35582 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130, Friday, July 5, 1996 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Vocational and Adult

Education School-to-Work

Opportunities; Urban/Rural

Opportunities Grants

AGENCIES: Employment and Training

Administration, Department of Labor;

Office of Vocational and Adult

Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of Final Priority for

School-to-Work Urban/Rural

Opportunities Grants Using Fiscal Year

(FY) 1995 Funds.

SUMMARY: The Secretaries of Labor and

Education (the Secretaries) announce a

competitive priority for the Urban/Rural

Opportunities Grants competition

authorized by Title III of the School-toWork Opportunities Act of 1994 (the

Act) using FY 1995 funds. This priority

provides for a competitive preference to

be given to applications from local

partnerships proposing to implement a

School-to-Work Opportunities initiative

for youth residing or attending school in

an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise

Community (EZ/EC) designated under

section 1391 of the Internal Revenue

Code (IRC), as amended by Title XIII of

the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1993. The Secretaries announce that

they intend to use this priority, along

with the selection criteria published in

the November 14, 1995, issue of the

Federal Register (60 FR 57276), to select

applications for funding under the

Urban/Rural Opportunities Grants

competition using FY 1995 funds. The

Secretaries take this action to focus

Federal financial assistance on

implementing School-to-Work

Opportunities initiatives in urban or

rural areas of high poverty.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This priority takes effect

on August 5, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Clark, National School-to-Work

Office, U.S. Departments of Labor and

Education, 400 Virginia Avenue, S.W.,

Room 210, Washington, D.C. 20024.

Telephone: (202) 401–6222 (this is not

a toll-free number). 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., Eastern time, Monday through

Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Secretaries intend to award grants

to local partnerships to implement

School-to-Work Opportunities

initiatives serving youth residing or

attending school in urban or rural high

poverty areas. The Secretaries recognize

the particular challenges faced by local

partnerships serving youth in urban and

rural high-poverty areas in preparing the

youth for first jobs in high-skill, highwage careers and in increasing their

opportunities for further education and

training. Similarly, the EZ/EC initiative

is aimed at rebuilding communities in

America’s poverty-stricken inner cities

and rural heartlands. Under the EZ/EC

initiative, the Federal Government has

designated certain geographic areas as

EZs and as ECs in accordance with

Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section

1391, as amended by Title XIII of the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1993 (Pub. L. 103–66). The selected

areas were designated as EZs or ECs

based on the quality of their strategic

plans addressing how each zone or

community would link economic

development with education and

training, as well as how community

development, public safety, human

services, and environmental initiatives

together would support sustainable

community improvement efforts.

On December 6, 1995, the Secretaries

published a notice of proposed priority

for this competition in the Federal

Register (60 FR 62698).

Note: This notice of final priority does not

solicit applications. A solicitation for grant

applications under this competition was

published in the Federal Register on

November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57276).

Analysis of Comments and Changes

In response to the Secretaries’

invitation in the notice of proposed

priority, 34 parties submitted

comments. An analysis of the comments

and of the changes in the priority since

publication of the notice of proposed

priority follows. Technical and other

minor changes—and suggested changes

the Secretaries are not legally

authorized to make under the applicable

statutory authority—are not addressed.

Comments: Several commenters

expressed support for the Secretaries’

proposal to give competitive preference

to applications from partnerships that

propose to implement a School-to-Work

Opportunities initiative serving youth

who reside or attend school in an area

designated as an EZ or EC.

Discussion: The EZ/EC initiative seeks

to implement a broad-based strategy for

meeting the needs of youth in high

poverty areas, and the Urban/Rural

Opportunities Grants are well-suited for

inclusion in such an overarching

strategy. Similarly, as a part of the EZ/

EC designation process, communities

designated as EZs or ECs have already

demonstrated a capacity for the type of

collaboration and cooperative planning

that is critical to developing and

implementing successful School-toWork Opportunities initiatives.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters stated

that there are typographical errors in the

list of ECs that appeared in the Federal

Register notice. One commenter

suggested that five San Francisco

neighborhoods that were also

designated as ECs should have been

included in the list.

Discussion: The Secretaries agree with

the commenters about the typographical

errors and the addition of the five San

Francisco neighborhoods to the ECs list.

