Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) regulatory amendments, 59 Fed. Reg. 45815 (Sept. 2, 1994) (Continuation of discussion of comments (IV) (starts at "Title II-A--The Audit Program")
[Excerpt from Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 1994
/ 45815 (amendments to JTPA regulations)]
Title II-A--The Adult Program
Most of the general requirements of title II-A appear in subpart E
of part 628 of the interim final rule. There are a few specific
requirements of title II-A which appear in part 628, subpart F. These
include sections on eligibility; requirements to assist hard-to-serve
individuals; types of training services, counseling and supportive
services; and linkages and coordination.
In response to commenters who were confused about whether the
provisions of the formula for allocation of funds set a maximum age of
participation at 72 years, Sec. 628.605(a) is amended to clarify that
there is no maximum age of participation.
A few commenters asked for clarification on the determination of
the 65-percent threshold of serving the hard-to-serve. Section
628.605(c)(1) is amended to clarify that all participants, including
the non-disadvantaged (10 percent window), are considered in
determining the 65 percent who are hard-to-serve. Section 628.605(c)(2)
now addresses the question of when, in the service continuum, an
individual is counted for determining compliance with the 65-percent
barrier requirement by clarifying, as discussed earlier, that it is
calculated upon participants who have received a service subsequent to
objective assessment.
Several commenters questioned the inconsistency in the provisions
regarding the ten-percent window in section 204(d) of the Act and the
provisions for eligibility in the basic title II-A program, set forth
in Sec. 628.605(e), when an older worker is in a joint program between
JTPA and title V of the Older Americans Act. As discussed in connection
with the provisions of Sec. 628.320, this inconsistency has been
addressed by the Congress in amendments to the Older Americans Act.
Finally, on the regulatory provisions of Sec. 628.605(c) and
Sec. 628.803(d) addressing the 65-percent requirement, several
commenters asked what would be the ramifications of non-compliance. Of
course, the Department does not expect difficulty in meeting these
requirements. Since the Act imposes these percentage service
requirements, as well as the requirement on the in-school, out-of-
school 50/50-percent ratio, on participants and not to funds, the
Department believes that they would be the subject of administrative
corrective action by the SDA and, subsequent action by the Governor
under the provisions of section 164(b)(1) of the Act and part 628,
subpart G of the final rule, as appropriate.
Summer Youth Employment and Training Program
Subpart G of part 628 covers the Summer Youth Employment and
Training Program (SYETP under title II-B, effective with calendar year
1994. It reflects the policy of closer integration for youth between
academic fundamentals (such as reading and mathematics) and work
requirements.
A number of commenters raised issues related to the SYETP
authorized under title II-B. Several commenters requested broad
flexibility in the scope of the objective assessment and ISS required
for summer program participants. Some expressed the fear that these
requirements will result in a reduction of the number of SYETP
participants due to the increased burden on current staff. The
Department recognizes that the achievement objectives and resulting
service strategies for summer youth differ from what might be expected
in the adult program and that the corresponding assessment processes
would vary accordingly. Section 253(c)(1)(A) of the Act states that
SYETP programs shall include objective assessment of the basic skills
and the supportive service needs of each participant. The SDA may use
school records on math and reading levels to determine basic skills.
Similarly, the fully developed ISS, described in subpart E, is not
required for a participant who is enrolled only in the SYETP, as is
reflected in Sec. 628.515(b)(2). For those participants transferring to
the year-round program under title II-C, the full objective assessment
and ISS would be required. The results of any post-title II-B
participation test should be used as part of the assessment process
when transferring the individual to a program under title II-C. Within
the limits imposed by any applicable state or local privacy laws or
rules, SDA's are encouraged to make as much use as possible of existing
information from schools and from title II-B participation in
developing the full objective assessment for a transferring
participant, as well as sharing available JTPA information with school
counselors and other appropriate school officials.
A few commenters addressed the inability of SDA's to provide the
required basic and remedial education services without reducing the
number of youth served or other services to youth. While this is a
difficult tradeoff in some areas, the Department is bound by the
emphasis in the amendments to provide educational services to
participants. In some instances, it may be necessary to reduce the
number of participants served in order to get high-quality experiences
under title II-B. Coordination and leveraging of resources is
recommended to allow more participants to receive educational services.
In order to more closely conform to sections 251 and 253(a) of the
Act, Sec. 628.701(a), on Program Goals and Objectives, is amended. The
"enhancement of basic educational skills" is added to the list of
possible SDA goals and objectives. Other additions include
"encouragement of school completion or enrollment in supplementary or
alternative school programs" and "improvement of employability skills
including provision of vocational exploration opportunities and
exposure to the world of work, and enhancement of youth citizenship
skills."
A few commenters spoke of various difficulties involved with the
determination and documentation of eligibility under the National
School Lunch Act. Guidance on eligibility verification pertaining to
the determination and documentation of eligibility under the National
School Lunch Act will be developed in consultation with the Department
of Agriculture and will be provided outside of these regulations. See
the further discussion of this subject in the section pertaining to
programs under title II-C.
For the reasons discussed previously, in connection with
eligibility for the education coordination grant program, the
Department has determined that the criteria for eligibility, as they
relate to the "economically disadvantaged" eligibility criterion and
alternatives for in-school youth, should be consistently applied across
programs under parts A, B, and C of title II of the Act. Therefore, in
addition to eligibility for free lunch under the National School Lunch
Act, the Department adds participation in a compensatory education
program under title I chapter I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act and in a schoolwide program, as specified at section
263(g) of the Act, to the criteria at Sec. 628.702 of the final rule.
In response to commenters who raised the issue of the perceived
limitation of 500 hours on the duration of work experience for youth
and its effect on the summer program, the Department refers to the
discussion of work experience that appears in connection with
Sec. 627.245 and the fact that the limitations on duration of work
experience are removed.
Section 628.705(d), dealing with concurrent enrollment, is amended
to clarify that 65 percent of the total number of title II-C
participants shall have one or more barriers to employment. This is
necessary because no such additional barrier to employment requirement
exists in title II-B. The SDA must decide who is enrolled in title II-C
programs from title II-B or elsewhere.
A new paragraph (e) on follow-up services is added to Sec. 628.705.
Section 253(d) of the Act requires that followup services be provided
for participants if the ISS indicates that such services are
appropriate. Title II-B funds may be used such follow-up services up to
one year after program participation, including when this coincides
with title II-C participation when determined appropriate during
participation in the title II-B program and recorded in the participant
record. All supportive services in section 4(24), except financial
assistance, are included in followup services. Appropriate followup
activities for title II-B participants include counseling, mentoring,
or tutoring.
