Notice of Proposed Rule MakingPresented by Timothy Beatty, Daniel Davis, Molly Burgdorf, and Moderated by Paula

McElweeDECEMBER 2, 2015,

3:00 P.M. ET

PAULA McELWEE: Good afternoon, everybody. This is Paula McElwee with ILRU and I want to thank you for joining us. Today's presentation is being brought to you by the IL-net training and technical assistance project for CILs and SILCs, centers for independent living and statewide independent living councils. The IL-net is separated through a partnership among ILRU, NCIL, and APRIL with support provided by the administration on community living at the US Department of Health and Human Services. So as always, we are recording today's call so that you can access the archive on ILRU's website. That will be up within 48 hours and we will break several times to take your questions live today. Those will be included in the presentation that's recorded.

There are several different ways you can answer questions and I will remind you about that when we get to the question and answer break, so that that will be easy for you to remember, but one of the best ones is the chat box. So if you look at the chat box on your screen, those of you who are watching from Adobe Connect Live, that chat box is a great way to do that. You can enter your question any time that it occurs to you. We won't answer it right away, but tell answer it when we get to the Q&A break. Go ahead and write them in there so that we can have an idea of what the questions are that are emerging as we go through.

And then also if any of you are on the full CART -- the full screen CART captioning, that's the CC Productions link that we sent to you, that displayed the webinar. We are logged into chat there too. So you are welcome to use that chat box if you would like to.

And if you are on the phone, you can -- you may prefer to ask your question live, and if you want to do that, you press star pound when we ask for questions and that will put you into the line for answering your questions live by phone.

Okay. Now, there is a companion PowerPoint today and if you are on webinar, that will display and you can follow the presentation automatically being although once in a while, it's a little slow and believe me, we know -- we have told it to change but it sometimes slows down without our control. But if you are on the full CART screen or just on the phone, make sure that you have a copy of that PowerPoint handy for you. We did send that to you in the confirmation email. You will want to use it to follow along today's presentation.

The last thing I want to mention before I turn it over to our presenters today is our evaluation form. When you get to the end of this presentation, after the last question

and answer break, there will be a place where we ask you to give some feedback and for those of you who attend our calls regularly, you already know that they are very easy to complete. There's only a few questions. We keep it short so that it's not a burden for you to fill it out but we really do want your feedback. As far as the evaluation, you will see it. It's on one of the last slides that we'll come to in the presentation itself and it's a live link to the evaluation form, and like so many other things, it was sent to you also in the confirmation email that you received with the connection instructions. So that's it for housekeeping.

And I want to introduce our presenters. I'm very pleased to introduce you to the folks from ACL that are going to be talking with us about the different parts of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that came out recently. The first is Timothy Beatty, he's the deputy director of the Independent Living Administration. Also on the call with us is Molly Burgdorf, the senior policy advisor for the Center for Policy and Evaluation, and Daniel Davis, the policy analyst, both with ACL and we also have with us, although she's not formally presenting, we may have questions for her, so we also have Vicki Gottlich, the director of the Center for Policy and Evaluation on the call as well.

And I would like to turn it over to you, Tim for you to get started.

>> TIMOTHY BEATTY: Thank you, Paula. Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to join all of you today open this webinar to share and discuss the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NPRM, which is now posted in the Federal Register for comments. If you are not sure what we are talking about, these are proposed regulations which were will govern the independent living programs going forward.

I would be remiss if I did not take a moment here to recognize the member, Jamie Kendall. Jamie helped to guide the proposed regulations through our internal discussions into the approval process, and finally over to the Office of Management and Budget. Thanks to her leadership, we have finally reached this stage in the regulatory process, which is a significant step for all of us.

She is greatly missed and our work will continue on on these regulations, and other items in the independent living program, as we carry on her passion and her drive for individuals with disabilities and independent living.

I do want to emphasize today that this is your opportunity to review the proposed regulations and make comments to us before they become final. Do not miss this opportunity to base your comments and recommendations to us. I do hope you will focus more on making recommendations so that we can consider them and determine if they can be used in any way in our process.

I would now ask you to look at slide number three, which is the goals and the format of today's webinar. The first goal is to review the rulemaking process. The second one is to highlight some of the key parts of the proposed regulations, including how ILA will

implement changes required by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, WIOA for short.

And the third is to share information on how you may provide comments to the proposed rules. So I look forward to hearing from you later on in the webinar. So at this point, I will turn it over to Molly to take the next slide.

>> MOLLY BURGDORF: Hi, slide 4. This is Molly Burgdorf and I want to take a moment to thank Tim and just acknowledge his words about Jamie and it's a personal loss for all of us here, as well as for the agency and the larger community.

So now to dive into these independent living NPRMs to start with where to find this. There is a link in the Federal Register which we posted now. I understand there's a bit of a delay on the slide advancement and I will presume they will catch up as I talk.

