[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 1994)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1439-1445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-442]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 10, 1994]


DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 462 and 472

RIN 1830-AA11

 

State-Administered Workplace Literacy Program; National Workplace 
Literacy Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary amends existing regulations that govern the 
State-Administered Workplace Literacy Program and the National 
Workplace Literacy Program. These amendments are needed to increase 
project accountability and to make technical changes. The regulations 
provide rules for applying for and expending Federal funds under these 
programs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations take effect either 45 days after 
publication in the Federal Register or later if the Congress takes 
certain adjournments. If you want to know the effective date of these 
regulations, call or write the Department of Education contact persons. 
A document announcing the effective date will be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sarah E. Newcomb, Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4417, Mary E. Switzer 
Building, Washington, DC 20202-7320. Telephone: (202) 205-9872. Or Ms. 
Jeanne Williams, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 
room 4518, Mary E. Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-7327. 
Telephone: (202) 205-5977. Individuals who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 
time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The State-Administered Workplace Literacy Program and the National 
Workplace Literacy Program are important activities that assist in 
achieving the National Education Goals. Specifically, the workplace 
literacy programs address Goal 5, that every adult American will be 
literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete 
in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of 
citizenship. Moreover, the National Workplace Literacy Program supports 
this goal by providing grants to exemplary partnerships between a 
business, industry, or labor organization, or a private industry 
council, and an education organization to support work-related literacy 
education.
    These regulations increase the accountability of workplace literacy 
projects. The Department is implementing this strategy in order to 
expand the demonstration and dissemination activities of projects, 
thereby increasing the number of instructional approaches, materials, 
and techniques for providing work-related literacy education that are 
submitted to and approved by the Department's Program Effectiveness 
Panel, and subsequently made available to practitioners.
    On May 27, 1993, the Secretary published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) for these programs in the Federal Register (58 FR 
30916).

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPRM, 33 parties 
submitted comments on the proposed regulations. An analysis of the 
comments and of the changes in the regulations since publication of the 
NPRM follows.
    Issues are grouped according to subject, with appropriate sections 
of the regulations referenced in parentheses.
    Technical and other minor changes--and suggested changes the 
Secretary is not legally authorized to make under the applicable 
statutory authority and comments on subjects outside the scope of these 
regulations--are not addressed.

PART 462--STATE-ADMINISTERED WORKPLACE LITERACY PROGRAM

Partnership Agreement (Secs. 462.30(c) and 462.32(b))

    Comments: Some commenters were concerned that requiring partners to 
enter into a binding agreement would have a dampening effect on 
businesses joining partnerships, and recommended a less restrictive 
approach. Another commenter supported requiring a binding agreement.
    Discussion: For five years the Secretary has required, under the 
National Workplace Literacy Program, the types of binding agreements 
that would become part of the State-Administered program. The 
Secretary's experience is that these agreements are essential to 
eliciting quality applications, promoting project success, and ensuring 
accountable grant performance.
    Changes: None.

PART 472--NATIONAL WORKPLACE LITERACY PROGRAM

Definitions--Employment and Training Agency (Sec. 472.5)

    Comments: One commenter mistakenly thought the proposed change, 
which would clarify that employment and training agencies are nonprofit 
agencies, would exclude from participation as partners profit-making 
organizations that provide employment and training services. Other 
commenters agreed with the proposed change to the definition of 
``employment and training agency.''
    Discussion: The proposed change would codify an existing program 
practice that requires an education partner classified as an employment 
and training agency to be a nonprofit entity. However, profit-makers 
can continue to participate as partners under the classification 
``business'' or ``industry'' organization. See Sec. 472.2(a)(1). 
Profit-making organizations should note that a selection criterion in 
Sec. 472.22(c)(4) requests applications to indicate the extent to which 
training will be provided through the education partner classified 
under Sec. 472.2(a)(2), rather than through the business or labor 
partner classified under Sec. 472.2(a)(1), unless transferring this 
activity to the business or labor partner is necessary and reasonable 
within the framework of the applicant's proposed project.
    Changes: None.

