Mr. Eugene A. Conti
Secretary
Maryland Department of Labor,
Licensing and Regulation
217 East Redwood Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Conti:
I am pleased to offer JTPA waiver approvals to the State of Maryland in response to
Governor Glendening's request. This could not have been done without the vision, strategy
and planning that was produced by the local, State, and Federal (national and regional staff)
partnership, of which it has been our pleasure to be a part. I thank you for your and your
staff's hard work and patience.
The State's request was considered under the special appropriations act provision
granting the Secretary of Labor authority to waive certain requirements of Titles I-III of JTPA,
and Sections 8-10 of the Wagner-Peyser Act. This authority was granted to the Secretary in
the Department of Labor's (DOL) Appropriation Act for 1997 (Pub. L. 104-208, section
101(e)).
This is a one-year authority and applies only to JTPA funds available for expenditure
during the period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998, and, therefore, could affect the JTPA
Grant Agreements for Program Year (PY) 1997, 1996 and 1995 funds, depending on fund
availability during the waiver period. Enclosed you will find an overview and our disposition
with regard to each of your requests, as well as copies of our formal response to the Governor.
Enclosed also is a grant modification (3 copies) that will require signature by the Governor or
the State's JTPA signatory official. Please check off the applicable JTPA grant agreements
(PY 97, 96, 95) that the statutory waiver modification will affect. We ask that the documents
be signed by the appropriate official and returned to the Grant Officer at the address indicated
below:
Mr. James C. De Luca
U.S. Department of Labor - ETA
Office of Grants and Contract
Management - DAA
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W,
Room - South 4203
Washington, D.C. 20210
Upon execution by the appropriate USDOL grant officer, we will return an executed copy for the State's official files. This modification is effective the date executed by the Grant Officer.
We applaud Maryland's efforts to focus on a workforce vision and the development of a
strategy to meet that vision. Waivers, of course, are only a small part of this strategy. We will
continue to work with the State to reach these goals. We expect that these reforms will continue
to reflect the Department of Labor's guiding principles: individual opportunity and customer
choice; leaner government; greater accountability; State and local flexibility; and strong private
sector roles.
This is a living document. As we continue our partnership be sure to let us know if
additional waivers or other action would be beneficial.
Sincerely,
Edwin W. Strong, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Enclosures
OVERVIEW
The applicable JTPA Grant Agreements between the State and the Department will be
modified upon execution of the enclosed Modification. Unless specified otherwise these waivers
are authorized for the period beginning July 1, 1997 and ending June 30, 1998. In exchange for
these waivers the State is expected to meet the agreed upon performance improvements.
Requests to waive program design components were honored except in the case where the
request conflicted with the Secretary's statutory waiver authority, the Department's guiding
principles for waivers and the One-Stop Career Centers and School-to-Work Systems principles.
Administrative waivers were granted in such a manner as to maintain fiscal responsibility and
accountability.
These waivers are based upon the Governor's request, meetings and discussions among
staff, and the Department's familiarity with the program in Maryland. They do not necessarily
constitute an endorsement of the examples in Maryland's waiver request. In several instances, the
Department would recommend against the interventions proposed. For example, most research
would caution against general use of stand-alone work experience, job search or on-the job
training interventions, particularly for youth without a high school diploma or its equivalent. The
Department continues to strongly encourage educational components for youth participants.
WAIVERS
A. As requested, the Secretary waives JTPA § 108(b)(1), (4) and (c); the 15% administration
cost limitation under JTPA §§ 253(a)(3) and 315(a), (b) and (c) and 20 CFR 627.445(a), (b)(3)
and (d) and 631.14(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), and (g), eliminating all cost limitations for titles II and III
[except for title III national reserve account (NRA) grants]; and will apply JTPA § 108(b)(2) and
(3) and 20 CFR 627.440(c) and (d) and 631.13(a)(1) to reduce the number of cost categories to
two: Administration and Program Costs. The costs of Administration shall be those defined at 20
CFR 627.440(d)(5) for title II and 631.13(f) for title III. Program Costs will consist of all other
costs including those defined at 20 CFR 627.440(d)(1), (2), (3), and (4) for title II and at
631.13(c), (d), and (e) for title III. The costs of Rapid Response activities identified at JTPA §
314(b) and 20 CFR 631.13(b) shall continue to be separately reported. Reporting instructions for
the two cost category reporting method have been developed and are attached for use by the
State.
