Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Background: The Employment and Training Administration (ETA), State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs), the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies (ICESA), and others have been cooperating in an effort to increase the number of job openings included in the IJB and to develop innovative strategies for increasing access to IJB for individuals seeking employment. These efforts do not alter basic interstate procedures, which remain in effect. Many individual States have included the IJB in public access strategies such as placing job search kiosks in shopping malls, transportation centers, and other locations outside of the local office. The Multi-State Job Bank demonstration project achieved increased reliance on IJB by the participating States of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The Department of Defense, in cooperation with ICESA, is currently implementing personal computer access to IJB in 350 military installations world wide. The Department of Defense, is also establishing transition programs to assist service members, spouses of service members and civilian workers affected by defense downsizing. Because transition centers are located throughout the world, IJB users at these centers will be contacting local offices directly, without the assistance of other employment service staff. These innovations represent both an exciting opportunity and a challenge to the State employment security agencies. Increased Direct Contacts from Individuals: Much of the new access to the IJB will occur outside of local offices. For example, at the 350 military installations, eligible service members, spouses, and civilian defense employees will have access to IJB through a personal computer. The job orders provide the name and address of the local job service office which holds the order. Especially when the access to IJB occurs outside of the United States, no employment service staff are available to assist applicants in making contact with the local office. These individuals will contact local offices directly. Increased Exposure for Job Orders Through IJB: The extension of access to IJB in non-traditional settings affords access to IJB job orders for individuals who have not had such access in the past. Many of these individuals have high levels of technical skills required in some of our hardest to fill jobs. Such expanded access should increase the likelihood of filling orders which may not have been filled through the Employment Service in the past, and thereby lead to expanded employer use of the IJB. New Uses for IJB: Individuals may access IJB at an earlier time in their total job search experience. At the 350 military installations where IJB is being accessed, many of the individuals who are using IJB are using it prior to separation, sometimes months in advance of separation. Use of IJB at such early dates may have more direct labor market information utility, than immediate placement productivity. Such early exposure to highly qualified candidates may present unique job development opportunities. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to: a. Provide the above information to appropriate staff. b. Assure appropriate local office response to direct contacts from individuals even if they are not registered. Local office response should assist all these individuals, including those who are affected by defense downsizing, especially those who get exposure to IJB through transition assistance programs overseas. Special procedures may include job development activities for individuals who will be returning to a local labor market in the future. c. Review State policies and procedures for entering jobs into IJB. States should recognize that, especially in relation to defense downsizing, the IJB offers exposure to highly skilled potential applicants, who may have strong attachments to local labor markets. When States perform a daily telecommunication with the IJB Center to submit and receive interstate job orders, and rely on automated selection of unfilled job orders, which are appropriate for the full range of jobseekers, States are taking concrete steps to strengthen the public employment service.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Reference: Job Training Amendments of 1992. Background: Section 121(a)(2) of the JTPA provides that "Any State seeking financial assistance under this Act shall submit a GCSSP for two program years to the Secretary describing the use of all resources provided to the State and its service delivery areas under this Act...." Section 121(b)(7) requires that a modification to the GCSSP be submitted by the Governor to the Secretary if major changes occur in labor market conditions, funding, or other factors during the period covered by the plan. Since the States' submission in May 1992 of the GCSSP's for Program Years 1992 and 1993, the JTPA Amendments of 1992 have been enacted, requiring major changes to Title II programs for Program Year 1993. Section 104(c) states that "If changes in labor market conditions, funding, or other factors require substantial deviation from an approved job training plan, the private industry council and the appropriate chief elected official... shall submit a modification of such plan....." Accordingly, all Governors are expected to review the following sections of the Amendments and interim final regulations