(e)(2).)
Allowable Statewide workforce investment activities include:
(a) State administration of the adult, dislocated worker and youth workforce investment activities, consistent with the five percent administrative cost limitation at 20 CFR 667.210(a)(1).
(b) Providing capacity building and technical assistance to local areas, including Local Boards, One-Stop operators, One-Stop partners, and eligible providers, which may include:
(1) Staff development and training; and
(2) The development of exemplary program activities.
(c) Conducting research and demonstrations.
(d) Establishing and implementing:
(1) Innovative incumbent worker training programs, which may include an employer loan program to assist in skills upgrading; and
(2) Programs targeted to Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities.
(e) Providing support to local areas for the identification of eligible training providers.
(f) Implementing innovative programs for displaced homemakers, and programs to increase the number of individuals trained for and placed in non-traditional employment.
(g) Carrying out such adult and dislocated worker employment and training activities as the State determines are necessary to assist local areas in carrying out local employment and training activities.
(h) Carrying out youth activities Statewide.
(i) Preparation and submission to the Secretary of the annual performance progress report as described in 20 CFR 667.300(e). (WIA secs. 129(b)(3) and 134(a)(3).)
States may establish policies and definitions to determine which workers, or groups of workers, are eligible for incumbent worker services under this subpart. An incumbent worker is an individual who is employed, but an incumbent worker does not necessarily have to meet the eligibility requirements for intensive and training services for employed adults and dislocated workers at 20 CFR 663.220(b) and 663.310. (WIA sec. 134(a)(3)(A)(iv)(I).)
(a) Rapid response activities are described in §§ 665.310 through 665.330. They encompass the activities necessary to plan and deliver services to enable dislocated workers to transition to new employment as quickly as possible, following either a permanent closure or mass layoff, or a natural or other disaster resulting in a mass job dislocation.
(b) The State is responsible for providing rapid response activities. Rapid response is a required activity carried out in local areas by the State, or an entity designated by the State, in conjunction with the Local Board and chief elected officials. The State must establish methods by which to provide additional assistance to local areas that experience disasters, mass layoffs, plant closings, or other dislocation events when such events substantially increase the number of unemployed individuals.
(c) States must establish a rapid response dislocated worker unit to carry out Statewide rapid response activities.
Rapid response activities must include:
(a) Immediate and on-site contact with the employer, representatives of the affected workers, and the local community, which may include an assessment of the:
(1) Layoff plans and schedule of the employer;
(2) Potential for averting the layoff(s) in consultation with State or local economic development agencies, including private sector economic development entities;
(3) Background and probable assistance needs of the affected workers;
(4) Reemployment prospects for workers in the local community; and
(5) Available resources to meet the short and long-term assistance needs of the affected workers.
(b) The provision of information and access to unemployment compensation benefits, comprehensive One-Stop system services, and employment and training activities, including information on the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program and the NAFTA-TAA program (19 U.S.C. 2271
(c) The provision of guidance and/or financial assistance in establishing a labor-management committee voluntarily agreed to by labor and management, or a workforce transition committee comprised of representatives of the employer, the affected workers and the local community. The committee may devise and oversee an implementation strategy that responds to the reemployment needs of the workers. The assistance to this committee may include:
(1) The provision of training and technical assistance to members of the committee;
(2) Funding the operating costs of a committee to enable it to provide advice and assistance in carrying out rapid response activities and in the design and delivery of WIA-authorized services to affected workers. Typically, such support will last no longer than six months; and
(3) Providing a list of potential candidates to serve as a neutral chairperson of the committee.
(d) The provision of emergency assistance adapted to the particular closing, layoff or disaster.
(e) The provision of assistance to the local board and chief elected official(s) to develop a coordinated response to the dislocation event and, as needed, obtain access to State economic development assistance. Such coordinated response may include the development of an application for National Emergency Grant under 20 CFR part 671. (WIA secs. 101(38) and 134(a)(2)(A).)
Yes, a State or designated entity may provide rapid response activities in addition to the activities required to be provided under § 665.310. In order to provide effective rapid response upon notification of a permanent closure or mass layoff, or a natural or other disaster resulting in a mass job dislocation, the State or designated entity may:
(a) In conjunction, with other appropriate Federal, State and Local agencies and officials, employer associations, technical councils or other industry business councils, and labor organizations:
(1) Develop prospective strategies for addressing dislocation events, that ensure rapid access to the broad range of allowable assistance;
(2) Identify strategies for the aversion of layoffs; and
(3) Develop and maintain mechanisms for the regular exchange of information relating to potential dislocations, available adjustment assistance, and the effectiveness of rapid response strategies.
(b) In collaboration with the appropriate State agency(ies), collect and analyze information related to economic dislocations, including potential closings and layoffs, and all available resources in the State for dislocated workers in order to provide an adequate basis for effective program management, review and evaluation of rapid response and layoff aversion efforts in the State.
(c) Participate in capacity building activities, including providing information about innovative and successful strategies for serving dislocated workers, with local areas serving smaller layoffs.
(d) Assist in devising and overseeing strategies for:
(1) Layoff aversion, such as prefeasibility studies of avoiding a plant closure through an option for a company or group, including the workers, to purchase the plant or company and continue it in operation;
(2) Incumbent worker training, including employer loan programs for employee skill upgrading; and
(3) Linkages with economic development activities at the Federal, State and local levels, including Federal Department of Commerce programs and available State and local business retention and recruitment activities.
The Governor must ensure that rapid response activities under WIA are made available to workers who, under the NAFTA Implementation Act (Public Law 103-182), are members of a group of workers (including those in any agricultural firm or subdivision of an agricultural firm) for which the Governor has made a preliminary finding that:
(a) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and
(b) Either: (1) The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
(2) Imports from Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by such firm or subdivision have increased; or
(c) There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to Mexico or Canada of articles which are produced by the firm or subdivision.
Up to 25 percent of dislocated worker funds may be reserved for rapid response activities. Once the State has reserved adequate funds for rapid response activities, such as those described in § 665.310 and 665.320, the remainder of the funds may be used by the State to provide funds to local areas, that experience increased numbers of unemployed individuals due to natural disasters, plant closings, mass layoffs or other events, for provision of direct services to participants (such as intensive, training, and other services) if there are not adequate local funds available to assist the dislocated workers.
Sec. 506(c), Pub. L. 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c).
(a) All States submitting a State Plan under WIA title I, subtitle B must propose expected levels of performance for each of the core indicators of performance for the adult, dislocated worker and youth programs, respectively and the two customer satisfaction indicators.
(1) For the Adult program, these indicators are:
(i) Entry into unsubsidized employment;
(ii) Retention in unsubsidized employment six months after entry into the employment;
(iii) Earnings received in unsubsidized employment six months after entry into the employment; and
(iv) Attainment of a recognized credential related to achievement of educational skills (such as a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent), or occupational skills, by participants who enter unsubsidized employment.
(2) For the Dislocated Worker program, these indicators are:
(i) Entry into unsubsidized employment;
(ii) Retention in unsubsidized employment six months after entry into the employment;
(iii) Earnings received in unsubsidized employment six months after entry into the employment; and
(iv) Attainment of a recognized credential related to achievement of educational skills (such as a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent), or occupational skills, by participants who enter unsubsidized employment.
(3) For the Youth program, these indicators are:
(i) For eligible youth aged 14 through 18:
(A) Attainment of basic skills goals, and, as appropriate, work readiness or occupational skills goals, up to a maximum of three goals per year;
(B) Attainment of secondary school diplomas and their recognized equivalents; and
(C) Placement and retention in postsecondary education, advanced training, military service, employment, or qualified apprenticeships.
(ii) For eligible youth aged 19 through 21:
(A) Entry into unsubsidized employment;
(B) Retention in unsubsidized employment six months after entry into the employment;
(C) Earnings received in unsubsidized employment six months after entry into the employment; and
(D) Attainment of a recognized credential related to achievement of educational skills (such as a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent), or occupational skills, by participants who enter post-secondary education, advanced training, or unsubsidized employment.
(4) A single customer satisfaction measure for employers and a single customer satisfaction indicator for participants must be used for the WIA title I, subtitle B programs for adults, dislocated workers and youth. (WIA sec. 136(b)(2).)
(b) After consultation with the representatives identified in WIA sections 136(i) and 502(b), the Departments of Labor and Education will issue definitions for the performance indicators established under title I and title II of WIA. (WIA sec. 136 (b), (f) and (i).)
Yes, Governors may develop additional indicators of performance for adults, youth and dislocated worker activities. These indicators must be included in the State Plan. (WIA sec. 136(b)(2)(C).)
(a) We issue instructions on the specific information that must accompany the State Plan and that is used to review the State's expected levels of performance. The instructions may require that levels of performance for years two and three be expressed as a percentage improvement over the immediately preceding year's performance, consistent with the objective of continuous improvement.
(b) States must submit expected levels of performance for the required indicators for each of the first three program years covered by the Plan.
(c) The Secretary and the Governor must reach agreement on levels of performance for each core indicator and the customer satisfaction indicators. In negotiating these levels, the following must be taken into account:
(1) The expected levels of performance identified in the State Plan;
(2) The extent to which the levels of performance for each core indicator assist in achieving high customer satisfaction;
(3) The extent to which the levels of performance promote continuous improvement and ensure optimal return on the investment of Federal funds; and
(4) How the levels compare with those of other States, taking into account factors including differences in economic conditions, participant characteristics, and the proposed service mix and strategies.
(d) The levels of performance agreed to under paragraph (c) of this section will be the State's negotiated levels of performance for the first three years of the State Plan. These levels will be used to determine whether sanctions will be applied or incentive grant funds will be awarded.
(e) Before the fourth year of the State Plan, the Secretary and the Governor must reach agreement on levels of performance for each core indicator and the customer satisfaction indicators for the fourth and fifth years covered by the plan. In negotiating these levels, the factors listed in paragraph (c) of this section must be taken into account.
(f) The levels of performance agreed to under paragraph (e) of this section will be the State negotiated levels of performance for the fourth and fifth years of the plan and must be incorporated into the State Plan.
(g) Levels of performance for the additional indicators developed by the Governor, including additional indicators to demonstrate and measure continuous improvement toward goals identified by the State, are not part of the negotiations described in paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section. (WIA sec. 136(b)(3).)
(h) State negotiated levels of performance may be revised in accordance with § 666.130.
(a) The DOL guidelines describe when and under what circumstances a Governor may request revisions to negotiated levels. These circumstances include significant changes in economic conditions, in the characteristics of participants entering the program, or in the services to be provided from when the initial plan was submitted and approved. (WIA sec. 136(b)(3)(A)(vi).)
(b) The guidelines will establish the circumstances under which a State will be required to submit revisions under specified circumstances.
(a)(1) The core indicators of performance apply to all individuals who are registered under 20 CFR 663.105 and 664.215 for the adult, dislocated worker and youth programs, except for those adults and dislocated workers who participate exclusively in self-service or informational activities. (WIA sec. 136(b)(2)(A).)
(2) Self-service and informational activities are those core services that are made available and accessible to the general public, that are designed to inform and educate individuals about the labor market and their employment strengths, weaknesses, and the range of services appropriate to their situation, and that do not require significant staff involvement with the individual in terms of resources or time.
(b) For registered participants, a standardized record that includes appropriate performance information must be maintained in accordance with WIA section 185(a)(3).
(c) Performance will be measured on the basis of results achieved by registered participants, and will reflect services provided under WIA title I, subtitle B programs for adults, dislocated workers and youth. Performance may also take into account services provided to participants by other One-Stop partner programs and activities, to the extent that the local MOU provides for the sharing of participant information.
(a) States must, consistent with State laws, use quarterly wage record information in measuring the progress on State and local performance measures. In order to meet this requirement the use of social security numbers from registered participants and such other information as is necessary to measure the progress of those participants through quarterly wage record information is authorized.
(b) The State must include in the State Plan a description of the State's performance accountability system, and a description of the State's strategy for using quarterly wage record information to measure the progress on State and local performance measures. The description must identify the entities that may have access to quarterly wage record information for this purpose.
(c) “Quarterly wage record information” means information regarding wages paid to an individual, the social security account number (or numbers, if more than one) of the individual and the name, address, State, and (when known) the Federal employer identification number of the employer paying the wages to the individual. (WIA sec. 136(f)(2).)
A State is eligible to apply for an Incentive Grant if its performance for the immediately preceding year exceeds:
(a) The State's negotiated levels of performance for the required core indicators for the adult, dislocated worker and youth programs under title I of WIA as well as the customer satisfaction indicators for WIA title I programs;
(b) The adjusted levels of performance for title II Adult Education and Family Literacy programs; and
(c) The adjusted levels of performance under section 113 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2301
(a) State performance progress reports must be filed by the due date established in reporting instructions issued by the Department.
(b) Based upon the reports filed under paragraph (a) of this section, we will determine the amount of funds available, under WIA title I, to each eligible State for incentive grants, in accordance with the criteria of § 666.230. We will publish the award amounts for each eligible State, after consultation with the Secretary of Education, within ninety (90) days after the due date for performance progress reports established under paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Within forty-five (45) days of the publication of award amounts under paragraph (b) of this section, States may apply for incentive grants in accordance with the requirements of § 666.220.
Incentive grant funds are awarded to States to carry out any one or more innovative programs under titles I or II of WIA or the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, regardless of which Act is the source of the incentive funds. (WIA sec. 503(a).)
(a) After consultation with the Secretary of Education, we will issue instructions annually which will include the amount of funds available to be awarded for each State and provide instructions for submitting applications for an Incentive Grant.
(b) Each State desiring an incentive grant must submit to the Secretary an application, developed by the State Board, containing the following assurances:
(1) The State legislature was consulted regarding the development of the application.
(2) The application was approved by the Governor, the eligible agency (as defined in WIA section 203), and the State agency responsible for vocational and technical programs under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act.
(3) The State exceeded the State negotiated levels of performance for title I, the levels of performance under title II and the levels for vocational and technical programs under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. (WIA sec. 503(b).)
(a) We determine the total amount to be allocated from funds available under WIA section 174(b) for Incentive Grants taking into consideration such factors as:
(1) The availability of funds under section 174(b) for technical assistance, demonstration and pilot projects, evaluations, and Incentive Grants and the needs for these activities;
(2) The number of States that are eligible for Incentive Grants and their relative program formula allocations under title I;
(3) The availability of funds under WIA section 136(g)(2) resulting from funds withheld for poor performance by States; and
(4) The range of awards established in WIA section 503(c).
(b) We will publish the award amount for eligible States, after consultation with the Secretary of Education, within 90 days after the due date, established under § 666.205(a), for the latest State performance progress report providing the annual information needed to determine State eligibility.
(c) In determining the amount available to an eligible State, the Secretary, with the Secretary of Education, may consider such factors as:
(1) The relative allocations of the eligible State compared to other States;
(2) The extent to which the negotiated levels of performance were exceeded;
(3) Performance improvement relative to previous years;
(4) Changes in economic conditions, participant characteristics and proposed service design since the negotiated levels of performance were agreed to;
(5) The eligible State's relative performance for each of the indicators compared to other States; and
(6) The performance on those indicators considered most important in terms of accomplishing national goals established by each of the respective Secretaries.
(a) If a State fails to meet the negotiated levels of performance agreed to under § 666.120 for core indicators of performance or customer satisfaction indicators for the adult, dislocated worker or youth programs under title I of WIA, the Secretary must, upon request, provide technical assistance, as authorized under WIA sections 136(g) and 170.
(b) If a State fails to meet the negotiated levels of performance for core indicators of performance or customer satisfaction indicators for the same program in two successive years, the amount of the succeeding year's allocation for the applicable program may be reduced by up to five percent.
(c) The exact amount of any allocation reduction will be based upon the degree of failure to meet the negotiated levels of performance for core indicators. In making a determination of the amount, if any, of such a sanction, we may consider factors such as:
(1) The State's performance relative to other States;
(2) Improvement efforts underway;
(3) Incremental improvement on the performance measures;
(4) Technical assistance previously provided;
(5) Changes in economic conditions and program design;
(6) The characteristics of participants served compared to the participant characteristics described in the State Plan; and
(7) Performance on other core indicators of performance and customer satisfaction indicators for that program. (WIA sec. 136(g).)
(d) Only performance that is less than 80 percent of the negotiated levels will be deemed to be a failure to achieve negotiated levels of performance.
(e) In accordance with 20 CFR 667.300(e), a State grant may be reduced for failure to submit an annual performance progress report.
(f) A State may request review of a sanction we impose in accordance with the provisions of 20 CFR 667.800.
(a) Each local workforce investment area in a State is subject to the same core indicators of performance and the customer satisfaction indicators that apply to the State under § 666.100(a).
(b) In addition to the indicators described in paragraph (a) of this section, under § 666.110, the Governor may apply additional indicators of performance to local areas in the State. (WIA sec. 136(c)(1).)
(a) The Local Board and the chief elected official must negotiate with the Governor and reach agreement on the local levels of performance for each indicator identified under § 666.300. The levels must be based on the State negotiated levels of performance established under § 666.120 and take into account the factors described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) In determining the appropriate local levels of performance, the Governor, Local Board and chief elected official must take into account specific economic, demographic and other characteristics of the populations to be served in the local area.
(c) The performance levels agreed to under paragraph (a) of this section must be incorporated in the local plan. (WIA secs. 118(b)(3) and 136(c).)
(a) States must use a portion of the funds reserved for Statewide workforce investment activities under WIA sections 128(a) and 133(a)(1) to provide Incentive Grants to local areas for regional cooperation among local boards (including local boards for a designated region, as described in WIA section 116(c)), for local coordination of activities carried out under this Act, and for exemplary performance on the local performance measures established under subpart C of this part.
(b) The amount of funds used for Incentive Grants under paragraph (a) of this section and the criteria used for determining exemplary local performance levels to qualify for the incentive grants are determined by the Governor. (WIA sec. 134(a)(2)(B)(iii).)
The local incentive grant funds may be used for any activities allowed under WIA title I-B.
(a) If a local area fails to meet the levels of performance agreed to under § 666.310 for the core indicators of performance or customer satisfaction indicators for a program in any program year, technical assistance must be provided. The technical assistance must be provided by the Governor with funds reserved for Statewide workforce investment activities under WIA sections 128(a) and 133(a)(1), or, upon the Governor's request, by the Secretary. The technical assistance may include the development of a performance improvement plan, a modified local plan, or 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
(1) Requires the appointment and certification of a new Local Board;
(2) Prohibits the use of particular service providers or One-Stop partners that have been identified as achieving poor levels of performance; or
(3) Requires other appropriate measures designed to improve the performance of the local area.
(c) A local area may appeal to the Governor to rescind or revise a reorganization plan imposed under paragraph (b) of this section not later than thirty (30) days after receiving notice of the plan. The Governor must make a final decision within 30 days after receipt of the appeal. The Governor's final decision may be appealed by the Local Board to the Secretary under 20 CFR 667.650(b) not later than thirty (30) days after the local area receives the decision. The decision by the Governor to impose a reorganization plan becomes effective at the time it is issued, and remains effective unless the Secretary rescinds or revises the reorganization plan. Upon receipt of the appeal from the local area, the Secretary must make a final decision within thirty (30) days. (WIA sec. 136(h).)
Sec. 506(c), Pub. L. 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c).
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) Has performed satisfactorily; and
(ii) Submits a satisfactory two-year program plan for the succeeding two-year grant, contract or agreement period.
(2) A grant, contract or cooperative agreement may be renewed under the authority of paragraph (c)(1) of this section no more than once during any four-year period for any single recipient.
(d)
(i) Has performed satisfactorily; and
(ii) Submits a satisfactory two-year program plan for the succeeding two-year period.
(2) A grant or contract may be renewed under the authority of paragraph (d)(1) of this section no more than once during any four-year period for any single recipient.
(e)
(2) The Secretary may enter into interagency agreements with Federal agencies for funding, establishment, and operation of Civilian Conservation Centers for Job Corps programs.
(f)
(g)
(i) Demonstration;
(ii) Pilot;
(iii) Multi-service;
(iv) Research;
(v) Multi-State projects; and
(vi) Evaluations
(2) Grants and contracts under paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section will be awarded on a competitive basis, except that a noncompetitive award may be made in the case of a project that is funded jointly with other public or private entities that provide a portion of the funding.
(3) Contracts and grants under paragraphs (g)(1)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section in amounts that exceed $100,000 will be awarded on a competitive basis, except that a noncompetitive award may be made in the case of a project that is funded jointly with other public or private sector entities that provide a substantial portion of the assistance under the grant or contract for the project.
(4) Grants or contracts for carrying out projects in paragraphs (g)(1)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section may not be awarded to the same organization for more than three consecutive years, unless the project is competitively reevaluated within that period.
(5) Entities with nationally recognized expertise in the methods, techniques and knowledge of workforce investment activities will be provided priority in awarding contracts or grants for the projects under paragraphs (g)(1)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section.
(6) A peer review process will be used for projects under paragraphs (g)(1)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section for grants that exceed $500,000, and to designate exemplary and promising programs.
(h)
(a)
(b)
(2) Funds which are not expended by a local area in the two-year period described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, must be returned to the State. Funds so returned are available for expenditure by State and local recipients and subrecipients only during the third program year of availability. These funds may:
(i) Be used for Statewide projects, or
(ii) Be distributed to other local areas which had fully expended their allocation of funds for the same program year within the two-year period.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a) To establish a continuing relationship under the Act, the Governor and the Secretary will enter into a Governor/Secretary Agreement. The Agreement will consist of a statement assuring that the State will comply with:
(1) The Workforce Investment Act and all applicable rules and regulations, and
(2) The Wagner-Peyser Act and all applicable rules and regulations.
(b) The Governor/Secretary Agreement may be modified, revised or terminated at any time, upon the agreement of both parties.
Each State seeking financial assistance under WIA sections 127 (youth) or 132 (adults and dislocated workers) or under the Wagner-Peyser Act must submit a single State Plan. The requirements for the plan content and the plan review process are described in WIA section 112, Wagner-Peyser Act section 8, and 20 CFR 661.220, 661.240 and 652.211 through 652.214.
(a)
(1) State Boards must assist Governors in the development of any discretionary within-State allocation formulas. (WIA sec. 111(d)(5).)
(2) Within-State allocations must be made:
(i) In accordance with the allocation formulas contained in WIA sections 128(b) and 133(b) and in the State workforce investment plan, and
(ii) After consultation with chief elected officials in each of the workforce investment areas.
