federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6316 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulationsbecause the Secretary considered therequirement unduly burdensome. TheSecretary intended to reduce thepaperwork burden on State agencies indeveloping their State plans and toemphasize the underlyingadministrative responsibility of Statesby relying on an assurance, required bystatute, that if the State agency isrequired to have a vocationalrehabilitation unit, the unit is located atan organizational level comparable toother organizational units within theState agency. The Secretary does notbelieve that continuing to require byregulations that an organizationaldescription be included in the Stateplan would necessarily ensure that aDSU actually operates at a levelcomparable to that of other units withinthe State agency. Moreover, theSecretary believes that determinationsas to whether a State agency meets theorganizational requirements in thissection, including whether the Stateunit operates at a comparable level tothat of other State entities, can be betteraddressed by RSA through itsmonitoring process.In an effort to reduce regulatoryburden and increase State flexibility inaccordance with the Department’sPrinciples for Regulating, the Secretaryalso proposed to remove from currentregulations the requirement that adesignated State agency that has as itsmajor function vocational rehabilitationor vocational and other rehabilitation ofindividuals with disabilities shall ‘‘havethe authority, subject to the supervisionof the Governor, if appropriate, to definethe scope of the program within theprovisions of State and Federal law andto direct its administration withoutexternal administrative controls.’’ Thisnon-statutory requirement applies undercurrent regulations to only one of thethree designated State agency options.The Secretary believes, however, that aState should have the same authority toreview or oversee the administration ofits VR program regardless of the optionunder which it chooses to organize itsagency. Elimination of this requirementwill enable a State to locate andadminister its vocational rehabilitationprogram within the limits permitted bystatute without being influenced by theexistence or non-existence of varyinglevels of control outside of the DSU.In the preamble to the proposedregulations, the Secretary solicitedpublic comment on whether theregulations should expand or otherwiseclarify essential program functions forwhich the DSU shall be responsible inorder to meet the statutory requirementin section 101(a)(2)(A) of the Act that itbe responsible for the VR program.Consistent with current regulations, theproposed regulations specified that theDSU shall be responsible fordeterminations of eligibility,development of IWRPs, and decisionsregarding the provision of services. TheSecretary interprets this non-delegationprovision to mean that the DSU shallcarry out these functions or activitiesusing its own staff. While somecommenters believed that States shouldhave the flexibility to delegateresponsibility for other programmaticfunctions to State entities other than theDSU, the overwhelming majority ofcommenters stated that the additionalfunctions that were identified in thedraft regulations (determinations thatservice recipients have achievedappropriate employment outcomes, theformulation and implementation ofprogram policy, and the allocation andexpenditure of program funds) must becarried out by the DSU to ensure thatthe program is administered properly. Inlight of the public comment received,the Secretary agrees that responsibilityfor these additional functions must beretained by the DSU to ensure that Stateagencies that consolidate staff toadminister multiple State and federallyfunded programs do not entrust thesekey VR programmatic decisions toindividuals who lack experience inmeeting the needs of individuals withdisabilities. Moreover, the Secretarybelieves that the benefits derived fromDSU retention of these functions—enhanced program efficiency andeffectiveness—outweigh any costs thatmay be associated with the nondelegationrequirements in the finalregulations.The Secretary does not believe thatthe proposed requirement that at least90 percent of the designated State unitstaff shall work full time on therehabilitation work of the organizationalunit is unduly restrictive. Thisprovision means that if theorganizational unit provides otherrehabilitation services, in addition tovocational rehabilitation, the 90 percentstaffing requirement applies to all unitstaff providing rehabilitation services,not to just the vocational rehabilitationstaff. ‘‘Other rehabilitation’’ includes,but is not limited to, other programs thatprovide medical, psychological,educational, or social services toindividuals with disabilities. Althoughsome commenters believed the 90percent staffing requirement sets toorestrictive a standard, the Secretarybelieves that this requirement isconsistent with the statutoryrequirement in section 101(a)(2)(A)(iii)of the Act that ‘‘substantially all’’ of theDSU’s staff shall work on rehabilitationand with RSA’s longstandinginterpretation of ‘‘substantially all’’ tomean 90 percent.Changes: The Secretary has revised§ 361.13(c) by adding three functions—determination that an individual hasachieved an employment outcome,formulation and implementation ofprogram policy, and allocation andexpenditure of program funds—thatmust be carried out by the DSU.§ 361.15 Local administrationComments: One commenter requestedclarification of the requirement thateach local agency administering theprogram be ‘‘under the supervision ofthe DSU.’’Discussion: Section 7(9) of the Actdefines the term ‘‘local agency’’ as alocal governmental unit that has anagreement with the designated Stateagency to conduct the VR program inaccordance with the State plan.Accordingly, the requirement in thissection that each local agency is subjectto the supervision of the DSU meansthat the DSU is responsible for ensuringthat the program is administered inaccordance with the State plan. Thisprovision does not require the DSU tosupervise the day-to-day operations ofeach local agency’s program staff.Changes: For purposes ofclarification, the Secretary has revised§ 361.15 to add a cross-reference to theregulatory definition of ‘‘sole localagency.’’ The Secretary has also madetechnical changes to the citations ofauthority for this section.§ 361.16 Establishment of anindependent commission or a StateRehabilitation Advisory CouncilComments: One commenter requestedclarification of the scope of theproposed requirement that the Stateplan summarize annually the adviceprovided by the Council.Discussion: Section 101(a)(36)(A)(iii)of the Act requires the DSU to includein its State plan or amendment to theplan a summary of advice provided bythe Council. Accordingly,§ 361.16(a)(2)(iv) of the regulationsrequires that the State plan ‘‘annuallysummarize the advice provided by theCouncil.’’ This ‘‘annual’’ requirementmeans that any State plan submission,whether a new three-year plan or anannual amendment to an existing plan,must include, as appropriate, asummary of the advice provided by theCouncil on the new plan or the planamendment. Thus, a summary of theadvice provided by the Council on theentire plan must be submitted onceevery three years in conjunction with