Independent Living Services and Centers for Independent Living, 74682-74700 [2016-25918]
Download as PDF
74682
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
to open for emergencies and there is no
immediate alternate route for vessels to
pass. The Coast Guard will also inform
the users of the waterway through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners
of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessel operators can
arrange their transits to minimize any
impact caused by the temporary
deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the drawbridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the effective period of this
temporary deviation. This deviation
from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Dated: October 24, 2016.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2016–26015 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Community Living
45 CFR Part 1329
RIN 0985–AA10
Independent Living Services and
Centers for Independent Living
Independent Living
Administration, Administration for
Community Living, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule implements the
Rehabilitation Act as amended by the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act, which established an Independent
Living Administration within the
Administration for Community Living
(ACL) of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). The rule helps
implement changes to the
administration of Independent Living
Services and the Centers for
Independent Living made under the
current law in alignment with ACL and
HHS policies and practices.
DATES: These final regulations are
effective November 28, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Molly Burgdorf, Administration for
Community Living, telephone (202)
795–7317 (Voice). This is not a toll-free
number. This document will be made
available in alternative formats upon
request. Written correspondence can be
sent to the Administration for
Community Living, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 330 C St.
SW., Washington, DC 20201.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Discussion of Final Rule
The federal Independent Living (IL)
program seeks to empower and enable
individuals with disabilities,
particularly individuals with significant
disabilities, to exercise full choice and
control over their lives and to live
independently in their communities.
For over 40 years, these aims have been
advanced through two federal programs:
Independent Living Services (ILS) and
Centers for Independent Living (referred
to as CILs or Centers). The Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) transferred these Independent
Living programs to the Administration
for Community Living (ACL) and
created a new Independent Living
Administration within the agency,
adding section 701A of the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 796–1. As
part of the transfer, the Administrator of
ACL (Administrator) drafted a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that was
published on November 16, 2015,to
implement changes made by WIOA in
accordance with Section 12 of the
Rehabilitation Act, as amended, 29
U.S.C. 709(e), and section 491(f) of
WIOA, 42 U.S.C. 3515e(f).
ACL received over 100 comments to
the NPRM, most of them expressing
their support for the provisions in the
proposed rule. ACL has read and
considered each of the comments
received. We respond here to the mostcommonly-received comments and to
those that we believe require further
discussion. We have indicated changes
made between the NPRM and final rule.
Several comments raised issues that
are specific to the commenter.
Responding to such comments is
beyond the scope of the final regulation.
Nevertheless, we encourage commenters
with individualized questions to contact
the technical and training support
center or the ILA specialist for their
State for assistance with their questions.
We also made a number of technical
changes in the preamble, for example, to
reflect that the term ‘‘704 Reporting
Instruments’’ will no longer be used for
data collection going forward, and to
clarify potentially confusing references
to the ‘‘State.’’
Subpart A—General Provisions
ACL received numerous comments
expressing concern about the personcentered planning language in the
NPRM preamble, including the
statement that person centered planning
and consumer control ‘‘are not
interchangeable terms.’’
ACL affirms that consumer control is
a guiding principle in IL. To clarify, the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NPRM did not intend to conflate
person-centeredness and consumer
control or other key terms in the IL
purpose. The proposed regulatory
language did not include personcenteredness; the language was
included in the preamble to the NPRM
to both highlight this requirement in the
home and community-based services
and supports (HCBS) settings context,
and offer an opportunity to IL programs
and stakeholders to help shape personcentered planning and self-direction
principles in HHS-funded programs and
practices that serve people with
significant disabilities, as they
increasingly are embedded in the work
we do at ACL and across HHS. This
language applies in the HCBS settings
context and does not limit consumer
control or anything centers do with Title
VII funding.
One commenter suggested that
Centers should not be penalized for
hiring individuals who do not have
significant disabilities when candidates
who have significant disabilities do not
apply, or if those who do apply are not
qualified, and the CIL therefore fails to
meet the requirement that the majority
of staff are individuals with disabilities.
The majority hiring requirement is
beyond the scope of this rule; however,
the ongoing requirement that a Center
ensure that the majority of the staff, and
individuals in decision-making
positions are individuals with
disabilities is consistent with the
consumer directed, self-help, and selfadvocacy principles in the IL
Philosophy.
Definitions (§ 1329.4)
New IL Core Services Definitions
WIOA added a new fifth requirement
to the Independent Living Core
Services, which includes services that—
• Facilitate the transition of
individuals with significant disabilities
from nursing homes and other
institutions to home and communitybased residences, with the requisite
supports and services;
• Provide assistance to individuals
with significant disabilities who are at
risk of entering institutions so that the
individuals may remain in the
community; and
• Facilitate the transition of youth
who are individuals with significant
disabilities, who were eligible for
individualized education programs
under section 614(d) of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1414(d)), and who have
completed their secondary education or
otherwise left school, to postsecondary
life.
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
(Sec. 7(17)(E) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.
705(17)(E)).
ACL received many comments
expressing concern about being able to
effectively provide the new IL core
services without the allocation of
additional funding. We cannot address
concerns about funding levels for IL
programs in the final regulation. We
also wish to clarify that funds for
transition services allocated to other
agencies are based under separate
statutory authorities and appropriations.
ACL will support programs in
accomplishing and reporting IL services.
To add value and help enhance the
work CILs are already doing in this area,
ACL offers technical assistance for state
and community-based aging and
disability organizations (CBOs) through
national partners as well as through
learning collaboratives of networks of
community-based aging and disability
organizations, including Centers for
Independent Living. ACL looks forward
to engaging more of the IL community
in these efforts to support and improve
business acumen, which has enabled
CBOs to garner funding through publicprivate partnerships, contracts with
health-care providers and payers, and
grants from private foundations. ACL’s
business acumen efforts are one way
that CILs may enhance their resource
development activities. We will also
work to identify opportunities to
collaborate and leverage resources for
the core IL services, including the new
fifth core services, across ACL, HHS,
and other federal agencies.
The NPRM sought public comment on
whether to include a definition of
‘‘institution’’ and the suitability of
applying Medicare and Medicaid
definitions of that term in defining the
new core independent living services.
We received comments indicating that
the Medicare/Medicaid definitions are
not sufficiently broad to encompass the
range of entities included in the term
‘‘institution.’’ We received numerous
comments recommending various terms
and entities that should be included in
a definition of ‘‘institution,’’ as well as
comments stating that including a
regulatory definition was not necessary
or could be unnecessarily limiting and
could impede effective provision of
services. As some commenters
recommended, a broad, non-prescriptive
approach allows CILs the most
flexibility to determine the types of
transition services they can offer with
the best chance of success for
individuals receiving the services based
on available local resources.
Some commenters recommended a
very broad definition of institution,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
including ‘‘any congregate living
arrangement of any size in which
residents with disabilities are not in
control of their own lives,’’ a parental/
guardian controlled home, or ‘‘any
situation in which a person with a
disability is not free to control all
aspects of his or her life.’’ ACL did not
incorporate this approach, as we
concluded that the suggested categories
were vague and overbroad. For instance,
these examples are not limited to adults,
and minors are not given authority to
control all aspects of their lives,
including moving from a home where
the person lives with a parent or
guardian. Other commenters suggested
narrowing the definition and excluding
certain settings such as correctional
facilities.
ACL has not included a specific
definition of the term institution here,
so that the categories will be sufficiently
broad and allow flexibility to CILs.
Without specifically defining the term,
we identify the following examples of
entities that fall within the category of
‘‘institution,’’ which includes but is not
limited to: Hospitals, nursing facilities
and skilled nursing facilities,
Intermediate Care Facilities for
Individuals with Intellectual
Disabilities, and criminal justice
facilities, juvenile detention facilities,
etc.
In the NPRM, we also requested
comment on the need for and proposed
content of definitions for ‘‘home and
community-based residences’’ and
individuals who are ‘‘at risk’’ of
institutionalization in the new
independent living core services. We
received several comments requesting
that we define ‘‘home and communitybased residences’’ for the purposes of
the fifth core services. Some
commenters suggested we refer to
Medicaid definitions, including the
definitions used in the ‘‘Money Follows
the Person’’ demonstration program and
the rule related to Medicaid-funded
home and community-based services
published on January 16, 2014. Many
commenters suggested a definition that
would include any residence ‘‘with
fewer than 4 people non-related in
which a person with a disability is free
to control all aspects of his or her life.’’
Other commenters recommended
against including size or configuration
of living arrangements in the definition,
explaining, ‘‘When maximum number of
people in a setting or their familial
relationship to each other is prescribed,
it does not permit those groups of totally
self-directing individuals who choose to
share an apartment or house and share
attendant services, for example, to be
included in the service count. The
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74683
regulations should not preclude serving
those individuals who, of their own
volition, have chosen forms of cohousing, cooperatives, or Naturally
Occurring Retirement Communities
(NORCs).’’
As some commenters recommended,
ACL considered language in Medicaid
regulations that define home and
community-based settings for certain
Medicaid programs. ACL encourages IL
programs to consult the language in the
rule defining HCBS settings for
Medicaid waivers under section 1915(c)
of the Social Security Act at 42 CFR
441.301(c)(4), for state plan HCBS at 42
CFR 441.710(a)(1) and (2) or for
Community First Choice services at 42
CFR 441.530(a)(1) and (2). These CMS
regulations provide details on the
qualities of home and community-based
settings, as compared with those that
have the qualities of an institutional
setting. However, we did not import the
definition from the CMS HCBS rules
into this rule. ACL seeks to encourage
CILs to assist the broadest range of
individuals as they transition from an
institutional to a community-based
setting. The Medicaid rules apply to
Medicaid beneficiaries receiving home
and community-based services under
specific statutory provisions, and while
the language is instructive to determine
qualities integral to a home and
community-based setting, IL serves a
broader range of people and addresses a
wider range of situations than those
covered under the Medicaid rules. For
example, the needs of the individual in
42 CFR 441.301(c)(4) are determined ‘‘as
indicated in their person-centered
service plan.’’
As some commenters recommended,
to preserve wide latitude and to support
consumer control, we have chosen not
to include a definition for ‘‘home and
community-based residences’’ in the
final rule.
We received comments
recommending that the individual
should determine whether or not he or
she is at-risk through self-disclosure. We
received comments that emphasized the
importance of the intake and goal
setting processes for facilitating
informed consumer choice related to
self-identification. If a consumer feels
he or she is at risk of
institutionalization, and self-identifies
as being at risk as part of the intake or
goal-setting process, then he or she
should be treated as being at risk. CILs
in these situations conduct discussions
around the person’s circumstances,
possibilities and risks but the
designation ultimately must be
informed by consumer choice. We have
incorporated that recommendation in
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
74684
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the regulatory text as part of the
definition of the independent living
core services.
Some commenters recommended
adding a definition of ‘‘transition
process.’’ Since the term ‘‘transition’’ is
not included in the second prong of the
fifth core IL services, and the term
‘‘transition’’ has a different meaning in
the third prong, we incorporated the
recommended definition into the first
prong regarding the transition of
individuals with significant disabilities
from nursing homes and other
institutions to home and communitybased residences.
WIOA defines youth with a disability
to mean ‘‘an individual with a disability
who is not younger than 14 years of age;
and is not older than 24 years of age.’’
In the NPRM, ACL defined the category
of ‘‘youth with a significant disability’’
by combining the definition of
‘‘individual with significant disability’’
in section 7(21), 29 U.S.C. 705(21) and
‘‘youth with a disability’’ in section
7(42) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 705(42).
A commenter expressed concern that
the rule uses the term ‘‘youth with a
significant disability,’’ (emphasis added)
as ‘‘[t]his is different than the
Independent Living philosophy which
is cross disability.’’ The language is
based on WIOA language in the
definition of independent living core
services, 29 U.S.C. 705(17)(E), which
covers services to ‘‘facilitate the
transition of youth who are individuals
with significant disabilities . . .’’ As a
cross-disability agency, ACL is sensitive
to this concern, but does not have the
authority to change statutory language
through the rulemaking process.
A commenter recommended removing
the ‘‘completed their secondary
education’’ provision from this
regulation. Other commenters suggested
the definition was overbroad and should
be pared back. We received comments
that individuals who have reached the
age of 18 but are still receiving services
in accordance with an individual’s
education program developed under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) should not be considered to
have ‘‘completed their secondary
education.’’ Because Sec. 7(17)(E)(iii) of
the Act, 29 U.S.C. 705(17)(E)(iii), uses
the term ‘‘completed their secondary
education,’’ ACL does not have the
authority to remove this phrase from the
definition of IL core services regarding
youth transition. However, we are
removing from regulatory language:
‘‘has reached age 18, even if he or she
is still receiving services in accordance
with an individualized education
program developed under the IDEA.’’ In
agreement with comments received, we
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
have added to the definition of
independent living core services that
individuals who have reached the age of
18 and are still receiving services in
accordance with an Individualized
Education Program (IEP) under IDEA
have not ‘‘completed their secondary
education.’’
Some commenters also questioned the
link to eligibility under IDEA/eligibility
for an IEP, or recommended a definition
of ‘‘students with disabilities’’ be
defined broadly, such as those receiving
services under of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act (under 504 plans).
Commenters also requested that the
youth transition prong be extended to
the youngest possible age, for example
before vocational rehabilitation (VR)
begins to provide services in the State.
In WIOA, Congress established the
prong of the new IL service to ‘‘(iii)
facilitate the transition of youth who are
individuals with significant disabilities,
who were eligible for individualized
education programs under section
614(d) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1414(d)), and who have completed their
secondary education or otherwise left
school, to postsecondary life.’’ 29 U.S.C.
705(17)(E)(iii). This requirement,
defined in the statute, focuses on
providing independent living services to
youth who are transitioning to
postsecondary life after they have left
school. ACL does not have the authority
to redefine this category through the
rulemaking process.
We acknowledge the importance of
transition services for youth prior to
post-secondary life in order to prepare
youth for a successful transition to postsecondary life. However, we also want
to emphasize that some youth transition
activities not covered under the fifth
core services may be included within
the other four core services, Sec. 7
(17)(A–D) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.
705(17)(A–D), as well as within the
Independent Living Services in Sec.
7(18), 29 U.S.C. 705(18), and CILs
should continue to report their work in
these areas accordingly.
A commenter raised concerns that
broad definitions around the youth
transition component of the fifth core
service could prompt school districts to
shift responsibility for youth transition
to the CILs. While we appreciate the
concern, how school districts fulfill
their responsibilities to students with
disabilities is beyond the scope of this
rule. We acknowledge, however, that
Centers often participate as one of
several entities, including schools, with
an important role in supporting and
facilitating youth transitions. As a
promising practice, ACL recommends
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
continuing successful collaboration,
coordination, and leveraging of
resources.
Commenters noted that they are
already pursing transition work with
youth that falls outside of the proposed
parameters of the fifth core services.
Programs may and are encouraged to
continue to engage in such activities,
which can be captured and credited
under the other core IL services or
general independent living services
under Sec. 7(18), 29 U.S.C. 705(18).
Finally, in response to the NPRM,
ACL received questions as to whether
there are minimum levels which must
be achieved in order to have met the
requirements of each component of the
new fifth core IL services. Each CIL
must demonstrate activity under all
three prongs of the definition, but the
minimum levels are not further defined
here. See the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for further discussion. The
revised data collection system will
contain more information when
published.
Definitions of Other Terms in § 1329.4
Administrative Support Services
ACL received comments
recommending additional changes to
this definition, including a request for
additional clarity on the ‘‘services and
supports’’ provided by the DSE. Others
expressed support for a broad
definition, with flexibility for the DSE.
In order to preserve flexibility, we made
no changes to the definition in the
proposed rule.
Advocacy
ACL received a number of comments
on the proposed definition. Some
commenters expressed a concern about
a perceived lack of inclusion of
‘‘systems change’’ in the definition, and
requested that the language in the rule
‘‘revert back to the original language for
advocacy that includes both self and
systems change.’’ We note that the
proposed definition of ‘‘advocacy,’’
identical to the prior definition from the
Department of Education regulation 34
CFR 364.4, includes ‘‘systems
advocacy.’’ Many commenters
recommend that the activities described
in § 1329.10(b)(5) be included in the
definition, as they are part of systems
advocacy. The final rule retains the
proposed definition for ‘‘advocacy.’’ The
activities described in § 1329.10(b)(5)
are already required as authorized uses
of funds for independent living services
and including them in the definition of
advocacy would be redundant. ACL will
consider providing further guidance and
will continue to offer training and
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
technical assistance to provide
additional clarity on this issue.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Center for Independent Living
Many commenters expressed support
for the proposed definition from the
NPRM, though several commenters
raised questions about accountability for
CILs that are not recipients of Part C or
Part B funding. A few commenters
recommended the definition be limited
to CILs that receive Part B or Part C
funding. The final rule retains the
proposed definition of CILs. With
respect to compliance and oversight
issues, the SILCs, pursuant to their duty
under Section 705(c)(1)(B) to monitor,
review, and evaluate implementation of
the SPIL, will make the determination
that entities counted as CILs eligible to
sign the SPIL comply with the standards
in Sections 725 (b) and the assurances
in Section 725(c). The SPIL must
identify 1) the eligible CILs and 2) how
they were determined to meet the
required standards and assurances. We
will consider including corresponding
assurances with some standards of
evidence of documentation in the
indicators of minimum compliance for
the SILCs.
We received requests for clarification
regarding the phrase ‘‘regardless of age
or income.’’ This phrase is based
directly on the statutory definition, Sec.
702(2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796a(2). The
phrase means that an agency, in
addition to meeting all of the other
requirements, may not categorically
exclude individuals with significant
disabilities on the basis of age or
income. This does not preclude
prioritizing services by urgency of need,
nor does it preclude practical
distinctions such as age-based legal
restrictions.
We also received questions regarding
the use of fee-for-service models for the
delivery of services. The final rule does
not address the use of fee-for-service
models, though we encourage CILs to
consider how to ensure that any
application of such a model is
accomplished in a way that is consistent
with IL values.
Consumer Control
In the NPRM we proposed to add the
statutory definition of consumer control
at Section 702(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.
796a(3). Commenters requested that the
definition also include individual
consumer control. ACL acknowledges
the importance of an individual being
able to make his or her own choices and
set his or her own goals, including
deciding with whom and how to
achieve them, and allowing for the
dignity of risk, which is a critical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
component of growth and true
independence. The definition of
‘‘consumer control’’ is amended in the
final rule to include: ‘‘Consumer
control, with respect to an individual,
means that the individual with a
disability asserts control over his or her
personal life choices, and in addition,
has control over his or her independent
living plan (ILP), making informed
choices about content, goals and
implementation.’’
Some commenters also suggested that
the definition include the requirement
that a majority of staff, management and
Board positions are filled by persons
with disabilities. ACL did not make that
change, as the composition
requirements (for the SILC) and
assurances (for the CILs) at issue are
established separately in the statute.
Personal Assistance Services
The NPRM proposed that personal
assistance services mean ‘‘a range of
services, paid or unpaid, provided by
one or more persons, designed to assist
an individual with a disability to
perform daily living activities on or off
the job that the individual would
typically perform if the individual did
not have a disability. These services
must be designed to increase the
individual’s control in life and ability to
perform everyday activities on or off the
job and include but are not limited to:
Getting up and ready for work or going
out into the community (including
bathing and dressing), cooking, cleaning
or running errands.’’ Commenters
indicated that the purpose of personal
assistance services is not merely to
enable a person with a disability to get
a job, but to perform a myriad of social
functions. Commenters also raised the
point that the concept of personal
assistance services should be updated to
reflect ‘‘the possibilities available
today.’’ Commenters requested
additional examples of personal
assistance services, to help illustrate
that such services may support a variety
of interdependent social functions, such
as parenting, engaging in civic activities,
practicing the individual’s preferred
religion, engaging in a relationship with
partner(s) of the individual’s choice,
and more. The final rule incorporates
the recommended language. Thus,
personal assistance services means ‘‘a
range of services, paid or unpaid,
provided by one or more persons,
designed to assist an individual with a
disability to perform daily living
activities that the individual would
typically perform if the individual did
not have a disability. These services
must be designed to increase the
individual’s control in life and ability to
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74685
perform everyday activities including
but not limited to: Getting up and ready
for work or going out into the
community (including bathing and
dressing), cooking, cleaning or running
errands, and engaging in social
relationships including parenting.’’
Service Provider
ACL received comments indicating
that the DSE should not be included in
the definition of ‘‘service provider.’’ The
commenters explained that DSEs should
not provide direct services because the
DSE ‘‘is not consumer controlled and
does not provide peer support, systems
advocacy, etc.,’’ among other
justifications. After consideration of the
comments on this provision, ACL agrees
with the concerns expressed, and added
the clarification that a DSE is eligible to
receive funds to provide independent
living services only where so specified
in the SPIL. We have added a
corresponding clarification to the
preamble language in § 1329.17.
Unserved and Underserved
ACL received numerous comments
about the definition of unserved and
underserved populations. A commenter
expressed concerns about the
elimination of ‘‘sensory impairments’’
from the definition. Others
recommended that the definition should
include older people with disabilities,
or populations with certain types of
disabilities, including individuals who
are low vision, blind, deafblind or deaf,
and people with traumatic brain injuries
(TBI), and post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). Another commenter asked
about other groups, including people
with limited English proficiency. One
commenter expressed a concern about a
lack of services for black veterans.
Others requested a definition for
‘‘disadvantaged individuals.’’
ACL notes that the proposed
definition includes ‘‘populations such
as . . .’’ and lists a number of possible
categories. As stated in the NPRM, ‘‘We
recognize that unserved and
underserved groups or populations will
vary by service area. For example, in
some service areas unserved and
underserved groups may include people
with disabilities from the gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender communities.’’
The categories included in the
definition are examples, and not an allinclusive list. We are not including a
definition of disadvantaged individuals,
as that definition may vary by
individuals and by community.
Commenters expressed support for
the proposed definition of ‘‘youth with
a significant disability.’’
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
74686
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
ACL made technical changes to the
definitions of ‘‘Center for independent
living’’ and ‘‘Independent living core
services’’ to improve clarity.
Indicators of Minimum Compliance
(§ 1329.5)
Commenters requested that the final
rule include SILC standards and
indicators. The statute requires that ACL
develop and publish in the Federal
Register SILC indicators of minimum
compliance. As was stated in the NPRM,
the SILC indicators of minimum
compliance are currently under
development, a process which includes
consideration of informal stakeholder
input. ACL presented the current draft
SILC standards of minimum compliance
at the SILC Congress in January of 2016,
and the final version will be published
in the Federal Register with an
opportunity for public comment. ACL
will continue to collect information on
CIL compliance indicators based on the
statutory standards and assurances
through the data collection process. We
made technical changes to the
regulatory text of § 1329.5 to clarify the
current requirements.
ACL also clarifies that the indicators
of minimum compliance and data
collection instruments are living
documents. ACL will periodically
engage stakeholders to make
refinements and improvements.
Regarding comments expressing
concern about the lack of a sufficient
notice and opportunity for ‘‘substantive
public comment,’’ ACL is committed to
continued engagement with
stakeholders as we develop and publish
the required indicators. We also note
that the Federal Register is the
recognized means for notifying the
public and offering an opportunity to
submit comments. Multiple commenters
requested diverse compliance measures
be developed to address specific needs
for indicators. ACL appreciates this
input and will consider these
suggestions through the established
processes.
Commenters also recommended
establishing a rotation for CIL reviews.
As indicated in the NPRM, the statute
eliminated the requirement that
compliance reviews be conducted on a
random basis. ACL is actively reviewing
options for review criteria, including
how CILs will be selected for review.
Commenters expressed concerns
about ‘‘targeting’’ CILs and requesting a
neutral process. We decline to
incorporate the comment that some CILs
should not be reviewed more frequently
than others. On-site compliance reviews
are no longer required to be conducted
on a random basis and there may be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
legitimate reasons why a CIL may
require more frequent evaluation. ACL
agrees that clear, unbiased, and
legitimate criteria must be established
and consistently followed.
Some commenters expressed concern
about the lack of capacity at the state
and federal levels to conduct the
required reviews of CILs. Section 711(c),
29 U.S.C. 796d–1(c) includes a
requirement that the Administrator
(rather than the DSE) shall annually
conduct onsite compliance reviews of at
least 15 percent of the centers for
independent living that receive funds
under Section 722 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.
796f–1 and at least one-third of the
designated state units that receive
funding under Section 723 of the Act.
ACL is actively evaluating the review
processes, to optimize our capacity to
conduct the required oversight.
Reporting (§ 1329.6)
A commenter objected to proposed
§ 1329.6(b), stating that the requirement
that the DSE in each state ‘‘submit a
report in a manner and at a time
described by the Administrator,
consistent with section 704(c)(4) of the
Act,’’ exceeds statutory authority since
the referenced statute, Section 704(c)(4),
only requires the designated state entity
to ‘‘submit such additional information
or provide such assurances as the
Administrator may require.’’ This
commenter noted that CILs are
explicitly required by statute to ‘‘submit
such reports with respect to such
records as the Administrator determines
to be appropriate.’’ We appreciate the
comment, but find that requiring a
report is fully consistent with and
authorized by the statutory requirement
that the DSE submit such additional
information or provide assurances that
the Administrator may require. We
received a comment concerning
readability and accessibility of forms,
materials, and links. We appreciate the
comment and agree that the
instructions, and any forms, links, and
needed materials must be user-friendly
and easily accessible. We continue to
strive to meet this standard.
