[Federal Register: December 24, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 67921-67926]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[[Page 67921]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Title I Migrant Education Coordination Program; Notice of Final
Priority for Fiscal Year 1997
[[Page 67922]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Title I Migrant Education Coordination Program
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priority for fiscal year 1997.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
announces an absolute priority for competitive grants awarded under the
Migrant Education Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 1997. Under this
priority, the Department will support projects that use technologies in
innovative ways to strengthen the academic achievement of migrant
students who move between school districts.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This priority takes effect January 23, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Gilbert, Office of Migrant
Education, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW,
Room 4100 Portals Building, Washington, DC 20202-6140. Telephone: (202)
260-1357. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-
877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Inquiries may also be sent by e-mail
to kristin__gilbert@ed.gov or by FAX at (202) 205-0089.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary intends to award grants to
applicants, applying as a member of consortia, who propose to use
technologies in innovative and effective ways to improve teaching and
learning for highly mobile migrant students. Projects selected for
funding will be those judged most likely to be effective in helping
migrant children whose education is interrupted by moves between
districts and States. In FY 1997, the Secretary will make up to $3
million available under the Migrant Education Program (MEP) for this
competition, from which 6 to 8 projects are expected to be funded.
Grants are projected to range from $200,000 to $600,000 per year and
may be funded for up to 5 years.
The MEP is authorized in Title I, Part C, of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Under this program, the
Secretary makes grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) to help
ensure that migrant children have the opportunity to meet the same
challenging State content and student performance standards that all
children are expected to meet. Toward this objective, the program
supports a range of services for migrant children, including preschool
children, and youth through age 21 who are entitled to a free public
education through grade 12. For example, it provides supplemental
instruction and other related services that address educational
disruption, cultural and language barriers, social isolation, various
health-related problems, and other factors inhibiting the ability of
children to do well in school or make successful transitions to
postsecondary education or employment.
Section 1308 of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to reserve a
portion of each year's MEP appropriation and, in consultation with the
States, make grants for programs to improve the coordination of
services to migrant students who move within and between States. The
Secretary will use part of the FY 1996 and subsequent year reservation
to support multi-year projects under the priority in this notice. The
Secretary believes that technology, if applied thoughtfully, can be the
catalyst that reinforces and extends migrant students learning
opportunities, motivation and achievement. This priority is intended to
stimulate creative thinking about how to integrate technology more
effectively into high-quality educational programs that meet the
special needs of the migrant community.
As some migrant programs are already beginning to demonstrate,
technology can help improve the teaching and learning of migrant
students by, for example, making curricula and other teaching materials
more readily available to migrant students; stimulating new education
solutions to counter the adverse impact that frequent moves have on the
education of migrant students; and facilitating on-going cooperative
arrangements between schools in ``sending'' and ``receiving'' States to
reinforce and extend teaching and learning of migrant students.
Moreover, States and districts are spending their own funds and funds
from other Federal programs for technology and technology-related
expenses. These expenditures frequently complement the investments of
the MEP and other ESEA programs to help all children, including migrant
children, learn to high standards.
The competition is intended to build on those activities by helping
to support efforts to put challenging academic standards more closely
within reach of migrant students. The grants are intended to stimulate
partnerships, funding, and action at the State and local levels and
private sector. Each project's choice of partners, and each project's
design with new approaches and strategies, are keys to whether the
handful of projects to be funded under this competition can have a
significant impact on the education of hard-to-reach, highly mobile,
migrant children and youth--now and in the future.
Applicants are encouraged to consider a range of other Federal and
non-Federal sources of technical or financial support. Possible sources
of Federal support include assistance that States and communities
receive under programs administered by the Department, including: Goals
2000; Title I, Part A of the ESEA; the Eisenhower Professional
Development program; Bilingual Education programs; School-to-Work
Opportunities; the Star Schools program; the Challenge Grants for
Technology in Education; the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services technology programs; the recently created
Regional Comprehensive Assistance Centers and Regional Technology
Consortia; the Regional Educational Laboratories; and the MEP itself.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Goals 2000) focuses the
Nation's education reform efforts on the eight National Education Goals
and provides a framework for meeting them. Goals 2000 promotes new
partnerships to strengthen schools and expand the Department's
capacities for helping communities to exchange ideas and obtain
information needed to achieve these Goals.