So the link is posted also on ACL's website, as well as in these slides and it should be available through ILRU and we want to be sure that finding your way to the content is not an obstacle. We also want to make sure that everybody is aware that there's a 60-day limit to submitting comments, so that means that they are due on or before January 15th, 2016. So within that 60-day time period, the public has an opportunity to submit comments on the NPRM, and these comments themselves will also be made available to the public. So you will be able to see what other folks are saying. And at the end of this presentation, Daniel Davis will walk us through exactly how you go about filing your comments.

So slide 5, please. This is to talk about the review of the rulemaking process, and it lays out the steps in this process. So please go ahead and advance the slides just one more when you have a chance.

Where we are at right now is we just published the proposed rule in the Federal Register as of November. And I just wanted to remind folks of the steps that we had talked about in the webinar that we discussed the rulemaking process steps in advance, as we were taking this sort of general informal organizational and thought collecting process in preparations for drafting what had become the NPRM. And in doing that, we wanted to just acknowledge that we had talked with NCIL, APRIL, the CILs and the SILCs and had an opportunity to talk with some folks in conferences at the NCIL board meeting, had conversations with the leadership of the CIL Congress and had an opportunity to review comments in writing in just a structured informal process, predating the rule.

And now that the NPRM is actually published in the Federal Register, what we can talk about is we can answer clarifying questions and we can share information that's already been made publicly available, but we can't talk about the nitty-gritty of substantive issues beyond what is already captured in the NPRM. So just keep that in mind as the Q&A process proceeds.

And I wanted to acknowledge that public comments and the responses will form the basis of what will become the final rules. So they are usual in this process.

So slide 5, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Slide 6.

So this is talking about what we are hoping to accomplish that we reviewed the changes in WIOA, and apologize if we can advance those slides to 6, titled "Understanding the NPRM."

And clarify issues in a way that meets the needs of the community, including the important stakeholders but also meeting government requirements and that means it's for the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the formal federal review process which has to go through the Office of Management and Budget. I wanted to highlight for those of that you have already had a chance to look at the regulations, these will look different than the ones that you have seen in the past. So we are following the department of health and human services format, which you will note these are shorter than the previous three sections of regulations that apply to the programs. And HHS tends to include fewer details in regulations.

So some of the content areas will be covered in other mechanisms such as terms and conditions or guidance materials. So keeping that in mind, some of the materials we reviewed included a fair amount of content on other opportunities for guidance, and those are all still relevant and in play. This is the -- the NPRM is one step in this process, but there's going to be opportunities in later guidance and other instruments such as the 704 Report, various instructions of how to submit things, for example, for the SPILs that are ongoing. So this is not the only opportunity to cover a lot of content that was submitted.

What we tried to do was focusing on the NPRM on issues that have to stand the test of time, meaning the policies established will be more difficult to change. Where we want policies that can be refined based on experience or where there may be different circumstances that come up, or we need different approaches, we may not have included them in the NPRM to kind of guard some of that flexibility going forward. And just acknowledge that some issues which are also beyond the scope of the law are beyond the scope of the NPRM. So this certainly doesn't cover every issue in the world, because we can't. We are limited by what's in the law.

Slide 7, please.

This is an overview of the structure of the rule. So I just want to acknowledge up front that once this NPRM goes to the final rule stage, you will no longer find your applicable regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations for the Department of Education, they will inbound a new section, Section 34, which is actually a new area of the code title, which is for ACL programs. So that's actually a change for ACL broadly. So it brings

together a number of our programs in one area of the code. Which hopefully will be convenient.

And so noting that the previous regulations are in three separate parts this is all of the -- all of the regulations are consolidated into one part in the Code of Federal Regulations. That's where they will live when they are finalized and become requirements.

So looking at the text of what you will see on paper, there are three general sections. There's the part A, the general provisions that applies broadly to the programs and then there's subpart B that applies to the independent living services programs and then subpart C which applies to the CILs. And I wanted to just talk also about the structure of the rule in terms of the enforcements and where these -- what will be included in the Code of Federal Regulations, once it becomes final. So the first part you will see it begins with a summary and has some general -- not general but specific information of the dates hasn't who to contact and then it gets into what the law itself covers. And apologize. My screen just went dead for a moment.

But this is called the preamble and the purpose of this is to explain the reasons for the regulatory action. So to be clear, what's in the preamble will not be part of the regulatory text, which means it will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations and is not legally enforceable, however, the judges might look to the information in the preamble to interpret what's in the actual regulatory language. It's an informal record. So it's not that it doesn't have no import. Doesn't become actually part of the Code of Federal Regulations that apply. So that's the first part that you will see of the rule when you are reviewing it. And I appreciate the patience for those of you, that this process is very familiar. We want to be sure that we are covering overarching structure and the basics so that we can get the broadest amount of comments that we can. So we can make the best rule that we can.

Following a preamble, the regulatory analysis under the law and I apologize. I'm still on slide 7. So if we can just jump back one, please. The analysis and the other requirements are generally based in statute or executive order. These discuss the assessment of the burdens that the rules proposed will have on the entities that will be regulated. These are not substantive steps laid out in the regular impact analysis, however, we do acknowledge that there's a lot of information shared there and we want to be as accurate as possible. Please review this section, answer the questions posed. There are many, but we are not going to spend a lot of time discussing the details in that section, in this particular presentation, because ultimately that's been a substantive requirement and then following the regulatory impact section is the regulatory language itself.