Project Director (Secs. 472.5 and 472.32(e))

    Comments: Several commenters supported the regulations defining the 
term ``project director'' and requiring that each project provide for a 
director. Some of these commenters recommended additional regulations, 
including requiring a full-time project director, specifying the 
qualifications of a project director, and requiring that proposed 
personnel demonstrate substantive experience, education, and training 
in the workplace.
    Discussion: Because the project director will be responsible for 
the day-to-day operation of the project, the qualifications of that 
person should be directly related to the specific requirements of the 
project, and will naturally differ somewhat from project to project. 
The Secretary strongly encourages applicants to hire project directors 
with experience and training in project management and in fields 
related to objectives of the project, but believes that a list of 
standardized qualifications would limit the discretion of applicant 
partnerships to hire directors who respond to the needs of the project. 
The regulations do not specifically require a full-time project 
director, and this may not be needed--especially in small projects. 
However, each project must provide for a director who will devote 
sufficient time to exercising day-to-day operational responsibility and 
ensure that the project is well managed.
    Changes: None.

Preapplications (Secs. 472.10 and 472.11)

    Comment: One commenter suggested retaining Secs. 472.10 and 472.11, 
which describe a preapplication process, because the process would save 
time for projects that might not be appropriate for a national 
competition. Another commenter supported the Department's proposal to 
delete these sections because a preapplication would be a burdensome 
paperwork requirement.
    Discussion: Historically, these sections were included in the 
regulations to authorize use of a preapplication process where it would 
be helpful to applicants. However, the provision has never been needed, 
and the Department does not foresee its use in the future.
    Changes: None.

Preference for Small Business Partners (Sec. 472.21(e))

    Comments: One commenter agreed that preference points should be 
given for applications involving a small business, but thought that the 
points should be given even if the business is not involved as a 
project partner. The commenter stated that it is unrealistic to expect 
small businesses to become partners because this would burden them with 
paperwork, meetings, and unnecessary reports. Another commenter 
suggested giving an additional preference to partnerships involving 
small businesses with less than 100 or 250 employees.
    Discussion: A small business can potentially be involved in a 
workplace literacy project as a ``partner,'' a ``contractor,'' a 
``helping organization,'' or a ``site.'' Each of these terms is defined 
in 34 CFR 472.5, which clarifies that only a partner can receive 
program funds and be fully involved in project policy and operations. 
The Secretary believes that preference should be given only to those 
partnerships that include small businesses as partners. To interpret 
the preference more broadly would benefit applications that involve 
large businesses as partners--and merely involve small businesses in a 
less significant role. Each partnership agreement designates one of the 
partners to serve as the project grantee. This partner is principally 
responsible for project administration, including paperwork and 
reports. Any small business partner that does not wish to serve as a 
grantee can enter into an agreement designating another partner as the 
grantee, and can thus avoid the paperwork burden. The Secretary has 
adopted a definition of the term ``small business'' modeled on 
regulations of the Small Business Administration and does not believe 
it would be beneficial to modify that definition by giving an 
additional preference to small businesses having particularly small 
numbers of employees.
    Changes: None.

Selection Criteria--Program Factors (Sec. 472.22(a)(5))