This priority and these selection criteria would address the
National Education Goals that all students will leave grades 4, 8, and
12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, and
that by the year 2000 the high school graduation rate will increase to
at least 90 percent. The priority and selection criteria would further
the objectives of these Goals by focusing available funds on projects
that will provide students, while they migrant between school
districts, a richer learning environment and continuity of education
through the innovative use of technologies.
On August 20, 1996, the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for
this program in the Federal Register (61 FR 43122-5). Additional
information is provided in that notice on pages 43122-3, including
examples of existing programs for migrant youth that include technology
components. While changes have been made since publication of the NPP,
these changes merely clarify the priority without altering its intent.
[[Page 67923]]
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. A notice
inviting applications under this competition is published elsewhere
in this edition of the Federal Register.
Summary of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the notice of proposed
priority, 10 parties submitted comments. All commenters supported the
thrust of this priority. In general, commenters recommended that the
priority clarify (1) who are eligible applicants, as well as the
composition and financial responsibilities of the consortium; (2) that
applicants must address how their consortia would actually use
technology to increase achievement of migrant students; and (3) that
applicants may propose uses of technology that focus exclusively on
improving the skills or knowledge of those who teach migrant students.
An appendix to this notice contains an analysis of the comments and of
the changes in the priority. The changes do not alter the priority's
original intent.
Priority: Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary gives an
absolute preference to applications that meet the following priority.
The Secretary funds under this competition only applications that meet
this priority:
Technology Applications for Teaching and Learning in the Migrant
Community
Under this priority, an eligible applicant will compete for a
grant, as a member of a consortium that may be funded for up to five
years, to cover the costs of developing, adapting, or expanding
existing and new applications of technology that members of the
consortium will use to improve teaching and learning for migrant
students who move within and between States. In developing their
projects, applicants are encouraged to consider how technology might be
put to effective use within the whole spectrum of educational inputs--
including curriculum, modes of learning, professional development,
parental involvement--to increase the achievement of the migrant
students they serve. To help broaden project planning and impact,
consortium efforts must be carefully designed to encourage--wherever
possible--the ongoing involvement of educators and parents, business
and civic leaders, community organizations, and others committed to
providing enhanced educational opportunity for highly mobile migrant
students. While there is no matching requirement for this competition,
applications will be reviewed for, among other things, the extent to
which the consortium as a whole secures from partners or other entities
monetary or in-kind contributions for equipment, technical support, and
any other associated project costs. These additional contributions may
be from Federal or non-Federal sources; however, the reviewers will
note the degree to which a project has broad support as evidenced by
its non-Federal contributions. Additional sources of support might also
include foundation grants and other philanthropic contributions, and
services provided through grants or contracts from other government
agencies. Examples of assistance available from Federal agencies, other
than the Department of Education, are included in the notice of
proposed priority for this program published in the Federal Register
(61 FR 43122-5).
Eligible Applicants
Any SEA, local educational agency (LEA), institution of higher
education, or public or private nonprofit entity is eligible to apply.
However, the Secretary specifically invites the following entities to
submit applications: SEAs that administer MEPs; LEAs that have a high
percentage or high number of migrant students; and non-profit
community-based organizations that work with migrant families. In
addition, to help ensure that this competition supports coordination
activities between school districts: (1) applicants must apply as part
of a consortium that includes at least two entities described in the
preceding sentence, and (2) consortium members must provide educational
services to migrant students in at least two or more school districts.
To help ensure that the projects are effective and have broad community
and technical support, the consortium must also include at least one
other partner from the business community, institutions of higher
education, academic content experts, software designers, or other
entities.