Enforcement and Appeals Procedures
(§ 1329.7)
Regarding the proposed enforcement
and appeals procedures in the rule,
commenters asked questions about
onsite compliance reviews and
expressed concern about the lack of peer
review. To clarify, the enforcement and
appeals procedures proposed in
§ 1329.7 are separate from a request for
technical assistance and separate and in
addition to the compliance review set
forth in Section 706(c)(1). Section
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
706(c)(2)(C), 29 U.S.C. 796d–1(c)(2)(C),
requires that, for the compliance review,
the Administrator must ‘‘. . . ensure
that at least one of member of a team
conducting such a review shall be an
individual who (i) is not a government
employee; and (2) has experience in the
operation of centers for independent
living.’’ The proposed regulatory text in
§ 1329.7 does not address or propose
changes to the onsite compliance review
process, including the qualifications of
employees and others conducting
reviews. Instead, § 1329.7 establishes
the enforcement and appeals process
that arises when a grantee receives
notice of an action that would trigger
the additional review process available
through 45 CFR part 16. These
determinations, set forth in appendix A,
C.a.(1)–(4) are: Disallowance,
termination for failure to comply with
the terms of an award, denial of a
noncompeting continuation award for
failure to comply with the terms of a
previous award, and voiding (a decision
that an award is invalid because it was
not authorized by statute or regulation
or because it was fraudulently
obtained).
For example, if after an onsite
compliance review, the Director
determines it necessary to terminate
funds because of the grantee’s failure to
comply with the terms of the award,
§ 1329.7 provides the affected CIL or
State with the opportunity to seek
additional review of that decision,
consistent with HHS policies and
practices. We added clarifying language
regarding the onsite compliance review
process as some commenters
recommended. We also made technical
changes to more accurately reflect
established HHS processes and
incorporate correct citations.
Several commenters interpreted
§ 1329.7 to mean that ACL would
immediately terminate funding under
certain circumstances, and pointed out
that WIOA stipulates 90 day notice
before Title VII Part C funding can be
terminated. The NPRM did not propose
to move more quickly than the 90 day
time frame. The process that was
outlined for enforcement and appeals is
designed precisely to afford due process
for those CILs for which expiration of
the 90 day time frame and possible loss
of funding is imminent. Since nothing
in the regulation changes the statutory
deadlines, no changes to the regulatory
text are required.
With regard to § 1329.7(b), one
commenter questioned whether the
Administrator has the authority to
terminate Title VII B funding. We refer
the commenter to 45 CFR part 75,
Uniform Administrative Requirements,
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for HHS Awards, which is
included in § 1329.3, applicability of
other regulations. For more information
regarding remedies for non-compliance
and termination, please see 45 CFR
75.371 and 75.372, which, address these
issues. We also remind stakeholders that
Section 704(a)(1) requires the
submission of a SPIL which is approved
by the Administrator in order to be
eligible for funding. Thus, the
Administrator has the authority to
withhold or terminate funding if a SPIL
is not submitted in accordance with the
requirements of Section 704, or if the
Administrator does not approve a SPIL
that is submitted.
ACL thanks commenters for
embracing the opportunity to work with
ACL on developing sub-regulatory
guidance to provide additional detail in
this area.
Commenters state that the time frame
for notice should be clear and specific.
The regulation describes that written
notice shall be provided ‘‘within a
timely manner.’’ In the absence of a
recommendation for a specific length of
time, we retain the language of the
proposed rule, with the clarification that
the standard is a reasonable
determination of a ‘‘timely manner.’’ We
will consider whether to designate a
specific time period in any subregulatory guidance that we develop.
Subpart B—Independent Living Services
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Authorized Use of Funds for
Independent Living Services (§ 1329.10)
Commenters requested a change to
§ 1329.10(a) to more accurately reflect
the language and intention of the
statute. Commenters were correct in
stating that the Administrator reserves
the funds under Section 711A for SILC
training and technical assistance, before
the State receives funding under this
part. ACL incorporated the requested
change, and revised § 1329.10 to include
the correction.
State entity that carries out the
functions described in the statute in
Section 704(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.
796c(c). ‘‘If the DSE does not carry out
those functions, the State is legally
responsible.’’
However, in response to these
comments, and with the understanding
that the State plan shall ‘‘designate’’ the
‘‘designated State entity’’ as the agency
that, on behalf of the State, shall
accomplish the listed responsibilities in
the law and comply with the specified
funding limits (and acknowledging that
the chairperson of the Statewide
Independent Living Council and the
directors of the CILs in the State, after
receiving public input from individuals
with disabilities and other stakeholders
throughout the State, develop the State
plan) ACL modified the proposed
definition to clarify the reference to a
DSE ‘‘identified by the State and
included in the signed SPIL . . .’’
Commenters also requested that ACL
identify the body that is responsible to
submit the SPIL. Section 1329.17(b)(4)
indicates that the SPIL ‘‘must be
submitted . . . in the time frame and
manner prescribed by the
Administrator.’’ For developing the FY
2017–2019 State Plan for Independent
Living (SPIL), ACL refers stakeholders
to the State Plan for Independent Living
(SPIL) instructions, issued on February
19, 2016, which specify that the
Statewide Independent Living Council
shall submit the State Plan for
Independent Living (SPIL).
DSE Eligibility and Application
(§ 1329.11)
Regarding § 1329.11, commenters
recommended including language that
‘‘[a]ny designated State entity (DSE)
identified in the SPIL and agreed to by
the State is eligible to apply for
assistance under this part in accordance
with Section 704 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.
796c.’’
We decline to make these changes,
because, as explained in the FAQs that
accompanied the DSE Guidance
document,1 the DSE is a governmental
Role of the Designated State Entity
(§ 1329.12)
Commenters requested additional
language to clarify the role of the DSE
and the allocation of funds in
accordance with the approved SPIL.
ACL incorporated suggested language to
make clear in § 1329.12(a)(2) the DSE’s
role to provide administrative support
services for a program under Part B, as
directed by the approved SPIL, and for
relevant CILs under Part C. We also
revised the language in § 1329.12(b) to
state that the DSE must also carry out its
other responsibilities under the Act,
including, but not limited to—
• Allocating funds for the delivery of
IL services under Part B of the Act as
directed by the SPIL; and
• Allocating the necessary and
sufficient resources needed by the SILC
to fulfill its statutory duties and
authorities under section 705(c),
consistent with the approved State Plan.
While the regulatory text in the new
§ 1329.12(b)(i) focuses on the delivery of
1 Guidance: ILA PI–15–01 Selection of the
Designated State Entity (DSE), rev. Oct. 28, 2015;
available at https://www.acl.gov/Programs/AoD/ILA/
Index.aspx#dse.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74687
IL services, Sec. 713(b) of the Act
identifies six (6) additional activities
that remain authorized uses of funding
under this Section, and are
encompassed in the ‘‘including, but not
limited to’’ language in § 1329.12(b).
Some commenters were concerned
that the 5% was not sufficient given the
scope of the administrative
responsibilities of the DSE, and that
some entities may choose not to serve as
a DSE. The 5% is a statutory cap and
therefore not subject to change in this
regulation.
For the sake of consistency we made
formatting changes to § 1329.12(b).
Allotment of Federal Funds for State
Independent Living (IL) Services
(§ 1329.13)
Many commenters requested that the
proposed regulatory language of
§ 1329.13(c) be deleted or amended to
permit only a single DSE. A few
commenters expressed support for a
second DSE and stressed the importance
of certain programs that have been
funded by State agencies for the blind.
Upon consideration of the comments in
the context of the language in WIOA, we
agree that it is consistent with the
statute to permit only one DSE.
Accordingly, in addition to revising the
regulatory text in § 1329.13(c) to permit
only a single DSE, § 1329.17(e) is
deleted.
Nineteen (19) States have been
operating with more than one body
taking on these responsibilities. One
body in those States provides services to
the general disability population and
the other provides services to
individuals who are blind. Under the
language we are finalizing, the SPIL
must identify one DSE in the State, and
that DSE will sign the SPIL as discussed
above. Specific funding to address the
needs of consumers in the State who are
blind may be allocated through the SPIL
process.
Regarding proposed § 1329.13(d),
commenters also requested that ACL not
reserve funds to directly provide
training and technical assistance to
SILCs, and others recommended an
increase in funding to the current
technical assistance provider. ACL
retained the language from the proposed
rule, which is required by section 711A
of the Act (29 U.S.C. 796e–0).
Commenters also recommended that
the SILCs be involved in the process for
determining the type of training and
technical assistance that is offered and
how the funding is utilized. We did not
add additional regulatory language, as
the Act requires in Sec. 711A(b) that the
Administrator conduct surveys of SILCs
regarding training and technical
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
74688
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
assistance needs in order to determine
funding priorities for such training and
technical assistance.
Establishment of a SILC (§ 1329.14)
Commenters expressed support for
the proposed language in the NPRM.
Some commenters also requested
‘‘direction or guidance on what
constitutes ‘autonomous.’ ’’ ACL did not
make changes to the language of the
proposed rule. To better understand
what autonomous means, we refer
commenters to pertinent statutory
provisions at Sec. 705 of the Act, 29
U.S.C. 796d, including Sec. 705(a) and
(b) on the establishment, composition
and appointments to the SILC. These
include the requirement at Sec. 705(a)
providing that ‘‘The Council shall not be
established as an entity within a State
agency,’’ and the conflict of interest
policy at Sec. 705(e)(3), precluding staff
and other personnel of the SILC from
being assigned duties by the DSE or
other agencies of the state that would
create a conflict. We also note that the
Council and voting members of the
Council are to be comprised of members
meeting the qualifications under Sec.
705(b)(4), including state-wide
representation, a broad range of
individuals with disabilities from
diverse backgrounds, knowledge about
centers for independent living and
independent living services, and a
majority of whom are individuals with
disabilities per 29 U.S.C. 705(20)(B) and
not employed by any State agency or
center for independent living. We will
continue to consult with stakeholders
on the need for additional guidance,
including providing more detail about
the SILC standards and indicators that
are under development.
Many commenters indicated they
could not identify any relevant CILTribal relationships that met the
definition under Section 705 of the Act.
However, other commenters indicated
that there are currently 83 American
Indian Vocational Rehabilitation
Services (AIVRS) programs located on
Federal and State Reservations
providing IL-complementary services to
American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/
ANs) with disabilities. Some
commenters also expressed support for
the effort to ensure that American
Indians are part of SILC leadership. As
a promising practice, we recommend
that in each State where there are
Federal and State-recognized Tribal
Governments, the SILC include a Tribal
Representative on the SILC, and
conduct outreach to the AIVRS
program(s) in the State, as available, or
other relevant organizations to foster
Tribal participation on the SILC.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
Duties of the SILC (§ 1329.15)
Commenters clarified that the SILC
resource plan is an integral part of the
three-year SPIL. We acknowledge that
this is the correct interpretation. Since
the language incorrectly describing the
resource plan as ‘‘separate from the
SPIL’’ was preamble language
attempting to clarify the new
requirement regarding the allocation of
funds for this plan as distinct from the
SPIL, no changes to the regulatory text
are needed.
Regarding § 1329.15(c)(2) on
Innovations and Expansion (I&E) funds,
commenters recommended revised
language consistent with Section
101(a)(18) of the Act to make clear that
resources for SILCs include I&E funds
consistent with the statute. ACL made
the requested change to the regulatory
text. ACL will work with the
Department of Education and
stakeholders to develop appropriate
guidance on this matter.
Commenters expressed support for
the proposed language in § 1329.15(c)(4)
and we have included it without
change.
Commenters requested additional
detail on what constitutes ‘‘necessary
and sufficient’’ funds to carry out the
functions of the SILC for the purpose of
the SILC resource plan. Other
commenters indicated that additional
information was not needed. In the
interest of clarity, ACL adopted the
recommended additions to
§ 1329.15(c)(6), with a final category for
other appropriate costs. A description of
the SILC’s resource plan must be
included in the State plan.
The plan should include:
• Staff/personnel
• Operating expenses
• Council compensation and expenses
• Meeting expenses, including public
hearing expenses, such as meeting
space, alternate formats, interpreters,
and other accommodations
• Resources to attend and/or secure
training for staff and Council
members
• Other costs as appropriate.
A commenter asked ‘‘how will it be
determined that the funding within the
30% cap for resource planning to carry
out SILC functions has been well
spent.’’ As discussed, the resource plan
is agreed to as part of the SPIL. As noted
above, ACL has added some additional
required elements to the regulatory
language. It will be up to the entities in
the State to determine how the funds are
spent, as reflected in the resource plan
and the SPIL.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
To minimize potential confusion, we
removed duplicative requirements from
§ 1329.15(d).
Authorities of the SILC (§ 1329.16)
Commenters requested some
additional terms be defined in the final
rule, such as ‘‘in conjunction with.’’
ACL chose not to include several of
these requested definitions, with the
understanding that these words and
phrases are given their plain meaning.
A commenter raised concerns about
whether the prohibition against
providing services directly or
‘‘managing’’ services would preclude
SILCs from securing funding to allow
CILs to accomplish specific goals. We
clarify here our interpretation that
securing funding is distinct from
‘‘managing’’ services. Rather, a practice
such as applying for and receiving grant
funding in these circumstances is a
legitimate exercise of SILCs’ newly
statutorily authorized resource
development authority.
We received several comments
regarding SILCs that were pertinent to a
particular state. Individual state
concerns are beyond the scope of the
regulations. However, we suggest that
SILCs that raised such concerns consult
with the SILC technical assistance and
training center and their respective ILA
specialist.
Regarding § 1329.16(b)(3),
commenters stated that the proposed
regulation ‘‘fails to provide a reference
to the statute or regulation that prohibits
lobbying . . .’’ along with other listed
perceived omissions. For information on
the relevant prohibition, please consult
45 CFR part 93—New Restrictions on
Lobbying, which was included in
§ 1329.3(i), along with the other
provisions on applicability of other
regulations, that was included in the
proposed rule and retained in the final
rule.
General Requirements for a State Plan
(§ 1329.17)
Commenters expressed support for
the SPIL development and approval
process in the NPRM, as required under
the changes implemented by WIOA.
Some commenters discussed the ways
successful collaboration is already
underway, that the new SPIL
development process will result in a
better State Plan; and ultimately have a
positive impact for people with
disabilities. We appreciate this
information.
As discussed in § 1329.4 regarding the
definition of ‘‘service provider,’’ ACL
has added a clarification that the DSE
may provide IL services directly only
when so specified in the SPIL. The
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
DSE’s role as a service provider, where
applicable, must be explicitly identified
as part of the description of how and to
whom funds will be dispersed under
§ 1329.17(a).
In discussing the new requirements of
the SPIL in the summary in the
preamble, with respect to a phrase
describing collaboration between CILs
and other entities performing similar
work, ACL received a comment
requesting that we define ‘‘similar
work.’’ That term refers to the
requirement in the statute in Sec.
704(a)(3)(c) that the SPIL address
working relationships and collaboration
between centers for independent living
and:
• Entities carrying out programs that
provide independent living services,
including those serving older
individuals;
• other community-based
organizations that provide or coordinate
the provision of housing, transportation,
employment, information and referral
assistance, services, and supports for
individuals with significant disabilities;
and
• entities carrying out other programs
providing services for individuals with
disabilities.
The term ‘‘similar work’’ is not in the
regulatory text, and we did not add a
definition because the statutory
language provides sufficient clarity.
Some commenters requested
clarification that § 1329.17(d)(2)(ii)
specify that the signature by the director
of the DSE signifies agreement to
execute the responsibilities of the DSE
identified in section 704(c) of the Act.
ACL incorporated this clarification in
the final rule.
Regarding § 1329.17(d)(2), a
commenter made the point that Centers
with service areas (and grants) within
multiple states should have sign off
authority for each SPIL that affects
them, where they meet the other
applicable requirements. ACL agrees,
and we have added language to so
clarify in § 1329.17(d)(2)(iii). ACL also
received many comments supporting
our analysis that the number of CILs be
based on the number of ‘‘legal entities,’’
not the number of grants, and we retain
that provision from the proposed rule.
As a technical correction, we
renumbered new § 1329.17(e)–(h).
Regarding proposed § 1329.17(g)(2),
commenters indicated that the proposed
language is not consistent with section
704(a)(2)(A) of the Act, which requires
that public input be received prior to
development of the State plan. The
proposed provision included an option
to provide a preliminary draft State plan
for comment at the public meetings as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
an option for meeting the requirement
for public input. ACL agrees that this
language, adapted from the previous
regulations in 34 CFR 364.20(g), does
not reflect the requirement of the statute
that the State plan be developed ‘‘after
receiving public input from individuals
with disabilities and other stakeholders
throughout the State,’’ and we have
modified the regulatory text of
§ 1329.17(f)(1) (formerly proposed
§ 1329.17(g)(2)) accordingly. This means
that the public input requirement may
be satisfied by a public meeting to get
input prior to development of the SPIL,
and then an opportunity for public
comment before the SPIL is submitted,
for instance through another public
meeting where a preliminary draft is
provided in advance, or by offering
some other meaningful and accessible
opportunity for the public to comment
prior to SPIL submission. ACL also
made technical changes to renumber the
section.
Continuation Awards to Entities Eligible
for Assistance Under the CIL Program
(§ 1329.21)
Regarding § 1329.21(g), commenters
suggested that the SILCs and the CILs,
rather than the DSE and SILC, must
jointly agree on the order of priorities.
ACL agrees that SILCs and CILs, rather
than the DSE, must agree to priorities as
set forth in the SPIL as it is jointly
developed, after receiving public input
from individuals with significant
disabilities and other stakeholders.
Section 1329.21, however, addresses
priority for funding centers in States
that receive funding under Section 723
of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796f–2. Currently,
only two States, Massachusetts and
Minnesota, qualify as Section 723
States. Under Section 723(e), priorities
for funding centers are set by the
designated State unit 2 and the SILC.
ACL therefore has determined to keep
the language as proposed in accordance
with the statutory language in Section
723(e).
Competitive Awards to New Centers for
Independent Living (§ 1329.22)
This section establishes the process
for competitive awards to new Centers
for Independent Living in unserved or
underserved regions. We received
comments requesting the authority to
modify existing Part C Center service
areas if the majority of the Center
2 We note that WIOA did not change the term
‘‘designated State unit’’ in Section 723 to
designated State entity, as in other sections
throughout this Subpart of the Rehabilitation Act.
ACL has determined to refer to the body as the
designated State entity in the rule for consistency
purposes.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74689
Directors, the SILC Chair, and the
Center/s in question agree. While ACL
is sensitive to the issue raised, we are
not addressing that issue in this final
regulation. We will take under
advisement the need to address service
area adjustments in the future. We made
a technical correction to § 1329.22(b), to
read ‘‘location’’ rather than ‘‘allocation,’’
and technical change in § 1329.22(c) to
clarify that ‘‘bordering’’ means
‘‘contiguous.’’
Compliance Reviews (§ 1329.23)
ACL received the comment that,
regarding ‘‘guidance or guidelines as
determined by the Administrator,’’ ‘‘[i]t
is unclear if the guidance will include
additional requirements and if the
public will have an opportunity to
comment on this guidance and
guidelines.’’ ACL may issue guidance
consistent with statutory requirements,
and the content and process may vary
depending on the information
conveyed.
A commenter proposed that ACL
consider alternative entities to conduct
federal reviews of the CILs and
suggested longer time periods between
reviews of a single CIL. WIOA
establishes the requirement that the
Administrator must conduct annual
compliance reviews of CILs and DSEs in
in 29 U.S.C. 796d–1(c)(1), so ACL does
not have the authority to alter the
requirements established in the statute
in this regulation. However, as noted
above, ACL is actively evaluating the
review processes, to optimize our
capacity to conduct the required
oversight, incorporating alternative
approaches where permitted and
appropriate.
Training and Technical Assistance to
Centers for Independent Living
(§ 1329.24)
Commenters pointed out that WIOA
does not authorize ACL to retain funds
for the direct provision of training and
technical assistance to CILs. We agree
that this is the correct interpretation.
Since the inconsistent language was
included only in the preamble text, no
changes have been made to the
regulatory text.
II. Impact Analysis
A. Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires that
regulations be drafted to ensure that
they are consistent with the priorities
and principles set forth in Executive
Order 12866. The Department has
determined that this rule is consistent
with these priorities and principles. The
rule implements the Workforce
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
74690
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Innovation and Opportunity Act of
2014. Executive Order 12866 encourages
agencies, as appropriate, to provide the
public with meaningful participation in
the regulatory process. In developing
the final rule, we considered input we
received from the public, including
stakeholders.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Secretary certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96–354), that this regulation
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities that would
be affected by these proposed
regulations are States and Centers
receiving Federal funds under these
programs. However, the regulations
would not have a significant economic
impact on States or Centers affected
because the regulations would not
impose excessive regulatory burdens or
require unnecessary Federal
supervision. The final regulations
implement statutory changes that
impose new requirements to ensure the
proper expenditure of program funds.
The ILS Program provides formula
grants to States for the purpose of
funding a number of activities, directly
and/or through grant or contractual
arrangements. To be eligible for
financial assistance, States are required
to establish a designated State entity,
State Independent Living Council and to
submit an approvable three-year State
Plan for Independent Living (SPIL)
jointly developed by the chairperson of
the SILC and the directors of the CILs
in the State, after receiving public input,
and signed by the chairperson of the
SILC acting on behalf of and at the
direction of the Council; not less than
51 percent of the directors of the CILs
in the State, and the director of the
designated State entity (DSE). The
signature requirement of not less than
51 percent of CIL directors is a new
requirement under WIOA. While this
requirement does increase the amount
of time a State may need to prepare an
approvable SPIL, the statute provides no
flexibility in implementing the new
requirement. We are not able to estimate
the amount of additional time the 51
percent signatory requirement will add
to the SPIL development and approval
process at the State level given that this
is a new requirement. We solicited
comments from affected States on this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
issue, but beyond a few comments
touching on general difficulty, did not
receive any comments that clarify the
amount of additional time required to
meet the 51 percent signatory
requirement.
The CIL program provides grants to
consumer-controlled, community-based,
cross disability, nonresidential, private
nonprofit agencies for the provision of
IL services to individuals with
significant disabilities. WIOA expanded
the previous definition of core IL
services, specified in Section 7(17) of
the Act, to include an additional, fifth
category of core services. Specifically,
Centers funded by the program must
now provide services that facilitate
transition from nursing homes and other
institutions to the community, provide
assistance to those at risk of entering
institutions, and facilitate transition of
youth to postsecondary life. Currently
there are 354 CILs that receive federal
funding under this program.
WIOA did not include any additional
funding for the provision of this new
fifth core service, necessitating that CILs
would reallocate existing grant money
to ensure the appropriate provision of
all services required under Title VII of
the Rehabilitation Act. Many
commenters requested additional
funding to carry out program
responsibilities under the law. A
number of commenters recommended
that ‘‘ACL should seek to obtain
additional funding for the 5th Core
Transition Service.’’ Commenters also
stated that ‘‘HHS should make CILs the
mandatory receiver of all funding for
transition services.’’
Funding issues are beyond the scope
of this rule. However, it might be useful
to note that some resources currently
funded by HHS related to transition
services reside in other agencies within
the Department and ACL lacks the
authority to direct how these transition
funds are disbursed.
With those facts in mind, we
recommend that interested CILs note
that ACL offers technical assistance for
state and community-based aging and
disability organizations through
national partners as well as through
learning collaboratives of networks of
community-based aging and disability
organizations, including Centers for
Independent Living. These networks
assist many CILs with leveraging their
Federal funds and conducting resource
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
development, and with building their
business capacity for generating
sustainable revenue streams for
programs and services. ACL looks
forward to engaging more of the IL
community in these efforts. ACL will
actively endeavor to identify further
funding opportunities for CILs fifth core
services transition work and will strive
to raise awareness about CILs unique
statutory mandate and successes with
our sister agencies across HHS and the
broader federal community.
ACL stated in the NPRM that, since
successful transition is a process that
requires sustained efforts and supports
over a long-term period, and the CILs
were aware of the changes under the
law before officially tracking these
efforts as core services, we do not
currently have a clear picture of the
impact of the changes under WIOA on
the programs. In developing the NPRM
we therefore applied the closest
applicable data to the estimates in the
analysis. For purposes of the analysis,
we looked at three specific categories of
data currently captured in the 704
Annual Performance Report that we
believe most accurately match the three
components of the fifth core services.3
We believe that the ‘‘Relocation from a
Nursing Home or Institution’’ category
most closely matches the first
component of the new fifth core
services: Facilitate transitions from
nursing homes and other institutions to
the community. We believe that the
‘‘Community-Based Living’’ category
matches the second component of the
new fifth core service: Provide
assistance to those at risk of entering
institutions. We believe the ‘‘Youth/
Transition Services’’ category captures
some relevant information for the third
component of the new fifth core service:
Facilitate transition of youth to
postsecondary life. For FY 2014, 281
CILs reported nursing home transition
goals established for at least one
consumer, 343 CILS reported
community-based living goals
established for at least one consumer,
and 224 CILs reported youth transition
services provided to at least one
consumer under the ‘‘Youth/Transition
Services’’ category of the 704 Annual
Performance Report.
