45618 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Notices 

plan fiduciaries, participants, and the 

DOL and Internal Revenue Service to 

determine whether the conditions of the 

exemption have been met for a period 

of six years from the date of execution 

of a transaction. Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986 section 4975 and ERISA section 

408 authorize this information 

collection. See 26 U.S.C. 4975; 29 U.S.C. 

1108. 

This information collection is subject 

to the PRA. A Federal agency generally 

cannot conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information, and the public is 

generally not required to respond to an 

information collection, unless it is 

approved by the OMB under the PRA 

and displays a currently valid OMB 

Control Number. In addition, 

notwithstanding any other provisions of 

law, no person shall generally be subject 

to penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information that does not 

display a valid Control Number. See 5 

CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL 

obtains OMB approval for this 

information collection under Control 

Number 1210–0111. 

OMB authorization for an ICR cannot 

be for more than three (3) years without 

renewal, and the current approval for 

this collection is scheduled to expire on 

September 30, 2017. The DOL seeks to 

extend PRA authorization for this 

information collection for three (3) more 

years, without any change to existing 

requirements. The DOL notes that 

existing information collection 

requirements submitted to the OMB 

receive a month-to-month extension 

while they undergo review. For 

additional substantive information 

about this ICR, see the related notice 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 22, 2017 (82 FR 23303). 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

send comments to the OMB, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs at 

the address shown in the ADDRESSES

section within thirty (30) days of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. In order to help ensure 

appropriate consideration, comments 

should mention OMB Control Number 

1210–0111. The OMB is particularly 

interested in comments that: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: DOL–EBSA. 

Title of Collection: Prohibited 

Transaction Class Exemption 1998–54 

Relating to Certain Employee Benefit 

Plan Foreign Exchange Transactions 

Executed Pursuant to Standing 

Instructions. 

OMB Control Number: 1210–0111. 

Affected Public: Private Sector— 

businesses or other for-profits. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Respondents: 35. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Responses: 420,000. 

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 

4,200 hours. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $0. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). 

Dated: September 15, 2017. 

Michel Smyth, 

Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20916 Filed 9–28–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

[Agency Docket Number: DOL–2017–0003] 

Request for Information on Potential 

Stay-at-Work/Return-to-Work 

Demonstration Projects 

AGENCY: Office of Disability 

Employment Policy, DOL. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: Washington State’s workers’ 

compensation system runs several 

promising early intervention programs 

including the Centers of Occupational 

Health and Education (COHE) and the 

Early Return to Work and the Stay at 

Work programs, which provide early 

intervention and return-to-work services 

for individuals with work-related health 

conditions and their employers. The 

President’s FY2018 budget proposed 

that the Office of Disability Employment 

Policy (ODEP) at the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL) and the Social Security 

Administration (SSA) jointly conduct a 

demonstration testing the effects of 

implementing key features of these 

programs in other states and/or for a 

broader population beyond workers’ 

compensation. To do that, we anticipate 

funding two to three states to operate 

projects with key elements drawn from 

the Washington State programs 

mentioned above, with an increased 

emphasis on access to employmentrelated supports, or fund the expansion 

of existing programs to include 

increased access to employment-related 

supports. The ultimate policy goal is to 

increase employment and labor force 

participation of individuals who have or 

are developing work disabilities. This 

request for information (RFI) seeks 

public input on how the proposed 

demonstration projects can best be 

designed to promote labor force 

attachment, coordinate employment and 

health services, and support injured and 

ill workers in returning to and 

remaining at work. The input we receive 

will inform our deliberations about the 

possible design of a future 

demonstration project. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 30, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of three methods—Internet, 

fax, or mail. Do not submit the same 

comments multiple times or by more 

than one method. Regardless of which 

method you choose, please refer to 

Docket No. DOL–2017–0003in your 

comment pages so that we may associate 

your comments with the correct docket. 

Caution: In your comments, you 

should be careful to include only the 

information that you wish to make 

publicly available. We strongly urge you 

not to include in your comments any 

personal information, such as Social 

Security numbers or medical 

information. 

1. Internet: We strongly recommend 

that you submit your comments via the 

Internet. Please visit the Federal 

eRulemaking portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. Use the ‘‘Search’’ 

function to find docket number DOL– 

2017–0003. The system will issue a 

tracking number to confirm your 

submission. You will not be able to 

view your comment immediately 

because we must post each comment 

manually. It may take up to a week for 

your comment to be viewable. 