Application Contents
Objectives: Applicants must demonstrate how the consortium would
make innovative uses of technologies to achieve the following
objectives: (a) promoting greater continuity of instruction for migrant
students as they are served in different school districts in which
members of the consortium operate educational programs that are
available to migrant students; and (b) helping these migrant students
achieve to high academic standards.
Required Application Descriptions: In describing how it would use
technologies to meet the educational purposes described in response to
the preceding paragraph, each applicant must also address how the
project will provide--
1. Adequate access to technology for all project participants,
whether they are migrant students, their families, or teaching
personnel;
2. Sufficient time and opportunity for teachers (and other
educational support staff) to learn to use the technologies and to
incorporate them into their own curricular goals;
3. Easily accessible technical support, such as on-site assistance;
4. A method for evaluating the educational benefits of the project;
and
5. A strategy for disseminating a successful project to other SEAs,
LEAs and other agencies that operate MEPs.
Other Application Requirements: Among other generally applicable
application requirements, applicants are reminded that 34 CFR 75.112
and 75.117 of the Education Department and General Administrative
Regulations (EDGAR) contain additional narrative and budgetary
requirements for applicants that request funding on a multi-year basis.
In particular, Sec. 75.112 requires an application to include a
narrative that describes how and when, in each budget period of the
project, the applicant plans to meet each project objective. (In
determining whether to make a continuation award in future years to a
project recipient, the Secretary intends to examine each performance
report submitted under 34 CFR 75.253 to ensure, among other things, the
quality of the project's emerging design and implementation
activities.)
Selection Criteria
The Secretary will use two criteria to select applications for
funding: significance and feasibility; i.e., is the proposed activity
important, and can it be done?
Significance will be determined by the extent to which the project:
1. Offers a creative vision for using technology to help migrant
students who move within or between States learn challenging academic
content and improve the coordination of their teaching and learning
when they move;
2. Is likely to achieve far-reaching impact through results,
products, or benefits that can be readily achieved, exported or adapted
to other migrant communities or to settings of other mobile
populations;
3. Will enhance inter- or intrastate coordination of teaching and
learning
[[Page 67924]]
(that takes into consideration the cultural and language
characteristics of the migrant population) by integrating acquired
technologies into the curriculum;
4. Will provide for ongoing, intensive professional development for
teachers (and other personnel) working with the migrant population to
further the learning of migrant students through the use of technology
in the classroom, library, home, or other learning environment;
5. Is designed to serve highly mobile migrant populations that are
likely to benefit the most from educational technology applications;
6. Is designed to create new learning communities, and expanded
markets for high-quality educational technology applications and
services for migrant and other similar populations.
Feasibility will be determined by the extent to which: 1. The
project will ensure successful, effective, and efficient uses of
technologies for inter- and intrastate coordination of teaching and
learning for migrant students and staff that will be sustainable both
during and beyond the period of the grant;
2. The consortium and other appropriate entities will contribute
substantial financial and/or other resources or both to achieve the
goals of the project; and
3. The applicant is capable of carrying out the project, as
evidenced by: the extent to which the project is likely to meet the
needs that have been identified; the quality of the project design,
including objectives, approaches, evaluation plan, and dissemination
plan; the adequacy of resources, including money, personnel,
facilities, equipment, and supplies; the qualifications of key
personnel who would conduct the project; and the applicant's prior
experience relevant to the objectives of the project.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid
OMB control number. The valid OMB control number assigned to the
collection of information in this final priority notice is 1810-0028.
Selection Procedures
The Secretary will consider only applications that establish the
likelihood that the proposed projects will meet the objectives, and
that include the required elements, described within the section,
``Application Contents.'' The Secretary will evaluate applications
using the unweighted selection criteria described under the ``Selection
Criteria'' section of this notice. In determining whether applicants
have met these criteria, the Secretary believes that the use of
unweighted criteria is most appropriate because they will allow the
reviewers maximum flexibility to apply their professional judgments in
identifying the particular strengths and weaknesses in individual
applications. Therefore, the Secretary will not apply the selection
procedures in EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.210 and 75.217, which otherwise require
a rank order to be established based on weighted selection criteria.