Changes: In the list of ECs, ‘‘New

Mexico: Moro, Rico Arriba, Taos

Counties’’ has been changed to ‘‘New

Mexico: Mora, Rio Arriba, Taos

Counties’’ and ‘‘California: San

Francisco, Bayview, Hunters Point’’ has

been changed to ‘‘California: San

Francisco, Bayview-Hunters Point,

Southeast Section.’’ In addition, the

following San Francisco neighborhoods

have been added to the list of Enterprise

Communities: Tenderloin, Chinatown,

South of Market, Mission, and

Visitacion Valley. This revised list is

included as an appendix to this notice.

Comment: One commenter noted that

there was no mention in the proposed

priority of special populations (such as

individuals with disabilities,

economically and educationally

disadvantaged individuals, individuals

with limited English proficiency,

individuals in non-traditional

occupations by gender, and individuals

in corrections programs) in the

discussion of the target service

population. The commenter argued that

the failure to include a reference to

those special populations would result

in selecting EZs or ECs that do not serve

those most in need.

Discussion: The inclusion of special

populations in a local partnership’s plan

to serve high poverty area youth is

covered in Criterion 3 of the selection

criteria to be used for this competition.

These criteria were published in the

November 14, 1995, Federal Register

notice. Criterion 3 requires that a local

partnership describe its strategies for

effectively ensuring opportunities for

the participation of all students and to

identify ways of overcoming barriers to

the participation of any student. Like

the Act, Criterion 3 refrains from
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130, Friday, July 5, 1996 / Notices 35583

requiring applicants to design specific

programs for each specific group of

students. Rather, the focus is on

building a school-to-work system for all

students. The Secretaries agree that to

receive the maximum points for

Criterion 3, applicants may not neglect

the needs of any student and must

convincingly describe how the local

partnership’s School-to-Work

Opportunities system will provide the

same options and produce the same

results for all participating students,

while recognizing that certain groups of

students have different needs and,

therefore, that specific strategies may be

required for the target groups listed in

the definition of ‘‘all students.’’

Applications that fail to address the

critical needs of various student

populations and fail to develop effective

strategies based on identified student

needs will not be as competitive as

applications that have comprehensive

and effective strategies for all students.

Changes: None.

Comments: Several commenters

disagreed with the Secretaries’ proposal

to give competitive preference to

partnerships in EZs and ECs. Five

commenters expressed concern that this

would create a disincentive to the point

of deterring innovation among existing

effective high-poverty models and

efforts at collaboration. One commenter

suggested changing the way points are

awarded by giving partnerships in EZ/

ECs 5 to 10 points rather than giving

them a preference among applications of

comparable merit. Another commenter

argued that giving priority to

partnerships in EZ/ECs discounts the

value of projects implemented by

partnerships that do not serve EZ/EC

areas and impedes the effective use of

other Federal dollars by those

partnerships. One commenter suggested

that the proposed competitive

preference would serve to exclude

youth who would be denied the career

and academic skills they need. Two

commenters argued that this preference

is unfair in general, and one of them

requested a waiver from the preference.

Finally, one commenter suggested that

the preference is unfair to certain highpoverty rural areas that have not been

able to receive an EZ/EC designation.

Discussion: The Secretaries recognize

that certain otherwise worthy local areas

may not have been designated as EZ/

ECs. However, the Secretaries believe

that the missions of the EZ/EC initiative

and the School-to-Work Opportunities

initiative, particularly with regard to

Urban/Rural Opportunities Grants,

effectively complement one another.

The purpose of the EZ/EC priority is to

encourage collaboration between those

initiatives, not to deny services to youth

in any area. Moreover, Criterion 5 of the

selection criteria requires a partnership

to develop a strategy for using other

resources, including other Federal

funds, when Federal resources under

the School-to-Work Opportunities Act

are no longer available. As with

previous competitions, applications that

fail to address a partnership’s ability to

leverage additional resources, including

other Federal resources, will not be as

competitive as other applications that

demonstrate the partnership’s ability to

effectively use additional funding. The

Secretaries believe that all Federal funds

are important for building an effective

School-to-Work Opportunities system

and do not believe that the EZ/EC

preference discounts the value of or

impedes the effective use of other

Federal dollars in any way. Although it

is unfortunate that it is too late for highpoverty areas to gain an EZ or EC

designation in time for the current

Urban/Rural Opportunities Grant

competition, applicants are reminded

that this priority merely provides a line

of distinction when two applications are

of comparable merit. Applicants are also

reminded that the President is expected

to announce a second round of EZ/EC

designations in the coming months. The

Secretaries preferred this priority

method over assigning a specific

number of points to EZ/ECs to avoid

increasing an applicant’s score merely

on the basis of EZ/EC designation.