Finally, with the enactment of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act,
there were amendments to the program under Title II-B. The Department
believes that these are important changes and wishes to call attention
to them in this rulemaking process. Therefore, some of the statutory
provisions have been directly included in this final rule at Sec. 628.
Subpart H--Youth Training Program
A number of commenters suggested that the term "out-of-school
youth" be clarified or defined in Sec. 628.803(h). Several commenters
specifically cited attendance in an alternative school or education
program as a criterion. A few commenters specifically said that the
Congressional Conference Committee Report makes clear that this
definition encompasses youth enrolled in alternative education
programs. They encouraged the inclusion of alternative education
programs in the definition of "out-of-school youth". Other comments
stressed a combination of options including students attending area
learning centers, adult basic education classes, general educational
development (GED) preparation, vocational schools, or colleges. Others
wanted truants, dropouts, and those on suspension status specifically
included. One recommended that the State define out-of-school.
A few commenters wanted the term "in-school youth" clarified or
defined. Some commenters had specific suggestions such as leaving the
definition up to the Governor or placing it in Sec. 625.5, Definitions.
In an earlier attempt to provide administrative clarification in
this area, the Department had provided guidance to the Regional Offices
on the definition of "in-school youth" and out-of-school youth" in
Field Memorandum No. 34-93. This guidance indicated that an in-school
youth was a youth who had not received a high school degree and was
attending school on a full-time compulsory basis. An out-of-school
youth was a youth who was not in school, or as suggested by the report
of the Conferees, was attending alternative school or was habitually
truant.
In comments to the Department, it was indicated that the interim
guidance was problematic for two reasons. First, a 14 or 15-year-old
youth attending alternative school would not be eligible to participate
if defined as out-of-school since a 14 or 15-year-old could only be
eligible as in-school youth. Second, if a youth was in alternative
school and considered in-school by the school system, but defined as
out-of-school for JTPA, the eligibility criteria of participation in a
compensatory education program or eligibility for free lunch could not
be applied.
The issue is of some interest to the JTPA system, especially in
light of the requirement that at least 50 percent of the youth served
be out-of-school youth. The Department has given careful consideration
to this matter and has determined to take a slightly different course.
The regulations define "in-school youth" at Sec. 628.803(b). The
Department has not included the concept of being subject to compulsory
attendance requirements because in some States these requirements end
at an age before a youth has attained a diploma and the Department
believes that attainment of a diploma is key to the criteria for being
in school. The word "diploma" is substituted for "degree" to
distinguish from post-secondary attainment. Any other youth is out-of-
school. Rather than further define "out-of-school" in a way that
would create the problems noted above or create a number of unnecessary
exceptions, the Department has decided to adopt, in Sec. 628.803(h),
the exceptions suggested in the Conference Report which set forth the
requirement that 50-percent of youth served must be out-of-school. The
Conference Report indicates that youth in alternative schools or who
are "habitually truant" may be considered as out-of-school for
purposes of meeting the statutory requirement. "Alternative school"
also is defined. Section 628.803(h) is revised accordingly so that
paragraph (h)(2) is redesignated as paragraph (h)(3) and a new
paragraph (h)(2) is added.
Several commenters were concerned that the status of high school
graduates was unclear. The intent of the revision of the definitions in
the final rule is to make it clear that all youth who are not in-school
are out-of-school. Thus, high school graduates or GED recipients, who
are not enrolled in post-secondary education programs, would qualify as
out-of-school youth. It should be stressed, however, that the primary
intent of including the "out-of-school" eligibility category in title
II-C was to stress services to high school dropouts. SDA's should focus
their services on this group.
A few commenters noted the problems with documenting the free lunch
program as an eligibility criterion for youth. That program has strict
confidentiality provisions. One urged the Department to work with the
appropriate agency to improve the existing process. While section 9 of
the National School Lunch Act assures confidentiality, schools may
release summary information such as the number of eligible children in
a school. Parents may sign waivers of confidentiality for specific
programs. Households may voluntarily provide evidence of eligibility.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is requesting that their
regional offices notify State agencies of these regulations and suggest
they share this information with local school administrators. The
Department plans to work with USDA staff to coordinate this effort.
Section 628.803(c) is amended to reflect that the Department will
provide further guidance on the verification of documentation regarding
the free lunch program.
Regarding the requirement to serve hard-to-serve individuals,
Sec. 628.803(d)(2) is amended to state that all Job Corps participants
shall be considered as out-of-school and shall be automatically
considered to have a barrier to employment. This change is made to
foster JTPA/Job Corps coordination. SDA's now will have an incentive to
provide job development and placement services for Job Corps
participants. All positive program terminations will be enjoyed by both
systems.
A commenter sought clarification as to whether non-economically
disadvantaged youth enrolled as a part of a schoolwide project are to
be counted as part of the 10 percent non-economically disadvantaged
stated in Sec. 628.803(f). As stated in Sec. 628.803(h)(2), these youth
do not count against the 10-percent window.
Commenters sought clarification of the provisions of the
regulations regarding title II-C eligibility based on schoolwide
project participation. Section 628.803 is amended to add a paragraph
(g)(3) to restate the provisions of the Act on the criteria for schools
that qualify for schoolwide projects, and a paragraph (g)(4) which
states that the SDA determines its schoolwide projects and provides a
list of examples of possible projects.
One commenter pointed out that section 263(g)(1)(C) of the Act
requires that projects be in schools in which not less than 70 per cent
are hard-to-serve and that the regulations should define a reasonable
standard to determine this. This is addressed in DOL's Technical
Assistance Guide on Eligibility which specifies that the school makes
the certification that 70 percent of its students meet the criteria.
The SDA may rely upon the school's certification for purposes of
compliance.
A few commenters suggested that for a school-wide project, an
entire school district should be allowed to qualify and not just an
individual school. The Department believes that the provisions of the
Act clearly apply to an individual school. No change is made to the
final rule.
Several commenters sought clarification of when SDAs would be
required to have complied with the requirement to serve 50-percent
youth who are out-of-school. Section 628.803(h)(1) is amended to state
that the Governor has the responsibility to determine the period for
which the 50 percent out-of-school requirement will be calculated based
either on the period covered by the job training plan or on a program
year.
A few commenters maintained that the term "dropout" needed
clarification. "School dropout" is defined at section 4(38) of the
Act as an individual who is no longer attending any school and who has
not received a secondary school diploma or a certificate from a program
of equivalency for such a diploma. That definition is now referenced at
Sec. 628.804(c).
