Rehabilitation Training-Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program, 32010-32016 [E8-12636]
Download as PDF
32010
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
following site: https://www.ed.gov/news/
fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–
888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
DC, area at (202) 512–1530.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: June 2, 2008.
Tracy R. Justesen,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E8–12633 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Rehabilitation Training—Rehabilitation
Continuing Education Program
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priority.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for
Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services announces a priority under the
Rehabilitation Continuing Education
Program (RCEP) to fund regional
Technical Assistance and Continuing
Education (TACE) centers. The
Assistant Secretary may use this priority
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2008
and later years. We take this action to
improve the quantity and quality of
employment outcomes for individuals
with disabilities through enhanced
technical assistance (TA) and
continuing education (CE) for State
vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies
and agency partners that cooperate with
State VR agencies in providing VR and
other rehabilitation services (e.g.,
Centers for Independent Living (CILs),
Client Assistance Programs (CAPs), and
Community Rehabilitation Programs
(CRPs)).
Effective Date: This priority is
effective July 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christine Marschall, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW.,
Room 5053, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202–2800.
Telephone: (202) 245–7429 or via
Internet: Christine.Marschall@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
DATES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–
877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can
obtain this document in an alternative
format (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on
request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Through
this priority, the Department revises the
current structure of the RCEP, which
includes 21 regional RCEP centers—11
centers that serve primarily State VR
agencies and 10 centers that serve
primarily CRPs. Instead of funding these
two separate sets of centers, this priority
supports 10 regional Technical
Assistance and Continuing Education
(TACE) centers to serve State VR
agencies and agency partners that
cooperate with State VR agencies in
providing VR and other rehabilitation
services. CRPs are among the agency
partners that the TACE centers are
expected to serve. While the current
RCEP centers provide CE and limited
TA to entities, TACE centers will
provide both TA and CE as necessary to
respond to the needs of the State VR
agencies and agency partners served by
the TACE centers.
We published a notice of proposed
priority (NPP) for this program in the
Federal Register on January 29, 2008
(73 FR 5179). The NPP included a
discussion of the issues associated with
modifying the RCEP structure. The
background section of the NPP
explained that the results of the
Department’s Rehabilitation Services
Administration’s (RSA) program
monitoring required by section 107 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, and the needs assessments
conducted by current RCEP grantees
indicated the need to integrate and
coordinate services provided to State VR
agencies and agency partners that
cooperate with State VR agencies in
providing VR and other rehabilitation
services, including CRPs. The NPP also
explained that the modified RCEP
structure would reduce administrative
costs by combining the functions of the
two sets of centers and that public
comments on the Rehabilitation
Training Program, solicited through a
notice in the Federal Register (72 FR
9942), generally supported the role of
the RCEP in providing TA and CE and
the provision of these services through
a regional model. The final priority
announced in this notice contains
differences from the priority proposed
in the NPP.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the
NPP, 79 parties submitted comments on
the proposed priority. An analysis of the
comments and of any changes in the
priority since publication of the NPP
follows.
Multiple commenters raised a number
of similar issues; therefore, we group
major issues by subject area. Generally,
we do not address technical and other
minor changes and suggested changes
the law does not authorize us to make
under the applicable statutory authority.
Agency Partners
Comment: Fifty-four commenters
requested that specific entities be added
to the list of agency partners with whom
State VR agencies cooperate to provide
VR and other rehabilitative services.
Various commenters recommended that
the following entities be added:
American Indian Vocational
Rehabilitation Service programs (30
commenters); State Rehabilitation
Councils (SRCs) (nine commenters);
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
programs (seven commenters); CILs (six
commenters); Statewide Independent
Living Councils (one commenter); and
State agencies such as developmental
disability, mental illness, and substance
abuse agencies (one commenter).
Discussion: The agency partners
included in the priority are examples of
agencies with which State VR agencies
cooperate to provide VR and other
rehabilitative services; the list of
agencies provided is not intended to be
exhaustive. The entities suggested by
the commenters could be agency
partners—that is, if a State VR agency
cooperates with any one of these entities
to provide VR and other rehabilitative
services, that entity would be
considered an agency partner for
purposes of this priority.
Changes: None.
Consolidation of the Regional Centers
Comment: Twenty-three commenters
stated that CRPs will not be served
adequately under the modified RCEP
structure, and six commenters stated
that the TA and CE needs of CRPs are
significantly different from the needs of
State VR agencies.
Discussion: This priority focuses on
the needs of State VR agencies and their
agency partners. RSA values the
contribution of the CRPs in the VR
service system and recognizes that CRPs
may have TA and CE needs that are
different from those of the State VR
agency and its other agency partners.
RSA expects that the needs of CRPs,
along with the needs of other agency
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
partners, will be reflected in the annual
needs assessment that will serve as the
foundation for each TACE center’s work
plan.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters asked
whether the 10 TACE centers will
provide the employment certificate
series training that the RCEP centers
serving CRPs currently provide.
Discussion: The TA and CE provided
by each TACE center will be determined
by each TACE center with input from
RSA after the TACE center conducts an
annual needs assessment of the State VR
agency and agency partners in the TACE
center’s region. While the TACE centers
are not required to provide the
employment certificate series training
referred to by the commenter, nothing in
the priority prohibits a TACE center
from doing so if it meets a need
identified by the State VR agency or its
agency partners.
Changes: None.
Comment: Twenty-three commenters
stated that the TACE centers should
balance the time and resources devoted
to address TA needs, on the one hand,
and CE needs, on the other. Twelve
commenters stated that the proposed
priority appears to emphasize TA more
than CE.
Discussion: We do not agree that the
priority places a greater emphasis on TA
than CE. The priority clearly states that
each TACE center must conduct an
annual needs assessment to identify the
TA and CE needs of State VR agencies
and agency partners. Based on the
annual needs assessment, each TACE
center will determine and describe in its
work plan the distribution of resources
that will be devoted to TA and CE
activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that the 10 TACE centers will
not be able to handle the high volume
of TA and CE requests as well as the 21
currently funded RCEP centers.
Discussion: We expect the 10 TACE
centers to be able to handle the high
volume of TA and CE requests as well
as the 21 currently funded RCEP centers
because we believe that these 10 centers
will provide TA and CE more effectively
and efficiently than the current 21 RCEP
centers. Because each region will have
one TACE center to serve all State VR
agencies and agency partners in that
region and because RSA will coordinate
across the TACE centers on a national
level, the modified structure will
facilitate sharing materials and
information, and coordinating TA and
CE activities, as appropriate, within and
across regions. The annual needs
assessment and work plan requirements
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
in the priority will also help focus
resources more effectively. We believe
that the modified structure of the
program will decrease duplication of
effort and enhance coordination
between State VR agencies and their
agency partners. In addition, fewer
resources will be expended on
administrative costs because there will
be one center in each region rather than
two.
Changes: None.
Comment: Six commenters expressed
concern that the relationships that have
been developed over time among the
current RCEP centers, State VR agencies,
and agency partners will be lost in the
modified RCEP structure supported by
the TACE center priority.
Discussion: The modified structure of
the RCEP program is designed to ensure
collaboration between the TACE center,
the State VR agency and agency partners
served, and RSA. We believe that this
collaboration will result in increased
coordination of TA and CE provided to
State VR agencies and agency partners
and enhance relationships among the
TACE centers, State VR agencies, and
agency partners. Further, we believe
that each TACE center’s advisory
committee will provide an opportunity
for the advisory committee members
who represent State VR agencies, among
others, to develop and sustain
relationships.
Changes: None.
Funding
Comment: Eighteen commenters
stated that requiring the TACE centers
to take on more TA responsibilities than
the current RCEP centers will require
more funds than those allocated to the
current RCEP centers. Fourteen
commenters stated that the same
amount of funds currently provided to
the 21 RCEP grantees should be
provided to the 10 TACE centers in
order for the new RCEP structure to be
effective.
Discussion: The estimated level of
funding for the TACE centers will be
included in the notice inviting
applications for new awards. We do not
anticipate maintaining the same level of
funds for the TACE centers that has
been available under the current
structure of the RCEP program. One of
the major reasons for the changes in the
RCEP program is to facilitate close
coordination within each TACE center
and among the TACE centers in order to
maximize the effective use of funds to
meet the TA and CE needs of the State
VR agencies and their agency partners.
To help ensure collaboration among
TACE centers, RSA will coordinate
activities of the TACE centers at the
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32011
national level. We believe that the
increased coordination within each
TACE center and across centers will
result in significant administrative
efficiencies that will offset some of the
expected funding differential.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters asked
how available funds for the RCEP
program will be allocated and whether
the geographic size of regions will be
considered when funds are allocated to
the TACE centers.