and, where appropriate, modify the State's GCSSP for PY 1993. Development of modifications shall proceed on the basis of the statutory language and interim final regulations. In addition, all Governors of single State service delivery areas (SDA's) must modify the State's job training plan. JTPA Amendments of 1992: Modifications to the State's current GCSSP, and, as appropriate, the Statewide Service Delivery Area Job Training Plan, are necessary as a result of the following sections of the 1992 Amendments: a. Private Industry Council Section 627.475 of the JTPA regulations provide that the Governor shall establish general standards for Private Industry Council (PIC) oversight responsibilities. The required PIC standards shall be included in the GCSSP. (20 CFR 627.475) b. Governor's Coordination and Special Services Plans Section 121 (b)(2). The GCSSP shall describe the measures taken by the State to ensure coordination and avoid duplication between agencies administering the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program and programs under Title II in the planning and delivery of services. The plan shall describe the procedures developed by the State to ensure that the State JOBS plan is consistent with the coordination criteria specified in this plan; and shall identify the procedures developed to provide for the review of the JOBS plan by the State Job Training Coordinating Council (SJTCC). Section 121(b)(3). The Plan shall describe the projected use of resources, including oversight of program performance, program administration, and program financial management, capacity building, priorities and criteria for State incentive grants, and performance goals for State-supported programs. The description of capacity building shall include the Governor's plans for technical assistance to SDA's and service providers, interstate technical assistance and training arrangements, other coordinated technical assistance arrangements undertaken pursuant to the direction of the Secretary, and as applicable, research and demonstration projects. c. State Education Coordination and Grants Section 123 requires the Governor to allocate 8 percent of the State's funds to any State education agency in accordance with a jointly agreed upon plan. Pursuant to Section 123(c), the Governor shall include in the GCSSP a description of the use of State's 8 percent funds in conformance with Section 123 of the Act and 20 CFR 628.205 and 628.315 of the regulations. d. State Human Resource Investment Council Section 701 of the JTPA, as amended, authorizes the establishment of a State Human Resource Investment Council (HRIC) to advise the Governor on coordination of Federal human resource programs within the State. The HRIC may replace existing State councils dealing with Federal human resource programs. The option for the Governor to designate the HRIC to carry out the responsibilities of the SJTCC, in lieu of establishing a SJTCC, is authorized at Section 122(d)(1) of JTPA, as amended. (20 CFR 628.215) e. Services for Older Workers Section 202(c)(1)(D) of JTPA, as amended, specifies a 5 percent set-aside to support Services to Older Individuals. Plans for the use of-such funds for PY 93 shall be developed in accordance with Section 204(d) of JTPA, as amended, and 20 CFR 628.320. f. Linkages Section 205 of JTPA, as amended, requires SDA's to establish appropriate linkages with federally authorized programs including: the Adult Education Act; the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Wagner-Peyser Act; JOBS; the Food Stamp Act; the National Apprenticeship Act; the U.S. Housing Act; the National Literacy Act of 1991; Head Start; Title V of the Older Americans Act, and other provisions of JTPA. Additionally, SDA's are required to establish other appropriate linkages with other organizations and agencies, such as State and local educational agencies, local service agencies, public housing agencies, community organizations, business and labor groups, volunteer groups working with disadvantaged adults, and other training, education, employment, economic development and social service programs. ~Section 205 and 20 CFR 627.220) Nontraditional Employment for Women: The Nontraditional Employment for Women (NEW) Act requires SDAs toinclude goals in their PY 92 and 93 plans. Such goals have been included in most of the GCSSPs submitted by Governors for PY 92-93. While the Amendments do not specifically require changes to the NEW goals, the general changes in program design and targeting of services may result in changes to the NEW goals included in the GCSSP for PY 93. Furthermore, Governor's staffs may find that the goals initially set warrant refinement, given the relatively short period provided for the initial goal setting. Accordingly, Governors should consider refinement of their NEW goals in the development and submission of this modification. Format: Given the wide variety of approaches taken by the States in constructing the GCSSP and the Job Training Plan, the Department believes that it would be more expeditious if a common outline was followed. Therefore, we are Re guesting that these modifications adhere to the attached outlines. Submittal: Modifications to the PY 1992/1993 GCSSP's and the Statewide Service Delivery Area Job Training Plans must be submitted for receipt by the Administrator, Office of Job Training Programs, by May 15, 1993. Also, a copy should be sent to the appropriate ETA Regional