So slide 8, please. Key provisions in the NPRM. So we are now getting into the actual nuts and bolts of the substance. One of the first sections in the general provisions is definitions and you will notice that a lot of these current definitions in this

NPRM reflect language that was in WIOA or the rehab act or previous regulations. So some of it will be familiar.

There are some -- certainly some new nuances and new definitions in their entirety, including the fifth core service that we will go into detail following this and a number of other terms that are changed from before, such as minority group or a new wrinkle added to the context such in personal system services, and which that includes services paid or unpaid or the definition of paid or under served. And you are hopefully familiar with some of the applications of outreach that apply to the definitions that we are highlighting here. This doesn't cover them all. These are just some examples.

Slide 9, please. And this is -- what this is the new fifth independent living core service, this is the slide when you are able to see it, that is the same slide that we showed and talked about in the webinar when we were developing the NPRM. So it talks about the three prongs that's facilitating the transition of individuals with significant disabilities from nursing homes and other institutions to home and community-based residences. There's the diversion prong, as some people call it or prevention. It's providing assistance to individuals with significant disabilities who are at risk of entering institutions so they can remain in the community and then there's the third prong of youth transition.

And just to be clear, we are drilling into some of the content of the definitions of this new fifth core service and the NPRM, policy guidance will be provided for measuring, documenting, and reporting on each of these components, for instance, for 704 Report purposes, but we need to get some of the key elements of what we are actually talking about and the definitions which is what we are trying to cover in this NPRM. And I also wanted to acknowledge that the law requires a new requirement that the state will have to provide services to people with significant disability. And so there's a sigh to this bill as well.

So slide 10, please. This is more content on the fifth core service, highlighting some of the questions that we specifically ask. It's particularly in terms of the definitional component. Now, I just wanted to acknowledge that there's advantages to leaving things not defined in the rule, as I mentioned before. There's an element of flexibility. There's an element of if you can't comprehensively capture everything at once, sometimes there's advantages to leaving yourself room for interpretation in other venues, but we specifically asked the question if we need more detail around defining an institution, used with a significant disability, home and community-based residences and person at risk of institutionalization, again, with the understanding of we are required to meet the structures and the requirements of the law. So we can't go outside of that or change things that were established in the statute.

And we are definitely interested in hearing from particularly CILs that are already doing this. We are aware that many CILs are already doing some or most of this particular

prongs of providing core services in these areas, even if they are with slightly different terms, that the work is -- we would like to have the best understanding that we can get of the capture of the work that's already being done and make sure that we are identifying best practices moving forward.

Slide 11, these are just some other key issue areas that are as part of the general provisions of the law. Now, I note that there are requirements in WIOA to establish indicators of minimal compliance for the SILCs and also with respect to the reporting requirements and I just want to highlight that there's processes going on right now, where developing SILC centers and indicators which will also go through publication and the comment process, as well as working groups that are revising the 704 reporting instruments, there are some minimal compliances with the law provisions as part of the NPRM, but the lion's share of this work is not happening at the NPRM itself. So just so that you are aware. There are sections that cover these issues but there is additional content to come that will absolutely have an opportunity for input.

And with that, I know that's throwing a lot at you and I also know that I need to pick up the pace. We are taking a break at this point for questions. I will turn it over to Paula.

>> PAULA McELWEE: Great. I appreciate it, Molly. As we go into questions and answers. Remember you can type them into the chat box, we have a few of them now. If you are on the phone and you would wish to ask those questions by phone, you can press star pound and you will be added into the queue for those questions.

Let's start with the ones that we already received. So Sam asks: Realistically, will the DSE director have a substantive role in the writing of the SPIL? Now, you haven't gotten to this section yet, but that question has already shown up and I know there's some guidance around it. There's some contradictory information in this regard.

Who would like to tackle that one?

>> MOLLY BURGDORF: This is Molly. I can have a response and then I will open it up for others if there's things to add up the chain. But I wanted to acknowledge that there has been some developments and you are right, I was planning to discuss this at a later point, but there was an ongoing DSE guidance process, and I wanted to acknowledge here that the NPRM does not reflect everything that was agreed to at the outcome of that. And that has to do with the timing of how this has to be developed and submitted and, for instance, we had to have a -- we have the Office of Management and Budget, and then they have a certain point. After a certain point, we were not able to make substantive changed. I wanted to acknowledge that you will see things that are not consistent with what we have agreed to and will publish and I believe there's another revision coming up the DSE guidance. It would be incredibly helpful to identify those places in writing, meaning submit comments on those issues where you see them so we can be sure that they are as accurate as possible in the final rule.

>> PAULA McELWEE: So that's a real important reminder to everyone that you are going to want to respond to this proposed rulemaking and you are going to want to do those with written comments, including around this issue. If you have anything that there are questions -- and sometimes if you want to answer some of the questions provided, right? So we've got all of those happening.

Denise has asked, what is the age separation for Centers for Independent Living and vocational rehabilitation in regards to how our programs are to do youth transition?