(b)
(2) The Governor must reserve a portion of the dislocated worker funds for Statewide rapid response activities, as described in WIA section 134(a)(2)(A) and 20 CFR 665.310 through 665.330. In making this reservation, the Governor may reserve up to twenty-five (25) percent of the dislocated worker funds.
(c)
(i) 33
(ii) 33
(iii) 33
(2)
(i) Incorporates additional factors (other than the factors described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) relating to:
(A) Excess youth poverty in urban, rural and suburban local areas; and
(B) Excess unemployment above the State average in urban, rural and suburban local areas; and
(ii) Was developed by the State Board and approved by the Secretary of Labor as part of the State workforce investment plan. (WIA sec. 128(b)(3).)
(d)
(i) 33
(ii) 33
(iii) 33
(2)
(i) Incorporates additional factors (other than the factors described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section) relating to:
(A) Excess poverty in urban, rural and suburban local areas; and
(B) Excess unemployment above the State average in urban, rural and suburban local areas; and
(ii) Was developed by the State Board and approved by the Secretary of Labor as part of the State workforce investment plan. (WIA sec. 133(b)(3).)
(e)
(2)(i) The Governor's dislocated worker formula must use the most appropriate information available to the Governor, including information on:
(A) Insured unemployment data,
(B) Unemployment concentrations,
(C) Plant closings and mass layoff data,
(D) Declining industries data,
(E) Farmer-rancher economic hardship data, and
(F) Long-term unemployment data.
(ii) The State Plan must describe the data used for the formula and the weights assigned, and explain the State's decision to use other information or to omit any of the information sources set forth in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section.
(3) The Governor may not amend the dislocated worker formula more than once for any program year.
(4)(i) Dislocated worker funds initially reserved by the Governor for Statewide rapid response activities in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section may be:
(A) Distributed to local areas, and
(B) Used to operate projects in local areas in accordance with the requirements of WIA section 134(a)(2)(A) and 20 CFR 665.310 through 665.330.
(ii) The State Plan must describe the procedures for any distribution to local areas, including the timing and process for determining whether a distribution will take place.
(a)(1) For the first two fiscal years after the date on which a local area is designated under section 116 of WIA, the State may elect to apply the “hold harmless” provisions specified in paragraph (b) of this section to local area allocations of WIA youth funds under § 667.130(c) and to allocations of WIA adult funds under § 667.130(d).
(2) Effective at the end of the second full fiscal year after the date on which a local area is designated under section 116 of WIA the State must apply the “hold harmless” specified in paragraph (b) of this section to local area allocations of WIA youth funds under § 667.130(c) and to allocations of WIA adult funds under § 667.130(d).
(3) There are no “hold harmless” provisions that apply to local area allocations of WIA dislocated worker funds.
(b)(1) If a State elects to apply a “hold-harmless” under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a local area must not receive an allocation amount for a fiscal year that is less than 90 percent of the average allocation of the local area for the two preceding fiscal years.
(2) In applying the “hold harmless” under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a local area must not receive an allocation amount for a fiscal year that is less than 90 percent of the average allocation of the local area for the two preceding fiscal years.
(3) Amounts necessary to increase allocations to local areas must be obtained by ratably reducing the allocations to be made to other local areas.
(4) If the amounts of WIA funds appropriated in a fiscal year are not sufficient to provide the amount specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to all local areas, the amounts allocated to each local area mustbe ratably reduced. (WIA secs. 128(b)(2)(A)(ii), 133(b)(2)(A)(ii), 506.)
(a) A Local Board may transfer up to 20 percent of a program year allocation for adult employment and training activities, and up to 20 percent of a program year allocation for dislocated worker employment and training activities between the two programs.
(b) Before making any such transfer, a Local Board must obtain the Governor's approval.
(c) Local Boards may not transfer funds to or from the youth program.
(a) The first reallotment of funds among States will occur during PY 2001 based on obligations in PY 2000.
(b) The Secretary determines, during the first quarter of the program year, whether a State has obligated its required level of at least 80 percent of the funds allotted under WIA sections 127 and 132 for programs serving youth, adults, and dislocated workers for the prior year, as separately determined for each of the three funding streams. Unobligated balances are determined based on allotments adjusted for any allowable transfer between the adult and dislocated worker funding streams. The amount to be recaptured from each State for reallotment, if any, is based on State obligations of the funds allotted to each State under WIA sections 127 and 132 for programs serving youth, adults, or dislocated workers, less any amount reserved (up to 5 percent at the State level and up to 10 percent at the local level) for the costs of administration. This amount, if any, is separately determined for each funding stream.
(c) The Secretary reallots youth, adult and dislocated worker funds among eligible States in accordance with the provisions of WIA sections 127(c) and 132(c), respectively. To be eligible to receive a reallotment of youth, adult, or dislocated worker funds under the reallotment procedures, a State must have obligated at least 80 percent of the prior program year's allotment, less any amount reserved for the costs of administration of youth, adult, or dislocated worker funds. A State's eligibility to receive a reallotment is separately determined for each funding stream.
(d) The term “obligation” is defined at 20 CFR 660.300. For purposes of this section, the Secretary will also treat as State obligations:
(1) Amounts allocated by the State, under WIA sections 128(b) and 133(b), to the single State local area if the State has been designated as a single local area under WIA section 116(b) or to a balance of State local area administered by a unit of the State government, and
(2) Inter-agency transfers and other actions treated by the State as encumbrances against amounts reserved by the State under WIA sections 128(a) and 133(a) for Statewide workforce investment activities.
(a) The Governor may reallocate youth, adult, and dislocated worker funds among local areas within the State in accordance with the provisions of sections 128(c) and 133(c) of the Act. If the Governor chooses to reallocate funds, the provisions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section apply.
(b) For the youth, adult and dislocated worker programs, the amount to be recaptured from each local area for purposes of reallocation, if any, must be based on the amount by which the prior year's unobligated balance of allocated funds exceeds 20 percent of that year's allocation for the program, less any amount reserved (up to 10 percent) for the costs of administration. Unobligated balances must be determined based on allocations adjusted for any allowable transfer between funding streams. This amount, if any, must be separately determined for each funding stream.
(c) To be eligible to receive youth, adult or dislocated worker funds under the reallocation procedures, a local area must have obligated at least 80 percent of the prior program year's allocation, less any amount reserved (up to 10 percent) for the costs of administration, for youth, adult, or dislocated worker activities, as separately determined. A local area's eligibility to receive a reallocation must be separately determined for each funding stream.
(a) Before final selection as a potential grantee, we conduct a review of the
(1) The organization's efforts to recover debts (for which three demand letters have been sent) established by final agency action have been unsuccessful, or that there has been failure to comply with an approved repayment plan;
(2) Established fraud or criminal activity of a significant nature within the organization.
(3) Serious administrative deficiencies that we identify, such as failure to maintain a financial management system as required by Federal regulations;
(4) Willful obstruction of the audit process;
(5) Failure to provide services to applicants as agreed to in a current or recent grant or to meet applicable performance standards;
(6) Failure to correct deficiencies brought to the grantee's attention in writing as a result of monitoring activities, reviews, assessments, or other activities;
(7) Failure to return a grant closeout package or outstanding advances within 90 days of the grant expiration date or receipt of closeout package, whichever is later, unless an extension has been requested and granted; final billings reflecting serious cost category or total budget cost overrun;
(8) Failure to submit required reports;
(9) Failure to properly report and dispose of government property as instructed by DOL;
(10) Failure to have maintained effective cash management or cost controls resulting in excess cash on hand;
(11) Failure to ensure that a subrecipient complies with its OMB Circular A-133 audit requirements specified at § 667.200(b);
(12) Failure to audit a subrecipient within the required period;
(13) Final disallowed costs in excess of five percent of the grant or contract award if, in the judgement of the grant officer, the disallowances are egregious findings and;
(14) Failure to establish a mechanism to resolve a subrecipient's audit in a timely fashion.
(b) This responsibility review is independent of the competitive process. Applicants which are determined to be not responsible will not be selected as potential grantees irrespective of their standing in the competition.
(a)
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) through (7) of this section, institutions of higher education, hospitals, other non-profit organizations, and commercial organizations must the follow the common rule implementing OMB Circular A-110 which is codified at 29 CFR part 95.
(3) In addition to the requirements at 29 CFR 95.48 or 29 CFR 97.36(i) (as appropriate), all procurement contracts and other transactions between Local Boards and units of State or local governments must be conducted only on a cost reimbursement basis. No provision for profit is allowed. (WIA sec. 184(a)(3)(B).)
(4) In addition to the requirements at 29 CFR 95.42 or 29 CFR 97.36(b)(3) (as appropriate), which address codes of conduct and conflict of interest issues related to employees:
(i) A State Board member or a Local Board member or a Youth Council member must neither cast a vote on, nor participate in any decision-making capacity, on the provision of services by such member (or any organization which that member directly represents), nor on any matter which would provide any direct financial benefit to that member or a member of his immediate family.
(ii) Neither membership on the State Board, the Local Board, the Youth Council nor the receipt of WIA funds to provide training and related services, by itself, violates these conflict of interest provisions.
(5) The addition method, described at 29 CFR 95.24 or 29 CFR 97.25(g)(2) (as appropriate), must be used for the all program income earned under WIA title I grants. When the cost of generating program income has been charged to the program, the gross amount earned must be added to the WIA program. However, the cost of generating program income must be subtracted from the amount earned to establish the net amount of program income available for use under the grants when these costs have not been charged to the WIA program.
(6) Any excess of revenue over costs incurred for services provided by a governmental or non-profit entity must be included in program income. (WIA sec. 195(7)(A) and (B).)
(7) Interest income earned on funds received under WIA title I must be included in program income. (WIA sec. 195(7)(B)(iii).)
(8) On a fee-for-service basis, employers may use local area services, facilities, or equipment funded under title I of WIA to provide employment and training activities to incumbent workers:
(i) When the services, facilities, or equipment are not being used by eligible participants;
(ii) If their use does not affect the ability of eligible participants to use the services, facilities, or equipment; and
(iii) If the income generated from such fees is used to carry out programs authorized under this title.
(b)
(2)(i) We are responsible for audits of commercial organizations which are direct recipients of Federal financial assistance under WIA title I.
(ii) Commercial organizations which are subrecipients under WIA title I and which expend more than the minimum level specified in OMB Circular A-133 ($300,000 as of August 11, 2000) must have either an organization-wide audit conducted in accordance with A-133 or a program specific financial and compliance audit.
(c)
(1) Allowable costs for State, local, and Indian tribal government organizations must be determined under OMB Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments.”
(2) Allowable costs for non-profit organizations must be determined under OMB Circular A-122, “Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations.”
(3) Allowable costs for institutions of higher education must be determined under OMB Circular A-21, “Cost Principles for Educational Institutions.”
(4) Allowable costs for hospitals must be determined in accordance under appendix E of 45 CFR part 74, “Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Research and Development Under Grants and Contracts with Hospitals.”
(5) Allowable costs for commercial organizations and those non-profit organizations listed in Attachment C to OMB Circular A-122 must be determined under the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), at 48 CFR part 31.
(6) For all types of entities, legal expenses for the prosecution of claims against the Federal Government, including appeals to an Administrative Law Judge, are unallowable.
(7) In addition to the allowable cost provisions identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section, the cost of information technology—computer hardware and software—will only be allowable under WIA title I grants when such computer technology is “Year 2000 compliant.” To meet this requirement, information technology must be able to accurately process date/time (including, but not limited to, calculating, comparing and sequencing) from, into and between the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and the years 1999 and 2000. The information technology must also be able to make leap year calculations. Furthermore, “Year 2000 compliant” information technology, when used in combination with other information technology, must accurately process date/time data if the other information technology properly exchanges date/time with it.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(2) To the extent that an applicable State or local legal requirement regarding nepotism is more restrictive than this provision, such State or local requirement must be followed.
(a) Formula grants to States:
(1) As part of the 15 percent that a State may reserve for Statewide activities, the State may spend up to five percent (5%) of the amount allotted under sections 127(b)(1), 132(b)(1) and 132(b)(2) of the Act for the administrative costs of Statewide workforce investment activities.
(2) Local area expenditures for administrative purposes under WIA formula grants are limited to no more than ten percent (10%) of the amount allocated to the local area under sections 128(b) and 133(b) of the Act.
(3) Neither the five percent (5%) of the amount allotted that may be reserved for Statewide administrative costs nor the ten percent (10%) of the amount allotted that may be reserved for local administrative costs needs to be allocated back to the individual funding streams.
(b) Limits on administrative costs for programs operated under subtitle D of title I will be identified in the grant or contract award document.
(c) In a One-Stop environment, administrative costs borne by other sources of funds, such as the Wagner-Peyser Act, are not included in the administrative cost limit calculation. Each program's administrative activities area chargeable to its own grant and subject to its own administrative cost limitations.
(a) The costs of administration are that allocable portion of necessary and reasonable allowable costs of State and local workforce investment boards, direct recipients, including State grant recipients under subtitle B of title I and recipients of awards under subtitle D of title I, as well as local grant recipients, local grant subrecipients, local fiscal agents and one-stop operators that are associated with those specific functions identified in paragraph (b) of this section and which are not related to the direct provision of workforce investment services, including services to participants and employers. These costs can be both personnel and non-personnel and both direct and indirect.
(b) The costs of administration are the costs associated with performing the following functions:
(1) Performing the following overall general administrative functions and coordination of those functions under WIA title I:
(i) Accounting, budgeting, financial and cash management functions;
(ii) Procurement and purchasing functions;
(iii) Property management functions;
(iv) Personnel management functions;
(v) Payroll functions;
(vi) Coordinating the resolution of findings arising from audits, reviews, investigations and incident reports;
(vii) Audit functions;
(viii) General legal services functions; and
(ix) Developing systems and procedures, including information systems, required for these administrative functions;
(2) Performing oversight and monitoring responsibilities related to WIA administrative functions;
(3) Costs of goods and services required for administrative functions of the program, including goods and services such as rental or purchase of equipment, utilities, office supplies, postage, and rental and maintenance of office space;
(4) Travel costs incurred for official business in carrying out administrative activities or the overall management of the WIA system; and
(5) Costs of information systems related to administrative functions (for example, personnel, procurement, purchasing, property management, accounting and payroll systems) including the purchase, systems
(c)(1) Awards to subrecipients or vendors that are solely for the performance of administrative functions are classified as administrative costs.
(2) Personnel and related non-personnel costs of staff who perform both administrative functions specified in paragraph (b) of this section and programmatic services or activities must be allocated as administrative or program costs to the benefitting cost objectives/categories based on documented distributions of actual time worked or other equitable cost allocation methods.
(3) Specific costs charged to an overhead or indirect cost pool that can be identified directly as a program cost are to be charged as a program cost. Documentation of such charges must be maintained.
(4) Except as provided at paragraph (c)(1), all costs incurred for functions and activities of subrecipients and vendors are program costs.
(5) Costs of the following information systems including the purchase, systems development and operating (e.g., data entry) costs are charged to the program category:
(i) Tracking or monitoring of participant and performance information;
(ii) Employment statistics information, including job listing information, job skills information, and demand occupation information;
(iii) Performance and program cost information on eligible providers of training services, youth activities, and appropriate education activities;
(iv) Local area performance information; and
(v) Information relating to supportive services and unemployment insurance claims for program participants;
(6) Continuous improvement activities are charged to administration or program category based on the purpose or nature of the activity to be improved. Documentation of such charges must be maintained.
The requirements relating to the enforcement of the Military Selective Service Act are found at WIA section 189(h).
Yes, under 38 U.S.C. 4213, when past income is an eligibility determinant for Federal employment or training programs, any amounts received as military pay or allowances by any person who served on active duty, and certain other specified benefits must be disregarded. This applies when determining if a person is a “low-income individual” for eligibility purposes, (for example, in the WIA youth, Job Corps, or NFJP programs) and applies if income is used as a factor in applying the priority provision, under 20 CFR 663.600, when WIA adult funds are limited. Questions regarding the application of 38 U.S.C. 4213 should be directed to the Veterans Employment and Training Service.
WIA title I funds must not be spent on construction or purchase of facilities or buildings except:
(a) To meet a recipient's, as the term is defined in 29 CFR 37.4, obligation to provide physical and programmatic accessibility and reasonable accommodation, as required by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended;
(b) To fund repairs, renovations, alterations and capital improvements of property, including:
(1) SESA real property, identified at WIA section 193, using a formula that assesses costs proportionate to space utilized;
(2) JTPA owned property which is transferred to WIA title I programs;
(c) Job Corps facilities, as authorized by WIA section 160(3)(B); and
(d) To fund disaster relief employment on projects for demolition, cleaning, repair, renovation, and reconstruction of damaged and destroyed structures, facilities, and lands located within a disaster area. (WIA sec. 173(d).)
(a) Under WIA section 181(e), WIA title I funds may not be spent on employment generating activities, economic development, and other similar activities, unless they are directly related to training for eligible individuals. For purposes of this section, employer outreach and job development activities are directly related to training for eligible individuals.
(b) These employer outreach and job development activities include:
(1) Contacts with potential employers for the purpose of placement of WIA participants;
(2) Participation in business associations (such as chambers of commerce); joint labor management committees, labor associations, and resource centers;
(3) WIA staff participation on economic development boards and commissions, and work with economic development agencies, to:
(i) Provide information about WIA programs,
(ii) Assist in making informed decisions about community job training needs, and
(iii) Promote the use of first source hiring agreements and enterprise zone vouchering services,
(4) Active participation in local business resource centers (incubators) to provide technical assistance to small and new business to reduce the rate of business failure;
(5) Subscriptions to relevant publications;
(6) General dissemination of information on WIA programs and activities;
(7) The conduct of labor market surveys;
(8) The development of on-the-job training opportunities; and
(9) Other allowable WIA activities in the private sector. (WIA sec. 181(e).)
(a) WIA title I funds must not be spent on:
(1) The wages of incumbent employees during their participation in economic development activities provided through a Statewide workforce investment system, (WIA sec. 181(b)(1).);
(2) Public service employment, except to provide disaster relief employment, as specifically authorized in section 173(d) of WIA, (WIA sec. 195(10));
(3) Expenses prohibited under any other Federal, State or local law or regulation.
(b) WIA formula funds available to States and local areas under subtitle B, title I of WIA must not be used for foreign travel. (WIA sec. 181(e).)
(a) Limitations related to sectarian activities are set forth at WIA section 188(a)(3) and 29 CFR 37.6(f).
(b) Under these limitations:
(1) WIA title I financial assistance may not be spent on the employment or training of participants in sectarian activities. This limitation is more fully described at 29 CFR 37.6(f)(1).
(2) Under 29 CFR 37.6(f)(1), participants must not be employed under title I of WIA to carry out the construction, operation, or maintenance
(a) WIA funds may not be used or proposed to be used for:
(1) The encouragement or inducement of a business, or part of a business, to relocate from any location in the United States, if the relocation results in any employee losing his or her job at the original location;
(2) Customized training, skill training, or on-the-job training or company specific assessments of job applicants or employees of a business or a part of a business that has relocated from any location in the United States, until the company has operated at that location for 120 days, if the relocation has resulted in any employee losing his or her jobs at the original location.
(b)
(1) The review must include names under which the establishment does business, including predecessors and successors in interest; the name, title, and address of the company official certifying the information, and whether WIA assistance is sought in connection with past or impending job losses at other facilities, including a review of whether WARN notices relating to the employer have been filed.
(2) The review may include consultations with labor organizations and others in the affected local area(s). (WIA sec. 181(d).)
(a) We will promptly review and take appropriate action on alleged violations of the provisions relating to:
(1) Employment generating activities (§ 667.262);
(2) Other prohibited activities (§ 667.264);
(3) The limitation related to sectarian activities (§ 667.266);
(4) The use of WIA title I funds to encourage business relocation (§ 667.268).
(b) Procedures for the investigation and resolution of the violations are provided for under the Grant Officer's resolution process at § 667.510. Sanctions and remedies are provided for under WIA section 184(c) for violations of the provisions relating to:
(1) Construction (§ 667.260);
(2) Employment generating activities (§ 667.262);
(3) Other prohibited activities (§ 667.264); and
(4) The limitation related to sectarian activities (§ 667.266(b)(1)).
(c) Sanctions and remedies are provided for in WIA section 181(d)(3) for violations of § 667.268, which addresses business relocation.
(d) Violations of § 667.266(b)(2) will be handled in accordance with the DOL nondiscrimination regulations implementing WIA section 188, codified at 29 CFR part 37.
(a) A participant in a program or activity authorized under title I of WIA must not displace (including a partial displacement, such as a reduction in the hours of non-overtime work, wages, or employment benefits) any currently employed employee (as of the date of the participation).
(b) A program or activity authorized under title I of WIA must not impair existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements. When a program or activity authorized under title I of WIA would be inconsistent with a collective bargaining agreement, the appropriate labor organization and employer must provide written concurrence before the program or activity begins.
(c) A participant in a program or activity under title I of WIA may not be employed in or assigned to a job if:
(1) Any other individual is on layoff from the same or any substantially equivalent job;
(2) The employer has terminated the employment of any regular, unsubsidized employee or otherwise caused an involuntary reduction in its workforce with the intention of filling the vacancy so created with the WIA participant; or
(3) The job is created in a promotional line that infringes in any way on the promotional opportunities of currently employed workers.
(d) Regular employees and program participants alleging displacement may file a complaint under the applicable grievance procedures found at § 667.600. (WIA sec. 181.)
(a) Individuals in on-the-job training or individuals employed in activities under title I of WIA must be compensated at the same rates, including periodic increases, as trainees or employees who are similarly situated in similar occupations by the same employer and who have similar training, experience and skills. Such rates must be in accordance with applicable law, but may not be less than the higher of the rate specified in section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) or the applicable State or local minimum wage law.
(b) Individuals in on-the-job training or individuals employed in programs and activities under Title I of WIA must be provided benefits and working conditions at the same level and to the same extent as other trainees or employees working a similar length of time and doing the same type of work.
(c) Allowances, earnings, and payments to individuals participating in programs under Title I of WIA are not considered as income for purposes of determining eligibility for and the amount of income transfer and in-kind aid furnished under any Federal or Federally assisted program based on need other than as provided under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301
(a) Health and safety standards established under Federal and State law otherwise applicable to working conditions of employees are equally applicable to working conditions of participants engaged in programs and activities under Title I of WIA.