Office. Burden Hours Estimates: The National Office estimates that the burden estimate of 40 hours includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Reference: 20 CFR 653.108 (e), 20 CFR 658.602 (c) and 20 CFR 658.603 (f)(12). Background: The National Monitor Advocate Training Conference is held annually in conjunction with other migrant and seasonal farmworker (MSFW) national activities. Training is provided specifically on the Monitor Advocate program and corresponding regulations, allowing opportunity for the National, Regional, and State Monitor Advocates to jointly participate in the discussion and resolution of operational concerns of the Employment Service (ES) Monitor Advocate Program. The 1993 training is scheduled for February 23-26, 1993. This year's Training Conference will be held in conjunction with the Midwest Association of Farmworker Organizations' (MAFO) national conference entitled "Future Partnerships Evolving from Common Ground." Participants in this conference will include JTPA 402 grantees, other MSFW service providers, and Monitor Advocates. Also, the participation of the Monitor Advocates has been expanded from previous years. Aside from the training, the Monitor Advocate Program will also facilitate events on the MAFO conference agenda. First is a plenary session through which an overview of the Monitor Advocate Program will be presented, the second will be a workshop on the topic of the ES Complaint System. Both will be facilitated in full by Regional and State Monitor Advocates. Annual Monitor Advocate Training: Aside from the technical assistance training, a major objective of the Monitor Advocates is the development of a paper which could more clearly define the role of advocacy in the Monitor Advocate Program. Upon completion, this paper will be presented to the National Office for review and comment. Mr. David Webb, Region IX's Monitor Advocate has taken the lead on developing this paper. In order to make a contribution to the preparation of this paper, we request that Regional and State Monitor Advocates respond to the following questions: 1) State Monitor Advocate's definition of advocacy; 2) What is the State Monitor Advocate doing in terms of advocacy; 3) What some of the issues are that should be addressed in terms of advocacy; 4) Who else within your State advocates on behalf of MSFWs and what are they doing; 5) According to Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers within your State, what should the State Monitor Advocates be advocating. The State Monitor Advocates are requested to submit their responses to these issues to the following address: Mr. David L. Webb ETA Region IX Monitor Advocate P.O. Box 193767 San Francisco, California 94119-3767 Participation: It is important that all State Monitor Advocates participate in the conference. Accommodations: The conference will be held at the Kona Kai Resort, 1551 Shelter Island Drive, San Diego, California 92106. Participants should contact the hotel directly at (800) 325-2218 or (619) 221-1191 to ensure the availability of the pre-arranged room rate of $65 plus tax per day for single or double room. The conference will begin at 8:30 a.m., February 23, 1993 and end at noon on February 26, 1993. Conference registration fee is $125.00; please send directly to MAFO, P.O. Box 06129, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204. Early registration is highly recommended. Action Required: SESA Administrators are requested to encourage attendance of State Monitor Advocates. State and local Agricultural Program Specialists and Outreach Staff are also encouraged to attend.

References: Chapter V, Section 5, and Chapter XI, Section 1, ET Handbook No. 391. Background: Recently, the Office of Personnel Management issued official 1995 pay tables (copies of Tables A and B attached) authorized by the President reflecting new pay raises for GS employees. Table A shows the new salaries for GS employees incorporating a 2.00% increase effective January 1995. Table B shows the new salaries for GS employees incorporating the 2.00% increase and a locality payment of 5.48% for the locality pay area of Washington- Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV (Net Increase 3.22%) effective January 1995. The locality rates of pay are considered basic pay for retirement, life insurance, premium pay, and severance pay purposes and for advances in pay. They are also used to compute worker's compensation payments and lump-sum payments for accrued and accumulated annual leave. They are NOT considered basic pay for other pay administration purposes. All eligible white-collar workers automatically get the 2% national pay raise. But many civil servants who already are paid higher rates because they are in hard-to-fill jobs (such as Grade 2 through 7 clerical workers, scientists and engineers) will not get the 1.22% raise. A few will get part of the locality adjustment. Postal workers and DC government employees do not get either the national or locality raise. Federal and military retirees, whose pensions are linked to inflation, will get a 2.8% cost-of-living adjustment. That adjustment will show up in their April annuity checks. Instructions: SESAs should provide copies of the attached GS Tables to appropriate staff members engaged in UCFE claims activities. Action Required: SESAs should follow the above instructions and provide the attached revised Federal Pay Tables to appropriate staff.