There were many comments on title II-C authorized services
including limited internships, entry employment experiences,
cooperative education, tryout employment, youth work experience, youth
OJT, and others. Most of these comments indicated confusion and asked
for clarification in a variety of ways.
A few commenters wanted limited internships clarified. A few
commenters expressed surprise at how open limited internships were
compared to OJT with 100-percent wage reimbursement at a private-for-
profit employer and no classroom training component. A few commenters
thought the provision on entry employment experience was poorly written
and confusing. Some wanted clarification on cooperative education.
Entry employment experience, cooperative education, and limited
internship offer work-based training experiences in a work setting. The
Department believes that the particulars of how they are designed and
carried out should be a matter of State and local policy, so long as
they are consistent with general provisions of the regulations. The
Department encourages the development of such work-based training
programs in conjunction with education components that reinforce the
experience. The 500-hour limitation on entry employment experience and
limited internship is removed and Sec. 628.804(h)(2) of the final rule
is amended accordingly. With regard to cooperative education programs,
the Department wishes to emphasize that, as has been the practice, no
subsidized wages may be paid to participants in this activity.
In response to commenters who sought clarification of what
constituted an alternative course of study, the Sec. 628.803(h)(2)
includes examples of an alternative school program including an
alternative course of study in connection with the in-school, out-of-
school ratio. Section 628.804(b) indicates that the alternative course
of study shall be approved by the local educational authority and may
be delivered by a CBO. The Department believes that the JTPA rules
should not specify the characteristics of an alternative course of
study when, in almost all instances, this falls within the
responsibility of the local educational authorities.
A commenter asked whether tryout employment is allowable under
title II-C. Tryout employment previously was described in section 205
of the Act. If conducted under the provisions of title II-C, it would
be a kind of entry employment experience. The design of such an
activity and the decision to use it is made at the local level.
A few commenters stressed that youth work experience should not be
limited to 500 hours. As previously discussed, the final rule is
revised to clarify that work experience has no duration limitation.
Several commenters expressed alarm over the title II-C OJT
requirement that the youth OJT wage equal or exceed the average wage at
placement of title II-A wage. Commenters stated, in various ways, that
the new provisions on OJT for youth will eliminate youth OJT as a
program option and that JTPA will lose its ability to serve this
special needs population. There were several recommendations on how to
compute wage. Several wanted the wage to be computed based totally on
youth wages. It is clear that the language at section
264(d)(3)(C)(i)(I) of the Act intends the youth OJT wage to be based on
the adult wage in title II-A. Section 628.804(j)(1)(i) is amended to
clarify that wages for OJT positions meet or exceed the average wage at
placement in the SDA for participants under title II-A "based on the
most recent available data." This replaces the language in the interim
final rule of "in the preceding program year." Some may still view
these provisions as eliminating private sector work for youth. The Act,
however, provides other opportunities for youth in the private sector,
such as entry employment experience, limited internships, and
cooperative education. A few commenters expressed concern that disabled
youth will be hurt by the new wage restrictions for youth OJT. These
new training options may be developed with the disabled in mind. These
options can be used to provide sheltered or supported work experiences
for disabled youth similar to those available under OJT.
Section 628.804(k) is amended to clarify that supportive services
may be provided after termination. They include the full range of
supportive services defined at section 4(24) of the Act, except for
financial assistance, for up to a year after termination. In the title
II-B section of this Preamble, "follow-up services" that would help
bring JTPA closer to the goal of a year round program for youth are
discussed.
Part 631--Programs Under Title III of the Job Training Partnership
Act
A number of comments received by the Department in response to the
December 29, 1992, interim final rule specifically addressed title III
issues and concerns. The revisions to the regulations for part 631,
Programs under Title III of the Job Training Partnership Act, were
driven by changes to the legislative provisions contained in the Job
Training Amendments of 1992 and the Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993. Only those comments pertaining to the proposed
regulatory revisions stemming from the legislative changes were
considered. After the issuance of the interim final rule, the enactment
of the NAFTA Worker Security Act required additional revisions to the
regulations.
Several commenters recommended editorial changes to the proposed
regulatory language. These suggestions were incorporated depending on
their accuracy and usefulness. Major comments on the proposed revisions
to Part 631, the Department's analysis of and reaction to those
comments, and major changes to the final rule are discussed below.
Definitions
The interim final rule at Sec. 631.2 added an additional definition
of "substantial layoff (for rapid response assistance)", which
establishes a minimum threshold for the provision of rapid response
assistance. This minimum threshold cannot be waived, but a new
provision, at Sec. 631.30(b)(6), which provides the Governor with
alternatives for complying with the threshold and providing rapid
response assistance in exceptional circumstances has been clarified. In
addition, that provision has been expanded to reflect a requirement of
the NAFTA Worker Security Act.
A few commenters questioned whether the "employment loss" in this
new definition relates to a single business or to the geographic area.
To maintain consistency with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification (WARN) Act, "employment loss" in this context relates to
a single site of employment .
Regarding the new definition of "substantial layoff", another
commenter stated that employers periodically lay off, temporarily, 50
or more employees during a 30-day period and then recall these
individuals. Therefore, the commenter recommends that rapid response
assistance should only be authorized if the duration of a layoff is
expected to last for 6 months or more. The Department believes that,
after determining a layoff meets the definition of substantial layoff
for rapid response assistance purposes, a State is still required to
determine, among other things, the expected duration of the layoff, the
level of need of the affected individuals and their individual
eligibility for services. Ascertaining their need for assistance should
include contacting the employer and a representative of the workers.
The State should then decide whether or not to offer services based on
these determinations.
A few commenters believed the new definition would exclude rapid
response assistance for numerous small scale reductions and stated
that, if the definition could not be altered, more latitude should be
given to the States under the "exceptional circumstances" provision
to respond to smaller layoffs. A commenter suggested expanding
"exceptional circumstances" to include other situations, and another
commenter suggested alternative language for Sec. 631.30(b)(6) to allow
the Governor to establish a threshold below 50 for rapid response
assistance purposes. Finally, one commenter thought Sec. 631.30(b)(6)
directly contradicted the definition of "substantial layoff (for rapid
response assistance)" and questioned the legislative basis for this
new provision.