    Comment: Section 472.22(a)(5) proposed adding language to a 
selection criterion encouraging applicants to focus ``on improving 
performance in jobs or job functions that have a broad representation 
within the Nation's workforce so that the products can be adapted for 
use by similar workplaces across the Nation.'' Several commenters 
interpreted this language as a statement of the scope of services that 
are allowable under the National Workplace Literacy Program, believed 
that this scope had been defined too narrowly, and urged that it be 
expanded to include a variety of activities. It was also suggested that 
a project be permitted to provide any services identified in a needs 
assessment. One commenter asked whether use of the term ``jobs or job 
functions'' was intended to shift focus away from job-specific 
competencies of current job titles to broader competencies that are 
identified in the report issued by the Department of Labor Secretary's 
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). The commenter asked 
that the Department clarify or define which jobs or job functions have 
``broad representation within the Nation's workforce.'' Other 
commenters stated that a broader scope of services is needed to meet 
the National Education Goals.
    Discussion: Section 472.22(a)(5) is a selection criterion used to 
evaluate applications and is not a statement of the scope of allowable 
program services. That scope is stated in Sec. 472.3, which reflects 
sections 371(a)(1) and (3) of the Adult Education Act, and lists 
allowable activities. Many activities mentioned by the commenters, such 
as speaking, listening, reasoning, problem-solving, team building, GED 
preparation, and meeting the literacy needs of adults with limited 
English proficiency, are allowable under Sec. 472.3. Further guidance 
on the scope of allowable activities is included in the notice inviting 
applications published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. 
Generally, workplace literacy projects teach literacy skills needed in 
the workplace that improve the productivity of the workforce. The 
program is not a program of general adult education and cannot serve 
needs that are not directly related to the workplace. At the same time, 
projects serving needs that are directly related to the workplace are 
encouraged to use creative approaches to stimulate workers' interests 
and to develop individualized education plans that reflect workers' 
goals. See Sec. 472.22(c)(2).
    The purpose of the language encouraging a focus on nationally 
representative jobs or job functions is to enhance the capability of a 
project to demonstrate results that can be adapted by similar employers 
and industries. Section 472.22(a)(5) was not proposed specifically to 
respond to the recommendations of the SCANS report, nor was the report 
intended to modify the scope of services under the workplace literacy 
program. The Secretary believes that it is unnecessary to define by 
regulation what jobs or job functions are broadly representative. 
Applicants are encouraged to make their own evaluation of current and 
future labor market conditions, and design a project that can help 
similar workplaces in the future. This should assist in meeting 
National Education Goal 5, that every adult American will be literate 
and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a 
global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of 
citizenship.
    Changes: None.

Selection Criteria--Demonstration (Sec. 472.22(h)) (Proposed 
Sec. 472.22(h)(1))

    Comments: Several commenters agreed that the Department should 
emphasize dissemination activities, and recommended the inclusion of 
various other dissemination strategies. Two commenters were concerned 
that dissemination activities could be hampered because the 
instructional materials produced by a project might contain protected 
information.
    One commenter suggested that, because carrying out both the 
demonstration and commitment activities described in proposed 
Sec. 472.22(h)(1) and (2) would be overwhelming, applicants should be 
asked to address only one of these criteria.
    Discussion: The dissemination strategies listed in proposed 
Sec. 472.22(h)(1) are among the regulatory changes designed to 
transform the National Workplace Literacy Program into a true 
demonstration program. See the previous discussion of the background of 
these regulations and note also Sec. 472.31(c), which requires that a 
project be independently evaluated for ``spread'' and 
``transportability'' to other sites. Proposed Sec. 472.22(h)(1) 
encouraged applicants to use certain dissemination strategies but was 
not intended to preclude the use of additional strategies when they are 
appropriate for a particular project.
    The Secretary does not expect or anticipate that partnerships will 
disseminate trade secrets or other protected information. However, a 
project's dissemination activities should clearly benefit businesses 
and workplaces outside of the partnership.
    While, ideally, all partners will be involved in demonstration and 
commitment activities, these activities may be accomplished through the 
efforts of particular partners. The Secretary desires that the factors 
listed in the criteria on ``Demonstration'' and ``Commitment'' be 
reflected in an applicant's program design, management plan, and 
budget. However, the Secretary does not anticipate that addressing both 
criteria will be burdensome if partners adequately plan and budget for 
them. Changes: The selection criterion ``Demonstration and commitment'' 
in proposed Sec. 472.22(h) has been separated into a criterion on 
``Demonstration'' in Sec. 472.22(h) and a criterion on ``Commitment'' 
in Sec. 472.22(i). Also see the discussion on Sec. 472.22(i).

Selection Criteria--Commitment (Sec. 472.22(i)) (Proposed 
Sec. 472.22(h)(2))