Discussion: All TACE centers will
receive the same base funding amount.
Additional funding will be provided to
individual TACE centers based on the
number of State VR agency staff in the
region each TACE center serves, as
identified in the most recently
published data from the RSA–2, the
Annual VR Program/Cost Report. We
will not base our funding allocations on
the geographic size of regions because
we do not believe that the size of a
region alone should affect the level of
services provided—since there are
multiple ways to conduct TA and
provide CE in addition to face-to-face
meetings, such as video conferencing
and Webcasts.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the majority of funds provided to the
TACE centers should be used to address
TA and CE needs of State VR agencies.
Another commenter asked whether the
TACE centers would share staff training
costs with the State VR agencies they
serve as they do under the current RCEP
structure.
Discussion: The use of funds for TA
and CE will be determined by each
TACE center based on the TACE
center’s annual needs assessment
(developed with input from its advisory
committee) and the TACE center’s
annual work plan (developed with input
from RSA). Nothing in the priority
prohibits the majority of funds provided
to the TACE centers from being used to
address TA and CE needs of State VR
agencies. However, we do not believe
that it is appropriate to require all TACE
centers to use the majority of their
funding under this program to address
these needs. With regard to sharing
training costs, while nothing in this
priority requires a TACE center to share
staff training costs with the State VR
agencies it serves, nothing in the
priority prohibits the TACE center from
doing so.
Changes: None.
RSA Involvement With the TACE
Centers
Comment: Twenty-eight commenters
expressed concern that the priority gives
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
32012
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
RSA too much control over the
decision-making of the TACE centers
and that, as a result, each TACE center’s
needs assessment and annual work plan
will be dictated by RSA and not
adequately consider the needs of the
State VR agency and its agency partners.
Discussion: Under the priority, the
TACE centers must work in consultation
with RSA to establish their annual work
plans, which describe the activities the
TACE centers will carry out during each
year of their project. We believe that this
level of RSA involvement in and
approval of the work plan is critical to
ensure that the TACE centers are
familiar with relevant information from
RSA’s State monitoring activities and to
facilitate alignment of the TA and CE
provided by the TACE centers with the
VR service system in each State and
across States. Given the need to ensure
coordination of the work of the TACE
centers at the national level, we believe
it is important for RSA to approve all
TACE center annual work plans. While
the TACE model provides RSA with the
authority to approve each center’s work
plan, RSA recognizes that, in order for
the TACE centers to be effective, the
TACE centers must work with the State
VR agencies and agency partners to
ensure more integrated decision-making
with regard to the needs of State VR
agencies and agency partners within
and across the regions.
Changes: Priority paragraph (1) has
been amended to clarify that each TACE
center must establish an annual work
plan, in coordination with and subject
to the approval of RSA.
Comment: Nine commenters stated
that TA should be RSA’s responsibility,
not the TACE centers’ responsibility.
One commenter stated that there is a
need to explain the difference between
the TA provided by the TACE centers
and that provided by RSA.
Discussion: RSA will utilize the TACE
centers to supplement the TA it
provides. In light of RSA’s program
monitoring and the needs assessments
conducted by current RCEP grantees
that indicate a significant need for TA,
we believe that supplementing RSA’s
provision of TA is beneficial to State VR
agencies and agency partners, and
ultimately individuals with disabilities
receiving services from State VR
agencies and agency partners. RSA—not
the TACE centers—will provide TA on
the interpretation of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, and its
regulations. TACE centers will provide
TA to State VR agencies and agency
partners to assist them in improving
their performance in areas such as
program management and delivery of
VR services to increase and improve
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
employment outcomes for individuals
with disabilities.
Changes: None.
Needs Assessment and Work Plan
Comment: The comments of 26
individuals indicated that there was
confusion about the relationship
between the annual needs assessment
and the annual work plan, as well as the
role of a TACE center’s advisory
committee.
Discussion: The proposed priority
specified that each TACE center would
conduct an annual needs assessment,
with input from its advisory committee,
and develop an annual work plan, with
input from RSA. However, we agree that
the proposed priority was not clear
about how the results of the needs
assessment would be used to develop
the annual work plan. We intend that
the annual work plan, developed in
cooperation with RSA and approved by
RSA, will take into consideration the
TA and CE needs of State VR agencies
and agency partners that are identified
in the TACE center’s annual needs
assessment. We do not expect each
annual work plan to address all of the
needs identified in the needs
assessment. We understand that, due to
limited resources, each TACE center
will prioritize needs to be addressed in
the annual work plan.
Changes: We have modified
paragraph (1) of the priority to make
clear that annual work plans must
consider, but not necessarily address,
the TA and CE needs of State VR
agencies and agency partners identified
in the TACE center’s annual needs
assessment.
Comment: Four commenters stated
that the needs assessment should
consider what the State VR agencies and
agency partners say they need and not
be based solely on RSA-generated data.
Eighteen commenters stated that the
State VR agencies in a TACE center’s
region should be consulted in the
development of the TACE center’s needs
assessment and that a representative
from State VR agencies in the region
should be a member of a center’s
advisory committee. Discussion: As
specified in paragraph (2) of the
priority, each TACE center’s annual
needs assessment must be based on the
needs of State VR agencies and agency
partners in its region. The priority lists
several sources of information that will
be important for each TACE center to
consider in its annual needs assessment,
including information from VR State
plans, on-site monitoring reports, and
annual review reports issued by RSA. A
TACE center’s needs assessment,
therefore, could not be based solely on
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
RSA-generated data. In addition,
paragraph (3) of the priority requires
each TACE center to solicit input from
its advisory committee members in
developing the needs assessment and to
use this information in developing its
annual work plan.
Members of the advisory committee
include, at a minimum, the entities
listed in 34 CFR 385.40 as well as those
additional entities listed in paragraph
(3) of the priority. We believe that
adding a representative from each State
VR agency in a TACE center’s region
will increase opportunities for State VR
agencies to inform the TACE center
about their needs and to provide input
into a TACE center’s annual work plan.
For this reason, we are modifying the
priority to require each TACE center to
invite a representative from the State VR
agencies in the TACE center’s region to
participate on its advisory committee.
Changes: Paragraph (3) of the priority
has been modified to require a TACE
center to invite a representative from
each State VR agency in its region to
participate on its advisory committee.
Comment: Fifteen commenters stated
that basing the needs assessment on VR
State plans will result in a reactive and
deficiency-based needs assessment (i.e.,
one that intends only to remediate skills
identified as ineffective through RSA
monitoring), rather than a proactive
needs assessment (i.e., one that
considers the development of new
professional skills of staff as a valuable
activity). One commenter stated that TA
should be focused on VR State plans.
Discussion: VR State plans document
the agency’s goals and priorities for the
upcoming fiscal year, including the
strategies that the agency will undertake
to achieve them. Using the VR State
plans as one source of information in
the needs assessment process enhances
the needs assessments’ relevance to
State VR agencies’ goals and priorities.
It was not the intent of the priority
that the needs assessment be based
solely on VR State plans. These plans
are listed as one of the data sources to
be reviewed when conducting the needs
assessment. Paragraph (2) of the priority
lists several other sources of data that
must be considered in the annual needs
assessment, including on-site
monitoring reports and annual review
reports issued by RSA, other
performance and compliance
information from RSA and State VR
agencies, and other data, as appropriate.
We also do not intend for the needs
assessment in this priority to be a
deficiency-based model. Instead, we
expect that the needs assessment
process will be guided by each TACE
center’s advisory committee to ensure
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
that TA and CE are provided both to
remediate deficits and to support new
professional development. Each TACE
center will make collaborative decisions
with RSA about the TA and CE to be
provided through the annual work plan
based on the needs identified using
these multiple data sources.
Changes: None.
Comment: Eleven commenters
disagreed with the requirement that
TACE center representatives attend
State VR agency monitoring exit
conferences conducted by RSA. The
commenters stated that the presence of
TACE center staff would give the
impression that the TACE centers have
monitoring responsibilities. Three
commenters stated that the exit
conference is the wrong time to have the
TACE centers involved in the
monitoring process because the process
is incomplete at that time; instead, the
commenters recommended that the
TACE centers be involved after the
issuance of a State’s final monitoring
report.
Discussion: The priority does not
assign monitoring responsibilities to the
TACE centers. Rather, the priority
requires that the TACE centers serve as
observers in RSA’s monitoring of State
VR agencies in their region by
participating, at a minimum, in each
State VR agency’s monitoring exit
conference in order to gain a thorough
understanding of each State VR agency’s
TA and CE needs. It is important to
retain the requirement that TACE center
representatives participate in State VR
agency monitoring exit conferences
because these exit conferences provide
significant information about the TA
and CE needs of the State VR agency
and agency partners. Requiring that
TACE center staff participate in the exit
conferences is worthwhile because of
the early, additional insight the TACE
centers will gain. Once the final report
is issued, the TACE centers will
consider the report’s recommendations
in their needs assessment and in the
development of their work plan.