3 The current 704 Report was not designed to
incorporate the fifth core services, so current data
roughly corresponds with the categories.
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
5th Core service
704 Annual performance report category
Facilitate Transitions from Nursing Homes and Other Institutions to
the Community.
Provide Assistance to Those at Risk of Entering Institutions ............
Facilitate Transition of Youth to Postsecondary Life ..........................
Relocation from a Nursing Home or Institution.
Community-Based Living ...............................
Youth/Transition Services ..............................
Percentage
of CILs *
74691
Number of
CILS
83
281
99
66
343
224
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
* Percentage of CILs reporting a goal set for at least one consumer. The Youth/Transition Services sub-category represents the percentage of
CILs reporting service provision to at least one consumer.
Based on this analysis, we believe that
many CILs currently have staff capable
of providing the new fifth core services.
However, due to the lack of additional
funding, compliance with this statutory
change may require CILs to re-examine
their individual budgets, staffing plans,
and consumer needs in order to
reallocate funding to ensure the
appropriate provision of services as
required by the Rehabilitation Act. We
estimated that this analysis will require
approximately 10–15 hours of time for
each CIL director. We proposed to use
the upper end of the time estimate (15
hours) for purposes of estimating the
total impact of this statutory
requirement. Therefore, we estimated
the amount of compliance analysis time
for CIL directors to total 5,310 hours.
To estimate the average hourly wage
for a CIL director, we examined data
compiled by the IL Net (a collaborative
project of Independent Living Research
Utilization (ILRU), the National Council
on Independent Living (NCIL), and the
Association of Programs for Rural
Independent Living (APRIL)) and
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data.
According to a 2003 National Survey of
Salaries and Work Experience of Center
for Independent Living Directors,
compiled by IL Net, the most common
annual salary range for CIL directors in
2002 was between $41,000 and $45,000.
This equates to an average hourly salary
range of $19.71 to $21.63. The Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) provided more
recent salary information.
According to 2012 BLS data, the
average hourly wage for a social and
community manager (a BLS
occupational classification for managers
who coordinate and supervise social
service programs) was $28.83. We
proposed using the more recent BLS
data to calculate the total estimated
impact of this statutory requirement. In
order to estimate the benefits and
overhead associated with this hourly
wage, we assume that these costs equal
100 percent of pre-tax wages, for a total
hourly cost of $57.66. Therefore, we
estimated the total dollar impact of this
additional CIL director time to be
$306,174.60.
As noted previously, we have
interpreted recent 704 Reports as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
indicating that many CILs currently
have staff capable of providing the new
fifth core services. We received
comments that some CILs which
currently provide fifth core services do
so using other sources of funding,
including Medicaid dollars and
contracts with managed care
organizations. However, as shown in the
table above, a substantial number of
CILs do not yet provide the newly
required services and therefore would
potentially incur costs in order to
comply with this rule.4 We received
several comments confirming that some
CILs do not yet provide the new fifth
core services, and doing so may impose
a burden upon such CILs, particularly a
diminution of services provided in other
areas. These commenters were not able
to give us a more detailed estimate of
calculating the burden other than to ask
for a substantial increase in funding for
CILs. As noted above, increasing
funding for CILs is beyond the scope of
this regulation.
We also received questions as to
whether there are minimum levels
which must be achieved in order to
have met the requirements of each
component of the new fifth core IL
services; the responses to these
questions relate to and may impact the
burden analysis. Each CIL must
demonstrate activity under all three
prongs of the definition, but the
minimum levels are not further defined
in this regulation. The revised data
collection system will contain more
information when it is published. We
note that we do not establish a
minimum number of services, beyond
that there must be some service (at least
one activity) accomplished and reported
in each category and sub-category, for
any of the core services, and we do not
intend to establish a minimum number
for the new fifth core services. The
amount of services provided will
depend on the needs of the individuals
seeking services, the social dynamics of
4 Costs of new actions are included in a regulatory
impact analysis even when budgets or grant
amounts do not change. If CILs are reallocating
grant funds to these newly required services, then
they are doing some other worthwhile activity to a
lesser extent, and the value of that alternative
activity represents the opportunity cost of the new
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the community served by each CIL, and
the approach each CIL takes to address
the needs of individuals under the fifth
core service. In addressing the
comments related to burden, we also
note that CILs can fulfill their obligation
to provide fifth core services in a
number of ways that may reduce the
burden associated with the service. For
example, services that CILs already
provide may count towards this
category rather than other core services.
Nevertheless, we recognize that the
addition of the fifth core services may
place more of a burden on CIL directors
to re-examine their individual budgets,
staffing and strategic plans, and
consumer needs in order to reallocate
funding to ensure the appropriate
provision of services as required by the
Rehabilitation Act. We therefore are
increasing our initial estimate of 15
hours of time for each CIL director to 30
hours of time to account for the
additional burden. In the final rule we
estimate the amount of compliance
analysis time for CIL directors to total
10,620 hours. We received several
comments with different estimates.
However, the comments did not provide
sufficient detail or explain how the
estimates were calculated. They did not
include a breakdown of the costs of
wages, benefits and overhead; nor did
they include an estimate of the hours
used in the calculation. Thus, we
continue to assume that the costs of
wages, benefits and overhead to be a
total hourly cost of $57.66, and use that
figure in determining the dollar impact
based on an increased number of hours,
as discussed above. We increase our
estimate in the final rule of the total
dollar impact of this additional CIL
director time to be $612,349.20.
WIOA continues to require annual
onsite compliance reviews of at least 15
percent of CILs that receive funding
under section 722 of the Act and at least
one-third of designated state units that
receive funds under section 723 of the
Act. The only change made by WIOA
was to eliminate the requirement that
CILs subject to compliance reviews be
selected randomly. ACL is not
proposing any changes to the
compliance review process in this
regulation. We do not anticipate any
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
74692
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
additional burden on grantees as a result
of the compliance and review process,
including the development of additional
corrective action plans in response to
such reviews.
While the final rule establishes a new
appeals process for States, we anticipate
that the process will be utilized
infrequently based on past experience of
the Independent Living Services
programs. The process is designed to
provide additional protection against
the termination of funding. We received
no specific comments on the burden
analysis. Therefore, we do not expect
that funds will be terminated more or
less frequently.
The allocation of 1.8 to 2 percent of
Part B funds to training and technical
assistance for SILCs is a new
requirement under WIOA. We have
limited available data regarding the
impact on programs of this provision
and requested comment on this aspect
of the analysis. We received no
comments related to burden analysis for
this provision.
The 5 percent administrative cap on
the DSE is a new statutory requirement
under WIOA, as is the 30 percent ceiling
on the SILC resource plan (unless the
SPIL specifies that a greater percentage
of funds is needed for to carry out the
functions of the SILC). The rule makes
final the NPRM’s narrow interpretation
of the 5 percent administrative cap,
limiting its application to ‘‘Part B’’
funds only, rather than applying the 5
percent cap on administrative funds
allocated to the DSE to all federal funds
supporting the Independent Living
Services. Additional funding sources
include Social Security reimbursements,
Vocational Rehabilitation program
funds, and other public or private funds.
The rule avoids a broader application
of the cap in an attempt to avoid
creating too great a disincentive to State
agencies to serve as DSEs, given the
more limited role of the DSEs in
decision-making (as they no longer have
a statutory role in the development of
the SPIL). Our intent is to effectuate the
limitation as required under the law,
while helping ensure retention of DSEs
for the Part B programs. Some
commenters indicated that the 5 percent
administrative cap on the DSE may
result in reduced funding for
independent living services; they did
not discuss the specific burden
associated with implementation of this
statutory requirement.
C. Alternative Approaches
Although we believe that the
approach of the rule best serves the
purposes of the law, we considered a
regulatory scheme requiring an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
alternative treatment of the Part B State
matching funds. In the final rule, as in
the proposed rule, funds used to meet
the required 10 percent State match are
treated the same as funds ‘‘received by
the State’’ under Part B.
To better understand the implications
of this decision, consider the five
percent administrative cap on the DSE’s
use of Part B funds for administrative
purposes in § 1329.12(a)(5). For
example, the proposed regulatory
language mandates that WIOA’s 5
percent cap on funds for DSE
administrative expenses applies only to
the Part B funds allocated to the State
and to the State’s required 10 percent
Part B match. It does not apply to other
program funds, including, but not
limited to, payments provided to a State
from the Social Security Administration
for assisting Social Security
beneficiaries and recipients to achieve
employment outcomes, any other
federal funds, or to other funds
allocated by the State for IL purposes.
Treating the issue in this way makes
more Part B funds available for IL
services and SPIL activities, while
retaining sufficient funds to permit the
DSE to accomplish its responsibilities
and oversight requirements for ILS
program funds under the law. One key
advantage of this approach is
minimizing disruptions to the ILS
program from potential DSE decisions to
relinquish the program due to
insufficient resources to fulfill the
WIOA-related fiscal oversight/
administrative support responsibilities.
For context, on average, 10–15 percent
of DSE funding was spent on
administrative costs prior to WIOA,
though this must be considered along
with the more limited role the DSE now
plays under the law as amended.
A narrower interpretation of this
provision would be to apply it to Part
B funds only, without the State match.
Not only would this approach severely
limit the funds available for fulfillment
of DSE responsibilities under the law, it
would also create some potential
accounting burdens for programs, as
State funds provided as a result of the
ILS program’s State matching
requirement have traditionally been
treated similarly to Federal Part B funds.
It would also be inconsistent with prior
accounting practices regarding the 10%
State match for Part B funding, which
existed prior to WIOA.
The broadest interpretation would
include all federal funds supporting the
ILS program, including Social Security
reimbursements and funds from the
Title I (Vocational Rehabilitation)
program in the cap, which would
broaden the pot of monies allocated for
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
administrative costs of the DSE, which
on its face seems counter to the change
in the law capping the available
percentage for these purposes at a
relatively low amount. Commenters
supported this approach.
We also considered alternative
approaches regarding implementation of
the new fifth core services based on
comments regarding lack of funding to
provide the new services. We have
chosen not to establish minimum
number of services to be provided for
any of the core services, including the
fifth core service, and to allow CILs
flexibility in determining how to meet
the requirements of the act. We believe
that this approach, discussed above,
satisfies the requirements of WIOA that
CILs provide services in all five core
service areas. It also gives CILs the
greatest amount of flexibility to
determine how to use their limited
federal funds to meet the needs of
individuals in their service area.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires
certain actions before an agency can
adopt or revise a collection of
information. Under the PRA, we are
required to provide notice in the
Federal Register and solicit public
comment before an information
collection request is submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. In order
to fairly evaluate whether an
information collection should be
approved by OMB, Section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires that
we solicit comments on new or revised
information collections, which in the
case of this rule, includes the new SPIL
development requirements. The law is
also intended to ensure that
stakeholders can fully analyze the
impact of the rule, which includes the
associated reporting burden. We are not
introducing any new information
collections in the final rule however, it
does revise process requirements. As
discussed earlier, WIOA changed the
requirements regarding SPIL
development and who must sign the
SPIL.
This final rule makes no revisions to
existing 704 reporting requirements, the
Section 704 Annual Performance Report
(Parts I and II). ACL is currently
convening workgroups to recommend
and implement changes regarding data
collection. These changes will be
subject to the public comment process
under the PRA before they are finalized.
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. State Plans for Independent Living
(SPIL)
The SPIL encompasses the activities
planned to achieve the specified
independent living objectives and
reflects the commitment to comply with
all applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements during the three years
covered by the plan. A SPIL has already
been approved in each State through
fiscal year 2016. (State Plan for
Independent Living and Center for
Independent Living Programs, OMB
Control Number 1820–0527.) The law
remains unchanged that the SPIL
continues to govern the provision of IL
services.
Any amendments to the SPIL,
reflecting either a change based on the
WIOA amendments or any material
change in State law, organization,
policy, or agency operations that affect
the administration of the SPIL, must be
developed in accordance with Section
704(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act, as
amended. SPIL amendments must be
submitted to ACL for approval.
WIOA changed the content of the
SPIL to the extent that the SPIL must
describe how the independent living
services will promote full access to
community life for individuals with
significant disabilities and describe
strategies for providing independent
living services on a statewide basis, to
the greatest extent possible. The SPIL
must also include a justification for any
funding allocation of Part B funds above
30% for the SILC’s resource plan.
We anticipate that such changes may,
on average, increase the amount of time
to develop the SPIL by five (5) hours.
There are 57 SPILs, one for each State,
the District of Columbia, and the six
territories. Assuming the same hourly
cost of $57.66 discussed in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis above, we
therefore estimate the cost of the
changes to be $16,433.1 (57 SPILs ×
$57.66/hour × 5 hours).We did not
receive any comments on these
calculations.
2. 704 Reporting Requirements
The Section 704 Annual Performance
Report (Parts I and II) are the Reporting
Instruments used to collect information
required by the Act,5 as amended by
WIOA, related to the use of Part B and
Part C funds. This regulation simply
transfers the statutorily required annual
reporting from the Department of
Education Regulations to the
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) regulations. No
additional reporting requirements are
5 See Sections 704(c)(3) and (4), 704(m)(4)(D),
706(d), and 725(c) of the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
being added to the current OMB
approved 704 report at this time.
(Section 704 Annual Performance
Report (Parts I and II), OMB Control
Number 1820–0606).
Prior to WIOA, an effort was
underway to make formal changes to the
704 Reporting Instruments. The passage
of WIOA in July 2014 put those efforts
on hold until late 2014. ACL is currently
convening workgroups to recommend
and implement changes in data
collection, and these changes will be
subject to the public comment process
under the PRA before they are finalized.
Key steps in ACL’s current and
projected timeline on the process
include an external workgroup webinar,
held April 1, 2015, to share the status
of data collection efforts and invite
feedback on specific issues. It is
anticipated that additional external
stakeholder engagement will occur
during summer of 2016. The SILC
indicators of minimum compliance will
also be published in the Federal
Register as part of this process. It is
ACL’s goal to publish the revised data
collection proposals for comment in
Federal Register in September 2016.
According to this projected timeline, in
October 2017, programs will begin
collecting information for the FY 18
reporting period using the new data
collection system. In December 2018,
the FY18 704 data collection system
reflecting the new reporting
requirements will be due.
Updating data collection will require
changes to include the new fifth core
services under WIOA. We make final
definitions for some of the terms in the
fifth core services in this rule, and have
made changes based on comments
received. Assuming revised data
collection requirements will include
reporting on the new fifth core services,
we estimate that providing the
information will take approximately 1
hour per data report. Based on the total
number of 704 Reports filed annually in
past years,6 we estimate that the total
number of additional hours to be 412.7
Assuming the same hourly cost of
$57.66 discussed in the regulatory
impact analysis above, we estimate the
cost of the changes to be $23,755.92. We
received no comments on these
estimates. In summary, future proposed
changes to the Section 704 Annual
Performance Report (Parts I and II) will
be published in the Federal Register
with opportunity for public comment.
6 See, 79 FR 23960 (April 29, 2014); information
collection approved June 4, 2014 through June 30,
2017. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201404-1820-001.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74693
Section 706 of the Rehabilitation Act
continues to require reviews of CILs
funded under Section 722 and reviews
of State entities funded under Section
723 of the Rehabilitation Act. Therefore,
ACL will continue to conduct
compliance reviews and make final
decisions on any proposed corrective
actions and/or technical assistance
related to compliance reviews of a CIL’s
grants.
In Section 706(b), 29 U.S.C. 796d–
1(b), the Act, as amended by WIOA,
requires the Administrator to develop
and publish in the Federal Register new
indicators of minimum compliance for
Statewide Independent Living Councils.
The SILC Standards and Indicators of
minimum compliance are currently
under development. ACL shared a draft
for informal stakeholder review in
January 2016 and continues to take
stakeholder feedback. The CIL
indicators of minimum compliance
(consistent with the standards set forth
in Section 725) are awaiting the
addition of the fifth core services, which
requires input in response to this
proposed rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that a covered agency prepare a
budgetary impact statement before
promulgating a rule that includes any
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures by State, local, or Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million, adjusted
for inflation, or more in any one year.
If a covered agency must prepare a
budgetary impact statement, Section 205
further requires that it select the most
cost-effective and least burdensome
alternatives that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with the
statutory requirements. In addition,
Section 203 requires a plan for
informing and advising any small
government entities that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by a
rule.
ACL has determined that this
rulemaking does not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of more than $100 million
in any one year. The total FY 2016
budget for the Independent Living
Services and Centers for Independent
Living programs authorized under
Chapter 1, Title VII of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act or Act),
as amended by WIOA (Pub. L. 113–128)
is $101,183,000. We do not anticipate
that the rule will impact the majority of
the budget for these programs.
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
74694
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
F. Congressional Review
PART 1329—STATE INDEPENDENT
LIVING SERVICES AND CENTERS FOR
INDEPENDENT LIVING
This rule is not a major rule as
defined in 5 U.S.C. Section 804(2).
Subpart A—General Provisions
G. Assessment of Federal Regulations
and Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to
determine whether a policy or
regulation may affect family well-being.
If the agency’s conclusion is affirmative,
then the agency must prepare an impact
assessment addressing seven criteria
specified in the law. These regulations
do not have an impact on family wellbeing as defined in the legislation.
H. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 on
‘‘federalism’’ was signed August 4,
1999. The purposes of the Order are to
guarantee the division of governmental
responsibilities between the national
government and the States that was
intended by the Framers of the
Constitution, to ensure that the
principles of federalism established by
the Framers guide the executive
departments and agencies in the
formulation and implementation of
policies, and to further the policies of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The Department certifies that this rule
does not have a substantial direct effect
on States, on the relationship between
the Federal government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. ACL is not aware
of any specific State laws that would be
preempted by the adoption of the
regulation in subchapter C of 45 CFR
part 1329.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1329
Centers for independent living,
Compliance, Enforcement and appeals,
Independent living services, Persons
with disabilities, Reporting.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Dated: October 18, 2016.
Edwin Walker,
Acting Administrator, Administration for
Community Living.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
the, Administration for Community
Living, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, amends 45 CFR
subchapter C by adding part 1329 to
read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
Subpart B—Independent Living Services
1329.10 Authorized use of funds for
Independent Living Services.
1329.11 DSE eligibility and application.
1329.12 Role of the designated State entity.
1329.13 Allotment of Federal funds for
State independent living (IL) services.
1329.14 Establishment of SILC.
1329.15 Duties of the SILC.
1329.16 Authorities of the SILC.
1329.17 General requirements for a State
plan.
Subpart C—Centers for Independent Living
Program
1329.20 Centers for Independent Living
(CIL) program.
1329.21 Continuation awards to entities
eligible for assistance under the CIL
program.
1329.22 Competitive awards to new Centers
for Independent Living.
1329.23 Compliance reviews.
1329.24 Training and technical assistance
to Centers for Independent Living.
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709; 42 U.S.C. 3515e.
Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 1329.1
Programs covered.
This part includes general
requirements applicable to the conduct
of the following programs authorized
under title VII, chapter 1 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended:
(a) Independent Living Services (ILS),
title VII, chapter 1, part B (29 U.S.C.
796e to 796e–3).
(b) The Centers for Independent
Living (CIL), title VII, chapter 1, part C
(29 U.S.C. 796f to 796f–6).
§ 1329.2
Approved: October 19, 2016.
Sylvia M. Burwell,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
■
Sec.
1329.1 Programs covered.
1329.2 Purpose.
1329.3 Applicability of other regulations.
1329.4 Definitions.
1329.5 Indicators of minimum compliance.
1329.6 Reporting.
1329.7 Enforcement and appeals
procedures.
Purpose.
The purpose of title VII of the Act is
to promote a philosophy of independent
living (IL), including a philosophy of
consumer control, peer support, selfhelp, self-determination, equal access,
and individual and system advocacy, in
order to maximize the leadership,
empowerment, independence, and
productivity of individuals with
disabilities, and to promote the
integration and full inclusion of
individuals with disabilities into the
mainstream of American society by:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(a) Providing financial assistance to
States for providing, expanding, and
improving the provision of IL services;
(b) Providing financial assistance to
develop and support statewide networks
of Centers for Independent Living
(Centers or CILs);
(c) Providing financial assistance to
States, with the goal of improving the
independence of individuals with
disabilities, for improving working
relationships among—
(1) State Independent Living Services;
(2) Centers for Independent Living;
(3) Statewide Independent Living
Councils (SILCs or Councils) established
under section 705 of the Act (29 U.S.C.
796d);
(4) State vocational rehabilitation (VR)
programs receiving assistance under
Title 1 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 720 et seq.);
(5) State programs of supported
employment services receiving
assistance under Title VI of the Act (29
U.S.C. 795g et seq.);
(6) Client assistance programs (CAPs)
receiving assistance under section 112
of the Act (29 U.S.C. 732);
(7) Programs funded under other titles
of the Act;
(8) Programs funded under other
Federal laws; and
(9) Programs funded through nonFederal sources with the goal of
improving the independence of
individuals with disabilities.
§ 1329.3
Applicability of other regulations.
Several other regulations apply to all
activities under this part. These include
but are not limited to:
(a) 45 CFR part 16—Procedures of the
Departmental Grant Appeals Board.
(b) 45 CFR part 46—Protection of
Human Subjects.
(c) 45 CFR part 75—Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for
HHS Awards.
(d) 45 CFR part 80—
Nondiscrimination under Programs
Receiving Federal Assistance through
the Department of Health and Human
Services—Effectuation of title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(e) 45 CFR part 81—Practice and
Procedure for Hearings under Part 80 of
this Title.
(f) 45 CFR part 84—
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Handicap in Programs Activities
Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.
(g) 45 CFR part 86—
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex
in Education Programs or Activities
Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.
(h) 45 CFR part 91—
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age
in Programs or Activities Receiving
Federal Financial Assistance from HHS.
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(i) 45 CFR part 93—New Restrictions
on Lobbying.
(j) 2 CFR part 376—Nonprocurement
Debarment and Suspension.
(k) 2 CFR part 382—Requirements for
Drug-Free Workplace (Financial
Assistance).
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 1329.4
Definitions.
For the purposes of this part, the
following definitions apply:
Act means the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.), as
amended. Part B refers to part B of
chapter 1 of title VII of the Act (29
U.S.C. 796e to 796e–3). Part C refers to
part C of chapter 1 of title VII, of the Act
(29 U.S.C. 796f to 796f–6).
Administrative support services
means services and supports provided
by the designated State entity under Part
B, and to Part C CILs administered by
the State under section 723 of the Act
in support of the goals, objectives and
related activities under an approved
State Plan for Independent Living
(SPIL). Such support includes any costs
associated with contracts and subgrants
including fiscal and programmatic
oversight, among other services.
Administrator means the
Administrator of the Administration for
Community Living (ACL) of the
Department of Health and Human
Services.
Advocacy means pleading an
individual’s cause or speaking or
writing in support of an individual. To
the extent permitted by State law or the
rules of the agency before which an
individual is appearing, a non-lawyer
may engage in advocacy on behalf of
another individual. Advocacy may—
(1) Involve representing an
individual—
(i) Before private entities or
organizations, government agencies
(whether State, local, or Federal), or in
a court of law (whether State or
Federal); or
(ii) In negotiations or mediation, in
formal or informal administrative
proceedings before government agencies
(whether State, local, or Federal), or in
legal proceedings in a court of law; and
(2) Be on behalf of—
(i) A single individual, in which case
it is individual advocacy;
(ii) A group or class of individuals, in
which case it is systems advocacy; or
(iii) Oneself, in which case it is self
advocacy.
Attendant care means a personal
assistance service provided to an
individual with significant disabilities
in performing a variety of tasks required
to meet essential personal needs in areas
such as bathing, communicating,
cooking, dressing, eating, homemaking,
toileting, and transportation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
Center for independent living
(‘‘Center’’) means a consumercontrolled, community-based, crossdisability, nonresidential, private
nonprofit agency for individuals with
significant disabilities (regardless of age
or income) that—
(1) Is designed and operated within a
local community by individuals with
disabilities;
(2) Provides an array of IL services as
defined in section 7(18) of the Act,
including, at a minimum, independent
living core services as defined in this
section; and
(3) Complies with the standards set
out in Section 725(b) and provides and
complies with the assurances in section
725(c) of the Act and § 1329.5.