(b)(1) To the extent that a State workers' compensation law applies, workers' compensation must be provided to participants in programs and activities under Title I of WIA on the same basis as the compensation is provided to other individuals in the State in similar employment.
(2) If a State workers' compensation law applies to a participant in work experience, workers' compensation benefits must be available for injuries suffered by the participant in such work experience. If a State workers'
(a)(1) Recipients, as defined in 29 CFR 37.4, must comply with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA section 188 and its implementing regulations, codified at 29 CFR part 37. Under that definition, the term “recipients” includes State and Local Workforce Investment Boards, One-Stop operators, service providers, vendors, and subrecipients, as well as other types of individuals and entitites.
(2) Nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements and procedures, including complaint processing and compliance reviews, are governed by the regulations implementing WIA section 188, codified at 29 CFR part 37, and are administered and enforced by the DOL Civil Rights Center.
(3) As described in § 667.260(a), financial assistance provided under WIA title I may be used to meet a recipient's obligation to provide physical and programmatic accessibility and reasonable accommodation/modification in regard to the WIA program, as required by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, section 188 of WIA, and the regulations implementing these statutory provisions.
(b) Under 29 CFR 37.6(f), the employment or training of participants in sectarian activities is prohibited, except with respect to the maintenance of a facility that is not primarily or inherently devoted to sectarian instruction or religious worship, in a case in which the organization operating the facility is part of a program or activity providing services to participants.
(a)
(b)
(2) If a State intends to impose different reporting requirements, it must describe those reporting requirements in its State WIA plan.
(c)
(2) Reports must include any income or profits earned, including such income or profits earned by subrecipients, and any costs incurred (such as stand-in costs) that are otherwise allowable except for funding limitations. (WIA sec. 185(f)(2))
(3) Reported expenditures and program income, including any profits earned, must be on the accrual basis of accounting and cumulative by fiscal year of appropriation. If the recipient's accounting records are not normally kept on the accrual basis of accounting, the recipient must develop accrual information through an analysis of the documentation on hand.
(d)
(e)
(1) A State failing to submit any of these annual performance progress reports within 45 days of the due date may have its grant (for that program or all title I, subpart B programs) for the succeeding year reduced by as much as five percent, as provided by WIA section 136(g)(1)(B).
(2) States submitting annual performance progress reports that cannot be validated or verified as accurately counting and reporting activities in accordance with the reporting instructions, may be treated as failing to submit annual reports, and be subject to sanction. Sanctions related to State performance or failure to submit these reports timely cannot result in a total grant reduction of more than five percent. Any sanction would be in addition to having to repay the amount of any incentive funds granted based on the invalid report.
(a) The Secretary is authorized to monitor all recipients and subrecipients of all grants awarded and funds expended under WIA title I to determine compliance with the Act and the WIA regulations, and may investigate any matter deemed necessary to determine such compliance. Federal oversight will be conducted primarily at the recipient level.
(b) In each fiscal year, we will also conduct in-depth reviews in several States, including financial and performance audits, to assure that funds are spent in accordance with the Act. Priority for such in-depth reviews will be given to States not meeting annual adjusted levels of performance.
(c)(1) Each recipient and subrecipient must continuously monitor grant-supported activities in accordance with the uniform administrative requirements at 29 CFR parts 95 and 97, as applicable, including the applicable cost principles indicated at 29 CFR 97.22(b) or 29 CFR 95.27, for all entities receiving WIA title I funds. For governmental units, the applicable requirements are at 29 CFR part 97. For non-profit organizations, the applicable requirements are at 29 CFR part 95.
(2) In the case of grants under WIA sections 127 and 132, the Governor must develop a State monitoring system that meets the requirements of § 667.410(b). The Governor must monitor Local Boards annually for compliance with applicable laws and regulations in accordance with the State monitoring system. Monitoring must include an annual review of each local area's compliance with the uniform administrative requirements.
(a)
(1) Determine that expenditures have been made against the cost categories and within the cost limitations specified in the Act and the regulations in this part;
(2) Determine whether or not there is compliance with other provisions of the Act and the WIA regulations and other applicable laws and regulations; and
(3) Provide technical assistance as necessary and appropriate.
(b)
(1) The Governor is responsible for the development of the State monitoring system. The Governor must be able to demonstrate, through a monitoring plan or otherwise, that the State monitoring system meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) The State monitoring system must:
(i) Provide for annual on-site monitoring reviews of local areas' compliance with DOL uniform administrative requirements, as required by WIA section 184(a)(4);
(ii) Ensure that established policies to achieve program quality and outcomes meet the objectives of the Act and the WIA regulations, including policies relating to: the provision of services by One-Stop Centers; eligible providers of training services; and eligible providers of youth activities;
(iii) Enable the Governor to determine if subrecipients and contractors have demonstrated substantial compliance with WIA requirements; and
(iv) Enable the Governor to determine whether a local plan will be disapproved for failure to make acceptable progress in addressing deficiencies, as required in WIA section 118(d)(1).
(v) Enable the Governor to ensure compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements of WIA section 188 and 29 CFR part 37. Requirements for these aspects of the monitoring system are set forth in 29 CFR 37.54(d)(2)(ii).
(3) The State must conduct an annual on-site monitoring review of each local area's compliance with DOL uniform administrative requirements, including the appropriate administrative requirements for subrecipients and the applicable cost principles indicated at § 667.200 for all entities receiving WIA title I funds.
(4) The Governor must require that prompt corrective action be taken if any substantial violation of standards identified in paragraphs (b) (2) or (3) of this section is found. (WIA sec. 184(a)(5).)
(5) The Governor must impose the sanctions provided in WIA section 184 (b) and (c) in the event of a subrecipient's failure to take required corrective action required under paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(6) The Governor may issue additional requirements and instructions to subrecipients on monitoring activities.
(7) The Governor must certify to the Secretary every two years that:
(i) The State has implemented uniform administrative requirements;
(ii) The State has monitored local areas to ensure compliance with uniform administrative requirements; and
(iii) The State has taken appropriate corrective action to secure such compliance. (WIA sec. 184(a)(6)(A), (B), and (C).)
(a)
(2) A State must utilize the audit resolution, debt collection and appeal procedures that it uses for other Federal grant programs.
(3) If a State does not have such procedures, it must prescribe standards and procedures to be used for this grant program.
(b)
(2) The Secretary uses the DOL audit resolution process, consistent with the Single Audit Act of 1996 and OMB Circular A-133, and Grant Officer Resolution provisions of § 667.510, as appropriate.
(3) A final determination issued by a Grant Officer under this process may be appealed to the DOL Office of Administrative Law Judges under the procedures at § 667.800.
(c)
(a) As a result of an investigation, on-site visit or other monitoring, we notify the recipient of the findings of the investigation and gives the recipient a period of time (not more than 60 days) to comment and to take appropriate corrective actions.
(b) The Grant Officer reviews the complete file of the investigation or monitoring report and the recipient's actions under paragraph (a) of this section. The Grant Officer's review takes into account the sanction provisions of WIA section 184(b) and (c). If the Grant Officer agrees with the recipient's handling of the situation, the Grant Officer so notifies the recipient. This notification constitutes final agency action.
(c) If the Grant Officer disagrees with the recipient's handling of the matter, the Grant Officer proceeds under § 667.510.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) A final determination under this paragraph (d) must:
(i) Indicate whether efforts to informally resolve matters contained in the initial determination have been unsuccessful;
(ii) List those matters upon which the parties continue to disagree;
(iii) List any modifications to the factual findings and conclusions set forth in the initial determination and the rationale for such modifications;
(iv) Establish a debt, if appropriate;
(v) Require corrective action, when needed;
(vi) Determine liability, method of restitution of funds and sanctions; and
(vii) Offer an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with § 667.800 of this part.
(3) Unless a hearing is requested, a final determination under this paragraph (d) is final agency action and is not subject to further review.
(e) Nothing in this subpart precludes the Grant Officer from issuing an initial determination and/or final determination directly to a subrecipient, in accordance with section 184(d)(3) of the Act. In such a case, the Grant Officer will inform the recipient of this action.
(a) Each local area, State and direct recipient of funds under title I of WIA, except for Job Corps, must establish and maintain a procedure for grievances and complaints according to the requirements of this section. The grievance procedure requirements applicable to Job Corps are set forth at 20 CFR 670.990.
(b) Each local area, State, and direct recipient must:
(1) Provide information about the content of the grievance and complaint procedures required by this section to participants and other interested parties affected by the local Workforce Investment System, including One-Stop partners and service providers;
(2) Require that every entity to which it awards Title I funds must provide the information referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to participants receiving Title I-funded services from such entities; and
(3) Must make reasonable efforts to assure that the information referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section will be understood by affected participants and other individuals, including youth and those who are limited-English speaking individuals. Such efforts must comply with the language requirements of 29 CFR 37.35 regarding the provision of services and information in languages other than English.
(c) Local area procedures must provide:
(1) A process for dealing with grievances and complaints from participants and other interested parties affected by the local Workforce Investment System, including One-Stop partners and service providers;
(2) An opportunity for an informal resolution and a hearing to be completed within 60 days of the filing of the grievance or complaint;
(3) A process which allows an individual alleging a labor standards violation to submit the grievance to a binding arbitration procedure, if a collective bargaining agreement covering the parties to the grievance so provides; and
(4) An opportunity for a local level appeal to a State entity when:
(i) No decision is reached within 60 days; or
(ii) Either party is dissatisfied with the local hearing decision.
(d) State procedures must provide:
(1) A process for dealing with grievances and complaints from participants and other interested parties affected by the Statewide Workforce Investment programs;
(2) A process for resolving appeals made under paragraph (c)(4) of this section;
(3) A process for remanding grievances and complaints related to the local Workforce Investment Act programs to the local area grievance process; and
(4) An opportunity for an informal resolution and a hearing to be completed within 60 days of the filing of the grievance or complaint.
(e) Procedures of direct recipients must provide:
(1) A process for dealing with grievance and complaints from participants and other interested parties affected by the recipient's Workforce Investment Act programs; and
(2) An opportunity for an informal resolution and a hearing to be completed within 60 days of the filing of the grievance or complaint.
(f) The remedies that may be imposed under local, State and direct recipient grievance procedures are enumerated at WIA section 181(c)(3).
(g)(1) The provisions of this section on grievance procedures do not apply to discrimination complaints brought under WIA section 188 and/or 29 CFR part 37. Such complaints must be handled in accordance with the procedures set forth in that regulatory part.
(2) Questions about or complaints alleging a violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of WIA section 188 may be directed or mailed to the Director, Civil Rights Center, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N4123, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20210, for processing.
(h) Nothing in this subpart precludes a grievant or complainant from pursuing a remedy authorized under another Federal, State or local law.
(a) We investigate allegations arising through the grievance procedures described in § 667.600 when:
(1) A decision on a grievance or complaint under § 667.600(d) has not been reached within 60 days of receipt of the grievance or complaint or within 60 days of receipt of the request for appeal of a local level grievance and either party appeals to the Secretary; or
(2) A decision on a grievance or complaint under § 667.600(d) has been reached and the party to which such decision is adverse appeals to the Secretary.
(b) We must make a final decision on an appeal under paragraph (a) of this section no later than 120 days after receiving the appeal.
(c) Appeals made under paragraph (a)(2) of this section must be filed within 60 days of the receipt of the decision being appealed. Appeals made under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be filed within 120 days of the filing of the grievance with the State, or the filing of the appeal of a local grievance with the State. All appeals must be submitted by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, Attention: ASET. A copy of the appeal must be simultaneously provided to the appropriate ETA Regional Administrator and the opposing party.
(d) Except for complaints arising under WIA section 184(f) or section 188, grievances or complaints made directly to the Secretary will be referred to the appropriate State or local area for resolution in accordance with this section, unless we notify the parties that the Department of Labor will investigate the grievance under the procedures at § 667.505. Discrimination complaints brought under WIA section 188 or 29 CFR part 37 will be referred to the Director of the Civil Rights Center.
Information and complaints involving criminal fraud, waste, abuse or other criminal activity must be reported immediately through the Department's Incident Reporting System to the DOL Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations, Room S5514, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20210, or to the corresponding Regional Inspector General for Investigations, with a copy simultaneously provided to the Employment and Training Administration. The Hotline number is 1-800-347-3756. Complaints of a non-criminal nature are handled under the procedures set forth in § 667.505 or through the Department's Incident Reporting System.
(a)
(2) These procedures must provide an opportunity for a hearing and prescribe appropriate time limits to ensure prompt resolution of the appeal.
(3) If the appeal to the State Board does not result in designation, the appellant may request review by the Secretary under § 667.645.
(4) If the Secretary determines that the appellant was not accorded procedural rights under the appeal process established in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or that the area meets the requirements for designation at WIA section 116(a)(2) or 116(a)(3), the Secretary may require that the area be designated as a workforce investment area.
(b)
(i) Denial of eligibility by a Local Board or the designated State agency under WIA section 122 (b), (c) or (e);
(ii) Termination of eligibility or other action by a Local Board or State agency under WIA section 122(f); or
(iii) Denial of eligibility as a provider of on-the-job training (OJT) or customized training by a One-Stop operator under WIA section 122(h).
(2) Such procedures must provide an opportunity for a hearing and prescribe appropriate time limits to ensure prompt resolution of the appeal.
(3) A decision under this State appeal process may not be appealed to the Secretary.
(c)
(i) WIA participants subject to testing for use of controlled substances, imposed under a State policy established under WIA section 181(f); and
(ii) WIA participants who are sanctioned after testing positive for the use of controlled substances, under the policy described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) A decision under this State appeal process may not be appealed to the Secretary.
(a) A unit or combination of units of general local government or rural concentrated employment program grant recipient (as described in WIA section 116(a)(2)(B)) whose appeal of the denial of a request for automatic or temporary and subsequent designation as a local workforce investment area to the State Board has not resulted in designation may appeal the denial of local area designation to the Secretary.
(b) Appeals made under paragraph (a) of this section must be filed no later than 30 days after receipt of written notification of the denial from the State Board, and must be submitted by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, Attention: ASET. A copy of the appeal must be simultaneously provided to the State Board.
(c) The appellant must establish that it was not accorded procedural rights under the appeal process set forth in the State Plan, or establish that it meets the requirements for designation in WIA section 116(a)(2) or (a)(3). The Secretary may consider any comments submitted in response by the State Board.
(d) If the Secretary determines that the appellant has met its burden of establishing that it was not accorded procedural rights under the appeal process set forth in the State Plan, or that it meets the requirements for designation in WIA section 116(a)(2) or (a)(3), the Secretary may require that the area be designated as a local workforce investment area.
(e) The Secretary must issue a written decision to the Governor and the appellant.
(a) A local area which has been found in substantial violation of WIA title I, and has received notice from the Governor that either all or part of the local plan will be revoked or that a reorganization will occur, may appeal such sanctions to the Secretary under WIA section 184(b). The sanctions do not become effective until:
(1) The time for appeal has expired; or
(2) The Secretary has issued a decision.
(b) A local area which has failed to meet local performance measures for two consecutive years, and has received the Governor's notice of intent to impose a reorganization plan, may appeal such sanctions to the Secretary under WIA section 136(h)(1)(B).
(c) Appeals made under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must be filed no later than 30 days after receipt of written notification of the revoked plan or imposed reorganization, and must be submitted by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, Attention: ASET. A copy of the appeal must be simultaneously provided to the Governor.
(d) The Secretary may consider any comments submitted in response by the Governor.
(e) The Secretary will notify the Governor and the appellant in writing of the Secretary's decision under paragraph (a) of this section within 45 days after receipt of the appeal. The Secretary will notify the Governor and the appellant in writing of the Secretary's decision under paragraph (b) of this section within 30 days after receipt of the appeal.
(a)(1) Except for actions under WIA section 188(a) or 29 CFR part 37 (relating to nondiscrimination requirements), the Grant Officer uses the initial and final determination procedures outlined in § 667.510 to impose a sanction or corrective action.
(2) To impose a sanction or corrective action for a violation of WIA section 188(a) or 29 CFR part 37, the Department will use the procedures set forth in that regulatory part.
(b) To impose a sanction or corrective action for noncompliance with the uniform administrative requirements set forth at section 184(a)(3) of WIA, and § 667.200(a), when the Grant Officer determines that the Governor has not taken corrective action to remedy the violation as required by WIA section 184(a)(5), the Grant Officer, under the authority of WIA section 184(a)(7) and § 667.710(c), must require the Governor to impose any of the corrective actions set forth at WIA section 184(b)(1). If the Governor fails to impose the corrective actions required by the Grant Officer, the Secretary may immediately suspend or terminate financial assistance in accordance with WIA section 184(e).
(c) For substantial violations of WIA statutory and regulatory requirements, if the Governor fails to promptly take the actions specified in WIA section 184(b)(1), the Grant Officer may impose such actions directly against the local area.
(d) The Grant Officer may also impose a sanction directly against a subrecipient, as authorized in section 184(d)(3) of the Act. In such a case, the Grant Officer will inform the recipient of the action.
(a) The recipient is responsible for all funds under its grant(s).
(b) The political jurisdiction(s) of the chief elected official(s) in a local workforce investment area is liable for any misuse of the WIA grant funds allocated to the local area under WIA sections 128 and 133, unless the chief elected official(s) reaches an agreement with the Governor to bear such liability.
(c) When a local workforce area is composed of more than one unit of general local government, the liability of the individual jurisdictions must be specified in a written agreement between the chief elected officials.
(a) If, as part of the annual on-site monitoring of local areas, the Governor determines that a local area is not in compliance with the uniform administrative requirements found at 29 CFR part 95 or part 97, as appropriate, the Governor must:
(1) Require corrective action to secure prompt compliance; and
(2) Impose the sanctions provided for at section 184(b) if the Governor finds that the local area has failed to take timely corrective action.
(b) An action by the recipient to impose a sanction against a local area, in accordance with this section, may be appealed to the Secretary in accordance with § 667.650, and will not become effective until:
(1) The time for appeal has expired; or
(2) The Secretary has issued a decision.
(c)(1) If the Secretary finds that the Governor has failed to monitor and certify compliance of local areas with the administrative requirements, under WIA section 184(a), or that the Governor has failed to promptly take the actions required upon a determination under paragraph (a) of this section that a local area is not in compliance with the uniform administrative requirements, the Secretary will require the Governor to take corrective actions against the State recipient or the local area, as appropriate to ensure prompt compliance.
(2) If the Governor fails to take the corrective actions required by the Secretary under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the Secretary may immediately suspend or terminate financial assistance under WIA section 184(e).
(a) A recipient may request a waiver of liability, as described in WIA section 184(d)(2), and a Grant Officer may approve such a waiver under WIA section 184(d)(3).
(b)(1) When the debt for which a waiver of liability is desired was established in a non-Federal resolution proceeding, the resolution report must accompany the waiver request.
(2) When the waiver request is made during the ETA Grant Officer resolution process, the request must be made during the informal resolution period described in § 667.510(c).
(c) A waiver of the recipient's liability shall be considered by the Grant Officer only when:
(1) The misexpenditure of WIA funds occurred at a subrecipient's level;
(2) The misexpenditure was not due to willful disregard of the requirements of title I of the Act, gross negligence, failure to observe accepted standards of administration, or did not constitute fraud;
(3) If fraud did exist, it was perpetrated against the recipient/subrecipients; and
(i) The recipient/subrecipients discovered, investigated, reported, and cooperated in any prosecution of the perpetrator of the fraud; and
(ii) After aggressive debt collection action, it has been documented that further attempts at debt collection from the perpetrator of the fraud would be inappropriate or futile;
(4) The recipient has issued a final determination which disallows the misexpenditure, the recipient's appeal process has been exhausted, and a debt has been established; and
(5) The recipient requests such a waiver and provides documentation to demonstrate that it has substantially complied with the requirements of section 184(d)(2) of the Act, and this section.
(d) The recipient will not be released from liability for misspent funds under the determination required by section 184(d) of the Act unless the Grant Officer determines that further collection action, either by the recipient or subrecipients, would be inappropriate or would prove futile.
(a) The recipient may request advance approval from the Grant Officer for contemplated corrective actions, including debt collection actions, which the recipient plans to initiate or to forego. The recipient's request must include a description and an assessment of all actions taken by the subrecipients to collect the misspent funds.
(b) Based on the recipient's request, the Grant Officer may determine that the recipient may forego certain collection actions against a subrecipient when:
(1) The subrecipient meets the criteria set forth in section 184(d)(2) of the Act;
(2) The misexpenditure of funds:
(i) Was not made by that subrecipient but by an entity that received WIA funds from that subrecipient;
(ii) Was not a violation of section 184(d)(1) of the Act, and did not constitute fraud; or
(iii) If fraud did exist,
(A) It was perpetrated against the subrecipient; and:
(B) The subrecipient discovered, investigated, reported, and cooperated
(C) After aggressive debt collection action, it has been documented that further attempts at debt collection from the perpetrator of the fraud would be inappropriate or futile;
(3) A final determination which disallows the misexpenditure and establishes a debt has been issued at the appropriate level;
(4) Final action within the recipient's appeal system has been completed; and
(5) Further debt collection action by that subrecipient or the recipient would be either inappropriate or futile.
(a)(1) For recipient level misexpenditures, we may determine that a debt, or a portion thereof, may be offset against amounts that are allotted to the recipient. Recipients must submit a written request for an offset to the Grant Officer. Generally, we will apply the offset against amounts that are available at the recipient level for administrative costs.
(2) The Grant Officer may approve an offset request, under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if the misexpenditures were not due to willful disregard of the requirements of the Act and regulations, gross negligence, failure to observe accepted standards of administration or a pattern of misexpenditure.
(b) For subrecipient level misexpenditures that were not due to willful disregard of the requirements of the Act and regulations, gross negligence, failure to observe accepted standards of administration or a pattern of misexpenditure, if we have required the State to repay such amount the State may deduct an amount equal to the misexpenditure from its subsequent year's allocations to the local area from funds available for the administrative costs of the local programs involved.
(c) If offset is granted, the debt will not be fully satisfied until the Grant Officer reduces amounts allotted to the State by the amount of the misexpenditure.
(d) A State may not make a deduction under paragraph (b) of this section until the State has taken appropriate corrective action to ensure full compliance within the local area with regard to appropriate expenditure of WIA funds.
(a) An applicant for financial assistance under title I of WIA which is dissatisfied because we have issued a determination not to award financial assistance, in whole or in part, to such applicant; or a recipient, subrecipient, or a vendor against which the Grant Officer has directly imposed a sanction or corrective action, including a sanction against a State under 20 CFR part 666, may appeal to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) within 21 days of receipt of the final determination.
(b) Failure to request a hearing within 21 days of receipt of the final determination constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing.
(c) A request for a hearing under this subpart must state specifically those issues in the final determination upon which review is requested. Those provisions of the final determination not specified for review, or the entire final determination when no hearing has been requested within the 21 days, are considered resolved and not subject to further review. Only alleged violations of the Act, its regulations, grant or other agreement under the Act fairly raised in the determination, and the request for hearing are subject to review.
(d) A request for a hearing must be transmitted by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, Suite 400, 800 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001, with one copy to the Departmental official who issued the determination.
(e) The procedures in this subpart apply in the case of a complainant who has not had a dispute adjudicated under the alternative dispute resolution process set forth in § 667.840 within the 60 days, except that the request for hearing before the OALJ must be filed within 15 days of the conclusion of the 60-day period provided in § 667.840. In addition to including the final determination upon which review is requested, the complainant must include a copy of any Stipulation of Facts and a brief summary of proceedings.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
In ordering relief, the ALJ has the full authority of the Secretary under the Act.
(a) An applicant whose application for funding as a WIA INA grantee under 20 CFR part 668 or as an NFJP grantee under 20 CFR part 669 is denied in whole or in part may request an administrative review under § 667.800(a) with to determine whether there is a basis in the record to support the decision. This appeal will not in any way interfere with the designation and funding of another organization to serve the area in question during the appeal period. The available remedy in such an appeal is the right to be designated in the future as the WIA INA or NFJP
(b) If the ALJ rules that the organization should have been selected and the organization continues to meet the requirements of 20 CFR part 668 or part 669, we will select and fund the organization within 90 days of the ALJ's decision unless the end of the 90-day period is within six (6) months of the end of the funding period. An applicant so selected is not entitled to the full grant amount, but will only receive the funds remaining in the grant that have not been expended by the current grantee through its operation of the grant and its subsequent closeout.
(c) Any organization selected and/or funded as a WIA INA or NFJP grantee is subject to being removed as grantee in the event an ALJ decision so orders. The Grant Officer provides instructions on transition and close-out to a grantee which is removed. All parties must agree to the provisions of this paragraph as a condition for WIA INA or NFJP funding.
(d) A successful appellant which has not been awarded relief because of the application of paragraph (b) of this section is eligible to compete for funds in the immediately subsequent two-year grant cycle. In such a situation, we will not issue a waiver of competition and for the area and will select a grantee through the normal competitive process.
(a) The ALJ should render a written decision not later than 90 days after the closing of the record.
(b) The decision of the ALJ constitutes final agency action unless, within 20 days of the decision, a party dissatisfied with the ALJ's decision has filed a petition for review with the Administrative Review Board (ARB) (established under Secretary's Order No. 2-96), specifically identifying the procedure, fact, law or policy to which exception is taken. Any exception not specifically urged is deemed to have been waived. A copy of the petition for review must be sent to the opposing party at that time. Thereafter, the decision of the ALJ constitutes final agency action unless the ARB, within 30 days of the filing of the petition for review, notifies the parties that the case has been accepted for review. Any case accepted by the ARB must be decided within 180 days of acceptance. If not so decided, the decision of the ALJ constitutes final agency action.
(a) Parties to a complaint which has been filed according to the requirements of § 667.800 may choose to waive their rights to an administrative hearing before the OALJ. Instead, they may choose to transfer the settlement of their dispute to an individual acceptable to all parties who will conduct an informal review of the stipulated facts and render a decision in accordance with applicable law. A written decision must be issued within 60 days after submission of the matter for informal review.
(b) The waiver of the right to request a hearing before the OALJ will automatically be revoked if a settlement has not been reached or a decision has not been issued within the 60 days provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The decision rendered under this informal review process will be treated as a final decision of an Administrative Law Judge under section 186(b) of the Act.
(a) Any party to a proceeding which resulted in a Secretary's final order under section 186 of the Act may obtain a review in the United States Court of Appeals having jurisdiction over the applicant or recipient of funds involved, by filing a review petition within 30 days of the issuance of the Secretary's final order.
(b) The court has jurisdiction to make and enter a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order of the Secretary, in whole or in part.
(c) No objection to the Secretary's order may be considered by the court unless the objection was specifically urged, in a timely manner, before the Secretary. The review is limited to questions of law, and the findings of fact of the Secretary are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.
(d) The judgment of the court is final, subject to certiorari review by the United States Supreme Court.
Nothing contained in this subpart prejudices the separate exercise of other legal rights in pursuit of remedies and sanctions available outside the Act.
(a)(1) To facilitate planning for the implementation of WIA, a Governor may reserve an amount equal to no more than 2 percent of the total amount of JTPA formula funds allotted to the State for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for expenditure on transition planning activities. The funds may be from any one or more of the JTPA titles and subparts, that is, funds do not have to be drawn proportionately from all titles and subparts. The Governor must report the expenditure of these funds for transition planning separately in accordance with instructions we issued, but the expenditure is not required to be allocated to the various titles and subparts;
(2) These reserved transition funds may be excluded from any calculation of compliance with JTPA cost limitations.
(b) Not less than 50 percent of the funds reserved by the Governor in paragraph (a) of this section must be made available to local entities.
(c) We will issue such other transition guidance as is necessary and appropriate.
Yes, all JTPA participants who are enrolled in JTPA must be grandfathered into WIA. These participants can complete the JTPA services specified in their individual service strategy, even if that service strategy is not allowable under WIA, or if the participant is not eligible to receive these services under WIA.
Secs. 506(c) and 166(h)(2), Pub. L. 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c); 29 U.S.C. 2911(h)(2).
(a) The purpose of WIA INA programs is to support comprehensive employment and training activities for Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian individuals in order to:
(1) Develop more fully their academic, occupational, and literacy skills;
(2) Make them more competitive in the workforce;
(3) Promote the economic and social development of Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities according to the goals and values of such communities; and
(4) Help them achieve personal and economic self-sufficiency.
(b) The principal means of accomplishing these purposes is to enable tribes and Native American organizations to provide employment and training services to Native American peoples and their communities. Services should be provided in a culturally appropriate manner, consistent with the principles of Indian self-determination. (WIA sec. 166(a)(1).)
(a) We will administer INA programs to maximize the Federal commitment to support the growth and development of Native American people and communities as determined by representatives of such communities.
(b) In administering these programs, we will observe the Congressional declaration of policy set forth in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, at 25 U.S.C. section 450a, as well as the Department of Labor's “American Indian and Alaska Native Policy,” dated July 29, 1998.
(c) The regulations in this part are not intended to abrogate the trust responsibilities of the Federal Government to Native American bands, tribes, or groups in any way.
(d) We will administer INA programs through a single organizational unit and consistent with the requirements in section 166(h) of the Act. We have designated the Division of Indian and Native American Programs (DINAP) within the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) as this single organizational unit required by WIA section 166(h)(1).
(e) We will establish and maintain administrative procedures for the selection, administration, monitoring, and evaluation of Native American
We will consult with the Native American grantee community as a full partner in developing policies for the INA programs. We will actively seek and consider the views of all INA grantees, and will discuss options with the grantee community prior to establishing policies and program regulations. The primary consultation vehicle is the Native American Employment and Training Council. (WIA sec. 166(h)(2).)
(a) The regulations found in this subpart.
(b) The general administrative requirements found in 20 CFR part 667, including the regulations concerning Complaints, Investigations and Hearings found at 20 CFR part 667, subpart E through subpart H.
(c) The Department's regulations codifying the common rules implementing Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars which generally apply to Federal programs carried out by Indian tribal governments and nonprofit organizations, at 29 CFR parts 95, 96, 97, and 99 as applicable.
(d) The Department's regulations at 29 CFR part 37, which implement the nondiscrimination provisions of WIA section 188, apply to recipients of financial assistance under WIA section 166.
In addition to the definitions found in WIA sections 101 and 166 and 20 CFR 660.300, the following definitions apply:
(a) To be designated as an INA grantee, an entity must have:
(1) A legal status as a government or as an agency of a government, private non-profit corporation, or a consortium which contains at least one of these entities;
(2) The ability to administer INA program funds, as defined at § 668.220; and
(3) A new (non-incumbent) entity must have a population within the designated geographic service area which would provide funding under the funding formula found at § 668.296(b) in the amount of at least $100,000, including any amounts received for supplemental youth services under the funding formula at § 668.440(a). Incumbent grantees which do not meet this dollar threshold for Program Year (PY) 2000 and beyond will be grandfathered in. We will make an exception for grantees wishing to participate in the demonstration program under Public Law 102-477 if all resources to be consolidated under the Public Law 102-477 plan total at least $100,000, with at least $20,000 derived from section 166 funds as determined by the most recent Census data. Exceptions to this $20,000 limit may be made for those entities which are close to the limit and which have demonstrated the capacity to administer Federal funds and operate a successful employment and training program.
(b) To be designated as a Native American grantee, a consortium or its members must meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section and must:
(1) Be in close proximity to one another, but they may operate in more than one State;
(2) Have an administrative unit legally authorized to run the program and to commit the other members to contracts, grants, and other legally-binding agreements; and
(3) Be jointly and individually responsible for the actions and obligations of the consortium, including debts.
(c) Entities potentially eligible for designation under paragraph (a)(1) or (b)(1) of this section are:
(1) Federally-recognized Indian tribes;
(2) Tribal organizations, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b;
(3) Alaska Native-controlled organizations representing regional or village areas, as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act;
(4) Native Hawaiian-controlled entities;
(5) Native American-controlled organizations serving Indians; and
(6) Consortia of eligible entities which individually meets the legal requirements for a consortium described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(d) Under WIA section 166(d)(2)(B), individuals who were eligible to participate under section 401 of JTPA on August 6, 1998, remain eligible to participate under section 166 of WIA. State-recognized tribal organizations serving such individuals are considered to be “Native American controlled” for WIA section 166 purposes.
(a) Federally-recognized Indian tribes, Alaska Native entities, or consortia that include a tribe or entity will have the highest priority for designation. To be designated, the organizations must meet the requirements in this subpart. These organizations will be designated for those geographic areas and/or populations over which they have legal jurisdiction. (WIA sec. 166(c)(1).)
(b) If we decide not to designate Indian tribes or Alaska Native entities to serve their service areas, we will enter into arrangements to provide services with entities which the tribes or Alaska Native entities involved approve.
(c) In geographic areas not served by Indian tribes or Alaska Native entities, entities with a Native American-controlled governing body and which are representative of the Native American community or communities involved will have priority for designation.
An organization has the “ability to administer funds” if it:
(a) Is in compliance with Departmental debt management procedures, if applicable;
(b) Has not been found guilty of fraud or criminal activity which would affect the entity's ability to safeguard Federal funds or deliver program services;
(c) Can demonstrate that it has or can acquire the necessary program and financial management personnel to safeguard Federal funds and effectively deliver program services; and
(d) Can demonstrate that it has successfully carried out, or has the capacity to successfully carry out activities that will strengthen the ability of the individuals served to obtain or retain unsubsidized employment.
(a) Before determining which entity to designate for a particular service area, we will conduct a review of the entity's ability to administer funds.
(b) The review for an entity that has served as a grantee in either of the two designation periods before the one under consideration, also will consider the extent of compliance with the WIA regulations or the JTPA regulations at 20 CFR part 632. Evidence of the ability to administer funds may be established by a satisfactory Federal audit record. It may also be established by a recent record showing substantial compliance with Federal record keeping, reporting, program performance standards, or similar standards imposed on grantees by this or other public sector supported programs.
(c) For other entities, the review includes the experience of the entity's management in administering funds for services to Native American people. This review also includes an assessment of the relationship between the entity and the Native American community or communities to be served.
(a) Every entity seeking designation must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) which complies with the requirements of the Solicitation for Grant Application (SGA). An SGA will be issued every two years, covering all areas except for those for which competition is waived for the incumbent grantee under WIA section 166(c)(2).
(b) NOI's must be submitted to the Chief of DINAP, bearing a U.S. Postal Service postmark indicating its submission no later than October 1st of the year which precedes the first year of a new designation cycle (unless the SGA provides a later date). For NOI's received after October 1, only a timely official U.S. Postal Service postmark is acceptable as proof of timely submission. Dates indicating submission by private express delivery services or metered mail are unacceptable as proof of the timely submission of designation documents.
(c) NOI's must include the following:
(1) Documentation of the legal status of the entity, as described in § 668.200(a)(1);
(2) A Standard Form (SF) 424b;
(3) The assurances required by 29 CFR 37.20;
(4) A specific description, by State, county, reservation or similar area, or service population, of the geographic area for which the entity requests designation;
(5) A brief summary of the employment and training or human resource development programs serving Native Americans that the entity currently operates or has operated within the previous two-year period;
(6) A description of the planning process used by the entity, including the involvement of the governing body and local employers;
(7) Evidence to establish an entity's ability to administer funds under §§ 668.220 through 668.230.
(a) Every two years, unless there has been a waiver of competition for the area, we issue a Solicitation for Grant Application (SGA) seeking applicants for INA program grants.
(b) If two or more entities apply for grants for the same service area, or for overlapping service areas, and a waiver of competition under WIA section 166(c)(2) is not granted to the incumbent grantee, the following additional procedures apply:
(1) The Grant Officer will follow the regulations for priority designation at § 668.210.
(2) If no applicant is entitled to priority designation, DINAP will inform each entity which submitted a NOI, including the incumbent grantee, in writing, of all the competing Notices of Intent no later than November 15 of the year the NOI's are received.
(3) Each entity will have an opportunity to describe its service plan, and may submit additional information addressing the requirements of § 668.240(c) or such other information as the applicant determines is appropriate. Revised Notices must be received or contain an official U.S. Postal Service postmark, no later than January 5th (unless a later date is provided in DINAP's information notice).
(4) The Grant Officer selects the entity that demonstrates the ability to produce the best outcomes for its customers.
(a) On March 1 of each designation year, we designate or conditionally designate Native American grantees for the coming two program years. The Grant Officer informs, in writing, each entity which submitted a Notice of Intent that the entity has been:
(1) Designated;
(2) Conditionally designated;
(3) Designated for only a portion of its requested area or population; or
(4) Denied designation.
(b) Designated Native American entities must ensure and provide evidence to DOL that a system is in place to afford all members of the eligible population within their service area an equitable opportunity to receive employment and training activities and services.
Any entity that is denied designation in whole or in part for the area or population that it requested may appeal the denial to the Office of the Administrative Law Judges using the procedures at 20 CFR 667.800 or the alternative dispute resolution procedures at 20 CFR 667.840. The Grant Officer will provide an entity whose request for designation was denied, in whole or in part, with a copy of the appeal procedures.
Yes, for an area which would otherwise go unserved. The Grant Officer may designate an entity, which has not submitted an NOI, but which meets the qualifications for designation, to serve the particular geographic area. Under such circumstances, DINAP will seek the views of Native American leaders in the area involved about the decision to designate the entity to serve that community. DINAP will inform the Grant Officer of their views. The Grant Officer will accommodate their views to the extent possible.
(a) Yes, the Grant Officer can terminate a grantee's designation for cause, or the Secretary or another DOL
(b) The Grant Officer may terminate a grantee's designation for cause only if there is a substantial or persistent violation of the requirements in the Act or the WIA regulations. The grantee must be provided with written notice 60 days before termination, stating the specific reasons why termination is proposed. The appeal procedures at 20 CFR 667.800 apply.
(c) The Secretary must give a grantee terminated in emergency circumstances prompt notice of the termination and an opportunity for a hearing within 30 days of the termination.
A designated entity becomes a grantee on the effective date of an executed grant agreement, signed by the authorized official of the grantee organization and the Grant Officer. The grant agreement includes a set of certifications and assurances that the grantee will comply with the terms of the Act, the WIA regulations, and other appropriate requirements. Funds are released to the grantee upon approval of the required planning documents, as described in §§ 668.710 through 668.740.
No, beginning with the PY 2000 grant awards, if there are no entities meeting the requirements for designation in a particular area, or willing to serve that area, we will not allocate funds for that service area. The funds allocated to that area will be distributed to the remaining INA grantees, or used for other program purposes such as technical assistance and training (TAT). Unawarded funds used for technical assistance and training are in addition to, and not subject to the limitations on, amounts reserved under § 668.296(e). Areas which are unserved by the INA program may be restored during a subsequent designation cycle, when and if a current grantee or other eligible entity applies for and is designated to serve that area.
(a) Except for reserved funds described in paragraph (e) of this section and funds used for program purposes under § 668.294, all funds available for WIA section 166(d)(2)(A)(i) comprehensive workforce investment services program at the beginning of a Program Year will be allocated to Native American grantees for their designated geographic service areas.
(b) Each INA grantee will receive the sum of the funds calculated under the following formula:
(1) One-quarter of the funds available will be allocated on the basis of the number of unemployed Native American persons in the grantee's designated INA service area(s) compared to all such persons in all such areas in the United States.
(2) Three-quarters of the funds available will be allocated on the basis of the number of Native American persons in poverty in the grantee's designated INA service area(s) as compared to all such persons in all such areas in the United States.
(3) The data and definitions used to implement these formulas is provided by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
(c) In years immediately following the use of new data in the formula described in paragraph (b) of this section, based upon criteria to be described in the SGA, we may utilize a hold harmless factor to reduce the disruption in grantee services which would otherwise result from changes in funding levels. This factor will be determined in consultation with the grantee community and the Native American Employment and Training Council.
(d) We may reallocate funds from one INA grantee to another if a grantee is unable to serve its area for any reason, such as audit or debt problems, criminal activity, internal (political) strife, or lack of ability or interest. Funds may also be reallocated if a grantee has carry-in excess of 20 percent of the total funds available to it. Carry-in amounts greater than 20 percent but less than 25 percent of total funds available may be allowed under an approved waiver issued by DINAP.
(e) We may reserve up to one percent (1 percent) of the funds appropriated under WIA section 166(d)(2)(A)(i) for any Program Year for TAT purposes. Technical assistance will be provided in consultation with the Native American Employment and Training Council.
(a) A person is eligible to receive services under the INA program if that person is:
(1) An Indian, as determined by a policy of the Native American grantee. The grantee's definition must at least include anyone who is a member of a Federally-recognized tribe; or
(2) An Alaska Native, as defined in section 3(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 43 U.S.C. 1602(b); or
(3) A Native Hawaiian, as defined in WIA section 166(b)(3).
(b) The person must also be any one of the following:
(1) Unemployed; or
(2) Underemployed, as defined in § 668.150; or
(3) A low-income individual, as defined in WIA section 101(25); or
(4) The recipient of a bona fide lay-off notice which has taken effect in the last six months or will take effect in the following six month period, who is unlikely to return to a previous industry or occupation, and who is in need of retraining for either employment with another employer or for job retention with the current employer; or
(5) An individual who is employed, but is determined by the grantee to be in need of employment and training services to obtain or retain employment that allows for self-sufficiency.
(c) If applicable, male applicants must also register or be registered for the Selective Service.
(d) For purposes of determining whether a person is a low-income individual under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, we will issue guidance for the determination of family income. (WIA sec. 189(h).)
(a) The INA grantee may provide any services consistent with the purposes of this section that are necessary to meet the needs of Native Americans preparing to enter, reenter, or retain unsubsidized employment. (WIA sec. 166(d)(1)(B).) Comprehensive workforce investment activities authorized under WIA section 166(d)(2) include:
(b) Core services, which must be delivered in partnership with the One-Stop delivery system, include:
(1) Outreach;
(2) Intake;
(3) Orientation to services available;
(4) Initial assessment of skill levels, aptitudes, abilities and supportive service needs;
(5) Eligibility certification;
(6) Job Search and placement assistance;
(7) Career counseling;
(8) Provision of employment statistics information and local, regional, and national Labor Market Information;
(9) Provision of information about filing of Unemployment Insurance claims;
(10) Assistance in establishing eligibility for Welfare-to-Work programs;
(11) Assistance in establishing eligibility for financial assistance for training;
(12) Provision of information about supportive services;
(13) Provision of performance and cost information relating to training providers and training services; and
(14) Follow-up services.
(c) Allowable intensive services which include:
(1) Comprehensive and specialized testing and assessment;
(2) Development of an individual employment plan;
(3) Group counseling;
(4) Individual counseling and career planning;
(5) Case Management for seeking training services;
(6) Short term pre-vocational services;
(7) Work experience in the public or private sector;
(8) Tryout employment;
(9) Dropout prevention activities;
(10) Supportive services; and
(11) Other services identified in the approved Two Year Plan.
(d) Allowable training services which include:
(1) Occupational skill training;
(2) On-the-job training;
(3) Programs that combine workplace training with related instruction, which may include cooperative education programs;
(4) Training programs operated by the private sector;
(5) Skill upgrading and retraining;
(6) Entrepreneurial and small business development technical assistance and training;
(7) Job readiness training;
(8) Adult basic education, GED attainment, literacy training, and English language training, provided alone or in combination with training or intensive services described paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) and (d)(1) through (10) of this section;
(9) Customized training conducted with a commitment by an employer or group of employers to employ an individual upon successful completion of training; and
(10) Educational and tuition assistance.
(e) Allowable activities specifically designed for youth are identified in section 129 of the Act and include:
(1) Improving educational and skill competencies;
(2) Adult mentoring;
(3) Training opportunities;
(4) Supportive services, as defined in WIA section 101(46);
(5) Incentive programs for recognition and achievement;
(6) Opportunities for leadership development, decision-making, citizenship and community service;
(7) Preparation for postsecondary education, academic and occupational learning, unsubsidized employment opportunities, and other effective connections to intermediaries with strong links to the job market and local and regional employers;
(8) Tutoring, study skills training, and other drop-out prevention strategies;
(9) Alternative secondary school services;
(10) Summer employment opportunities that are directly linked to academic and occupational learning;
(11) Paid and unpaid work experiences, including internships and job shadowing;
(12) Occupational skill training;
(13) Leadership development opportunities, as defined in 20 CFR 664.420;
(14) Follow-up services, as defined in 20 CFR 664.450;
(15) Comprehensive guidance and counseling, which may include drug and alcohol abuse counseling and referral; and
(16) Information and referral.