As a statutory provision, the minimum threshold of 50 employees
established by the new definition of substantial layoff cannot be
waived. However, through Sec. 631.30(b)(6), the regulations do provide
flexibility to States to establish policies that allow rapid response
assistance to be provided to layoffs of less than 50 workers at a
single site. The Governor must establish guidelines defining parameters
for "impact on a local community." The only limitation is that States
must maintain a capability to respond to single site layoffs of 50
workers or more. In other words, States cannot establish policies which
would exhaust their ability to provide effective and timely rapid
response to layoffs of at least 50 workers.
A few comments reflected concerns with both definitions of
substantial layoff or with having two separate definitions. One
commenter believed the Governor should have the discretion to reduce
the worker threshold below 50, while another believed the definitions
must be flexible enough to accommodate local circumstances. A few
commenters stated that having two different definitions was
administratively confusing and could lead to disallowed costs as a
result of the difficulty of ascertaining if the 33 percent threshold
had been met. To promote consistency, they recommended using the
definition of "substantial layoff for rapid response purposes" as the
sole definition of the term. Other commenters believed having two
distinct definitions established a possible conflict (i.e., individuals
who receive services through rapid response assistance may not meet the
title III eligibility criteria), and indicated that a single definition
of rapid response was preferable.
The definitions of "substantial layoff for participant
eligibility" and of "substantial layoff for rapid response purposes"
are different as a result of responsive title III policy evolution.
Originally, the Department used the WARN definition of "mass layoff"
to establish a linkage between title III programs and WARN, and to set
forth a minimum threshold for the provision of State rapid response
services. To provide greater flexibility for State rapid response
assistance, Congress provided an additional definition of substantial
layoff, but clearly made it exclusively for rapid response purposes.
Therefore, the two definitions of substantial layoff will remain
intact.
Participant Eligibility
Broader eligibility rules (criteria) are established in
Sec. 631.3(b) for the receipt of selected readjustment and
retraining services in instances where an employer makes a public
announcement of a plant closure, pursuant to section 314(h) of the Act.
A few commenters asked what constitutes a public announcement of a
planned closure. One commenter specifically asked what constitutes a
public announcement for the State, and if a WARN notice or a letter to
the Governor or locally elected official from the employer would
suffice.
Section 631.3(b)(4) states that "the Governor shall establish
criteria defining 'public announcement'. Such criteria shall include
provisions that the public announcement shall be made by the employer
and shall indicate a planned closure date for the facility (section
314(h) of the Act)." The Department believes a WARN notice, and most
likely a less formal declaration by an employer, would meet these
criteria. However, within the parameters established in the
regulations, the Governor ultimately determines what constitutes a
public announcement of a planned closure.
A few commenters questioned what would happen if a decision to
close a plant was changed. A few commenters specifically asked what
would occur if a decision was reversed (e.g., Would the project be
canceled? What happens to the workers who were determined eligible and
enrolled? Are they terminated? What impact would a reversal have on
cost category limitation, performance standards and outcomes?). They
recommended the institution of a hold harmless provision. One commenter
asked if an individual would remain eligible for retraining should a
closure date be delayed or if an individual in classroom training never
received a notice of layoff. Finally, another commenter stated that the
participants should not be denied service or experience an interruption
in enrollment due to delays in closing dates.
The determination of EDWAA eligibility for any of the program's
services and activities is determined based on the best information
available at the time. If the circumstances upon which the eligibility
decision(s) were based change, a reevaluation of the continued need for
the services/activities is appropriate. It is expected that
consideration would be given to such factors as the exact nature of the
employer action (postponement or reversal), where the participant is in
the system (e.g., whether the participant is enrolled and participating
in a retraining activity), and the impact of a termination on the
individual. However, title III expenditures for services/activities to
a participant who was correctly determined to be eligible are not, in
and of themselves, disallowed costs.
A commenter asked how States should define "plant or facility
closing" within the context of Sec. 631.3(b). Specifically, they asked
if WARN rules should be used in defining these terms (i.e., whether
line closings within a plant or the elimination of a shift should be
considered a plant closing). While the Department believes the WARN
rules provide helpful guidance, this determination is left to the
discretion of the Governor.
Another commenter requested the addition of language requiring the
availability of "rapid response-like activities" to a firm entering
bankruptcy, whether or not a formal public announcement has been made.
Section 631.3(b)(1) provides for participant eligibility in the event
of a formal public announcement of a plant closure. While no change is
made in the final rule, a State may, pursuant to section 314(b) of the
Act, provide rapid response assistance after becoming aware of a
current or projected permanent closure or substantial layoff. Moreover,
the firm's employees may receive the services authorized in section 314
of the Act if they meet the eligibility criteria established at section
301. In assessing the circumstances of an impending bankruptcy, it is
expected that the Governor would determine whether the filing would
result in a closing, a layoff, or a Chapter 11 restructuring with no
contemplated change in manpower.
A commenter questioned whether or not a participant had to be
enrolled to receive basic readjustment services and if limited basic
readjustment services could be provided to eligible workers prior to
enrollment into a title III program. Section 314(c) of the Act (Basic
Readjustment Services), of course, includes outreach and intake. The
Department believes that outreach and intake services include limited
assessment of an eligible applicant to allow service providers to
evaluate an applicant's suitability for JTPA training and services. The
definition of "participant" at section 4 of the Act provides that:
"Participation shall be deemed to commence on the first day, following
determination of eligibility, on which the participant began receiving
subsidized employment, training or other services."
A few commenters felt that Sec. 631.3(b)(3) inappropriately
excluded certain groups from consideration as "eligible dislocated
workers" pursuant to Sec. 631.3(b). A few believed involuntary, forced
and early retirements should be excepted from this provision, since
many individuals falling into this category have lost jobs through no
fault of their own. Stating that individuals are often forced or
"seduced" into early retirement, another commenter wished to except
any individual who is likely to retire.
The exclusion of individuals "likely to retire instead of seeking
new employment" is statutorily required at section 314(h)(1) of the
Act and, therefore, will remain. The Department interprets the Act to
preclude services to those who are unlikely to need them because they
will remain employed with the employer or because they will retire. The
decision about whether any individual who has "voluntarily" retired
does, in fact, intend to remain unemployed must be made on a case-by-
case basis. This decision is best made at the state or local level.
Therefore, the Governor is responsible for the interpretation of this
phrase and its subsequent application.
Another commenter questioned what was acceptable documentation that
a person is "likely to remain employed with the employer or to
retire" when no individual notice is provided. It is within the
Governor's discretion to determine what would be acceptable
documentation.