Changes: None.
Comment: Five commenters stated
that, given limited funding, a single
center couldn’t be expected to have
expertise in the 12 areas identified in
the third paragraph of the priority. Two
commenters stated that the 12 areas in
which a TACE center must demonstrate
expertise focus on the needs of the State
VR agency and do not include areas that
apply to agency partners. One
commenter stated that the State VR
agency should have input on the subject
matter experts selected by its regional
TACE center to provide TA and CE.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
Discussion: One of the purposes of the
TACE centers is to ensure that State VR
agencies and agency partners receive the
TA and CE they need to improve
program performance. The expertise
areas identified are included to address
the needs of agency partners in the
activities the agency partners undertake
in cooperation with the State VR agency
in the provision of VR and other
rehabilitation services authorized under
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The 12 expertise areas
included in the third paragraph of the
priority were identified based on the
following: An assessment of the TA
needs of State VR agencies and SRCs;
RSA’s monitoring reviews required by
section 107 of the Act; and RSA’s
review of annual VR State plans. Based
on this information, we have
determined that it is important to
require applicants to demonstrate that
they have expertise or access to subjectmatter experts in at least these areas in
order to provide effective TA and CE
under this priority. The priority requires
an applicant to describe how it will
access expertise in at least these 12
areas, but it does not require the
applicant to have experts on staff in all
12 areas. Thus, we disagree that this
requirement will be too costly for TACE
center grantees.
We recognize that other areas of need
may arise through the needs assessment
and do not wish to limit the areas of
expertise to those identified in the
priority. Therefore, we have changed the
priority to clarify that each TACE center
must have expertise or access to subject
matter experts in, at a minimum, the 12
areas of expertise identified in the third
paragraph of the priority.
Finally, nothing in the priority
prevents a TACE center from consulting
with the State VR agency to select its
experts.
Changes: We have revised the third
paragraph of the priority to clarify that
each TACE center must have expertise
or access to subject-matter experts in at
least the 12 areas identified.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the TACE centers should focus on other
areas of expertise, such as negotiation
skills, the psychological adjustment of
individuals to acquired disabilities,
leadership development, and placement
training. Another commenter stated that
the TACE centers should increase their
knowledge of unserved and underserved
populations.
Discussion: The priority requires the
applicant to describe how it will
address the 12 specified areas of
expertise. Nothing in the priority
prohibits applicants from proposing to
develop or provide expertise in
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32013
additional areas, such as negotiation
skills, psychological adjustment to
disabilities, leadership development,
placement training, and the needs of
unserved or underserved populations.
We agree that expertise in these and
other areas may arise from the needs
assessments and have revised the
priority to make clear that applicants
may propose to develop or provide
expertise in other areas.
Changes: We have revised the third
paragraph of the priority to clarify that
each TACE center must have expertise
or access to subject-matter experts in at
least the 12 areas identified.
Comment: Three commenters stated
that each TACE center’s annual work
plan should remain flexible and
responsive to individual State’s needs.
Discussion: We agree that each TACE
center’s annual work plan should
remain flexible and responsive to
individual State’s needs. We anticipate
that the annual needs assessment, with
input from the TACE center’s advisory
committee, will ensure that each TACE
center’s annual work plan will be
responsive to individual State’s needs
given that the annual work plan must
consider the TA and CE needs identified
in the annual needs assessment.
Moreover, because the needs
assessments are conducted and the work
plans are established annually, they can
easily be altered from year to year.
Finally, the annual work plan can be
revised in consultation with RSA if
emerging needs are identified by the
TACE center during that year of the
project period.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked
whether the TACE centers could
coordinate multi-State teams and
regional meetings as is done by the
current RCEP grantees.
Discussion: There is nothing in the
priority that would prohibit a TACE
center from coordinating multi-State
teams or regional meetings, if it
determines that this activity is
appropriate based on the results of the
TACE center’s annual needs assessment
and work plan.
Changes: None.
Advisory Committee Members
Comment: Eight commenters objected
to the Department’s intent to publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
to change the current requirement for an
advisory committee to include members
of minority groups. The commenters
objected to the change that would
require that an advisory committee
include individuals who are
knowledgeable about the special needs
of individuals with disabilities from
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
32014
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
diverse groups, including minority
groups, because the new requirement
would not ensure the participation of
members of minority groups. One
commenter suggested that members of
the advisory committees include
individuals with disabilities who are
members of minority groups.
Discussion: Members of minority
groups are listed in 34 CFR 385.40 as
one of the categories of mandatory
participants on rehabilitation training
advisory committees. As the note to
paragraph (3) of the priority indicates,
the Department intends to publish an
NPRM to amend 34 CFR 385.40, which
would remove the requirement that an
applicant include members of minority
groups on all project advisory
committees and add a requirement that
an applicant include individuals who
are knowledgeable about the special
needs of individuals with disabilities
from diverse groups, including minority
groups. This proposed change is
consistent with the Supreme Court
ruling in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v.
˜
Pena (515 U.S. 200 (1995)) in which the
Court held that all racial classifications
are constitutional only if they are
narrowly tailored measures that further
compelling governmental interests. The
proposed change is a race-neutral
alternative that achieves the intent of
the Department that project advisory
committees include individuals who are
familiar with the needs of individuals
with disabilities from diverse groups,
while ensuring compliance with the
Supreme Court’s decision in Adarand.
Changes: None.
Comment: Eleven commenters
requested that various entities be
required members of each TACE
center’s advisory committee. The
entities that commenters recommended
be added include: Representatives from
State VR agencies (six commenters);
representatives from agency partners
(four commenters); and current or
former recipients of VR services (one
commenter). One commenter stated that
State VR agency representatives should
comprise 50 percent of the membership
of each TACE center’s advisory
committee. Another commenter stated
that individuals with disabilities should
comprise the majority of the members of
each TACE center’s advisory committee.
Discussion: The required composition
of an advisory committee for projects
funded under the Rehabilitation
Training Program, which includes the
RCEP program, is defined in 34 CFR
385.40. The priority also requires that
each TACE center advisory committee
include members from Independent
Living Training and Technical
Assistance centers. We believe that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
adding a requirement to invite a
representative from each State VR
agency in a TACE center’s region would
increase the opportunities for State VR
agencies to express their needs and
provide input into the TACE center’s
annual work plans. Otherwise, we
believe the composition of the advisory
committee as specified in 34 CFR 385.40
and this priority is sufficiently broad to
enable all appropriate constituents to be
represented, including representatives
from agency partners and former
recipients of VR services. Nothing in the
priority or applicable regulations
prohibits an applicant from proposing
additional members for its advisory
committee.
Changes: We have modified
paragraph (3) of the priority to require
each TACE center to invite a
representative from each State VR
agency in its region to participate on its
advisory committee.
Comment: One commenter asked if
the role of the advisory committee is to
provide advice to the TACE center or to
set policy for the TACE center.
Discussion: The priority does not
specify a policy-making role for the
advisory committee. It simply requires
that the advisory committee be
established to provide input on the
TACE center’s annual needs assessment.
We anticipate that the annual needs
assessment will be an important source
of input to each TACE center’s annual
work plan. Nothing in the priority
requires center policies to be
determined by the advisory committee,
although this function could be
proposed in the application.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the TACE centers’ advisory committees,
which, by definition, are regional in
nature, would not take into account
differences in States’ needs and
recommended that the TACE centers be
required to have State advisory
committees.
Discussion: The goal of TACE center
advisory committees is to provide an
opportunity for State VR agencies and
agency partners to provide information
about their TA and CE needs. For
reasons of efficiency, the priority
requires only one advisory committee
for each TACE center. However, as
noted elsewhere in this discussion, we
have modified the priority to require
each TACE center to invite a
representative from each State VR
agency served by the TACE center to
participate on its advisory committee.
We believe that this addresses the
commenter’s concern by allowing
regional advisory committees to be
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
informed about and take into account
State differences.
Changes: None.
Performance Measures
Comment: Four commenters stated
that the goal of improving the quality
and quantity of VR outcomes is not
adequately defined in the priority, and
one commenter stated that the TACE
centers should not be expected to
contribute to increasing VR outcomes.
Another four commenters stated that the
performance measures identified for the
program in paragraph (7) of the priority
should be better defined and more
objective.
Discussion: The goal of improving the
quality and quantity of VR outcomes is
an expected outcome of the provision of
TA and CE to the State VR agency and
agency partners. However, the
Department does not intend to judge the
performance of the TACE centers on the
basis of changes in VR outcomes. The
Department will establish an
independent review panel to evaluate
the performance of the TACE centers.
The areas to be evaluated by the
independent review panel—quality,
relevance, and usefulness—are those
areas typically examined by the
Department in assessing the
performance of TA activities supported
by the Department. The Department will
determine the methodology for this
review, including the objective criteria
to be used by the panel in rating the TA
and CE services in these three areas.
Changes: None.
Other Comments
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the priority allow consortia
models—that is, models in which a
TACE center would be operated by two
or more entities, such as the National
Rehabilitation Leadership Institute.
Discussion: Although the priority
does not specifically address the
establishment of consortia models for a
TACE center, nothing in the priority
would prohibit an applicant from
proposing such a model.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the TACE centers should have explicit
responsibility for disseminating
evidence-based knowledge and best
practices.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that it would be advantageous to have
the TACE centers disseminate evidencebased knowledge, including information
on best practices to the extent that it is
available. We have modified paragraph
(5) of the priority to reflect this change.
Changes: We have modified
paragraph (5) of the priority to indicate
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
that the TA provided by the TACE
centers should be evidence-based to the
extent possible.
Comment: Four commenters
expressed concern about the timing of
this priority and the fact that the TACE
centers would be replacing current
RCEP grantees that have not completed
their five-year funding cycle. Two
commenters stated that it creates a poor
precedent not to continue grants that are
in the middle of a five-year funding
cycle, and one commenter stated that
RSA is moving forward with this change
too quickly.
Discussion: The Department has
carefully considered the timing of this
priority and believes it is the
appropriate time to make this change.
Seven of the current 11 RCEP centers
that primarily serve State VR agencies
will have completed their five-year
project period, and three of the RCEP
centers will have completed the fourth
year of their grant prior to the
establishment of the new TACE centers
on October 1, 2008. In addition, the TA
needs of the VR system have increased
significantly, based on an assessment of
the TA needs of State VR agencies and
SRCs, RSA’s monitoring reviews as
required by section 107 of the Act, and
RSA’s review of annual State plans
submitted by State VR agencies as a
condition of Federal funding. The
purpose of this priority is to ensure that
State VR agencies and their agency
partners receive the TA and CE they
need to improve their performance. The
Department believes that it is in the best
interest of individuals with disabilities
and their families that this change be
made at this time.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on internal
departmental review, we determined
that it was not appropriate to include
the phrase ‘‘as applicable’’ in the first
sentence of paragraph (2) of the priority.
We expect the annual needs assessment
to identify the TA and CE needs of all
State VR agencies and agency partners
in the region served by the TACE center.
Changes: We have deleted the phrase
‘‘as applicable’’ from the end of the first
sentence in paragraph (2) of the priority.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on internal
departmental review, we determined
that ‘‘agency partners’’ was not
adequately defined in the priority.
Agency partners include all agencies
with which the State VR agency
cooperates in providing VR and other
rehabilitation services.
Change: We have added language to
the first paragraph of the priority to
clarify that the term ‘‘agency partners’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
refers to all agencies with which the
State VR agencies served by the TACE
center cooperate in providing VR and
other rehabilitation services.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use this priority, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
When inviting applications we designate the
priority as absolute, competitive preference,
or invitational. The effect of each type of
priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority we consider only applications that
meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a
competitive preference priority we give
competitive preference to an application by
either (1) awarding additional points,
depending on how well or the extent to
which the application meets the competitive
priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the
competitive priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the
priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational
priority we are particularly interested in
applications that meet the invitational
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the invitational
priority a competitive or absolute preference
over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Priority:
Regional Technical Assistance and
Continuing Education Centers
The Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services
establishes a priority to create 10
regional Technical Assistance and
Continuing Education (TACE) centers to
provide (1) technical assistance (TA) to
State vocational rehabilitation (VR)
agencies and agencies with which State
VR agencies cooperate in providing VR
and other rehabilitation services (agency
partners) to improve services required
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, and (2) continuing education
(CE) to employees of State VR agencies
and agency partners. For purposes of
this priority, the term ‘‘agency partners’’
refers to all agencies with which the
State VR agencies served by the TACE
center cooperate in providing VR and
other rehabilitation services.
Under this priority, the TACE centers
must contribute to the following
outcomes: improved quality of VR
services, increased effectiveness and
efficiency of State VR agencies in
delivering VR services, and improved
quantity and quality of VR employment
outcomes for individuals with
disabilities. The TACE centers must
contribute to these outcomes by
providing TA and CE, either directly or
through contract, to employees of State
VR agencies and agency partners on
topics that are identified jointly by the
Rehabilitation Services Administration
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32015
(RSA) and each TACE center’s advisory
committee and included in the TACE
center’s annual work plan.
Under this priority, applicants must
demonstrate their ability to respond
rapidly to a broad range of TA and CE
needs. Applicants must provide
evidence in their applications that they
have expertise, or access to subjectmatter experts with experience, in
conducting TA and CE in at least the
following areas: Improvement of State
VR agencies’ service delivery; practices
and interventions related to specific VR
populations; quality assurance; case
management at the administrative and
counselor level; the use of assistive
technology to achieve employment
goals; personnel management (e.g., staff
retention strategies); fiscal management;
data management; communication skills
development; development of
individualized plans for employment;
development of VR State plans; and
strategic planning.
Under this priority, each TACE center
must—
1. Establish an annual work plan, in
coordination with and subject to the
approval of RSA, describing activities
that it will conduct to assist State VR
agencies to accomplish the goals
identified in their VR State plans and to
achieve other performance and
compliance goals identified by RSA’s
monitoring reports. The annual work
plan must identify the nature and scope,
including delivery means and methods,
of the TA and CE to be provided by the
TACE center and consider, but not
necessarily address, the TA and CE
needs of State VR agencies and agency
partners identified in the TACE center’s
annual needs assessment;
2. Conduct an annual needs
assessment to identify the TA and CE
needs of State VR agencies and agency
partners in its region. Each TACE center
must base its annual needs assessment
on a thorough review of VR State plans,
on-site monitoring reports and annual
review reports issued by RSA, other
performance and compliance
information available from RSA and
State VR agencies, and other data, as
appropriate;
3. Establish a center advisory
committee to provide input on the
annual needs assessments conducted by
the TACE center in accordance with
paragraph (2) of this priority. In
addition to the requirements in 34 CFR
385.40 for mandatory members of the
center advisory committee, the
committee must invite representatives
from each of the State VR agencies in
the region served by the TACE center
and from RSA’s Independent Living
Training and Technical Assistance
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
32016
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
grantees to serve on this committee.
RSA representatives will serve as exofficio members.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Note: Members of minority groups are
listed in 34 CFR 385.40 as one of the
categories of mandatory participants on
rehabilitation training advisory committees.
However, the Department intends to publish
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
amend 34 CFR 385.40, which would remove
the requirement that an applicant include
members of minority groups on all project
advisory committees. The NPRM would add
a requirement that an applicant include
individuals who are knowledgeable about the
special needs of individuals with disabilities
from diverse groups, including minority
groups. The purpose of this change would be
to more clearly reflect the Department’s
intent that project advisory committees
include individuals who are familiar with the
needs of individuals with disabilities from
diverse groups, rather than individuals who
are just members of such groups;
4. Serve as an observer in RSA’s
monitoring of State VR agencies in its
region by participating, at a minimum,
in each State VR agency’s monitoring
exit conference in order to gain a
thorough understanding of each State
VR agency’s TA and CE needs;
5. Collaborate and coordinate with
other TACE centers to provide TA and
CE as efficiently as possible to
employees of State VR agencies and
agency partners that have similar needs.
TA should be evidence-based, to the
extent possible, and include information
on best practices to the extent evidence
or research is available.
6. Coordinate services with other
entities that provide TA and CE to State
VR agencies and agency partners,
including, but not limited to,
Independent Living Training and
Technical Assistance grantees and
Assistive Technology projects funded by
RSA; and
7. Evaluate how well each TA and CE
activity provided by the TACE center
meets a targeted area of need (e.g., the
improvement of State VR agencies’
service delivery; practices and
interventions related to specific VR
populations; quality assurance), based
on goals and objectives established for
the activity in the TACE center’s annual
work plan. Each TACE center must
provide data on each TA and CE activity
it conducts, including information on
the topic of the activity, the number and
types of personnel and agencies
participating in the activity, participant
evaluations of the effectiveness of the
activity, and any other data required by
the Department. Each TACE center must
include the results of its evaluation in
its annual performance report. RSA will
convene an independent review panel
to evaluate the work of the TACE
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
centers. The independent review panel
will use the following performance
measures: (a) The percentage of TA and
CE services provided by the TACE
center that are deemed to be of high
quality; (b) the percentage of TA and CE
services provided by the TACE center
that are deemed to be of high relevance
to State VR policies or practices; and (c)
the percentage of TA and CE services
provided by the TACE center that are
deemed to be useful in improving State
VR agency policies or practices.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of final priority (NFP) has
been reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms
of the order, we have assessed the
potential costs and benefits of this
regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with
the NFP are those resulting from
statutory requirements and those we
have determined as necessary for
administering this program effectively
and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and
benefits—both quantitative and
qualitative—of this NFP, we have
determined that the benefits of the final
priority justify the costs.