Completed their secondary education
means, with respect to the Independent
Living Core Services that facilitate the
transition of youth who are individuals
with significant disabilities in section
7(17)(e)(iii) of the Act, that an eligible
youth has received a diploma; has
received a certificate of completion for
high school or other equivalent
document marking the completion of
participation in high school; or has
exceeded the age of eligibility for
services under IDEA.
Consumer control means, with respect
to a Center or eligible agency, that the
Center or eligible agency vests power
and authority in individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who
are or have been recipients of IL
services, in terms of the management,
staffing, decision making, operation,
and provision of services. Consumer
control, with respect to an individual,
means that the individual with a
disability asserts control over his or her
personal life choices, and in addition,
has control over his or her independent
living plan (ILP), making informed
choices about content, goals and
implementation.
Cross-disability means, with respect
to services provided by a Center, that a
Center provides services to individuals
with all different types of significant
disabilities, including individuals with
significant disabilities who are members
of unserved or underserved populations
by programs under Title VII. Eligibility
for services shall be determined by the
Center, and shall not be based on the
presence of any one or more specific
significant disabilities.
Designated State entity (DSE) is the
State agency designated in the State
Plan for Independent Living (SPIL) that
acts on behalf of the State to provide the
functions described in title VII, chapter
1 of the Act.
Eligible agency means a consumercontrolled, community-based, cross-
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74695
disability, nonresidential, private,
nonprofit agency.
Independent living core services
mean, for purposes of services that are
supported under the ILS or CIL
programs—
(1) Information and referral services;
(2) Independent Living skills training;
(3) Peer counseling, including crossdisability peer counseling;
(4) Individual and systems advocacy;
(5) Services that:
(i) Facilitate the transition of
individuals with significant disabilities
from nursing homes and other
institutions to home and communitybased residences, with the requisite
supports and services. This process may
include providing services and supports
that a consumer identifies are needed to
move that person from an institutional
setting to community based setting,
including systems advocacy required for
the individual to move to a home of his
or her choosing;
(ii) Provide assistance to individuals
with significant disabilities who are at
risk of entering institutions so that the
individuals may remain in the
community. A determination of who is
at risk of entering an institution should
include self-identification by the
individual as part of the intake or goalsetting process; and
(iii) Facilitate the transition of youth
who are individuals with significant
disabilities, who were eligible for
individualized education programs
under section 614(d) of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1414(d)), and who have
completed their secondary education or
otherwise left school, to postsecondary
life. Individuals who have reached the
age of 18 and are still receiving services
in accordance with an Individualized
Education Program (IEP) under IDEA
have not ‘‘completed their secondary
education.’’
Independent living service includes
the independent living core services and
such other services as described in
section 7(18) of the Act.
Individual with a disability means an
individual who—
(1) Has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one
or more major life activities of such
individual;
(2) Has a record of such an
impairment; or
(3) Is regarded as having such an
impairment, as described in section 3(3)
of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(3)).
Individual with a significant disability
means an individual with a severe
physical or mental impairment whose
ability to function independently in the
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
74696
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
family or community or whose ability to
obtain, maintain, or advance in
employment is substantially limited and
for whom the delivery of independent
living services will improve the ability
to function, continue functioning, or
move toward functioning independently
in the family or community or to
continue in employment, respectively.
Majority means more than 50 percent.
Minority group means American
Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian
American, Black or African American
(not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic or
Latino (including persons of Mexican,
Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Central or
South American origin), and Native
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.
Nonresidential means, with respect to
a Center, that the Center does not
operate or manage housing or shelter for
individuals as an IL service on either a
temporary or long-term basis unless the
housing or shelter is—
(1) Incidental to the overall operation
of the Center;
(2) Necessary so that the individual
may receive an IL service; and
(3) Limited to a period not to exceed
eight weeks during any six-month
period.
Peer relationships mean relationships
involving mutual support and assistance
among individuals with significant
disabilities who are actively pursuing IL
goals.
Peer role models mean individuals
with significant disabilities whose
achievements can serve as a positive
example for other individuals with
significant disabilities.
Personal assistance services mean a
range of services, paid or unpaid,
provided by one or more persons,
designed to assist an individual with a
disability to perform daily living
activities that the individual would
typically perform if the individual did
not have a disability. These services
must be designed to increase the
individual’s control in life and ability to
perform everyday activities and include
but are not limited to: Getting up and
ready for work or going out into the
community (including bathing and
dressing), cooking, cleaning or running
errands, engaging in social relationships
including parenting.
Service provider means a Center for
Independent Living that receives
financial assistance under Part B or C of
chapter 1 of title VII of the Act, or any
other entity or individual that provides
IL services under a grant or contract
from the DSE pursuant to Section 704(f)
of the Act. A designated State entity
(DSE) may directly provide IL services
to individuals with significant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
disabilities only as specifically
authorized in the SPIL.
State includes, in addition to each of
the several States of the United States,
the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.
State plan means the State Plan for
Independent Living (SPIL) required
under Section 704 of the Act.
Unserved and underserved groups or
populations include populations such
as individuals from racial and ethnic
minority backgrounds, disadvantaged
individuals, individuals with limited
English proficiency, and individuals
from underserved geographic areas
(rural or urban).
Youth with a significant disability
means an individual with a significant
disability who—
(1) Is not younger than 14 years of age;
and
(2) Is not older than 24 years of age.
§ 1329.5 Indicators of minimum
compliance.
To be eligible to receive funds under
this part, a Center must comply with the
standards in section 725(b) and
assurances in section 725(c) of the Act,
with the indicators of minimum
compliance, and the requirements
contained in the terms and conditions of
the grant award.
§ 1329.6
Reporting.
(a) A Center must submit a
performance report in a manner and at
a time described by the Administrator,
consistent with section 704(m)(4)(D) of
the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796c(m)(4)(D).
(b) The DSE must submit a report in
a manner and at a time described by the
Administrator, consistent with section
704(c)(4) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.
796c(c)(4).
(c) The Administrator may require
such other reports as deemed necessary
to carry out the responsibilities set forth
in section 706 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.
796d–1.
§ 1329.7 Enforcement and appeals
procedures.
(a) Process for Centers for
Independent Living. (1) If the Director of
the Independent Living Administration
(Director) determines that, as the result
of the Onsite Compliance Review
process defined in section 706(c)(2), or
other review activities, any Center
receiving funds under this part, other
than a Center that is provided Part C
funding by the State under section 723
of the Act, is not in compliance with the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
standards and assurances in section 725
(b) and (c) of the Act and of this part,
the Director must provide notice to the
Center pursuant to guidance determined
by the Administrator.
(2) The Director may offer technical
assistance to the Center to develop a
corrective action plan or to take such
other steps as are necessary to come into
compliance with the standards and
assurances.
(3) The Center may request a
preliminary appeal to the Director in a
form and manner determined by the
Administrator. The Director shall
review the appeal request and provide
written notice of the determination
within a timely manner.
(4) Where there is a determination
that falls within 45 CFR part 16,
appendix A, C.a.(1)–(4), the Center may
appeal an unfavorable decision by the
Director to the Administrator within a
time and manner established by the
Administrator. The Administrator shall
review the appeal request and provide
written notice of the determination
within a timely manner.
(5) The Administrator may take steps
to enforce a corrective action plan or to
terminate funding if the Administrator
determines that the Center remains out
of compliance.
(6) Written notice of the
determination by the Administrator
shall constitute a final determination for
purposes of 45 CFR part 16. A Center
that receives such notice of a
determination that falls within 45 CFR
part 16, appendix A, C.a.(1)–(4), may
appeal to the Departmental Appeals
Board pursuant to the provisions of 45
CFR part 16.
(7) A Center that is administered by
the State under Section 723 of the Act
must first exhaust any State process
before going through the process
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(6) of this section.
(b) Process for States. (1) If the
Director of the Independent Living
Administration determines that a State
is out of compliance with sections 704,
705, 713 or other pertinent sections of
the Act, the Director must provide
notice to the State pursuant to guidance
determined by the Administrator.
(2) The Director may offer technical
assistance to the State to develop a
corrective action plan or to take such
other steps as are necessary to ensure
that the State comes in to compliance.
(3) Where there is a determination
that falls within 45 CFR part 16,
appendix A, C.a.(1)–(4), the State may
seek an appeal consistent with the steps
set forth in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of
this section.
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(4) The Administrator may take steps
to enforce statutory or regulatory
requirements or to terminate funding if
the Administrator determines that the
State remains out of compliance.
(5) Written notice of the
determination by the Administrator
shall constitute a final determination for
purposes of 45 CFR part 16 with regard
to the types of determinations set forth
in 45 CFR part 16, appendix A, C.a.(1)–
(4). A State that receives such notice
may appeal to the Departmental
Appeals Board pursuant to the
provisions of 45 CFR part 16.
Subpart B—Independent Living
Services
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 1329.10 Authorized use of funds for
Independent Living Services.
(a) The State:
(1) May use funds received under this
part to support the SILC resource plan
described in section 705(e) of the Act
but may not use more than 30 percent
of the funds unless an approved SPIL so
specifies pursuant to § 1329.15(c);
(2) May retain funds under section
704(c)(5) of the Act; and
(3) Shall distribute the remainder of
the funds received under this part in a
manner consistent with the approved
State plan for the activities described in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The State may use the remainder
of the funds described in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section to—
(1) Provide to individuals with
significant disabilities the independent
living (IL) services required by section
704(e) of the Act, particularly those in
unserved areas of the State;
(2) Demonstrate ways to expand and
improve IL services;
(3) Support the operation of Centers
for Independent Living (Centers) that
are in compliance with the standards
and assurances in section 725 (b) and (c)
of the Act;
(4) Support activities to increase the
capacities of public or nonprofit
agencies and organizations and other
entities to develop comprehensive
approaches or systems for providing IL
services;
(5) Conduct studies and analyses,
gather information, develop model
policies and procedures, and present
information, approaches, strategies,
findings, conclusions, and
recommendations to Federal, State, and
local policy makers in order to enhance
IL services for individuals with
significant disabilities;
(6) Train individuals with disabilities
and individuals providing services to
individuals with disabilities, and other
persons regarding the IL philosophy;
and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
(7) Provide outreach to populations
that are unserved or underserved by
programs under title VII of the Act,
including minority groups and urban
and rural populations.
§ 1329.11
DSE eligibility and application.
(a) Any designated State entity (DSE)
identified by the State and included in
the signed SPIL pursuant to section
704(c) is eligible to apply for assistance
under this part in accordance with
section 704 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796c.
(b) To receive financial assistance
under Parts B and C of chapter 1 of title
VII, a State shall submit to the
Administrator and obtain approval of a
State plan that meets the requirements
of section 704 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.
796c.
(c) Allotments to states are
determined in accordance with section
711 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796e.
§ 1329.12
entity.
Role of the designated State
(a) A DSE that applies for and receives
assistance must:
(1) Receive, account for, and disburse
funds received by the State under Part
B and Part C in a State under section
723 of the Act based on the State plan;
(2) Provide administrative support
services for a program under Part B, as
directed by the approved State plan, and
for CILs under Part C when
administered by the State under section
723 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796f–2;
(3) Keep such records and afford such
access to such records as the
Administrator finds to be necessary
with respect to the programs;
(4) Submit such additional
information or provide such assurances
as the Administrator may require with
respect to the programs; and
(5) Retain not more than 5 percent of
the funds received by the State for any
fiscal year under Part B, for the
performance of the services outlined in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
section. For purposes of these
regulations, the 5 percent cap on funds
for administrative expenses applies only
to the Part B funds allocated to the State
and to the State’s required 10 percent
Part B match. It does not apply to other
program income funds, including, but
not limited to, payments provided to a
State from the Social Security
Administration for assisting Social
Security beneficiaries and recipients to
achieve employment outcomes, any
other federal funds, or to other funds
allocated by the State for IL purposes.
(b) The DSE must also carry out its
other responsibilities under the Act,
including, but not limited to:
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74697
(1) Allocating funds for the delivery of
IL services under Part B of the Act as
directed by the SPIL; and
(2) Allocating the necessary and
sufficient resources needed by the SILC
to fulfill its statutory duties and
authorities under section 705(c),
consistent with the approved State Plan.
(c) Fiscal and accounting
requirements: The DSE must adopt
fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to
ensure the proper disbursement of and
accounting for federal funds provided to
CILs, SILCs, and/or other services
providers under the ILS program. The
DSE must comply with all applicable
federal and State laws and regulations,
including those in 45 CFR part 75.
§ 1329.13 Allotment of Federal funds for
State independent living (IL) services.
(a) The allotment of Federal funds for
State IL services for each State is
computed in accordance with the
requirements of section 711(a)(1) of the
Act.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of
this section, the allotment of Federal
funds for Guam, American Samoa, the
United States Virgin Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands is computed in accordance with
section 711(a)(2) of the Act.
(c) The Administrator shall reserve
between 1.8 percent and 2 percent of
appropriated funds to provide, either
directly or through grants, contracts, or
cooperative agreements, training and
technical assistance to SILCs. Training
and technical assistance funds shall be
administered in accordance with section
711A of the Act.
§ 1329.14
Establishment of a SILC.
(a) To be eligible to receive assistance
under this part, each State shall
establish and maintain a SILC that
meets the requirements of section 705 of
the Act, including composition and
appointment of members.
(b) The SILC shall not be established
as an entity within a State agency,
including the DSE. The SILC shall be
independent of and autonomous from
the DSE and all other State agencies.
§ 1329.15
Duties of the SILC.
(a) The duties of the SILC are those set
forth in section 705(c), (d), and (e) of the
Act.
(1) The SILC shall develop the SPIL
in accordance with guidelines
developed by the Administrator;
(2) The SILC shall monitor, review
and evaluate the implementation of the
SPIL on a regular basis as determined by
the SILC and set forth in the SPIL;
(3) The SILC shall meet regularly, and
ensure that such meetings are open to
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
74698
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the public and sufficient advance notice
of such meetings is provided;
(4) The SILC shall submit to the
Administrator such periodic reports as
the Administrator may reasonably
request, and keep such records, and
afford such access to such records, as
the Administrator finds necessary to
verify the information in such reports;
and
(5) The SILC shall, as appropriate,
coordinate activities with other entities
in the State that provide services similar
to or complementary to independent
living services, such as entities that
facilitate the provision of or provide
long-term community-based services
and supports.
(b) In carrying out the duties under
this section, the SILC may provide
contact information for the nearest
appropriate CIL. Sharing of such
information shall not constitute the
direct provision of independent living
services as defined in section 705(c)(3)
of the Act.
(c) The SILC, in conjunction with the
DSE, shall prepare a plan for the
provision of resources, including staff
and personnel that are necessary and
sufficient to carry out the functions of
the SILC.
(1) The resource plan amount shall be
commensurate, to the extent possible,
with the estimated costs related to SILC
fulfilment of its duties and authorities
consistent with the approved State Plan.
(2) Available resources include:
Innovation and Expansion (I&E) funds
authorized by 29 U.S.C. 721(a)(18);
Independent Living Part B funds; State
matching funds; other public funds
(such as Social Security reimbursement
funds); and private sources.
(3) In accordance with § 1329.10(a)(1),
no more than 30 percent of the State’s
allocation of Part B and Part B State
matching funds may be used to fund the
resource plan, unless the approved SPIL
provides that more than 30 percent is
needed and justifies the greater
percentage.
(4) No conditions or requirements
may be included in the SILC’s resource
plan that may compromise the
independence of the SILC.
(5) The SILC is responsible for the
proper expenditure of funds and use of
resources that it receives under the
resource plan.
(6) A description of the SILC’s
resource plan must be included in the
State plan. The plan should include:
(i) Staff/personnel;
(ii) Operating expenses;
(iii) Council compensation and
expenses;
(iv) Meeting expenses, including
public hearing expenses, such as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
meeting space, alternate formats,
interpreters, and other accommodations;
(v) Resources to attend and/or secure
training for staff and Council members;
and
(vi) Other costs as appropriate.
(d) The SILC shall carry out the
activities in paragraph (a), to better
serve individuals with significant
disabilities and help achieve the
purpose of section 701 of the Act.
(e) The SILC shall, consistent with
State law, supervise and evaluate its
staff and other personnel as may be
necessary to carry out its functions
under this section.
§ 1329.16
Authorities of the SILC.
(a) The SILC may conduct the
following discretionary activities, as
authorized and described in the
approved State Plan:
(1) Work with Centers for
Independent Living to coordinate
services with public and private entities
to improve services provided to
individuals with disabilities;
(2) Conduct resource development
activities to support the activities
described in the approved SPIL and/or
to support the provision of independent
living services by Centers for
Independent Living; and
(3) Perform such other functions,
consistent with the purpose of this part
and comparable to other functions
described in section 705(c) of the Act,
as the Council determines to be
appropriate and authorized in the
approved SPIL.
(b) In undertaking the foregoing duties
and authorities, the SILC shall:
(1) Coordinate with the CILs in order
to avoid conflicting or overlapping
activities within the CILs’ established
service areas;
(2) Not engage in activities that
constitute the direct provision of IL
services to individuals, including the IL
core services; and
(3) Comply with Federal prohibitions
against lobbying.
§ 1329.17
plan.
General requirements for a State
(a) The State may use funds received
under Part B to support the Independent
Living Services program and to meet its
obligations under the Act, including the
section 704(e) requirements that apply
to the provision of independent living
services. The State plan must stipulate
that the State will provide IL services,
directly and/or through grants and
contracts, with Federal, State or other
funds, and must describe how and to
whom those funds will be disbursed for
this purpose.
(b) In order to receive financial
assistance under this part, a State shall
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
submit to the Administrator a State plan
for independent living.
(1) The State plan must contain, in the
form prescribed by the Administrator,
the information set forth in section 704
of the Act, including designation of an
Agency to serve as the designated State
entity, and such other information
requested by the Administrator.
(2) The State plan must contain the
assurances set forth in section 704(m) of
the Act.
(3) The State plan must be signed in
accordance with the provisions of this
section.
(4) The State plan must be submitted
90 days before the completion date of
the proceeding plan, and otherwise in
the time frame and manner prescribed
by the Administrator.
(5) The State plan must be approved
by the Administrator.
(c) The State plan must cover a period
of not more than three years and must
be amended whenever necessary to
reflect any material change in State law,
organization, policy, or agency
operations that affects the
administration of the State plan.
(d) The State plan must be jointly—
(1) Developed by the chairperson of
the SILC, and the directors of the CILs,
after receiving public input from
individuals with disabilities and other
stakeholders throughout the State; and
(2) Signed by the—
(i) Chairperson of the SILC, acting on
behalf of and at the direction of the
SILC;
(ii) The director of the DSE, signifying
agreement to execute the
responsibilities of the DSE identified in
section 704(c) of the Act; and
(iii) Not less than 51 percent of the
directors of the CILs in the State. For
purposes of this provision, if a legal
entity that constitutes the ‘‘CIL’’ has
multiple Part C grants considered as
separate Centers for all other purposes,
for SPIL signature purposes, it is only
considered as one Center. CILs with
service areas in more than one State that
meet the other applicable requirements
are eligible to participate in SPIL
development and sign the SPIL in each
of the relevant States.
(e) The State plan must provide for
the review and revision of the plan, not
less than once every three years, to
ensure the existence of appropriate
planning, financial support and
coordination, and other assistance to
meet the requirements of section 704(a)
of the Act.
(f) The public, including people with
disabilities and other stakeholders
throughout the State, must have an
opportunity to comment on the State
plan prior to its submission to the
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Administrator and on any revisions to
the approved State plan. Meeting this
standard for public input from
individuals with disabilities requires
providing reasonable modifications in
policies, practices, or procedures;
effective communication and
appropriate auxiliary aids and services
for individuals with disabilities, which
may include the provision of qualified
interpreters and information in alternate
formats, free of charge.
(1) The requirement for public input
in this section may be met by holding
public meetings before a preliminary
draft State plan is prepared and by
providing a preliminary draft State plan
for comment prior to submission.
(2) To meet the public input standard
of this section, a public meeting
requires:
(i) Accessible, appropriate and
sufficient notice provided at least 30
days prior to the public meeting through
various media available to the general
public, such as Web sites, newspapers
and public service announcements, and
through specific contacts with
appropriate constituency groups.
(ii) All notices, including notices
published on a Web site, and other
written materials provided at or prior to
public meetings must be available upon
request in accessible formats.
(g) The State plan must identify those
provisions that are State-imposed
requirements. For purposes of this
section, a State-imposed requirement
includes any State law, regulation, rule,
or policy relating to the DSE’s
administration or operation of IL
programs under Title VII of the Act,
including any rule or policy
implementing any Federal law,
regulation, or guideline that is beyond
what would be required to comply with
the regulations in this part.
(h) The State plan must address how
the specific requirements in the Act and
in paragraph (f) of this section will be
met.
Subpart C—Centers for Independent
Living Program
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 1329.20 Centers for Independent Living
(CIL) program.
State allotments of Part C, funds shall
be based on section 721(c) of the Act,
and distributed to Centers within the
State in accordance with the order of
priorities in sections 722(e) and 723(e)
of the Act.
§ 1329.21 Continuation awards to entities
eligible for assistance under the CIL
program.
(a) In any State in which the
Administrator has approved the State
plan required by section 704 of the Act,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
an eligible agency funded under Part C
in fiscal year 2015 may receive a
continuation award in FY 2016 or a
succeeding fiscal year if the Center
has—
(1) Complied during the previous
project year with the standards and
assurances in section 725 of the Act and
the terms and conditions of its grant;
and
(2) Submitted an approvable annual
performance report demonstrating that
the Center meets the indicators of
minimum compliance referenced in in
§ 1329.5.
(b) If an eligible agency administers
more than one Part C grant, each of the
Center grants must meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section to receive a continuation award.
(c) A designated State entity (DSE)
that operated a Center in accordance
with section 724(a) of the Act in fiscal
year (FY) 2015 is eligible to continue
receiving assistance under this part in
FY 2016 or a succeeding fiscal year if,
for the fiscal year for which assistance
is sought—
(1) No nonprofit private agency
submits and obtains approval of an
acceptable application under section
722 or 723 of the Act to operate a Center
for that fiscal year before a date
specified by the Administrator; or
(2) After funding all applications so
submitted and approved, the
Administrator determines that funds
remain available to provide that
assistance.
(d) A Center operated by the DSE
under section 724(a) of the Act must
comply with paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)
of this section to receive continuation
funding, except for the requirement that
the Center be a private nonprofit agency.
(e) A designated State entity that
administered Part C funds and awarded
grants directly to Centers within the
State under section 723 of the Act in
fiscal year (FY) 2015 is eligible to
continue receiving assistance under
section 723 in FY 2016 or a succeeding
fiscal year if the Administrator
determines that the amount of State
funding earmarked by the State to
support the general operation of Centers
during the preceding fiscal year equaled
or exceeded the amount of federal funds
allotted to the State under section 721(c)
of the Act for that fiscal year.
(f) A DSE may apply to administer
Part C funds under section 723 in the
time and in the manner that the
Administrator may require, consistent
with section 723(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
(g) Grants awarded by the DSE under
section 723 of the Act are subject to the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section and the order of priorities
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74699
in section 723(e) of the Act, unless the
DSE and the SILC jointly agree on
another order of priorities.
§ 1329.22 Competitive awards to new
Centers for Independent Living.
(a) Subject to the availability of funds
and in accordance with the order of
priorities in section 722(e) of the Act
and the State Plan’s design for the
statewide network of Centers, an eligible
agency may receive Part C funding as a
new Center for Independent Living in a
State, if the eligible agency:
(1) Submits to the Administrator an
application at the time and manner
required in the funding opportunity
announcement (FOA) issued by the
Administrator which contains the
information and meets the selection
criteria established by the Administrator
in accordance with section 722(d) of the
Act;
(2) Proposes to serve a geographic area
that has been designated as a priority
unserved or underserved in the State
Plan for Independent Living and that is
not served by an existing Part C-funded
Center; and
(3) Is determined by the
Administrator to be the most qualified
applicant to serve the designated
priority area consistent with the State
plan setting forth the design of the State
for establishing a statewide network of
Centers for independent living.
(b) An existing Part C-funded Center
may apply to serve the designated
unserved or underserved areas if it
proposes the establishment of a separate
and complete Center (except that the
governing board of the existing center
may serve as the governing board of the
new Center) at a different geographic
location, consistent with the
requirements in the FOA.
(c) An eligible agency located in a
bordering, contiguous State may be
eligible for a new CIL award if the
Administrator determines, based on the
submitted application, that the agency:
(1) Is the most qualified applicant
meeting the requirements in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section; and
(2) Has the expertise and resources
necessary to serve individuals with
significant disabilities who reside in the
bordering, contiguous State, in
accordance with the requirements of the
Act and these regulations.
(d) If there are insufficient funds
under the State’s allotment to fund a
new Center, the Administrator may—
(1) Use the excess funds in the State
to assist existing Centers consistent with
the State plan; or
(2) Reallot these funds in accordance
with section 721(d) of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
74700
§ 1329.23
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Compliance reviews.