2. Fax: Fax comments to (202) 693– 

7888. 

3. Mail: Mail your comments to the 

Office of Disability Employment Policy, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., S–1303, 

Washington, DC 20210. 

Comments are available for public 

viewing on the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at http://www.regulations.gov or 

in person, during regular business 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Notices 45619 

1Bardos, Maura, Hannah Burak, and Yonatan 

Ben-Shalom. ‘‘Assessing the Costs and Benefits of 

Return-to-Work Programs.’’ Final report submitted 

to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability 

Employment Policy. Washington, DC: Mathematica 

Policy Research, March 2015. 

2Social Security Administration, ‘‘Annual 

Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability 

Insurance Program, 2015.’’ SSA Publication No. 13– 

11826. Washington, DC: Social Security 

Administration, October 2016. 

3http://www.lni.wa.gov/ClaimsIns/Providers/ 

ProjResearchComm/OHS/default.asp. 

4http://www.lni.wa.gov/ClaimsIns/Insurance/ 

Injury/LightDuty/Ertw/Default.asp. 

5http://lni.wa.gov/Main/StayAtWork/. 

6Wickizer, T.M., Franklin, G., Fulton-Kehoe, D., 

Gluck, J., Mootz, R., Smith-Weller, T., and PlaegerBrockway, R. (2011) ‘‘Improving Quality, 

Preventing Disability and Reducing Costs in 

Workers’ Compensation Healthcare: A Populationbased Intervention Study.’’ Medical Care, Vol. 49, 

No. 12, pp. 1105–1111. 

7Franklin, G.M., Wickizer, T.M., Coe, N.B, and 

Fulton-Kehoe, D. (2015) ‘‘Workers’ Compensation: 

Poor Quality Health Care and the Growing 

Disability Problem in the United States.’’ American 

Journal of Industrial Medicine, 58: 245–251. 

8 Grantees will not be required to establish a 

‘‘center’’ or new entity as part of the demonstration. 

hours, by arranging with the contact 

person identified below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Sheehy, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Office of Disability 

Employment Policy, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

S–1303, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 

693–7880, or visit https://www.dol.gov/ 

dol/contact/contactphonecallcenter.htm (TTY), for 

information about this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose 

Millions of American workers leave 

the workforce each year after 

experiencing an injury or illness.1

Hundreds of thousands of these workers 

go on to receive state or Federal 

disability benefits.2 Many injured or ill 

workers could remain in their jobs or 

the workforce if they received timely, 

effective supports. 

This request for information (RFI) 

offers interested parties—including but 

not limited to states, community-based 

and other non-profit organizations, 

philanthropic organizations, 

researchers, employers, health care 

providers with assorted training and 

specialties, private disability insurance 

providers, vocational rehabilitation 

specialists, and members of the public— 

the opportunity to provide information 

and recommendations to inform the 

development of a potential grant 

program aimed at reducing long-term 

disability and increasing labor force 

participation among workers who are 

injured or become ill while employed. 

Background 

The President’s 2018 budget supports 

a demonstration to test promising Stayat-Work/Return-to-Work (SAW/RTW) 

strategies aimed at improving labor 

force participation, employment, and 

earnings outcomes for workers who are 

injured or become ill. 

The proposed demonstration program 

is modeled after promising programs in 

Washington State including the Centers 

for Occupational Health and Education 

(COHE) 3 and the Early Return to Work 4

(ERTW) and Stay at Work programs.5

Projects funded through the proposed 

demonstration project, however, would 

include additional connections to 

existing employment services and 

supports provided through the 

workforce development system. 

COHE, which is funded by 

Washington’s workers’ compensation 

system, provides early intervention and 

RTW services for individuals with 

work-related health conditions. An 

evaluation of the COHE pilot in the 

early 2000s produced promising results: 

COHE participants were less likely to be 

off work and on disability benefits one 

year after the claim, and combined 

medical and disability costs were 

reduced by $510 per claim for COHE 

participants. The magnitude of these 

reductions was greater for back sprain 

cases (a common occupational injury): 

the relative risk of being off work and 

on disability at one year was 37 percent 

lower for back sprain COHE patients, 

and disability costs for back sprains 

were reduced by $542 per case.6

Preliminary analysis indicated that at 

the eight-year mark, 26 percent fewer 

COHE claimants received Social 

Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) 

benefits.7

The ERTW program and Stay at Work 

programs in Washington State provide 

related assistance. The ERTW program 

helps injured and ill workers RTW as 

soon as medically possible by providing 

access to a team of vocational services 

consultants, therapists, and nurse 

consultants to assist with developing 

and implementing medically 

appropriate RTW options. The Stay at 

Work program is a financial incentive 

program that reimburses employers for 

some of their costs when providing 

temporary, light-duty jobs for injured 

workers while they heal. 