B. The State has requested a waiver which would allow it to establish an administrative cost
pool for a workforce center and identifies the JTPA regulation at 20 CFR 627.440(a) as the
provision that needs to be waived. In point of fact, the cited regulation provides for the
establishment of cost pools to which joint and similar types of costs may be charged initially
pending distribution to the ultimate benefitting cost objective. The regulation requires that the
costs be charged to a particular cost objective to the extent that benefits are received by such cost
category.
The text of the State's request suggests that it wants to establish a JTPA administrative
cost pool based on a contribution methodology with no allocation back to the benefitting grant
title or program. To allow such a cost pool amounts to a commingling of appropriated funds and
is contrary to the prohibition on the commingling of funds included in the guidelines for these
waivers issued in TEGL No. 6-96. The pooling of administrative costs without the separate
tracking, reporting, and allocating to the various grant programs in accordance with the benefit
received by each is a violation of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). GAAP
ensures accountability and is a requirement of JTPA § 164(a)(1) which is not being waived.
However, ETA is willing to provide whatever technical assistance and guidance that the State
requires to assist it in the development of an appropriate methodology for allocating costs
accumulated in a cost pool to the benefitting cost objectives.
C. The State's requested a waiver of the JTPA regulation at 20 CFR 627.440(d)(5)(i)(F) to
allow SDAs to charge the costs of integrated MIS and computer case management services
support to the program cost category where those systems accomplish the MIS/reporting function
while doing the primary function of case management has not been granted. The provision in
question identifies the activity described as "developing systems and procedures, including
management information systems, for assuring compliance with program requirements" as one
that should be charged to administration. From the description provided, it appears that the costs
involved are a combination of program and administrative costs. Thus, an allocation methodology
should be developed to allocate the costs among the proper cost categories. The State's request
appears to suggest a belief that the planning, development and use of computer technology for
training or case management activities are to be charged to administration in those instances
where the computer system also performs an MIS/reporting function. The portion allocable to
administration would only be the portion of costs attributable developing the part of the system
and the procedures for the MIS/reporting function. The remaining portion of such costs are
allocable to the program costs category. The Department is willing to work with the State and
provide assistance in developing a proper allocation methodology for such systems. However, no
waiver is necessary.
D. It is not clear that the Secretary has authority to waive her statutory responsibilities for
formula allotment and reallotment, including the requirements under JTPA § 303 for the recapture
and reallotment of unexpended Title III formula funds. Moreover, the State's request to waive
JTPA § 303(b) and 20 CFR 631.12(a) is not approved for the following policy reasons:
However, as requested, the Secretary waives for a period of four years the regulatory
provision at 20 CFR 631.12(a)(1)(ii). This will permit the State to expend title III funds in the
year of allotment plus the two following years, provided that it meets the eighty percent
expenditure requirement in the year of the allotment. Also, DOL believes a State's policy for
recapture and reallocation of title III funds within a State can accommodate plans to serve
dislocated workers who require assistance across program years.
E. The State's request to waive the JTPA procurement requirements and the implementing
regulations is approved. As requested, the Secretary waives the JTPA procurement requirements
and the implementing regulations at JTPA §164(a)(3) and 20 CFR 627.420(a)(1), (2), (3), and
(4), (b), (d)(1), (e)(1), (2), (3), and (5), (g) and (h). The Governor agrees to use State and local
procurement procedures consistent with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102 as codified in the DOL regulations at 29 CFR 97.36 (The Common Rule). The
Circular/Common Rule requires the State to follow the same policies and procedures it uses for
procurements from its non-Federal funds when procuring property and services under a grant.
References elsewhere in JTPA to § 164(a)(3) should be understood to apply to State and local
procurement provisions.
Section 627.420 of the JTPA regulations includes rules implementing statutory
provisions other than JTPA § 164(a)(3). As a result, the waiver of this section is not all
encompassing. Section 627.420 subsections which are not being waived follow (the sections
of JTPA which they implement, where applicable, are listed in brackets): (a)(5) [§141(h)],
(a)(6) [§107(a)], (c), (d)(2), (e)(4), (f) [§163], (i) [§144] and (j) [§107(e)(2)].
Subsection 627.420(c) of the regulations deals with conflict of interest. Even though
OMB Circular A-102 also has a section that deals with conflict of interest, it is a generic
requirement. Section 627.420(c) of the regulations was written specifically to cover the
unique relationships that JTPA created with the formation of Private Industry Councils.