(f) In addition, allowable activities include job development and employment outreach, including:
(1) Support of the Tribal Employment Rights Office (TERO) program;
(2) Negotiation with employers to encourage them to train and hire participants;
(3) Establishment of linkages with other service providers to aid program participants;
(4) Establishment of management training programs to support tribal administration or enterprises; and
(5) Establishment of linkages with remedial education, such as Adult Basic Education (ABE), basic literacy training, and English-as-a-second-language (ESL) training programs, as necessary.
(g) Participants may be enrolled in more than one activity at a time and may be sequentially enrolled in multiple activities.
(h) INA grantees may provide any services which may be carried out by fund recipients under any provisions of the Act. (WIA sec. 166(d).)
(i) In addition, INA grantees must develop programs which contribute to occupational development, upward mobility, development of new careers, and opportunities for nontraditional employment. (WIA sec. 195(1).)
(a) All occupational training must be for occupations for which there are employment opportunities in the local area or another area to which the participant is willing to relocate. (WIA sec. 134(d)(4)(A)(iii).)
(b) INA grantees must provide OJT services consistent with the definition provided in WIA section 101(31) and other limitations in the Act. Individuals in OJT must:
(1) Be compensated at the same rates, including periodic increases, as trainees or employees who are similarly situated in similar occupations by the same employer and who have similar training, experience, and skills (WIA sec. 181(a)(1)); and
(2) Be provided benefits and working conditions at the same level and to the same extent as other trainees or employees working a similar length of time and doing the same type of work. (WIA sec. 181(b)(5).)
(c) In addition, OJT contracts under this title must not be entered into with employers who have:
(1) Received payments under previous contracts and have exhibited a pattern of failing to provide OJT participants with continued, long-term employment as regular employees with wages and employment benefits and working conditions at the same level and to the same extent as other employees working a similar length of time and doing the same work; or
(2) Who have violated paragraphs (b)(1) and/or (2) of this section. (WIA sec. 195(4).)
(d) INA grantees are prohibited from using funds to encourage the relocation of a business, as described in WIA section 181(d) and 20 CFR 667.268.
(e) INA grantees must only use WIA funds for activities which are in addition to those that would otherwise be available to the Native American population in the area in the absence of such funds. (WIA sec. 195(2).)
(f) INA grantees must not spend funds on activities that displace currently employed individuals, impair existing contracts for services, or in any way affect union organizing.
(g) Under 20 CFR 667.266, sectarian activities involving WIA financial assistance or participants are limited in accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR 37.6(f). (WIA sec. 181(b).)
(a) In those local workforce investment areas where an INA grantee conducts field operations or provides substantial services, the INA grantee is a required partner in the local One-Stop delivery system and is subject to the provisions relating to such partners described in 20 CFR part 662. Consistent with those provisions, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the INA grantee and the Local Board over the operation of the One-
(b) At a minimum, the MOU must contain provisions related to:
(1) The services to be provided through the One-Stop Service System;
(2) The methods for referral of individuals between the One-Stop operator and the INA grantee which take into account the services provided by the INA grantee and the other One-Stop partners;
(3) The exchange of information on the services available and accessible through the One-Stop system and the INA program;
(4) As necessary to provide referrals and case management services, the exchange of information on Native American participants in the One-Stop system and the INA program;
(5) Arrangements for the funding of services provided by the One-Stop(s), consistent with the requirements at 20 CFR 662.280 that no expenditures may be made with INA program funds for individuals who are not eligible or for services not authorized under this part.
(c) The INA grantee's Two Year Plan must describe the efforts the grantee has made to negotiate MOU's consistent with paragraph (b) of this section, for each planning cycle during which Local Boards are operating under the terms of WIA.
(a) INA grantees may pay training allowances or stipends to participants for their successful participation in and completion of education or training services (except such allowance may not be provided to participants in OJT). Allowances or stipends may not exceed the Federal or State minimum wage, whichever is higher.
(b) INA grantees may not pay a participant in a training activity when the person fails to participate without good cause.
(c) If a participant in a WIA-funded activity, including participants in OJT, is involved in an employer-employee relationship, that participant must be paid wages and fringe benefits at the same rates as trainees or employees who have similar training, experience and skills and which are not less than the higher of the applicable Federal, State or local minimum wage. (WIA sec. 181(a)(1).)
(d) In accordance with the policy described in the two-year plan, INA grantees may pay incentive bonuses to participants who meet or exceed individual employability or training goals established in writing in the individual employment plan.
(e) INA grantees must comply with other restrictions listed in WIA sections 181 through 199, which apply to all programs funded under title I of WIA.
(f) INA grantees must comply with the provisions on labor standards in WIA section 181(b).
We will provide appropriate TAT, as necessary, to INA grantees. This TAT will assist INA grantees to improve program performance and enhance services to the target population(s), as resources permit. (WIA sec. 166(h)(5).)
The purpose of this program is to provide supplemental employment and training and related services to Native American youth on or near Indian reservations, or in Oklahoma, Alaska, and Hawaii. (WIA sec. 166(d)(2)(A)(ii).)
Eligible recipients for supplemental youth services funding are limited to those tribal, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Oklahoma tribal grantees funded under WIA section 166(d)(2)(A)(i), or other grantees serving those areas and/or populations specified in § 668.400, that received funding under title II-B of the Job Training Partnership Act, or that are designated to serve an eligible area as specified in WIA section 166(d)(2)(A)(ii).
Beginning with PY 2000, eligible INA grantees must describe the supplemental youth services which they intend to provide in their Two Year Plan (described more fully in §§ 668.710 and 668.720). This Plan includes the target population the grantee intends to serve, for example, drop-outs, juvenile offenders, and/or college students. It also includes the performance measures/standards to be utilized to measure program progress.
(a) Participants in supplemental youth services activities must be Native Americans, as determined by the INA grantee according to § 668.300(a), and must meet the definition of Eligible Youth, as defined in WIA section 101(13).
(b)Youth participants must be low-income individuals, except that not more than five percent (5%) who do not meet the minimum income criteria, may be considered eligible youth if they meet one or more of the following categories:
(1) School dropouts;
(2) Basic skills deficient as defined in WIA section 101(4);
(3) Have educational attainment that is one or more grade levels below the grade level appropriate to their age group;
(4) Pregnant or parenting;
(5) Have disabilities, including learning disabilities;
(6) Homeless or runaway youth;
(7) Offenders; or
(8) Other eligible youth who face serious barriers to employment as identified by the grantee in its Plan. (WIA sec. 129(c)(5).)
(a) Beginning with PY 2000, supplemental youth funding will be allocated to eligible INA grantees on the basis of the relative number of Native American youth between the ages of 14 and 21, inclusive, in the grantee's designated INA service area as compared to the number of Native American youth in other eligible INA service areas. We reserve the right to redetermine this youth funding stream in future program years, in consultation with the Native American Employment and Training Council, as program experience warrants and as appropriate data become available.
(b) The data used to implement this formula is provided by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
(c) The hold harmless factor described in § 668.296(c) also applies to supplemental youth services funding. This factor also will be determined in consultation with the grantee
(d) The reallocation provisions of § 668.296(d) also apply to supplemental youth services funding.
(e) Any supplemental youth services funds not allotted to a grantee or refused by a grantee may be used for the purposes outlined in § 668.296(e), as described in § 668.294. Any such funds are in addition to, and not subject to the limitations on, amounts reserved under § 668.296(e).
(a) INA grantees may offer supplemental services to youth throughout the school year, during the summer vacation, and/or during other breaks during the school year at their discretion;
(b) We encourage INA grantees to work with Local Educational Agencies to provide academic credit for youth activities whenever possible;
(c) INA grantees may provide participating youth with the activities listed in 20 CFR 668.340(e).
Yes, WIA section 166(e)(5) requires that the program plan contain a description of the performance measures to be used to assess the performance of grantees in carrying out the activities assisted under this section. We will develop specific indicators of performance and levels of performance for supplemental youth services activities in partnership with the Native American Employment and Training Council, and will transmit them to INA grantees as an administrative issuance.
(a) INA grantees may provide a variety of services to employers in their areas. These services may include:
(1) Workforce planning which involves the recruitment of current or potential program participants, including job restructuring services;
(2) Recruitment and assessment of potential employees, with priority given to potential employees who are or who might become eligible for program services;
(3) Pre-employment training;
(4) Customized training;
(5) On-the-Job training (OJT);
(6) Post-employment services, including training and support services to encourage job retention and upgrading;
(7) Work experience for public or private sector work sites;
(8) Other innovative forms of worksite training.
(b) In addition to the services listed in paragraph (a) of this section, other grantee-determined services (as described in the grantee's Two Year Plan) which are intended to assist eligible participants to obtain or retain employment may also be provided to or for employers.
(a) INA grantees may provide services to the Native American communities in their designated service areas by engaging in program development and service delivery activities which:
(1) Strengthen the capacity of Native American-controlled institutions to provide education and work-based learning services to Native American youth and adults, whether directly or through other Native American institutions such as tribal colleges;
(2) Increase the community's capacity to deliver supportive services, such as child care, transportation, housing, health, and similar services needed by clients to obtain and retain employment;
(3) Use program participants engaged in education, training, work experience, or similar activities to further the economic and social development of Native American communities in accordance with the goals and values of those communities; and
(4) Engage in other community-building activities described in the INA grantee's Two Year Plan.
(b) INA grantees should develop their Two Year Plan in conjunction with, and in support of, strategic tribal planning and community development goals.
Yes, INA grantees must give as much preference as possible to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452), when awarding any contract or subgrant.
In general, INA grantees must follow the rules of OMB Circulars A-102 (for tribes) or A-110 (for private non-profits) when awarding contracts and/or subgrants under WIA section 166. The common rules implementing those circulars are codified for DOL-funded programs at 29 CFR part 97 (A-102) or 29 CFR part 95 (A-110), and covered in the WIA regulations at 20 CFR 667.200. These rules do not apply to OJT contract awards.
(a) The INA grantee is responsible to the Native American community to be served by INA funds.
(b) The INA grantee is also responsible to the Department of Labor, which is charged by law with ensuring that all WIA funds are expended:
(1) According to applicable laws and regulations;
(2) For the benefit of the identified Native American client group; and
(3) For the purposes approved in the grantee's plan and signed grant document.
(a) Each INA grantee must establish its own internal policies and procedures to ensure accountability to the INA grantee's governing body, as the representative of the Native American community(ies) served by the INA program. At a minimum, these policies and procedures must provide a system for governing body review and oversight of program plans and measures and standards for program performance.
(b) Accountability to the Department is accomplished in part through on-site program reviews (monitoring), which strengthen the INA grantee's capability to deliver effective services and protect the integrity of Federal funds.
(c) In addition to audit information, as described at § 668.850 and program reviews, accountability to the Department is documented and fulfilled by the submission of reports. For the purposes of report submission, a postmark or date indicating receipt by a private express delivery service is acceptable proof of timely submission. These report requirements are as follows:
(1) Each INA grantee must submit an annual report on program participants and activities. This report must be received no later than 90 days after the end of the Program Year, and may be combined with the report on program expenditures. The reporting format is developed by DINAP, in consultation with the Native American Advisory Council, and published in the
(2) Each INA grantee must submit an annual report on program expenditures. This report must be received no later
(3) INA grantees are encouraged, but not required, to submit a descriptive narrative with their annual reports describing the barriers to successful plan implementation they have encountered. This narrative should also discuss program successes and other notable occurrences that effected the INA grantee's overall performance that year.
(4) Each INA grantee may be required to submit interim reports on program participants and activities and/or program expenditures during the Program Year. Interim reports must be received no later than 45 days after the end of the reporting period.
Indicators of performance measures and levels of performance in use for INA program will be those indicators and standards proposed in individual grantee plans and approved by us, in accordance with guidelines we will develop in consultation with INA grantees under WIA section 166(h)(2)(A).
(a) Each INA grantee must implement program and financial management procedures to prevent fraud and abuse. Such procedures must include a process which enables the grantee to take action against contractors or subgrantees to prevent any misuse of funds. (WIA sec. 184.)
(b) Each INA grantee must have rules to prevent conflict of interest by its governing body. These conflict of interest rules must include a rule prohibiting any member of any governing body or council associated with the INA grantee from voting on any matter which would provide a direct financial benefit to that member, or to a member of his or her immediate family, in accordance with 20 CFR 667.200(a)(4) and 29 CFR 97.36(b) or 29 CFR 95.42.
(c) Officers or agents of the INA grantee must not solicit or personally accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from any actual or potential contractor, subgrantee, vendor or participant. This rule must also apply to officers or agents of the grantee's contractors and/or subgrantees. This prohibition does not apply to:
(1) Any rebate, discount or similar incentive provided by a vendor to its customers as a regular feature of its business;
(2) Items of nominal monetary value distributed consistent with the cultural practices of the Native American community served by the grantee.
(d) No person who selects program participants or authorizes the services provided to them may select or authorize services to any participant who is such a person's husband, wife, father, mother, brother, sister, son, or daughter unless:
(1)(i) The participant involved is a low income individual; or
(ii) The community in which the participant resides has a population of less than 1,000 Native American people; and
(2) The INA grantee has adopted and implemented the policy described in the Two Year Plan to prevent favoritism on behalf of such relatives.
(e) INA grantees are subject to the provisions of 41 U.S.C. 53 relating to kickbacks.
(f) No assistance provided under this Act may involve political activities. (WIA sec. 195(6).)
(g) INA grantees may not use funds under this Act for lobbying, as provided in 29 CFR part 93.
(h) The provisions of 18 U.S.C. 665 and 666 prohibiting embezzlement apply to programs under WIA.
(i) Recipients of financial assistance under WIA section 168 are prohibited from discriminatory practices as outlined at WIA section 188, and the regulations implementing WIA section 188, at 29 CFR part 37. However, this does not affect the legal requirement that all INA participants be Native American. Also, INA grantees are not obligated to serve populations other than those for which they were designated.
INA grantees must establish grievance procedures consistent with the requirements of WIA section 181(c) and 20 CFR 667.600.
(a) No, INA grantees cannot exclude segments of the eligible population. INA grantees must document in their Two Year Plan that a system is in place to afford all members of the eligible population within the service area for which the grantee was designated an equitable opportunity to receive WIA services and activities.
(b) Nothing in this section restricts the ability of INA grantees to target subgroups of the eligible population (for example, the disabled, substance abusers, TANF recipients, or similar categories), as outlined in an approved Two Year Plan. However, it is unlawful to target services to subgroups on grounds prohibited by WIA section 188 and 29 CFR part 37, including tribal affilitation (which is considered national origin). Outreach efforts, on the other hand, may be targeted to any subgroups.
(a) An INA grantee may utilize the planning procedures it uses to plan other activities and services.
(b) However, in the process of preparing its Two Year Plan for Native American WIA services, the INA grantee must consult with:
(1) Customers or prospective customers of such services;
(2) Prospective employers of program participants or their representatives;
(3) Service providers, including local educational agencies, which can provide services which support or are complementary to the grantee's own services; and
(4) Tribal or other community officials responsible for the development and administration of strategic community development efforts.
Each grantee receiving funds under WIA section 166 must submit to DINAP a comprehensive services plan and a projection of participant services and expenditures covering the two-year planning cycle. We will, in consultation with the Native American Advisory Council, issue budget and planning instructions which grantees must use when preparing their plan.
(a) The comprehensive services plan must cover the two Program Years included within a designation cycle. According to planning instructions issued by the Department, the comprehensive services plan must describe in narrative form:
(1) The specific goals of the INA grantee's program for the two Program Years involved;
(2) The method the INA grantee will use to target its services to specific segments of its service population;
(3) The array of services which the INA grantee intends to make available;
(4) The system the INA grantee will use to be accountable for the results of its program services. Such results must be judged in terms of the outcomes for individual participants and/or the benefits the program provides to the Native American community(ies) which the INA grantee serves. Plans must include the performance information required by § 668.620;
(5) The ways in which the INA grantee will seek to integrate or coordinate and ensure nonduplication of its employment and training services with:
(i) The One-Stop delivery system in its local workforce investment area, including a description of any MOU's which affect the grantee's participation;
(ii) Other services provided by Local Workforce Investment Boards;
(iii) Other program operators;
(iv) Other services available within the grantee organization; and
(v) Other services which are available to Native Americans in the community, including planned participation in the One-Stop system.
(b) Eligible INA grantees must include in their plan narratives a description of activities planned under the supplemental youth program, including items described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(c) INA grantees must be prepared to justify the amount of proposed Administrative Costs, utilizing the definition at 20 CFR 667.220.
(d) INA grantees' plans must contain a projection of participant services and expenditures for each Program Year, consistent with guidance issued by the Department.
(a) The two-year plans are due at a date specified by DINAP in the year in which the two-year designation cycle begins. We will announce exact submission dates in the biennial planning instructions.
(b) Plans from INA grantees who are eligible for supplemental youth services funds must include their supplemental youth plans as part of their regular Two Year Plan.
(c) INA grantees must submit modifications for the second year reflecting exact funding amounts, after the individual allotments have been determined. We will announce the time for their submission, which will be no later than June 1 prior to the beginning of the second year of the designation cycle.
(a) We will approve a grantee's planning documents before the date on which funds for the program become available unless:
(1) The planning documents do not contain the information specified in the regulations in this part and Departmental planning guidance; or
(2) The services which the INA grantee proposes are not permitted under WIA or applicable regulations.
(b) We may approve a portion of the plan, and disapprove other portions. The grantee also has the right to appeal the decision to the Office of the Administrative Law Judges under the procedures at 20 CFR 667.800 or 667.840. While the INA grantee exercises its right to appeal, the grantee must implement the approved portions of the plan.
(c) If we disapprove all or part of an INA grantee's plan, and that disapproval is sustained in the appeal process, the INA grantee will be given the opportunity to amend its plan so that it can be approved.
(d) If an INA grantee's plan is amended but is still disapproved, the grantee will have the right to appeal the decision to the Offices of the Administrative Law Judges under the procedures at 20 CFR 667.800 or 667.840.
(a) We may unilaterally modify the INA grantee's plan to add funds or, if required by Congressional action, to reduce the amount of funds available for expenditure.
(b) The INA grantee may request approval to modify its plan to add, expand, delete, or diminish any service allowable under the regulations in this part. The INA grantee may modify its plan without our approval, unless the modification reduces the total number of participants to be served annually under the grantee's program by a number which exceeds 25 percent of the participants previously proposed to be served, or by 25 participants, whichever is larger.
(c) We will act upon any modification within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the proposed modification. In the event that further clarification or modification is required, we may extend the thirty (30) day time frame to conclude appropriate negotiations.
(a) Each INA grantee must have a written system describing the procedures the grantee uses for:
(1) The hiring and management of personnel paid with program funds;
(2) The acquisition and management of property purchased with program funds;
(3) Financial management practices;
(4) A participant grievance system which meets the requirements in section 181(c) of WIA and 20 CFR 667.600; and
(5) A participant records system.
(b) Participant records systems must include:
(1) A written or computerized record containing all the information used to determine the person's eligibility to receive program services;
(2) The participant's signature certifying that all the eligibility information he or she provided is true to the best of his/her knowledge; and
(3) The information necessary to comply with all program reporting requirements.
Rules relating to allowable costs under WIA are covered in 20 CFR 667.200 through 667.220.
The definition and treatment of administrative costs are covered in 20 CFR 667.210(b) and 667.220.
No, under 20 CFR 667.210(b), limits on administrative costs for section 166 grants will be negotiated with the grantee and identified in the grant award document.
Cost classification is covered in the WIA regulations at 20 CFR 667.200 through 667.220. For purposes of the INA program, program costs also include costs associated with other activities such as Tribal Employment Rights Office (TERO), and supportive services, as defined in WIA section 101(46).
The cost principles described in OMB Circulars A-87 (for tribal governments),
The audit requirements established under the Department's regulations at 29 CFR part 99, which implement OMB Circular A-133, apply to all Native American WIA grants. These regulations, for all of WIA title I, are cited at 20 CFR 667.200(b). Audit resolution procedures are covered at 20 CFR 667.500 and 667.510.
INA grantees must draw down funds only as they actually need them. The U.S. Department of Treasury regulations which implement the Cash Management Improvement Act, found at 31 CFR part 205, apply by law to most recipients of Federal funds. Special rules may apply to those grantees required to keep their funds in interest-bearing accounts, and to grantees participating in the demonstration under Public Law 102-477.
(a) Program income is defined and regulated by WIA section 195(7), 20 CFR 667.200(a)(5) and the applicable rules in 29 CFR parts 95 and 97.
(b) For grants made under this part, program income does not include income generated by the work of a work experience participant in an enterprise, including an enterprise owned by an Indian tribe or Alaska Native entity, whether in the public or private sector.
(c) Program income does not include income generated by the work of an OJT participant in an establishment under paragraph (b) of this section.
Yes, WIA section 166(h)(3) permits waivers of any statutory or regulatory requirement imposed upon INA grantees (except for the areas cited in § 668.920). Such waivers may include those necessary to facilitate WIA support of long term community development goals.
To request a waiver, an INA grantee must submit a plan indicating how the waiver will improve the grantee's WIA program activities. We will provide further guidance on the waiver process, consistent with the provisions of WIA section 166(h)(3).
Requirements relating to:
(a) Wage and labor standards;
(b) Worker rights;
(c) Participation and protection of workers and participants;
(d) Grievance procedures;
(e) Judicial review; and
(f) Non-discrimination may not be waived. (WIA sec. 166(h)(3)(A).)
Yes, INA grantees may consolidate their employment and training funds under WIA with assistance received from related programs in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-477) (25 U.S.C. 3401
The Native American Employment and Training Council is a body composed of representatives of the grantee community which advises the Secretary on all aspects of Native American employment and training program implementation. WIA section 166(h)(4) continues the Council essentially as it is currently constituted, with the exception that all the Council members no longer have to be Native American. However, the nature of the consultative process remains essentially unchanged. We continue to support the Council.
Section 506(c), Pub. L. 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c).
The purpose of the NFJP, and the other services and activities established under WIA section 167, is to strengthen the ability of eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families to achieve economic self-sufficiency. This part provides the regulatory requirements applicable to the expenditure of WIA section 167 funds for such programs, services and activities.