References: Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 49); 20 CFR 652 and 20 CFR 653; Job Training Partnership Act, Sections 202, 252, 262, 302, and 601, as amended by the Job Training Reform Amendments Act of 1992; Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 4-88. Background: Title II-A was divided into two separate programs (II-A and II-C) under the JTPA Amendments of 1992. The revised Title II-A is the Adult Training Program, and the new Title II-C is the Youth Training Program. The JTPA Titles II-A, II-C and III allotments, and the Wagner-Peyser preliminary planning estimates, are for the program period July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994. The Title II-B allotments are for the 1993 summer period ending September 30, 1993. These JTPA allotments and the Wagner-Peyser preliminary planning estimates will be published in the Federal Register. The allotments for Title II-B total $682,912,000, approximately the same as the previous year's level without the Emergency Supplemental appropriations. The Congress provided 1993 Summer Youth funds in two amounts totaling $682,912,000: $495,212,000 is from the PY 1992 appropriation and became available for obligation on July 1, 1992; and $187,700,000 was made available for obligation on October 1, 1993, thus it is a Fiscal Year 1993 appropriation. This requires that the funds be issued separately on the Notice of Obligation (NOO), and that States draw funds from the Payment Management System for each separate fund source. Separate financial reporting will not be required, however. The allotments for Titles II-A, II-C, and III, and the ES preliminary planning estimates, are part of the Fiscal Year 1993 funds appropriated by the Department of Labor Appropriations Act, 1993, P.L. 102-394, for PY 1993. These appropriations include $1,045,021,000 for Title II-A and $696,682,000 for Title II-C, a 1.79 percent reduction from the PY 1992 Title II-A level; $517,046,000 for Title III, a 1.9 percent reduction from PY 1992; and $810,960,000 for allotments to States under Wagner-Peyser, a 1.3 percent reduction from PY 1992. An additional $3,831,000 has been appropriated for Title II programs in rural concentrated employment programs (RCEPs). Distribution of funds for the RCEPs is discussed below under item 5. Attached for your information is a copy of the letter sent to each Governor (Attachment I) transmitting the allotments and planning estimates. JTPA/ES Joint planning and Coordination Provisions: Each State should develop plans in accordance with relevant statutory provisions and schedules issued by the Department. Particular attention should be given to the Governor's statement of goals and objectives for JTPA, and joint ES/JTPA planning initiatives (see Section 8(b) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended). Employment Service plans should foster the delivery of quality services to job seekers and employers by providing: relevant labor market information to job seekers, employers, and other users in the local labor market; enhanced employability services, e.g., counseling, assessment, referral to training, and other needed services; and other appropriate services responsive to State economic needs and conditions. RCEP States: Additional funds are available to assure, to the maximum extent possible, that funding for RCEPs under Title II programs is maintained at prior year levels. The Department previously reserved $250,000 from PY 1992 RCEP funds to be used for this purpose in the CY 1993 summer program. The RCEP appropriation for PY 1993 is $3,831,000. Of this amount, $250,000 is being reserved for the CY 1994 summer program. Therefore, $3,581,000 will be available for PY 1993 Titles II-A and II-C programs. It will be necessary for the States of Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin to provide the Department with the amount of the Titles II-A, II-B, and II-C RCEP allocations based on the allotments contained in this Training and Employment Guidance Letter. This information should be sent no later than March 5, 1993, to the following address: Mr. Hugh Davies Acting Director Office of Employment and Training Programs 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Room N-4703 Washington, D.C. 20210 Notices of Obligation (NOO): NOOs for the 1993 Title II-B summer youth program, including the additional funds for RCEPs, will be issued in April. NOOs for the PY 1993 Titles II-A, II-C, and III programs will be issued for all funds on July 1, 1993. These NOOs will include the additional Titles II-A and II-C funds for the RCEPs. A second NOO will be issued to each State after November 1 for Title