I believe from the comment -- from the content that you have given us so far, it's not an age so much as a status. Would that be true?

>> DANIEL DAVIS: It's primarily status.

It has to do more with whether individuals are -- are in or out of school or are still covered under an individualized educational program. That language is actually laid out in the statute as far as what the -- as far as what the requirements are that we are going to do some -- we are doing some fleshing out of that in the process, and we are actually asking for comments on a number of the definitional issues related to that, in order to sharpen up those definitions. So there are some places where -- where commenters may be able to offer some insights which would be helpful to us.

>> PAULA McELWEE: Very helpful, Daniel. Thank you.

You know, the age it looks like can be -- if they drop out of school, it's 16 or if they finish an IEP at 22 or anything in between, as long as it's after they are out of school. Are we right about that?

>> DANIEL DAVIS: It's definitionally around -- around -- I actually would like to see the exact terminology, but it's basically around -- basically, it's whether they are eligible for IEPs under Section 614 (D) of IDEA and completed their secondary education or otherwise left school post secondary.

>> MOLLY BURGDORF: And that's a part of the fifth core service definition. And this is Molly. I wanted to add.

There is a definition for a use with a significant disability which is another part of this definition and it's consistent with youth with disability and with significant disability in the statute. You should take a look at that and that's defined as an individual with a significant disability who is not younger than 14 years of age and not older than 24 years of age.

Again, we invite comments but we are also limited to what is established in the statute.

>> PAULA McELWEE: Okay. Very good. Operator, are there any questions in the queue for a phone question?

>> OPERATOR: We do have one question. One moment, please.

>> PAULA McELWEE: Okay.

>> PARTICIPANT: Hi, my name is Thomas. I'm from Berkeley, California. I had a couple of questions and a couple of comments. My first question is: Well, if I remember right, the language of the actual WIOA statute made it very clear that youth transitions meant transitions to employment and/or transitions to postsecondary education. However, when I read the language of the proposed rule that's currently posted on the Federal Register, it basically says -- and I'm reading item 3 under definition of independent living core services, the new fifth core service component three, facilitate the transition of youth who are blah, blah, blah, blah. Who have completed their secondary education or otherwise left school, transitioning to and then the last word is postsecondary life. So my question is: Even though WIOA's language was very specific in saying that for purposes of the so-called fifth core service, transitioning youth had to be transitioning to either employment or postsecondary education. Does this new proposed regulation, if it becomes the final rule, mean that ILCs will get credit for delivering a fifth core service if it helped a disabled youth transition to quality adult life that does not involve employment or postsecondary education?

That's my first question. Oh, and I guess I have to say everything before I turn it over to you.

Okay. Now, a comment is the rule in the Federal Register asked about what they should adopt as the definition of an institution. I recommend that ACL adopts a Medicare/Medicaid CMS definition of institution and then in addition to that definition, adopted by CMS, then also say that assisted living facilities and residential care facilities for the elderly, add those to the definitions of institutions. So a broader definition of institution than CMS. CMS plus assisted living facilities and RCFEs. If it looks and smells like an institutions, namely like urine, then it's an institution.

Then my last comment is -- no, no, my second to last comment is asking -- the Register asks what are our suggestions --

>> PAULA McELWEE: I will have to interrupt you here. This is not the time to make those comments. Those comments need to be sent in in writing, in the regular response, but I do want to make sure we get your question answered. So I would ask if they answer your question about postsecondary life. Thank you.

>> PARTICIPANT: Thank you.

>> MOLLY BURGDORF: Could you hold on a second?

>> VICKI GOTTLITCH: Hi, this is Vicki Gottlich, and I'm looking at the statutory language and the statutory language is facilitate the transition of youth who are individuals with significant disabilities who are eligible for individualized education programs under, you know, the IDEA and would have completed their secondary education or otherwise left school to postsecondary life. So there's nothing in the statutory language that talks about employment.

However, we do ask for comments on what this definition means and so any comments that you want to make regarding employment would be greatly appreciated and, again, the comments you made about your thoughts and the definition of institution, please send them to us in writing. Thank you.

>> DANIEL DAVIS: And this is Daniel. Relatedly, just sort of following up on what Vicki said, we -- while we hear what you are saying, we actually under -- under the way that the Administrative Procedures Act works, the only way that we can memorialize your comments is for you to put it in writing to us, as part of the comment period. Anything other than that won't be considered as part of the formal record. So it's absolutely essential that if you want those comments to be part of our consideration, that you send them in formally. In writing.

>> MOLLY BURGDORF: Thank you, Daniel. This is Molly. And apologize if I was not clear up front that we want to provide information about what is covered, what the process is specifically for submitting comments which Daniel will be covering as part of this presentation a little bit later, but we are identifying area. We are highlighting things you may want to look at and you certainly don't have to comment on anything that we are raising questions on. We want to make stakeholders aware of where specific questioned were asked and help understand what the substance of the rules are in terms of what's already on paper. So I think at that -- and there will be a couple of other Q&A opportunities. So your questions are still welcome but I think maybe we'll start again on the slide content, if that works for you, Paula.