A new Sec. 631.3(j) is added to set forth the requirements of
section 250(b)(2)(C) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271, et
seq.), as amended by the NAFTA Worker Security Act (Title V of Pub. L.
103-182).
Approved Training Rule
Section 314(f)(2) of the Act states that eligible individuals
participating in title III programs may receive unemployment
compensation benefits consistent with State policies under the Approved
Training Rule and defines eligible workers as those "participating in
training (except on-the-job training)." The language in the final rule
at Sec. 631.4 is revised from participation in "any of the programs"
to "any retraining activity, except on-the-job training."
One commenter thought that limiting the receipt of unemployment
compensation benefits to only those trainees participating in a
retraining activity was inappropriate. Specifically, the commenter
believed trainees in a class providing assessment and the preparation
of an individual service strategy (ISS) are not available and looking
for work, and they too need compensation.
Objective assessment and preparation of an individual readjustment
plan are defined in section 314(c) of the Act as basic readjustment
services and, therefore, individuals participating solely in these
activities fail to meet the criteria established under section
314(f)(2) of the Act and Sec. 631.4.
Classification of Costs at State and Substate Levels
Section 631.13 was not altered in the interim final regulations.
However, a few commenters suggested redefining "retraining" to be
consistent with "direct training services" under titles II-A and II-C
and "basic readjustment services" to be consistent with "training-
related services" under titles II-A and II-C.
While the Department acknowledges that statutory requirements often
present barriers to coordination, it must be pointed out that titles
II-A and II-C and title III authorize separate programs with distinct
goals, structures, services and requirements. For example, objective
assessment is defined in titles II-A and II-C as a direct training
service while it is defined in title III as a basic readjustment
service. The statute and, in turn, the regulations reflect this fact.
Therefore, the different terms with their distinct definitions remain
intact in the final rule.
Limitations on Certain Costs
The basis for computing the cost limitations which apply to
expenditures of title III funds has been changed from annual
expenditures to program year allocation (for substate grantees), or to
funds reserved by the Governor from the program year allotment (for
States). This change reflects the amendments to section 315 and
recognizes that grantees are permitted to have up to 3 years in which
to spend allotted funds, subject to certain adjustments applied through
the reallotment process for under-expenditure. Other major changes to
this subject area include the addition of Sec. 631.14(i) to clarify
that the funds allocated (or distributed) to a substate grantee under
the provisions of section 302(c)(1)(E) of the Act shall be included in
the substate areas formula allocation for purposes of applying the cost
limits, and the addition of Sec. 631.14(h) to allow neighboring
substate grantees to combine funds to serve dislocated workers from two
or more substate areas.
A few commenters asked if it is allowable to provide funds to
substate grantees under the provisions of section 302(c)(1)(A)-(D) of
the Act and, if so, whether these funds must be considered funds
allocated to a substate grantee for the program year of the funds'
initial allotment to the State and included in the cost limitations of
Sec. 631.14(a)-(c).
While funds reserved by a State for activities under section
302(c)(1)(A)-(D) of the Act may be expended through a subgrant or
contract with a substate grantee, these funds would still be considered
funds allocated to the Governor, as defined at Sec. 631.14(i)(3), for
the program year of the funds' initial allotment to the State and
included in the cost limitations applicable to the Governor. As the
statute allocates these funds to the Governor for the explicit purpose
of carrying out responsibilities assigned to the State, expenditures of
these funds are to be treated as State-level expenditures, regardless
of the operator incurring those expenses.
One commenter asked whether TEGL No. 1-90, Change 1, which
specified that cost limitations would be calculated based on "total
maximum allowable expenditures", would remain in effect after July 1,
1993 and if new guidelines would be issued for calculating/determining
title III cost limitation compliance.
TEGL 1-90, Change 1 was issued on June 18, 1991, and its content
was based on the statutory and regulatory provisions effective at that
time. The Department will review this TEGL and issue appropriate
guidance.
This same commenter also asked if the minimum/maximum percentage
requirements would be applied to the total final expenditures for each
cost category to determine the minimum/maximum amounts after July 1,
1993. In a separate issuance, the Department will issue reporting
requirements which will clarify the application of the cost
limitations.
One commenter discussed the inconsistency between the 15 percent
cap on administrative costs under the title III program and the 20
percent cap on administrative costs under the title II-A and II-C
programs.
For titles II-A and II-C, section 108 of the Act established a
revised limit of 20 percent of funds that may be expended for
administration. However, as noted above, while the basis for computing
the cost limitations which apply to expenditures of title III funds has
changed, the statutory provision requiring a 15 percent cap on
administrative cost has not. Therefore, this difference between the
programs shall remain.
Questioning the application of Sec. 631.14(g), one commenter asked
if cost limitations must be complied with immediately if funds are
deobligated and, therefore, are no longer available. Cost limitations
are applied at the time funds are no longer available for expenditure,
in other words, when the 3-year availability period ends. When funds
are deobligated, the total pool of funds which is available for
expenditure is reduced and becomes the new base on which cost
limitations will be applied. However, a State or substate grantee still
has the entire period of fund availability to comply with the cost
limitations as they apply to this new base.
Federal Reporting Requirements
A new provision was added in the interim final regulations, at
Sec. 631.15, requiring the State to provide a breakdown of all
administrative expenditures by the dislocated worker unit, pursuant to
section 311(b)(11) of the Act.
A few commenters asked what cost breakdowns and line items are
required in the reports. As indicated in Sec. 631.15, the specifics
regarding the reports' content and format will be addressed through
instructions to be issued by the Secretary. These were included in the
reporting instructions for title III programs for PY 1993.
Federal Monitoring and Oversight
A new provision is added, at Sec. 631.17, clarifying the
Secretary's authority to oversee the State's provision of rapid
response assistance and to require corrective action as necessary, as
provided for in section 314(b)(3) of the Act.
One commenter questioned why the word "may" was used in
Sec. 631.17 in lieu of the word "shall" which is found in the
language of section 314(b)(3) of the Act. This section is revised to
reflect the language of the Act.
By prescribing how rapid response is to occur, another commenter
thought this new provision, along with other sections of the
regulations, resulted in "micro-management by the Department" and
reduced the flexibility available to the States and local areas. The
Amendments direct the Secretary to conduct oversight of rapid response
to ensure the "effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness" of these
actions. It remains the responsibility of the State to manage its
program in accordance with the Act and the regulations.
Needs-Related Payments
An amended provision in section 314(e)(1) regarding eligibility for
needs-related payments requires that a participant be unemployed, and
this requirement is incorporated in Sec. 631.20(c).
One commenter disapproved of the change since it denies needs-
related payments to participants working any number of hours. This
commenter indicated that not only were they able to keep the costs of
these payments down by having participants work part-time, but full-
time students could work part-time and have these earnings supplemented
by the payments to allow them to complete their program.
As stated above, section 314(e)(1) of the Act clearly states that a
participant must be unemployed to receive needs-related payments. As a
result, the final rule remains unchanged.
Designation or Creation and Functions of a State Dislocated Worker Unit
or Office, and Rapid Response Assistance
A provision at Sec. 631.30(a)(8) requires the State to immediately
(within 48 hours) notify the substate grantee of current or projected
layoffs and closures in the local area for the purpose of continuing
and expanding upon the services initiated by the rapid response team,
as required in section 311(b)(3)(D) of the Act. Moreover, section
311(b)(12) of the Act stipulates that accountability for rapid response
assistance resides in the dislocated worker unit (DWU), although the
DWU may contract with other entities for the provision of these
services. This is reflected in the provisions at Sec. 631.30(b).
One commenter questioned whether 48 hours meant 48 working hours
and what would happen if the information was made available on a Friday
afternoon. The Department believes the Governor is responsible for the
interpretation and application of the term "48 hours."
Another commenter indicated stronger language needed to be
incorporated into the regulations to ensure that the State did not pass
off its rapid response responsibilities to the substate grantees. After
reviewing Sec. 631.30(b), the Department feels the language adequately
addresses this concern. The regulatory provision remains unchanged.
Allocation of Funds by the Governor
In the Interim Final Regulations, a provision was added to
Sec. 631.32(b)(2) to clarify that Governors must give consideration to
each of the substate allocation formula factors required by section
302(d) of the Act unless the factor is not relevant to economic
dislocation conditions of the State.
A few commenters had questions regarding the formula for making
substate allocations. One commenter indicated that Sec. 631.32(b)(3)
should also allow a zero weight factor to be used where data are not
adequate or not provided or funded by a Federal partner. Specifically,
they mentioned that plant closing and mass layoff data are no longer
funded and farmer-rancher economic hardship data have never been
provided by the Department and the USDA.
The Mass Layoff Statistics program was temporarily suspended by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Department intends to resume the Mass
Layoff Statistics Program early in 1995. During the interim period,
however, States will have to develop their own data and proxies for
mass layoffs. Similarly, States have been responsible for developing
their own data and proxies for farmer-rancher economic hardship data.
It is inconceivable that a State government would have no idea as to
economic circumstances in its own State. If "a review of the available
data indicates that the factor is not relevant to determining the
incidence of need for worker dislocation assistance within the State",
then a zero weight may be assigned (Sec. 631.32(b)(3)). However,
current lack of data is not an adequate reason for invalidating a
factor which is relevant to dislocation activity in the State.
Another commenter wondered if the Governor had an obligation beyond
the requirements of Sec. 627.463 (public access to records) to
publicize the elements of the formula or describe the rationales for
them.
The Department requires each State Plan to include a description of
the State's substate allocation formula methodology, including the data
elements and allocation formula to be used. Moreover, pursuant to
section 311(b)(9) of the Act, the Plan must be made available to the
State job training coordinating council to review and comment on prior
to its submittal to the Department. Therefore, through this process,
both the State Council and the Department will have an opportunity to
examine the within-State distribution formula.
Substate Plan
While no significant revisions were made to Sec. 631.50 of the
regulations, one commenter stated that the interim final rule omits any
requirement for SSG's to meet program goals, develop an oversight plan
and build capacity and noted that comparable provisions for SDA's are
at Sec. 628.420(b)(2), (3) and (c).
As stated earlier, the proposed revisions to the regulations for
part 631 were driven by changes to the legislative provisions contained
in the Job Training Amendments of 1992 and the Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1993. The Department has chosen not to regulate in
areas unaffected by statutory change. Only those comments pertaining to
the proposed regulatory revisions stemming from the legislative changes
were considered for incorporation into the final rule. Therefore,
Sec. 631.50 remains unchanged.
Cost Limitations
Section 631.62 of the interim final rule stipulated that the cost
limitations under part A of title III will apply to projects operated
under part B of title III, except when waived or altered by the
application guidelines, or by the Grant Officer in the terms of the
grant. In response to comments, the Department has modified this
provision in the final rule. The Department still intends to use the
title III-A cost limitations in cases where applicants for grants do
not ask for a different allocation of costs among the cost categories,
but the Department does not wish to discourage applicants from
designing their programs in the manner that will best serve the
affected population. The final rule is revised to make it clear that
applicants for grants can propose costs and that the Grant Officer has
the discretion to accept them. It is the Department's intent to provide
grant applicants flexibility in designing the mix of services in their
programs. However, the Department will agree to proposals with
administrative cost in excess of 15% only in extraordinary
circumstances.
One commenter asked if this provision will apply to the Defense
Conversion Adjustment (DCA) Program projects currently in operation or
whether these projects will continue to operate under the regulations
in effect at the time of award. Each discretionary project is subject
to the grant agreement and modifications as approved by the Grant
Officer. Modifications to an existing grant may be requested by the
grantee and agreed to by the Grant Officer according to the provisions
of this final rule.
Finally, three commenters discussed the difficulty of applying the
Act's section 315 cost limitations to Clean Air Employment Transition
Assistance projects. As stated above, the cost limitations in the grant
agreement control, however, modifications to existing grants may be
requested. For future grants, applicants are free to apply for other
cost limits that fit their programs.
Reporting
A provision was added at Sec. 631.63 of the interim final rule,
setting forth the Federal reporting requirements for recipients of
title III discretionary grants, consistent with section 322(a)(4) of
the Act.
One commenter thought the process for notifying the Secretary
regarding significant developments concerning the grant or subgrant was
too complicated and could delay the implementation of the project and
workers' access to services.
Section 631.63(b) simply requires the grantees to provide
information to the Department on any significant developments that
impact the project. This reporting requirement should not affect or
delay the project's execution.
Special Provisions for CAETA and DDP Programs
Section 631.60 has been clarified to state that Subpart G relates
to programs and funds reserved to the Secretary for use under part B of
title III of the Act: Including section 323 (20% discretionary funds);
section 324 (Demonstration Programs); section 325 (Defense Conversion
Adjustment Program); section 325A (Defense Diversification Program);
and section 326 (Clean Air Employment Transition Assistance).
The National Defense Authorization Act for 1993 authorized the
Defense Diversification Program (DDP) as an amendment to JTPA, at
section 325A. Its purpose is to provide retraining and readjustment
assistance to workers and military personnel dislocated by defense
cutbacks and closures of military facilities; and to provide planning
support and conversion assistance for diversification of affected
facilities within an area impacted by reductions in military
expenditures or closure of military facilities. Section 631.65(c) of
this final rule prescribes the needs-related payments procedure in
accordance with the requirements in section 326(f) of the Act, as
required by section 325A(i) of the Act.
The Clean Air Act is administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency; however, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. 101-549,
at section 110(a), amended the Job Training Partnership Act by adding a
new section 326, establishing the Clean Air Employment Transition
Assistance (CAETA) program. Section 326 is designed to assure the
establishment of programs to provide assistance to workers dislocated
as a result of a firm's compliance with the Clean Air Act. The purpose
of these programs is to provide readjustment and retraining assistance
to eligible workers to enable such workers to return to work.
The Department published proposed CAETA regulations for comment on
arch 24, 1992 (57 FR 10232). Thirteen State, substate entities and
other organizations submitted comments. Upon review, the Department has
determined that there is no programmatic justification to have separate
regulations for Clean Air. It is necessary, however, to make specific
provision in the JTPA regulations for specific statutory requirements
applicable to the CAETA program. The specific statutory requirements
for that program are implemented herein at Sec. 631.65.
Most of the comments received pursuant to the proposed regulations
requested clarification of general JTPA title III areas that were
subsequently addressed in the Interim Final Regulations on December 29,
1992 (57 FR 62004). The following discussion relates to comments on
issues specific to the Clean Air Act.
Administration of Clean Air Act
One commenter suggested including a statement that the Clean Air
Act is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. DOL agrees
with this comment and has added this statement in the preamble.
Needs-Related Payments
Several comments were received on the provisions of needs-related
payments. One commenter indicated that the language in the proposed
regulations might discourage grant applicants from serving those
eligible for payments so they can conserve funds for training, and that
applicants could perceive ETA as biased toward proposed grants with
limited needs-related payments (NRP's). It was also believed that grant
applicants should be encouraged to seek eligible dislocated workers
most-in-need, particularly those requiring income support during
training. The language at Sec. 631.65(c) of the final rule is intended
to reflect the statutory requirement that CAETA programs provide for
adequate needs-related payments. The language is not intended to permit
a programmatic restriction against those dislocated workers who are
eligible to receive NRP's.
Another commenter raised a question about when grantees should
start using family income to determine eligibility for needs-related
payments. The Department agrees that there should be a time frame; it
is only upon actual enrollment in a training and/or education program
that one becomes eligible for consideration to receive needs-related
payments. Individual or family income for the six-month period
immediately prior to a participant's enrollment in training and
education programs is to be annualized to determine eligibility for
needs-related payments.
One commenter stated that the determination of family income at the
time of eligibility determination, and that the three-month re-
determination requirement in the proposed rule would create
administrative burdens. The determination of family income only applies
to those dislocated workers who (1) have been determined eligible
pursuant to section 326(a) of the Act, (2) have exhausted or are not
eligible for unemployment compensation benefits, and (3) have been
enrolled in training and education programs pursuant to section 326(f)
of the Act. Section 326(f)(4) of the Act requires adjustments
reflecting changes in family income. The final rule is revised to
require that eligibility determinations "shall be reviewed
periodically;" however, it is expected that an equitable system would
be outlined in a grant application. It is expected that a grantee's
system would be sensitive to participants' probable decreasing family
income (depending upon the date of layoff) under the six-month income
determination rule.
Another commenter suggested clarifying restrictions on needs-
related payments to participants when relocation, out-of-area job
search, or TAA allowances have ceased, or when OJT has been completed.
The statute requires that needs-related payments be available to enable
participants to complete training or education programs. Relocation and
out-of-area job search allowances would normally be provided to
participants who possess marketable skills, and, therefore, are not
enrolled in training or education. If TAA allowances were being
provided for training or education, needs-related payments may be used
when TAA allowances are exhausted (if a participant is otherwise
eligible for and enrolled in an education or training program under
CAETA). After OJT, a participant ordinarily is employed and receives
wages from the employer. If the participant is not employed, NRP's
could only be made if the participant is enrolled in other training.
Two commenters asked what constitutes "satisfactory progress" in
order for a participant to continue to receive NRP's, and how often
this determination must be made. The Department expects a grant
application to define a system to address this issue, based upon the
training to be provided.
A commenter believed that the wording in the proposed rule, that
grantees must provide needs-related payments, seemed less definitive
and suggested stating whether the projects will be funded without
providing for payments to any participant. Another commenter suggested
having States check the needs-related payment policies of SDA's before
initiating the needs-related payments requirement. Two commenters
suggested using the same eligibility criteria for needs-related
payments for CAETA as are used in other title III programs. Two
commenters suggested allowing State or local flexibility in determining
who receives payments and payments policy. Another commenter suggested
that it would be confusing to make the needs-related payment rate
applicable to the weekly unemployment compensation payment level or to
the poverty level, which the commenter believed would limit the number
of eligible individuals in classroom training.
The Department is unable to accede to the requests of these
commenters. Needs-related payments are discretionary under title III of
JTPA, and grantees have some flexibility in providing such payments.
However, under section 326(c)(2) of the Act, CAETA funds must be used
to provide needs-related payments in accordance with the requirements
set forth at section 326(f) of the Act. Similarly, section 325A(i) of
the Act provides that in DDP programs, needs-related payments must be
made in accordance with section 326(f). The Act requires that the
Secretary prescribe regulations with respect to needs-related payments
for CAETA and DDP. The needs-related payments regulations at
Sec. 631.65(c) follow the statutory requirements at section 326(f) of
the Act. Because of these statutory requirements of CAETA and DDP,
grantees have little discretion and must provide needs-related payments
in the manner set forth in Sec. 631.65(c).
One commenter suggested developing regulations that require
grantees to document reasons for denial of payments and give
opportunities for participants who had payments suspended to seek
redress up to and including the federal level. The Department agrees
that grantees should include descriptions of systems in grant
applications which document payments, reasons for denial of payments
and suspensions. In addition, the regulations at Sec. 631.64 require
each grantee to establish and to maintain a grievance procedure which,
among other things, would handle grievances related to needs-related
payments. The regulations at subpart F of 20 CFR part 627 provide
procedures for the federal handling of allegations of violations of the
Act or regulations.