The Secretary intends to use the following selection procedures for
this competition:
The first peer review panel or panels of experts will analyze each
application to determine whether or not it responds to the requirements
in the application contents section of this notice, and in terms of the
two selection criteria: significance and feasibility. A reviewer will
assign to each application two separate qualitative ratings--one for
significance, the other for feasibility--based on the extent to which
the application meets each of these criteria. The two ratings (which
are of equal importance) taken together will yield a composite rating,
representing each reviewer's total rating of each application. All
reviewer ratings for each application will then be combined across the
reviewers in a panel to yield an overall rating for each application.
The panels will also identify inconsistencies, points in need of
clarification, and other concerns, if any, pertaining to each
application.
The Secretary will assign each application to one of three or four
groups based on the panel's composite rating of each applicant.
Starting with the highest quality group and moving down to the lowest,
the Secretary will identify the groups containing applications that are
of sufficiently high quality to be considered for funding.
Depending upon the number of applications received, a second panel
will be convened to reevaluate each application identified by the first
panel as being of sufficiently high quality to be considered for
funding. In doing so, this second panel will take into account any
additional information or materials supplied by applicants after the
first panel review in response to a request by the Secretary (see final
paragraph of this section), to redetermine the extent to which each
application addresses the selection criteria. The Secretary will
reassign each reevaluated application to one of the several quality
groups.
In the final stage of the selection process, the Secretary will
select for funding those applications of highest quality, based on the
final results of the second review panel or panels, but only if the
Secretary is satisfied that they are of high quality with regard to
both significance and feasibility. If in this final stage, the
Secretary determines that the highest quality group or groups include
more applications than can be funded, panelists may be asked to
differentiate further between the applications on the basis of quality.
The Secretary might not have need for the two-tiered procedures,
depending upon the number of applications received.
In accordance with 34 CFR 75.109(b), an applicant is permitted to
make changes to an application on or before the deadline date for
submission of applications. Also, in accordance with 34 CFR 75.231, the
Secretary may request an applicant to submit additional information
after the application has been selected for funding. Given the
technical nature of the proposals, the Secretary expects that it might
be necessary to obtain clarifications and additional information from
applicants during the selection process. The Secretary would request
additional information or materials from applicants that the review
panel has determined are of sufficiently high quality, and that address
the concerns and questions, if any, identified by the peer review
panel. Therefore, for the purpose of this grant competition, the
Secretary will also permit an applicant to submit additional
information in response to a specific request from the Secretary made
during the application review and selection process.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the
Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program. Applicable Regulations: EDGAR 34 CFR Parts 74, 75 (except
Sec. 75.201, 75.210 and 75.217), 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 and 86; and 34
CFR 200.40.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6398(a).
[[Page 67925]]
Dated: December 17, 1996.
Gerald N. Tirozzi,
Assistant Secretary, Elementary and Secondary Education.
Appendix--Analysis of Comments and Changes
Comments: One commenter suggested that the priority clarify whether
charter schools are eligible for grants.
Discussion: This grant competition is open to any SEA, LEA or other
public or private nonprofit entity that applies as part of a consortium
and meets the criteria announced in this notice. A charter school that
is an LEA or a public or private nonprofit agency in the State in which
it is located would be eligible to apply.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters questioned the proposed requirement that
the consortium partners contribute financial or in-kind resources to
the project. One commenter requested clarification as to whether
members of the consortium could meet this requirement by using
resources provided through another Federal program. The other commenter
expressed concern that the proposed requirement could limit the number
of applicants. The commenter noted that because LEAs, SEAs, and
nonprofit agencies might not have substantial resources to contribute
to the project, other participants in a consortium, such as the
business community and academic content experts, might have to
contribute the bulk of additional financial assistance.