>> PAULA McELWEE: That works great. Go for it.

>> MOLLY BURGDORF: Okay. So slide 13, please.

And now we are getting into beyond the general -- oh, no, this is one of the last general provisions. The enforcement and the appeals. General meaning it applies to the multiple programs within independent living. So what this section does is we're proposing a new process, specifically for CILs and part B grantees consistent with HHS appeals process. So we'll continue to rely on technical assistance and corrective action plans. This is a formal appeals process for when there's an imminent threat of termination and make clear the steps that the entity may take when there's a threat of imminent termination or withholding of funds.

And you can take a look in the NPRM. It's the standard procedure within HHS for our departmental appeals board, and we are considered if we need more information and more are articulated steps in the NPRM. That's where we can provide guidance in a separate vehicle. It provides a parallel process for the state entities. So we welcome your comments on those areas.

And now, slide 14, please. We are getting into the specifics on the independent living services section. Actually, before I jump into there, I can reiterate here again that -- and acknowledge, that NPRM doesn't fully reflect as I mentioned, before the ongoing process to revise the DSE guidance. So particularly you might want to take a look at Section 1329.11, on designated state agency. Anywhere you feel a different language or approach is needed, please feel free to submit comments.

So now back to the independent living services. Some of these things were established in statutes. So they will be familiar, but Sections 1329.14 on the SILC, we wanted to emphasize that it's autonomous, independent from the designated state entity and other state agencies and we specifically ask for comments on whether we need to include more details on how the board is composed.

Section 1329.15 covers the duties of the SILC and as you know, one of the main changes under the law is that the SILC cannot provide direct services to consumers but we wanted to make clear in the NPRM that providing content information for the CIL does not count as providing direct services. So that's permissible. And there are requirements with respect to coordination with other entities in the state that provide services similar to or complimentary to independent living services and with respect to that section in 1329.15, as well as the next section, coordinating activities with CILs we didn't include many specific details about entities with which to coordinate or the specific activity that must be included. We wanted to provide flexibility and not to provide a list -- not that we could even provide a comprehensive list or a list of specific activities, however, we invite comment on if we need more specific details if that would be helpful to program.

Please advance to slide 15. This is regarding part B funds, and the state master part B funds. So there are two new requirements, among others in WIOA with respect to part B funding. There's a 5% administrative cap on the funds that can be retained by the designated state agency and there's a 30% cap on the funds allocated to the SILC resource plans. Now, let me stop there and acknowledge, these are different provisions. These are not -- I'm not suggesting that they are the same thing or that they are parallel, but what is similar here is our designated treatment of the part B funds and the state match. So the way that the NPRM proposes to deal with this is that part B funds for these two purposes, in particular, include the 10% state match, but not other federal funding. So that means that your -- for example, Social Security reimbursements or your innovation and expansion funds or other funding sources would not be counted towards these percentages but a 10% state match would. You

can read in the NPRM, our thought process on that and some of the alternatives we considered.

So if you feel -- feel free to let us know if you think that there is a better or different way that this should be addressed and we do really want to know about implications that you think we might not be aware of, of this particular definition.

And while we are talking about the 30% cap allocated to the resource plan, if you want to have more than 30% allocated, it needs to be -- that higher amount needs to be specified in the SPIL and also with respect to the SILC resource plan funds, there's a requirement of the provision of necessary and sufficient funds to carry out the functions of the SILC and we don't define that phrase specifically in the NPRM. If you wanted to consider a definition, please let us know and feel free to recommend one.

Slide 16, please. This is highlighting some of the provisions that address the SPIL, particularly changes made under WIOA. So it includes the new requirements for SPIL development, and also the new significant requirements. Our intension right in this section is to parallel specifically the requirements of the law. If see areas where you think that deviates then feel free to highlight that and comment.

The SPIL provisions do include additional requirements for effective communication and access for individuals with disabilities to facilitate public input and that's taken from some of the probably familiar language under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 with respect to effective communication and relevant provisions there.

But if you feel that you need more detail or if this is explained in a way that is not clear, then we recommend that you give us comments on that provision.

There's also some details about how this SPIL should be submitted and we welcome your refinements, your recommendations for areas where more details are needed, or if you want more articulated process about who is responsible for the submission and how this is the section that deals with those provisions.

Slide 17, please.

So we wanted to highlight here the CIL definition for the SPIL. The CIL definition is the definition of a CIL in this NPRM. It's not only for surprises of this bill but we are highlighting it here with respect to the SPIL. So what is different in this is that we are talking about any CIL a consumer controlled community-based, cross disability, nonresidential, private nonprofit agency for individuals with significant disabilities, we are talking about regardless of funding source.

Now, this particular bullet point, regardless of funding source, we wanted to highlight that and make sure that's clear and that is the language in our preamble. But since it's establishing a specific direction we wanted to be sure that it was totally transparent to

anyone that might have a stake in this. And the -- the -- following that, the CIL is also designated and operated within a local community by individuals with disabilities and it provides an array of independent living services, including at a minimum independent living core services, and complies with the standards and assurances of the statute and the regulations. That is a change, and we want to be sure that what is clear, what we are talking about and defining the CIL is the entity has to agree to comply with the standards and assurances.