III, to increase or reduce the funds available to the State to reflect the amount of reallotted funds the State gains or loses, as discussed in TEGL No. 4-88. Title II-A Allotments: Attachment II shows the PY 1993 JTPA Title II-A allotments by State. For all States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, the following data were used in computing the allotments: -- Data for Areas of Substantial Unemployment (AS Us) are averages for the 12-month period, July 1991 through June 1992. -- The number of excess unemployed individuals or the ASU excess (depending on which is higher) are averages for this same 12-month period. -- The economically disadvantaged adult data (age 2272, excluding college students and military) are from the 1990 Census. This data will be made available on diskette to the State JTPA Liaisons. The demographics will also be rolled up to the Service Delivery Area (SDA) level. The allotments for the Insular Areas, including the Freely Associated States, are based on unemployment data from the 1990 census, or if not available, the most recent data available. A 90-percent relative share "hold-harmless" of the Title II-A PY 1992 allotments for these areas and a minimum allotment of $75,000 were also applied in determining the allotments. This minimum amount equals 60 percent of the old Title II-A minimum allotment since the JTPA Amendments of 1992 divided Title II-A into Titles II-A and II-C, and the Title II-A appropriation is 60 percent of the sum of Titles II-A and II-C. Title II-A funds are to be distributed among designated SDAs according to the statutory formula contained in Section 202(b) of JTPA, as amended by Section 701(c) of the JTPA Amendments of 1992. The formula specified by Section 701(c) of the Amendments is used since the FY 1993 appropriation level meets the conditions of that Section. This is the same formula which has been used in previous program years. In determining any necessary hold-harmless levels for SDAs, the States of Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin shall not include any additional funds provided for RCEPs. Title II-B Allotments: Attachment III shows the 1993 JTPA Title II-B allotments by State and by fund source, with totals. The data used for these allotments are the same data as were used for Title II-A and II-C allotments, except for the number of economically disadvantaged. The total number of economically disadvantaged individuals (including college and military) from the 1990 census was used. This follows the "old" definition of "economically disadvantaged" rather than the definition found in the 1992 Amendments which will not be in effect until July 1, 1993, and therefore is not applicable to these Title II-B allotments. For the Insular Areas and Native Americans, the amount is based on the percentage of Title II-B funds each received during the previous summer. Title II-B funds for the 1993 Summer program are to be distributed among designated SDAs in accordance with the statutory formula contained in Section 252(b) of JTPA, prior to the Amendments of 1992. This is the same formula that has been used in previous program years. In determining any necessary hold-harmless levels for SDAs, the States of Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin shall not include any additional funds provided for RCEPs. Title II-C Allotments: Attachment IV shows the 1993 JTPA Title II-C allotments by State. The data used for these allotments are the same data as were used for Title II-A allotments, except that the number of economically disadvantaged youth (age 16-21, excluding college and military) is used rather than the number of adults. The allotments for the Insular Areas, including the Freely Associated States, are based on unemployment data from the 1990 census or, if not available, the most recent data available. A 90-percent relative share "hold-harmless" of the PY 1992 Title II-A allotments for these areas and a minimum allotment of $50,000 were also applied in determining the allotments. This minimum amount equals 40 percent of the old Title II-A minimum allotment,since the JTPA Amendments of 1992 divided Title II-A into Titles II-A and II-C, and the Title II-C appropriation is 40 percent of the sum of Titles II-A and II-C. Title II-C funds are to be distributed among designated SDAs according to the statutory formula contained in Section 262(b) of JTPA, as amended by Section 701(f) of the JTPA Amendments of 1992. The formula specified by Section 701(f) of the Amendments is used since the FY 1993 appropriation level meets the conditions of that Section. In determining any necessary hold-harmless levels for SDAs, the States of Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin shall not include any additional funds provided for RCEPs. Title III Allotments: Attachment V shows the PY 1993 JTPA Title III allotments by State. The total appropriation includes 80 percent allotted by formula to the States, and 20 percent for the National Reserve, including funds allotted to the Insular Areas. Title III formula funds are to be distributed to State and sub state grantees in accordance with the provisions in Section 302(c) and (d) of JTPA, as amended. The unemployment data used for computing these State allotments, relative numbers of unemployed and relative numbers of excess unemployed, are averages for the October 1991 through September 1992 period. Long-term unemployed data used were for CY 1991. Allotments for the Insular Areas are based on the PY 1993 Title II-A allotments for these areas. Reallotments: Re allotments of these published Title III formula funds, as provided for by Section 303 of JTPA, as amended, will be based on completed program year expenditure reports submitted by the States and received by October 1, 1993. Title III allotments will be adjusted upward or downward, based on whether the State is eligible to share in reallotted funds or is subject to recapture. ES Planning Estimates: Attachment VI shows ES planning estimates for PY 1993 which have been produced using the formula set forth at Section 6 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. 49e. These preliminary estimates are based on averages for the most current 12 months ending September 1992 for each State's share of the civilian labor force (CLF) and unemployment. Final planning estimates will be published in the Federal Register within 90 days, based on Calendar Year 1992 data, as required by the Wagner-Peyser Act. The total planning estimate does not include $19,138,700 or 2.36 percent of the total amount available. This amount is withheld from distribution to States to finance postage costs associated with the conduct of Employment Service business. The Department is proposing in a Federal Register Notice, soon to be published, that it will allocate postage resources to the States effective October 1, 1993. For information purposes, Attachment VII reflects the preliminary planning estimates including postage distribution to States for three quarters of PY 1993 (October 1, 1993 - June 30, 1994). A final decision on whether to allocate postage resources to the States will be made prior to the final allocations. The Secretary of Labor has set aside 3 percent of the total available funds to assure that each State will have sufficient resources to maintain statewide employment services, as required under Section 6(b)(4) of the Wagner-Peyser Act. In accordance with this provision, $23,754,639 is set aside for the administrative formula allocation. These set aside funds are included in the total planning estimate. Set aside funds are distributed in two steps to States which have lost in relative share of resources from the prior year. In step one, States which have a CLF below one million and are below the median CLF density are maintained at 100 percent of their relative share of prior year resources. All remaining funds are distributed on a pro rat a basis in step two to all other States losing in relative share from the prior year but which do not meet the size and density criteria for step one. Ten percent of the total sums allotted to each State shall be reserved for use by the Governor to provide performance incentives for public ES offices; services for groups with special needs; and for the extra costs of exemplary models for delivering job services. Action: a. Title II-A allotments are subject to the distribution requirements contained in Sections 162(e) and 202(b) of JTPA, as amended. b. Title II-B allotments are subject to the distribution requirements contained in Sections 162(e), and 252(b) of JTPA, prior to JTPA Amendments of 1992. c. Title II-C allotments are subject to the distribution requirements contained in Sections 162(e) and 262(b) of JTPA, as amended. d. Title III funds are subject to the distribution requirements contained in Sections 302(c) and (d) of JTPA, as amended. e. RCEP States should forward the following information to the address listed in item ; above not later than March 5, 1993: (1) PY 1993 Titles II-A and II-C formula allocations for the RCEPs in Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin. (2) CY 1993 Title II-B formula allocations for RCEPs in these States. f. States should initiate PY 1993 planning consistent with provisions of the Wagner-Peyser Act and Federal Regulations at 20 CFR Part 652.