Therefore, this subsection is not being waived.
Subsection 627.420(d)(2) provides the State and its SDAs/SSGs with pass through
authority to any unit of State or local government. This requirement is being retained for the
State, since the circular does not provide this authority.
Section 627.420(e)(4) is based on financial requirements contained in the Act and
requires that costs be charged according to the allowable cost provisions at 20 CFR 627.435.
Although JTPA §164(a)(3)(I) has been waived, the requirements contained in 20 CFR
627.450, Program Income, still apply. The section being waived requires that procurement
transactions between units of State or local government, SDAs/SSGs, et. al., be conducted on
a cost reimbursement basis. The Program Income section of the regulations, in summary,
requires that program income earned be used for purposes of the program.
The State has also requested a waiver of JTPA § 164(a)(4),(5) and (6) which require
monitoring of SDAs and SSGs for compliance with the procurement requirements, corrective
action and sanctions for non-compliance, and certification to the Secretary that the State has
implemented procurement standards, monitored its subrecipients and taken appropriate action
to secure compliance. These provisions are not being waived. However, the reference in
these paragraphs to procurement standards will be interpreted to mean the standards approved
by the waiver of JTPA § 164(a)(3).
We note that JTPA §107(a) of the law, which requires the consideration of
demonstrated performance in selecting entities to deliver services, and which calls for giving
proper consideration to community-based organizations (CBOs), is not being waived. In the
case of ETA considers demonstrated performance to be an important component in the selection
of service providers. Historically CBOs have provided integral employment and training services.
The State is expected to not only take into consideration the demonstrated performance of entities
being considered for funding, but also to include CBOs in the pool of entities being considered for
funding.
Although the JTPA procurement requirements, as cited above, are being waived, this does
not relieve the State from awarding JTPA monies through competitive processes as required by
JTPA § 107(e). Competition has a positive impact on the services provided with JTPA monies,
by leading to the selection of service providers with the capabilities to provide the services and by
resulting in competitive pricing for the purchased services.
F. The State's request for a waiver of JTPA § 141(d)(3)(A) has not been granted. This
provision permits the purchase of commercially available training packages at off the shelf prices
without a cost breakdown if they are purchased competitively and include performance criteria.
The regulatory provision, 20 CFR 627.420(e)(2), which the State identifies as related to this
request is the requirement for cost and price analysis. Cost and price analysis is a requirement
under the OMB Circular A-102 procurement standards which have been approved for use instead
of the JTPA requirements under the previous waiver request.
G. As requested, the Secretary waives 20 CFR 627.420(d)(1)(i) to permit the State to use
small purchase procedures up to a threshold of $100,000. The text of the request suggests that
the State wants to have the $25,000 small purchase threshold waived for individual referrals to
training contractors. The current federal small purchase threshold set at 41 USC, § 403(11) is
$100,000. The Secretary will waive the JTPA small purchase threshold of $25,000 for individual
referral training provided that the State abides by the federal threshold of $100,000. Although the
small purchase requirements are less stringent than those under other methods, there are still
requirements. Usually under small purchase procedures, an organization will obtain three price
quotes for the product/service desired. Comparison of those prices will constitute the needed
price analysis.
H. The State's request to waive JTPA § 141(e)(2) has not been granted. From the waiver,
narrative it appears that the State is concerned that it is required to include in the job training plan
potential inter-SDA agreements/contracts where there is not an existing or impending plan to
enter into such agreements/contracts to share the costs of "educating, training or placing
individuals participating in programs assisted under this Act." Section 141(e)(2) does not require
this result. This section establishes the authority to enter into such agreements to serve
participants, and requires that when there is such an agreement/contract that it be described in the
job training plan. Section 104(b)(2)(D) provides that the job training plan include provisions for
". . . entering into agreements and contracts, established pursuant to section 141(e)(2). . . ."
Section 141(e)(2) also requires that any such agreement/contract ". . . shall be approved by each
private industry council. . . ." This approval is required at the time the agreement/contract is
entered into by the appropriate parties, and at that point such agreement/contract must be
described in the plan. As we understand the State's request, a waiver of these provisions is not
required to achieve the results desired by the State.
