federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6310 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulationsprovide services similar to the servicesspecified in the definition. Thus, theSecretary believes that a communityrehabilitation program could providerehabilitation teaching services forindividuals who are blind because thoseservices are similar to orientation andmobility services for individuals whoare blind, which are expresslyauthorized under paragraph (i)(K) of thedefinition.Changes: None.• Comparable Services and BenefitsComments: Several commentersrequested clarification of therequirement in the proposed regulationsthat comparable services and benefits beavailable to the individual within areasonable period of time. Somecommenters requested that theregulations allow DSUs to usecomparable services and benefits only ifthey are currently available at the timethe individual’s Individualized WrittenRehabilitation Program (IWRP) isdeveloped. Other commenters suggestedthat comparable services and benefitsshould be available when necessary tomeet the rehabilitation objectivesidentified in the individual’s IWRP.Discussion: The definition of‘‘comparable services and benefits’’ isintended to support the statutorypurpose of conserving rehabilitationfunds, while ensuring the provision ofappropriate and timely services. Theproposed requirement in the NPRM thatcomparable services and benefits beavailable within a reasonable period oftime was intended to enable DSUs toconserve VR funds by searching foralternative sources of funds withoutjeopardizing the timely provision of VRservices to eligible individuals. TheSecretary agrees that additionalclarification in the regulations isrequired to ensure that VR services areprovided to eligible individuals at thetime they are needed.Changes: The Secretary has revised§ 361.5(b)(9)(ii) of the proposedregulations to require that comparableservices and benefits be available to theindividual at the time that the relevantservice is needed to achieve therehabilitation objectives in theindividual’s IWRP. This change isconsistent with revisions made to§ 361.53 of the proposed regulations,which are discussed in the analysis ofcomments to that section.• Competitive Employment andIntegrated SettingComments: Some commentersopposed the definition of ‘‘competitiveemployment’’ in the proposedregulations on the basis that it limitedcompetitive employment outcomes tothose in which an individual with adisability earns at least the minimumwage. Because the proposed definitionapplied to supported employmentplacements, these commenters believedthat the minimum wage requirementwould restrict employmentopportunities for individuals with themost severe disabilities who needsupported employment services in orderto work. These commenters stated thatsome individuals with the most severedisabilities would be unable to obtaincompetitive employment unless thedefinition permitted employers tocompensate employees in accordancewith section 14(c) of the Fair LaborStandards Act (FLSA) (i.e., wages basedon individual productivity that wouldbe less than the minimum wage). Othercommenters supported the proposeddefinition and the requirement thatindividuals in competitive employmentearn at least the minimum wage.Several commenters opposed therequirement in the proposed regulationsthat individuals in competitiveemployment earn at least the prevailingwage for the same or similar work in thelocal community performed by nondisabledindividuals. The commentersbelieved that it would be undulyburdensome for DSUs to ascertain therelevant prevailing wage given thepotential differences in wages providedby employers within the samecommunity. In addition, thesecommenters stated that the prevailingwage standard would dissuade someemployers from hiring individuals withdisabilities when the wage to beprovided, although at least theminimum wage, would have to beincreased to be consistent with higherwages provided by other employers inthe community for the same or similarwork.Several commenters on the proposedregulations opposed the requirementthat competitive employment beperformed in an integrated setting.Several other commenters questioned orrequested clarification of the proposeddefinition of integrated setting withrespect to the provision of services orthe achievement of an employmentoutcome. In light of theinterrelationship between the terms‘‘competitive employment’’ and‘‘integrated setting’’ and the fact that theSecretary considers integration to be anessential component of competitiveemployment, comments on both theproposed definition of ‘‘integratedsetting’’ and the use of the term‘‘integrated setting’’ as an element ofcompetitive employment are addressedin the following paragraphs.Commenters who opposed limitingcompetitive employment to placementsin integrated settings believed thatrequiring individuals with disabilities tointeract with non-disabled persons atthe work site would preclude certainkinds of employment outcomes from thescope of competitive employment.Specifically, the commenters identifiedself-employment, home-basedemployment, and various forms oftelecommuting as examples ofemployment outcomes that arecompetitive but are not located inintegrated settings. The commentersstated that these placement optionsshould be available to individuals withdisabilities to same extent that they areavailable to non-disabled persons.Some commenters believed that thedefinition of ‘‘integrated setting’’ in theproposed regulations was too weak.These commenters recommended thatthe proposed definition, which definedintegrated setting as ‘‘. . . a settingtypically found in the community inwhich an applicant or eligibleindividual has an opportunity tointeract regularly with non-disabledpersons . . .,’’ be amended to requireactual interaction between the applicantor eligible individual and non-disabledindividuals. Other commenters statedthat individuals in competitiveemployment should be required tointeract with non-disabled persons onlyto the extent that non-disabledindividuals in similar positions interactwith others. Finally, some commenterssuggested that the definition clarify thatsheltered workshops and otheremployment settings that areestablished specifically for the purposeof employing individuals withdisabilities do not constitute integratedsettings.Discussion: The Secretary agrees withthe commenters who believe thatcompetitive employment outcomesshould be limited to those in whichindividuals earn at least the minimumwage. Consequently, the Secretary doesnot consider placements in supportedemployment settings in whichindividuals receive wages below theminimum wage under section 14(c) ofthe FLSA to be competitiveemployment. This position, whichwould modify longstanding RSAregulatory policy, is consistent with therequirement in the 1992 Amendments(section 101(a)(16) of the Act) that DSUsannually review and reevaluate thestatus of each individual in anemployment setting under section 14(c)of the FLSA in order to determine theindividual’s readiness for competitiveemployment. This statutory requirementindicates that supported employment