Participant Eligibility
Nine commenters raised questions regarding participant eligibility
provisions for dislocated workers under CAETA. One commenter suggested
expanding the eligible population to workers needing skills upgrading
or retraining on new or modified equipment. Sections 301 and 326(a) of
the Act establish eligibility criteria for CAETA. Dislocated workers
may receive skills training in the same occupation in which they were
previously employed if their current skills are obsolete, and such
training is required for them to meet the local labor market hiring
requirements for that occupation.
Two commenters suggested including a statement regarding the
eligibility of workers who had been laid off from mines that supply
coal to plants. The Department agrees that workers dislocated from
mines as a result of compliance with the Clean Air Act would be
eligible.
Another commenter raised the question of how one determines that an
individual's dislocation is the consequence of compliance with the Act
if the layoff notice does not specifically mention the impact of the
Clean Air Act, and whether the grantee has to assure verification is
done for each applicant. The CAETA grantee must determine and document
that a layoff is Clean Air Act-related and must verify that each
applicant was a part of such layoff. The application guidelines will
provide for reasonable documentation which could establish that the
layoff was related to the Clean Air Act.
Another commenter suggested allowing temporary employment with the
employer from which the worker was dislocated. Participant eligibility
for enrollment in CAETA is specified at section 326(a) of the Act. The
Department believes that temporary employment with the same employer is
inconsistent with the definition of dislocation and is restricted at
Sec. 631.3(i)(2).
Eligible Grantees
The Department received seven comments regarding entities eligible
to apply for grants under CAETA. Three commenters indicated that
submitting applications directly to the Department of Labor, rather
than through the State, could lead to such problems as a lack of
coordination, and duplication. Another commenter suggested that
recipients should provide assurances that they are administratively
capable of operating the program. Two commenters suggested that
limiting eligible grantees to States and territories of the United
States would ensure coordination with State entities and SSGs. Section
326(b) of the Act permits the Secretary to recognize five types of
eligible grantees, and it does not require applicants to apply through
the State. The Department recognizes that there would be benefits to
submitting all applications through the States, and encourages such
action. It should be noted, however, that an "eligible grantee" may
not be an appropriate applicant for a particular project. The nature
and extent of the proposed project, and the capacity of an applicant,
will be factors in evaluating an application and an applicant's ability
to perform the work.
Subpart I--Disaster Relief Employment Assistance
A new Subpart I, to be administered under the title III National
Reserve Grants program, provides for Disaster Relief Employment
Assistance, as authorized by the new Amendments to title IV-J of the
Act.
Section 631.84(a) discusses the projects that a unit of general
local government in a disaster area may operate under this subpart. One
commenter suggested substituting the phrase, "Davis-Bacon provisions
shall apply on all projects related to demolition, cleanup, repair * *
*" for "on projects regarding demolition, cleanup, repair * * *."
While Davis-Bacon does apply to Federal programs, the inclusion of
this phrase does not change or clarify the meaning of this provision.
Therefore, the section will remain unchanged.
Section 631.85 outlines the participant eligibility criteria under
the Disaster Relief Employment Assistance Program. The statutory
language regarding eligibility is not accurately reflected in this
section. The final rule is revised to correct this problem. In
addition, one commenter thought the Department should have the
authority to declare persons who are eligible for titles II-A and II-C
programs eligible for title III Disaster Relief Programs. Since the
statute does not grant the Department this blanket authority, expansion
of participant eligibility criteria will not occur.
Section 631.86 limits the length of disaster relief employment. One
commenter questioned the difference between this type of employment and
public service employment which is prohibited under titles II and III.
Although the statute prohibits public service employment funded
under title II-A and C and title III-A, public service employment is
contemplated under title IV-J of the Act. Disaster relief employment is
narrowly defined and exclusively limited to the activities described
under Sec. 631.84. Allowable activities will not be expanded beyond the
statutorily established parameters.
This same commenter asked how costs incurred for disaster relief
employment should be classified and what criteria should be used in
determining the monetary extent to which a cost category has benefited.
The Department has chosen not to issue detailed regulations for this
program. Specific information regarding Disaster Relief Employment
Assistance projects, including any guidance on cost classification
issues, will be contained in application guidelines published by the
Secretary. Until they are issued, an applicant for these funds should
follow the guidelines and information published in the July 9, 1992
Federal Register regarding Emergency Dislocated Worker Projects.
PART 637--JOBS FOR EMPLOYABLE DEPENDENT INDIVIDUALS (JEDI)
Several commenters addressed this section of the interim final
regulations.
The majority of the comments addressed inconsistencies in the
numbering of the sections and in the cross-references. The part has
been revised to correct the numbering.
In addition, several of the commenters raised questions concerning
how the program can be implemented in the absence of any Congressional
appropriation. While bonuses will not be awarded under title V of the
Act until funds are appropriated by Congress, individuals who are
eligible to be counted for title V purposes may be served under other
titles of the Act. Since those individuals who would be eligible to be
counted for the incentive bonuses under title V must also be eligible
for, and have participated in, other activities under the Act, the
costs associated with their participation in these activities would be
charged to the appropriate program(s) and title(s) of the Act. If a
State wishes to participate in the title V bonus program, if it is ever
funded, the State may wish to keep track of the outcomes of training
for individuals eligible to be counted for bonus purposes.
Effective Date
The Department recognizes that the regulations are being issued
after the beginning of a program year. To avoid administrative
difficulties, the Department has made the effective date of the
regulations June 30, 1995, the beginning of Program Year 1995. This
will give states and SDA's/SSG's time to plan for the changes that may
result from the amendments made in this final rule. States or SDA's/
SSG's are, of course, free to implement any of the changes that they
find will benefit their programs earlier than the effective date and
the Department will treat those changes as legally effective when
adopted in any subsequent monitoring or audit resolution activity.
Consistent with the Department's desire to enable states and SDAs to
implement the beneficial changes in the final rule as quickly as they
choose, the provisions of Sec. 627.210, authorizing the Department to
grant waivers of regulatory requirements are made effective within 30
days of publication to enable states to apply for waivers to be
effective before the beginning of PY 1995.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number
These programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance at No. 17-246, "Employment and Training Assistance--
Dislocated Workers" (JTPA Title III Programs); and No.17-250, "Job
Training Partnership Act (JTPA)" (JTPA Titles I, II, and V Programs).
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Parts 626 Through 631 and 637
Dislocated worker programs, Grant programs, Labor, Manpower
training programs.
[click on "Back" to return to Index to continue]