In addition to the definitions found in WIA sections 101 and 167 and in 20 CFR 660.300, the following definitions apply to programs under this part:
(1) Was claimed as a dependent on the qualifying farmworker's federal income tax return for the previous year; or
(2) Is the spouse of the qualifying farmworker; or
(3) If not claimed as a dependent for federal income tax purposes, is able to establish:
(i) A relationship as the farmworker's
(A) Child, grandchild, great grandchild, including legally adopted children;
(B) Stepchild;
(C) Brother, sister, half brother, half sister, stepbrother, or stepsister;
(D) Parent, grandparent, or other direct ancestor but not foster parent;
(E) Foster child;
(F) Stepfather or stepmother;
(G) Uncle or aunt;
(H) Niece or nephew;
(I) Father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law; or
(J) Daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law; and
(ii) The receipt of over half of his/her total support from the eligible farmworker's family during the eligibility determination period.
This program is centrally administered by the Department of Labor in a manner consistent with the requirements of WIA section 167. As described in § 669.210, we designate grantees using procedures consistent with standard Federal government competitive procedures. We award other grants and contracts using similar competitive procedures.
We have designated the Division of Seasonal Farmworker Programs (DSFP),
We provide technical assistance and training to MSFW grantees for the purposes of program implementation and program performance management leading to enhancement of services to and continuous improvement in the employment outcomes of farmworkers.
In developing regulations for WIA section 167, we consult with the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Employment and Training Advisory Committee. The regulations and program guidance consider the economic circumstances and demographics of eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
(a) We consider the NFJP grantee community as a full partner in the development of policies for the NFJPs under the Act.
(b) We have established and continue to support the Federal MSFW Employment and Training Advisory Committee. Through the Advisory Committee, we actively seek and consider the views of the grantee community before establishing policies and/or program regulations, according to the requirements of WIA section 167.
(a) The regulations found in this part;
(b) The general administrative requirements found in 20 CFR part 667, including the regulations concerning Complaints, Investigations and Hearings found at 20 CFR part 667, subpart E through subpart H, which cover programs under WIA section 167;
(c) The Department's regulations codifying the common rules implementing Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars, which generally apply to Federal programs carried out by State and local governments and nonprofit organizations at 29 CFR parts 95, 96, 97, and 99, as applicable.
(d) The regulations on partnership responsibilities contained in 20 CFR parts 661 (Statewide and Local Governance) and 662 (the One-Stop System).
(e) The Department's regulations at 29 CFR part 37, which implement the nondiscrimination provisions of WIA section 188, apply to recipients of financial assistance under WIA section 167.
(a) To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an entity must have:
(1) An understanding of the problems of eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their dependents;
(2) A familiarity with the agricultural industry and the labor market needs of the geographic area to be served;
(3) The capacity to effectively administer a diversified program of workforce investment activities and related assistance for eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers (including farmworker youth) as described in paragraph (b) of this section;
(4) The capacity to work effectively as a One-Stop partner.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, an entity's “capacity to effectively administer” a program may be demonstrated by:
(1) Organizational experience; or
(2) Significant experience of its key staff in administering similar programs.
(c) For purposes of paragraph (a)(4) of this section, an applicant may demonstrate its capacity to work effectively as a One-Stop partner through its existing relationships with Local Workforce Investment Boards and other One-Stop partners, as evidenced through One-Stop system participation and successful MOU negotiations.
(d) As part of the evaluation of the applicant's capacity to work effectively as a One-Stop partner under paragraph (a)(4) of this section:
(1) The Grant Officer must determine whether the policies or actions of any Local Board established under the authorty of the alternative entity provision of WIA section 117(i) and 20 CFR 661.330:
(i) Preclude One-Stop system participation by the applicant or existing NFJP grantee; or
(ii) For the prior program year, contributed to a failure to reach agreement on the terms of the MOU required under § 669.220; and
(2) If the Grant Officer's determinations under paragraph (d)(1) of this section are affirmative, then the Grant Officer may consider this fact when weighing the capacity of the competitors.
To become an NFJP grantee and receive a grant under this subpart, an applicant must respond to a Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA). The SGA may contain additional requirements for the grant application or the grantee's two-year plan. Under the SGA, grantees will be selected using standard Federal Government competitive procedures. The entity's proposal must describe a two-year strategy for meeting the needs of eligible migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the geographic area the entity seeks to serve.
(a) In those local workforce investment areas where the grantee operates its NFJP, the grantee is a required partner of the local One-Stop delivery system and is subject to the provisions relating to such partners described in 20 CFR part 662. Consistent with those provisions, the grantee and the Local Board must negotiate an MOU which meets the requirements of 20 CFR 662.300 and sets forth their respective responsibilities for making the full range of services available through the One-Stop system available to farmworkers. Where the Local Board is an alternative entity under 20 CFR 661.330, the NFJP grantee must negotiate with the Board on the terms of its MOU and the scope of its on-going role in the local workforce investment system, as specified in 20 CFR 661.310(b)(2). In local areas where the grantee does not operate its NFJP and there is a large concentration of MSFW's, the grantee may consider the availability of electronic connections and other means to participate in the One-stop system in that area, in order to serve those individuals.
(b) The MOU must provide for appropriate and equitable services to MSFW's, and may include costs of services to MSFW's incurred by the One-Stop that extend beyond Wagner-Peyser funded services and activities.
Yes, a grantee's designation may be terminated for cause:
(a) By the Secretary, in emergency circumstances when such action is necessary to protect the integrity of Federal funds or ensure the proper operation of the program. Any grantee so terminated will be provided with
(b) By the Grant Officer, if there is a substantial or persistent violation of the requirements in the Act or the WIA regulations. In such a case, the Grant Officer must provide the grantee with 60 days prior written notice, stating the reasons why termination is proposed, and the applicable appeal procedures.
(a) At least 94 percent of the funds appropriated each year for WIA section 167 activities must be allocated to State service areas, based on the distribution of the eligible MSFW population determined under a formula which has been published in the
(b) The balance, up to 6 percent of the appropriated funds, will be used for discretionary purposes, for such activities as grantee technical assistance and support of farmworker housing activities.
Each grantee is responsible for providing needed services in accordance with a service delivery strategy described in its approved grant plan. These services must reflect the needs of the MSFW population in the service area and include the services and training activities that are necessary to achieve each participant's employment goals.
The NFJP service delivery strategy must include:
(a) A customer-centered case management approach;
(b) The provision of workforce investment activities, which include core services, intensive services, and training services, as described in WIA section 134, as appropriate;
(c) The arrangements under the MOU's with the applicable Local Workforce Investment Boards for the delivery of the services available through the One-Stop system to MSFW's; and
(d) Related assistance services.
Disadvantaged migrant and seasonal farmworkers, as defined in § 669.110, and their dependents are eligible for services funded by the NFJP.
To ensure that all services are focused on the customer's needs, services are provided through a case-management approach and may include: Core, intensive and training services; and related assistance, which includes emergency assistance and supportive services. The basic services and delivery of case-management activities are further described at §§ 669.340 through 669.410. Consistent with 20 CFR part 663, before receiving intensive services, a participant must receive at least one core service, and, prior to receiving training services, a participant must receive at least one intensive service.
The core services identified in WIA section 134(d)(2) are available to eligible MSFW's.
(a) The full range of core services are available to MSFW's, as well as other individuals, at One-Stop Centers, as described in 20 CFR part 662.
(b) Core services must be made available through the One-Stop delivery system. The delivery of core services to MSFW's, by the NFJP grantee and through the One-Stop system, must be discussed in the required MOU between the Local Board and the NFJP grantee.
(a) Yes, Emergency Assistance (as defined in § 669.110) is a form of the related assistance that is authorized under WIA section 167(d) and may be provided by a grantee as described in the grant plan.
(b) In providing emergency assistance, the NFJP grantee may use an abbreviated eligibility determination process that accepts the applicant's self-attestation as final evidence of eligibility, except that self-attestation may not be used to establish the requirements of legal working status in the United States, and Selective Service registration, where applicable.
(a) Intensive services available to farmworkers include those described in WIA section 134(d)(3)(C).
(b) Intensive services may also include:
(1) Dropout prevention activities;
(2) Allowance payments;
(3) Work experience, which:
(i) Is designed to promote the development of good work habits and basic work skills at the work-site (work experience may be conducted with the public and private non-profit sectors and with the private for-profit sector when the design for this service is described in the approved grant plan); and which:
(ii)(A) May be paid. Paid work experience must compensate participants at no less than the higher of the applicable State or Federal minimum wage; or
(B) May be unpaid. Unpaid work experience must provide tangible benefits, in lieu of wages, to those who participate in unpaid work experience and the strategy for ensuring that tangible benefits are received must be described in the approved grant plan. The benefits to the participant must be commensurate with the participant's contribution to the hosting organization;
(4) Literacy and English-as-a-Second language; and
(5) Other services identified in the approved grant plan.
(a) An objective assessment is a procedure designed to comprehensively assess the skills, abilities, and interests of each employment and training participant through the use of diagnostic testing and other assessment tools. The methods used by the grantee in conducting the objective assessment may include:
(1) Structured in-depth interviews;
(2) Skills and aptitude assessments;
(3) Performance assessments (for example, skills or work samples, including those that measure interest and capability to train in nontraditional employment);
(4) Interest or attitude inventories;
(5) Career guidance instruments;
(6) Aptitude tests; and
(7) Basic skills tests.
(b) The objective assessment is an ongoing process that requires the grantee staff to remain in close consultation with each participant to continuously obtain current information about the participant's progress that may be relevant to his/her Individual Employment Plan (IEP).
The elements of the Individual Employment Plan (IEP) are:
(a) Joint development: The grantee develops the IEP in partnership with the participant;
(b) Customer focus: The combination of services chosen with the participant must be consistent with the results of any objective assessment, responsive to the expressed goals of the participant, and must include periodic evaluation of planned goals and a record of accomplishments in consultation with the participant;
(c) Length/type of service: The type and duration of intensive or training services must be based upon:
(1) The employment/career goal;
(2) Referrals to other programs for specified activities; and
(3) The delivery agents and schedules for intensive services, training and training-related supportive services; and
(d) Privacy: As a customer-centered case management tool, an IEP is a personal record and must receive confidential treatment.
(a) Training services include those described in WIA sections 134(d)(4)(D) and 167(d), and may be described in the IEP and may include:
(1) On-the-job training activities under a contract between the participating employer and the grantee;
(2) Training-related supportive services; and
(b) Other training activities identified in the approved grant plan such as training in self-employment skills and micro-enterprise development.
At a minimum, an on-the-job training contract must comply with the requirements of WIA sections 195(4) and 101(31) and must include:
(a) The occupation(s) for which training is to be provided;
(b) The duration of training;
(c) The wage rate to be paid to the trainee;
(d) The rate of reimbursement;
(e) The maximum amount of reimbursement;
(f) A training outline that reflects the work skills required for the position;
(g) An outline of any other separate classroom training that may be provided by the employer; and
(h) The employer's agreement to maintain and make available time and attendance, payroll and other records to support amounts claimed by the employer for reimbursement under the OJT contract.
Related Assistance may include such services and activities as:
(a) Emergency Assistance;
(b) Workplace safety and farmworker pesticide safety instruction;
(c) Housing development assistance;
(d) Other supportive services described in the grant plan; and
(e) English language classes and basic education classes for participants not enrolled in intensive or training services.
Farmworkers may receive related assistance services when the need for the related assistance is documented for any eligible farmworker or dependent in a determination made by the grantee or in a statement by the farmworker.
(a) The NFJP will use the core indicators of performance common to the adult and youth programs, described in 20 CFR part 666. The levels of performance for the farmworker indicators will be established in a negotiation between the Department and the grantee. The levels must take into account the characteristics of the population to be served and the economic conditions in the service area. Proposed levels of performance must be included in the grantee plan submission, and the agreed-upon levels must be included in the approved plan.
(b) We may develop additional performance indicators with appropriate levels of performance for evaluating programs that serve farmworkers and which reflect the State service area economy and local demographics of eligible MSFW's. The levels of performance for these additional indicators must be negotiated with the grantee and included in the approved plan.
Each grantee receiving WIA section 167 program funds must submit to DSFP a comprehensive service delivery plan and a projection of participant services and expenditures covering the two-year designation cycle.
An NFJP grantee's biennial plan must describe:
(a) The employment and education needs of the farmworker population to be served;
(b) The manner in which proposed services to farmworkers and their families will strengthen their ability to obtain or retain employment or stabilize their agricultural employment;
(c) The related assistance and supportive services to be provided and the manner in which such assistance and services are to be coordinated with other available services;
(d) The performance indicators and proposed levels of performance used to assess the performance of such entity, including the specific goals of the grantee's program for the two Program Years involved;
(e) The method the grantee will use to target its services on specific segments of the eligible population, as appropriate;
(f) The array of services which the grantee intends to make available, with costs specified on forms we prescribe. These forms will indicate how many participants the grantee expects to serve, by activity, the results expected under the grantee's plan, and the anticipated expenditures by cost category; and
(g) Its response to any other requirements set forth in the SGA issued under § 669.210.
We will announce plan submission dates in the SGA issued under § 669.220.
(a) Plans must be modified to reflect the funding level for the second year of the designation cycle. We will provide instructions for when to submit modifications for second year funding, which will generally be no later than June 1 prior to the beginning of the second year of the designation cycle.
(b) We may unilaterally modify the grantee's plan to add funds or, if the total amount of funds available for allotment is reduced by Congress, to reduce each grantee's grant amount.
(c) The grantee may modify its plan to add, delete, expand, or reduce any part of the program plan or allowable activities. Such modifications may be made by the grantee without our approval except where the modification reduces the total number of participants to be served annually under intensive
(d) If the grantee is approved for a regulatory waiver under §§ 669.560 and 669.570, the grantee must submit a modification of its service delivery plan to reflect the effect of the waiver.
(a) Costs are classified as follows:
(1) Administrative costs, as defined in 20 CFR 667.220; and
(2) Program costs, which are all other costs not defined as administrative.
(b) Program costs must be classified and reported in the following categories:
(1) Related assistance, including emergency assistance and supportive services, including allocated staff costs; and
(2) All other program services, including allocated staff costs.
No, under 20 CFR 667.210(b), limits on administrative costs for NFJP grants will be negotiated with the grantee and identified in the grant award document.
(a) The statutory waiver provision at WIA section 189(i) does not apply to WIA section 167.
(b) NFJP grantees may request waiver of any regulatory provisions only when such regulatory provisions are:
(1) Not required by WIA;
(2) Not related to wage and labor standards, nondisplacement protection, worker rights, participation and protection of workers and participants, and eligibility of participants, grievance procedures, judicial review, nondiscrimination, allocation of funds, procedures for review and approval of plans; and
(3) Not related to the key reform principles embodied in WIA, described in 20 CFR 661.400.
To request a waiver, a grantee must submit a waiver plan that:
(a) Describes the goals of the waiver, the expected programmatic outcomes, and how the waiver will improve the provision of WIA activities;
(b) Is consistent with guidelines we establish and the waiver provisions at 20 CFR 661.400 through 661.420; and
(c) Includes a modified service delivery plan reflecting the effect of requested waiver.
The purpose of the MSFW youth program is to provide an effective and comprehensive array of educational opportunities, employment skills, and life enhancement activities to at-risk and out-of-school MSFW youth that lead to success in school, economic stability and development into productive members of society.
The MSFW youth program is funded under WIA section 127(b)(1)(A)(iii) to provide farmworker youth activities under the auspices of WIA section 167. These funds are specifically earmarked for MSFW youth. Funds provided for the section 167 program may also be used for youth, but are not limited to this age group.
(a) This subpart applies only to the administration of grants for MSFW youth programs funded under WIA section 127(b)(1)(A)(iii).
(b) The regulations for the NFJP in this part apply to the administration of the MSFW youth program, except as modified in this subpart.
Any entity that meets the requirements described in the SGA may apply for designation as an “MSFW youth program grantee” consistent with requirements described in the SGA. The Department gives special consideration to an entity in any service area for which the entity has been designated as a WIA section 167 NFJP program grantee.
(a) To apply for designation as an MSFW youth program grantee, entities must respond to an SGA by submitting a plan that meets the requirements of WIA section 167(c)(2) and describes a two-year strategy for meeting the needs of eligible MSFW youth in the service area the entity seeks to serve.
(b) The designation process is conducted competitively (subject to § 669.210) through a selection process distinct from the one used to select WIA section 167 NFJP grantees.
The allocation of funds among entities designated as WIA section 167 MSFW Youth Program grantees is based on the comparative merits of the applications, in accordance with criteria set forth in the SGA. However, we may include criteria in the SGA that promote a geographical distribution of funds and that encourages both large- and small-scale programs.
The required planning documents and other required information and the submission dates for filing are described in the SGA.
Disadvantaged youth, ages 14 through 21, who are individually eligible or are members of eligible families under the WIA section 167 NFJP may receive these services.
(a) Based on an evaluation and assessment of the needs of MSFW youth participants, grantees may provide activities and services to MSFW youth that include:
(1) Intensive services and training services, as described in §§ 669.400 and 669.410;
(2) Life skills activities which may include self and interpersonal skills development;
(3) Community service projects;
(4) Small business development technical assistance and training in conjunction with entrepreneurial training;
(5) Supportive services including the related assistance services, described in § 669.430; and
(b) Other activities and services that conform to the use of funds for youth activities described in 20 CFR part 664.
Sec. 506(c), Pub. L. 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c).
The regulations in this part are an outline of the requirements that apply to the Job Corps program. More detailed policies and procedures are contained in a Policy and Requirements Handbook issued by the Secretary. Throughout this part, phrases like “according to instructions (procedures) issued by the Secretary” refer to the Policy and Requirements Handbook and other Job Corps directives.
Job Corps is a national program that operates in partnership with States and communities, local Workforce Investment Boards, youth councils, One-Stop Centers and partners, and other youth programs to provide education and training, primarily in a residential setting, for low income young people. The objective of Job Corps is to provide young people with the skills they need to obtain and hold a job, enter the Armed Forces, or enroll in advanced training or further education.
The following definitions apply to this part:
(1) Works with a Job Corps center and provides information on local demand occupations, employment opportunities, and the job skills needed to obtain the opportunities, and
(2) Serves communities in which the graduates of the Job Corps seek employment when they leave the program.
(1) Which increases the usefulness, productivity, or serviceable life of an existing site, facility, building, structure, or major item of equipment;
(2) Which is classified for accounting purposes as a “fixed asset;” and
(3) The cost of which increases the recorded value of the existing building, site, facility, structure, or major item of equipment and is subject to depreciation.
(1) Completed the requirements of a vocational training program, or received a secondary school diploma or its equivalent as a result of participating in the Job Corps program; and
(2) Achieved job readiness and employment skills as a result of participating in the Job Corps program.
(1) Outreach and admissions services;
(2) Contracted vocational training and off-center training;
(3) Placement services;
(4) Continued services for graduates;
(5) Certain health services; and
(6) Miscellaneous logistical and technical support.
(1) Firearms and ammunition;
(2) Explosives and incendiaries;
(3) Knives with blades longer than 2 inches;
(4) Homemade weapons;
(5) All other weapons and instruments used primarily to inflict personal injury;
(6) Stolen property;
(7) Drugs, including alcohol, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, tranquilizers, and drug paraphernalia except for drugs and/or paraphernalia that are prescribed for medical reasons; and
(8) Any other goods prohibited by the center operator in a student handbook.
The Job Corps Director has been delegated the authority to carry out the responsibilities of the Secretary under Subtitle I-C of the Act. Where the term “Secretary” is used in this part 670 to refer to establishment or issuance of guidelines and standards directly relating to the operation of the Job Corps program, the Job Corps Director has that responsibility.
(a) The Secretary must approve the location and size of all Job Corps centers.
(b) The Secretary establishes procedures for making decisions concerning the establishment, relocation, expansion, or closing of contract centers.
The Secretary issues procedures for requesting, approving, and initiating capital improvements and new construction on Job Corps centers.
(a) Yes, the Secretary establishes procedures for the protection and maintenance of contract center facilities owned or leased by the Department of Labor, that are consistent with Federal Property Management Regulations at 41 CFR Chapter 101.
(b) Federal agencies operating civilian conservation centers (CCC's) on public land are responsible for protection and maintenance of CCC facilities.
(c) The Secretary issues procedures for conducting periodic facility surveys of centers to determine their condition and to identify needs such as correction of safety and health deficiencies, rehabilitation, and/or new construction.
(a) Entities eligible to receive funds under this subpart to operate centers include:
(1) Federal, State, and local agencies;
(2) Private for-profit and non-profit corporations;
(3) Indian tribes and organizations; and
(4) Area vocational education or residential vocational schools. (WIA sec. 147(a)(1)(A) and (d)).
(b) Entities eligible to receive funds to provide outreach and admissions, placement and other operational support services include:
(1) One-Stop Centers and partners;
(2) Community action agencies;
(3) Business organizations;
(4) Labor organizations;
(5) Private for-profit and non-profit corporations; and
(6) Other agencies, and individuals that have experience and contact with youth. (WIA sec. 145(a)(3)).
(a) The Secretary selects eligible entities to operate contract centers and operational support service providers on a competitive basis in accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 unless section 303 (c) and (d) of that Act apply. In selecting an entity, Job Corps issues requests for proposals (RFP) for the operation of all contract centers and for provision of operational support services according to Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1) and DOL Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 29). Job Corps develops RFP's for center operators in consultation with the Governor, the center industry council (if established), and the Local Board for the workforce investment area in which the center is located.
(b) The RFP for each contract center and each operational support service contract describes uniform specifications and standards, as well as specifications and requirements that are unique to the operation of the specific center or to the specific required operational support services.
(c) The Contracting Officer selects and funds Job Corps contract center operators on the basis of an evaluation of the proposals received using criteria established by the Secretary, and set forth in the RFP. The criteria include the following:
(1) The offeror's ability to coordinate the activities carried out through the Job Corps center with activities carried out under the appropriate State and local workforce investment plans;
(2) The degree to which the offeror proposes vocational training that reflects employment opportunities in the local areas in which most of the students intend to seek employment;
(3) The degree to which the offeror is familiar with the surrounding community, including the applicable One-Stop Centers, and the State and region in which the center is located; and
(4) The offeror's past performance.
(d) The Contracting Officer selects and funds operational support service contractors on the basis of an evaluation of the proposals received using criteria established by the Secretary and set forth in the RFP.
(e) The Secretary enters into interagency agreements with Federal agencies for the funding, establishment, and operation of CCC's which include provisions to ensure that the Federal agencies comply with the regulations under this part.
(a) The requirements of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended; the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977; the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1); and the DOL Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 29) apply to the award of contracts and to payments to Federal agencies.
(b) Job Corps funding of Federal agencies that operate CCC's are made by a transfer of obligational authority from DOL to the respective operating agency.