(a) Centers receiving Part C funding
shall be subject to periodic reviews,
including on-site reviews, in accordance
with sections 706(c), 722(g), and 723(g)
of the Act and guidance set forth by the
Administrator, to verify compliance
with the standards and assurances in
section 725(b) and (c) of the Act and the
grant terms and conditions. The
Administrator shall annually conduct
reviews of at least 15 percent of the
Centers.
(b) A copy of each review under this
section shall be provided, in the case of
section 723(g), by the director of the
DSE to the Administrator and to the
SILC, and in the case of section 722(g),
by the Administrator to the SILC and
the DSE.
§ 1329.24 Training and technical
assistance to Centers for Independent
Living.
The Administrator shall reserve
between 1.8% and 2% of appropriated
funds to provide training and technical
assistance to Centers through grants,
contracts or cooperative agreements,
consistent with section 721(b) of the
Act. The training and technical
assistance funds shall be administered
in accordance with section 721(b) of the
Act.
[FR Doc. 2016–25918 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0178]
Physical Qualifications and
Examinations: Medical Examination
Report and Medical Examiner’s
Certificate Forms
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of decision on use of
Medical Examination Report and
Medical Examiner’s Certificate Forms.
AGENCY:
FMCSA announces its
decision to allow certified Medical
Examiners (MEs) to use the Medical
Examination Report (MER) Form,
MCSA–5875, and Medical Examiner’s
Certificate (MEC), Form MCSA–5876,
with October, November, and December,
2015 revision dates that are located in
the top left corner of the forms until
existing stocks are depleted. For MEs in
an office where these forms have been
programmed into an electronic system
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:32 Oct 26, 2016
Jkt 241001
This decision is in effect on
October 27, 2016.
DATES:
You may search background
documents or comments to the docket
for this rule, identified by docket
number FMCSA–2012–0178, by visiting
the:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for reviewing documents
and comments. Regulations.gov is
available electronically 24 hours each
day, 365 days a year; or
• DOT Docket Management Facility
(M–30): U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room 12–140, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its
rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any
personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
ADDRESSES:
49 CFR Part 391
SUMMARY:
that will require IT programming, the
current approved versions of the forms
should be programmed as soon as
practicable. FMCSA published sample
versions of the forms in October and
November 2015 prior to posting fillable
Portable Document Format (PDF)
versions in December 2015. Based on
the fact that the October and November
2015 forms contain minor differences
yet collect the same information as the
fillable PDF version, FMCSA
determined the October and November
versions are acceptable. In addition,
MEs are also allowed to continue to use
the versions of the MER Form, MCSA–
5875, that include the Privacy Act
Statement on page one until stocks are
depleted. For MEs in an office where
these forms have been programmed into
an electronic system that will require IT
programming, the current approved
versions of the forms should be
programmed as soon as practicable. The
versions of the forms currently posted
by FMCSA include nonsubstantive
changes that were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on April 7, 2016 and September
6, 2016, and no longer include the
Privacy Act Statement or a revision date
in the top left corner. State Driver’s
Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) should not
accept versions of the MEC that have
not been approved by OMB, and do not
display both the FMCSA form number
(MCSA–5876) and the OMB expiration
date of August 31, 2018.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Ms.
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division, Office of Policy,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone (202) 366–4001;
fmcsamedical@dot.gov. If you have
questions about viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone (202) 366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Background
On April 23, 2015, FMCSA published
a final rule adopting regulations to
facilitate the electronic transmission of
MEC information from FMCSA’s
National Registry system to SDLAs for
holders of Commercial Driver’s Licenses
(CDL) and Commercial Learner’s
Permits (CLP). The final rule also
requires the use of the prescribed MER
Form, MCSA–5875, in place of the MER
and the prescribed MEC, Form MCSA–
5876, in place of the MEC. Medical
Examiner’s Certification Integration (80
FR 22790, April 23, 2015). On August 5,
2015, FMCSA received approval from
OMB, for use of the MER Form, MCSA–
5875, and MEC, Form MCSA–5876, in a
fillable Adobe AcrobatTM format.
FMCSA published sample versions of
the MER Form, MCSA–5875, and MEC,
Form MCSA–5876, with October and
November, 2015 revision dates on the
National Registry Web site with the
intent and purpose of educating MEs
regarding the use of new categories on
the forms and assisting MEs in
programming electronic medical records
prior to the Agency’s posting of the
fillable Adobe AcrobatTM versions. At
that time, at least one company that
produces regulatory compliance
publications and forms began printing
and selling the MER Form, MCSA–5875,
and MEC, Form MCSA–5876, with
October and November, 2015 revision
dates. On December 14, 2015, FMCSA
posted the fillable Adobe AcrobatTM
versions of the MER Form, MCSA–5875,
and MEC, Form MCSA–5876, with
December 2015 revision dates on the
FMCSA and National Registry Web
sites. Based on the fact that the October
and November, 2015 forms contain
minor differences yet collect the same
information as the fillable Adobe
AcrobatTM versions posted by FMCSA
on December 14, 2015, FMCSA made
the decision to allow MEs to use any
previously purchased existing stock of
the MER Form, MCSA–5875, and MEC,
Form MCSA–5876, with October or
November, 2015 revision dates until
stocks are depleted. For MEs in an office
where these forms have been
E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM
27OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74682-74700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25918]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Community Living
45 CFR Part 1329
RIN 0985-AA10
Independent Living Services and Centers for Independent Living
AGENCY: Independent Living Administration, Administration for Community
Living, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule implements the Rehabilitation Act as amended by the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which established an
Independent Living Administration within the Administration for
Community Living (ACL) of the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS). The rule helps implement changes to the administration of
Independent Living Services and the Centers for Independent Living made
under the current law in alignment with ACL and HHS policies and
practices.
DATES: These final regulations are effective November 28, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Molly Burgdorf, Administration for
Community Living, telephone (202) 795-7317 (Voice). This is not a toll-
free number. This document will be made available in alternative
formats upon request. Written correspondence can be sent to the
Administration for Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 330 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20201.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Discussion of Final Rule
The federal Independent Living (IL) program seeks to empower and
enable individuals with disabilities, particularly individuals with
significant disabilities, to exercise full choice and control over
their lives and to live independently in their communities. For over 40
years, these aims have been advanced through two federal programs:
Independent Living Services (ILS) and Centers for Independent Living
(referred to as CILs or Centers). The Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA) transferred these Independent Living programs to
the Administration for Community Living (ACL) and created a new
Independent Living Administration within the agency, adding section
701A of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 796-1. As part of the
transfer, the Administrator of ACL (Administrator) drafted a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that was published on November 16, 2015,to
implement changes made by WIOA in accordance with Section 12 of the
Rehabilitation Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 709(e), and section 491(f) of
WIOA, 42 U.S.C. 3515e(f).
ACL received over 100 comments to the NPRM, most of them expressing
their support for the provisions in the proposed rule. ACL has read and
considered each of the comments received. We respond here to the most-
commonly-received comments and to those that we believe require further
discussion. We have indicated changes made between the NPRM and final
rule.
Several comments raised issues that are specific to the commenter.
Responding to such comments is beyond the scope of the final
regulation. Nevertheless, we encourage commenters with individualized
questions to contact the technical and training support center or the
ILA specialist for their State for assistance with their questions. We
also made a number of technical changes in the preamble, for example,
to reflect that the term ``704 Reporting Instruments'' will no longer
be used for data collection going forward, and to clarify potentially
confusing references to the ``State.''
Subpart A--General Provisions
ACL received numerous comments expressing concern about the person-
centered planning language in the NPRM preamble, including the
statement that person centered planning and consumer control ``are not
interchangeable terms.''
ACL affirms that consumer control is a guiding principle in IL. To
clarify, the NPRM did not intend to conflate person-centeredness and
consumer control or other key terms in the IL purpose. The proposed
regulatory language did not include person-centeredness; the language
was included in the preamble to the NPRM to both highlight this
requirement in the home and community-based services and supports
(HCBS) settings context, and offer an opportunity to IL programs and
stakeholders to help shape person-centered planning and self-direction
principles in HHS-funded programs and practices that serve people with
significant disabilities, as they increasingly are embedded in the work
we do at ACL and across HHS. This language applies in the HCBS settings
context and does not limit consumer control or anything centers do with
Title VII funding.
One commenter suggested that Centers should not be penalized for
hiring individuals who do not have significant disabilities when
candidates who have significant disabilities do not apply, or if those
who do apply are not qualified, and the CIL therefore fails to meet the
requirement that the majority of staff are individuals with
disabilities. The majority hiring requirement is beyond the scope of
this rule; however, the ongoing requirement that a Center ensure that
the majority of the staff, and individuals in decision-making positions
are individuals with disabilities is consistent with the consumer
directed, self-help, and self-advocacy principles in the IL Philosophy.
Definitions (Sec. 1329.4)
New IL Core Services Definitions
WIOA added a new fifth requirement to the Independent Living Core
Services, which includes services that--
Facilitate the transition of individuals with significant
disabilities from nursing homes and other institutions to home and
community-based residences, with the requisite supports and services;
Provide assistance to individuals with significant
disabilities who are at risk of entering institutions so that the
individuals may remain in the community; and
Facilitate the transition of youth who are individuals
with significant disabilities, who were eligible for individualized
education programs under section 614(d) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)), and who have completed
their secondary education or otherwise left school, to postsecondary
life.
[[Page 74683]]
(Sec. 7(17)(E) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 705(17)(E)).
ACL received many comments expressing concern about being able to
effectively provide the new IL core services without the allocation of
additional funding. We cannot address concerns about funding levels for
IL programs in the final regulation. We also wish to clarify that funds
for transition services allocated to other agencies are based under
separate statutory authorities and appropriations.
ACL will support programs in accomplishing and reporting IL
services. To add value and help enhance the work CILs are already doing
in this area, ACL offers technical assistance for state and community-
based aging and disability organizations (CBOs) through national
partners as well as through learning collaboratives of networks of
community-based aging and disability organizations, including Centers
for Independent Living. ACL looks forward to engaging more of the IL
community in these efforts to support and improve business acumen,
which has enabled CBOs to garner funding through public-private
partnerships, contracts with health-care providers and payers, and
grants from private foundations. ACL's business acumen efforts are one
way that CILs may enhance their resource development activities. We
will also work to identify opportunities to collaborate and leverage
resources for the core IL services, including the new fifth core
services, across ACL, HHS, and other federal agencies.
The NPRM sought public comment on whether to include a definition
of ``institution'' and the suitability of applying Medicare and
Medicaid definitions of that term in defining the new core independent
living services.
We received comments indicating that the Medicare/Medicaid
definitions are not sufficiently broad to encompass the range of
entities included in the term ``institution.'' We received numerous
comments recommending various terms and entities that should be
included in a definition of ``institution,'' as well as comments
stating that including a regulatory definition was not necessary or
could be unnecessarily limiting and could impede effective provision of
services. As some commenters recommended, a broad, non-prescriptive
approach allows CILs the most flexibility to determine the types of
transition services they can offer with the best chance of success for
individuals receiving the services based on available local resources.
Some commenters recommended a very broad definition of institution,
including ``any congregate living arrangement of any size in which
residents with disabilities are not in control of their own lives,'' a
parental/guardian controlled home, or ``any situation in which a person
with a disability is not free to control all aspects of his or her
life.'' ACL did not incorporate this approach, as we concluded that the
suggested categories were vague and overbroad. For instance, these
examples are not limited to adults, and minors are not given authority
to control all aspects of their lives, including moving from a home
where the person lives with a parent or guardian. Other commenters
suggested narrowing the definition and excluding certain settings such
as correctional facilities.
ACL has not included a specific definition of the term institution
here, so that the categories will be sufficiently broad and allow
flexibility to CILs. Without specifically defining the term, we
identify the following examples of entities that fall within the
category of ``institution,'' which includes but is not limited to:
Hospitals, nursing facilities and skilled nursing facilities,
Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual
Disabilities, and criminal justice facilities, juvenile detention
facilities, etc.
In the NPRM, we also requested comment on the need for and proposed
content of definitions for ``home and community-based residences'' and
individuals who are ``at risk'' of institutionalization in the new
independent living core services. We received several comments
requesting that we define ``home and community-based residences'' for
the purposes of the fifth core services. Some commenters suggested we
refer to Medicaid definitions, including the definitions used in the
``Money Follows the Person'' demonstration program and the rule related
to Medicaid-funded home and community-based services published on
January 16, 2014. Many commenters suggested a definition that would
include any residence ``with fewer than 4 people non-related in which a
person with a disability is free to control all aspects of his or her
life.'' Other commenters recommended against including size or
configuration of living arrangements in the definition, explaining,
``When maximum number of people in a setting or their familial
relationship to each other is prescribed, it does not permit those
groups of totally self-directing individuals who choose to share an
apartment or house and share attendant services, for example, to be
included in the service count. The regulations should not preclude
serving those individuals who, of their own volition, have chosen forms
of co-housing, cooperatives, or Naturally Occurring Retirement
Communities (NORCs).''
As some commenters recommended, ACL considered language in Medicaid
regulations that define home and community-based settings for certain
Medicaid programs. ACL encourages IL programs to consult the language
in the rule defining HCBS settings for Medicaid waivers under section
1915(c) of the Social Security Act at 42 CFR 441.301(c)(4), for state
plan HCBS at 42 CFR 441.710(a)(1) and (2) or for Community First Choice
services at 42 CFR 441.530(a)(1) and (2). These CMS regulations provide
details on the qualities of home and community-based settings, as
compared with those that have the qualities of an institutional
setting. However, we did not import the definition from the CMS HCBS
rules into this rule. ACL seeks to encourage CILs to assist the
broadest range of individuals as they transition from an institutional
to a community-based setting. The Medicaid rules apply to Medicaid
beneficiaries receiving home and community-based services under
specific statutory provisions, and while the language is instructive to
determine qualities integral to a home and community-based setting, IL
serves a broader range of people and addresses a wider range of
situations than those covered under the Medicaid rules. For example,
the needs of the individual in 42 CFR 441.301(c)(4) are determined ``as
indicated in their person-centered service plan.''
As some commenters recommended, to preserve wide latitude and to
support consumer control, we have chosen not to include a definition
for ``home and community-based residences'' in the final rule.
We received comments recommending that the individual should
determine whether or not he or she is at-risk through self-disclosure.
We received comments that emphasized the importance of the intake and
goal setting processes for facilitating informed consumer choice
related to self-identification. If a consumer feels he or she is at
risk of institutionalization, and self-identifies as being at risk as
part of the intake or goal-setting process, then he or she should be
treated as being at risk. CILs in these situations conduct discussions
around the person's circumstances, possibilities and risks but the
designation ultimately must be informed by consumer choice. We have
incorporated that recommendation in
[[Page 74684]]
the regulatory text as part of the definition of the independent living
core services.
Some commenters recommended adding a definition of ``transition
process.'' Since the term ``transition'' is not included in the second
prong of the fifth core IL services, and the term ``transition'' has a
different meaning in the third prong, we incorporated the recommended
definition into the first prong regarding the transition of individuals
with significant disabilities from nursing homes and other institutions
to home and community-based residences.
WIOA defines youth with a disability to mean ``an individual with a
disability who is not younger than 14 years of age; and is not older
than 24 years of age.'' In the NPRM, ACL defined the category of
``youth with a significant disability'' by combining the definition of
``individual with significant disability'' in section 7(21), 29 U.S.C.
705(21) and ``youth with a disability'' in section 7(42) of the Act, 29
U.S.C. 705(42).
A commenter expressed concern that the rule uses the term ``youth
with a significant disability,'' (emphasis added) as ``[t]his is
different than the Independent Living philosophy which is cross
disability.'' The language is based on WIOA language in the definition
of independent living core services, 29 U.S.C. 705(17)(E), which covers
services to ``facilitate the transition of youth who are individuals
with significant disabilities . . .'' As a cross-disability agency, ACL
is sensitive to this concern, but does not have the authority to change
statutory language through the rulemaking process.
A commenter recommended removing the ``completed their secondary
education'' provision from this regulation. Other commenters suggested
the definition was overbroad and should be pared back. We received
comments that individuals who have reached the age of 18 but are still
receiving services in accordance with an individual's education program
developed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
should not be considered to have ``completed their secondary
education.'' Because Sec. 7(17)(E)(iii) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.
705(17)(E)(iii), uses the term ``completed their secondary education,''
ACL does not have the authority to remove this phrase from the
definition of IL core services regarding youth transition. However, we
are removing from regulatory language: ``has reached age 18, even if he
or she is still receiving services in accordance with an individualized
education program developed under the IDEA.'' In agreement with
comments received, we have added to the definition of independent
living core services that individuals who have reached the age of 18
and are still receiving services in accordance with an Individualized
Education Program (IEP) under IDEA have not ``completed their secondary
education.''
Some commenters also questioned the link to eligibility under IDEA/
eligibility for an IEP, or recommended a definition of ``students with
disabilities'' be defined broadly, such as those receiving services
under of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (under 504 plans).
Commenters also requested that the youth transition prong be extended
to the youngest possible age, for example before vocational
rehabilitation (VR) begins to provide services in the State. In WIOA,
Congress established the prong of the new IL service to ``(iii)
facilitate the transition of youth who are individuals with significant
disabilities, who were eligible for individualized education programs
under section 614(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 1414(d)), and who have completed their secondary education
or otherwise left school, to postsecondary life.'' 29 U.S.C.
705(17)(E)(iii). This requirement, defined in the statute, focuses on
providing independent living services to youth who are transitioning to
postsecondary life after they have left school. ACL does not have the
authority to redefine this category through the rulemaking process.
We acknowledge the importance of transition services for youth
prior to post-secondary life in order to prepare youth for a successful
transition to post-secondary life. However, we also want to emphasize
that some youth transition activities not covered under the fifth core
services may be included within the other four core services, Sec. 7
(17)(A-D) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 705(17)(A-D), as well as within the
Independent Living Services in Sec. 7(18), 29 U.S.C. 705(18), and CILs
should continue to report their work in these areas accordingly.
A commenter raised concerns that broad definitions around the youth
transition component of the fifth core service could prompt school
districts to shift responsibility for youth transition to the CILs.
While we appreciate the concern, how school districts fulfill their
responsibilities to students with disabilities is beyond the scope of
this rule. We acknowledge, however, that Centers often participate as
one of several entities, including schools, with an important role in
supporting and facilitating youth transitions. As a promising practice,
ACL recommends continuing successful collaboration, coordination, and
leveraging of resources.
Commenters noted that they are already pursing transition work with
youth that falls outside of the proposed parameters of the fifth core
services. Programs may and are encouraged to continue to engage in such
activities, which can be captured and credited under the other core IL
services or general independent living services under Sec. 7(18), 29
U.S.C. 705(18).
Finally, in response to the NPRM, ACL received questions as to
whether there are minimum levels which must be achieved in order to
have met the requirements of each component of the new fifth core IL
services. Each CIL must demonstrate activity under all three prongs of
the definition, but the minimum levels are not further defined here.
See the Regulatory Impact Analysis for further discussion. The revised
data collection system will contain more information when published.
Definitions of Other Terms in Sec. 1329.4
Administrative Support Services
ACL received comments recommending additional changes to this
definition, including a request for additional clarity on the
``services and supports'' provided by the DSE. Others expressed support
for a broad definition, with flexibility for the DSE. In order to
preserve flexibility, we made no changes to the definition in the
proposed rule.
Advocacy
ACL received a number of comments on the proposed definition. Some
commenters expressed a concern about a perceived lack of inclusion of
``systems change'' in the definition, and requested that the language
in the rule ``revert back to the original language for advocacy that
includes both self and systems change.'' We note that the proposed
definition of ``advocacy,'' identical to the prior definition from the
Department of Education regulation 34 CFR 364.4, includes ``systems
advocacy.'' Many commenters recommend that the activities described in
Sec. 1329.10(b)(5) be included in the definition, as they are part of
systems advocacy. The final rule retains the proposed definition for
``advocacy.'' The activities described in Sec. 1329.10(b)(5) are
already required as authorized uses of funds for independent living
services and including them in the definition of advocacy would be
redundant. ACL will consider providing further guidance and will
continue to offer training and
[[Page 74685]]
technical assistance to provide additional clarity on this issue.
Center for Independent Living
Many commenters expressed support for the proposed definition from
the NPRM, though several commenters raised questions about
accountability for CILs that are not recipients of Part C or Part B
funding. A few commenters recommended the definition be limited to CILs
that receive Part B or Part C funding. The final rule retains the
proposed definition of CILs. With respect to compliance and oversight
issues, the SILCs, pursuant to their duty under Section 705(c)(1)(B) to
monitor, review, and evaluate implementation of the SPIL, will make the
determination that entities counted as CILs eligible to sign the SPIL
comply with the standards in Sections 725 (b) and the assurances in
Section 725(c). The SPIL must identify 1) the eligible CILs and 2) how
they were determined to meet the required standards and assurances. We
will consider including corresponding assurances with some standards of
evidence of documentation in the indicators of minimum compliance for
the SILCs.
We received requests for clarification regarding the phrase
``regardless of age or income.'' This phrase is based directly on the
statutory definition, Sec. 702(2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796a(2). The
phrase means that an agency, in addition to meeting all of the other
requirements, may not categorically exclude individuals with
significant disabilities on the basis of age or income. This does not
preclude prioritizing services by urgency of need, nor does it preclude
practical distinctions such as age-based legal restrictions.
We also received questions regarding the use of fee-for-service
models for the delivery of services. The final rule does not address
the use of fee-for-service models, though we encourage CILs to consider
how to ensure that any application of such a model is accomplished in a
way that is consistent with IL values.
Consumer Control
In the NPRM we proposed to add the statutory definition of consumer
control at Section 702(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796a(3). Commenters
requested that the definition also include individual consumer control.
ACL acknowledges the importance of an individual being able to make his
or her own choices and set his or her own goals, including deciding
with whom and how to achieve them, and allowing for the dignity of
risk, which is a critical component of growth and true independence.
The definition of ``consumer control'' is amended in the final rule to
include: ``Consumer control, with respect to an individual, means that
the individual with a disability asserts control over his or her
personal life choices, and in addition, has control over his or her
independent living plan (ILP), making informed choices about content,
goals and implementation.''
Some commenters also suggested that the definition include the
requirement that a majority of staff, management and Board positions
are filled by persons with disabilities. ACL did not make that change,
as the composition requirements (for the SILC) and assurances (for the
CILs) at issue are established separately in the statute.
Personal Assistance Services
The NPRM proposed that personal assistance services mean ``a range
of services, paid or unpaid, provided by one or more persons, designed
to assist an individual with a disability to perform daily living
activities on or off the job that the individual would typically
perform if the individual did not have a disability. These services
must be designed to increase the individual's control in life and
ability to perform everyday activities on or off the job and include
but are not limited to: Getting up and ready for work or going out into
the community (including bathing and dressing), cooking, cleaning or
running errands.'' Commenters indicated that the purpose of personal
assistance services is not merely to enable a person with a disability
to get a job, but to perform a myriad of social functions. Commenters
also raised the point that the concept of personal assistance services
should be updated to reflect ``the possibilities available today.''
Commenters requested additional examples of personal assistance
services, to help illustrate that such services may support a variety
of interdependent social functions, such as parenting, engaging in
civic activities, practicing the individual's preferred religion,
engaging in a relationship with partner(s) of the individual's choice,
and more. The final rule incorporates the recommended language. Thus,
personal assistance services means ``a range of services, paid or
unpaid, provided by one or more persons, designed to assist an
individual with a disability to perform daily living activities that
the individual would typically perform if the individual did not have a
disability. These services must be designed to increase the
individual's control in life and ability to perform everyday activities
including but not limited to: Getting up and ready for work or going
out into the community (including bathing and dressing), cooking,
cleaning or running errands, and engaging in social relationships
including parenting.''
Service Provider
ACL received comments indicating that the DSE should not be
included in the definition of ``service provider.'' The commenters
explained that DSEs should not provide direct services because the DSE
``is not consumer controlled and does not provide peer support, systems
advocacy, etc.,'' among other justifications. After consideration of
the comments on this provision, ACL agrees with the concerns expressed,
and added the clarification that a DSE is eligible to receive funds to
provide independent living services only where so specified in the
SPIL. We have added a corresponding clarification to the preamble
language in Sec. 1329.17.
Unserved and Underserved
ACL received numerous comments about the definition of unserved and
underserved populations. A commenter expressed concerns about the
elimination of ``sensory impairments'' from the definition. Others
recommended that the definition should include older people with
disabilities, or populations with certain types of disabilities,
including individuals who are low vision, blind, deafblind or deaf, and
people with traumatic brain injuries (TBI), and post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). Another commenter asked about other groups, including
people with limited English proficiency. One commenter expressed a
concern about a lack of services for black veterans. Others requested a
definition for ``disadvantaged individuals.''
ACL notes that the proposed definition includes ``populations such
as . . .'' and lists a number of possible categories. As stated in the
NPRM, ``We recognize that unserved and underserved groups or
populations will vary by service area. For example, in some service
areas unserved and underserved groups may include people with
disabilities from the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
communities.'' The categories included in the definition are examples,
and not an all-inclusive list. We are not including a definition of
disadvantaged individuals, as that definition may vary by individuals
and by community.