And it's not limited by funding source. In addition, specifically for purposes of signing the SPIL -- pane in the regulatory text, this indicates it's for the purposes of the signing the SPIL, we are interpreting the legal entity that may receive more than one grant, is the person that's counted for as a CIL when we are determining the 51% for the purposes of successfully meeting the requirements of the SPIL signing, rather than looking at individual grants. And we ask for comments specifically on implications for programs beyond the SPIL that might cause confusion or any kind of complications here that you wanted to be aware of in developing the final rule.

And then slide 18, please. So this is the CIL section specifically. You will note that they are devised largely from the Department of Education regulations. They include new requirements under WIOA. They cover areas which address things including conditions that SPILs must meet to receive continued funding, competitive awards for new CILs and the requirement that CILs must meet standards and assurances. That was the standards and assurances I was talking about earlier. We welcome and invite your comments on whether we need more detail in this specific area.

And now I think we will take another pause and see what questions have bubbled up and what you have to ask.

>> PAULA McELWEE: Great. So remember to type your question into the chat box, either on the CART or on the Adobe Connect. And if you are on the phone, press star pound if you would like to ask a question live and the operator will add you into our questions and answers.

Now, at the moment, I don't have any questions. So be sure to type in your questions in the chat box and also to press star pound. Operator, are there any questions on hold there?

>> OPERATOR: No, there are no questions in the queue at this time.

>> PAULA McELWEE: We will give you a few minutes if you have any questions about the last section and there is another question and answer session at the end.

I think Molly, you have one more slide before Daniel picks it up.

>> MOLLY BURGDORF: It says questions and responses. At this point, I will turn it

over to Daniel for the mechanics of the comments.

>> DANIEL DAVIS: Thank you, Molly, and thanks everyone on the call. I'm going to walk through a little bit about the rulemaking process and essentially these are the rules of the road. This is the fair process that has been outlined to make sure that you have your say in responding to our proposal.

First, a reminder. Rulemaking is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, also know as the APA.

The APA defines the basic process used by federal agencies to issue legislative rules. The APA is designed to give all stakeholders and equal opportunity response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and to make your views known. Comments from every stakeholder must be submitted following the same processes with the same notice in the same time frame, in the interest of fairness.

And so basically, your comments period started when the rule was issued and published in the Federal Register. Essentially think initiatives the notice and the comment rulemaking process. Agencies must consider every public comment that's made, justify decisions to finalize change or withdraw proposed rules.

Slide 21, please.

We have created a guide to make submitting comments to the proposed IL rule easy, as well as tips for providing effective comments. Some of you may have already seen these on the initial notice that went out on the ACL list serve but for those of you who haven't, these resources are available online at http://acl.gov/programs/aod/ila/il-online-comments.aspx. And this is -- this will be on the slide deck and will be available to everyone in writing in case you weren't able to take that down. Don't worry. This is not your last shot at getting that URL.

What we need you to do is, first, submit comments to us by January 15th, 2016. Comments, should be saying what you like or dislike about the rule, things that -- things that you feel are important that you support, or that you don't support, suggest changes consistent with WIOA, and with the Rehab Act, and answer some of the questions that we put forward in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as you read through it, you will notice that we asked a number of questions.

For example, for those of you who are already implementing the fifth core service, at one point we asked specifically for you to tell us what you are -- what you are doing and more about how that is working for you so that we can -- so that we can better appreciate some of the impacts of the rulemaking.

All comments will be reviewed and considered before a final rule is released and the regulations take effect and that final regulation will be published again in the Federal

Register. The comments will all be available publicly online at regulations.gov.

It's important to note that similar comments will be -- will not necessarily be addressed individually. We have may well group them together and we may well respond to related questions in a larger block rather than one by one. And if we receive comments that state the same position in form letters, we may only address that in one response.

So if you have things to say and you feel you have a unique perspective to offer, it is in your interest to provide that with your own comments rather than -- rather than just reissuing somebody else's group comment under your own name.

Slide 22, please.

Okay. Now, we also provide for you some specific advice as far as how to submit comments. You should go to the Federal Register website. The link is on your presentation. In order to review the rule. Then you will go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comment. Click on submit a formal comment. You then enter your formal comment. If you want to attach any files, you can click add a file. Regulations.gov is set up to accept Word files and PDF, I know for a fact. I would suggest that folks prepare their comments in a Word -- in a Word file and not try to do it on the website because if anything happens, the computer crashes, you have an electrical -- you have an electrical surge or something, you might lose what you are typing in midstream and have to write it all over again, whereas, if you are using your word processor, you will have it saved and you can pick up from where you left off.

You also need to enter your contact information, completing all required fields. Click preview comments if you want to make sure that everything is coming through correctly. And then finally, click submit comment when you are ready to send your comment, and you should receive a message confirming that your comment was received.