This demonstration will draw from 

and test key features of the Washington 

COHE model and ERTW and Stay at 

Work programs, in other states and/or 

for a population beyond workers’ 

compensation (i.e., for non-occupational 

injuries and illnesses). To do that, we 

anticipate funding states to operate one 

or more COHE-style programs, or fund 

the expansion of existing programs, 

with an increased emphasis on access to 

employment-related supports. The 

ultimate policy goal is to increase 

employment and labor force 

participation of individuals with work 

disabilities, and to identify and/or 

confirm effective strategies for doing so. 

For the purposes of this RFI, the term 

‘‘work disability’’ is defined as an 

illness, injury, or medical condition that 

is anticipated to inhibit or prevent 

continued employment or labor force 

participation. 

This RFI offers interested parties the 

opportunity to provide 

recommendations on effective 

approaches for the design and 

implementation of the demonstration 

project. We expect that public input 

provided in response to this request will 

assist us in defining the scope and 

design of the demonstration project. For 

example, a demonstration project could 

test whether elements of the COHE 

workers’ compensation model, which 

focus on immediate or early 

intervention, could be combined with 

re-employment services provided 

through the American Job Centers for 

the subset of participants who do not 

return to work within 90 days so that 

they could obtain additional 

employment services and supports to 

maintain a workforce attachment. The 

RFI specifically seeks public input on 

how the proposed demonstration 

projects can best be designed to promote 

labor force attachment, coordinate 

employment and health services, and 

support injured and ill workers in 

returning to and remaining at work. 

Background on the COHE model and 

Early Return to Work and Stay at Work 

programs: 

As the proposed demonstration is 

based on elements from Washington 

State’s COHE, ERTW, and Stay at Work 

programs, the following background 

material is provided about these 

programs. There are six COHE centers 

across the state of Washington, 

including some housed in large medical 

systems and others that are communitybased. Each of these centers 8 recruits 

and trains health care providers in their 

area—often orthopedists or other 

doctors specializing in treating workers’ 

compensation (WC) patients. COHE 

started as a small pilot in two regions 

and has grown to currently include 

about 3,500 health care providers who 

cover about 60 percent of all WC claims 

in the state. Injured workers retain 

health care provider choice. They 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45620 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Notices 

9See http://www.improvingchroniccare.org/ 

index.php?p=The_Chronic_Care_Model&s=2. 

receive COHE services if they choose a 

COHE-affiliated provider for their care. 

Given that health care providers often 

see relatively few patients who are at 

risk of labor force separation due to 

their illness or injury, many may have 

limited knowledge and resources to 

address the employment-related needs 

of this population. Health care providers 

affiliated with COHE, however, receive 

training in occupational health best 

practices for these cases, including the 

following four best practices: 

1. Submitting a complete Report of 

Accident (ROA) in two business days or 

less; 

2. Developing an activity plan, which 

communicates the worker’s ability to 

participate in work activities, activity 

restrictions, and the provider’s 

treatment plans; 

3. Communicating directly with 

employers when injured workers are 

absent or expected to be absent from 

work; and 

4. Assessing the injured worker’s 

barriers to return to work and 

developing a plan to overcome them. 

Health service coordinators are 

integral to the success of the COHE 

model. The program is based on the 

MacColl chronic care model.9

Successful health service coordinators 

are skilled in vocational rehabilitation 

and motivational interviewing and work 

directly with injured workers, 

employers, health care providers, and 

other stakeholders to coordinate care 

and RTW activities for injured workers. 

They also help stakeholders navigate the 

workers’ compensation system by 

performing claim coordination 

functions, such as ensuring forms are 

received and complete and contacting 

stakeholders as needed for clarifications 

or follow-up. Health service 

coordinators frequently contact injured 

workers, employers, health care 

providers, state agency staff, and other 

stakeholders to help with the RTW 

process, and identify barriers to 

returning to work and resources to 

resolve them. The RTW activities they 

coordinate for the patient can include 

functional assessments, referrals to 

existing training and employment 

services, and setting appropriate RTW 

expectations. Health service 

coordinators also educate employers on 

the financial and other benefits of 

retaining injured workers and can refer 

employers to the ERTW and Stay at 

Work programs for resources and 

financial incentives to help them with 

job accommodation. The health service 

coordinators monitor all cases, but focus 

on those at risk for long-term disability, 

typically less than a quarter of all cases. 