We have also determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
We summarized the costs and benefits
in the NPP.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR parts 385 and 389.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well
as all other Department of Education
documents published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet
at the following site: https://www.ed.gov/
news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–
888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
DC, area at (202) 512–1530.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Number 84.264A Rehabilitation Continuing
Education Program)
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772.
Dated: June 2, 2008.
Tracy R. Justesen,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E8–12636 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services; Overview
Information; Technical Assistance and
Dissemination To Improve Services
and Results for Children With
Disabilities—Technical Assistance
Coordination Center; Notice Inviting
Applications for New Awards for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2008
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Number: 84.326Z.
DATES:
Applications Available: June 5, 2008.
Deadline for Transmittal of
Applications: July 7, 2008.
Deadline for Intergovernmental
Review: September 3, 2008.
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the Technical Assistance and
Dissemination to Improve Services and
Results for Children With Disabilities
program is to promote academic
achievement and to improve results for
children with disabilities by providing
technical assistance (TA), supporting
model demonstration projects,
disseminating useful information, and
implementing activities that are
supported by scientifically based
research.
Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR
75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from
allowable activities specified in the
statute or otherwise authorized in the
statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of
the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et
seq.).
Absolute Priority: For FY 2008, this
priority is an absolute priority. Under 34
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 109 (Thursday, June 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32010-32016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12636]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Rehabilitation Training--Rehabilitation Continuing Education
Program
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Rehabilitation
Continuing Education Program (RCEP) to fund regional Technical
Assistance and Continuing Education (TACE) centers. The Assistant
Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY)
2008 and later years. We take this action to improve the quantity and
quality of employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities
through enhanced technical assistance (TA) and continuing education
(CE) for State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies and agency
partners that cooperate with State VR agencies in providing VR and
other rehabilitation services (e.g., Centers for Independent Living
(CILs), Client Assistance Programs (CAPs), and Community Rehabilitation
Programs (CRPs)).
DATES: Effective Date: This priority is effective July 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Marschall, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., Room 5053, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7429 or via Internet:
Christine.Marschall@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through this priority, the Department
revises the current structure of the RCEP, which includes 21 regional
RCEP centers--11 centers that serve primarily State VR agencies and 10
centers that serve primarily CRPs. Instead of funding these two
separate sets of centers, this priority supports 10 regional Technical
Assistance and Continuing Education (TACE) centers to serve State VR
agencies and agency partners that cooperate with State VR agencies in
providing VR and other rehabilitation services. CRPs are among the
agency partners that the TACE centers are expected to serve. While the
current RCEP centers provide CE and limited TA to entities, TACE
centers will provide both TA and CE as necessary to respond to the
needs of the State VR agencies and agency partners served by the TACE
centers.
We published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for this program
in the Federal Register on January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5179). The NPP
included a discussion of the issues associated with modifying the RCEP
structure. The background section of the NPP explained that the results
of the Department's Rehabilitation Services Administration's (RSA)
program monitoring required by section 107 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, and the needs assessments conducted by current RCEP
grantees indicated the need to integrate and coordinate services
provided to State VR agencies and agency partners that cooperate with
State VR agencies in providing VR and other rehabilitation services,
including CRPs. The NPP also explained that the modified RCEP structure
would reduce administrative costs by combining the functions of the two
sets of centers and that public comments on the Rehabilitation Training
Program, solicited through a notice in the Federal Register (72 FR
9942), generally supported the role of the RCEP in providing TA and CE
and the provision of these services through a regional model. The final
priority announced in this notice contains differences from the
priority proposed in the NPP.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the NPP, 79 parties submitted
comments on the proposed priority. An analysis of the comments and of
any changes in the priority since publication of the NPP follows.
Multiple commenters raised a number of similar issues; therefore,
we group major issues by subject area. Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes and suggested changes the law does
not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority.
Agency Partners
Comment: Fifty-four commenters requested that specific entities be
added to the list of agency partners with whom State VR agencies
cooperate to provide VR and other rehabilitative services. Various
commenters recommended that the following entities be added: American
Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Service programs (30 commenters);
State Rehabilitation Councils (SRCs) (nine commenters); Migrant and
Seasonal Farmworker programs (seven commenters); CILs (six commenters);
Statewide Independent Living Councils (one commenter); and State
agencies such as developmental disability, mental illness, and
substance abuse agencies (one commenter).
Discussion: The agency partners included in the priority are
examples of agencies with which State VR agencies cooperate to provide
VR and other rehabilitative services; the list of agencies provided is
not intended to be exhaustive. The entities suggested by the commenters
could be agency partners--that is, if a State VR agency cooperates with
any one of these entities to provide VR and other rehabilitative
services, that entity would be considered an agency partner for
purposes of this priority.
Changes: None.
Consolidation of the Regional Centers
Comment: Twenty-three commenters stated that CRPs will not be
served adequately under the modified RCEP structure, and six commenters
stated that the TA and CE needs of CRPs are significantly different
from the needs of State VR agencies.
Discussion: This priority focuses on the needs of State VR agencies
and their agency partners. RSA values the contribution of the CRPs in
the VR service system and recognizes that CRPs may have TA and CE needs
that are different from those of the State VR agency and its other
agency partners. RSA expects that the needs of CRPs, along with the
needs of other agency
[[Page 32011]]
partners, will be reflected in the annual needs assessment that will
serve as the foundation for each TACE center's work plan.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters asked whether the 10 TACE centers will
provide the employment certificate series training that the RCEP
centers serving CRPs currently provide.
Discussion: The TA and CE provided by each TACE center will be
determined by each TACE center with input from RSA after the TACE
center conducts an annual needs assessment of the State VR agency and
agency partners in the TACE center's region. While the TACE centers are
not required to provide the employment certificate series training
referred to by the commenter, nothing in the priority prohibits a TACE
center from doing so if it meets a need identified by the State VR
agency or its agency partners.
Changes: None.
Comment: Twenty-three commenters stated that the TACE centers
should balance the time and resources devoted to address TA needs, on
the one hand, and CE needs, on the other. Twelve commenters stated that
the proposed priority appears to emphasize TA more than CE.
Discussion: We do not agree that the priority places a greater
emphasis on TA than CE. The priority clearly states that each TACE
center must conduct an annual needs assessment to identify the TA and
CE needs of State VR agencies and agency partners. Based on the annual
needs assessment, each TACE center will determine and describe in its
work plan the distribution of resources that will be devoted to TA and
CE activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the 10 TACE centers
will not be able to handle the high volume of TA and CE requests as
well as the 21 currently funded RCEP centers.
Discussion: We expect the 10 TACE centers to be able to handle the
high volume of TA and CE requests as well as the 21 currently funded
RCEP centers because we believe that these 10 centers will provide TA
and CE more effectively and efficiently than the current 21 RCEP
centers. Because each region will have one TACE center to serve all
State VR agencies and agency partners in that region and because RSA
will coordinate across the TACE centers on a national level, the
modified structure will facilitate sharing materials and information,
and coordinating TA and CE activities, as appropriate, within and
across regions. The annual needs assessment and work plan requirements
in the priority will also help focus resources more effectively. We
believe that the modified structure of the program will decrease
duplication of effort and enhance coordination between State VR
agencies and their agency partners. In addition, fewer resources will
be expended on administrative costs because there will be one center in
each region rather than two.
Changes: None.
Comment: Six commenters expressed concern that the relationships
that have been developed over time among the current RCEP centers,
State VR agencies, and agency partners will be lost in the modified
RCEP structure supported by the TACE center priority.
Discussion: The modified structure of the RCEP program is designed
to ensure collaboration between the TACE center, the State VR agency
and agency partners served, and RSA. We believe that this collaboration
will result in increased coordination of TA and CE provided to State VR
agencies and agency partners and enhance relationships among the TACE
centers, State VR agencies, and agency partners. Further, we believe
that each TACE center's advisory committee will provide an opportunity
for the advisory committee members who represent State VR agencies,
among others, to develop and sustain relationships.
Changes: None.
Funding
Comment: Eighteen commenters stated that requiring the TACE centers
to take on more TA responsibilities than the current RCEP centers will
require more funds than those allocated to the current RCEP centers.