    Comments: Several commenters opposed the criterion that encouraged 
applicants to state how partners plan to establish a program of 
workplace literacy services that can continue after Federal funding 
ends. Many of these commenters believed this criterion would adversely 
affect small businesses since they might not have the resources needed 
to continue a workplace literacy project. Other commenters pointed out 
that some businesses, especially small businesses, have short-term 
training needs that can be met during the course of the project and, 
therefore, would not need to continue the project. Still other 
commenters thought that because small businesses would not be able to 
continue a project, this criterion would nullify the five-point 
preference given for partnerships that include a small business.
    Some commenters supported the inclusion of the criterion on 
commitment and indicated past success with this concept, but suggested 
that small businesses be exempted. Other commenters believed that 
expecting business partners to make a commitment to continue a project 
that is unproven is unreasonable and could scare away potential 
business partners. These commenters thought that commitment is best 
sought and obtained during a successful project.
    Some commenters suggested such alternative methods of demonstrating 
commitment as release time for assessment and training, strategic 
planning for capacity-building, training business partners to provide 
workplace literacy, active participation of all partners, or gradual 
assumption of costs.
    Discussion: The Secretary acknowledges the many helpful comments on 
this topic. Although proposed Sec. 472.22(h)(2) did not involve a 
commitment to any unforeseeable or unnecessary post-project activities, 
the Secretary wishes to avoid any implication that this is the case. 
The Secretary also desires to preserve the competitive preference for 
partnerships involving small businesses. Accordingly, the selection 
criterion ``Demonstration and commitment'' in proposed Sec. 472.22(h) 
has been separated into a criterion on ``Demonstration'' in 
Sec. 472.22(h) and a criterion on ``Commitment'' in Sec. 472.22(i). 
Moreover, Sec. 472.22(i) makes it clear that plans for continuing 
workplace literacy after Federal funding ends should be based on 
realistic forecasts of the literacy needs of partners and should take 
into consideration a partner's capacity to continue services. To 
emphasize this point, the criterion now provides a range of examples of 
practical strategies for institutionalizing workplace literacy, many of 
which can be carried out by small businesses. The criterion also 
recognizes the importance of an applicant's commitment to 
institutionalizing learning in the workplace specifically during the 
project itself. These changes are intended to accommodate the 
legitimate concerns of the commenters while preserving the overall 
purpose of a selection criterion on commitment. The recently published 
study Adult Literacy in America points out that some 90 million adults 
demonstrate low levels of literacy and depicts a society in which the 
vast majority of Americans do not have the skills needed to earn a 
living in our increasingly technological society and international 
marketplace. The Secretary believes that a commitment to 
institutionalize learning will naturally lead to continuing efforts to 
promote workplace literacy after Federal funding ends and will assist 
in transforming American workplaces to meet the challenges of a world 
market.
    Changes: The selection criterion ``Demonstration and commitment'' 
in proposed Sec. 472.22(h) has been separated into a criterion on 
``Demonstration'' in Sec. 472.22(h) and a criterion on ``Commitment'' 
in Sec. 472.22(i). The criterion on ``Commitment'' clarifies that 
applicants are to develop practical strategies for institutionalizing 
workplace literacy that are based on realistic forecasts of literacy 
needs and the capacity of partners. The criterion also encourages 
applicants to demonstrate a commitment to institutionalizing learning 
in the workplace during the project.

Reporting (Sec. 472.30(b))

    Comments: Numerous commenters expressed the view that a two-page 
semi-annual performance and financial report would not be overly 
burdensome. These commenters felt that the data would be a good 
planning tool, would help projects monitor their progress, and would 
contribute to the standardization of the workplace literacy program 
nationwide. Other commenters suggested that the reports be made 
available at the time of award so that data bases could be designed to 
facilitate collection. Some commenters strongly advocated quarterly 
reports that include, in addition to the information the Secretary 
proposed collecting, a brief update on the success of the project in 
achieving its objectives. Two commenters recommended annual reporting, 
one because of the project's cycle for collecting evaluative data and 
the other because of the possibility that the Department might not have 
adequate staff resources to use the performance and financial data as 
intended.
    Discussion: The Secretary considered requiring quarterly reports 
for the National Workplace Literacy Program, but determined that they 
would be burdensome for grantees. However, the Secretary believes that 
annual reports would not provide sufficient information to ensure 
program accountability and ready access to information that is 
comparable across projects. Grantees will be required to submit brief 
continuation applications annually in order to receive funding for the 
second and third year of their projects.
    The Secretary believes that the continuation application and a two-
page semi-annual report on progress and total spending for the 
reporting period will be adequate. The reports will be made available 
to grantees at the start of their projects to enable them to set up 
appropriate recordkeeping procedures, and the Department will work with 
grantees to ensure that reports are used appropriately both to monitor 
and to improve projects.
    Changes: None.