Finally, granting waivers of a

competitive preference established as

applicable to a particular grant

competition is not an available option

under either the Act or under applicable

Department regulations.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the criteria for funding programs

should include the provider’s

background, commitment, and

experience in developing partnerships

in his or her community rather than

giving preference to partnerships

serving areas designated as EZs or ECs.

Discussion: The Secretaries agree that

the quality of a provider’s background,

commitment, and experience are

important for the implementation of

successful School-to-Work

Opportunities systems. Toward that

end, Criterion 2 of the selection criteria

requires that applicants demonstrate an

effective and convincing strategy for

continuing the commitment of required

partners and other interested parties in

the local School-to-Work Opportunities

system. In addition, Criterion 5 requires

that applicants develop a feasible and

effective strategy for using other

resources, including private sector

resources, to maintain the system when

Federal resources under the School-toWork Opportunities Act are no longer

available. Applications that fail to

adequately address these criteria,

regardless of EZ/EC designation, will

not be as competitive as applications

that effectively demonstrate the ability

of the partnership to develop resources

and commitments that will build a longlasting, quality school-to-work system.

Changes: None.

Comments: Two commenters

suggested that communities that operate

Youth Fair Chance programs should be

given the same preference as EZ/ECs

because their areas meet the same

demographic requirements as listed in

the grant announcement for EZ/ECs.

Discussion: Both EZ/ECs and Urban/

Rural Opportunities Grant local

partnerships are called upon to carry

out activities that require a high degree

of collaboration as indicated in the

Federal Register notice announcing the

competition. Because EZ/ECs already

demonstrate such a high degree of

collaboration at the local level, the

Secretaries believe that the activities

and goals of Urban/Rural Opportunities

Grant local partnerships and those who

implement the EZ/EC initiative

effectively complement each other,

resulting in a high degree of

collaboration among school-to-work

activities. The Secretaries are

sympathetic to these commenters and

recognize Youth Fair Chance projects as

worthwhile initiatives; however, in

taking into account the scarcity of

resources that promote community

collaboration, they believe this

competitive preference is the most

effective way to channel Urban/Rural

Opportunities Grant funds and foster

local collaborative efforts.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter protested

the late notification of the EZ/EC

priority in the Federal Register, arguing

that the announcement was made after

the partnership submitted its

application to the State for review.

Discussion: The Secretaries believe

applicants had fair notice of their intent

to give a competitive preference to

applicants from EZs or ECs. First, on

December 6, 1995, a notice of proposed

priority appeared in the Federal

Register more than three weeks before

applications were due to the States.

Second, applicants were asked to

indicate their collaboration with other

programs, including EZs or ECs, under

Criterion 2 of the selection criteria.

Finally, the preference is based on

whether the applicant is part of an EZ

or EC, not on anything else in the

application, so the timing of the priority
35584 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130, Friday, July 5, 1996 / Notices

notice would not have affected the way

the applicants wrote their applications.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that giving priority preference to EZ/ECs

discriminates against Indian

Reservations because they were

excluded from the EZ/EC application

process and that areas eligible for

priority preference should include

Indian reservations and USDA

Champion designated areas.

Discussion: Many programs for Indian

youth are eligible for School-to-Work

Opportunities funding under Urban/

Rural Opportunities Grants, Local

Partnership Grants, and State

Implementation subgrants to local

partnerships. In addition, a special setaside for School-to-Work Indian

Program Grants is available for local

partnerships that include the

involvement of schools funded by the

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and is

used to create school-to-work systems

that serve Indian youth. Last year,

$593,219 was awarded under this setaside in nine School-to-Work Indian

Program Grants to develop and

implement those systems. This year,

$1.225 million is available for new

grants and continuations to partnerships

serving Indian youth.

Changes: None.

Priority

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii), the

Secretaries give preference to

applications that meet the following

competitive priority. An application

that meets this competitive priority is

selected by the Secretaries over

applications of comparable merit that do

not meet the priority:

This priority is for local partnerships

serving youth residing or attending

school in urban or rural high poverty

areas designated as Empowerment

Zones (EZs) or Enterprise Communities

(ECs).

