148 Fed. Reg. 5,822 (1983). The
notice stated that these grants were authorized under Title IV, Part A, Subparts 2 and 3 of the
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) at §§ 433(a)(4) and 423(b),
29 U.S.C. §§ 909(a)(4) and 901(b) (Supp. V 1981), and Section 181 of JTPA, 29
U.S.C. § 1591. CETA was repealed by JTPA, Pub. L. No. 97-300, § 184, 96 Stat.
1357 (1982). Under JTPA transition provisions in Section 181(a) and (d), these CETA programs
were carried forward until new JTPA farmworker programs became operational under the statute.
2Solicitation for Grant
Application for Youth Programs for Youth Who Are Members of Migrant and Seasonal
Farmworkers Families, February, 1983 (SGA), Administrative File (AF), Tab E at 2.
4Id. at 8-9. These
criteria consisted of: (1) quality of application - program approach; (2) administrative capability;
(3) delivery system; (4) linkages and coordination; and (5) responsiveness to youth. Each
criterion was evaluated based on factors listed therein and assigned a maximum point value.
5IMC's past performance is no
longer an issue. ALJ Order Regarding Discovery, Pre-Trial Procedures And Notice Of Hearing,
May 9, 1984, at 2; Opposition To Grant Officer's Motion For A Protective Order, June 12, 1984,
at 2.
7Decision and Order (D. and O.),
Illinois Migrant Council, Inc., v. United States Department of Labor, Case No. 84-JTP-10, December 2, 1985.
8D. and O. at 3, 12. The ALJ cited
the reference to farmworker "dependents" in Section 402(c)(3) of JTPA, 29 U.S.C.
§ 1672(c)(3), in support of such direct funding. Id. at 3.
10Id. at 4. For a
discussion of this standard in the context of a challenge to a responsibility review determination,
seeNorth Dakota Rural Development Corp. v. United States Department of Labor
and Minnesota Migrant Council, Case No. 85-JTP-4, Secretary's Decision, March 25, 1986,
slip op. at 5-12, appeal docketed, No. 86-1492 (8th Cir., April 24, 1986).
16See Section 181(d)
of JTPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1591(d). By the time of the Grant Officer's Motion to Dismiss on the
Ground of Mootness, July 20, 1984, the Department had issued 20 C.F.R. § 633.205(e). 48
Fed. Reg. 48,771 (Oct. 20, 1983). Although the ALJ cited this regulation for his standard of
review (D. and O. at 4), he did not follow it on the mootness issue.
17Under the second quoted
sentence, relief is also denied to an aggrieved applicant when the decision comes towards the end
of the grant period.