Evaluation (Sec. 472.31)

    Comments: Several commenters thought that the requirement for 
projects to have a third-party evaluator would be expensive, 
burdensome, or too costly. Several other commenters supported the 
evaluation requirement because a rigorous evaluation design is 
essential to demonstrating impact and replicable results and would 
strengthen projects. One commenter was concerned that tying student 
learning gains to higher job productivity and performance would not 
result in reliable or valid measures of the effectiveness of projects 
because learning gains are not the only conditions affecting these 
factors.
    Discussion: Program experience over the life of the National 
Workplace Literacy Program indicates that a third-party evaluation 
enhances the quality of a project without being expensive, burdensome, 
or too costly. The Secretary agrees with the comment that multiple 
conditions, including learning gains, may contribute to measured 
improvements in job productivity and performance. This comment supports 
the need for a rigorous evaluation design that includes, insofar as 
possible, controls for other variables that may also contribute to the 
improvements measured. Evaluations of this rigor require highly trained 
research and evaluation personnel who cannot always be found among 
staff persons employed within funded projects.
    Changes: None.

Start-up Period (Sec. 472.32(b))

    Comments: Numerous commenters supported lengthening the grant 
period to three years and extending the start-up period. However, one 
commenter questioned the necessity of a six-month start-up period.
    Discussion: The heightened emphasis on demonstration and 
dissemination activities requires lengthening the grant period to three 
years, and, as necessary, lengthening the time needed to establish a 
project before services are provided to adult workers. Although 
Sec. 472.32(b)(1) permits applicants to take up to a six-month start-up 
period, Sec. 472.32(b)(2) requires applicants to ``minimize the start-
up period, if any, proposed for their projects.''
    Changes: None.

Continuation of a Project After a Partner Withdraws (Sec. 472.34)

    Comments: One commenter suggested that the regulations specifically 
apply to business partners. Another commenter thought the regulations 
favored projects with more than two partners, and requested greater 
flexibility in the renegotiation of the scope of work of a grant. A 
commenter suggested that a project be allowed to continue despite the 
withdrawal of a partner, even if the conditions of Sec. 472.34 are not 
satisfied. One commenter inquired whether all, or only one, of the 
conditions outlined in Sec. 472.34 must be met by withdrawing partners.
    Discussion: Although each partnership is required to designate one 
partner as its applicant and grantee, an award is made on the basis of 
the partnership agreement that is signed by all members of the 
partnership and that binds the partners to every statement and 
assurance made in the application, in addition to carrying out their 
respective roles. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the 
approved scope of work will continue to be carried out if a partner 
withdraws, regardless of the type of partner withdrawing or the number 
of partners in the original partnership. The regulations do not favor 
projects with more than two partners. Section 472.34(b)(1) allows for 
the full substitution of a partner even in the case of a two-party 
partnership so long as the partnership continues to meet the 
requirement in Sec. 472.2(b) that there be at least one education 
partner and one business or labor partner. The Secretary wishes to 
point out that the conditions in Sec. 472.34 are to be met by the 
remaining partners. They are not conditions to be met by the 
withdrawing partners as suggested by the commenter. Moreover, all of 
the conditions described in Sec. 472.34 must be met before the 
Secretary will allow a project to continue.
    Changes: Section 472.34 has been changed to clarify that all of the 
conditions described in this section must be met if a project is to be 
allowed to continue after the withdrawal of a partner.

Union and Worker Involvement (Part 472)

    Comments: Several commenters thought unions should be involved in 
the development and implementation of projects. Some of these 
commenters recommended requiring a written statement indicating 
consultation with and concurrence by the union. Others suggested 
requiring a statement from the union that it either agrees to full 
partnership with the education partner and business partner or it 
acknowledges the collaboration between the education and business 
partner. One commenter suggested that points be awarded to proposals 
with employer and union partnerships.
    One commenter suggested that, in the absence of a union, workers 
should be involved in planning the project. Another commenter suggested 
that points be awarded to applications--(1) with effective plans to 
involve workers in the educational provider's decision-making process; 
and (2) that emphasize participatory teaching methods.
    Several commenters thought that union and worker involvement would 
improve the recruitment, interest, and commitment of the workforce, and 
help to allay fears that a project would result in the loss of jobs for 
employees failing to demonstrate learning gains.
    Discussion: Section 371(a)(1) of the Act permits, but does not 
require, a labor organization to be a partner in an application under 
this program. This provision is reflected in Sec. 472.2(a) and (b). As 
indicated in Sec. 472.2(c), a labor organization, like any partner, 
must participate in a joint application for funding and sign a 
partnership agreement. However, the Secretary does not believe that a 
written statement regarding union consultation should be required of 
partnerships that do not include a labor organization. Nevertheless, 
the Secretary encourages all partnerships to involve workers and, as 
appropriate, labor organizations in matters related to the project. 
This arrangement should provide a number of benefits, including 
allaying any concerns that workers may have about participating in a 
project.
    Changes: None.