Fourteen commenters stated that the same amount of funds currently
provided to the 21 RCEP grantees should be provided to the 10 TACE
centers in order for the new RCEP structure to be effective.
Discussion: The estimated level of funding for the TACE centers
will be included in the notice inviting applications for new awards. We
do not anticipate maintaining the same level of funds for the TACE
centers that has been available under the current structure of the RCEP
program. One of the major reasons for the changes in the RCEP program
is to facilitate close coordination within each TACE center and among
the TACE centers in order to maximize the effective use of funds to
meet the TA and CE needs of the State VR agencies and their agency
partners. To help ensure collaboration among TACE centers, RSA will
coordinate activities of the TACE centers at the national level. We
believe that the increased coordination within each TACE center and
across centers will result in significant administrative efficiencies
that will offset some of the expected funding differential.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters asked how available funds for the RCEP
program will be allocated and whether the geographic size of regions
will be considered when funds are allocated to the TACE centers.
Discussion: All TACE centers will receive the same base funding
amount. Additional funding will be provided to individual TACE centers
based on the number of State VR agency staff in the region each TACE
center serves, as identified in the most recently published data from
the RSA-2, the Annual VR Program/Cost Report. We will not base our
funding allocations on the geographic size of regions because we do not
believe that the size of a region alone should affect the level of
services provided--since there are multiple ways to conduct TA and
provide CE in addition to face-to-face meetings, such as video
conferencing and Webcasts.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the majority of funds provided
to the TACE centers should be used to address TA and CE needs of State
VR agencies. Another commenter asked whether the TACE centers would
share staff training costs with the State VR agencies they serve as
they do under the current RCEP structure.
Discussion: The use of funds for TA and CE will be determined by
each TACE center based on the TACE center's annual needs assessment
(developed with input from its advisory committee) and the TACE
center's annual work plan (developed with input from RSA). Nothing in
the priority prohibits the majority of funds provided to the TACE
centers from being used to address TA and CE needs of State VR
agencies. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to require
all TACE centers to use the majority of their funding under this
program to address these needs. With regard to sharing training costs,
while nothing in this priority requires a TACE center to share staff
training costs with the State VR agencies it serves, nothing in the
priority prohibits the TACE center from doing so.
Changes: None.
RSA Involvement With the TACE Centers
Comment: Twenty-eight commenters expressed concern that the
priority gives
[[Page 32012]]
RSA too much control over the decision-making of the TACE centers and
that, as a result, each TACE center's needs assessment and annual work
plan will be dictated by RSA and not adequately consider the needs of
the State VR agency and its agency partners.
Discussion: Under the priority, the TACE centers must work in
consultation with RSA to establish their annual work plans, which
describe the activities the TACE centers will carry out during each
year of their project. We believe that this level of RSA involvement in
and approval of the work plan is critical to ensure that the TACE
centers are familiar with relevant information from RSA's State
monitoring activities and to facilitate alignment of the TA and CE
provided by the TACE centers with the VR service system in each State
and across States. Given the need to ensure coordination of the work of
the TACE centers at the national level, we believe it is important for
RSA to approve all TACE center annual work plans. While the TACE model
provides RSA with the authority to approve each center's work plan, RSA
recognizes that, in order for the TACE centers to be effective, the
TACE centers must work with the State VR agencies and agency partners
to ensure more integrated decision-making with regard to the needs of
State VR agencies and agency partners within and across the regions.
Changes: Priority paragraph (1) has been amended to clarify that
each TACE center must establish an annual work plan, in coordination
with and subject to the approval of RSA.
Comment: Nine commenters stated that TA should be RSA's
responsibility, not the TACE centers' responsibility. One commenter
stated that there is a need to explain the difference between the TA
provided by the TACE centers and that provided by RSA.
Discussion: RSA will utilize the TACE centers to supplement the TA
it provides. In light of RSA's program monitoring and the needs
assessments conducted by current RCEP grantees that indicate a
significant need for TA, we believe that supplementing RSA's provision
of TA is beneficial to State VR agencies and agency partners, and
ultimately individuals with disabilities receiving services from State
VR agencies and agency partners. RSA--not the TACE centers--will
provide TA on the interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, and its regulations. TACE centers will provide TA to State VR
agencies and agency partners to assist them in improving their
performance in areas such as program management and delivery of VR
services to increase and improve employment outcomes for individuals
with disabilities.
Changes: None.
Needs Assessment and Work Plan
Comment: The comments of 26 individuals indicated that there was
confusion about the relationship between the annual needs assessment
and the annual work plan, as well as the role of a TACE center's
advisory committee.
Discussion: The proposed priority specified that each TACE center
would conduct an annual needs assessment, with input from its advisory
committee, and develop an annual work plan, with input from RSA.
However, we agree that the proposed priority was not clear about how
the results of the needs assessment would be used to develop the annual
work plan. We intend that the annual work plan, developed in
cooperation with RSA and approved by RSA, will take into consideration
the TA and CE needs of State VR agencies and agency partners that are
identified in the TACE center's annual needs assessment. We do not
expect each annual work plan to address all of the needs identified in
the needs assessment. We understand that, due to limited resources,
each TACE center will prioritize needs to be addressed in the annual
work plan.
Changes: We have modified paragraph (1) of the priority to make
clear that annual work plans must consider, but not necessarily
address, the TA and CE needs of State VR agencies and agency partners
identified in the TACE center's annual needs assessment.
Comment: Four commenters stated that the needs assessment should
consider what the State VR agencies and agency partners say they need
and not be based solely on RSA-generated data. Eighteen commenters
stated that the State VR agencies in a TACE center's region should be
consulted in the development of the TACE center's needs assessment and
that a representative from State VR agencies in the region should be a
member of a center's advisory committee. Discussion: As specified in
paragraph (2) of the priority, each TACE center's annual needs
assessment must be based on the needs of State VR agencies and agency
partners in its region. The priority lists several sources of
information that will be important for each TACE center to consider in
its annual needs assessment, including information from VR State plans,
on-site monitoring reports, and annual review reports issued by RSA. A
TACE center's needs assessment, therefore, could not be based solely on
RSA-generated data. In addition, paragraph (3) of the priority requires
each TACE center to solicit input from its advisory committee members
in developing the needs assessment and to use this information in
developing its annual work plan.
Members of the advisory committee include, at a minimum, the
entities listed in 34 CFR 385.40 as well as those additional entities
listed in paragraph (3) of the priority. We believe that adding a
representative from each State VR agency in a TACE center's region will
increase opportunities for State VR agencies to inform the TACE center
about their needs and to provide input into a TACE center's annual work
plan. For this reason, we are modifying the priority to require each
TACE center to invite a representative from the State VR agencies in
the TACE center's region to participate on its advisory committee.
Changes: Paragraph (3) of the priority has been modified to require
a TACE center to invite a representative from each State VR agency in
its region to participate on its advisory committee.
Comment: Fifteen commenters stated that basing the needs assessment
on VR State plans will result in a reactive and deficiency-based needs
assessment (i.e., one that intends only to remediate skills identified
as ineffective through RSA monitoring), rather than a proactive needs
assessment (i.e., one that considers the development of new
professional skills of staff as a valuable activity). One commenter
stated that TA should be focused on VR State plans.
Discussion: VR State plans document the agency's goals and
priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, including the strategies that
the agency will undertake to achieve them. Using the VR State plans as
one source of information in the needs assessment process enhances the
needs assessments' relevance to State VR agencies' goals and
priorities.
It was not the intent of the priority that the needs assessment be
based solely on VR State plans. These plans are listed as one of the
data sources to be reviewed when conducting the needs assessment.
Paragraph (2) of the priority lists several other sources of data that
must be considered in the annual needs assessment, including on-site
monitoring reports and annual review reports issued by RSA, other
performance and compliance information from RSA and State VR agencies,
and other data, as appropriate.
We also do not intend for the needs assessment in this priority to
be a deficiency-based model. Instead, we expect that the needs
assessment process will be guided by each TACE center's advisory
committee to ensure
[[Page 32013]]
that TA and CE are provided both to remediate deficits and to support
new professional development. Each TACE center will make collaborative
decisions with RSA about the TA and CE to be provided through the
annual work plan based on the needs identified using these multiple
data sources.
Changes: None.
Comment: Eleven commenters disagreed with the requirement that TACE
center representatives attend State VR agency monitoring exit
conferences conducted by RSA. The commenters stated that the presence
of TACE center staff would give the impression that the TACE centers
have monitoring responsibilities. Three commenters stated that the exit
conference is the wrong time to have the TACE centers involved in the
monitoring process because the process is incomplete at that time;
instead, the commenters recommended that the TACE centers be involved
after the issuance of a State's final monitoring report.