To be eligible to participate in the Job Corps, an individual must be:
(a) At least 16 and not more than 24 years of age at the time of enrollment, except
(1) There is no upper age limit for an otherwise eligible individual with a disability; and
(2) Not more than 20% of individuals enrolled nationwide may be individuals who are aged 22 to 24 years old;
(b) A low-income individual;
(c) An individual who is facing one or more of the following barriers to education and employement:
(1) Is basic skills deficient, as defined in WIA sec. 101(4); or
(2) Is a school dropout; or
(3) Is homeless, or a runaway, or a foster child; or
(4) Is a parent; or
(5) Requires additional education, vocational training, or intensive counseling and related assistance in order to participate successfully in regular schoolwork or to secure and hold meaningful employment; and
(d) Meets the requirements of § 670.420, if applicable.
Yes, in accordance with procedures issued by the Secretary, an eligible applicant may be selected for enrollment, only if:
(a) A determination is made, based on information relating to the background, needs and interests of the applicant, that the applicant's educational and vocational needs can best be met through the Job Corps program;
(b) A determination is made that there is a reasonable expectation the applicant can participate successfully in group situations and activities, and is not likely to engage in actions that would potentially:
(1) Prevent other students from receiving the benefit of the program;
(2) Be incompatible with the maintenance of sound discipline; or
(3) Impede satisfactory relationships between the center to which the student is assigned and surrounding local communities;
(c) The applicant is made aware of the center's rules and what the consequences are for failure to observe the rules, as described in procedures issued by the Secretary;
(d) The applicant passes a background check conducted according to procedures established by the Secretary. The background check must find that the applicant is not on probation, parole, under a suspended sentence or under the supervision of any agency as a result of court action or institutionalization, unless the court or appropriate agency certifies in writing that it will approve of the applicant's release from its supervision and that the applicant's release does not violate applicable laws and regulations. No one will be denied enrollment in Job Corps solely on the basis of contact with the criminal justice system. (WIA secs. 145(b)(1)(C) and 145(b)(2));
(e) Suitable arrangements are made for the care of any dependent children for the proposed period of enrollment.
(a) Yes, each male applicant 18 years of age or older must present evidence that he has complied with section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451
(b) When a male student turns 18 years of age, he must submit evidence to the center that he has complied with the requirements of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451
The Regional Director makes arrangements with outreach and admissions agencies to perform Job Corps recruitment, screening and admissions functions according to standards and procedures issued by the Secretary. One-Stop Centers or partners, community action organizations, private for-profit and non-profit businesses, labor organizations, or other entities that have contact with youth over substantial periods of time and are able to offer reliable information about the needs of youth, conduct outreach and admissions activities. The Regional Director awards contracts for provision of outreach and screening services on a competitive basis in accordance with the requirements in § 670.310.
(a) Outreach and admissions agencies are responsible for:
(1) Developing outreach and referral sources;
(2) Actively seeking out potential applicants;
(3) Conducting personal interviews with all applicants to identify their needs and eligibility status; and
(4) Identifying youth who are interested and likely Job Corps participants.
(b) Outreach and admissions agencies are responsible for completing all Job Corps application forms and determining whether applicants meet the eligibility and selection criteria for participation in Job Corps as provided in §§ 670.400 and 670.410.
(c) The Secretary may decide that determinations with regard to one or more of the eligibility criteria will be made by the Regional Director.
(a) Each applicant who meets the application and selection requirements of §§ 670.400 and 670.410 is assigned to a center based on an assignment plan developed by the Secretary. The assignment plan identifies a target for the maximum percentage of students at each center who come from the State or region nearest the center, and the regions surrounding the center. The assignment plan is based on an analysis of:
(1) The number of eligible individuals in the State and region where the center is located and the regions surrounding where the center is located;
(2) The demand for enrollment in Job Corps in the State and region where the center is located and in surrounding regions; and
(3) The size and enrollment level of the center.
(b) Eligible applicants are assigned to centers closest to their homes, unless it is determined, based on the special needs of applicants, including vocational interests and English literacy needs, the unavailability of openings in the closest center, or parent or guardian concerns, that another center is more appropriate.
(c) A student who is under the age of 18 must not be assigned to a center other than the center closest to home if a parent or guardian objects to the assignment.
(a) No more than 20 percent of students enrolled in Job Corps nationwide may be nonresidential students.
(b) In enrolling individuals who are to be nonresidential students, priority is given to those eligible individuals who are single parents with dependent children. (WIA sec 147(b).)
(a) A person who is determined to be ineligible to participate in Job Corps under § 670.400 or a person who is not selected for enrollment under § 670.410 may appeal the determination to the outreach and admissions agency or to the center within 60 days of the determination. The appeal will be resolved according to the procedures in §§ 670.990 and 670.991. If the appeal is denied by the outreach/admissions contractor or the center, the person may appeal the decision in writing to the Regional Director within 60 days the date of the denial. The Regional Director will decide within 60 days whether to reverse or approve the appealed decision. The decision by the Regional Director is the Department's final decision.
(b) If an applicant believes that he or she has been determined ineligible or not selected for enrollment based upon a factor prohibited by WIA section 188, the individual may proceed under the applicable DOL nondiscrimination regulations implementing WIA section 188. These regulations may be found at 29 CFR part 37.
(c) An applicant who is determined to be ineligible or a person who is denied enrollment must be referred to the appropriate One-Stop Center or other local service provider.
(a) To become enrolled as a Job Corps student, an applicant selected for enrollment must physically arrive at the assigned Job Corps center on the appointed date. However, applicants selected for enrollment who arrive at their assigned centers by government furnished transportation are considered to be enrolled on their dates of departure by such transportation.
(b) Center operators must document the enrollment of new students according to procedures issued by the Secretary.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a student may remain enrolled in Job Corps for no more than two years.
(b)(1) An extension of a student's enrollment may be authorized in special cases according to procedures issued by the Secretary; and
(2) A student's enrollment in an advanced career training program may be extended in order to complete the program for a period not to exceed one year.
(a) Job Corps centers must provide:
(1) Academic, vocational, employability and social skills training;
(2) Work-based learning; and
(3) Recreation, counseling and other residential support services.
(b) In addition, centers must provide students with access to the core services described in WIA section 134(d)(2) and the intensive services described in WIA section 134(d)(3).
(a) Job Corps centers must provide basic education, vocational and social skills training. The Secretary provides curriculum standards and guidelines.
(b) Each center must provide students with competency-based or individualized training in an occupational area that will best contribute to the students' opportunities for permanent long-term employment.
(1) Specific vocational training programs offered by individual centers must be approved by the Regional Director according to policies issued by the Secretary.
(2) Center industry councils described in § 670.800 must review appropriate labor market information, identify employment opportunities in local areas where students will look for employment, determine the skills and education necessary for those jobs, and as appropriate, recommend changes in the center's vocational training program to the Secretary.
(c) Each center must implement a system to evaluate and track the progress and achievements of each student at regular intervals.
(d) Each center must develop a training plan that must be available for review and approval by the appropriate Regional Director.
No, in order to facilitate students' entry into the workforce, the Secretary may contract with national business, union, or union-affiliated organizations for vocational training programs at specific centers. Contractors providing such vocational training will be selected in accordance with the requirements of § 670.310.
(a) The center operator must emphasize and implement work-based learning programs for students through center program activities, including vocational skills training, and through arrangements with employers. Work-based learning must be under actual working conditions and must be designed to enhance the employability, responsibility, and confidence of the students. Work-based learning usually occurs in tandem with students' vocational training.
(b) The center operator must ensure that students are assigned only to workplaces that meet the safety standards described in § 670.935.
Yes, a center operator may authorize a student to participate in gainful leisure time employment, as long as the employment does not interfere with required scheduled activities.
Job Corps center operators must provide the following services according to procedures issued by the Secretary:
(a) A quality living and learning environment that supports the overall training program and includes a safe, secure, clean and attractive physical and social environment, seven days a week, 24 hours a day;
(b) An ongoing, structured counseling program for students;
(c) Food service, which includes provision of nutritious meals for students;
(d) Medical services, through provision or coordination of a wellness program which includes access to basic medical, dental and mental health services, as described in the Policy and Requirements Handbook, for all students from the date of enrollment until separation from the Job Corps program;
(e) A recreation/avocational program;
(f) A student leadership program and an elected student government; and
(g) A student welfare association for the benefit of all students that is funded by non-appropriated funds which come from sources such as snack bars, vending machines, disciplinary fines, and donations, and is run by an elected student government, with the help of a staff advisor.
Yes, each Job Corps center must establish and operate an effective system to account for and document the whereabouts, participation, and status of students during their Job Corps enrollment. The system must enable center staff to detect and respond to instances of unauthorized or unexplained student absence. Each center must operate its student accountability system according to requirements and procedures issued by the Secretary.
(a) Yes, each Job Corps center must establish and maintain its own student incentives system to encourage and reward students' accomplishments.
(b) The Job Corps center must establish and maintain a behavior management system, according to procedures established by the Secretary. The behavior management system must include a zero tolerance policy for violence and drugs policy as described in § 670.540.
(a) Each Job Corps center must have a zero tolerance policy for:
(1) An act of violence, as defined in procedures issued by the Secretary;
(2) Use, sale, or possession of a controlled substance, as defined at 21 U.S.C. 802;
(3) Abuse of alcohol;
(4) Possession of unauthorized goods; or
(5) Other illegal or disruptive activity.
(b) As part of this policy, all students must be tested for drugs as a condition of enrollment. (WIA sec. 145(a)(1) and 152(b)(2).)
(c) According to procedures issued by the Secretary, the policy must specify the offenses that result in the automatic separation of a student from the Job Corps. The center director is responsible for determining when there is a violation of a specified offense.
The center operator must ensure that all students receive due process in disciplinary proceedings according to procedures developed by the Secretary. These procedures must include, at a minimum, center fact-finding and behavior review boards, a code of sanctions under which the penalty of separation from Job Corps might be imposed, and procedures for students to appeal a center's decision to discharge them involuntarily from Job Corps to a regional appeal board.
(a) Job Corps centers are responsible for coordinating with outreach and admissions agencies to assist students with making arrangements for child care for their dependent children.
(b) Job Corps centers may operate on center child development programs with the approval of the Secretary.
(a) Centers must ensure that a student has the right to worship or not worship as he or she chooses.
(b) Religious services may not be held on center unless the center is so isolated that transportation to and from community religious facilities is impractical.
(c) If religious services are held on center, no Federal funds may be paid to those who conduct services. Services may not be confined to one religious denomination, and centers may not require students to attend services.
(d) Students who believe their religious rights have been violated may file complaints under the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 37.
(a) Yes, the Secretary may undertake experimental, research and demonstration projects related to the Job Corps program according to WIA section 156.
(b) The Secretary establishes policies and procedures for conducting such projects.
(c) All studies and evaluations produced or developed with Federal funds become the property of the United States.
Yes, Job Corps provides for the transportation of students between their homes and centers as described in policies and procedures issued by the Secretary.
Job Corps students are eligible for annual leaves, emergency leaves and other types of leaves of absence from their assigned centers according to criteria and requirements issued by the Secretary. Center operators and other service providers must account for student leave according to procedures issued by the Secretary.
(a) Yes, according to criteria and rates established by the Secretary, Job Corps students receive cash living allowances, performance bonuses, and allotments for care of dependents, and graduates receive post-separation readjustment allowances and placement bonuses. The Secretary may provide former students with post-separation allowances.
(b) In the event of a student's death, any amount due under this section is paid according to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5582 governing issues such as designation of beneficiary, order of precedence and related matters.
Yes, Job Corps student allowances are subject to Federal payroll tax withholding and social security taxes. Job Corps students are considered to be Federal employees for purposes of Federal payroll taxes. (WIA sec. 157(a)(2).)
Yes, Job Corps students are provided cash clothing allowances and/or articles of clothing, including safety clothing, when needed for their participation in Job Corps and their successful entry into the work force. Center operators and other service providers must issue clothing and clothing assistance to students according to rates, criteria, and procedures issued by the Secretary.
Job Corps centers must test and counsel students to assess their competencies and capabilities and determine their readiness for placement.
(a) Job Corps placement services focus on placing program graduates in:
(1) Full-time jobs that are related to their vocational training and that pay wages that allow for self-sufficiency;
(2) Higher education; or
(3) Advanced training programs, including apprenticeship programs.
(b) Placement service levels for students may vary, depending on whether the student is a graduate or a former student.
(c) Procedures relating to placement service levels are issued by the Secretary.
The One-Stop system must be used to the fullest extent possible in placing graduates and former students in jobs. Job Corps placement agencies provide placement services under a contract or other agreement with the Department of Labor.
(a) Placement agencies are responsible for:
(1) Contacting graduates;
(2) Assisting them in improving skills in resume preparation, interviewing techniques and job search strategies;
(3) Identifying job leads or educational and training opportunities through coordination with local Workforce Investment Boards, One-Stop operators and partners, employers, unions and industry organizations; and
(4) Placing graduates in jobs, apprenticeship, the Armed Forces, or higher education or training, or referring former students for additional services in their local communities as appropriate. Placement services may be provided for former students according to procedures issued by the Secretary.
(b) Placement agencies must record and submit all Job Corps placement information according to procedures established by the Secretary.
Yes, according to procedures issued by the Secretary, continued services,
Placement agencies, centers or other agencies, including One-Stop partners, may provide post-program services under a contract or other agreement with the Regional Director. In selecting a provider for continued services, priority is given to One-Stop partners. (WIA sec. 148(d)).
(a) The Secretary issues guidelines for the National Office, Regional Offices, Job Corps centers and operational support providers to use in developing and maintaining cooperative relationships with other agencies and institutions, including law enforcement, educational institutions, communities, and other employment and training programs and agencies.
(b) The Secretary develops polices and requirements to ensure linkages with the One-Stop delivery system to the greatest extent practicable, as well as with other Federal, State, and local programs, and youth programs funded under this title. These linkages enhance services to youth who face multiple barriers to employment and must include, where appropriate:
(1) Referrals of applicants and students;
(2) Participant assessment;
(3) Pre-employment and work maturity skills training;
(4) Work-based learning;
(5) Job search, occupational, and basic skills training; and
(6) Provision of continued services for graduates.
(a) Job Corps representatives serve on Youth Councils operating under applicable Local Boards wherever geographically feasible.
(b) Each Job Corps center must have a Business and Community Liaison designated by the director of the center to establish relationships with local and distant employers, applicable One-Stop centers and local boards, and members of the community according to procedures established by the Secretary. (WIA sec. 153(a).)
(c) Each Job Corps center must implement an active community relations program.
(d) Each Job Corps center must establish an industry advisory council, according to procedures established by the Secretary. The industry advisory council must include:
(1) Distant and local employers;
(2) Representatives of labor organizations (where present) and employees; and
(3) Job Corps students and graduates.
(e) A majority of the council members must be local and distant business owners, chief executives or chief operating officers of nongovernmental employers or other private sector employers, who have substantial management, hiring or policy responsibility and who represent businesses with employment opportunities in the local area and the areas to which students will return.
(f) The council must work with Local Boards and must review labor market information to provide recommendations to the Secretary regarding the center's vocational training offerings, including identification of emerging occupations suitable for training. (WIA sec.154(b)(1).)
(g) Job Corps is identified as a required One-Stop partner. Wherever practicable, Job Corps centers and operational support contractors must establish cooperative relationships and partnerships with One-Stop centers and other One-Stop partners, Local Boards, and other programs for youth.
Yes, Students are considered Federal employees for purposes of the Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 2671
(a) Whenever there is loss or damage to persons or property, which is believed to have resulted from operation of a Job Corps center and to be a proper charge against the Federal Government, the owner(s) of the property, the injured person(s), or their agent may submit a claim for the damage to the Regional Solicitor. Claims must be filed no later than two years from the date of loss or damage. The Regional Solicitor will determine if the claim is valid under the Tort Claims Act. If the Regional Solicitor determines a claim is not valid under the Tort Claims Act, the Regional Solicitor must consider the facts and may still settle the claim, in an amount not to exceed $1,500.
(b) The Job Corps may pay students for valid claims under the Tort Claims Act for lost, damaged, or stolen property, up to a maximum amount set by the Secretary, when the loss is not due to the negligence of the student. Students must file claims no later than six months from the date of loss. Students are compensated for losses including those that result from a natural disaster or those that occur when the student's property is in the protective custody of the Job Corps, such as when the student is AWOL. Claims must be filed with Job Corps regional offices. The regional office will promptly notify the student and the center of its determination.
(a) Job Corps students are considered Federal employees for purposes of the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA). (WIA sec. 157(a)(3).)
(b) Job Corps students may be entitled to Federal Employees Compensation Benefits as specified in WIA section 157.
(c) Job Corps students must meet the same eligibility tests for FECA payments that apply to all other Federal employees. One of those tests is that the injury must occur “in the performance of duty.” This test is described in § 670.915.
Residential students will be considered to be in the “performance of duty” at all times while:
(a) They are on center under the supervision and control of Job Corps officials;
(b) They are engaged in any authorized Job Corps activity;
(c) They are in authorized travel status; or
(d) They are engaged in any authorized offsite activity.
Non-resident students are considered “in performance of duty” as Federal employees when they are engaged in any authorized Job Corps activity, from the time they arrive at any scheduled center activity until they leave the activity. The standard rules governing coverage of Federal employees during travel to and from work apply. These rules are described in guidance issued by the Secretary.
Students are considered to be not in the performance of duty when:
(a) They are AWOL;
(b) They are at home, whether on pass or on leave
(c) They are engaged in an unauthorized offsite activity; or
(d) They are injured or ill due to their own:
(1) Willful misconduct;
(2) Intent to cause injury or death to oneself or another; or
(3) Intoxication or illegal use of drugs.
(a) FECA benefits for disability or death are computed using the entrance salary for a grade GS-2 as the student's monthly pay.
(b) The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 8113 (a) and (b), relating to compensation for work injuries apply to students. Compensation for disability will not begin to accrue until the day following the date on which the injured student completes his or her Job Corps separation.
(c) Whenever a student is injured, develops an occupationally related illness, or dies while in the performance of duty, the procedures in the DOL Employment Standards Administration regulations, at 20 CFR Chapter 1, must be followed. A thorough investigation of the circumstances and a medical evaluation must be completed and required forms must be timely filed by the center operator with the DOL Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
(a) The Secretary establishes procedures to ensure that students are not required or permitted to work, be trained, reside in, or receive services in buildings or surroundings or under conditions that are unsanitary or hazardous. Whenever students are employed or in training for jobs, they must be assigned only to jobs or training which observe applicable Federal, State and local health and safety standards.
(b) The Secretary develops procedures to ensure compliance with applicable DOL Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations.
(a) All Job Corps property which would otherwise be under exclusive Federal legislative jurisdiction is considered under concurrent jurisdiction with the appropriate State and locality with respect to criminal law enforcement. Concurrent jurisdiction extends to all portions of the property, including housing and recreational facilities, in addition to the portions of the property used for education and training activities.
(b) Centers located on property under concurrent Federal-State jurisdiction must establish agreements with Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies to enforce criminal laws.
(c) The Secretary develops procedures to ensure that any searches of a student's person, personal area or belongings for unauthorized goods follow applicable right-to-privacy laws.
(a) A private for-profit or a nonprofit Job Corps service provider is not liable, directly or indirectly, to any State or subdivision for any gross receipts taxes, business privilege taxes measured by gross receipts, or any similar taxes in connection with any payments made to or by such service provider for operating a center or other Job Corps program or activity. The service provider is not liable to any State or subdivision to collect or pay any sales, excise, use, or similar tax imposed upon the sale to or use by such deliverer of any property, service, or other item in connection with the operation of a center or other Job Corps program or activity. (WIA sec. 158(d).)
(b) If a State or local authority compels a center operator or other service provider to pay such taxes, the center operator or service provider may pay the taxes with Federal funds, but must document and report the State or local requirement according to procedures issued by the Secretary.
(a) Center operators and other service providers must manage Job Corps funds using financial management information systems that meet the specifications and requirements of the Secretary.
(b) These financial management systems must:
(1) Provide accurate, complete, and current disclosures of the costs of their Job Corps activities;
(2) Ensure that expenditures of funds are necessary, reasonable, allocable and allowable in accordance with applicable cost principles;
(3) Use account structures specified by the Secretary;
(4) Ensure the ability to comply with cost reporting requirements and procedures issued by the Secretary; and
(5) Maintain sufficient cost data for effective planning, monitoring, and evaluation of program activities and for determining the allowability of reported costs.
(a) Yes, Center operators and service providers are subject to Federal audits.
(b) The Secretary arranges for the survey, audit, or evaluation of each Job Corps center and service provider at least once every three years, by Federal auditors or independent public accountants. The Secretary may arrange for more frequent audits. (WIA sec. 159(b)(2).)
(c) Center operators and other service providers are responsible for giving full cooperation and access to books, documents, papers and records to duly appointed Federal auditors and evaluators. (WIA sec. 159(b)(1).)
The Secretary issues guidelines for a system for maintaining records for each student during enrollment and for disposition of such records after separation.
(a) The Secretary develops procedures to respond to requests for information or records or other necessary disclosures pertaining to students.
(b) DOL disclosure of Job Corps information must be handled according to the Freedom of Information Act and according to DOL regulations at 29 CFR part 70.
(c) Job Corps contractors are not “agencies” for Freedom of Information
(d) The regulations at 29 CFR part 71 apply to a system of records covered by the Privacy Act of 1974 maintained by DOL or to a similar system maintained by a contractor, such as a screening agency, contract center operator, or placement agency on behalf of the Job Corps.
The Secretary establishes procedures to ensure the timely and complete reporting of necessary financial and program information to maintain accountability. Center operators and operational support service providers are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of all reports and data they provide.
The performance of the Job Corps program as a whole, and the performance of individual program components, is assessed on an ongoing basis, in accordance with the regulations in this part and procedures and standards, including a national performance measurement system, issued by the Secretary. Annual performance assessments are done for each center operator and other service providers, including screening and admissions and placement agencies.
(a) At a minimum, the performance assessment system established under § 670.975 will include expected levels of performance established for each of the indicators of performance contained in WIA section 159(c). These are:
(1) The number of graduates and rate of graduation, analyzed by the type of vocational training received and the training provider;
(2) The job placement rate of graduates into unsubsidized employment, analyzed by the vocational training received, whether or not the job placement is related to the training received, the vocational training provider, and whether the placement is made by a local or national service provider;
(3) The average placement wage of graduates in training-related and non-training related unsubsidized jobs;
(4) The average wage of graduates on the first day of employment and at 6 and 12 months following placement, analyzed by the type of vocational training received;
(5) The number of and retention rate of graduates in unsubsidized employment after 6 and 12 months;
(6) The number of graduates who entered unsubsidized employment for 32 hours per week or more, for 20 to 32 hours per week, and for less than 20 hours per week.