Intergovernmental Review

    These programs are subject to the requirements of Executive Order 
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the 
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a 
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and 
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide 
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for 
this program.

Assessment of Educational Impact

    In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Secretary requested 
comments on whether the proposed regulations would require transmission 
of information that is being gathered by or is available from any other 
agency or authority of the United States.
    Based on the response to the proposed rules and on its own review, 
the Department has determined that the regulations in this document do 
not require transmission of information that is being gathered by or is 
available from any other agency or authority of the United States.

List of Subjects

34 CFR Part 462

    Adult education, Business and industry, Labor unions, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Workplace literacy.

34 CFR Part 472

    Adult education, Business and industry, Labor unions, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Workplace literacy.

    Dated: January 3, 1994.
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.198 National 
Workplace Literacy Program. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 
Number has not been assigned for the State-Administered Workplace 
Literacy Program.)
    The Secretary amends Parts 462 and 472 of Title 34 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 462--STATE-ADMINISTERED WORKPLACE LITERACY PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for part 462 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1211a(b), unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 462.30 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 462.30  Who is eligible to apply to a State for an award?

* * * * *
    (c) The partners shall enter into an agreement, in the form of a 
single document signed by all partners, designating one member of the 
partnership as the applicant and the subgrantee or contractor. The 
agreement must also detail the role each partner plans to perform and 
bind each partner to every statement and assurance made in the 
application.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1830-0521)

    3. Section 462.32 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 462.32  What are the local application requirements?

    A local partnership application, submitted to an SEA for funding 
under the State-administered Workplace Literacy Program, must contain--
    (a) The information in section 371(a)(4) of the Act; and
    (b) A signed partnership agreement as described in Sec. 462.30(c).

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB control 
number 1830-0521)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1211(b)(5))

PART 472--NATIONAL WORKPLACE LITERACY PROGRAM

    4. The authority citation for Part 472 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1211(a), unless otherwise noted.

Subpart B--[Removed and Revised]

    5. Part 472 is amended by removing and reserving subpart B.
    6. Section 472.5 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and the 
definition of ``Employment and training agency'' in paragraph (b) and 
by adding new definitions of ``Project director'' and ``Small 
business'' to paragraph (b) in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 472.5  What definitions apply?

    (a) The definitions in 34 CFR 460.4 apply to this part.
    (b) * * *
    Employment and training agency includes any nonprofit agency that 
provides--as a substantial portion of its activity--employment and 
training services, either directly or through contract.
* * * * *
    Project director means the person with day-to-day operational 
responsibility for the project.
* * * * *
    Small business means a business entity that--
    (1) Is organized for profit, with a place of business located in 
the United States and that makes a significant contribution to the U.S. 
economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, 
materials, or labor, or both; and
    (2) May be in the legal form of an individual proprietorship, 
partnership, corporation, joint venture, association, trust or a 
cooperative, except that if the form is a joint venture, there can be 
no more than 49 percent participation by foreign business entities in 
the joint venture; and
    (3) Meets the requirements found in 13 CFR part 121 concerning 
Standard Industrial Classification codes and size standards.


Sec. 472.20  [Amended]

    7. Section 472.20 is amended by removing paragraph (c).
    8. Section 472.21 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding a 
new paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 472.21  How does the Secretary evaluate an application?