Discussion: The priority does not assign monitoring
responsibilities to the TACE centers. Rather, the priority requires
that the TACE centers serve as observers in RSA's monitoring of State
VR agencies in their region by participating, at a minimum, in each
State VR agency's monitoring exit conference in order to gain a
thorough understanding of each State VR agency's TA and CE needs. It is
important to retain the requirement that TACE center representatives
participate in State VR agency monitoring exit conferences because
these exit conferences provide significant information about the TA and
CE needs of the State VR agency and agency partners. Requiring that
TACE center staff participate in the exit conferences is worthwhile
because of the early, additional insight the TACE centers will gain.
Once the final report is issued, the TACE centers will consider the
report's recommendations in their needs assessment and in the
development of their work plan.
Changes: None.
Comment: Five commenters stated that, given limited funding, a
single center couldn't be expected to have expertise in the 12 areas
identified in the third paragraph of the priority. Two commenters
stated that the 12 areas in which a TACE center must demonstrate
expertise focus on the needs of the State VR agency and do not include
areas that apply to agency partners. One commenter stated that the
State VR agency should have input on the subject matter experts
selected by its regional TACE center to provide TA and CE.
Discussion: One of the purposes of the TACE centers is to ensure
that State VR agencies and agency partners receive the TA and CE they
need to improve program performance. The expertise areas identified are
included to address the needs of agency partners in the activities the
agency partners undertake in cooperation with the State VR agency in
the provision of VR and other rehabilitation services authorized under
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 12 expertise
areas included in the third paragraph of the priority were identified
based on the following: An assessment of the TA needs of State VR
agencies and SRCs; RSA's monitoring reviews required by section 107 of
the Act; and RSA's review of annual VR State plans. Based on this
information, we have determined that it is important to require
applicants to demonstrate that they have expertise or access to
subject-matter experts in at least these areas in order to provide
effective TA and CE under this priority. The priority requires an
applicant to describe how it will access expertise in at least these 12
areas, but it does not require the applicant to have experts on staff
in all 12 areas. Thus, we disagree that this requirement will be too
costly for TACE center grantees.
We recognize that other areas of need may arise through the needs
assessment and do not wish to limit the areas of expertise to those
identified in the priority. Therefore, we have changed the priority to
clarify that each TACE center must have expertise or access to subject
matter experts in, at a minimum, the 12 areas of expertise identified
in the third paragraph of the priority.
Finally, nothing in the priority prevents a TACE center from
consulting with the State VR agency to select its experts.
Changes: We have revised the third paragraph of the priority to
clarify that each TACE center must have expertise or access to subject-
matter experts in at least the 12 areas identified.
Comment: One commenter stated that the TACE centers should focus on
other areas of expertise, such as negotiation skills, the psychological
adjustment of individuals to acquired disabilities, leadership
development, and placement training. Another commenter stated that the
TACE centers should increase their knowledge of unserved and
underserved populations.
Discussion: The priority requires the applicant to describe how it
will address the 12 specified areas of expertise. Nothing in the
priority prohibits applicants from proposing to develop or provide
expertise in additional areas, such as negotiation skills,
psychological adjustment to disabilities, leadership development,
placement training, and the needs of unserved or underserved
populations. We agree that expertise in these and other areas may arise
from the needs assessments and have revised the priority to make clear
that applicants may propose to develop or provide expertise in other
areas.
Changes: We have revised the third paragraph of the priority to
clarify that each TACE center must have expertise or access to subject-
matter experts in at least the 12 areas identified.
Comment: Three commenters stated that each TACE center's annual
work plan should remain flexible and responsive to individual State's
needs.
Discussion: We agree that each TACE center's annual work plan
should remain flexible and responsive to individual State's needs. We
anticipate that the annual needs assessment, with input from the TACE
center's advisory committee, will ensure that each TACE center's annual
work plan will be responsive to individual State's needs given that the
annual work plan must consider the TA and CE needs identified in the
annual needs assessment. Moreover, because the needs assessments are
conducted and the work plans are established annually, they can easily
be altered from year to year. Finally, the annual work plan can be
revised in consultation with RSA if emerging needs are identified by
the TACE center during that year of the project period.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the TACE centers could
coordinate multi-State teams and regional meetings as is done by the
current RCEP grantees.
Discussion: There is nothing in the priority that would prohibit a
TACE center from coordinating multi-State teams or regional meetings,
if it determines that this activity is appropriate based on the results
of the TACE center's annual needs assessment and work plan.
Changes: None.
Advisory Committee Members
Comment: Eight commenters objected to the Department's intent to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to change the current
requirement for an advisory committee to include members of minority
groups. The commenters objected to the change that would require that
an advisory committee include individuals who are knowledgeable about
the special needs of individuals with disabilities from
[[Page 32014]]
diverse groups, including minority groups, because the new requirement
would not ensure the participation of members of minority groups. One
commenter suggested that members of the advisory committees include
individuals with disabilities who are members of minority groups.
Discussion: Members of minority groups are listed in 34 CFR 385.40
as one of the categories of mandatory participants on rehabilitation
training advisory committees. As the note to paragraph (3) of the
priority indicates, the Department intends to publish an NPRM to amend
34 CFR 385.40, which would remove the requirement that an applicant
include members of minority groups on all project advisory committees
and add a requirement that an applicant include individuals who are
knowledgeable about the special needs of individuals with disabilities
from diverse groups, including minority groups. This proposed change is
consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in Adarand Constructors, Inc.
v. Pena (515 U.S. 200 (1995)) in which the Court held that all racial
classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored
measures that further compelling governmental interests. The proposed
change is a race-neutral alternative that achieves the intent of the
Department that project advisory committees include individuals who are
familiar with the needs of individuals with disabilities from diverse
groups, while ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in
Adarand.
Changes: None.
Comment: Eleven commenters requested that various entities be
required members of each TACE center's advisory committee. The entities
that commenters recommended be added include: Representatives from
State VR agencies (six commenters); representatives from agency
partners (four commenters); and current or former recipients of VR
services (one commenter). One commenter stated that State VR agency
representatives should comprise 50 percent of the membership of each
TACE center's advisory committee. Another commenter stated that
individuals with disabilities should comprise the majority of the
members of each TACE center's advisory committee.
Discussion: The required composition of an advisory committee for
projects funded under the Rehabilitation Training Program, which
includes the RCEP program, is defined in 34 CFR 385.40. The priority
also requires that each TACE center advisory committee include members
from Independent Living Training and Technical Assistance centers. We
believe that adding a requirement to invite a representative from each
State VR agency in a TACE center's region would increase the
opportunities for State VR agencies to express their needs and provide
input into the TACE center's annual work plans. Otherwise, we believe
the composition of the advisory committee as specified in 34 CFR 385.40
and this priority is sufficiently broad to enable all appropriate
constituents to be represented, including representatives from agency
partners and former recipients of VR services. Nothing in the priority
or applicable regulations prohibits an applicant from proposing
additional members for its advisory committee.
Changes: We have modified paragraph (3) of the priority to require
each TACE center to invite a representative from each State VR agency
in its region to participate on its advisory committee.
Comment: One commenter asked if the role of the advisory committee
is to provide advice to the TACE center or to set policy for the TACE
center.
Discussion: The priority does not specify a policy-making role for
the advisory committee. It simply requires that the advisory committee
be established to provide input on the TACE center's annual needs
assessment. We anticipate that the annual needs assessment will be an
important source of input to each TACE center's annual work plan.
Nothing in the priority requires center policies to be determined by
the advisory committee, although this function could be proposed in the
application.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the TACE centers' advisory
committees, which, by definition, are regional in nature, would not
take into account differences in States' needs and recommended that the
TACE centers be required to have State advisory committees.
Discussion: The goal of TACE center advisory committees is to
provide an opportunity for State VR agencies and agency partners to
provide information about their TA and CE needs. For reasons of
efficiency, the priority requires only one advisory committee for each
TACE center. However, as noted elsewhere in this discussion, we have
modified the priority to require each TACE center to invite a
representative from each State VR agency served by the TACE center to
participate on its advisory committee. We believe that this addresses
the commenter's concern by allowing regional advisory committees to be
informed about and take into account State differences.
Changes: None.
Performance Measures
Comment: Four commenters stated that the goal of improving the
quality and quantity of VR outcomes is not adequately defined in the
priority, and one commenter stated that the TACE centers should not be
expected to contribute to increasing VR outcomes. Another four
commenters stated that the performance measures identified for the
program in paragraph (7) of the priority should be better defined and
more objective.