References: Sections 206, 256, and 266 of Title II of Public Law 102-367; TEIN No. 16-92, transfer of 1992 Title II-B Summer Youth Funds to Title II-A. Background: The JTPA Amendments of 1992 established new criteria for operating Title II program activities, identified new Title II cost categories, and provided SDAs with the option to transfer funds between the "Parts" within Title II. Program Year 1993 will serve as a transition period for using remaining balances of prior year available funds, and initiating the SDA option of intra-Title II fund transfers. This guidance is being provided to alert States and SDAs to the options for the use of PY 1992 and earlier funds in the local planning process for PY 1993, and for PY 1993 funds to be transferred among parts in PY 1993 and in subsequent years. Using Prior Year Title II Funds: The Interim Final Rule at 20 CFR 627.903(d) provides that the balance of any available Title II-A funds as of June 30, 1993, may be used for PY 1993 activity. Any affected Title II-A funds will be governed by Section 203(b)(1). Of these funds, not less than 40 percent, or the rate approved by the Governor as established under Section 203(b)(2), must be used in PY 1993 as Title II-C funds to provide services to eligible youth. All affected amounts will be subject to the cost limitation and reporting requirements of the new JTPA Amendments and implementing regulations and will assume the identity of the Title II "Part~ receiving the funds; i.e., Title II-A or Title II-C. Accounting requirements: For accounting and record keeping purposes, all prior year funds used for PY 1993 activity will retain their appropriation year identity. Cash will continue to be drawn under the Payment Management System as Title II-A until all amounts have been expended. Residual Title II-A amounts not used for PY 1993 activity will be governed by current requirements. Prior year funds used for PY 1993 activity must be accounted for and reported separately. Reporting instructions for all JTPA funds will be issued shortly. Intra-Title II Funds Transfer: The Interim Final Rule at 20 CFR 628.550 provides SDAs with the flexibility to transfer funds within Title II, if such transfers are described in the job training plan and approved by the Governor. The three optional fund transfers include: (a) Section 206 states that a service delivery area may transfer up to 10 percent of the amounts allocated under part A to the program under part C if such transfer is described in the job training plan and the transfer is approved by the governor; (b) Section 256 states that a service delivery area may transfer up to 10 percent of the funds provided to the program under part B to the program under part C if the transfer is approved by the Governor; and (c) Section 266 states that a service delivery area may transfer up to 10 percent of the amounts allocated under part C to the program under part A if such transfer is described in the job training plan and the transfer is approved by the Governor. Beginning with the PY 1993 funding period, transferring amounts within Title II are optional for the SDAs. The Governor is responsible for determining the frequency of such transfers and ensuring that job training plans are modified as necessary. Notices of obligational authority, funding availability, or other similar documents issued by the State to the SDAs will be revised to reflect all transfers. The Department encourages all such transfers to be completed prior to the end of the affected program year. All transfers must be reflected on appropriate financial reports. Financial reporting instructions will be issued separately. Action: For the PY 1993 planning process, SDAs may use available PY 1992 and earlier Title II-A funds for Titles II-A and Title II-C purposes in PY 1993, and may also transfer PY 1993 Title II-A, II-B, and II-C funds to Titles II-A and II-C. States should ensure that prior year Title II-A funds used for PY 1993 activity and intra-Title II fund transfers are consistent with this issuance.

Background: Instruction for reporting data for the EUC program is listed in GAL No. 12-92, Attachment C. At the time of the issuance, all EUC data except that reported on the ETA 539 and ETA 2112 were to be reported on separate paper forms and mailed to the National Office. EUC data for the ETA 539 and ETA 2112 were to be put in the comments section of the regular electronically transmitted reports. Separate Electronic Reports: Separate input screens for the electronic reporting system have now been developed for the ETA 207, ETA 218, ETA 227, ETA 5130, ETA 5159, and ETA 2112. These screens should be available to States for electronic entry on, or about, February 16, 1993. State UI Network System Administrators will be informed a few days prior to the download. Reporting instructions remain the same. Only the method of reporting is changed from paper copy to electronic. The EUC data associated with the ETA 2112 will now be reported electronically on a separate screen. The ETA 539 will continue to have associated EUC data reported in the comments section of the regular electronically transmitted report. OMB Approval: These reporting requirements are approved under OMB approval number 1205-0317, expiring December 31, 1993. Action Required: SESA Administrators should inform appropriate personnel of this change in method of reporting and begin electronic reporting with the first reports due after the download of screen programs on or about February 16, 1993.