Intergovernmental Review

This program is subject to the

requirements of Executive Order 12372

and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79

and 29 CFR Part 17. The objective of the

Executive order is to foster an

intergovernmental partnership and to

strengthen 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 Departments’ specific

plans and actions for this program.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6101, et seq.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA) Number 278D of School-to-Work

Opportunities of Urban/Rural Opportunities

Grants)

Dated: June 28, 1996.

Timothy M. Barnicle,

Assistant Secretary for Employment and

Training, U.S. Department of Labor.

Patricia McNeil,

Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult

Education, U.S. Department of Education.

Appendix

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities

Note: Many EZ/ECs cover only a portion of

the listed city or county. To meet the

competitive priority, the local partnership

must serve youth residing or attending school

in the EZ/EC, not just in the city or county

listed.

EMPOWERMENT ZONES (EZ)

Georgia: Atlanta

Illinois: Chicago

Kentucky: Kentucky Highlands*

Maryland: Baltimore

Michigan: Detroit

Mississippi: Mid Delta*

New York: Harlem, Bronx

Pennsylvania/New Jersey: Philadelphia,

Camden

Texas: Rio Grande Valley*

SUPPLEMENTAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES

(SEZ)

California: Los Angeles

Ohio: Cleveland

ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES (EC)

Alabama: Birmingham

Alabama: Chambers County*

Alabama: Greene, Sumter Counties*

Arizona: Phoenix

Arizona: Arizona Border*

Arkansas: East Central*

Arkansas: Mississippi County*

Arkansas: Pulaski County

California: Imperial County*

California: Los Angeles, Huntington Park

California: San Diego

California: San Francisco, Bayview-Hunters

Point, Southeast Section

California: San Francisco, Tenderloin

California: San Francisco, Chinatown

California: San Francisco, South of Market

California: San Francisco, Mission

California: San Francisco, Visitacion Valley

California: Watsonville*

Colorado: Denver

Connecticut: Bridgeport

Connecticut: New Haven

Delaware: Wilmington

District of Columbia: Washington

Florida: Jackson County*

Florida: Tampa

Florida: Miami, Dade County

Georgia: Albany

Georgia: Central Savannah*

Georgia: Crisp, Dooley Counties*

Illinois: East St. Louis

Illinois: Springfield

Indiana: Indianapolis

Iowa: Des Moines

Kentucky: Louisville

Louisiana: Northeast Delta*

Louisiana: Macon Ridge*

Louisiana: New Orleans

Louisiana: Ouachita Parish

Massachusetts: Lowell

Massachusetts: Springfield

Michigan: Five Cap*

Michigan: Flint

Michigan: Muskegon

Minnesota: Minneapolis

Minnesota: St. Paul

Mississippi: Jackson

Mississippi: North Delta*

Missouri: East Prairie*

Missouri: St. Louis

Nebraska: Omaha

Nevada: Clarke County, Las Vegas

New Hampshire: Manchester

New Jersey: Newark

New Mexico: Albuquerque

New Mexico: Mora, Rio Arriba, Taos

Counties*

New York: Albany, Schenectady, Troy

New York: Buffalo

New York: Newburgh, Kingston

New York: Rochester

North Carolina: Charlotte

North Carolina: Halifax, Edgecombe, Wilson

Counties*

North Carolina: Robeson County*

Ohio: Akron

Ohio: Columbus

Ohio: Greater Portsmouth*

Oklahoma: Choctaw, McCurtain Counties*

Oklahoma: Oklahoma City

Oregon: Josephine*

Oregon: Portland

Pennsylvania: Harrisburg

Pennsylvania: Lock Haven*

Pennsylvania: Pittsburg

Rhode Island: Providence

South Carolina: Charleston

South Carolina: Williamsburg County*

South Dakota: Beadle, Spink Counties*

Tennessee: Fayette, Haywood Counties*

Tennessee: Memphis

Tennessee: Nashville

Tennessee/Kentucky: Scott, McCreary

Counties*

Texas: Dallas

Texas: El Paso

Texas: San Antonio

Texas: Waco

Utah: Ogden

Vermont: Burlington

Virginia: Accomack*

Virginia: Norfolk

Washington: Lower Yakima*

Washington: Seattle

Washington: Tacoma

West Virginia: West Centeral*

West Virginia: Huntington

West Virginia: McDowell*

Wisconsin: Milwaukee

*denotes rural designee

ENHANCED ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES

(EEC)

California: Oakland

Massachusetts: Boston

Missouri/Kansas: Kansas City, Kansas City

Texas: Houston

[FR Doc. 96–17086 Filed 7–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P