Discussion: The goal of improving the quality and quantity of VR
outcomes is an expected outcome of the provision of TA and CE to the
State VR agency and agency partners. However, the Department does not
intend to judge the performance of the TACE centers on the basis of
changes in VR outcomes. The Department will establish an independent
review panel to evaluate the performance of the TACE centers. The areas
to be evaluated by the independent review panel--quality, relevance,
and usefulness--are those areas typically examined by the Department in
assessing the performance of TA activities supported by the Department.
The Department will determine the methodology for this review,
including the objective criteria to be used by the panel in rating the
TA and CE services in these three areas.
Changes: None.
Other Comments
Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority allow consortia
models--that is, models in which a TACE center would be operated by two
or more entities, such as the National Rehabilitation Leadership
Institute.
Discussion: Although the priority does not specifically address the
establishment of consortia models for a TACE center, nothing in the
priority would prohibit an applicant from proposing such a model.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the TACE centers should have
explicit responsibility for disseminating evidence-based knowledge and
best practices.
Discussion: The Department agrees that it would be advantageous to
have the TACE centers disseminate evidence-based knowledge, including
information on best practices to the extent that it is available. We
have modified paragraph (5) of the priority to reflect this change.
Changes: We have modified paragraph (5) of the priority to indicate
[[Page 32015]]
that the TA provided by the TACE centers should be evidence-based to
the extent possible.
Comment: Four commenters expressed concern about the timing of this
priority and the fact that the TACE centers would be replacing current
RCEP grantees that have not completed their five-year funding cycle.
Two commenters stated that it creates a poor precedent not to continue
grants that are in the middle of a five-year funding cycle, and one
commenter stated that RSA is moving forward with this change too
quickly.
Discussion: The Department has carefully considered the timing of
this priority and believes it is the appropriate time to make this
change. Seven of the current 11 RCEP centers that primarily serve State
VR agencies will have completed their five-year project period, and
three of the RCEP centers will have completed the fourth year of their
grant prior to the establishment of the new TACE centers on October 1,
2008. In addition, the TA needs of the VR system have increased
significantly, based on an assessment of the TA needs of State VR
agencies and SRCs, RSA's monitoring reviews as required by section 107
of the Act, and RSA's review of annual State plans submitted by State
VR agencies as a condition of Federal funding. The purpose of this
priority is to ensure that State VR agencies and their agency partners
receive the TA and CE they need to improve their performance. The
Department believes that it is in the best interest of individuals with
disabilities and their families that this change be made at this time.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on internal departmental review, we determined
that it was not appropriate to include the phrase ``as applicable'' in
the first sentence of paragraph (2) of the priority. We expect the
annual needs assessment to identify the TA and CE needs of all State VR
agencies and agency partners in the region served by the TACE center.
Changes: We have deleted the phrase ``as applicable'' from the end
of the first sentence in paragraph (2) of the priority.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on internal departmental review, we determined
that ``agency partners'' was not adequately defined in the priority.
Agency partners include all agencies with which the State VR agency
cooperates in providing VR and other rehabilitation services.
Change: We have added language to the first paragraph of the
priority to clarify that the term ``agency partners'' refers to all
agencies with which the State VR agencies served by the TACE center
cooperate in providing VR and other rehabilitation services.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting applications we
designate the priority as absolute, competitive preference, or
invitational. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority we give competitive preference to an application by either
(1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent
to which the application meets the competitive priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that
does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over
other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Priority:
Regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education Centers
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services establishes a priority to create 10 regional Technical
Assistance and Continuing Education (TACE) centers to provide (1)
technical assistance (TA) to State vocational rehabilitation (VR)
agencies and agencies with which State VR agencies cooperate in
providing VR and other rehabilitation services (agency partners) to
improve services required under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, and (2) continuing education (CE) to employees of State VR
agencies and agency partners. For purposes of this priority, the term
``agency partners'' refers to all agencies with which the State VR
agencies served by the TACE center cooperate in providing VR and other
rehabilitation services.
Under this priority, the TACE centers must contribute to the
following outcomes: improved quality of VR services, increased
effectiveness and efficiency of State VR agencies in delivering VR
services, and improved quantity and quality of VR employment outcomes
for individuals with disabilities. The TACE centers must contribute to
these outcomes by providing TA and CE, either directly or through
contract, to employees of State VR agencies and agency partners on
topics that are identified jointly by the Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) and each TACE center's advisory committee and
included in the TACE center's annual work plan.
Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate their ability to
respond rapidly to a broad range of TA and CE needs. Applicants must
provide evidence in their applications that they have expertise, or
access to subject-matter experts with experience, in conducting TA and
CE in at least the following areas: Improvement of State VR agencies'
service delivery; practices and interventions related to specific VR
populations; quality assurance; case management at the administrative
and counselor level; the use of assistive technology to achieve
employment goals; personnel management (e.g., staff retention
strategies); fiscal management; data management; communication skills
development; development of individualized plans for employment;
development of VR State plans; and strategic planning.
Under this priority, each TACE center must--
1. Establish an annual work plan, in coordination with and subject
to the approval of RSA, describing activities that it will conduct to
assist State VR agencies to accomplish the goals identified in their VR
State plans and to achieve other performance and compliance goals
identified by RSA's monitoring reports. The annual work plan must
identify the nature and scope, including delivery means and methods, of
the TA and CE to be provided by the TACE center and consider, but not
necessarily address, the TA and CE needs of State VR agencies and
agency partners identified in the TACE center's annual needs
assessment;
2. Conduct an annual needs assessment to identify the TA and CE
needs of State VR agencies and agency partners in its region. Each TACE
center must base its annual needs assessment on a thorough review of VR
State plans, on-site monitoring reports and annual review reports
issued by RSA, other performance and compliance information available
from RSA and State VR agencies, and other data, as appropriate;
3. Establish a center advisory committee to provide input on the
annual needs assessments conducted by the TACE center in accordance
with paragraph (2) of this priority. In addition to the requirements in
34 CFR 385.40 for mandatory members of the center advisory committee,
the committee must invite representatives from each of the State VR
agencies in the region served by the TACE center and from RSA's
Independent Living Training and Technical Assistance
[[Page 32016]]
grantees to serve on this committee. RSA representatives will serve as
ex-officio members.
Note: Members of minority groups are listed in 34 CFR 385.40 as
one of the categories of mandatory participants on rehabilitation
training advisory committees. However, the Department intends to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 34 CFR
385.40, which would remove the requirement that an applicant include
members of minority groups on all project advisory committees. The
NPRM would add a requirement that an applicant include individuals
who are knowledgeable about the special needs of individuals with
disabilities from diverse groups, including minority groups. The
purpose of this change would be to more clearly reflect the
Department's intent that project advisory committees include
individuals who are familiar with the needs of individuals with
disabilities from diverse groups, rather than individuals who are
just members of such groups;
4. Serve as an observer in RSA's monitoring of State VR agencies in
its region by participating, at a minimum, in each State VR agency's
monitoring exit conference in order to gain a thorough understanding of
each State VR agency's TA and CE needs;
5. Collaborate and coordinate with other TACE centers to provide TA
and CE as efficiently as possible to employees of State VR agencies and
agency partners that have similar needs. TA should be evidence-based,
to the extent possible, and include information on best practices to
the extent evidence or research is available.
6. Coordinate services with other entities that provide TA and CE
to State VR agencies and agency partners, including, but not limited
to, Independent Living Training and Technical Assistance grantees and
Assistive Technology projects funded by RSA; and
7. Evaluate how well each TA and CE activity provided by the TACE
center meets a targeted area of need (e.g., the improvement of State VR
agencies' service delivery; practices and interventions related to
specific VR populations; quality assurance), based on goals and
objectives established for the activity in the TACE center's annual
work plan. Each TACE center must provide data on each TA and CE
activity it conducts, including information on the topic of the
activity, the number and types of personnel and agencies participating
in the activity, participant evaluations of the effectiveness of the
activity, and any other data required by the Department. Each TACE
center must include the results of its evaluation in its annual
performance report. RSA will convene an independent review panel to
evaluate the work of the TACE centers. The independent review panel
will use the following performance measures: (a) The percentage of TA
and CE services provided by the TACE center that are deemed to be of
high quality; (b) the percentage of TA and CE services provided by the
TACE center that are deemed to be of high relevance to State VR
policies or practices; and (c) the percentage of TA and CE services
provided by the TACE center that are deemed to be useful in improving
State VR agency policies or practices.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of final priority (NFP) has been reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the NFP are those resulting
from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary
for administering this program effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this NFP, we have determined that the benefits of
the final priority justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
We summarized the costs and benefits in the NPP.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 385 and 389.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
https://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/
nara/.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.264A
Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program)
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772.
Dated: June 2, 2008.
Tracy R. Justesen,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E8-12636 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P