I. As requested, the Secretary waives 20 CFR 631.2 which administratively defines
"substantial layoff" for the purpose of determining a worker's eligibility for title III pursuant to
JTPA § 301(a)(1)(B). The eligibility requirement at JTPA § 301(a)(1)(B) and the statutory
definition of substantial layoff for the purpose of providing rapid response assistance pursuant to
JTPA § 314(b)(4) are not waived. However, there is no requirement that precludes a State from
providing rapid response assistance for fewer workers scheduled to be laid off within a thirty-day
period if a State determines that is an effective way to provide such assistance as part of early
intervention.
Any State policy to extend the period of time to meet the "substantial layoff" threshold for
the purpose of determining worker eligibility should not interfere with the principle of early
intervention and the provision of services to eligible workers as soon as possible after the
identification of individual workers being laid off, or for all workers in the event of a closure
pursuant to JTPA § 314(h). Therefore, the State is encouraged to develop a policy to determine
the expected number of workers to be laid off at the beginning of a layoff cycle so that needed
services can commence as quickly as possible for those workers who are determined to need title
III assistance.
J. The request to waive the needs-related payment eligibility requirements at JTPA §
314(e)(1) for dislocated workers has not been granted. In order to preserve the principle that
training is most effective if individuals are enrolled in training early in the adjustment process and
pursuant to the eligibility requirement exclusion contained in the DOL Appropriations Act of
1997, JTPA § 314(e)(1) is not waived nor is 20 CFR 631.20(b) (except as noted below), and
shall apply to dislocated workers in order to receive needs-related payments while they participate
in training. Therefore, in order to be eligible for needs-related payments, a dislocated worker
must be enrolled in training by the end of the 13th week of the worker's initial unemployment
compensation benefit period (following title III qualifying layoff), or if later, the end of the 8th
week after an employee is informed that a short-term layoff will in fact exceed six months. This
also means that JTPA § 314(e)(2) and 20 CFR 631.20(c) or (d) are not waived.
As requested, however, the Secretary waives the definition of "enrolled in training or
education" at 20 CFR 631.20(b)(2) to permit the State apply the following definition in limited
situations for individuals who have met the eligibility criteria at JTPA § 314(e) but cannot begin
the training within 30 days due to class training schedules (semesters/quarters), or other
extraordinary circumstances. This will allow eligible dislocated workers to receive needs-related
payments and require such assistance in order to participate in training--
In summary, the Department expects that the principle of early intervention will be
maintained, and that this flexibility will be used sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances.
Early intervention for dislocated workers has been shown to increase the success of a worker's
return to work quickly. We encourage the State to explore alternatives with education
institutions and other training providers to enable workers to receive demand occupation training
of their choice when the training is needed, and to establish a State policy of defined time limits or
other controls.
K. The State's request that the JTPA title II and title III eligibility requirements at JTPA §§
203(a) and (b), 204(d), 254(b), 263(a),(b),(c),(f) and (g) and 301(a), and 20 CFR 628.505,
628.605, 628.702, 628.320(d), 628.803 and 631.3 be waived for determining eligibility for JTPA
services has not been granted. Eligibility requirements are excepted from the Secretary's waiver
authority under the 1997 DOL Appropriations Act and may not be waived.
L. The State's request to eliminate the requirement for JTPA documentation of citizenship--if
it was previously documented in obtaining other public services--has not been granted. The State
has the flexibility to identify alternate documentation sources to establish citizenship for JTPA
eligibility purposes, and a waiver is not necessary. The JTPA Title II Eligibility Documentation
Technical Assistance Guide (TAG) is intended to be a guide for the State on the types of suitable
documentation for establishing eligibility for JTPA services, including citizenship. The examples
included in the TAG are not intended to be an all-inclusive list, and the State may identify other
sources if it is satisfied that such documentation is sufficient to establish eligibility or, in the case
of the State's request, citizenship. The State is reminded, however, of recent legislation which
prohibits the use of a voter registration card (or other related document) as proof of citizenship
(see Training and Employment Information Notice No. 22-92, Change 5, dated December 10,
1996).
M. As requested, the Secretary waives the requirement at JTPA § 106(b)(7)(E) that limits the
amount of incentive funds that can be applied to performance standards established by the
Governor. The State agrees not to use more than 50 percent of the incentive grants for new
performance standards established by the Governor.