There is a help -- there is some additional information that you can get if you are having difficulty or need more support in submitting a comment. You can visit http://www.regulations.gov/#help and that will give you more information. And if you need to request accommodations, for your disability in reviewing or commenting on the proposed rule, please contact Marlina Moses-Gaither and her email is her first name Marlina.Mosesgaither@acl.hhs.gov. All of this is spelled out open the slide deck.

Next, slide, please.

Tips for -- finally, we will have tips for submitting effective comments. All official comments must be submitted to regulations.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on January 15th, 2016. Comments can be based on direct experience with the issues, applications, and anticipated consequences. There is no minimum or maximum length

for an effective comment. And one well supported comment is often more influential than multiple form letters. We also provide some additional links from regulations.gov, which include tips and frequently asked questions.

I would also ask that to the extent possible you refer to page -- to page numbers or to -- or to sections -- or to specific sections in the -- in the proposed rule so that we can more easily reference what -- what you are talking about and that if you could put page numbers on the word or PDF files that you are submitting to us with your comments. That's -- that's very helpful to make sure that we have your document in total.

Yeah, so -- so just to wrap this up, please use the Federal Register process to provide your comments. We want everyone who has something to say to file -- to file comments, and we're looking forward to working with you to create a final rule that accomplishes the purpose of the law and best supports the independent living program.

I think now we are going to go to one more round of questions.

>> PAULA McELWEE: That's connect. So anyone who has a question, please type it in the chat box, or if you would like to ask a question live, please press star pound and the operator will put you in the queue for that live question.

We do have a couple that have been submitted by chat. The first one is -- asks for clarification. So Harriet Ann asks for clarification, is a CIL that doesn't receive federal funding neither part B or part C, I think she's saying here, but agrees to follow the guidelines and the definition of a Center for Independent Living, is that entity to be included in determining the 51% of CILs signing the SPIL?

>> MOLLY BURGDORF: Hi, this is Molly and, again, I invite -- there's no comments, but, yes, that's correct as we are proposing in this rule.

>> PAULA McELWEE: Okay. Thank you for that response.

And then Sam asks, is there a mechanism for properly requesting I & E funding for the SILCs. You mentioned that I & E funding can be provided by the state what if it isn't?

>> MOLLY BURGDORF: So this is Molly again. I invite answers but I believe any funding is vocational rehabilitation, it's not us. So there may be. It's not going to be covered in the scope of this rule.

>> PAULA McELWEE: I believe that varies some from state to state as well because it passes through the state entity. So, yeah, it would not be covered in this rule.

Operator, are there any questions in the queue?

>> OPERATOR: We do have a couple of questions in the queue. One moment, please.

>> PAULA McELWEE: I think you can go ahead now.

>> PARTICIPANT: Yes, can you hear me?

>> PAULA McELWEE: Yes.

>> PARTICIPANT: On slide 17, could somebody restate count the legal entity that may receive more than one grant as the entity included since it's 51%, rather than looking at individual grants? I want to make sure that I'm understanding that correctly, and would that possibly mean that one board is over three different -- what used to be called satellites, that is still one CIL?

>> MOLLY BURGDORF: Okay. So this is Molly. I will take a first round at this. And what I'm going to do is read to you from the language of the preamble which will hopefully clarify this. So, again, regarding what type of entity constitutes a CIL, for a SPIL signature purposes, our proposed Section 1329.29 b 3 includes the legal entity that may include more than one grant as the entity included in determining the 51% rather than looking at individual grants. An agency that receives multiple part C serving different geographical locations and operated by one governing board and that has one director would constitute a single CIL for SPILs signature purposes rather than labeling each part C grant awards that agency as a standalone center for independent living.

And our intent is that the proposed change will clarify the signature process, but we specifically solicit comments on whether this change should be implemented and what problems, if any, this interpretation will create.

>> PAULA McELWEE: Thank you. Is there another person in the queue, operator?

>> OPERATOR: Yes, we have two other questions. One moment, please, for our next question.

>> PARTICIPANT: Oh, hello.

>> PAULA McELWEE: Yes, go ahead.

>> PARTICIPANT: I was wondering what impact will the transition from -- to HHS for this have on the resources available for services and -- and technology for those who are receiving it?

>> VICKI GOTTLITCH: Hi, this is Vicki Gottlich. The funding for the independent living programs is set by Congress. So therefore, the transition from Department of

Education to the department of health and human services should not have any impact on the funding for programs.

Molly did point out, however, that the WIOA law changed some of the funding available for DSEs for administrative costs, and the funding for the SILC resource plans. Those are created by statutes so Congress created those changes and that's more in the distribution and the use of the funds rather than in the funding levels themselves.

I do want to point out that ACL did request from Congress additional funding in our last year's funding request because we recognized when Congress passed and enacted WIOA, they created the fifth core service without giving programs additional funding, however, we still do not have a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation. So we don't know what's happening with that.

And that's all beyond the scope of the regulation, but it's a good question.

>> PARTICIPANT: Oh, sorry. And I was also wondering, is there any oversight or guidance that the WIOA for those who are trying to craft the IEPs going forward, especially on transition.

>> DANIEL DAVIS: You said for the IEPs.

>> PARTICIPANT: Yes, given that we will have all the new rules and everything?

>> DANIEL DAVIS: I think that would be covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. There may be -- there may be a few provisions in other participates of WIOA that are pertinent but I believe that's beyond the scope of our role.

>> PARTICIPANT: Okay. Thank you.

>> PAULA McELWEE: All right. And we have another question on the phone?

>> OPERATOR: Pardon me.

It looks like the participant is no longer in the queue. And we have no additional audio questions at this time.

>> PAULA McELWEE: Okay. Thank you. We do have one follow-up from Harriet Ann. She asks who is responsible for determining if the CILs not receiving part B or part C funding is actually following those regulations. So they are not receiving that funding but they feel they meet that definition. Will that entity be required to somehow identify themselves as a center, complete a 704 report, be subject to state or federal monitoring? What's the plan for making sure that someone who claims to be a center

actually is?

>> VICKI GOTTLITCH: So this is Vicki Gottlich. If they are not receiving any federal funds from the Administration for Community Living, they are not within our oversight. If they are receiving funding from the state, then they would be within the state's oversight. However, when we monitor the SPILs and look at the work that the SILC is doing, if we see that the SILC is including as signators to the SPIL, the CILs that don't fall within our jurisdiction and that are not meeting the requirements of the standards and the assurances, then we will have oversight over the SILC, and the SPIL development.

>> PAULA McELWEE: Okay. Very helpful. Thank you. And we do have one more question that's come in on chat and that is what criteria does ACL currently use to determine whether a SILC is autonomous?

>> TIMOTHY BEATTY: Okay. This is Tim Beatty. I will jump in here. There are two parts to this question. One part I encourage you to comment on this as part of the regulatory process that we have talked about today, because it is one of the definitions that are included in the regulations.

But from another perspective, from the ILA, this is part of our monitoring process, and that is something we look at with each state to determine whether or not it's fully autonomous in compliance with the regulations and the law. So that's something that we have make a determination on a case-by-case basis for each state.

>> PAULA McELWEE: Okay. Thank you. Well, I'm not seeing any other questions right now. So operator, unless someone else has joined the queue?

>> OPERATOR: One moment. It does look like we have one more question.

>> PAULA McELWEE: Great. Thank you.

>> PARTICIPANT: Hello?

>> PAULA McELWEE: Yes.

>> PARTICIPANT: Hi. Great. This is the person who earlier had the question about postsecondary life, and the inappropriate comments. Paula, just for the inappropriate comments and thank you for the answer about the postsecondary life and you are absolutely right.

It looks like Section 404 of the WIOA statute does use the word "postsecondary life." I understand your answer to my question was yes, an ILC has delivered a fifth core service if it helps a significantly disabled youth whose postsecondary school, even if that help does not involve seeking employment or seeking postsecondary education.

So thank you for that answer.

That leads me to the next question. I don't understand if there's any limit to what this third component. It seems like postsecondary life is the entire component and that any conceivable and legitimate IL goal, any ILP goal -- not IEP, but ILP, would be transitioning to the postsecondary life. Am I right in understanding it to be that broad, you serve someone between 14 and 24, who is a person with a significant disable and was eligible for an IEP at one point and is now no longer in school and anything you do with them, if it's a legitimate service, that you could argue with a straight face, you know, is a real service, then that is satisfying the third component of the fifth core service? Is that correct?

>> VICKI GOTTLITCH: This is Vicki, as our regulation is drafted, as our proposed regulation is drafted, we want it to be as broad as possible. We want you to be as flexible as possible. And so we actually ask for comments from you about the flexibility, whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, and why you think it's a good thing or a bad thing.

>> PARTICIPANT: Okay. And just to further clarify, if on January 16th after you have got all the comments and you issue that final rule, if the final rule's language is the same language as this proposed rule, then will the answer next year be yes, anything -- anything that is legitimate that you do with someone that meets the criteria of who -- who you are serving, whatever it is you do is facilitating the transition to postsecondary life. Is that correct?

>> DANIEL DAVIS: This is Daniel. As you stated if the premises of your question is, indeed, accurate, then that would be the case.

>> PARTICIPANT: Fantastic! That's good news to me. Thank you. Appreciate it.

>> DANIEL DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Anyone else?

>> PAULA McELWEE: I'm sorry. I have been talking on mute.

(Laughter).

Thank you all for your questions, and your wonderful responses. Thank you to all of the people at ACL for your conversation about this. We really appreciate that and I know a lot of people will be commenting on their thoughts about these regulations. We do ask that you click the link on that last -- on the next to last slide, slide 25, and that link will take you directly to our evaluation. Please take a minute to fill that out. We very much appreciate you doing that so we can have your feedback about the content today.

And that really is the end of our presentation. Again, we'll keep this link open for a few

minutes so you have time to click on it and get your evaluation. It's also in the confirmation email you received.

And, again, thank you to the presenters for taking time to share this important information with us about the proposed rulemaking. And I thank all of you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to be here. Let us know what you think and we'll keep the conversation going. Thank you so much.

Have a wonderful afternoon, everybody.

(End of meeting)