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
45624 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Notices 

1The ‘‘Allocation Phase Claimants’’ are Program 

Suppliers, Joint Sports Claimants, Broadcaster 

Claimants Group, Music Claimants (represented by 

American Society of Composers, Authors and 

Publishers, Broadcast Music, Inc., and SESAC, Inc.), 

and Devotional Claimants. 

contents of the [subgrant] application 

annually in the Federal Register and on 

its Web site.’’ 45 CFR 1627.4(b). This 

Notice and the publication of the 

Subgrant Application Forms on LSC’s 

Web site satisfies § 1627.4(b)’s notice 

requirement for the Technology 

Initiative Grant and Pro Bono 

Innovation Fund grant programs. Only 

current or prospective LSC grantees may 

apply. 

Applications for subgrants of 

Technology Initiative Grant and Pro 

Bono Innovation Fund grant funds with 

starting dates after October 30 must be 

submitted at least 45 days in advance of 

the subgrant’s proposed effective date. 

45 CFR 1627.4(b)(2). LSC grantees may 

subgrant up to $20,000 in LSC funds 

without submitting an application for 

prior approval. 45 CFR 1627.4(b). All 

subgrants of LSC funds, however, are 

subject to LSC’s regulations, guidelines, 

and instructions. 

Subgrant applications must be 

submitted at https://lscgrants.lsc.gov. 

Applicants may access the application 

under the ‘‘Subgrants’’ heading on their 

‘‘LSC Grants’’ home page. Applicants 

may initiate an application by selecting 

‘‘Initiate Subgrant Application.’’ 

Applicants must then provide the 

information requested in the LSC Grants 

data fields, located in the Subrecipient 

Profile, Subgrant Summary, and 

Subrecipient Budget screens, and 

upload the following documents: 

• A draft Subgrant Agreement (with 

the required terms provided in the 

Technology Initiative Grants and Pro 

Bono Innovation Fund Subgrant 

Agreement Template (‘‘Template’’); 

• Responses to Technology Initiative 

Grants and Pro Bono Innovation Fund 

Subgrant Inquiries; 

• The subrecipient’s accounting 

manual (or letter indicating that the 

subrecipient does not have one and 

why); 

• The subrecipient’s most recent 

audited financial statement (or letter 

indicating that the subrecipient does not 

have one and why); 

• The subrecipient’s most recent 

Form 990 filed with the Internal 

Revenue Service (or letter indicating 

that the subrecipient does not have one 

and why); 

• The subrecipient’s current fidelity 

bond policy (or letter indicating that the 

subrecipient does not have one and 

why); 

• The subrecipient’s conflict of 

interest policy (or letter indicating that 

the subrecipient does not have one and 

why); and 

• The subrecipient’s whistleblower 

policy (or letter indicating that the 

subrecipient does not have one and 

why). 

Technology Initiative Grants and Pro 

Bono Innovation Fund Subgrant 

Agreement Template and Inquiries are 

available on LSC’s Web site at http://

www.lsc.gov/grants-grantee-resources/ 

grantee-guidance/how-apply-subgrant. 

LSC encourages applicants to use the 

Template provided to draft their 

subgrant agreement(s). If the applicant 

does not use the Template, the proposed 

agreement must include, at a minimum, 

the substance of the provisions in the 

Template. LSC recommends that 

applicants pay careful attention to the 

terms included in, and instructions on, 

the Template. Several of the terms have 

been modified from previous years and 

new terms have been added. 

Once submitted, LSC will evaluate the 

application and provide applicants with 

instructions on any needed 

modifications to the information, 

documents, or Draft Agreement 

provided with the application. The 

applicant must then upload a final and 

signed subgrant agreement through LSC 

Grants. This can be done by selecting 

‘‘Upload Signed Agreement’’ to the right 

of the application ‘‘Status’’ under the 

‘‘Subgrant’’ heading on an applicant’s 

LSC Grants home page. 

As required by 45 CFR 1627.4(b)(3), 

LSC will inform applicants of its 

decision to disapprove, approve, or 

request modifications to the subgrant no 

later than the subgrant’s proposed 

effective date. 

Dated: September 25, 2017. 

Stefanie K. Davis, 

Assistant General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20865 Filed 9–28–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Royalty Board 

[Docket No. 17–CRB–0011–SD (2015)] 

Distribution of 2015 Satellite Royalty 

Funds 

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), 

Library of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice requesting reply 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges 

solicit reply comments on a motion of 

Allocation Phase claimants for partial 

distribution of 2015 satellite royalty 

funds. 

DATES: Reply comments are due on or 

before October 30, 2017. Surreplies from 

original commenters are due on or 

before November 8, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may make replies and 

surreplies, identified by docket number 

17–CRB–0011–SD (2015), by any of the 

following methods: 

CRB’s electronic filing application: 

Submit comments online in eCRB at 

https://app.crb.gov/. 

U.S. mail: Copyright Royalty Board, 

P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024– 

0977; or 

Overnight service (only USPS Express 

Mail is acceptable): Copyright Royalty 

Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 

20024–0977; or 

Commercial courier: Address package 

to: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of 

Congress, James Madison Memorial 

Building, LM–403, 101 Independence 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559– 

6000. Deliver to: Congressional Courier 

Acceptance Site, 2nd Street NE. and D 

Street NE., Washington, DC; or 

Hand delivery: Library of Congress, 

James Madison Memorial Building, LM– 

401, 101 Independence Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20559–6000. 

Instructions: Unless submitting 

online, commenters must submit an 

original, five paper copies, and an 

electronic version on a CD. All 

submissions must include the CRB’s 

name and docket number. All 

submissions will be posted without 

change to eCRB on https://www.crb.gov 

including any personal information 

provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to eCRB, the 

Copyright Royalty Board’s electronic 

filing and case management system, at 

https://app.crb.gov/ and search for 

docket number 17–CRB–0011–SD 

(2015). For documents not yet uploaded 

to eCRB (because it is a new system), go 

to the agency Web site at https://

www.crb.gov/ or contact the CRB 

Program Specialist. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, 

by telephone at (202) 707–7658 or email 

at crb@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 17, 2017, representatives of all 

the Allocation Phase claimant categories 

(formerly ‘‘Phase I’’) 1 filed with the 

Judges a motion requesting a partial 

distribution amounting to 60% of the 

2015 satellite royalty funds pursuant to 

section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright 

Act. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(3)(C). That section 

requires that, before ruling on the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES