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.

-2-




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--

"the term 'enrolled in training or education programs' means that the worker has
completed and agreed to a re-employment plan with his/her Case Manager, has been
accepted for the training authorized in that re-employment plan by the training
institution, and is scheduled to start that training at the first date on which it will
become available."

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:

  1. Developing a record keeping system that will track post-termination training provided and outcomes achieved for any post-termination training provided.

  2. Maintaining current safeguards to ensure that employers do not receive federal funding for training/retraining laid off and subsequently recalled/rehired employees.

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:

  1. Worker protections under JTPA §143 are in place, particularly health and safety standards and workers' compensation, and that no displacement or reduction in hours of regular employees occurs;

  2. Compensation to participants is in accordance with the applicable provisions of JTPA § 142(a). This waiver authority shall be administered so as to preclude the reintroduction of the abuses where participants are placed in low skill, low wage paying jobs as a subsidy to the employer; and

  3. Work experience is provided in accordance with the limitations for operation of the summer program at JTPA § 254(a). The State agrees to set a policy governing duration of such employment with private for-profit employers.


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.