federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations6309applicable statutory authority—generally are not addressed. However,some suggested changes that theSecretary is not authorized to make alsoraise important policy issues and,therefore, are discussed under theappropriate section of the analysis.References in the analysis ofcomments to the ‘‘proposed regulations’’refer to the regulatory provisions in theDecember 15, 1995 NPRM, whereasreferences to the ‘‘draft regulations’’refer to provisions in the draft proposedregulations that were circulated forinformal comment prior to publishingthe NPRM.Section 361.5(b)definitionsApplicable• Administrative Costs Under the StatePlanComments: Some commentersrequested that this definition be revisedto specifically limit administrative coststo expenditures incurred by theDesignated State Unit (DSU) inadministering the VR program. Onecommenter recommended that thedefinition identify indirect costs as atype of administrative cost. Finally, onecommenter sought to exclude costsincurred by DSUs in providing technicalassistance to businesses and industriesfrom the definition on the basis thatthose costs represent expenditures forthe provision of services under§ 361.49(a) of the proposed regulations.Discussion: The Secretary agrees thatadministrative costs under the VR Stateplan are those costs that the DSU incursin administering the VR program. Whilemost indirect costs (those costs thatcannot be allocated to a single costobjective and that benefit more than oneprogram) are generally types ofadministrative expenditures, they neednot be limited to administrativeexpenditures. The Secretary does notbelieve it is necessary to classifyindirect costs in order to ensure theirallowability under the program. Allindirect costs that are approved underan indirect cost agreement or costallocation plan are allowable. TheSecretary emphasizes that indirect costsrelated to multiple State programs (e.g.,operating expenses for State buildingsoccupied by DSU staff and staff fromother State-administered programs) canbe charged to the VR program only tothe extent that the costs are attributableto the VR program.In addition, the Secretary agrees thatalthough technical assistance tobusinesses, in some cases, is consideredan administrative cost, any technicalassistance provided by a DSU to abusiness or industry that seeks toemploy individuals with disabilitiesand that is not subject to the Americanswith Disabilities Act (ADA) does notconstitute an administrative cost.Technical assistance provided underthese circumstances is authorized bysection 103(b)(5) of the Act and§ 361.49(a)(4) of the regulations as aservice for groups of individuals withdisabilities.Changes: The Secretary has revised§ 361.5(b)(2) to clarify thatadministrative costs are expendituresthat are incurred by the DSU inperforming administrative functionsrelated to the VR program. Thedefinition also has been amended toexclude technical assistance provided tobusinesses and industries as a serviceunder the conditions in § 361.49(a)(4).• Appropriate Modes ofCommunicationComments: One commenter opposeddefining ‘‘appropriate modes ofcommunication’’ as specialized mediasystems and devices that facilitatecommunication on the basis that not allmodes of communication used bypersons with disabilities are ‘‘mediasystems and devices.’’ Severalcommenters requested that thedefinition identify graphicpresentations, simple language, andother modes of communication used byindividuals with cognitive impairments.Discussion: The Secretary agrees that‘‘appropriate modes of communication’’are not limited to specific systems,devices, or equipment, as indicated bythe proposed definition, and includeany type of aid or support needed by anindividual with a disability tocommunicate with others effectively.For example, the use of an interpreter bya person who is deaf is an appropriatemode of communication, but is nottypically viewed as a system or device.The Secretary believes it would beuseful for the definition of appropriatemodes of communication to includeexamples of communication methodsused by individuals with cognitiveimpairments. However, the Secretaryemphasizes that the examples ofcommunication services and materialslisted in the definition in the finalregulations are not all-inclusive and thatother appropriate modes ofcommunication not specified in thedefinition are also available to addressthe particular communication needs ofan individual with a disability.Changes: The Secretary has amended§ 361.5(b)(5) to clarify that appropriatemodes of communication include anyaid or support that enables anindividual with a disability tocomprehend and respond to informationbeing communicated. In addition, thedefinition has been amended to includegraphic presentations and simplelanguage materials as examples ofmodes of communication that may beappropriate for individuals withcognitive impairments.• Assistive Technology ServiceComments: Some commenters askedthat particular services be identified inthis definition as examples ofpermissible assistive technologyservices. For instance, one commentersuggested that the definition specificallyidentify modifications to vehicles usedby individuals with disabilities as anassistive technology service.Discussion: The definition of the term‘‘assistive technology service’’ in boththe proposed and final regulationstracks the definition of that term in theTechnology-Related Assistance forIndividuals with Disabilities Act of 1988(Tech Act), as required by section 7(24)of the Act. The Tech Act definesassistive technology services generallyto include any service that directlyassists an individual with a disability inthe selection, acquisition, or use of anassistive technology device. Thedefinition in the regulations, therefore,is intended to address the scope ofservice-related needs of individuals whouse assistive technology devices (e.g.,the need to acquire a particular deviceor the need to receive training on theoperation of a device) rather than toidentify actual services that anindividual might receive. Nevertheless,the Secretary recognizes that anymodification to a vehicle that isnecessary to enable an individual witha disability to use that vehicle isconsidered an adaptation or acustomization of an assistive technologydevice under § 361.5(b)(7)(iii) and,therefore, constitutes an assistivetechnology service. This position isconsistent with current RSA policy.Changes: None.• Community Rehabilitation ProgramComments: Some commentersrequested that the definition of‘‘community rehabilitation program’’specify additional services, such asrehabilitation teaching services, thatcould be provided under a communityrehabilitation program for individualswith disabilities.Discussion: The definition of‘‘community rehabilitation program’’ inboth the proposed and final regulationsis based on the statutory definition insection 7(25) of the Act. However,paragraph (i)(Q) of this definition, likesection 7(25)(Q) of the Act, authorizescommunity rehabilitation programs that