Commenters expressed support for the proposed definition of ``youth
with a significant disability.''
[[Page 74686]]
ACL made technical changes to the definitions of ``Center for
independent living'' and ``Independent living core services'' to
improve clarity.
Indicators of Minimum Compliance (Sec. 1329.5)
Commenters requested that the final rule include SILC standards and
indicators. The statute requires that ACL develop and publish in the
Federal Register SILC indicators of minimum compliance. As was stated
in the NPRM, the SILC indicators of minimum compliance are currently
under development, a process which includes consideration of informal
stakeholder input. ACL presented the current draft SILC standards of
minimum compliance at the SILC Congress in January of 2016, and the
final version will be published in the Federal Register with an
opportunity for public comment. ACL will continue to collect
information on CIL compliance indicators based on the statutory
standards and assurances through the data collection process. We made
technical changes to the regulatory text of Sec. 1329.5 to clarify the
current requirements.
ACL also clarifies that the indicators of minimum compliance and
data collection instruments are living documents. ACL will periodically
engage stakeholders to make refinements and improvements.
Regarding comments expressing concern about the lack of a
sufficient notice and opportunity for ``substantive public comment,''
ACL is committed to continued engagement with stakeholders as we
develop and publish the required indicators. We also note that the
Federal Register is the recognized means for notifying the public and
offering an opportunity to submit comments. Multiple commenters
requested diverse compliance measures be developed to address specific
needs for indicators. ACL appreciates this input and will consider
these suggestions through the established processes.
Commenters also recommended establishing a rotation for CIL
reviews. As indicated in the NPRM, the statute eliminated the
requirement that compliance reviews be conducted on a random basis. ACL
is actively reviewing options for review criteria, including how CILs
will be selected for review.
Commenters expressed concerns about ``targeting'' CILs and
requesting a neutral process. We decline to incorporate the comment
that some CILs should not be reviewed more frequently than others. On-
site compliance reviews are no longer required to be conducted on a
random basis and there may be legitimate reasons why a CIL may require
more frequent evaluation. ACL agrees that clear, unbiased, and
legitimate criteria must be established and consistently followed.
Some commenters expressed concern about the lack of capacity at the
state and federal levels to conduct the required reviews of CILs.
Section 711(c), 29 U.S.C. 796d-1(c) includes a requirement that the
Administrator (rather than the DSE) shall annually conduct onsite
compliance reviews of at least 15 percent of the centers for
independent living that receive funds under Section 722 of the Act, 29
U.S.C. 796f-1 and at least one-third of the designated state units that
receive funding under Section 723 of the Act. ACL is actively
evaluating the review processes, to optimize our capacity to conduct
the required oversight.
Reporting (Sec. 1329.6)
A commenter objected to proposed Sec. 1329.6(b), stating that the
requirement that the DSE in each state ``submit a report in a manner
and at a time described by the Administrator, consistent with section
704(c)(4) of the Act,'' exceeds statutory authority since the
referenced statute, Section 704(c)(4), only requires the designated
state entity to ``submit such additional information or provide such
assurances as the Administrator may require.'' This commenter noted
that CILs are explicitly required by statute to ``submit such reports
with respect to such records as the Administrator determines to be
appropriate.'' We appreciate the comment, but find that requiring a
report is fully consistent with and authorized by the statutory
requirement that the DSE submit such additional information or provide
assurances that the Administrator may require. We received a comment
concerning readability and accessibility of forms, materials, and
links. We appreciate the comment and agree that the instructions, and
any forms, links, and needed materials must be user-friendly and easily
accessible. We continue to strive to meet this standard.
Enforcement and Appeals Procedures (Sec. 1329.7)
Regarding the proposed enforcement and appeals procedures in the
rule, commenters asked questions about onsite compliance reviews and
expressed concern about the lack of peer review. To clarify, the
enforcement and appeals procedures proposed in Sec. 1329.7 are
separate from a request for technical assistance and separate and in
addition to the compliance review set forth in Section 706(c)(1).
Section 706(c)(2)(C), 29 U.S.C. 796d-1(c)(2)(C), requires that, for the
compliance review, the Administrator must ``. . . ensure that at least
one of member of a team conducting such a review shall be an individual
who (i) is not a government employee; and (2) has experience in the
operation of centers for independent living.'' The proposed regulatory
text in Sec. 1329.7 does not address or propose changes to the onsite
compliance review process, including the qualifications of employees
and others conducting reviews. Instead, Sec. 1329.7 establishes the
enforcement and appeals process that arises when a grantee receives
notice of an action that would trigger the additional review process
available through 45 CFR part 16. These determinations, set forth in
appendix A, C.a.(1)-(4) are: Disallowance, termination for failure to
comply with the terms of an award, denial of a noncompeting
continuation award for failure to comply with the terms of a previous
award, and voiding (a decision that an award is invalid because it was
not authorized by statute or regulation or because it was fraudulently
obtained).
For example, if after an onsite compliance review, the Director
determines it necessary to terminate funds because of the grantee's
failure to comply with the terms of the award, Sec. 1329.7 provides
the affected CIL or State with the opportunity to seek additional
review of that decision, consistent with HHS policies and practices. We
added clarifying language regarding the onsite compliance review
process as some commenters recommended. We also made technical changes
to more accurately reflect established HHS processes and incorporate
correct citations.
Several commenters interpreted Sec. 1329.7 to mean that ACL would
immediately terminate funding under certain circumstances, and pointed
out that WIOA stipulates 90 day notice before Title VII Part C funding
can be terminated. The NPRM did not propose to move more quickly than
the 90 day time frame. The process that was outlined for enforcement
and appeals is designed precisely to afford due process for those CILs
for which expiration of the 90 day time frame and possible loss of
funding is imminent. Since nothing in the regulation changes the
statutory deadlines, no changes to the regulatory text are required.
With regard to Sec. 1329.7(b), one commenter questioned whether
the Administrator has the authority to terminate Title VII B funding.
We refer the commenter to 45 CFR part 75, Uniform Administrative
Requirements,
[[Page 74687]]
Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, which is
included in Sec. 1329.3, applicability of other regulations. For more
information regarding remedies for non-compliance and termination,
please see 45 CFR 75.371 and 75.372, which, address these issues. We
also remind stakeholders that Section 704(a)(1) requires the submission
of a SPIL which is approved by the Administrator in order to be
eligible for funding. Thus, the Administrator has the authority to
withhold or terminate funding if a SPIL is not submitted in accordance
with the requirements of Section 704, or if the Administrator does not
approve a SPIL that is submitted.
ACL thanks commenters for embracing the opportunity to work with
ACL on developing sub-regulatory guidance to provide additional detail
in this area.
Commenters state that the time frame for notice should be clear and
specific. The regulation describes that written notice shall be
provided ``within a timely manner.'' In the absence of a recommendation
for a specific length of time, we retain the language of the proposed
rule, with the clarification that the standard is a reasonable
determination of a ``timely manner.'' We will consider whether to
designate a specific time period in any sub-regulatory guidance that we
develop.
Subpart B--Independent Living Services
Authorized Use of Funds for Independent Living Services (Sec. 1329.10)
Commenters requested a change to Sec. 1329.10(a) to more
accurately reflect the language and intention of the statute.
Commenters were correct in stating that the Administrator reserves the
funds under Section 711A for SILC training and technical assistance,
before the State receives funding under this part. ACL incorporated the
requested change, and revised Sec. 1329.10 to include the correction.
DSE Eligibility and Application (Sec. 1329.11)
Regarding Sec. 1329.11, commenters recommended including language
that ``[a]ny designated State entity (DSE) identified in the SPIL and
agreed to by the State is eligible to apply for assistance under this
part in accordance with Section 704 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796c.''
We decline to make these changes, because, as explained in the FAQs
that accompanied the DSE Guidance document,\1\ the DSE is a
governmental State entity that carries out the functions described in
the statute in Section 704(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796c(c). ``If the
DSE does not carry out those functions, the State is legally
responsible.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Guidance: ILA PI-15-01 Selection of the Designated State
Entity (DSE), rev. Oct. 28, 2015; available at https://www.acl.gov/Programs/AoD/ILA/Index.aspx#dse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in response to these comments, and with the understanding
that the State plan shall ``designate'' the ``designated State entity''
as the agency that, on behalf of the State, shall accomplish the listed
responsibilities in the law and comply with the specified funding
limits (and acknowledging that the chairperson of the Statewide
Independent Living Council and the directors of the CILs in the State,
after receiving public input from individuals with disabilities and
other stakeholders throughout the State, develop the State plan) ACL
modified the proposed definition to clarify the reference to a DSE
``identified by the State and included in the signed SPIL . . .''
Commenters also requested that ACL identify the body that is
responsible to submit the SPIL. Section 1329.17(b)(4) indicates that
the SPIL ``must be submitted . . . in the time frame and manner
prescribed by the Administrator.'' For developing the FY 2017-2019
State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL), ACL refers stakeholders to
the State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL) instructions, issued on
February 19, 2016, which specify that the Statewide Independent Living
Council shall submit the State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL).
Role of the Designated State Entity (Sec. 1329.12)
Commenters requested additional language to clarify the role of the
DSE and the allocation of funds in accordance with the approved SPIL.
ACL incorporated suggested language to make clear in Sec.
1329.12(a)(2) the DSE's role to provide administrative support services
for a program under Part B, as directed by the approved SPIL, and for
relevant CILs under Part C. We also revised the language in Sec.
1329.12(b) to state that the DSE must also carry out its other
responsibilities under the Act, including, but not limited to--
Allocating funds for the delivery of IL services under
Part B of the Act as directed by the SPIL; and
Allocating the necessary and sufficient resources needed
by the SILC to fulfill its statutory duties and authorities under
section 705(c), consistent with the approved State Plan.
While the regulatory text in the new Sec. 1329.12(b)(i) focuses on
the delivery of IL services, Sec. 713(b) of the Act identifies six (6)
additional activities that remain authorized uses of funding under this
Section, and are encompassed in the ``including, but not limited to''
language in Sec. 1329.12(b).
Some commenters were concerned that the 5% was not sufficient given
the scope of the administrative responsibilities of the DSE, and that
some entities may choose not to serve as a DSE. The 5% is a statutory
cap and therefore not subject to change in this regulation.
For the sake of consistency we made formatting changes to Sec.
1329.12(b).
Allotment of Federal Funds for State Independent Living (IL) Services
(Sec. 1329.13)
Many commenters requested that the proposed regulatory language of
Sec. 1329.13(c) be deleted or amended to permit only a single DSE. A
few commenters expressed support for a second DSE and stressed the
importance of certain programs that have been funded by State agencies
for the blind. Upon consideration of the comments in the context of the
language in WIOA, we agree that it is consistent with the statute to
permit only one DSE. Accordingly, in addition to revising the
regulatory text in Sec. 1329.13(c) to permit only a single DSE, Sec.
1329.17(e) is deleted.
Nineteen (19) States have been operating with more than one body
taking on these responsibilities. One body in those States provides
services to the general disability population and the other provides
services to individuals who are blind. Under the language we are
finalizing, the SPIL must identify one DSE in the State, and that DSE
will sign the SPIL as discussed above. Specific funding to address the
needs of consumers in the State who are blind may be allocated through
the SPIL process.
Regarding proposed Sec. 1329.13(d), commenters also requested that
ACL not reserve funds to directly provide training and technical
assistance to SILCs, and others recommended an increase in funding to
the current technical assistance provider. ACL retained the language
from the proposed rule, which is required by section 711A of the Act
(29 U.S.C. 796e-0).
Commenters also recommended that the SILCs be involved in the
process for determining the type of training and technical assistance
that is offered and how the funding is utilized. We did not add
additional regulatory language, as the Act requires in Sec. 711A(b)
that the Administrator conduct surveys of SILCs regarding training and
technical
[[Page 74688]]
assistance needs in order to determine funding priorities for such
training and technical assistance.
Establishment of a SILC (Sec. 1329.14)
Commenters expressed support for the proposed language in the NPRM.
Some commenters also requested ``direction or guidance on what
constitutes `autonomous.' '' ACL did not make changes to the language
of the proposed rule. To better understand what autonomous means, we
refer commenters to pertinent statutory provisions at Sec. 705 of the
Act, 29 U.S.C. 796d, including Sec. 705(a) and (b) on the
establishment, composition and appointments to the SILC. These include
the requirement at Sec. 705(a) providing that ``The Council shall not
be established as an entity within a State agency,'' and the conflict
of interest policy at Sec. 705(e)(3), precluding staff and other
personnel of the SILC from being assigned duties by the DSE or other
agencies of the state that would create a conflict. We also note that
the Council and voting members of the Council are to be comprised of
members meeting the qualifications under Sec. 705(b)(4), including
state-wide representation, a broad range of individuals with
disabilities from diverse backgrounds, knowledge about centers for
independent living and independent living services, and a majority of
whom are individuals with disabilities per 29 U.S.C. 705(20)(B) and not
employed by any State agency or center for independent living. We will
continue to consult with stakeholders on the need for additional
guidance, including providing more detail about the SILC standards and
indicators that are under development.
Many commenters indicated they could not identify any relevant CIL-
Tribal relationships that met the definition under Section 705 of the
Act. However, other commenters indicated that there are currently 83
American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services (AIVRS) programs
located on Federal and State Reservations providing IL-complementary
services to American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) with disabilities.
Some commenters also expressed support for the effort to ensure that
American Indians are part of SILC leadership. As a promising practice,
we recommend that in each State where there are Federal and State-
recognized Tribal Governments, the SILC include a Tribal Representative
on the SILC, and conduct outreach to the AIVRS program(s) in the State,
as available, or other relevant organizations to foster Tribal
participation on the SILC.
Duties of the SILC (Sec. 1329.15)
Commenters clarified that the SILC resource plan is an integral
part of the three-year SPIL. We acknowledge that this is the correct
interpretation. Since the language incorrectly describing the resource
plan as ``separate from the SPIL'' was preamble language attempting to
clarify the new requirement regarding the allocation of funds for this
plan as distinct from the SPIL, no changes to the regulatory text are
needed.
Regarding Sec. 1329.15(c)(2) on Innovations and Expansion (I&E)
funds, commenters recommended revised language consistent with Section
101(a)(18) of the Act to make clear that resources for SILCs include
I&E funds consistent with the statute. ACL made the requested change to
the regulatory text. ACL will work with the Department of Education and
stakeholders to develop appropriate guidance on this matter.
Commenters expressed support for the proposed language in Sec.
1329.15(c)(4) and we have included it without change.
Commenters requested additional detail on what constitutes
``necessary and sufficient'' funds to carry out the functions of the
SILC for the purpose of the SILC resource plan. Other commenters
indicated that additional information was not needed. In the interest
of clarity, ACL adopted the recommended additions to Sec.
1329.15(c)(6), with a final category for other appropriate costs. A
description of the SILC's resource plan must be included in the State
plan.
The plan should include:
Staff/personnel
Operating expenses
Council compensation and expenses
Meeting expenses, including public hearing expenses, such as
meeting space, alternate formats, interpreters, and other
accommodations
Resources to attend and/or secure training for staff and
Council members
Other costs as appropriate.
A commenter asked ``how will it be determined that the funding
within the 30% cap for resource planning to carry out SILC functions
has been well spent.'' As discussed, the resource plan is agreed to as
part of the SPIL. As noted above, ACL has added some additional
required elements to the regulatory language. It will be up to the
entities in the State to determine how the funds are spent, as
reflected in the resource plan and the SPIL.
To minimize potential confusion, we removed duplicative
requirements from Sec. 1329.15(d).
Authorities of the SILC (Sec. 1329.16)
Commenters requested some additional terms be defined in the final
rule, such as ``in conjunction with.'' ACL chose not to include several
of these requested definitions, with the understanding that these words
and phrases are given their plain meaning.
A commenter raised concerns about whether the prohibition against
providing services directly or ``managing'' services would preclude
SILCs from securing funding to allow CILs to accomplish specific goals.
We clarify here our interpretation that securing funding is distinct
from ``managing'' services. Rather, a practice such as applying for and
receiving grant funding in these circumstances is a legitimate exercise
of SILCs' newly statutorily authorized resource development authority.
We received several comments regarding SILCs that were pertinent to
a particular state. Individual state concerns are beyond the scope of
the regulations. However, we suggest that SILCs that raised such
concerns consult with the SILC technical assistance and training center
and their respective ILA specialist.
Regarding Sec. 1329.16(b)(3), commenters stated that the proposed
regulation ``fails to provide a reference to the statute or regulation
that prohibits lobbying . . .'' along with other listed perceived
omissions. For information on the relevant prohibition, please consult
45 CFR part 93--New Restrictions on Lobbying, which was included in
Sec. 1329.3(i), along with the other provisions on applicability of
other regulations, that was included in the proposed rule and retained
in the final rule.
General Requirements for a State Plan (Sec. 1329.17)
Commenters expressed support for the SPIL development and approval
process in the NPRM, as required under the changes implemented by WIOA.
Some commenters discussed the ways successful collaboration is already
underway, that the new SPIL development process will result in a better
State Plan; and ultimately have a positive impact for people with
disabilities. We appreciate this information.
As discussed in Sec. 1329.4 regarding the definition of ``service
provider,'' ACL has added a clarification that the DSE may provide IL
services directly only when so specified in the SPIL. The
[[Page 74689]]
DSE's role as a service provider, where applicable, must be explicitly
identified as part of the description of how and to whom funds will be
dispersed under Sec. 1329.17(a).
In discussing the new requirements of the SPIL in the summary in
the preamble, with respect to a phrase describing collaboration between
CILs and other entities performing similar work, ACL received a comment
requesting that we define ``similar work.'' That term refers to the
requirement in the statute in Sec. 704(a)(3)(c) that the SPIL address
working relationships and collaboration between centers for independent
living and:
Entities carrying out programs that provide independent
living services, including those serving older individuals;
other community-based organizations that provide or
coordinate the provision of housing, transportation, employment,
information and referral assistance, services, and supports for
individuals with significant disabilities; and
entities carrying out other programs providing services
for individuals with disabilities.
The term ``similar work'' is not in the regulatory text, and we did
not add a definition because the statutory language provides sufficient
clarity.
Some commenters requested clarification that Sec.
1329.17(d)(2)(ii) specify that the signature by the director of the DSE
signifies agreement to execute the responsibilities of the DSE
identified in section 704(c) of the Act. ACL incorporated this
clarification in the final rule.
Regarding Sec. 1329.17(d)(2), a commenter made the point that
Centers with service areas (and grants) within multiple states should
have sign off authority for each SPIL that affects them, where they
meet the other applicable requirements. ACL agrees, and we have added
language to so clarify in Sec. 1329.17(d)(2)(iii). ACL also received
many comments supporting our analysis that the number of CILs be based
on the number of ``legal entities,'' not the number of grants, and we
retain that provision from the proposed rule.
As a technical correction, we renumbered new Sec. 1329.17(e)-(h).
Regarding proposed Sec. 1329.17(g)(2), commenters indicated that the
proposed language is not consistent with section 704(a)(2)(A) of the
Act, which requires that public input be received prior to development
of the State plan. The proposed provision included an option to provide
a preliminary draft State plan for comment at the public meetings as an
option for meeting the requirement for public input. ACL agrees that
this language, adapted from the previous regulations in 34 CFR
364.20(g), does not reflect the requirement of the statute that the
State plan be developed ``after receiving public input from individuals
with disabilities and other stakeholders throughout the State,'' and we
have modified the regulatory text of Sec. 1329.17(f)(1) (formerly
proposed Sec. 1329.17(g)(2)) accordingly. This means that the public
input requirement may be satisfied by a public meeting to get input
prior to development of the SPIL, and then an opportunity for public
comment before the SPIL is submitted, for instance through another
public meeting where a preliminary draft is provided in advance, or by
offering some other meaningful and accessible opportunity for the
public to comment prior to SPIL submission. ACL also made technical
changes to renumber the section.
Continuation Awards to Entities Eligible for Assistance Under the CIL
Program (Sec. 1329.21)
Regarding Sec. 1329.21(g), commenters suggested that the SILCs and
the CILs, rather than the DSE and SILC, must jointly agree on the order
of priorities. ACL agrees that SILCs and CILs, rather than the DSE,
must agree to priorities as set forth in the SPIL as it is jointly
developed, after receiving public input from individuals with
significant disabilities and other stakeholders. Section 1329.21,
however, addresses priority for funding centers in States that receive
funding under Section 723 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796f-2. Currently, only
two States, Massachusetts and Minnesota, qualify as Section 723 States.
Under Section 723(e), priorities for funding centers are set by the
designated State unit \2\ and the SILC. ACL therefore has determined to
keep the language as proposed in accordance with the statutory language
in Section 723(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We note that WIOA did not change the term ``designated State
unit'' in Section 723 to designated State entity, as in other
sections throughout this Subpart of the Rehabilitation Act. ACL has
determined to refer to the body as the designated State entity in
the rule for consistency purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitive Awards to New Centers for Independent Living (Sec.
1329.22)
This section establishes the process for competitive awards to new
Centers for Independent Living in unserved or underserved regions. We
received comments requesting the authority to modify existing Part C
Center service areas if the majority of the Center Directors, the SILC
Chair, and the Center/s in question agree. While ACL is sensitive to
the issue raised, we are not addressing that issue in this final
regulation. We will take under advisement the need to address service
area adjustments in the future. We made a technical correction to Sec.
1329.22(b), to read ``location'' rather than ``allocation,'' and
technical change in Sec. 1329.22(c) to clarify that ``bordering''
means ``contiguous.''
Compliance Reviews (Sec. 1329.23)
ACL received the comment that, regarding ``guidance or guidelines
as determined by the Administrator,'' ``[i]t is unclear if the guidance
will include additional requirements and if the public will have an
opportunity to comment on this guidance and guidelines.'' ACL may issue
guidance consistent with statutory requirements, and the content and
process may vary depending on the information conveyed.
A commenter proposed that ACL consider alternative entities to
conduct federal reviews of the CILs and suggested longer time periods
between reviews of a single CIL. WIOA establishes the requirement that
the Administrator must conduct annual compliance reviews of CILs and
DSEs in in 29 U.S.C. 796d-1(c)(1), so ACL does not have the authority
to alter the requirements established in the statute in this
regulation. However, as noted above, ACL is actively evaluating the
review processes, to optimize our capacity to conduct the required
oversight, incorporating alternative approaches where permitted and
appropriate.
Training and Technical Assistance to Centers for Independent Living
(Sec. 1329.24)
Commenters pointed out that WIOA does not authorize ACL to retain
funds for the direct provision of training and technical assistance to
CILs. We agree that this is the correct interpretation. Since the
inconsistent language was included only in the preamble text, no
changes have been made to the regulatory text.
II. Impact Analysis
A. Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to
ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set
forth in Executive Order 12866. The Department has determined that this
rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. The rule
implements the Workforce
[[Page 74690]]
Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014. Executive Order 12866
encourages agencies, as appropriate, to provide the public with
meaningful participation in the regulatory process. In developing the
final rule, we considered input we received from the public, including
stakeholders.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Secretary certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that would be affected by these proposed regulations
are States and Centers receiving Federal funds under these programs.
However, the regulations would not have a significant economic impact
on States or Centers affected because the regulations would not impose
excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal
supervision. The final regulations implement statutory changes that
impose new requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of program
funds.
The ILS Program provides formula grants to States for the purpose
of funding a number of activities, directly and/or through grant or
contractual arrangements. To be eligible for financial assistance,
States are required to establish a designated State entity, State
Independent Living Council and to submit an approvable three-year State
Plan for Independent Living (SPIL) jointly developed by the chairperson
of the SILC and the directors of the CILs in the State, after receiving
public input, and signed by the chairperson of the SILC acting on
behalf of and at the direction of the Council; not less than 51 percent
of the directors of the CILs in the State, and the director of the
designated State entity (DSE). The signature requirement of not less
than 51 percent of CIL directors is a new requirement under WIOA. While
this requirement does increase the amount of time a State may need to
prepare an approvable SPIL, the statute provides no flexibility in
implementing the new requirement. We are not able to estimate the
amount of additional time the 51 percent signatory requirement will add
to the SPIL development and approval process at the State level given
that this is a new requirement. We solicited comments from affected
States on this issue, but beyond a few comments touching on general
difficulty, did not receive any comments that clarify the amount of
additional time required to meet the 51 percent signatory requirement.
The CIL program provides grants to consumer-controlled, community-
based, cross disability, nonresidential, private nonprofit agencies for
the provision of IL services to individuals with significant
disabilities. WIOA expanded the previous definition of core IL
services, specified in Section 7(17) of the Act, to include an
additional, fifth category of core services. Specifically, Centers
funded by the program must now provide services that facilitate
transition from nursing homes and other institutions to the community,
provide assistance to those at risk of entering institutions, and
facilitate transition of youth to postsecondary life. Currently there
are 354 CILs that receive federal funding under this program.