(7) The number of graduates placed in higher education or advanced training; and
(8) The number of graduates who attained job readiness and employment skills.
(b) The Secretary issues the expected levels of performance for each indicator. To the extent practicable, the levels of performance will be continuous and consistent from year to year.
(a) The Secretary takes appropriate action to address performance issues through a specific performance plan.
(b) The plan may include the following actions:
(1) Providing technical assistance to a Job Corps center operator or support service provider, including a screening and admissions contractor;
(2) Changing the management staff of a center;
(3) Changing the vocational training offered at a center;
(4) Contracting out or recompeting the contract for a center or operational support service provider;
(5) Reducing the capacity of a Job Corps center;
(6) Relocating a Job Corps center; or
(7) Closing a Job Corps center. (WIA sec. 159 (f).)
(a) Each Job Corps center operator and service provider must establish and maintain a grievance procedure for filing complaints and resolving disputes from applicants, students and/or other interested parties about its programs and activities. A hearing on each complaint or dispute must be conducted within 30 days of the filing of the complaint or dispute. A decision on the complaint must be made by the center operator or service provider, as appropriate, within 60 days after the filing of the complaint, and a copy of the decision must be immediately served, by first-class mail, on the complainant and any other party to the complaint. Except for complaints under § 670.470 or complaints alleging fraud or other criminal activity, complaints may be filed within one year of the occurrence that led to the complaint.
(b) The procedure established under paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures to process complaints alleging violations of WIA section 188, consistent with DOL nondiscrimination regulations implementing WIA section 188 at 29 CFR part 37 and § 670.995.
(a) If a complaint is not resolved by the center operator or service provider in the time frames described in § 670.990, the person making the complaint may request that the Regional Director determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that the Act or regulations for this part of the Act have been violated. The request must be filed with the Regional Director within 60 days from the date that the center operator or service provider should have issued the decision.
(b) Following the receipt of a request for review under paragraph (a) of this section, the Regional Director must determine within 60 days whether there has been a violation of the Act or the WIA regulations. If the Regional Director determines that there has been a violation of the Act or Regulations, (s)he may direct the operator or service provider to remedy the violation or direct the service provider to issue a decision to resolve the dispute according to the service provider's grievance procedures. If the service provider does not comply with the Regional Director's decision within 30 days, the Regional Director may impose a sanction on the center operator or service provider for violating the Act or regulations, and/or for failing to issue a decision. Decisions imposing sanctions upon a center operator or service provider may be appealed to the DOL Office of Administrative Law Judges under 20 CFR 667.800 or 667.840.
(a) If DOL receives a complaint or has reason to believe that a center or other service provider is failing to comply with the requirements of the Act or regulations, the Regional Director must investigate the allegation and determine within 90 days after receiving the complaint or otherwise learning of the alleged violation, whether such allegation or complaint is true.
(b) As a result of such a determination, the Regional Director may:
(1) Direct the center operator or service provider to handle a complaint through the grievance procedures established under § 670.990; or
(2) Investigate and determine whether the center operator or service provider is in compliance with the Act and regulations. If the Regional Director determines that the center or service provider is not in compliance with the Act or regulations, the Regional Director may take action to resolve the complaint under § 670.991(b), or will report the incident to the DOL Office of the Inspector General, as described in 20 CFR 667.630.
A dispute between DOL and a Job Corps contractor will be handled according to the Contract Disputes Act and applicable regulations.
Disputes between DOL and a Federal Agency operating a center will be handled according to the interagency agreement with the agency which is operating the center.
Nondiscrimination requirements, procedures, complaint processing, and compliance reviews are governed by, as applicable, provisions of the following Department of Labor regulations:
(a) Regulations implementing WIA section 188 for programs receiving Federal financial assistance under WIA found at 29 CFR part 37.
(b) 29 CFR part 33 for programs conducted by the Department of Labor; and
(c) 41 CFR Chapter 60 for entities that have a Federal government contract.
Sec. 506(c), Pub. L. 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c).
The purpose of national emergency grants is to provide supplemental dislocated worker funds to States, Local Boards and other eligible entities in order to respond to the needs of dislocated workers and communities affected by major economic dislocations and other worker dislocation events which cannot be met with formula allotments.
We use funds reserved under WIA section 132(a)(2)(A) to provide financial assistance to eligible applicant for grants under WIA section 173.
These include:
(a) Plant closures;
(b) Mass layoffs affecting 50 or more workers at a single site of employment;
(c) Closures and realignments of military installations;
(d) Multiple layoffs in a single local community that have significantly increased the total number of unemployed individuals in a community;
(e) Emergencies or natural disasters, as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) respectively, of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(1) and (2)) which have been declared eligible for public assistance by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and
(f) Other events, as determined by the Secretary.
(a)
(b)
(c)
We publish instructions for submitting applications for National Emergency Grants in the
(a) Applications for national emergency grants to respond to mass layoffs and plant closures may be submitted to the Department as soon as:
(1) The State receives a notification of a mass layoff or a closure as a result of a WARN notice, a general announcement or some other means determined by the Governor to be sufficient to respond;
(2) Rapid response assistance has been initiated; and
(3) A determination has been made, in collaboration with the applicable Local Board(s) and chief elected official(s), that State and local formula dislocated worker funds are inadequate to provide the level of services needed by the workers being laid off.
(b) An eligible entity may apply for a national emergency grant at any time during the year.
(c) Applications for national emergency grants to respond to a declared emergency or natural disaster as described in § 671.110(e), cannot be considered until FEMA has declared that the affected area is eligible for disaster-related public assistance.
(a) National emergency grants may provide adjustment assistance for
(b) Adjustment assistance includes the core, intensive, and training services authorized at WIA sections 134(d) and 173. The scope of services to be provided in a particular project are negotiated between the Department and the grantee, taking into account the needs of the target population covered by the grant. The scope of services may be changed through grant modifications, if necessary.
(c) National emergency grants may provide for supportive services to help workers who require such assistance to participate in activities provided for in the grant. Needs-related payments, in support of other employment and training assistance, may be available for the purpose of enabling dislocated workers who are eligible for such payments to participate in programs of training services. Generally, the terms of a grant must be consistent with Local Board policies governing such financial assistance with formula funds (including the payment levels and duration of payments). However, the terms of the grant agreement may diverge from established Local Board policies, in the following instances:
(1) If unemployed dislocated workers served by the project are not able to meet the 13 or 8 weeks enrollment in training requirement at WIA section 134(e)(3)(B) because of the lack of formula or emergency grant funds in the State or local area at the time of dislocation, such individuals may be eligible for needs-related payments if they are enrolled in training by the end of the 6th week following the date of the emergency grant award;
(2) Trade-impacted workers who are not eligible for trade readjustment assistance under NAFTA-TAA may be eligible for needs-related payments under a national emergency grant if the worker is enrolled in training by the end of the 16th week following layoff; and
(3) Under other circumstances as specified in the national emergency grant application guidelines.
(d) A national emergency grant to respond to a declared emergency or natural disaster, as defined at § 671.110(e), may provide short-term disaster relief employment for:
(1) Individuals who are temporarily or permanently laid off as a consequence of the disaster;
(2) Dislocated workers; and
(3) Long-term unemployed individuals.
(e) Temporary employment assistance is authorized on disaster projects that provide food, clothing, shelter and other humanitarian assistance for disaster victims; and on projects that perform demolition, cleaning, repair, renovation and reconstruction of damaged and destroyed structures, facilities and lands located within the disaster area. For such temporary jobs, each eligible worker is limited to no more than six months of employment for each single disaster. The amounts, duration and other limitations on wages will be negotiated for each grant.
(f) Additional requirements that apply to national emergency grants, including natural disaster grants, are contained in the application instructions.
(a) State and Local Board grantees may request and we may approve the application of existing general statutory or regulatory waivers and workflex waivers to a National Emergency Grant award. The application for grant funds must describe any statutory waivers which the applicant wishes to apply to the project that the State and/or Local Board, as applicable, have been granted under its waiver plan, or that the State has approved for implementation in the applicable local area under workflex waivers. We will consider such requests as part of the overall application review and decision process.
(b) If, during the operation of the project, the grantee wishes to apply a waiver not identified in the application, the grantee must request a modification which includes the provision to be waived, the operational barrier to be removed and the effect upon the outcome of the project.
(a) Rapid response is a required Statewide activity under WIA section 134(a)(2)(A), to be carried out by the State or its designee in collaboration with the Local Board(s) and chief elected official(s). Under 20 CFR 665.310, rapid response encompasses, among other activities, an assessment of the general needs of the affected workers and the resources available to them.
(b) In accordance with national emergency grant application guidelines published by the Department, each applicant must demonstrate that:
(1) The rapid response activities described in 20 CFR 665.310 have been initiated and carried out, or are in the process of being carried out;
(2) State and local funds, including those made available under section 132(b)(2)(B) of the Act, have been used to initiate appropriate services to the eligible workers;
(3) There is a need for additional funds to effectively respond to the assistance needs of the workers and, in the case of declared emergencies and natural disasters, the community; and
(4) The application has been developed by or in conjunction with the Local Board(s) and chief elected official(s) of the local area(s) in which the proposed project is to operate.
(a) In general, the program requirements and administrative standards set forth at 20 CFR parts 663 and 667 will apply.
(b) Exceptions include:
(1) Funds provided in response to a natural disaster may be used for temporary job creation in areas declared eligible for public assistance by FEMA, subject to the limitations of WIA section 173(d), this part and the application guidelines issued by the Department;
(2) National emergency grant funds may be used to pay an appropriate level of administrative costs based on the design and complexity of the project. We will negotiate administration costs with the applicant as part of the application review and grant award and modification processes;
(3) The period of availability for expenditure of funds under a national emergency grant is specified in the grant agreement.
(4) We may establish supplemental reporting, monitoring and oversight requirements for national emergency grants. The requirements will be identified in the grant application instructions or the grant document.
(5) We may negotiate and fund projects under terms other than those specified in this part where it can be clearly demonstrated that such adjustments will achieve a greater positive benefit for the workers and/or communities being assisted.
29 U.S.C. 49k.
3. In § 652.1, the definition of
4. Section 652.5 is revised to read as follows:
The sums allotted to each State under section 6 of the Act must be expended consistent with an approved plan under 20 CFR 661.220 through 661.240 and §§ 652.211 through 652.214. At a minimum, each State shall provide the basic labor exchange elements at § 652.3.
a. in paragraph (a) remove the citation “41 CFR part 29-70” and add in its place the citation “29 CFR part 97, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments,”, and remove the citation “41 CFR. part 1-15.7” and add in its place the citation “OMB Circular A-87 (Revised)”.;
b. in paragraph (d)(2) remove the citation “41 CFR part 29-70” and add in its place the citation “29 CFR part 97, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments,”, and remove the citation “41 CFR 1-15.7” and add in its place the citation “OMB Circular A-87 (Revised)”, and remove the citation “41 CFR 29-70.215” and add in its place the citation “29 CFR 97.32(g)';
c. in paragraph (d)(6) introductory text, remove the citation “41 CFR 1-15.711-13 and 711-10” and add in its place the citation “OMB Circular A-87 (Revised)”;
d. in paragraph (d)(6)(ii) remove the citation “41 CFR 1-15.711-13 and 711-10” and add in its place the citation “OMB Circular A-87 (Revised)”;
e. in paragraph (d)(6)(iii) remove the citation “41 CFR 1-15.711-13 and 1-15.711-10” and add in its place the citation “OMB Circular A-87 (Revised)”;
f. in paragraph (d)(6)(iv) remove the citation “41 CFR 1-15.711-13 and 1-15.711-10” and add in its place the citation “OMB Circular A-87 (Revised)”;
g. in paragraph (j)(4) remove the citation “29 CFR parts 1627 and 32” and add in its place the citation “29 CFR part 32 and 29 CFR 1627.3(b)(iv).”
h. paragraph (j)(1) is revised to read as follows:
(j) * * *
(1) Assure that no individual be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment in the administration or in connection with any services or activities authorized under the Act in violation of any applicable nondiscrimination law, including laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex, color, religion, national origin, disability, political affiliation or belief. All complaints alleging discrimination shall be filed and processed according to the procedures in the applicable DOL nondiscrimination regulations.
(a) This subpart provides guidance to States to implement the services provided under the Act, as amended by WIA, in a One-Stop delivery system environment.
(b) Except as otherwise provided, the definitions contained at subpart A of this part and section 2 of the Act apply to this subpart.
(a) The role of the State agency in the One-Stop delivery system is to ensure the delivery of services authorized under section 7(a) of the Act. The State agency is a required One-Stop partner in each local One-Stop delivery system and is subject to the provisions relating to such partners that are described at 20 CFR part 662.
(b) Consistent with those provisions, the State agency must:
(1) Participate in the One-Stop delivery system in accordance with section 7(e) of the Act;
(2) Be represented on the Workforce Investment Boards that oversee the local and State One-Stop delivery system and be a party to the Memorandum of Understanding, described at 20 CFR 662.300, addressing the operation of the One-Stop delivery system; and
(3) Provide these services as part of the One-Stop delivery system.
(a) No, local Employment Service Offices may not exist outside of the One-Stop service delivery system.
(b) However, local Employment Service Offices may operate as affiliated sites, or through electronically or technologically linked access points as part of the One-Stop delivery system, provided the following conditions are met:
(1) All labor exchange services are delivered as a part of the local One-Stop delivery system in accordance with section 7(e) of the Act and § 652.207(b);
(2) The services described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are available in at least one comprehensive physical center, as specified in 20 CFR 662.100, from which job seekers and employers can access them; and
(3) The Memorandum of Understanding between the State agency local One-Stop partner and the Local Workforce Investment Board meets the requirements of 20 CFR 662.300.
The State agency retains responsibility for all funds authorized under the Act, including those funds authorized under section 7(a) required for providing the services and activities delivered as part of the One-Stop delivery system.
No, these funds are reserved for use by the Governor for the three categories of activities specified in section 7(b) of the Act. However, these funds may flow through the One-Stop delivery system.
(a) Section 7(c) of the Act enables States to use funds authorized under sections 7(a) or 7(b) of the Act to supplement funding of any workforce activity carried out under WIA.
(b) Funds authorized under the Act may be used under section 7(c) to provide additional funding to other activities authorized under WIA if:
(1) The activity meets the requirements of the Act, and its own requirements;
(2) The activity serves the same individuals as are served under the Act;
(3) The activity provides services that are coordinated with services under the Act; and
(4) The funds supplement, rather than supplant, funds provided from non-Federal sources.
Yes, funds authorized under section 7(a) of the Act must be used to provide core services, as defined at section 134(d)(2) of WIA and discussed at 20 CFR 663.150, and may be used to provide intensive services as defined at WIA section 134(d)(3)(C) and discussed at 20 CFR 663.200. Funds authorized under section 7(b) of the Act may be used to provide core or intensive services. Core and intensive services must be provided consistent with the requirements of the Act.
(a) A State has discretion in how it meets the requirement for universal access to services provided under the Act. In exercising this discretion, a State must meet the Act's requirements.
(b) These requirements are:
(1) Labor exchange services must be available to all employers and job seekers, including unemployment insurance (UI) claimants, veterans, migrant and seasonal farmworkers, and individuals with disabilities;
(2) The State must have the capacity to deliver labor exchange services to employers and job seekers, as described in the Act, on a Statewide basis through:
(i) Self-service;
(ii) Facilitated self-help service; and
(iii) Staff-assisted service;
(3) In each local workforce investment area, in at least one comprehensive physical center, staff funded under the Act must provide core and applicable intensive services including staff-assisted labor exchange services; and
(4) Those labor exchange services provided under the Act in a local workforce investment area must be described in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Core services and intensive services may be delivered through any of the applicable three methods of service delivery described in § 652.207(b)(2). These methods are:
(a) Self-service;
(b) Facilitated self-help service; and
(c) Staff-assisted service.
(a) In accordance with section 3(c)(3) of the Act, the State agency, as part of the One-Stop delivery system, must provide reemployment services to UI claimants for whom such services are required as a condition for receipt of UI benefits. Services must be provided to the extent that funds are available and must be appropriate to the needs of UI claimants who are referred to reemployment services under any Federal or State UI law.
(b) The State agency must also provide other activities, including:
(1) Coordination of labor exchange services with the provision of UI eligibility services as required by section 5(b)(2) of the Act;
(2) Administration of the work test and provision of job finding and placement services as required by section 7(a)(3)(F) of the Act.
(a) State UI law or rules establish the requirements under which UI claimants must register and search for work in order to fulfill the UI work test requirements.
(b) Staff funded under the Act must assure that:
(1) UI claimants receive the full range of labor exchange services available under the Act that are necessary and appropriate to facilitate their earliest return to work;
(2) UI claimants requiring assistance in seeking work receive the necessary guidance and counseling to ensure they make a meaningful and realistic work search; and
(3) UI program staff receive information about UI claimants' ability or availability for work, or the suitability of work offered to them.
The State agency designated to administer funds authorized under the Act must prepare for submission by the Governor, the portion of the five-year State Workforce Investment Plan describing the delivery of services provided under the Act in accordance with WIA regulations at 20 CFR 661.220. The State Plan must contain a detailed description of services that will be provided under the Act, which are adequate and reasonably appropriate for carrying out the provisions of the Act, including the requirements of section 8(b) of the Act.
(a) A State may submit modifications to the five-year plan as necessary during the five-year period, and must do so in accordance with the same collaboration, notification, and other requirements that apply to the original plan. Modifications are likely to be needed to keep the strategic plan a viable and living document over its five-year life.
(b) That portion of the plan addressing the Act must be updated to reflect any reorganization of the State agency designated to deliver services under the Act, any change in service delivery strategy, any change in levels of performance when performance goals are not met, or any change in services delivered by State merit-staff employees.
A State must follow the instructions for modifying the strategic five-year plan in 20 CFR 661.230.
A State may modify its plan, as often as needed, as changes occur in Federal or State law or policies, Statewide vision or strategy, or if changes in economic conditions occur.
No, the Secretary requires that labor exchange services provided under the authority of the Act, including services to veterans, be provided by State merit-staff employees. This interpretation is authorized by and consistent with the provisions in sections 3(a) and 5(b) of the Act and the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (42 U.S.C. 4701
Yes, the One-Stop delivery system envisions a partnership in which Wagner-Peyser Act labor exchange services are coordinated with other activities provided by other partners in a One-Stop setting. As part of the local Memorandum of Understanding, the State agency, as a One-Stop partner, may agree to have staff receive guidance from the One-Stop operator regarding the provision of labor exchange services. Personnel matters, including compensation, personnel actions, terms and conditions of employment, performance appraisals, and accountability of State merit-staff employees funded under the Act, remain under the authority of the State agency. The guidance given to employees must be consistent with the provisions of the Act, the local Memorandum of Understanding, and applicable collective bargaining agreements.
The Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Labor.
Request for information on efforts by certain countries to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.
This notice is a request for information for use in Department of Labor research regarding the implementation of international commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor by countries seeking benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), and/or eligibility for additional benefits provided for in the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) or the African Growth and Development Act (AGOA). The recently passed Trade and Development Act of 2000 (TDA) establishes a new eligibility criterion, concerning efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, for receipt of these trade benefits. The TDA requires the Secretary of Labor to make findings with respect to beneficiary countries' implementation of their international commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.
Submitters of information are requested to provide two (2) copies of their written submission to the International Child Labor Program at the address below by 5 p.m. on September 25, 2000.
Written submissions should be addressed to Kevin Willcutts at the International Child Labor Program, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-5303, Washington, DC 20210.
Kevin Willcutts, International Child Labor Program, Bureau of International Labor Affairs at (202)208-4843; fax (202)219-4923. The Department of Labor's reports on international child labor can be accessed on the Internet at
The recently passed Trade and Development Act of 2000 [Pub. L. 106-200], signed into law on May 18, 2000, establishes a new eligibility criterion concerning efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor for receipt of trade benefits under the GSP, CBTPA, and AGOA programs. The TDA amends the GSP reporting requirements of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 504) [19 U.S.C. 2464] to require that the annual report include “findings by the Secretary of Labor with respect to the beneficiary country's implementation of its international commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.”
Title II of the TDA includes as a criteria for receiving benefits under the CBTPA “whether the country has implemented its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, as defined in section 507(6) of the Trade Act of 1974.” The TDA Conference Report [Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, 106th Cong.2d.sess. (2000)] indicates that “the conferees intend that the GSP standard, including the provision with respect to implementation of obligations to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, apply to eligibility for those additional benefits” [provided for in the AGOA.]
Countries presently eligible under the GSP are: Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, the Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Lithuania, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldova, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Republic of Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Countries potentially eligible for additional benefits under the AGOA are: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Countries potentially eligible for additional benefits under the CBTPA are: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the British Virgin Islands.
The Department invites written information relevant to the findings to be made by the Department of Labor under the TDA from all interested parties. Information provided through public submission will be considered by the Department of Labor in preparing its findings. Materials submitted should be confined to the specific topic of the study. In particular, the Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs is seeking written submissions on the following topics as stipulated in the TDA Conference Report:
1. Whether the country has adequate laws and regulations proscribing the worst forms of child labor;
2. Whether the country has adequate laws and regulations for the implementation and enforcement of such measures;
3. Whether the country has established formal institutional mechanisms to investigate and address complaints relating to allegations of the worst forms of child labor;
4. Whether social programs exist in the country to prevent the engagement of children in the worst forms of child labor, and assist in the removal of children engaged in the worst forms of child labor;
5. Whether the country has a comprehensive policy for the elimination of the worst forms of child labor;
6. Whether the country is making continual progress toward eliminating the worst forms of child labor.
Information relating to the nature and extent of child labor in the country is also sought.
As stated in the TDA Conference Report, use of the term “Worst Forms of Child Labor” in the TDA follows International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 182, which defines child as all persons under the age of 18, and the worst forms of child labor as comprising all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances; the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in relevant international treaties; or any work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.
The TDA Conference Report noted that the phrase
* * * work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children * * *
* * * work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children * * *
This notice is a general solicitation of comments from the public.