federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations6319plan for recruitment, preparation, andretention of qualified personnel.Personnel standards. Staff development.The performance evaluation system. Inaddition, the Secretary has clarifiedparagraph (c) of this section to permitDSUs to base their personnel standardson comparable requirements (includingState personnel requirements) only ifnational or State-approved or-recognized certification, licensing, orregistration requirements applicable to aparticular profession do not exist.Finally, the term ‘‘equivalentexperience’’ has been deleted from thedefinition of ‘‘highest requirements inthe State’’ under paragraph (c) of thissection.§ 361.22 Cooperation with agenciesresponsible for students with disabilitiesComments: Some commentersquestioned whether this section requiresDSUs to develop policies that enabletransitioning students to liveindependently before leaving school.The commenters stated that theproposed regulations appeared torequire DSUs to assist students in livingindependently while the studentcontinues to receive special educationservices from an educational agency.Other commenters recommended thatthe regulations be revised to require thedevelopment and completion of theIWRP for a special education studentwho is eligible for VR services beforethe student leaves the school system.Several commenters believed that theelements of formal interagencyagreements between State units andeducational agencies identified in theproposed regulations should bemandatory for all interagencyagreements developed under thissection. Another commenter askedwhether the regulations require DSUs toenter into formal interagencyagreements with each local educationalagency within the State.One commenter opposed thedistinction in the proposed regulationsbetween those students who receivespecial education services and thosewho do not receive special educationservices and argued that therequirements governing coordinationbetween educational agencies and Stateunits should apply for both groups ofstudents. Finally, some commentersrecommended that the term‘‘transitioning student’’ be replaced bythe term ‘‘student with a disability’’ forpurposes of referring to students who donot receive special education servicesfrom an educational agency.Discussion: The proposed regulationsrequired the DSU to develop plans,policies, and procedures designed tofacilitate the transition of specialeducation students from the schoolsetting to the VR program. Specifically,the regulations stated these policiesmust be designed to facilitate thedevelopment and accomplishment oflong-term rehabilitation goals,intermediate rehabilitation objectives,and goals and objectives related toenabling a transitioning student to liveindependently before leaving school.Although these regulatory requirementslargely track the statutory requirementsin section 101(a)(24) of the Act, theSecretary agrees that clarification isneeded.The Secretary does not believe thatthe Act places on the DSU theresponsibility for assisting a studentwith a disability to become independentprior to leaving school. However, theSecretary interprets the Act to requirethat, before a student with a disabilitywho is in a special education programleaves school, the DSU shall plan forthat student’s transition to the VRprogram in order to ensure that there isno delay in the provision of VR servicesonce special education services end.This means that the IWRP for eachstudent determined to be eligible underthe VR program or, if the designatedState unit is operating under an order ofselection, the IWRP for each eligiblestudent able to be served under theorder, must be completed before thestudent leaves school and must, at aminimum, be consistent with therehabilitation goals and objectives,including goals and objectives related toenabling the student to liveindependently, that were previouslyidentified in the student’sindividualized education program. TheSecretary believes that this position isfurther supported by the legislativehistory to the Act, particularly theReport of the Senate Committee onLabor and Human Resources, portionsof which are restated in the notefollowing this section of the regulations.Furthermore, the Secretary believes thatrequiring the development of the IWRPbefore a VR-eligible student leavesschool does not impose any additionalcosts on the DSU since DSUs are alreadyrequired to develop IWRPs for eligibleindividuals, including students withdisabilities, if those individuals can beserved. More importantly, the Secretarybelieves that this requirement willimprove coordination between theState’s special education and VRprograms and will ensure that servicesare not interrupted after an eligiblestudent leaves school.In the proposed regulations, theSecretary attempted to lessen thepaperwork burden on State units byreducing the mandatory contentrequirements that the draft regulationsmade applicable to all formalinteragency agreements between Stateunits and educational agencies.Accordingly, the proposed regulationsrequired only that interagencyagreements identify provisions fordetermining State lead agencies andqualified personnel responsible fortransition services and identify policiesand practices that can be coordinatedbetween the agencies. The remainingelements under the draft regulations(identification of available resources,financial responsibilities of each agency,dispute resolution procedures, andother necessary cooperative policies)were discretionary under the proposedregulations. However, most commenterson this section opposed the reduction inrequired elements and stated that eachcomponent is essential for ensuring theappropriate transition of specialeducation students from the schoolsetting to the VR program. Withoutdetailed agreements, the commentersargue, resources may be wasted and keyprocesses may not be delineated,resulting in delays in services once thespecial education student leaves school.Consequently, each identified elementof formal interagency agreements ismandatory for all agreements developedunder this section of the finalregulations. The Secretary believes thisposition is consistent with the statutoryrequirements governing formalinteragency agreements in section 101(a)(11) and (a)(24) of the Act.In reviewing the regulations sincepublication of the NPRM, the Secretaryidentified an additional mandatoryelement of formal interagencyagreements that was inadvertentlyomitted from the proposed regulations.This additional element implements therequirement in section 101(a)(11)(B) ofthe Act, which specifies thatinteragency cooperation between theDSU and other agencies, includingeducational agencies, must includetraining for staff of the agencies as to theavailability, benefits of, and eligibilitystandards for vocational rehabilitationservices, to the extent practicable.The Secretary notes that, although theregulations require the DSU to enter intoa formal agreement with the Stateeducational agency, it is within thediscretion of each State to determinewhich local educational agencies shouldbe parties to agreements with the DSU.The Secretary agrees that classifyingstudents who do not receive specialeducation services as ‘‘transitioningstudents’’ is confusing. As statedpreviously in the preamble analysis ofcomments on § 361.5(b)(49), the