Discussion: Funds awarded under this competition can play a pivotal
role in helping to support initiatives that use technology as a key
ingredient to increasing the academic achievement of migrating
students. However, initiatives that rely solely--or even principally--
on these or other Federal funds may be less likely than other projects
to succeed or endure beyond the project period. First, the amount of
project funds that the Secretary can award under section 1308(a) of the
ESEA may simply be too small to meet total project costs. But more
important, a project's likely impact and success depends in part on
funding support that is broad and lasting, as demonstrated by the
degree to which applicants obtain significant commitments of non-
Federal as well as Federal resources. For this reason, while applicants
are not required to demonstrate that they have any outside support as a
condition of their eligibility for an award, the notice clarifies that
project's feasibility will depend, in part, on the degree to which (a)
consortium partners and other entities are committed to making
substantial financial and in-kind contributions to the success of the
project, and (b) contributions include those from non-Federal sources.
Moreover, the Secretary believes that applications that demonstrate a
consortium's ability to leverage significant additional resources are
likely to be more competitive than applications that do not.
The Secretary is aware that some participants in a consortium may
be unable to contribute significant amounts of actual or in-kind
resources to the project, and that some consortia may be able to pull
together more resources for their projects than others. The final
notice clarifies that applications will be reviewed for the extent to
which the consortium as a whole--rather than its individual members or
other participating entities--are contributing substantial financial
and/or in-kind contributions to achieve the project goals.
Changes: The supplementary information and statement of the
priority have been revised accordingly.
Comments: A commenter requested clarification about whether
priority will be given to consortia that includes all three applicants
(SEA, LEA, or other non-profit organization) that were specifically
invited to apply.
Discussion: No priority will be given to any particular make-up of
consortia.
Changes: None.
Comments: A commenter questioned the use of the word, ``or''
illustrating types of partners--beyond SEAs, LEAs and nonprofit
agencies--that must be a part of a consortium funded under this
competition. The statement referred to the inclusion of entities ``such
as business, academic content, or software designers * * *.'' The
commenter recommends that the word ``and'' be substituted for ``or'' in
order to emphasize the need for projects to include both software
design and academic content expertise.
Discussion: The Secretary encourages partnerships of all types to
compete for funding under this notice and does not believe it to be
appropriate to limit eligibility to any particular configuration.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters suggested that the priority strengthen the
connections between the use of technology and the educational program
design. Two other commenters recommended that the applications be
required not only to describe the use of technology, but also to show
how they address inter- and intra-state coordination of educational
programs that serve migrant students.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters that further
clarity is needed in these areas. As explained in the ``Supplementary
Information'' section of this notice, the intent of this competition
is, and has been, to further support the effective use of technology as
a means of increasing migrant student achievement. Moreover, because
funds will be awarded under section 1308(a) of the ESEA, funded
projects need to be designed to improve inter- or intra-state
coordination among programs assisting migrant students.
Changes: In order to ensure that all selected projects reflect
these objectives, the Secretary has revised the ``Application
Contents'' portion of the notice to require an applicant to demonstrate
how it would use technology as a tool to improve achievement. Further,
this section of the notice now clarifies that applicants also must
demonstrate how they would use technology to promote greater continuity
of instruction for migrant students as they are served at different
project sites.
Comments: A commenter suggested that eligibility be expanded to
include States and island nations with immigrant populations. In this
context, the commenter also suggested that all agencies responsible for
providing services to migrant and immigrant children be required to
share appropriate electronic databases.
Discussion: Section 1308(a) of the ESEA does not authorize the use
of funds under this program to serve the needs of immigrant children.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the criteria be broadened to
permit funding of interstate projects that would use technology only to
strengthen professional development of teachers of migrant students.
The commenter expressed concern that, as written, the notice appears to
require migrant student participation in all projects.
Discussion: This competition is intended to fund well-designed
proposals that improve teaching and learning for migrant students who
move from one location to another. In doing so, applicants may propose
uses of technology that focus exclusively on those who teach migrant
students, rather than on the migrant students themselves, for example,
by offering those teachers increased access to professional development
activities.
Changes: The ``Required Application Descriptions'' section
clarifies that while project participants must be given adequate access
to technology, those participants may be students, their families, or
teaching personnel.