The health service coordinator role is 

critical and depends heavily on the 

neutrality of health service coordinators 

in helping the health care and RTW 

system work effectively for patients, 

employers, health care providers, and 

the insurer. This neutrality allows 

health service coordinators to be trusted 

by the various stakeholders, allowing 

health service coordinators to maximize 

the likelihood of the best-case recovery 

and employment outcome. 

As a program based in the medical 

system, COHE depends heavily on 

project champions among sponsoring 

health care organizations’ leadership to 

create organizational buy-in and 

support. Additionally, each COHE 

participates in a Regional BusinessLabor Advisory Board that ensures 

community support and solicits input 

from local business and labor interests. 

Key features of the COHE model of 

interest to the proposed demonstration 

include: 

1. Coordination of services, including 

enhanced stakeholder communication, 

RTW planning, and identification of 

potential delays and solutions to keep 

treatment and RTW plans on track; 

2. Physician training on occupational 

health best practices; 

3. Incentives for physicians to utilize 

the best practices for participating 

patients; 

4. A data management system 

allowing services coordinators real-time 

access to all relevant information on 

each case to support effective triage, 

population monitoring, and case 

management. 

The ERTW program helps injured and 

ill workers RTW as soon as medically 

possible by providing access to a team 

of specialists including vocational 

services consultants, therapist 

consultants, and nurse consultants who 

assist health care providers and 

employers develop and implement 

medically appropriate RTW options. 

Resources available to employers 

include risk management specialists, 

safety consultants to provide on-site 

consultations, and job modification 

funds. By providing these resources, the 

ERTW program speeds the worker’s 

recovery and reduces the financial 

impact of a workers’ compensation 

claim on the worker, the employer, and 

the workers’ compensation system. 

The Stay at Work program 

incentivizes employers to offer 

temporary light-duty work to injured 

employees while they heal, by 

reimbursing the employers for some of 

the costs of providing such jobs. Eligible 

employers can be reimbursed for 50 

percent of the base wages they pay the 

injured worker and some of the cost of 

training, tools, or clothing the worker 

needs to do the light-duty or transitional 

work. 

The COHE model focuses services on 

the first 12 weeks after injury because 

this period is most critical in 

maximizing the likelihood of RTW. 

While the proposed demonstration 

builds upon the COHE model and the 

ERTW and Stay at Work programs, it 

differs from the original model by 

adding an extended focus on 

employment services and supports and 

a strong and purposeful involvement of 

the workforce development system. 

Potential Project Scope 

DOL and SSA anticipate three 

acquisitions for this project: 

Implementation grants awarded via a 

cooperative agreement, a technical 

assistance contract to support grantees, 

and an evaluation contract. The 

agencies anticipate implementing the 

demonstration in two to three states 

representing diverse programmatic 

contexts and with the ability to provide 

meaningful analyses and policy 

recommendations. There would be a 

separate technical assistance (TA) 

contract to assist states with 

implementation and a separate 

integrated evaluation contract to 

evaluate all of the sites and address 

specific research goals. For the purposes 

of this RFI, the implementation grantees 

are referred to as the ‘‘projects,’’ the 

technical assistance contractor is 

referred to as the ‘‘TA provider,’’ and 

the evaluation contractor is referred to 

as the ‘‘evaluator.’’ 

We anticipate designing this 

demonstration to solicit innovative 

projects that create systems changes by 

targeting individuals when they are in 

the early stages of developing a work 

disability, and assisting them in 

maintaining a connection to the labor 

force, preferably through their current or 

most recent employer. Projects will be 

encouraged to build upon existing 

programs or systems, such as state-based 

temporary disability insurance (TDI) 

programs, collaborative health care 

organizations, disability management 

insurance providers, or workers’ 

compensation programs. We would also 

encourage projects to think broadly 

about new and effective ways to prevent 

the development of long-term work 

disability. The solicitation will leave 

flexibility for applicants to develop their 

own projects that adapt to the specific 

programmatic, demographic, and 

economic contexts of their state or 

region while also satisfying the project’s 

requirements. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Notices 45621 

Preliminary required design elements 

of the demonstration are described 

below. We encourage public input and 

comment on these elements in response 

to the questions in the following 

section. 