N. As requested, the JTPA Standardized Program Information Report (SPIR) instructions
in Training and Employment Information Notice (TEIN) 5-93, Change 1 that require follow-up by participant contact for the 13th week after termination are waived on the condition that
the State adopt the provisions in the Department's "JTPA Statutory Waiver Guidelines:
Substitution of Wage Record Follow-Up for Survey Follow-Up in JTPA Performance
Standards" (copy attached) and future implementing guidance.
These provisions were developed to provide some uniformity in system wide
measurement for the limited number of States that receive such waivers. The guidelines make
provisions pertaining to: universal reporting; reporting elements, formats, and electronic
media; reporting deadline; out-of-state placements; required core performance measures;
adjustments to performance standards; alternative incentives and sanctions policy; sampling or
baseline data for national follow-up measures; performance improvement; and other provisions
deemed appropriate.
O. As requested, the Secretary waives the prohibition on stand-alone work experience, job
search assistance, job search skills training and job club activities for both youth and adults, in
instances when an individual service strategy substantiates its use as appropriate, by waiving
JTPA § 204(c)(2)(B)(ii) and 20 CFR 628.535(b)(2) and (c)(1)(ii) and applying JTPA §
264(d)(3)(A) and (B) as if they read "work experience, job search assistance, job search skills
training, and job club activities. . . shall be accompanied by . . . additional services . . .
unless the individual service strategy demonstrates such additional services are not
warranted." Additionally, the title III prohibition on work experience at 20 CFR 627.245(e),
where such strategy is supported by an individual assessment, and the combination
requirements at 20 CFR 627.245(d) and 628.804(e) and (f) waived. We wish to point out to
the State that there is research suggesting that work experience provided in a stand-alone mode
is not as effective as when combined with other needed services and that this authority should
be used sparingly.
P. The Secretary waives the requirements of 20 CFR 627.240(b), which provide maximum
time limits during on-the-job training, provided the training time during the OJT is correctly
determined, taking into consideration the necessary occupational skills, and the time required to
acquire such skills, for the participant to function in the job for which the OJT is contracted. The
Secretary also waives that portion of 20 CFR 627.240(f)(3) which precludes OJT with a
participant's "current employer" in "an upgraded job" for title II eligible participants. This
waiver will permit OJT with a title II eligible participant's current employer on condition that the
OJT results in the acquisition of new skills and higher pay by the participant. The prohibition, at
20 CFR 627.240(f)(3), which precludes OJT with a participant's "previous" employer in the
same, a similar, or upgraded job is not waived.
The prohibition on upgrade training as a component of on-the-job training with the current
or layoff employer under title III at 20 CFR 627.240(f)(3) is not waived. Further, the expansion
of the definition of "eligible dislocated worker" at JTPA §§ 303(a), 314(h) and 20 CFR 631.3 to
permit skills upgrade training for employees with their current or layoff employers is not granted.
The Appropriations Act does not give to the Secretary the authority to waive these eligibility
requirements. Furthermore, the request to permit upgrade training for title III eligible dislocated
workers with their current or layoff employers is not granted for policy reasons, including--
Q. The State's request to waive the provisions of 20 CFR 627.225(b) to read
"contacts with potential employers for the purpose of workforce development system customers."
has not been granted because the Department is concerned that approval of the requested
language would improperly permit the expenditure of JTPA funds on services provided to non-JTPA eligible individuals. However, to the extent that the State intends to ensure job
development activities benefit JTPA clients, such a program can be accomodated under the
existing language of 20 CFR 627.255(b), which permits job development activities for the benefit
of JTPA participants.
The State has justified its request on the basis of offering a seamless system and avoiding
duplication in a one-stop program environment. We assume that several of the programs involved
in the one stop centers (including the Wagner Peyser program) in addition to other contributions
to the center may include a job development function, and that these jobs are then shared in a
single job bank. Presumably the participating one stop programs share in the use of the jobs in
the job bank. As stated above, JTPA funds may not be used to to develop jobs in a one stop
system for non-eligible individuals. Under the structure described above, it is not inappropriate or
unallowable for the jobs which may have been developed under a JTPA-funded job development
activity to be filled by other individuals where the JTPA component is using jobs listed by other
programs under a shared arrangement.
R. For titles II and III, current authority permits participants to continue to receive services
following placement so long as participants have not been terminated. Instead of terminating at
placement, termination occurs at the completion of planned services. ETA encourages such a
policy and is willing to work with Maryland to develop reporting procedures to take credit for job
placements occurring prior to termination.