[[Page 67926]]
Comments: One commenter requested that the notice clarify that
within a consortium, partnerships with universities--for the purpose of
developing software--would have the same weight as business
partnerships. Another commenter suggested that Comprehensive Regional
Assistance Centers be included in the list of potential partners.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters that
universities and comprehensive centers are potentially very important
partners in any consortium. The Secretary does not believe that the
notice should emphasize university participation through the
development of software.
Changes. The ``Technology Applications for Teaching and Learning in
the Migrant Community'' and ``Eligible Applicants'' sections of the
notice have been revised to clarify the importance of institutions of
higher education, while the ``Supplementary Information'' section has
been revised to clarify the importance of the comprehensive centers.
Comments: Two commenters expressed concern that use of unweighted
selection criteria would create difficulties in making systematic and
substantiated judgments about the relative quality of applications,
whereas one commenter expressed support for use of the unweighted
criteria. One commenter also suggested that training be offered to the
review panels to help ensure quality of the comments.
Discussion: This competition is designed to encourage all
applicants, and particularly SEAs, LEAs, and other public and private
nonprofit agencies serving migrant students, to reach out to
businesses, universities, and others in their communities in creative
ways that can give migrant students the benefit of recent technological
innovations. Given the nature of the competition, and the many forms
and varieties of new technological applications that it can support,
the Secretary believes that unweighted criteria provide the most
promising opportunity to select for funding those projects that are
most significant and feasible. The Secretary will ensure that judgments
about the relative quality of applicants are made systematically and in
ways that are substantiated.
Changes. None.
Comments: Two commenters suggested that there be a separate
competition or a reservation of funds under this competition for credit
exchange and accrual activities for migrant secondary school students.
Discussion: A proposal that focuses on credit exchange and accrual,
and, in so doing, uses technology to provide instruction and/or
improved teaching to migrant students, is within the purview of the
priority. Beyond this, the Secretary recognizes the importance of
credit exchange and accrual activities, and will consider whether, in
the future, a competition focusing specifically on credit exchange and
accrual activities is desirable.
Changes: None.
Comments: A commenter recommended that the priority be expanded to
include applications for projects to offer technology workshops and
training to migrant personnel.
Discussion: The limited funds available under this competition are
intended to help support a few high quality programs that incorporate
technology into teaching and learning and that ultimately might be
adapted in other sites. Each application must include as a part of its
project easily accessible technical support, adequate access to
technology for all project participants and sufficient time for
teachers and educational staff to learn to use the technology. This
competition is not a vehicle for financing broad-based technology
workshops for the migrant community.
Changes. None.
Comment. One commenter recommended that the final priority notice
prohibit for-profit entities from receiving funds awarded under this
competition. The commenter asserted that these entities are not
authorized by the program statute to receive grant funds, and that
grant funds should not benefit for-profit entities at the expense of
disadvantaged migrant students.
Discussion. Section 1308(a) of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to
make grants or contracts for the improvement of inter-state and intra-
state coordination of migrant education projects to SEAs, LEAs, IHEs
and other public and private nonprofit entities. This notice permits
these entities--and only these entities--to be recipients of project
grants. While applicants must apply as part of a broader consortium
that conceivably might include a for-profit entity, the for-profit
entity would not be the project grantee. Beyond this, the ESEA does not
prohibit a project grantee from procuring services from a for-profit
entity. Indeed, cost principles in Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-87, which govern an SEA's or LEA's use of project funds by
virtue of 34 CFR 80.22, authorize SEA and LEA grantees to use
reasonable and necessary amounts of program funds to procure supplies,
materials and other services from for-profit entities.
Changes. None.
Comment. Officials within the Department suggested that the notice
should include the relevant sections of EDGAR that will apply to this
competition.
Discussion. The Department inadvertently omitted references to
EDGAR that govern this competition and agrees that these sections
should be cited in the notice.
Changes. The section, ``Applicable Regulations,'' includes
references to all sections of EDGAR that apply to this competition.
[FR Doc. 96-32562 Filed 12-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P