Overview: We anticipate funding 

implementation grants in two to three 

states to either operate one or more 

projects with key elements drawn from 

the COHE model and the ERTW and 

Stay at Work programs, with an added 

emphasis on access to employmentrelated services and supports, or the 

expansion of similar existing programs 

to include increased access to 

employment-related supports and 

services. The ultimate policy goal is to 

increase employment and labor force 

participation of individuals with work 

disabilities through timely and effective 

coordination of health care and 

employment-related services. Each 

grantee would be responsible for 

identifying, recruiting, and training 

health care providers within their 

geographic area, and incentivizing their 

use of occupational health best practices 

for eligible workers. In addition, each 

grantee would be responsible for 

providing and supporting return to work 

service coordinators who will 

coordinate and facilitate the RTW 

process for eligible workers. Grantees 

would also be responsible for providing 

a centralized data collection and 

reporting system for the efficient 

management of the care and RTW 

coordination system, and to support the 

evaluation of the program. 

We anticipate requiring funded 

projects to include the following 

treatment elements: 

• Coordination of services, including 

enhanced stakeholder communication, 

RTW planning, and identification of 

potential delays and solutions to keep 

treatment and RTW plans on track; 

• Health care provider training on 

occupational health best practices that 

COHE uses; 

• Incentives for health care providers 

to utilize the specified best practices for 

participating patients; 

• Possible incentives for employers to 

actively participate in worker retention 

and other RTW efforts through 

utilization of strategies such as 

temporary light-duty jobs, job 

modifications, and job-banking; 

• Provision of, or facilitated access to, 

employment-related services and 

supports (such as needs assessments, 

skill assessments, accommodations, job 

coaching, job search assistance if not 

remaining with original employer) and 

training; 

• Engaging key stakeholders (e.g., the 

business community, labor 

representatives) up front and on an 

ongoing basis; and 

• A data management system that: 

Æ (1) allows service coordinators realtime access to all relevant information 

on each case for purposes of triage, 

individual case management, and 

population health monitoring, including 

on disability time loss duration; and 

Æ (2) supports the evaluation of the 

project. 

Eligible grant applicants: We 

anticipate requiring each project and 

application to have a state agency 

designated as the lead coordinating 

entity. The lead agency would be 

required or encouraged to form 

partnerships with other public or 

private organizations, such as DOLfunded employment-service providers, 

state vocational rehabilitation agencies, 

private non-profit organizations, health 

care providers/organizations, other 

public or private organizations, state 

and local Workforce Investment Boards, 

and county or municipal-level 

governments as appropriate. 

Population: Each project would be 

required to identify and clearly define 

its target population, including showing 

that the population has a substantial 

risk of developing a long-term work 

disability, and/or transitioning to Social 

Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 

such that the intervention could change 

their employment outcomes. Projects 

are encouraged to include workers with 

active state TDI or workers’ 

compensation claims, or those using 

paid leave, as well as broader 

populations of workers experiencing the 

onset of a medical condition that could 

result in a work disability. The target 

population must be clearly identifiable 

using existing administrative records, 

easily completed screening forms, or an 

information management system, and 

there must be a clear mechanism that 

triggers the start of services. 

Participant Recruitment: Each grantee 

would propose a recruitment plan for 

outreach and enrollment of worker 

participants based on their target 

population and their project design. 

Grantees would be required to be able 

to recruit a sufficient number of worker 

participants to allow for a meaningful 

assessment of the impact of the 

intervention. Applicants would also be 

required to recruit and have signed 

MOUs or letters of intent with project 

partners, including partnering health 

care providers. 

Evaluation Design: We anticipate 

carrying out an impact and 

implementation study to understand 

how the programs are implemented, 

service components, who is being 

served, the extent to which those served 

experience improved outcomes 

(including labor market outcomes, 

receipt of SSDI/SSI), and a cost-benefit 

analysis. The impact study would 

include a process evaluation and 

participation analysis in order to assess 

the implementation and fidelity of the 

program and general interest and takeup rates across the project sites. The 

evaluation design would be finalized 

once the evaluator is secured and would 

take into account the specifics of the 

funded projects. All projects would be 

required to fully cooperate with and 

participate in the evaluation. 