Nevertheless, as requested, the Secretary will apply JTPA §§ 204(b)(2)(J) and 204(c)(4)
and 20 CFR 627.310(e) to title III to enable title III participants to receive post-termination
services, except for financial assistance, for up to one year consistent with title II. Additionally, as
requested, the Secretary will apply JTPA §§ 204(b)(2)(J) and (c)(4), 264(c)(2), 264(d)(5),
314(c)(15), and 20 CFR 627.310(e) to authorize training as a post-termination service contingent
upon the Governor:
However, the provision within 20 CFR 627.310(e) which prohibits the use of financial
assistance as a post-termination service is not waived. Therefore, needs-based and needs-related
payments are not post-termination options under this waiver for both title II and III.
S. As requested, the Secretary waives the requirements at JTPA § 141(k) to the extent that it
limits subsidized employment with private for-profit employers to title II-C, and will apply 20
CFR 627.245(a) and 628.705(c), to permit work experience for title II-B participants with private
for-profit employers, in cases where the objective assessment and individual service strategy
indicate it is the appropriate intervention when:
T. The State's request to waive the Ratio of Out-of-School to In-School Youth service
requirements at JTPA § 263(f)(1) and 20 CFR 628.803(h)(1) has not been granted. This appears
to be an eligibility requirement and, as such is, excepted under the Secretary's waiver authority
granted in the 1997 DOL Appropriations Act. Moreover, the Department believes that it is
important to provide services to out-of-school youth, and the ratio requirement is the only
statutory provision that guarantees services to this target population. Since funding for title II-C
youth services has decreased in recent years, the Secretary is not prepared to permit further
reduction of services to out-of-school youth by waiving the ratio requirement.
U. As requested, the Secretary waives the youth OJT wage requirement at JTPA §
264(d)(3)(C)(i)(I) and the related regulations at 20 CFR 628.804(j)(1)(i) and the participation
requirement at JTPA § 264(d)(3)(C)(iii) and the related regulation at 20 CFR 628.804(j)(2), when
indicated as appropriate in the objective assessment and individual service strategy for youth on-the-job training. The State shall assure that the OJT positions for youth have substantial training
content and that the training time is correctly determined. In addition, the State should issue
policies to assure that youth OJT opportunities reflect positions with career potential and avoid
the introduction of abuses in the development of youth OJT slots in low wage, low skill positions
which precipitated the enactment of the provisions for which this waiver is requested.
V. In consideration of the waivers contained in this grant modification, the State agrees to a
performance improvement of four percent (4%) at the State level measured at the conclusion of
Program Year 1997 using actual performance in PY 1996 as the baseline for improvement.
Performance improvements will apply to all the Secretary's performance measures or to their
approved equivalents, for titles II-A, II-C, and III. In order to meet this performance
improvement, the State is expected to require that each SDA/SSG make some improvement in
performance and that those SDAs/SSGs which demonstrate comparatively lower levels of
performance be required to make greater performance improvements. States will take into
account the SDA's performance improvement targets in determining the receipt of title II
incentive grant awards for PY 1997. In considering whether the State has attained the agreed
upon performance improvement for PY 1997, the Department will apply the Secretary's
Adjustment Models, exclusive of Governor's Adjustments, to the performance improvement
goals. Program Year 1996 and Program Year 1997 performance will be calculated in the same
way for both years.
The Standardized Program Information Report (SPIR) instructions in Training and
Employment Information Notice 5-93, Change 1 (dated June 23, 1994), as modified by Training
and Employment Information Notice 5-93, Change 2 (dated January 24, 1997), remain in effect
where not specifically waived or modified in this Agreement. Also in effect unless specifically
waived are the Performance Standards Status Summary Report requirements put forth in Training
and Employment Guidance Letter 2-95 (dated August 10, 1995). This requires Governors to
report each SDA's final standard and actual performance for each of the Secretary's title II core
standards, with required technical assistance plans and reorganization plans attached.
These waivers are open for modification and the Department will also entertain additional requests for waivers during this program year. These waivers apply to the title II and the title III formula programs. However, ETA will consider requests to apply specific waivers to individual title III Secretary's NRA grants which are active during Program Year 1997. In addition, ETA will consider requests to incorporate specific waivers into new individual NRA grants, as appropriate.