WIOA did not include any additional funding for the provision of
this new fifth core service, necessitating that CILs would reallocate
existing grant money to ensure the appropriate provision of all
services required under Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act. Many
commenters requested additional funding to carry out program
responsibilities under the law. A number of commenters recommended that
``ACL should seek to obtain additional funding for the 5th Core
Transition Service.'' Commenters also stated that ``HHS should make
CILs the mandatory receiver of all funding for transition services.''
Funding issues are beyond the scope of this rule. However, it might
be useful to note that some resources currently funded by HHS related
to transition services reside in other agencies within the Department
and ACL lacks the authority to direct how these transition funds are
disbursed.
With those facts in mind, we recommend that interested CILs note
that ACL offers technical assistance for state and community-based
aging and disability organizations through national partners as well as
through learning collaboratives of networks of community-based aging
and disability organizations, including Centers for Independent Living.
These networks assist many CILs with leveraging their Federal funds and
conducting resource development, and with building their business
capacity for generating sustainable revenue streams for programs and
services. ACL looks forward to engaging more of the IL community in
these efforts. ACL will actively endeavor to identify further funding
opportunities for CILs fifth core services transition work and will
strive to raise awareness about CILs unique statutory mandate and
successes with our sister agencies across HHS and the broader federal
community.
ACL stated in the NPRM that, since successful transition is a
process that requires sustained efforts and supports over a long-term
period, and the CILs were aware of the changes under the law before
officially tracking these efforts as core services, we do not currently
have a clear picture of the impact of the changes under WIOA on the
programs. In developing the NPRM we therefore applied the closest
applicable data to the estimates in the analysis. For purposes of the
analysis, we looked at three specific categories of data currently
captured in the 704 Annual Performance Report that we believe most
accurately match the three components of the fifth core services.\3\ We
believe that the ``Relocation from a Nursing Home or Institution''
category most closely matches the first component of the new fifth core
services: Facilitate transitions from nursing homes and other
institutions to the community. We believe that the ``Community-Based
Living'' category matches the second component of the new fifth core
service: Provide assistance to those at risk of entering institutions.
We believe the ``Youth/Transition Services'' category captures some
relevant information for the third component of the new fifth core
service: Facilitate transition of youth to postsecondary life. For FY
2014, 281 CILs reported nursing home transition goals established for
at least one consumer, 343 CILS reported community-based living goals
established for at least one consumer, and 224 CILs reported youth
transition services provided to at least one consumer under the
``Youth/Transition Services'' category of the 704 Annual Performance
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The current 704 Report was not designed to incorporate the
fifth core services, so current data roughly corresponds with the
categories.
[[Page 74691]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
704 Annual
5th Core service performance Percentage Number of
report category of CILs * CILS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilitate Transitions from Relocation from 83 281
Nursing Homes and Other a Nursing Home
Institutions to the or Institution.
Community.
Provide Assistance to Those Community-Based 99 343
at Risk of Entering Living.
Institutions.
Facilitate Transition of Youth/ 66 224
Youth to Postsecondary Life. Transition
Services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Percentage of CILs reporting a goal set for at least one consumer. The
Youth/Transition Services sub-category represents the percentage of
CILs reporting service provision to at least one consumer.
Based on this analysis, we believe that many CILs currently have
staff capable of providing the new fifth core services. However, due to
the lack of additional funding, compliance with this statutory change
may require CILs to re-examine their individual budgets, staffing
plans, and consumer needs in order to reallocate funding to ensure the
appropriate provision of services as required by the Rehabilitation
Act. We estimated that this analysis will require approximately 10-15
hours of time for each CIL director. We proposed to use the upper end
of the time estimate (15 hours) for purposes of estimating the total
impact of this statutory requirement. Therefore, we estimated the
amount of compliance analysis time for CIL directors to total 5,310
hours.
To estimate the average hourly wage for a CIL director, we examined
data compiled by the IL Net (a collaborative project of Independent
Living Research Utilization (ILRU), the National Council on Independent
Living (NCIL), and the Association of Programs for Rural Independent
Living (APRIL)) and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. According to
a 2003 National Survey of Salaries and Work Experience of Center for
Independent Living Directors, compiled by IL Net, the most common
annual salary range for CIL directors in 2002 was between $41,000 and
$45,000. This equates to an average hourly salary range of $19.71 to
$21.63. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provided more recent
salary information.
According to 2012 BLS data, the average hourly wage for a social
and community manager (a BLS occupational classification for managers
who coordinate and supervise social service programs) was $28.83. We
proposed using the more recent BLS data to calculate the total
estimated impact of this statutory requirement. In order to estimate
the benefits and overhead associated with this hourly wage, we assume
that these costs equal 100 percent of pre-tax wages, for a total hourly
cost of $57.66. Therefore, we estimated the total dollar impact of this
additional CIL director time to be $306,174.60.
As noted previously, we have interpreted recent 704 Reports as
indicating that many CILs currently have staff capable of providing the
new fifth core services. We received comments that some CILs which
currently provide fifth core services do so using other sources of
funding, including Medicaid dollars and contracts with managed care
organizations. However, as shown in the table above, a substantial
number of CILs do not yet provide the newly required services and
therefore would potentially incur costs in order to comply with this
rule.\4\ We received several comments confirming that some CILs do not
yet provide the new fifth core services, and doing so may impose a
burden upon such CILs, particularly a diminution of services provided
in other areas. These commenters were not able to give us a more
detailed estimate of calculating the burden other than to ask for a
substantial increase in funding for CILs. As noted above, increasing
funding for CILs is beyond the scope of this regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Costs of new actions are included in a regulatory impact
analysis even when budgets or grant amounts do not change. If CILs
are reallocating grant funds to these newly required services, then
they are doing some other worthwhile activity to a lesser extent,
and the value of that alternative activity represents the
opportunity cost of the new requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also received questions as to whether there are minimum levels
which must be achieved in order to have met the requirements of each
component of the new fifth core IL services; the responses to these
questions relate to and may impact the burden analysis. Each CIL must
demonstrate activity under all three prongs of the definition, but the
minimum levels are not further defined in this regulation. The revised
data collection system will contain more information when it is
published. We note that we do not establish a minimum number of
services, beyond that there must be some service (at least one
activity) accomplished and reported in each category and sub-category,
for any of the core services, and we do not intend to establish a
minimum number for the new fifth core services. The amount of services
provided will depend on the needs of the individuals seeking services,
the social dynamics of the community served by each CIL, and the
approach each CIL takes to address the needs of individuals under the
fifth core service. In addressing the comments related to burden, we
also note that CILs can fulfill their obligation to provide fifth core
services in a number of ways that may reduce the burden associated with
the service. For example, services that CILs already provide may count
towards this category rather than other core services.
Nevertheless, we recognize that the addition of the fifth core
services may place more of a burden on CIL directors to re-examine
their individual budgets, staffing and strategic plans, and consumer
needs in order to reallocate funding to ensure the appropriate
provision of services as required by the Rehabilitation Act. We
therefore are increasing our initial estimate of 15 hours of time for
each CIL director to 30 hours of time to account for the additional
burden. In the final rule we estimate the amount of compliance analysis
time for CIL directors to total 10,620 hours. We received several
comments with different estimates. However, the comments did not
provide sufficient detail or explain how the estimates were calculated.
They did not include a breakdown of the costs of wages, benefits and
overhead; nor did they include an estimate of the hours used in the
calculation. Thus, we continue to assume that the costs of wages,
benefits and overhead to be a total hourly cost of $57.66, and use that
figure in determining the dollar impact based on an increased number of
hours, as discussed above. We increase our estimate in the final rule
of the total dollar impact of this additional CIL director time to be
$612,349.20.
WIOA continues to require annual onsite compliance reviews of at
least 15 percent of CILs that receive funding under section 722 of the
Act and at least one-third of designated state units that receive funds
under section 723 of the Act. The only change made by WIOA was to
eliminate the requirement that CILs subject to compliance reviews be
selected randomly. ACL is not proposing any changes to the compliance
review process in this regulation. We do not anticipate any
[[Page 74692]]
additional burden on grantees as a result of the compliance and review
process, including the development of additional corrective action
plans in response to such reviews.
While the final rule establishes a new appeals process for States,
we anticipate that the process will be utilized infrequently based on
past experience of the Independent Living Services programs. The
process is designed to provide additional protection against the
termination of funding. We received no specific comments on the burden
analysis. Therefore, we do not expect that funds will be terminated
more or less frequently.
The allocation of 1.8 to 2 percent of Part B funds to training and
technical assistance for SILCs is a new requirement under WIOA. We have
limited available data regarding the impact on programs of this
provision and requested comment on this aspect of the analysis. We
received no comments related to burden analysis for this provision.
The 5 percent administrative cap on the DSE is a new statutory
requirement under WIOA, as is the 30 percent ceiling on the SILC
resource plan (unless the SPIL specifies that a greater percentage of
funds is needed for to carry out the functions of the SILC). The rule
makes final the NPRM's narrow interpretation of the 5 percent
administrative cap, limiting its application to ``Part B'' funds only,
rather than applying the 5 percent cap on administrative funds
allocated to the DSE to all federal funds supporting the Independent
Living Services. Additional funding sources include Social Security
reimbursements, Vocational Rehabilitation program funds, and other
public or private funds.
The rule avoids a broader application of the cap in an attempt to
avoid creating too great a disincentive to State agencies to serve as
DSEs, given the more limited role of the DSEs in decision-making (as
they no longer have a statutory role in the development of the SPIL).
Our intent is to effectuate the limitation as required under the law,
while helping ensure retention of DSEs for the Part B programs. Some
commenters indicated that the 5 percent administrative cap on the DSE
may result in reduced funding for independent living services; they did
not discuss the specific burden associated with implementation of this
statutory requirement.
C. Alternative Approaches
Although we believe that the approach of the rule best serves the
purposes of the law, we considered a regulatory scheme requiring an
alternative treatment of the Part B State matching funds. In the final
rule, as in the proposed rule, funds used to meet the required 10
percent State match are treated the same as funds ``received by the
State'' under Part B.
To better understand the implications of this decision, consider
the five percent administrative cap on the DSE's use of Part B funds
for administrative purposes in Sec. 1329.12(a)(5). For example, the
proposed regulatory language mandates that WIOA's 5 percent cap on
funds for DSE administrative expenses applies only to the Part B funds
allocated to the State and to the State's required 10 percent Part B
match. It does not apply to other program funds, including, but not
limited to, payments provided to a State from the Social Security
Administration for assisting Social Security beneficiaries and
recipients to achieve employment outcomes, any other federal funds, or
to other funds allocated by the State for IL purposes. Treating the
issue in this way makes more Part B funds available for IL services and
SPIL activities, while retaining sufficient funds to permit the DSE to
accomplish its responsibilities and oversight requirements for ILS
program funds under the law. One key advantage of this approach is
minimizing disruptions to the ILS program from potential DSE decisions
to relinquish the program due to insufficient resources to fulfill the
WIOA-related fiscal oversight/administrative support responsibilities.
For context, on average, 10-15 percent of DSE funding was spent on
administrative costs prior to WIOA, though this must be considered
along with the more limited role the DSE now plays under the law as
amended.
A narrower interpretation of this provision would be to apply it to
Part B funds only, without the State match. Not only would this
approach severely limit the funds available for fulfillment of DSE
responsibilities under the law, it would also create some potential
accounting burdens for programs, as State funds provided as a result of
the ILS program's State matching requirement have traditionally been
treated similarly to Federal Part B funds. It would also be
inconsistent with prior accounting practices regarding the 10% State
match for Part B funding, which existed prior to WIOA.
The broadest interpretation would include all federal funds
supporting the ILS program, including Social Security reimbursements
and funds from the Title I (Vocational Rehabilitation) program in the
cap, which would broaden the pot of monies allocated for administrative
costs of the DSE, which on its face seems counter to the change in the
law capping the available percentage for these purposes at a relatively
low amount. Commenters supported this approach.
We also considered alternative approaches regarding implementation
of the new fifth core services based on comments regarding lack of
funding to provide the new services. We have chosen not to establish
minimum number of services to be provided for any of the core services,
including the fifth core service, and to allow CILs flexibility in
determining how to meet the requirements of the act. We believe that
this approach, discussed above, satisfies the requirements of WIOA that
CILs provide services in all five core service areas. It also gives
CILs the greatest amount of flexibility to determine how to use their
limited federal funds to meet the needs of individuals in their service
area.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
requires certain actions before an agency can adopt or revise a
collection of information. Under the PRA, we are required to provide
notice in the Federal Register and solicit public comment before an
information collection request is submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. In order to fairly evaluate
whether an information collection should be approved by OMB, Section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires that we solicit comments on new or
revised information collections, which in the case of this rule,
includes the new SPIL development requirements. The law is also
intended to ensure that stakeholders can fully analyze the impact of
the rule, which includes the associated reporting burden. We are not
introducing any new information collections in the final rule however,
it does revise process requirements. As discussed earlier, WIOA changed
the requirements regarding SPIL development and who must sign the SPIL.
This final rule makes no revisions to existing 704 reporting
requirements, the Section 704 Annual Performance Report (Parts I and
II). ACL is currently convening workgroups to recommend and implement
changes regarding data collection. These changes will be subject to the
public comment process under the PRA before they are finalized.
[[Page 74693]]
1. State Plans for Independent Living (SPIL)
The SPIL encompasses the activities planned to achieve the
specified independent living objectives and reflects the commitment to
comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements during
the three years covered by the plan. A SPIL has already been approved
in each State through fiscal year 2016. (State Plan for Independent
Living and Center for Independent Living Programs, OMB Control Number
1820-0527.) The law remains unchanged that the SPIL continues to govern
the provision of IL services.
Any amendments to the SPIL, reflecting either a change based on the
WIOA amendments or any material change in State law, organization,
policy, or agency operations that affect the administration of the
SPIL, must be developed in accordance with Section 704(a)(2) of the
Rehabilitation Act, as amended. SPIL amendments must be submitted to
ACL for approval.
WIOA changed the content of the SPIL to the extent that the SPIL
must describe how the independent living services will promote full
access to community life for individuals with significant disabilities
and describe strategies for providing independent living services on a
statewide basis, to the greatest extent possible. The SPIL must also
include a justification for any funding allocation of Part B funds
above 30% for the SILC's resource plan.
We anticipate that such changes may, on average, increase the
amount of time to develop the SPIL by five (5) hours. There are 57
SPILs, one for each State, the District of Columbia, and the six
territories. Assuming the same hourly cost of $57.66 discussed in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis above, we therefore estimate the cost of the
changes to be $16,433.1 (57 SPILs x $57.66/hour x 5 hours).We did not
receive any comments on these calculations.
2. 704 Reporting Requirements
The Section 704 Annual Performance Report (Parts I and II) are the
Reporting Instruments used to collect information required by the
Act,\5\ as amended by WIOA, related to the use of Part B and Part C
funds. This regulation simply transfers the statutorily required annual
reporting from the Department of Education Regulations to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations. No
additional reporting requirements are being added to the current OMB
approved 704 report at this time. (Section 704 Annual Performance
Report (Parts I and II), OMB Control Number 1820-0606).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Sections 704(c)(3) and (4), 704(m)(4)(D), 706(d), and
725(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to WIOA, an effort was underway to make formal changes to the
704 Reporting Instruments. The passage of WIOA in July 2014 put those
efforts on hold until late 2014. ACL is currently convening workgroups
to recommend and implement changes in data collection, and these
changes will be subject to the public comment process under the PRA
before they are finalized. Key steps in ACL's current and projected
timeline on the process include an external workgroup webinar, held
April 1, 2015, to share the status of data collection efforts and
invite feedback on specific issues. It is anticipated that additional
external stakeholder engagement will occur during summer of 2016. The
SILC indicators of minimum compliance will also be published in the
Federal Register as part of this process. It is ACL's goal to publish
the revised data collection proposals for comment in Federal Register
in September 2016. According to this projected timeline, in October
2017, programs will begin collecting information for the FY 18
reporting period using the new data collection system. In December
2018, the FY18 704 data collection system reflecting the new reporting
requirements will be due.
Updating data collection will require changes to include the new
fifth core services under WIOA. We make final definitions for some of
the terms in the fifth core services in this rule, and have made
changes based on comments received. Assuming revised data collection
requirements will include reporting on the new fifth core services, we
estimate that providing the information will take approximately 1 hour
per data report. Based on the total number of 704 Reports filed
annually in past years,\6\ we estimate that the total number of
additional hours to be 412.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, 79 FR 23960 (April 29, 2014); information collection
approved June 4, 2014 through June 30, 2017. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201404-1820-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming the same hourly cost of $57.66 discussed in the regulatory
impact analysis above, we estimate the cost of the changes to be
$23,755.92. We received no comments on these estimates. In summary,
future proposed changes to the Section 704 Annual Performance Report
(Parts I and II) will be published in the Federal Register with
opportunity for public comment.
Section 706 of the Rehabilitation Act continues to require reviews
of CILs funded under Section 722 and reviews of State entities funded
under Section 723 of the Rehabilitation Act. Therefore, ACL will
continue to conduct compliance reviews and make final decisions on any
proposed corrective actions and/or technical assistance related to
compliance reviews of a CIL's grants.
In Section 706(b), 29 U.S.C. 796d-1(b), the Act, as amended by
WIOA, requires the Administrator to develop and publish in the Federal
Register new indicators of minimum compliance for Statewide Independent
Living Councils. The SILC Standards and Indicators of minimum
compliance are currently under development. ACL shared a draft for
informal stakeholder review in January 2016 and continues to take
stakeholder feedback. The CIL indicators of minimum compliance
(consistent with the standards set forth in Section 725) are awaiting
the addition of the fifth core services, which requires input in
response to this proposed rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before
promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million, adjusted for
inflation, or more in any one year.
If a covered agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement,
Section 205 further requires that it select the most cost-effective and
least burdensome alternatives that achieves the objectives of the rule
and is consistent with the statutory requirements. In addition, Section
203 requires a plan for informing and advising any small government
entities that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by a rule.
ACL has determined that this rulemaking does not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of more than $100 million in any one year. The
total FY 2016 budget for the Independent Living Services and Centers
for Independent Living programs authorized under Chapter 1, Title VII
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act or Act), as
amended by WIOA (Pub. L. 113-128) is $101,183,000. We do not anticipate
that the rule will impact the majority of the budget for these
programs.
[[Page 74694]]
F. Congressional Review
This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Section
804(2).
G. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or
regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's conclusion is
affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment
addressing seven criteria specified in the law. These regulations do
not have an impact on family well-being as defined in the legislation.
H. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 on ``federalism'' was signed August 4, 1999.
The purposes of the Order are to guarantee the division of governmental
responsibilities between the national government and the States that
was intended by the Framers of the Constitution, to ensure that the
principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the executive
departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of
policies, and to further the policies of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
The Department certifies that this rule does not have a substantial
direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. ACL is not
aware of any specific State laws that would be preempted by the
adoption of the regulation in subchapter C of 45 CFR part 1329.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1329
Centers for independent living, Compliance, Enforcement and
appeals, Independent living services, Persons with disabilities,
Reporting.
Dated: October 18, 2016.
Edwin Walker,
Acting Administrator, Administration for Community Living.
Approved: October 19, 2016.
Sylvia M. Burwell,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the, Administration for
Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, amends
45 CFR subchapter C by adding part 1329 to read as follows:
PART 1329--STATE INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES AND CENTERS FOR
INDEPENDENT LIVING
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
1329.1 Programs covered.
1329.2 Purpose.
1329.3 Applicability of other regulations.
1329.4 Definitions.
1329.5 Indicators of minimum compliance.
1329.6 Reporting.
1329.7 Enforcement and appeals procedures.
Subpart B--Independent Living Services
1329.10 Authorized use of funds for Independent Living Services.
1329.11 DSE eligibility and application.
1329.12 Role of the designated State entity.
1329.13 Allotment of Federal funds for State independent living (IL)
services.
1329.14 Establishment of SILC.
1329.15 Duties of the SILC.
1329.16 Authorities of the SILC.
1329.17 General requirements for a State plan.
Subpart C--Centers for Independent Living Program
1329.20 Centers for Independent Living (CIL) program.
1329.21 Continuation awards to entities eligible for assistance
under the CIL program.
1329.22 Competitive awards to new Centers for Independent Living.
1329.23 Compliance reviews.
1329.24 Training and technical assistance to Centers for Independent
Living.
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709; 42 U.S.C. 3515e.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 1329.1 Programs covered.
This part includes general requirements applicable to the conduct
of the following programs authorized under title VII, chapter 1 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended:
(a) Independent Living Services (ILS), title VII, chapter 1, part B
(29 U.S.C. 796e to 796e-3).
(b) The Centers for Independent Living (CIL), title VII, chapter 1,
part C (29 U.S.C. 796f to 796f-6).
Sec. 1329.2 Purpose.
The purpose of title VII of the Act is to promote a philosophy of
independent living (IL), including a philosophy of consumer control,
peer support, self-help, self-determination, equal access, and
individual and system advocacy, in order to maximize the leadership,
empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with
disabilities, and to promote the integration and full inclusion of
individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of American society
by:
(a) Providing financial assistance to States for providing,
expanding, and improving the provision of IL services;
(b) Providing financial assistance to develop and support statewide
networks of Centers for Independent Living (Centers or CILs);
(c) Providing financial assistance to States, with the goal of
improving the independence of individuals with disabilities, for
improving working relationships among--
(1) State Independent Living Services;
(2) Centers for Independent Living;
(3) Statewide Independent Living Councils (SILCs or Councils)
established under section 705 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 796d);
(4) State vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs receiving
assistance under Title 1 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 720 et seq.);
(5) State programs of supported employment services receiving
assistance under Title VI of the Act (29 U.S.C. 795g et seq.);
(6) Client assistance programs (CAPs) receiving assistance under
section 112 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 732);
(7) Programs funded under other titles of the Act;
(8) Programs funded under other Federal laws; and
(9) Programs funded through non-Federal sources with the goal of
improving the independence of individuals with disabilities.
Sec. 1329.3 Applicability of other regulations.
Several other regulations apply to all activities under this part.
These include but are not limited to:
(a) 45 CFR part 16--Procedures of the Departmental Grant Appeals
Board.
(b) 45 CFR part 46--Protection of Human Subjects.
(c) 45 CFR part 75--Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards.
(d) 45 CFR part 80--Nondiscrimination under Programs Receiving
Federal Assistance through the Department of Health and Human
Services--Effectuation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(e) 45 CFR part 81--Practice and Procedure for Hearings under Part
80 of this Title.
(f) 45 CFR part 84--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in
Programs Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.
(g) 45 CFR part 86--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in
Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial
Assistance.
(h) 45 CFR part 91--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in
Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from HHS.
[[Page 74695]]
(i) 45 CFR part 93--New Restrictions on Lobbying.
(j) 2 CFR part 376--Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension.
(k) 2 CFR part 382--Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial
Assistance).
Sec. 1329.4 Definitions.
For the purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
Act means the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.),
as amended. Part B refers to part B of chapter 1 of title VII of the
Act (29 U.S.C. 796e to 796e-3). Part C refers to part C of chapter 1 of
title VII, of the Act (29 U.S.C. 796f to 796f-6).
Administrative support services means services and supports
provided by the designated State entity under Part B, and to Part C
CILs administered by the State under section 723 of the Act in support
of the goals, objectives and related activities under an approved State
Plan for Independent Living (SPIL). Such support includes any costs
associated with contracts and subgrants including fiscal and
programmatic oversight, among other services.
Administrator means the Administrator of the Administration for
Community Living (ACL) of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Advocacy means pleading an individual's cause or speaking or
writing in support of an individual. To the extent permitted by State
law or the rules of the agency before which an individual is appearing,
a non-lawyer may engage in advocacy on behalf of another individual.
Advocacy may--
(1) Involve representing an individual--
(i) Before private entities or organizations, government agencies
(whether State, local, or Federal), or in a court of law (whether State
or Federal); or
(ii) In negotiations or mediation, in formal or informal
administrative proceedings before government agencies (whether State,
local, or Federal), or in legal proceedings in a court of law; and
(2) Be on behalf of--
(i) A single individual, in which case it is individual advocacy;
(ii) A group or class of individuals, in which case it is systems
advocacy; or
(iii) Oneself, in which case it is self advocacy.
Attendant care means a personal assistance service provided to an
individual with significant disabilities in performing a variety of
tasks required to meet essential personal needs in areas such as
bathing, communicating, cooking, dressing, eating, homemaking,
toileting, and transportation.
Center for independent living (``Center'') means a consumer-
controlled, community-based, cross-disability, nonresidential, private
nonprofit agency for individuals with significant disabilities
(regardless of age or income) that--
(1) Is designed and operated within a local community by
individuals with disabilities;
(2) Provides an array of IL services as defined in section 7(18) of
the Act, including, at a minimum, independent living core services as
defined in this section; and
(3) Complies with the standards set out in Section 725(b) and
provides and complies with the assurances in section 725(c) of the Act
and Sec. 1329.5.