Data collection: Projects would be 

required to provide for centralized data 

collection to capture care management, 

RTW coordination information, and 

measures and outcomes of interest to 

the evaluation. The evaluation 

contractor would be provided access to 

this data. A data management system 

would be required to allow the service 

coordinators and others in the 

intervention to have real-time access to 

all relevant information on each case in 

order to effectively triage, monitor, and 

intervene as needed on a timely basis. 

Projects would be encouraged to use or 

adapt existing centralized data systems. 

Evaluation: We anticipate evaluating 

projects on two primary research 

questions: 

• Does the intervention improve 

employment outcomes compared to the 

control group? 

• Does the intervention reduce 

application to Social Security Disability 

Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental 

Security Income (SSI)? 

Below are additional research 

questions of interest, which may not all 

be answered by the initial evaluation of 

the proposed demonstration: 

• Does the intervention increase labor 

force participation of participating 

workers? 

• Does the intervention increase labor 

force attachment of participating 

workers? 

• Does the intervention reduce labor 

force exit of participating workers? 

• Does the intervention maintain or 

result in increased wages of 

participating workers? 

• Does the intervention improve the 

ability of participating workers to 

maintain hours of work? 

• Does the intervention reduce 

medical, time lost, or litigation costs? 

• What are optimal and efficient 

methods to identify target populations 

at risk of exiting the labor force that will 

benefits from the intervention? 

• What is the best timing to engage a 

worker effectively while also 

minimizing cost? 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45622 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Notices 

• What recruitment methods are most 

effective to engage a target population? 

• Does the intervention decrease SSDI 

or SSI allowance rates? 

• What elements of the intervention 

are most influential in determining 

success (i.e., improved employment 

outcomes and reduced need for SSDI or 

SSI benefits)? 

• What environmental factors are 

necessary for successful implementation 

of the intervention? 

• What are the cost effective and 

efficient interventions that reduce 

workers exit from the labor force? 

• What are the effective and efficient 

strategies to incentivize employers to 

actively retain workers with injuries and 

health conditions? 

• What are effective and efficient 

strategies to create buy-in from health 

care providers that work is an important 

health care outcome? 

Request for Information 

This request for information (RFI) 

seeks public input on how the proposed 

demonstration projects can best be 

designed to promote labor force 

attachment, coordinate employment and 

health services, and support injured and 

ill workers in returning to and 

remaining at work. Through this notice, 

we are soliciting feedback from 

interested parties on the scope and 

design of a potential demonstration 

project related to providing coordinated 

occupational health and employment 

services to individuals who become 

injured or ill while employed in order 

to enable them to remain in the labor 

force, thereby improving their 

employment and earnings outcomes and 

maximizing their self-sufficiency. 

Responses to this request will inform 

decisions about the development, 

design, and evaluation of the potential 

demonstration project. 

This notice is for internal planning 

purposes only and should not be 

construed as a solicitation or as an 

obligation on the part of the Department 

of Labor or any participating Federal 

agencies. We ask respondents to address 

the following questions, where possible, 

in the context of the discussion in this 

document. You do not need to address 

every question and should focus on 

those that relate to your expertise or 

perspectives. To the extent possible, 

please clearly indicate which 

question(s) you address in your 

response. We ask that each respondent 

include the name and address of his or 

her institution or affiliation, if any, and 

the name, title, mailing and email 

addresses, and telephone number of a 

contact person for his or her institution 

or affiliation, if any. 

Questions 

I. Intervention Elements 

1. Are there potential issues with the 

treatment elements listed under 

‘‘required treatment elements’’ on pages 

6–7? Should any not be required? What 

other elements might be useful, and 

what is the evidence base for them? 

What additional optional services and 

supports could grantees choose to 

include in the model? What is the 

existing evidence documenting the 

effectiveness of these additional 

optional services and supports? 

2. What should be the required and 

optional roles and responsibilities of the 

RTW service coordinator in 

implementing the treatment elements? 

3. Where should the role of a RTW 

service coordinator be housed in order 

to most effectively accomplish its goals, 

including an ability to maintain 

neutrality? For example, should service 

coordinators be employed by health care 

provider networks, by the public 

workforce system, by private disability 

insurance providers, by employers, or 

by another entity? 

4. Should there be educational and/or 

experience requirements for the RTW 

service coordinators, such as vocational 

counseling or public health 

backgrounds? How should these 

educational and experience 

requirements parallel and differ from 

those of health navigators, community 

health workers, and vocational 

rehabilitation counselors? 

5. What specific employment-related 

interventions should be required or 

allowed? What evidence supports these 

interventions as effective in early 

intervention for these populations? 

When referrals to existing employmentrelated service providers occur, will 

these providers have sufficient capacity 

and funding to provide services in a 

timely manner to referred individuals? 

6. The COHE model focuses 

interventions primarily in the first 12 

weeks after injury/illness (with 

occasional exceptions allowing up to 26 

weeks). For a demonstration such as this 

requiring increased involvement of the 

workforce development system, what is 

the optimal timing and length of 

intervention? Why, or what is the 

evidence base? 

7. Employment services (such as 

needs assessments, skill assessments, 

accommodations, job coaching, job 

search assistance if not remaining with 

original employer) and the public 

workforce system are important 

elements of the proposed demonstration 

program. What is the optimal time to 

provide employment services? For 

example, should employment services 

be provided during the same time 

window as the health care services/ 

coordination, or afterwards? How can 

the RTW service coordinators best 

facilitate the effective use of 

employment services? 

8. What role should employer 

incentives play in this intervention? Are 

there particular employer incentives 

that we should consider in projects 

where workers’ compensation insurance 

premiums play a limited role? Are there 

effective non-financial ways to engage 

and incentivize employers to support 

and implement SAW/RTW programs 

within their workplaces? 

9. What is an appropriate health care 

provider payment or fee structure to 

incentivize the specific occupational 

health best practices and to encourage a 

focus on employment as a health 

outcome? Are there models other than 

fee-for-service that would be 

appropriate and feasible, such as basing 

payments on process and/or outcome 

metrics? How would these models 

operate in the context of managed-care 

organizations? 

10. How can health systems and 

health care providers be better 

incentivized to consider employment a 

valid health outcome? What is the 

recent relevant evidence documenting 

the effectiveness of incentive models 

(including financial or other incentives) 

that include employment as an 

outcome? 

II. Target Population and Sites 

11. What is an appropriate age range 

of participants to target for this 

demonstration project? For example, 

should the demonstration projects target 

prime-age workers (25–54)? Why or why 

not? 

12. What populations of RTW 

participants—such as those listed 

below—should be allowed, encouraged, 

or required in the demonstration? Why 

should the populations you recommend 

be included? Are there populations of 

RTW participants that you would not 

recommend? 

D Individuals with active state-based 

TDI claims? 

D Workers accessing FMLA benefits 

(except for pregnancy and caring for 

others)? 

D Individuals with active WC claims? 

D Others (not participating in WC or 

TDI) experiencing the onset of a medical 

condition that could affect their 

connection to the workforce? 

13. How should the target population 

described above be specifically defined 

and cleanly identified? We are 

particularly interested in how to define 

an appropriate population that is not 

limited to individuals with state-based 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Notices 45623 

TDI claims or WC. What are the most 

appropriate eligibility criteria (such as 

time off work, type of condition, type of 

employment) to identify such 

individuals? What kinds of ‘‘triggers’’ 

would work for the population as a 

mechanism for enrollment into the 

project? 

14. Are there specific functional risk 

assessment instruments that you 

recommend using for this project? What 

are the benefits and limitations of those 

instruments? How might they be used to 

identify the target population here or 

form the basis for an RTW plan? 

15. Are there aspects of your state’s 

TDI, paid leave, FMLA, WC, or other 

state programs that would pose 

particular advantages or challenges for 

identifying workers who might benefit 

from an intervention like the one 

discussed above? Are there aspects of 

these programs that would pose 

particular advantages or challenges for 

collecting data on treatments, services, 

and outcomes for a project like this? 

16. Should the target population be 

limited to individuals with certain types 

of medical conditions, such as 

musculoskeletal conditions and chronic 

health conditions? Why or why not? 

17. How should project service areas 

be defined? For example, should 

demonstrations be carried out statewide, in specific counties, regions, or 

local communities? Would these service 

areas have a large enough target 

population for evaluation purposes? 

18. What types of entities would be 

the most beneficial to consider 

partnering with to provide the COHEstyle services, and why? Examples 

could include large health-care systems, 

collections of small health care provider 

offices, private self-insured employers 

with in-house disability management, 

vocational rehabilitation providers, 

accountable or managed care 

organizations, federally qualified 

community health centers, community 

based organizations, and urgent care 

centers. 