* * * * *
    (b) The Secretary may award up to 100 points, including a reserved 
10 points to be distributed in accordance with paragraph (d) of this 
section, based on the criteria in Sec. 472.22.
* * * * *
    (e) In addition to the points to be awarded based on the criteria 
in Sec. 472.22, the Secretary awards five points to applications from 
partnerships that include as a partner a small business that has signed 
the partnership agreement.
    9. Section 472.22 is amended by removing the word ``and'' after the 
semicolon at the end of paragraph (a)(3); removing the period at the 
end of paragraph (a)(4), and adding, in its place, ``; and''; adding a 
new paragraph (a)(5); revising paragraph (b), introductory text; 
revising paragraph (c)(1); removing the word ``and'' after the 
semicolon at the end of paragraph (c)(3); removing the period at the 
end of paragraph (c)(4), and adding, in its place, ``; and''; adding a 
new paragraph (c)(5); revising paragraph (d), introductory text; 
removing the word ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph 
(d)(2)(iii); adding the word ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
paragraph (d)(2)(iv); adding a new paragraph (d)(2)(v); revising 
paragraph (e), introductory text; revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); 
revising paragraph (f), introductory text; removing the word ``and'' 
after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (f)(4); removing the period 
at the end of paragraph (f)(5), and adding, in its place, ``; and''; 
adding a new paragraph (f)(6) and a ``Note to Sec. 472.22(f)(6)'' 
following the paragraph; revising paragraph (g), introductory text; and 
adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec. 472.22  What selection criteria does the Secretary use?

    (a) * * *
    (5) Focuses on improving performance in jobs or job functions that 
have a broad representation within the Nation's workforce so that the 
products can be adapted for use by similar workplaces across the 
Nation.
    (b) Extent of need for the project. (10 points) * * *
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Develop or use curriculum materials for adults based on 
literacy skills needed in the workplace;
* * * * *
    (5) Provide, and document for others, a program of training for 
staff including, but not limited to, techniques of curriculum 
development and special methods of teaching that are appropriate for 
workplace environments.
    (d) Plan of operation. (15 points) * * *
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) A realistic time table for accomplishing project objectives;
* * * * *
    (e) Applicant's experience and quality of key personnel. (8 points) 
* * *
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The qualifications, in relation to project requirements, of the 
project director;
* * * * *
    (f) Evaluation plan. (10 points) The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine the quality of the plan for an independent 
evaluation of the project, including the extent to which the 
applicant's methods of evaluation--
* * * * *
    (6) Will yield results that can be summarized and submitted to the 
Secretary for review by the Department's Program Effectiveness Panel.
    Note to Sec. 472.22(f)(6): The Program Effectiveness Panel (PEP) is 
a mechanism the Department has developed for validating the 
effectiveness of educational programs developed by schools, 
universities, and other agencies. The PEP is composed of experts in the 
evaluation of educational programs and in other areas of education, at 
least two-thirds of whom are non-Federal employees who are appointed by 
the Secretary. Regulations governing the PEP are codified in 34 CFR 
parts 785-789. Specific criteria for PEP review are found in 34 CFR 
786.12 or 787.12.
    (g) Budget and cost-effectiveness. (7 points) * * *
* * * * *
    (h) Demonstration. (5 points) The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine the quality of the applicant's plan, during 
the grant period, to disseminate the results of the project, 
including--
    (1) Demonstrating promising practices used by the project to others 
interested in implementing these techniques;
    (2) Conducting workshops or delivering papers at national 
conferences or professional meetings; and
    (3) Making available material that will help others implement 
promising practices developed in the project.
    (i) Commitment. (5 points) The Secretary reviews each application 
to determine the quality of the applicant's plan to institutionalize 
learning in the workplace based on promising practices demonstrated in 
the project. In making this determination, the Secretary considers--
    (1) The general, but realistic, forecast of literacy needs of 
members of the partnership and the capacity of the partners;
    (2) Activities that will increase, during the grant period, the 
capacity of partners to provide a coherent program of learning in the 
workplace; and
    (3) Activities that will lead to the continued provision or 
expansion of work-based literacy services built on successful outcomes 
of the project. For example, the partners could--
    (A) Integrate workplace literacy services into the long-term 
planning of partner organizations;
    (B) Create and implement policies and practices that encourage 
worker participation in workplace literacy and other education and 
training opportunities;
    (C) Provide training that will enable partners to build a capacity 
to furnish necessary workplace literacy services in the future;
    (D) Establish relationships within the partnership or with other 
entities that will continue provision of necessary workplace literacy 
services after the project ends; or
    (E) Plan, after the project has ended, to expand services to other 
locations, divisions, or suppliers of the business or industry partners 
or labor organizations.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB control 
number 1830-0521)

    10. Sections 472.30 and 472.31 are redesignated as Secs. 472.32 and 
472.33, respectively.
    11. A new Sec. 472.30 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 472.30  What are the reporting requirements?

    (a) A recipient of a grant or cooperative agreement under this 
program shall submit to the Secretary performance and financial 
reports.
    (b) These reports must be submitted at times required by the 
Secretary and at least semi-annually.
    (c) These reports must contain information required by the 
Secretary.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1211(a))

    12. A new Sec. 472.31 and ``NOTE to Sec. 472.31'' are added to read 
as follows:


Sec. 472.31  What are the evaluation requirements?

    (a) Each recipient of a grant or cooperative agreement under this 
program shall provide and budget for an independent evaluation of 
project activities.
    (b) The evaluation must be both formative and summative in nature.
    (c) The evaluation must be based on student learning gains and the 
effects on job advancement, job performance (including, for example, 
such elements as productivity, safety, and attendance), and project and 
product spread and transportability.
    (d) A proposed project evaluation design for the entire project 
period, expanding on the plans outlined in the application pursuant to 
Sec. 472.22(f), must be submitted to the Secretary for review and 
approval prior to the end of the first year of the project period.
    (e) A summary of evaluation activities and results that can be 
reviewed by the Department's Program Effectiveness Panel, as described 
in 34 CFR parts 785-789, must be submitted to the Secretary during the 
last year of the project period.
    (f) If a grantee cooperates in a Federal evaluation of its project, 
the Secretary may determine that the grantee fully or partially meets 
the evaluation requirements of this section and the reporting 
requirements in Sec. 472.30.

(Approved by Office of Management and Budget under OMB control 
number 1830-0522)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1211(a))

    Note to Sec. 472.31: As used in Sec. 472.31(c)--
    ``Spread'' means the degree to which--
    (1) Project activities and results are demonstrated to others;
    (2) Technical assistance is provided to others to help them 
replicate project activities and results;
    (3) Project activities and results are replicated at other sites; 
or
    (4) Information and material about or resulting from the project 
are disseminated; and
    ``Transportability'' means the ease by which project activities and 
results may be replicated at other sites, such as through the 
development and use of guides or manuals that provide step-by-step 
directions for others to follow in order to initiate similar efforts 
and reproduce comparable results.
    13. Section 472.32, as redesignated, is amended by revising 
paragraphs (b), (d)(1), and (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 472.32  What other requirements must be met under this program?

* * * * *
    (b)(1) The project period may include a start-up period, not to 
exceed six months, during which the project is being established and 
prior to the time services are provided to adult workers.
    (2) Applicants shall minimize the start-up period, if any, proposed 
for their projects.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) 100 percent of the administrative costs incurred in 
establishing a project during the start-up period described in 
paragraph (b) of this section by an SEA, LEA, or other entity described 
in Sec. 472.2(a), that receives a grant under this part; and
* * * * *
    (e) Each recipient of an award under this program shall provide for 
a project director.
    14. A new Sec. 472.34 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 472.34  Under what circumstances may a project continue if a 
partner withdraws?

    (a) A project may continue despite the withdrawal of a partner that 
is unable to perform its role as outlined in the grant award document 
if all of the following conditions are met:
    (1) Written approval is given by the Secretary.
    (2) The partnership continues to meet the requirements in 
Sec. 472.2(b).
    (3) The partnership will be able to complete the remainder of the 
project.
    (4) The partner's withdrawal will not cause a change in the scope 
or objectives of the grant or cooperative agreement.
    (b) In determining that the condition in paragraph (a)(4) of this 
section is satisfied, the Secretary considers such factors as whether--
    (1) A similar new partner will sign the partnership agreement and 
agree to carry out the role of the withdrawing partner as described in 
the grant agreement;
    (2) One or more of the remaining partners will agree to carry out 
the role of the withdrawing partner as described in the grant 
agreement; or
    (3) One or more of the remaining partners will expand its 
activities as approved under the grant in order to compensate for the 
activities that would have been carried out under the grant agreement 
by the partner that is withdrawing without a change in the project's 
scope or objectives.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1211(a))

[FR Doc. 94-442 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P