Completed their secondary education means, with respect to the
Independent Living Core Services that facilitate the transition of
youth who are individuals with significant disabilities in section
7(17)(e)(iii) of the Act, that an eligible youth has received a
diploma; has received a certificate of completion for high school or
other equivalent document marking the completion of participation in
high school; or has exceeded the age of eligibility for services under
IDEA.
Consumer control means, with respect to a Center or eligible
agency, that the Center or eligible agency vests power and authority in
individuals with disabilities, including individuals who are or have
been recipients of IL services, in terms of the management, staffing,
decision making, operation, and provision of services. Consumer
control, with respect to an individual, means that the individual with
a disability asserts control over his or her personal life choices, and
in addition, has control over his or her independent living plan (ILP),
making informed choices about content, goals and implementation.
Cross-disability means, with respect to services provided by a
Center, that a Center provides services to individuals with all
different types of significant disabilities, including individuals with
significant disabilities who are members of unserved or underserved
populations by programs under Title VII. Eligibility for services shall
be determined by the Center, and shall not be based on the presence of
any one or more specific significant disabilities.
Designated State entity (DSE) is the State agency designated in the
State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL) that acts on behalf of the
State to provide the functions described in title VII, chapter 1 of the
Act.
Eligible agency means a consumer-controlled, community-based,
cross-disability, nonresidential, private, nonprofit agency.
Independent living core services mean, for purposes of services
that are supported under the ILS or CIL programs--
(1) Information and referral services;
(2) Independent Living skills training;
(3) Peer counseling, including cross-disability peer counseling;
(4) Individual and systems advocacy;
(5) Services that:
(i) Facilitate the transition of individuals with significant
disabilities from nursing homes and other institutions to home and
community-based residences, with the requisite supports and services.
This process may include providing services and supports that a
consumer identifies are needed to move that person from an
institutional setting to community based setting, including systems
advocacy required for the individual to move to a home of his or her
choosing;
(ii) Provide assistance to individuals with significant
disabilities who are at risk of entering institutions so that the
individuals may remain in the community. A determination of who is at
risk of entering an institution should include self-identification by
the individual as part of the intake or goal-setting process; and
(iii) Facilitate the transition of youth who are individuals with
significant disabilities, who were eligible for individualized
education programs under section 614(d) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1414(d)), and who have completed
their secondary education or otherwise left school, to postsecondary
life. Individuals who have reached the age of 18 and are still
receiving services in accordance with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) under IDEA have not ``completed their secondary
education.''
Independent living service includes the independent living core
services and such other services as described in section 7(18) of the
Act.
Individual with a disability means an individual who--
(1) Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits
one or more major life activities of such individual;
(2) Has a record of such an impairment; or
(3) Is regarded as having such an impairment, as described in
section 3(3) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12102(3)).
Individual with a significant disability means an individual with a
severe physical or mental impairment whose ability to function
independently in the
[[Page 74696]]
family or community or whose ability to obtain, maintain, or advance in
employment is substantially limited and for whom the delivery of
independent living services will improve the ability to function,
continue functioning, or move toward functioning independently in the
family or community or to continue in employment, respectively.
Majority means more than 50 percent.
Minority group means American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian
American, Black or African American (not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic
or Latino (including persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and
Central or South American origin), and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander.
Nonresidential means, with respect to a Center, that the Center
does not operate or manage housing or shelter for individuals as an IL
service on either a temporary or long-term basis unless the housing or
shelter is--
(1) Incidental to the overall operation of the Center;
(2) Necessary so that the individual may receive an IL service; and
(3) Limited to a period not to exceed eight weeks during any six-
month period.
Peer relationships mean relationships involving mutual support and
assistance among individuals with significant disabilities who are
actively pursuing IL goals.
Peer role models mean individuals with significant disabilities
whose achievements can serve as a positive example for other
individuals with significant disabilities.
Personal assistance services mean a range of services, paid or
unpaid, provided by one or more persons, designed to assist an
individual with a disability to perform daily living activities that
the individual would typically perform if the individual did not have a
disability. These services must be designed to increase the
individual's control in life and ability to perform everyday activities
and include but are not limited to: Getting up and ready for work or
going out into the community (including bathing and dressing), cooking,
cleaning or running errands, engaging in social relationships including
parenting.
Service provider means a Center for Independent Living that
receives financial assistance under Part B or C of chapter 1 of title
VII of the Act, or any other entity or individual that provides IL
services under a grant or contract from the DSE pursuant to Section
704(f) of the Act. A designated State entity (DSE) may directly provide
IL services to individuals with significant disabilities only as
specifically authorized in the SPIL.
State includes, in addition to each of the several States of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
State plan means the State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL)
required under Section 704 of the Act.
Unserved and underserved groups or populations include populations
such as individuals from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds,
disadvantaged individuals, individuals with limited English
proficiency, and individuals from underserved geographic areas (rural
or urban).
Youth with a significant disability means an individual with a
significant disability who--
(1) Is not younger than 14 years of age; and
(2) Is not older than 24 years of age.
Sec. 1329.5 Indicators of minimum compliance.
To be eligible to receive funds under this part, a Center must
comply with the standards in section 725(b) and assurances in section
725(c) of the Act, with the indicators of minimum compliance, and the
requirements contained in the terms and conditions of the grant award.
Sec. 1329.6 Reporting.
(a) A Center must submit a performance report in a manner and at a
time described by the Administrator, consistent with section
704(m)(4)(D) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796c(m)(4)(D).
(b) The DSE must submit a report in a manner and at a time
described by the Administrator, consistent with section 704(c)(4) of
the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796c(c)(4).
(c) The Administrator may require such other reports as deemed
necessary to carry out the responsibilities set forth in section 706 of
the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796d-1.
Sec. 1329.7 Enforcement and appeals procedures.
(a) Process for Centers for Independent Living. (1) If the Director
of the Independent Living Administration (Director) determines that, as
the result of the Onsite Compliance Review process defined in section
706(c)(2), or other review activities, any Center receiving funds under
this part, other than a Center that is provided Part C funding by the
State under section 723 of the Act, is not in compliance with the
standards and assurances in section 725 (b) and (c) of the Act and of
this part, the Director must provide notice to the Center pursuant to
guidance determined by the Administrator.
(2) The Director may offer technical assistance to the Center to
develop a corrective action plan or to take such other steps as are
necessary to come into compliance with the standards and assurances.
(3) The Center may request a preliminary appeal to the Director in
a form and manner determined by the Administrator. The Director shall
review the appeal request and provide written notice of the
determination within a timely manner.
(4) Where there is a determination that falls within 45 CFR part
16, appendix A, C.a.(1)-(4), the Center may appeal an unfavorable
decision by the Director to the Administrator within a time and manner
established by the Administrator. The Administrator shall review the
appeal request and provide written notice of the determination within a
timely manner.
(5) The Administrator may take steps to enforce a corrective action
plan or to terminate funding if the Administrator determines that the
Center remains out of compliance.
(6) Written notice of the determination by the Administrator shall
constitute a final determination for purposes of 45 CFR part 16. A
Center that receives such notice of a determination that falls within
45 CFR part 16, appendix A, C.a.(1)-(4), may appeal to the Departmental
Appeals Board pursuant to the provisions of 45 CFR part 16.
(7) A Center that is administered by the State under Section 723 of
the Act must first exhaust any State process before going through the
process described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.
(b) Process for States. (1) If the Director of the Independent
Living Administration determines that a State is out of compliance with
sections 704, 705, 713 or other pertinent sections of the Act, the
Director must provide notice to the State pursuant to guidance
determined by the Administrator.
(2) The Director may offer technical assistance to the State to
develop a corrective action plan or to take such other steps as are
necessary to ensure that the State comes in to compliance.
(3) Where there is a determination that falls within 45 CFR part
16, appendix A, C.a.(1)-(4), the State may seek an appeal consistent
with the steps set forth in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section.
[[Page 74697]]
(4) The Administrator may take steps to enforce statutory or
regulatory requirements or to terminate funding if the Administrator
determines that the State remains out of compliance.
(5) Written notice of the determination by the Administrator shall
constitute a final determination for purposes of 45 CFR part 16 with
regard to the types of determinations set forth in 45 CFR part 16,
appendix A, C.a.(1)-(4). A State that receives such notice may appeal
to the Departmental Appeals Board pursuant to the provisions of 45 CFR
part 16.
Subpart B--Independent Living Services
Sec. 1329.10 Authorized use of funds for Independent Living Services.
(a) The State:
(1) May use funds received under this part to support the SILC
resource plan described in section 705(e) of the Act but may not use
more than 30 percent of the funds unless an approved SPIL so specifies
pursuant to Sec. 1329.15(c);
(2) May retain funds under section 704(c)(5) of the Act; and
(3) Shall distribute the remainder of the funds received under this
part in a manner consistent with the approved State plan for the
activities described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The State may use the remainder of the funds described in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section to--
(1) Provide to individuals with significant disabilities the
independent living (IL) services required by section 704(e) of the Act,
particularly those in unserved areas of the State;
(2) Demonstrate ways to expand and improve IL services;
(3) Support the operation of Centers for Independent Living
(Centers) that are in compliance with the standards and assurances in
section 725 (b) and (c) of the Act;
(4) Support activities to increase the capacities of public or
nonprofit agencies and organizations and other entities to develop
comprehensive approaches or systems for providing IL services;
(5) Conduct studies and analyses, gather information, develop model
policies and procedures, and present information, approaches,
strategies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations to Federal,
State, and local policy makers in order to enhance IL services for
individuals with significant disabilities;
(6) Train individuals with disabilities and individuals providing
services to individuals with disabilities, and other persons regarding
the IL philosophy; and
(7) Provide outreach to populations that are unserved or
underserved by programs under title VII of the Act, including minority
groups and urban and rural populations.
Sec. 1329.11 DSE eligibility and application.
(a) Any designated State entity (DSE) identified by the State and
included in the signed SPIL pursuant to section 704(c) is eligible to
apply for assistance under this part in accordance with section 704 of
the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796c.
(b) To receive financial assistance under Parts B and C of chapter
1 of title VII, a State shall submit to the Administrator and obtain
approval of a State plan that meets the requirements of section 704 of
the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796c.
(c) Allotments to states are determined in accordance with section
711 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 796e.
Sec. 1329.12 Role of the designated State entity.
(a) A DSE that applies for and receives assistance must:
(1) Receive, account for, and disburse funds received by the State
under Part B and Part C in a State under section 723 of the Act based
on the State plan;
(2) Provide administrative support services for a program under
Part B, as directed by the approved State plan, and for CILs under Part
C when administered by the State under section 723 of the Act, 29
U.S.C. 796f-2;
(3) Keep such records and afford such access to such records as the
Administrator finds to be necessary with respect to the programs;
(4) Submit such additional information or provide such assurances
as the Administrator may require with respect to the programs; and
(5) Retain not more than 5 percent of the funds received by the
State for any fiscal year under Part B, for the performance of the
services outlined in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. For
purposes of these regulations, the 5 percent cap on funds for
administrative expenses applies only to the Part B funds allocated to
the State and to the State's required 10 percent Part B match. It does
not apply to other program income funds, including, but not limited to,
payments provided to a State from the Social Security Administration
for assisting Social Security beneficiaries and recipients to achieve
employment outcomes, any other federal funds, or to other funds
allocated by the State for IL purposes.
(b) The DSE must also carry out its other responsibilities under
the Act, including, but not limited to:
(1) Allocating funds for the delivery of IL services under Part B
of the Act as directed by the SPIL; and
(2) Allocating the necessary and sufficient resources needed by the
SILC to fulfill its statutory duties and authorities under section
705(c), consistent with the approved State Plan.
(c) Fiscal and accounting requirements: The DSE must adopt fiscal
control and fund accounting procedures as may be necessary to ensure
the proper disbursement of and accounting for federal funds provided to
CILs, SILCs, and/or other services providers under the ILS program. The
DSE must comply with all applicable federal and State laws and
regulations, including those in 45 CFR part 75.
Sec. 1329.13 Allotment of Federal funds for State independent living
(IL) services.
(a) The allotment of Federal funds for State IL services for each
State is computed in accordance with the requirements of section
711(a)(1) of the Act.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the allotment of
Federal funds for Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin
Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is
computed in accordance with section 711(a)(2) of the Act.
(c) The Administrator shall reserve between 1.8 percent and 2
percent of appropriated funds to provide, either directly or through
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, training and technical
assistance to SILCs. Training and technical assistance funds shall be
administered in accordance with section 711A of the Act.
Sec. 1329.14 Establishment of a SILC.
(a) To be eligible to receive assistance under this part, each
State shall establish and maintain a SILC that meets the requirements
of section 705 of the Act, including composition and appointment of
members.
(b) The SILC shall not be established as an entity within a State
agency, including the DSE. The SILC shall be independent of and
autonomous from the DSE and all other State agencies.
Sec. 1329.15 Duties of the SILC.
(a) The duties of the SILC are those set forth in section 705(c),
(d), and (e) of the Act.
(1) The SILC shall develop the SPIL in accordance with guidelines
developed by the Administrator;
(2) The SILC shall monitor, review and evaluate the implementation
of the SPIL on a regular basis as determined by the SILC and set forth
in the SPIL;
(3) The SILC shall meet regularly, and ensure that such meetings
are open to
[[Page 74698]]
the public and sufficient advance notice of such meetings is provided;
(4) The SILC shall submit to the Administrator such periodic
reports as the Administrator may reasonably request, and keep such
records, and afford such access to such records, as the Administrator
finds necessary to verify the information in such reports; and
(5) The SILC shall, as appropriate, coordinate activities with
other entities in the State that provide services similar to or
complementary to independent living services, such as entities that
facilitate the provision of or provide long-term community-based
services and supports.
(b) In carrying out the duties under this section, the SILC may
provide contact information for the nearest appropriate CIL. Sharing of
such information shall not constitute the direct provision of
independent living services as defined in section 705(c)(3) of the Act.
(c) The SILC, in conjunction with the DSE, shall prepare a plan for
the provision of resources, including staff and personnel that are
necessary and sufficient to carry out the functions of the SILC.
(1) The resource plan amount shall be commensurate, to the extent
possible, with the estimated costs related to SILC fulfilment of its
duties and authorities consistent with the approved State Plan.
(2) Available resources include: Innovation and Expansion (I&E)
funds authorized by 29 U.S.C. 721(a)(18); Independent Living Part B
funds; State matching funds; other public funds (such as Social
Security reimbursement funds); and private sources.
(3) In accordance with Sec. 1329.10(a)(1), no more than 30 percent
of the State's allocation of Part B and Part B State matching funds may
be used to fund the resource plan, unless the approved SPIL provides
that more than 30 percent is needed and justifies the greater
percentage.
(4) No conditions or requirements may be included in the SILC's
resource plan that may compromise the independence of the SILC.
(5) The SILC is responsible for the proper expenditure of funds and
use of resources that it receives under the resource plan.
(6) A description of the SILC's resource plan must be included in
the State plan. The plan should include:
(i) Staff/personnel;
(ii) Operating expenses;
(iii) Council compensation and expenses;
(iv) Meeting expenses, including public hearing expenses, such as
meeting space, alternate formats, interpreters, and other
accommodations;
(v) Resources to attend and/or secure training for staff and
Council members; and
(vi) Other costs as appropriate.
(d) The SILC shall carry out the activities in paragraph (a), to
better serve individuals with significant disabilities and help achieve
the purpose of section 701 of the Act.
(e) The SILC shall, consistent with State law, supervise and
evaluate its staff and other personnel as may be necessary to carry out
its functions under this section.
Sec. 1329.16 Authorities of the SILC.
(a) The SILC may conduct the following discretionary activities, as
authorized and described in the approved State Plan:
(1) Work with Centers for Independent Living to coordinate services
with public and private entities to improve services provided to
individuals with disabilities;
(2) Conduct resource development activities to support the
activities described in the approved SPIL and/or to support the
provision of independent living services by Centers for Independent
Living; and
(3) Perform such other functions, consistent with the purpose of
this part and comparable to other functions described in section 705(c)
of the Act, as the Council determines to be appropriate and authorized
in the approved SPIL.
(b) In undertaking the foregoing duties and authorities, the SILC
shall:
(1) Coordinate with the CILs in order to avoid conflicting or
overlapping activities within the CILs' established service areas;
(2) Not engage in activities that constitute the direct provision
of IL services to individuals, including the IL core services; and
(3) Comply with Federal prohibitions against lobbying.
Sec. 1329.17 General requirements for a State plan.
(a) The State may use funds received under Part B to support the
Independent Living Services program and to meet its obligations under
the Act, including the section 704(e) requirements that apply to the
provision of independent living services. The State plan must stipulate
that the State will provide IL services, directly and/or through grants
and contracts, with Federal, State or other funds, and must describe
how and to whom those funds will be disbursed for this purpose.
(b) In order to receive financial assistance under this part, a
State shall submit to the Administrator a State plan for independent
living.
(1) The State plan must contain, in the form prescribed by the
Administrator, the information set forth in section 704 of the Act,
including designation of an Agency to serve as the designated State
entity, and such other information requested by the Administrator.
(2) The State plan must contain the assurances set forth in section
704(m) of the Act.
(3) The State plan must be signed in accordance with the provisions
of this section.
(4) The State plan must be submitted 90 days before the completion
date of the proceeding plan, and otherwise in the time frame and manner
prescribed by the Administrator.
(5) The State plan must be approved by the Administrator.
(c) The State plan must cover a period of not more than three years
and must be amended whenever necessary to reflect any material change
in State law, organization, policy, or agency operations that affects
the administration of the State plan.
(d) The State plan must be jointly--
(1) Developed by the chairperson of the SILC, and the directors of
the CILs, after receiving public input from individuals with
disabilities and other stakeholders throughout the State; and
(2) Signed by the--
(i) Chairperson of the SILC, acting on behalf of and at the
direction of the SILC;
(ii) The director of the DSE, signifying agreement to execute the
responsibilities of the DSE identified in section 704(c) of the Act;
and
(iii) Not less than 51 percent of the directors of the CILs in the
State. For purposes of this provision, if a legal entity that
constitutes the ``CIL'' has multiple Part C grants considered as
separate Centers for all other purposes, for SPIL signature purposes,
it is only considered as one Center. CILs with service areas in more
than one State that meet the other applicable requirements are eligible
to participate in SPIL development and sign the SPIL in each of the
relevant States.
(e) The State plan must provide for the review and revision of the
plan, not less than once every three years, to ensure the existence of
appropriate planning, financial support and coordination, and other
assistance to meet the requirements of section 704(a) of the Act.
(f) The public, including people with disabilities and other
stakeholders throughout the State, must have an opportunity to comment
on the State plan prior to its submission to the
[[Page 74699]]
Administrator and on any revisions to the approved State plan. Meeting
this standard for public input from individuals with disabilities
requires providing reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or
procedures; effective communication and appropriate auxiliary aids and
services for individuals with disabilities, which may include the
provision of qualified interpreters and information in alternate
formats, free of charge.
(1) The requirement for public input in this section may be met by
holding public meetings before a preliminary draft State plan is
prepared and by providing a preliminary draft State plan for comment
prior to submission.
(2) To meet the public input standard of this section, a public
meeting requires:
(i) Accessible, appropriate and sufficient notice provided at least
30 days prior to the public meeting through various media available to
the general public, such as Web sites, newspapers and public service
announcements, and through specific contacts with appropriate
constituency groups.
(ii) All notices, including notices published on a Web site, and
other written materials provided at or prior to public meetings must be
available upon request in accessible formats.
(g) The State plan must identify those provisions that are State-
imposed requirements. For purposes of this section, a State-imposed
requirement includes any State law, regulation, rule, or policy
relating to the DSE's administration or operation of IL programs under
Title VII of the Act, including any rule or policy implementing any
Federal law, regulation, or guideline that is beyond what would be
required to comply with the regulations in this part.
(h) The State plan must address how the specific requirements in
the Act and in paragraph (f) of this section will be met.
Subpart C--Centers for Independent Living Program
Sec. 1329.20 Centers for Independent Living (CIL) program.
State allotments of Part C, funds shall be based on section 721(c)
of the Act, and distributed to Centers within the State in accordance
with the order of priorities in sections 722(e) and 723(e) of the Act.
Sec. 1329.21 Continuation awards to entities eligible for assistance
under the CIL program.
(a) In any State in which the Administrator has approved the State
plan required by section 704 of the Act, an eligible agency funded
under Part C in fiscal year 2015 may receive a continuation award in FY
2016 or a succeeding fiscal year if the Center has--
(1) Complied during the previous project year with the standards
and assurances in section 725 of the Act and the terms and conditions
of its grant; and
(2) Submitted an approvable annual performance report demonstrating
that the Center meets the indicators of minimum compliance referenced
in in Sec. 1329.5.
(b) If an eligible agency administers more than one Part C grant,
each of the Center grants must meet the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section to receive a continuation award.
(c) A designated State entity (DSE) that operated a Center in
accordance with section 724(a) of the Act in fiscal year (FY) 2015 is
eligible to continue receiving assistance under this part in FY 2016 or
a succeeding fiscal year if, for the fiscal year for which assistance
is sought--
(1) No nonprofit private agency submits and obtains approval of an
acceptable application under section 722 or 723 of the Act to operate a
Center for that fiscal year before a date specified by the
Administrator; or
(2) After funding all applications so submitted and approved, the
Administrator determines that funds remain available to provide that
assistance.
(d) A Center operated by the DSE under section 724(a) of the Act
must comply with paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section to
receive continuation funding, except for the requirement that the
Center be a private nonprofit agency.
(e) A designated State entity that administered Part C funds and
awarded grants directly to Centers within the State under section 723
of the Act in fiscal year (FY) 2015 is eligible to continue receiving
assistance under section 723 in FY 2016 or a succeeding fiscal year if
the Administrator determines that the amount of State funding earmarked
by the State to support the general operation of Centers during the
preceding fiscal year equaled or exceeded the amount of federal funds
allotted to the State under section 721(c) of the Act for that fiscal
year.
(f) A DSE may apply to administer Part C funds under section 723 in
the time and in the manner that the Administrator may require,
consistent with section 723(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
(g) Grants awarded by the DSE under section 723 of the Act are
subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
and the order of priorities in section 723(e) of the Act, unless the
DSE and the SILC jointly agree on another order of priorities.
Sec. 1329.22 Competitive awards to new Centers for Independent
Living.
(a) Subject to the availability of funds and in accordance with the
order of priorities in section 722(e) of the Act and the State Plan's
design for the statewide network of Centers, an eligible agency may
receive Part C funding as a new Center for Independent Living in a
State, if the eligible agency:
(1) Submits to the Administrator an application at the time and
manner required in the funding opportunity announcement (FOA) issued by
the Administrator which contains the information and meets the
selection criteria established by the Administrator in accordance with
section 722(d) of the Act;
(2) Proposes to serve a geographic area that has been designated as
a priority unserved or underserved in the State Plan for Independent
Living and that is not served by an existing Part C-funded Center; and
(3) Is determined by the Administrator to be the most qualified
applicant to serve the designated priority area consistent with the
State plan setting forth the design of the State for establishing a
statewide network of Centers for independent living.
(b) An existing Part C-funded Center may apply to serve the
designated unserved or underserved areas if it proposes the
establishment of a separate and complete Center (except that the
governing board of the existing center may serve as the governing board
of the new Center) at a different geographic location, consistent with
the requirements in the FOA.
(c) An eligible agency located in a bordering, contiguous State may
be eligible for a new CIL award if the Administrator determines, based
on the submitted application, that the agency:
(1) Is the most qualified applicant meeting the requirements in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section; and
(2) Has the expertise and resources necessary to serve individuals
with significant disabilities who reside in the bordering, contiguous
State, in accordance with the requirements of the Act and these
regulations.
(d) If there are insufficient funds under the State's allotment to
fund a new Center, the Administrator may--
(1) Use the excess funds in the State to assist existing Centers
consistent with the State plan; or
(2) Reallot these funds in accordance with section 721(d) of the
Act.
[[Page 74700]]
Sec. 1329.23 Compliance reviews.
(a) Centers receiving Part C funding shall be subject to periodic
reviews, including on-site reviews, in accordance with sections 706(c),
722(g), and 723(g) of the Act and guidance set forth by the
Administrator, to verify compliance with the standards and assurances
in section 725(b) and (c) of the Act and the grant terms and
conditions. The Administrator shall annually conduct reviews of at
least 15 percent of the Centers.
(b) A copy of each review under this section shall be provided, in
the case of section 723(g), by the director of the DSE to the
Administrator and to the SILC, and in the case of section 722(g), by
the Administrator to the SILC and the DSE.
Sec. 1329.24 Training and technical assistance to Centers for
Independent Living.
The Administrator shall reserve between 1.8% and 2% of appropriated
funds to provide training and technical assistance to Centers through
grants, contracts or cooperative agreements, consistent with section
721(b) of the Act. The training and technical assistance funds shall be
administered in accordance with section 721(b) of the Act.
[FR Doc. 2016-25918 Filed 10-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-P