III. Eligible Applicants 

19. What types of state government 

entities are the most logical or wellpositioned to serve as the primary 

applicant and fiscal agent? What is the 

best way to organize the structure of a 

demonstration like the one described 

above in your state? What structure 

would best enable effective leadership, 

responsibility, and accountability for 

the project? Would a single agency be 

the natural lead for the project? 

20. Similar state functions may be 

housed in different agencies, depending 

on the state. Should key functions be 

required, rather than specific agencies? 

If so, what functions should be 

required? 

21. Should groups of states be allowed 

to jointly apply? Why or why not? 

22. Could a non-state (i.e., county or 

local government) or non-governmental 

(i.e., non-profit or private organization) 

entity serve as the primary applicant 

and fiscal agent? If so, what 

characteristics should be required of 

such entities? Would this be preferable 

to a state governmental agency serving 

in this role? Why or why not? 

23. The COHE model in Washington 

operates within a monopolistic WC 

system, which allows for centralized 

participant controls, service 

management, and data collection. 

Would states with other WC models, 

such as privately managed and 

competitive WC markets, be able to 

feasibly implement a similar model, 

particularly with regard to data 

collection? If so, how? Would states 

with short-term or temporary disability 

insurance programs or states with 

mandatory paid sick leave be able to do 

so, and how? In other words, should 

grant applicants be limited to states 

with specific characteristics, and why or 

why not? 

24. What partners, public or private, 

should be required or encouraged as 

part of the demonstration project? What 

other entities might be beneficial as 

collaborators? In what ways could they 

assist? 

IV. Evaluation and Design Issues 

25. Are there research questions, not 

specified above, that could be answered 

through the evaluation which would 

improve understanding of ways to better 

serve and increase employment and 

labor force participation of individuals 

with work disabilities? 

26. What entity would be most 

successful in recruiting participants 

who have a qualifying injury or health 

condition (that makes them at risk for 

leaving the labor force)? Examples could 

include an insurance company, state 

TDI or WC insurance providers, an 

employer, or a health care provider. 

27. Do health systems and/or health 

care providers utilize risk predictors to 

target specific types of services? If so, 

which predictors are used, and for 

which services? Are any employmentor SAW/RTW-related? 

28. If a cluster-randomized design is 

used for an experimental impact 

evaluation, how could the unit of 

randomization be defined and 

operationalized within various types of 

grantee sites? Are there other evaluation 

designs (randomized or not) that would 

be more feasible (e.g. quasiexperimental design)? If so, how could 

a potential comparison group be 

identified? If other randomized designs 

are recommended, what are potential 

units for random assignment and points 

at which assignment would occur? 

Rights to Materials Submitted 

By submitting material in response to 

this notice, you agree to grant us a 

worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, 

irrevocable, nonexclusive license to use 

the material, and to post it publicly. 

Further, you agree that you own, have 

a valid license, or are otherwise 

authorized to provide the material to us. 

You should not provide any material 

you consider confidential or proprietary 

in response to this notice. We will not 

provide any compensation for material 

submitted in response to this notice. 

Jennifer Sheehy, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Disability 

Employment Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20338 Filed 9–28–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

Notice to LSC Grantees of Application 

Process for Subgranting 2017–2018 

Pro Bono Innovation Fund and 

Technology Initiative Grant Funds 

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of application dates and 

format for LSC Technology Initiative 

Grants and Pro Bono Innovation Fund 

subgrant applications. 

SUMMARY: The Legal Services 

Corporation (LSC) announces the 

submission dates for applications for 

subgrants under its Technology 

Initiative Grants and its Pro Bono 

Innovation Fund grants starting after 

October 30, 2017. LSC is also providing 

information about the location of 

subgrant application forms and 

directions. 

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for application dates. 

ADDRESSES: Legal Services 

Corporation—Office of Compliance and 

Enforcement, 3333 K Street NW., Third 

Floor, Washington, DC 20007–3522. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Office of Compliance and Enforcement 

by email at subgrants@lsc.gov, or visit 

the LSC Web site at http://www.lsc.gov/ 

grants-grantee-resources/granteeguidance/how-apply-subgrant. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: LSC 

revised its subgrant rule, 45 CFR part 

1627, effective April 1, 2017. The 

revised rule requires LSC to publish, on 

an annual basis, ‘‘notice of the 

requirements concerning the format and 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES