[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48335-48346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17404]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2016-OSERS-0005; CFDA Number: 84.160C.]
Final Priority--Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are
Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind Program
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces a final priority under the Training
of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and
Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind program. The Assistant Secretary may use
this priority for competitions in fiscal year 2016 and later years. We
take this action to provide training and technical assistance to better
prepare novice interpreters to become highly qualified nationally
certified sign language interpreters.
DATES: This priority is effective August 24, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5062, Potomac
Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-
6103 or by email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended by the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA), the Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA) makes grants to public and private nonprofit agencies and
organizations, including institutions of higher education, to establish
interpreter training programs or to provide financial assistance for
ongoing interpreter training programs to train a sufficient number of
qualified interpreters throughout the country. The grants are designed
to train interpreters to effectively interpret and transliterate using
spoken, visual, and tactile modes of communication; ensure the
maintenance of the interpreting skills of qualified interpreters; and
provide opportunities for interpreters to improve their skills in order
to meet both the highest standards approved by certifying associations
and the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of
hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772(f).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 396.
We published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for this
competition in the Federal Register on April 7, 2016 (81 FR 20268).
That notice contained background information and our reasons for
proposing the particular priority.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 26
parties submitted comments on the proposed priority. Generally, we do
not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the
law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory
authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised
concerns not directly related to the proposed priority.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority since publication of the NPP follows.
State-Level Certification or Licensure
Comment: A few commenters suggested broadening the proposed
outcomes for the Experiential Learning Model Demonstration Center
(Center) beyond national certification to include State-level
certification or licensure. These commenters noted that, in some
States, the State certification system is used to prepare interpreters
for advancement to national-level certification. Other States use the
Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) and the Board for
Evaluation of Interpreters (BEI) for certification or licensure to
offer interpreting services within the State. Finally, one commenter
stated that acknowledging the variability in State-
[[Page 48336]]
to-State licensure and certification requirements is essential in
meeting the goal of novice interpreters in the experiential learning
program achieving national certification.
Discussion: One goal of this program is to increase the number and
quality of nationally certified interpreters. We do not agree that
modification of the proposed outcomes to include State-level
certification or licensure is appropriate for the Center.
First, designating national certification as a desired outcome for
novice interpreters in the experiential learning program will ensure
consistency in the training of these interpreters, as well as the
competencies these interpreters will possess by the end of the training
period. This will also ensure that novice interpreters will effectively
meet the evolving needs of youth and adults in the United States who
are deaf and hard of hearing or are deaf-blind, including those who are
consumers of the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) system.
Second, there is limited information available on the reliability
and validity of assessments used by States to confer certifications and
licensures. For example, in some cases, an individual pays a fee to
receive a license to work as an interpreter in a State, regardless of
skill or competency. In other cases, assessments, such as the BEI, are
State specific, and there is no information about how the specific
levels of skills and competencies they assess compare with the level of
skills and competencies required to pass other State-level licensure
tests, let alone the national interpreter certification exam.
Conversely, national certification assessments have undergone
psychometric evaluation to ensure consistency, reliability, and
validity of results.
Finally, the EIPA does not apply to the training we intend to be
offered by the Center. The EIPA focuses on interpreting competencies
that are necessary to effectively interpret in elementary and secondary
general education settings. We intend for the Center to train
interpreters with specific competencies that are necessary to
effectively interpret for youth and adults who are deaf \1\ or hard of
hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind, including those who are VR
consumers in transition from school to post-school activities in
postsecondary education, employment, and community settings. None of
this, however, prohibits applicants from using State certification or
licensure as an internal benchmark, if applicable, for tracking
participant progress towards achieving national certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\As used in this notice, the word ``deaf'' refers to (1)
``deaf'' and ``Deaf'' people, i.e. to the condition of deafness; (2)
to ``deaf, hard of hearing, and Deaf-Blind''; and (3) to individuals
who are culturally Deaf and who use American Sign Language (ASL).
When we use ``Deaf,'' we refer only to the third group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change: None.
Prospective Applicants
Comment: Many commenters addressed the proposed requirement that
the lead applicant must be accredited by the Commission on Collegiate
Interpreter Education (CCIE). Many commenters recommended removing this
requirement because (1) CCIE accreditation is voluntary, (2) CCIE is
not accredited by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation
(CHEA), which is the body that accredits and sets standards for
organizations that review and accredit higher education programs, and
(3) attending a CCIE accredited interpreter education program is not a
requirement for becoming a credentialed interpreter.
Several other commenters were concerned that the requirement would
limit the pool of eligible applicants because only about one-third of
44 baccalaureate interpreting programs nationwide are CCIE accredited.
In addition, there are five CCIE accredited associate of the arts (AA)
degree interpreting programs.
A few commenters stated that the proposed requirement would mean
that programs on the path to accreditation, private entities that do
not possess or have such accreditation available to them, and non-CCIE
accredited programs offering rigorous, high-quality instruction in
American Sign Language (ASL)-English interpretation would not be
eligible to serve as a lead applicant.
Several commenters stated that CCIE accreditation standards do not
include several areas that are significant to the proposed priority,
including accessibility of, access to, interaction with, and immersion
in the Deaf community; having an available Deaf population to promote
student training; and standards such as ASL fluency.
One commenter estimated the cost of accreditation from CCIE at
$10,000 or more and noted that some organizations are not in a position
to support CCIE-related costs at this time.
Finally, one commenter suggested that CCIE accreditation be
considered as a secondary qualification, rather than a requirement for
the lead applicant.
Discussion: We believe the proposed requirement for the lead
applicant to be accredited by CCIE aligns with the goal of the Center
to improve the quality of interpreters nationwide and therefore should
be maintained in the priority.
While we recognize CCIE is not accredited by CHEA, we do not
believe this will adversely impact the lead applicant's ability to
effectively design and implement this Center because each accreditation
has a different purpose. CHEA focuses on the quality of higher
education institutions and programs in order for the public to know
that an institution or program provides an overall quality education.
By contrast, the mission of CCIE is focused specifically on
professionalism in the field of interpreter education through the
accreditation of professional preparation programs, the development and
revision of interpreter education standards, the encouragement of
excellence in program development, a national and international
dialogue on the preservation and advancement of standards in the field
of interpreter and higher education, and the application of knowledge,
skills, and ethics of the profession. There are currently 13 CCIE-
accredited programs \2\ across the country that would meet the lead
applicant requirement for this competition. At present, CCIE is the
only entity in the field of interpreter education that measures the
standards of interpreter education programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ www.discoverinterpreting.com/?Find_an_ASL-English_Interpreting_program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize that these standards are the minimum requirements for
CCIE accreditation and a program may exceed these standards in many
areas, including those indicated by the comments. One of the goals of
the Center is to increase accessibility of and access to interaction
and immersion in the Deaf community, having an available Deaf
population to promote student training, and standards such as ASL
fluency. As such, we believe the requirements in the priority support
this goal.
We acknowledge that CCIE accreditation is voluntary and that
attending a CCIE-accredited interpreter education program is not a
requirement for becoming a credentialed interpreter. However, we
believe that the interpreter education program should be accredited.
The Center is then better positioned to incorporate interpreter
education standards into the design and delivery of training and to
evaluate its effectiveness in increasing the number of certified
interpreters.
While non-CCIE accredited baccalaureate degree English-ASL programs
are not eligible as the lead applicant, they may serve as members of
the consortium. We respect and value
[[Page 48337]]
non-CCIE accredited programs offering rigorous, high-quality
interpreter education. We are also sensitive to budgetary and other
constraints that may limit institutions pursuing CCIE accreditation. We
encourage eligible lead applicants to consider a number of appropriate
entities, including high-quality non-CCIE accredited baccalaureate
degree interpreter education programs, to carry out the work of the
consortium.
Change: None.
Consideration of Other Eligible Applicants
Comment: Some commenters suggested consideration of other eligible
lead applicants or as members of the consortium such as AA programs,
associate in applied sciences (AAS) programs, and master's degree
interpreter education programs that prepare interpreter educators in
addition to hosting baccalaureate degree programs that prepare students
to work in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) settings upon
graduation.
Discussion: The proposed priority did not specify that programs
offering both a bachelor's and master's degree in interpreter education
could serve as lead applicants if the program holds CCIE accreditation.
We agree that these programs should be eligible lead applicants and may
also serve as members of the consortium, and we are revising the
priority accordingly.
However, AA/AAS programs are not eligible lead applicants. Since
July 2012, there has been an educational requirement for an individual
to sit for the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf National
Interpreter Certification test. Specifically, candidates must possess,
at a minimum, a bachelor's degree in any field or major, or a
demonstrated educational equivalency. We want to ensure that, while the
individuals served by the Center require additional skills training to
be provided by the Center, they otherwise meet the requirements to sit
for the National Certification examination.
Programs that prepare students to work in K-12 settings are not
eligible lead applicants or members of the consortium because the focus
of this program is to prepare novice interpreters to work in VR
settings. We believe this focus was implied in the background section
of the priority but recognize it was not clearly stated within the
proposed priority. Therefore, we take this opportunity to provide
further explanation to support the focus of this program.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) emphasizes
support to transition-age youth and adults with disabilities through
such activities as funding various VR services and training of
qualified personnel. The final priority aligns with the WIOA framework
by focusing on the training of qualified interpreters to work with
transition-age youth and adults who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-
blind. Thus, programs that prepare students to work in K-12 settings
are not eligible applicants or members of the consortium because WIOA
funds do not support training of interpreters to work in K-12 settings,
with the exception of transition services.
Change: Under the purpose of the priority, we have clarified that
the Center must prepare novice interpreters to work in VR settings.
In paragraph (a) under ``Establish a consortium'' in the Project
Activities section of the priority, we have clarified that an eligible
consortium can be comprised of a designated lead applicant that
operates both bachelor's and master's degree programs in interpreter
education that are recognized and accredited by CCIE.
Members of a Consortium
Comment: A number of commenters asked that we clarify which
entities must be represented in the consortium. One commenter
recommended maintaining the proposed entities in order to gain the
broadest analysis of effective models and practices possible.
In addition, commenters also stated that the entities participating
in the consortium should be required to include individuals who are
experienced and qualified interpreters, interpreter educators, trained
mentors, and individuals who are deaf, as well as those who can model
native (first language) fluency in ASL. One commenter stated that the
most successful experiential learning programs include coaching,
mentoring, and explicit instruction that focuses specifically on the
skills for interacting in diverse cultural milieus.
Discussion: We agree that we need to clarify paragraph (b) under
``Establish a consortium'' and the types of entities that must be
represented in the consortium. When we stated in the proposed priority
that ``members of the consortium must be staffed by or have access to
experienced and certified interpreters, interpreter educators, and
trained mentors with the capability in providing feedback and guidance
to novice interpreters, and in serving as language models,'' we meant
that members of the consortium must have on staff, or have access to,
individuals who are deaf and who can model native (first language)
fluency in ASL.
Applicants are encouraged to include in their consortium other
appropriate entities such as VR agencies, community-based
organizations, and State commissions. Applicants could develop at least
one partnership with a community-based entity (for example, with a
Commission for the Deaf that is knowledgeable and involved in the
delivery of interpreter services), at least one partnership with
industry or government agencies (e.g., State VR agencies or American
Job Centers) and at least one partnership with post-secondary settings
(e.g., universities that serve a large number of deaf and hard of
hearing students). Each of these partnerships would yield different
types of learning and coaching contexts and allow for dynamic
application of new ideas and structures for possible replication. In
addition, non-CCIE accredited baccalaureate degree English-ASL programs
may serve as members of the consortium.
We agree that training for novice interpreters must include skills
for interacting in diverse cultural milieus and, as such, members of
the consortium must represent diverse linguistic and cultural minority
backgrounds and be qualified to provide instruction on best practices
for interpreting in diverse cultural and linguistic settings.
Change: In paragraph (b) under ``Establish a consortium'' in the
Project Activities section of the priority, we clarified that members
of the consortium must be staffed by or have access to experienced and
certified interpreters, interpreter educators, individuals who are
deaf, trained mentors, and first language models in ASL. We added that
consortium members must represent diverse linguistic and cultural
minority backgrounds and be qualified to provide instruction on best
practices in interpreting in diverse cultural and linguistic settings.
Consortium Expectations in Terms of Cost Match
Comment: One commenter asked whether consortium members or other
identified partners must contribute to the cost of implementation,
either through direct or indirect contributions.
Discussion: The proposed priority did not address this question.
The responsibility for costs associated with all aspects of the Center,
such as program design, implementation, training activities, and
evaluation, as well as oversight and management of the Center, will be
determined and
[[Page 48338]]
agreed upon by the lead applicant, members of the consortium, and other
identified partners. This also applies to determining any direct or
indirect costs or in-kind contributions made by the lead applicant,
members of the consortium, and other identified partners. The notice
inviting applications will specify whether there is a cost-matching
requirement and, if so, it will confirm the percentage of the match.
Regardless of how the lead applicant, consortium members, and other
identified partners determine shared costs, it is ultimately the
responsibility of the lead applicant to meet the cost-matching
requirement.
Change: None.
Team Comprised of Native Language Users, Qualified Interpreters, and
Trained Mentors
Comment: We received several comments about the proposed
requirement for the consortium to establish a team of native language
users, qualified interpreters, and trained mentors to partner with
novice interpreters during and after successful completion of the
experiential learning program. Overall, commenters recommended
maintaining separation of these positions but indicated a need for
clear definitions, roles, responsibilities, and the training and
qualifications necessary for each position within the team. Rather than
the Department developing its own definitions, one commenter
recommended the Department use applicable definitions developed by the
Office of Personnel Management when defining the roles of these team
members. Two commenters stated that native language users not only
include deaf individuals but also those individuals who have grown up
using the language and are fluent in it (e.g., children of deaf
adults). In addition to serving as language models, native language
users should provide mentorship in linguistic and cultural
competencies. Another commenter suggested combining the roles of native
language user and trained mentor.
Discussion: We will not further specify who must be a member of the
team to work with novice interpreters. We believe applicants are best
suited to assemble an inclusive and appropriate team. Applicants may
define team members and determine the roles, responsibilities, and
qualifications of these positions. While we acknowledge that some roles
among team members may be shared or combined, we expect, however, the
team to include, at minimum, native language users, qualified
interpreters, and trained mentors, as well as other appropriate
members. By not requiring other specific team members, we will also
avoid inadvertently excluding potential team members.
The Department acknowledges there are interpreter-related
definitions available through other Federal agencies. However, we want
to ensure that any interpreter-related definitions are appropriate for
the Center and align with the statute and regulations for this program.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal
Register on April 16, 2015 (80 FR 20988), we proposed to amend the
definition of a ``qualified professional'' to mean an individual who
has (1) met existing certification or evaluation requirements
equivalent to the highest standards approved by certifying
associations; and (2) successfully demonstrated interpreting skills
that reflect the highest standards approved by certifying associations
through prior work experience.'' The term ``qualified interpreter''
used throughout the proposed priority is synonymous with ``qualified
professional.'' A notice of final rulemaking is anticipated to publish
in late July.
Change: We replaced the term ``qualified interpreter'' with
``qualified professional'' for accuracy and consistency with our
regulations. Under Training Activities, in paragraph (a)(1), we added
that applicants must describe in their application the roles and
responsibilities for each team member.
Project Timelines
Comment: Commenters generally supported the proposed timeline to
plan and design the curriculum, develop training modules, and to
implement a pilot experiential learning program within the first two
years of the grant period. However, one commenter cautioned that
expecting students to become ready-to-work interpreters by attending a
four-year program is unrealistic. Another commenter reasoned that a
sustainable program needs two to three years to design, implement,
evaluate, revise, and continue implementation with three to four
graduated cohorts in order to generate evidence of impact.
Discussion: We recognize that graduates from baccalaureate degree
ASL-English interpreter training programs may not be immediately ready
to work and that is why we are establishing a model demonstration
center to better prepare novice interpreters to become nationally
certified sign language interpreters. We also agree that adequate time
is needed to analyze evidence and assess the program. One of the
reasons for piloting the program in a single site by year two is to
identify and resolve issues and challenges that may arise, as well as
to make improvements to the content and delivery of the training based
on feedback from the team working with the novice interpreters and the
novice interpreters participating in the first pilot. This Center is a
demonstration and, at the conclusion of the grant, we will assess
program outcomes and determine whether or not an experiential learning
approach had an impact in improving the preparation of novice
interpreters. For these reasons, we believe the proposed timelines are
reasonable.
Change: None.
Project Activities
Comment: Several commenters suggested that we include in the
priority additional project activities that are associated with long-
term success for ASL-English interpreters. Some examples of additional
project activities included: (1) Volunteer interpreting experiences
pairing experienced interpreters who agree to volunteer with novice
interpreters; (2) in-service training programs built around
individualized skills development activities/modules determined after a
comprehensive diagnostic assessment to increase novice practitioner
performance; (3) scripted training exercises involving real-life
scenarios with actors/mentors from the Deaf community; (4) curricular
modifications and differentiation strategies to serve novice
interpreters who are children of deaf adults (CODAs), particularly
CODAs of color; (5) socialization with the Deaf community; and (6)
field-based induction programs that employ more direct supervision of
work experiences than is typically available through mentorship.
Discussion: Applicants must meet the minimum proposed project
activities and may add or incorporate other specific activities,
including the activities described in the comments, as appropriate, in
order to strengthen the design, curriculum, and training developed and
delivered by the Center. We encourage applicants to include in their
proposed project any additional activities that they believe would
improve the preparation of novice interpreters.
Change: None.
Measures for Assessing the Improvement in Interpreting Skills of Novice
Interpreters
Comment: Several commenters suggested that, to assess outcomes more
[[Page 48339]]
effectively and in a way that goes beyond self-reported
``meaningfulness,'' we require in the priority the use of specific
assessment tools to measure the improvement in interpreting skills of
novice interpreters, such as diagnostic assessments/reviews; tools that
address the proficiency of educational interpreters, such as the
Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) developed by Boys
Town National Research Hospital; assessments used by the American
Council for Teaching Foreign Languages, Texas Board for Evaluators of
Interpreters, and Utah Interpreting Program; pre- and post-program
scores on the American Sign Language Proficiency Inventory; or general
assessment instruments like the Cultural Intelligence Scale,
Intercultural Development Inventory, or other well-reviewed measures of
intercultural competence. One commenter stated that measurement of
instruction in core dispositions of novice interpreters is needed
because without instruction in and measurement of elements of essential
professional attributes, a novice interpreter may become more of a
``language technician'' but not a true mediator.
Discussion: We acknowledge there are several assessment tools that
may be appropriate to measure the improvement in interpreting skills of
novice interpreters, and we believe that applicants are better
positioned to determine which tools are most appropriate for their
proposed projects. Nothing in this priority prevents applicants from
choosing to use any valid or reliable assessment tool to gauge the
progress of novice interpreters. Any proposed instruments must be valid
and reliable and the applicant must submit rationale to support the use
of each instrument.
Change: We have added the requirements that any proposed
instruments must be valid and reliable, and the applicant must submit
rationale to support the use of each instrument, to paragraphs (b)(9)
and (c) of the Training Activities section and paragraph (c)(1) in the
Application Requirements section.
Pilot Sites
Comment: A few commenters asked that we clarify which entities are
eligible to be pilot sites. More specifically, one commenter noted that
the proposed priority indicated in one place that a partner
organization may be a pilot site, while providing in another place that
the pilot site must be an existing baccalaureate degree ASL-English
interpretation program.
Discussion: We agree there was an inconsistency in the proposed
priority. The pilot site entity must be hosted by a baccalaureate
degree ASL-English program. This is essential to the priority because
we believe these specific programs demonstrate the ability to
effectively recruit and select cohort participants, as well as track
and evaluate participants. However, to provide applicants with more
flexibility, we also want to clarify that applicants may either
identify eligible pilot sites in their application or describe the
process and criteria they will use to identify eligible pilot sites
upon award. We also clarify that partner organizations may serve as
experiential learning sites.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (b)(1) in the Training
Activities section of the priority to require applicants to identify at
least three existing baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation
programs to host the pilot sites. We have also added to paragraph
(b)(1) that applicants may describe the process and criteria they will
use to identify the pilot sites upon award.
Cohort Participants
Comment: Several commenters asked that the Department clarify the
qualifications of novice interpreter applicants who would be selected
to participate in the pilot sites. One commenter recommended removing
the requirement for cohort participants to have a bachelor's degree in
any field or major (as required to sit for the National Interpreter
Certification exam). The commenter proposed that cohort participants
who do not have a bachelor's degree could, instead, demonstrate
equivalent knowledge and skills in ASL-English interpretation. Other
commenters suggested that cohort participants include: (1) Individuals
who are deaf or hard of hearing and who are preparing for the
Certification of Deaf Interpreter (CDI) exam; (2) graduates of partner
organizations preparing K-12 interpreters; and (3) graduates of
baccalaureate degree programs who have not yet obtained program
accreditation from the CCIE. One commenter stressed the importance of
diversity and inclusion among cohort participants and of ensuring
recruitment of students of color, trilingual students, deaf and deaf-
blind students, and children of deaf adults.
Discussion: We agree that, to the extent possible, applicants must
ensure diversity and inclusion among cohort participants and ensure
recruitment of students of color, trilingual students, deaf and deaf-
blind students, and children of deaf adults. While this was implied in
the proposed priority, it was not explicitly stated and to clarify this
we are adding paragraph (b)(5) in the Training Activities section of
the priority.
We also agree that we need to clarify the required cohort
participants. We intend for the Center to train interpreters with
specific competencies that are necessary to effectively interpret for
adults who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-
blind, including those who are VR consumers, in transition from school
to post-school activities, postsecondary education, employment, and
community settings. Therefore, graduates of partner organizations
preparing K-12 interpreters are not appropriate to participate in the
pilot.
Eligible cohort participants may include deaf individuals, students
in their final one or two semesters of completing their degree from a
CCIE- or non-CCIE-accredited baccalaureate degree ASL-English
interpreter program, recent graduates of CCIE- and non-CCIE-accredited
baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpreter education programs, and
working novice interpreters who intend to obtain national certification
and interpret for adults who are deaf or hard of hearing and
individuals who are deaf-blind, including deaf consumers of the VR
system. The recruitment and selection of cohort participants will be
determined by the Center.
Change: We have expanded the list of possible cohort participants
by deleting the requirement for the cohort to comprise graduates from
baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs who are
preparing for, or have not passed, the National Interpreter
Certification knowledge and performance exams and who intend to work as
interpreters, which was in paragraph (b)(2) of the Training Activities
section of the proposed priority. We have also expanded the list of
possible cohort participants by adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5)
under the Training Activities section. Under paragraph (b)(4),
applicants must ensure cohort participants intend to obtain national
certification and interpret for adults who are deaf or hard of hearing
and individuals who are deaf-blind, including deaf consumers of the VR
system. We have provided that eligible cohort participants may include
deaf individuals, students in their final one or two semesters of
completing their degree from a CCIE or non-CCIE accredited
baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpreter program, recent graduates
of CCIE and non-CCIE accredited baccalaureate degree ASL-English
interpreter education programs, and working novice interpreters. Under
[[Page 48340]]
paragraph (b)(5), applicants must, to the extent possible, ensure
diversity and inclusion among cohort participants and ensure
recruitment of students of color, trilingual students, deaf and deaf-
blind students, and children of deaf adults.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review of paragraph (b) of the Training
Activities section of the priority, we believe that we should clarify
the requirements for recruiting and selecting cohort participants and
align this paragraph with other revisions we are making to this
section.
Change: We have made several revisions to paragraph (b) of the
Training Activities section of the priority. First, we have moved the
requirement, in proposed paragraph (b)(2), that applicants provide a
plan to ensure that at least one cohort is completed in each pilot site
prior to the end of the project period into a new paragraph (b)(3).
Second, we have moved a portion of paragraph (b)(3) into a new
paragraph (b)(6) and added a provision requiring that applicants
establish processes and procedures for recruitment and selection of
cohort participants, including criteria to ensure cohort participants
demonstrate the capability to successfully complete the program and
obtain national certification. Third, we have added paragraph (b)(7) to
require that applicants establish procedures to identify and provide
technical assistance to cohort participants who may be ``at risk'' of
dropping out of the program. Finally, we have added paragraph (b)(11)
to provide that, upon award, all successful applicants must develop and
effectively communicate to all cohort participants policies and
procedures related to participation in the experiential learning
program.
Cost of Cohorts
Comment: Some commenters disagreed with the proposed requirement
that all activities must be offered at no cost to participants during
the program. Commenters indicated that offering the experiential
learning program at no cost does not allow buy-in from participants who
may drop the program at any time since there is no penalty for doing
so. One commenter suggested a reasonable fee be required for cohort
participants and that, upon successful completion of the program, the
fee could be refunded to the participant.
Discussion: We agree for the reasons commenters stated that it can
be appropriate to charge reasonable fees and applicants may do so.
Charging reasonable fees may not be appropriate in all circumstances,
however. Some cohort participants may be fully capable of completing
the program and attaining national certification but may not be in a
position to pay even reasonable fees, and we would not want to exclude
them from participating. Therefore, we encourage applicants that choose
to charge reasonable fees to consider a process for waiving these fees
on a case-by-case basis.
If an applicant chooses to charge reasonable fees, it must describe
in the application how this fee will be determined. If successful, upon
award, the applicant must develop internal policies and procedures for
collecting and effectively managing these fees. Any fees retained as a
result of a participant dropping out are considered program income.
Therefore, applicants should refer to 2 CFR 200.307 for applicable
regulations for program income.
Change: In paragraph (a)(1) of the Training Activities section of
the priority, we have removed the proposed requirement that all
activities must be offered at no cost to participants during the
program. We have added paragraph (b)(10) to provide that applicants may
choose to charge reasonable fees to cohort participants but must
describe in their application how these fees will be determined. In
addition, we have provided that, upon award, applicants must develop
internal policies and procedures for collecting and effectively
managing these fees, and for waiving these fees for a cohort
participant if there is a financial hardship. Any fees retained as a
result of a participant dropping out are considered program income.
Number of Cohorts
Comment: Several commenters recommended a specific number of
cohorts and a number of novice interpreters per cohort. Generally,
commenters supported cohorts of 8 to 12 novice interpreters based on
the Conference of Interpreter Trainers' recommended classroom size for
interpreter education classes. One commenter recommended following CCIE
guidelines of up to 12 in a cohort. Other commenters suggested 3 to 4
cohorts with anywhere from 8 to 12 novice interpreters. One commenter
indicated that class sizes need to be on the smaller side so that
students can get more personalized and in-depth attention. Another
commenter recommended the Department should not require a certain
number of novice interpreters per cohort since this number could vary
greatly among each program. However, the commenter suggested the
Department could require the applicant to establish guidelines basing
the number of interpreters in each cohort on the applicant's program
size.
Discussion: We agree that the number of novice interpreters per
cohort may vary depending on the pilot site. We also agree that novice
interpreters will require personalized and in-depth attention. We
revised the priority to allow applicants to provide a plan in their
application for how they will determine the number of cohorts for each
pilot site and the number of participants in each cohort upon award.
Applicants should plan accordingly for all cohorts to complete the
training program before the end of the project in order to evaluate and
report on outcomes of each cohort in each pilot site.
Change: In paragraph (b)(2) of the Training Activities section of
the priority, we have added the option for applicants to provide a plan
for how they will determine the number of cohorts for each pilot site
and the number of participants in each cohort upon award, rather than
requiring that all applicants make this determination in the
application.
General Comments
Comment: A couple of commenters suggested participants in the
cohort should receive college credit or continuing education units for
participation in an effort to elevate interest and recruitment into the
program.
Discussion: We anticipate a number of cohort participants will be
students in their final semester of completing their baccalaureate
degree English-ASL program and, therefore, may not benefit from
additional college credit. However, nothing in the priority prevents
applicants from proposing to award college credits or continuing
education units to participants. Should they choose to award such
credits, applicants are expected in their application to describe their
plans to do so.
Change: We have added paragraph (b)(8) in the Training Activities
section of this priority to clarify that applicants may determine
whether to award college credits or continuing education units to
cohort participants, as appropriate, and to require applicants to
describe any plans for awarding college credits or continuation
education units in their application.
Comment: One commenter recommended an invitational priority or
competitive preference for novice applicants.
[[Page 48341]]
Discussion: A novice applicant priority already exists under 34 CFR
77.225, so it is not necessary to establish one in this NFP. If we use
the novice priority in a competition, we will provide notification in
the applicable notice inviting application published in the Federal
Register.
Change: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended the priority support two
additional areas to address unmet needs in the field. The first
commenter indicated that research has provided a snapshot into the
unmet needs of deaf or hard of hearing individuals and individuals who
are deaf-blind, and, therefore, recommended we include a robust needs
assessment (which was part of the 2010 interpreter training grants)
within this priority. The second commenter recommended that we require
grantees to undertake the research necessary to develop a
psychometrically valid instrument because, they stated, no domain-
specific instrument exists yet in the sign language interpreting field
for evaluating intercultural competency.
Discussion: These activities are outside the purpose and intent of
this priority.
Change: None.
Comment: While the majority of comments support the goals and
intent of the proposed priority, five commenters recommended
maintaining the current national and regional interpreter education
centers.
Discussion: We do not believe maintaining the current structure of
national and regional interpreter education centers is in the best
interest of the field. The Department has funded interpreter training
programs since 1964 to meet the needs of VR consumers who are deaf or
hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind. At each critical
juncture, we have re-evaluated the interpreter training program to
determine how to best meet the needs of consumers of interpreting
services. In the course of this ongoing re-evaluation, we concluded
that, since 2005, when the current priorities were established for the
national and regional centers, the training needs of interpreters have
changed as a result of new and emerging issues facing VR consumers who
are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind. The
Department gave serious consideration to how we could continue to
effectively use our funds to influence the field of interpreter
education and ultimately meet the current and future needs of VR
consumers.
As we noted in the background section in the NPP, we believe the
need for interpreting services continues to exceed the available supply
of qualified interpreters. Interpreters must be qualified to work with
both individuals with a range of linguistic competencies from a variety
of cultural backgrounds and individuals with disabilities. Interpreters
need additional education, training, and experience in order to meet
certification standards, to bridge the graduation-to-credential gap,
and to gain sufficient skills to interpret effectively. Therefore, we
believe establishing a Model Demonstration Center will better prepare
novice interpreters to become nationally certified sign language
interpreters in order to meet the needs of individuals who are deaf and
hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind.
Change: None.
Comment: Several commenters offered additional strategies beyond
the required logic model and project evaluation to ensure that grantees
are evaluating their programs throughout planning, designing, and
implementing the experiential learning curriculum. For example,
commenters suggested that applicants could supplement or strengthen
their evaluation using secondary sources such as research and
investigative books, journal articles, and dissertations, and use
national certifications such as the BEI or EIPA, portfolios, consumer
endorsement, and other relevant methods of design.
Discussion: We acknowledge there are other potential strategies
that could be used to ensure a program evaluation framework includes
the planning, designing, and implementing of the experiential learning
curriculum. Applicants may propose unique or additional strategies
beyond the required logic model and program evaluation. Applicants
should provide rationale in their application to support these
additional strategies.
Change: None.
FINAL PRIORITY:
This notice contains one final priority.
Experiential Learning Model Demonstration Center for Novice
Interpreters and Baccalaureate Degree ASL-English Interpretation
Programs.
Final Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement for
the establishment of a model demonstration center (Center) to: (1)
Develop an experiential learning program that could be implemented
through baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs or through partner
organizations, such as community-based organizations, advocacy
organizations, or commissions for the deaf or deaf-blind that work with
baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs to provide work experiences
and mentoring; (2) pilot the experiential learning program in three
baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs and evaluate the results; and
(3) disseminate practices that are promising or supported by evidence,
examples, and lessons learned.
The Center must prepare novice interpreters to work in VR settings
and be designed to achieve, at a minimum, the following outcomes:
(a) Increase the number of certified interpreters.
(b) Reduce the average length of time it takes for novice
interpreters to become nationally certified after graduating from
baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs; and
(c) Increase the average number of hours that novice interpreters,
through the experiential learning program, interact with and learn from
the local deaf community.
Project Activities
To meet the requirements of this priority, the Center must, at a
minimum, conduct the following activities:
Establish a consortium
(a) The applicant must establish a consortium of training and
technical assistance (TA) providers or use an existing network of
providers to design and implement a model experiential learning
program. An eligible consortium must be comprised of a designated lead
applicant that operates a baccalaureate degree ASL-English
interpretation program that is recognized and accredited by CCIE or
that operates both bachelor's and master's degree programs in
interpreter education that are recognized and accredited by CCIE; and
(b) Members of the consortium must be staffed by or have access to
experienced and certified interpreters, interpreter educators,
individuals who are deaf, trained mentors, and first language models in
ASL. The consortium must also represent members with diverse linguistic
and cultural minority backgrounds who are qualified to provide
instruction on best practices in interpreting in diverse cultural and
linguistic settings. All consortium members must demonstrate the
capability to provide training, mentoring, and feedback in person or
remotely to novice interpreters who are geographically dispersed across
the country, including the territories.
[[Page 48342]]
Training Activities
(a) In years one and two, design and implement an experiential
learning program that is based upon promising and best practices or
modules in the preparation of novice interpreters to become certified
interpreters. The program design must, at a minimum:
(1) Include a team that comprises native language users, qualified
professionals, and trained mentors to partner with novice interpreters
during and after successful completion of the experiential learning
program. Applicants must describe in their application the roles and
responsibilities for each team member. Roles for team members must
include but are not limited to:
(i) Native language users who will serve as language models;
(ii) Qualified professionals who will act in an advisory role by
observing, providing feedback, and discussing the novice interpreter's
ability to accurately interpret spoken English into ASL and ASL into
spoken English in a variety of situations for a range of consumers; and
(iii) Provide mentoring to novice interpreters, as needed. This may
include one-on-one instruction to address specific areas identified by
the advisor as needing further practice, as well as offering tools,
resources, and guidance to novice interpreters to prepare them for
potential challenges they may encounter as they grow and advance in the
profession. One-on-one instruction may address, but is not limited to,
meaning transfer (e.g., accurately providing an equivalent message,
appropriately handling register), ethical behavior, meeting the
consumer's linguistic preference, managing the flow of information
(e.g., pace, density, turn-taking), and other related aspects of the
interpreting task.
(2) Provide multiple learning opportunities, such as an internship
with a community program, mentoring, and intensive site-specific work.
Intensive site-specific work may task a novice interpreter, under close
direction from the advisor interpreter, with providing interpreting
services to deaf individuals employed at a work site, or to deaf
students taking courses at college or enrolled in an apprenticeship
program. Other learning modalities may be proposed and must include
adequate justification.
(3) Emphasize innovative instructional delivery methods, such as
distance learning or block scheduling (i.e., a type of academic
scheduling that offers students fewer classes per day for longer
periods of time) that would allow novice interpreters to more easily
participate in the program (i.e., participants who need to work while
in the program, have child care or elder care considerations, or live
in geographically isolated areas);
(4) Provide experiential learning that engages novice interpreters
with different learning styles;
(5) Provide interpreting experiences with a variety of deaf
consumers who have different linguistic and communication needs and
preferences, and are located in different settings, including VR
settings (e.g., VR counseling, assessments, job-related services,
training, pre-employment transition services, transition services,
post-employment services, etc.), American Job Centers, and other
relevant workforce partner locations;
(6) Require novice interpreters to observe, discuss, and reflect on
the work of the advisor interpreter;
(7) Require novice interpreters to interpret in increasingly more
complex and demanding situations. The advisor interpreter must provide
written and oral feedback that includes strengths and areas of
improvement, as well as a discussion with the novice interpreter about
interpretation options, ethical behavior, and how best to meet the
communication needs of a particular consumer; and
(b) Pilot the experiential learning program in a single site by
year two and expand to additional sites beginning in year three.
Applicants must:
(1) Identify at least three existing baccalaureate degree ASL-
English interpretation programs to host the pilot sites. The
baccalaureate programs must use a curriculum design that is based upon
current best practices in the ASL-English Interpreter Education
profession. Applicants may identify the pilot sites in the application
or describe the process and criteria they will use to identify the
pilot sites upon award;
(2) Indicate in the application the number of cohorts for each
pilot site and the number of participants in each cohort or provide a
plan in the application for how this will be determined upon award;
(3) Provide a plan in the application to ensure that at least one
cohort is completed in each pilot site prior to the end of the project
period;
(4) Ensure cohort participants intend to obtain national
certification and interpret for adults who are deaf or hard of hearing
and individuals who are deaf-blind, including deaf consumers of the VR
system. Cohort participants may include deaf individuals, students
within one or two semesters of completing their interpreter education
program, recent graduates of interpreter education programs, and
working novice interpreters;
(5) To the extent possible, ensure diversity and inclusion among
cohort participants and ensure recruitment of students of color,
trilingual students, deaf and deaf-blind students, and children of deaf
adults;
(6) Establish processes and procedures for recruitment and
selection of cohort participants, including criteria to ensure cohort
participants demonstrate the capability to successfully complete the
program and obtain national certification. This may include, but is not
limited to, submission of an application, relevant assessments,
interviewing prospective participants, and obtaining recommendations
from faculty at baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation
programs and other appropriate entities;
(7) Establish procedures to identify and provide technical
assistance to cohort participants who may be ``at risk'' of dropping
out of the program;
(8) Determine if college credits or continuing education units will
be awarded to cohort participants, as appropriate. Should applicants
choose to do so, they must describe any plans for awarding college
credits or continuation education units in their application;
(9) Describe any assessment tools that will be used to gauge the
progress of novice interpreters. Any proposed instruments must be valid
and reliable and the applicant must submit rationale to support the use
of each instrument;
(10) Describe in their application how any reasonable fees that the
applicant proposes to charge cohort participants will be determined. If
successful, upon award, applicants must develop internal policies and
procedures for collecting and effectively managing these fees, as well
for waiving fees for a cohort participant if there is a financial
hardship. Any fees retained as a result of a participant dropping out
are considered program income. Therefore, applicants should refer to 2
CFR 200.307 for applicable regulations for program income; and
(11) Develop and effectively communicate to all cohort participants
the policies and procedures related to participation in the
experiential learning program.
(c) Conduct a formative and summative evaluation. Any proposed
instruments must be valid and reliable and the applicant must submit
rationale to support the use of each instrument. At a minimum, this
must include:
(1) An assessment of participant outcomes from each cohort that
[[Page 48343]]
includes, at a minimum, level of knowledge and practical skill levels
using pre- and post-assessments; feedback from novice interpreters,
from interpreter advisors, including written feedback from observed
interpreting situations, from deaf consumers, from trained mentors,
including written feedback from mentoring sessions, and from others, as
appropriate;
(2) Clear and specific measureable outcomes that include, but are
not limited to:
(i) Improvement in specific linguistic competencies, as identified
by the applicant, in English and ASL;
(ii) Improvement in specific competencies, as identified by the
applicant, in ASL-English interpretation;
(iii) Outcomes in achieving national certification; and
(iv) The length of time for novice interpreters to become
nationally certified sign language interpreters after participating in
this project compared to the national average of 19-24 months.
Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities
Conduct TA and dissemination activities that must include:
(a) Preparing and broadly disseminating TA materials related to
practices that are promising or supported by evidence and successful
strategies for working with novice interpreters;
(b) Establishing and maintaining a state-of-the-art information
technology (IT) platform sufficient to support Webinars,
teleconferences, video conferences, and other virtual methods of
dissemination of information and TA.
Note: All products produced by the Center must meet government-
and industry-recognized standards for accessibility, including
section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
(c) Developing and maintaining a state-of-the-art archiving and
dissemination system that--
(1) Provides a central location for later use of TA products,
including curricula, audiovisual materials, Webinars, examples of
practices that are promising or supported by evidence, and any other
relevant TA products; and
(2) Is open and available to the public.
(d) Providing a minimum of two Webinars or video conferences over
the course of the project to describe and disseminate information to
the field about results, challenges, solutions, and practices that are
promising or supported by evidence.
Note: In meeting the requirements for paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) of this section, the Center either may develop new platforms or
systems or may modify existing platforms or systems, so long as the
requirements of this priority are met.
Coordination Activities
(a) Establish an advisory committee. To effectively implement the
Training Activities section of this priority, the applicant must
establish an advisory committee that meets at least semi-annually. The
advisory committee must include representation from all affected
stakeholder groups (i.e., interpreters, interpreter training programs,
deaf individuals, and VR agencies) and may include other relevant
groups. The advisory committee will advise on the strategies for
establishing sites to pilot the experiential learning program, the
approaches to the experiential learning program, modifications to
experiential learning activities, TA, sustainability planning, and
evaluating the effectiveness of the program, as well as other relevant
areas as determined by the consortium.
(b) Establish one or more communities of practice \3\ that focus on
project activities in this priority and that act as vehicles for
communication and exchange of information among participants in the
experiential learning program, as well as other relevant stakeholders;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A community of practice (CoP) is a group of people who work
together to solve a persistent problem or to improve practice in an
area that is important to them and who deepen their knowledge and
expertise by interacting on an ongoing basis. CoPs exist in many
forms, some large in scale that deal with complex problems, others
small in scale that focus on a problem at a very specific level. For
more information on communities of practice, see: www.tadnet.org/pages/510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate, on an ongoing basis,
with other relevant Department-funded projects, as applicable; and
(d) Maintain ongoing communication with the RSA project officer and
other RSA staff as required.
Application Requirements
To be funded under this priority, applicants must meet the
application requirements in this priority. RSA encourages innovative
approaches to meet the following requirements:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance of the Project,'' how the proposed project will address
the need for nationally certified sign language interpreters. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must:
(1) Demonstrate knowledge of English/ASL competencies that novice
interpreters must possess in order to enter and to complete an
experiential learning program and, at the end of the program, to
successfully obtain national certification;
(2) Demonstrate knowledge of practices that are promising or
supported by evidence in training novice interpreters; and
(3) Demonstrate knowledge of practices that are promising or
supported by evidence in providing experiential learning.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of Project Services,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that
have historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability in accessing postsecondary education
and training;
(2) Identify the needs of intended recipients of training; and
(3) Ensure that project activities and products meet the needs of
the intended recipients by creating materials in formats and languages
that are accessible;
(4) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must identify and provide--
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes;
(ii) Evidence of an existing Memorandum of Understanding or a
Letter of Intent between the lead applicant, members of the consortium,
other proposed training and TA providers, and other relevant partners
to establish a consortium that includes a description of each proposed
partner's anticipated commitment of financial or in-kind resources (if
any), how each proposed provider's current and proposed activities
align with those of the proposed project, how each proposed provider
will be held accountable under the proposed structure, and evidence to
demonstrate a working relationship between the applicant and its
proposed partners and key stakeholders and other relevant groups; and
(iii) A plan for communicating, collaborating, and coordinating
with an advisory committee; key staff in State VR agencies, such as
State Coordinators for the Deaf; State and local partner programs;
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.; RSA partners, such as the
Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation and the
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind; and relevant programs
within the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS).
(3) Use a conceptual framework to design experiential learning
activities,
[[Page 48344]]
describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs,
or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among
these variables and any empirical support for this framework.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of practices that are
promising or supported by evidence.
To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the current research about adult learning principles and
implementation science will inform the proposed TA; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and
practices that are promising or supported by evidence in the
development and delivery of its products and services.
(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant
must describe its proposed activities to identify or develop the
knowledge base for practices that are promising or supported by
evidence in experiential learning for novice interpreters.
(6) Develop products and implement services to maximize the
project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes; and
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the Evaluation Plan,'' include an evaluation plan for the project. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(1) Evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data
collection methods, and analyses that will be used to evaluate the
project. Any proposed instruments must be valid and reliable, and the
applicant must submit rationale to support the use of each instrument;
(2) Measures of progress in implementation, including the extent to
which the project's activities and products have reached their target
populations; intended outcomes or results of the project's activities
in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals and
objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model,\4\
have been met;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A logic model communicates how the project will achieve its
intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative
and summative evaluations of the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) How the evaluation plan will be implemented and revised, as
needed, during the project. The applicant must designate at least one
individual with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation,
and knowledge of the project to support the design and implementation
of the evaluation. Tasks may include, but are not limited to,
coordinating with the advisory committee and RSA to revise the logic
model to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation
and outcomes, to reflect any changes or clarifications to the logic
model discussed at the kick-off meeting, and to revise the evaluation
design and instrumentation proposed in the grant application consistent
with the logic model (e.g., developing quantitative or qualitative data
collections that permit both the collection of progress data and the
assessment of project outcomes);
(4) The standards and targets for determining effectiveness;
(5) How evaluation results will be used to examine the
effectiveness of implementation and progress toward achieving the
intended outcomes; and
(6) How the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and
qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project activities
achieved their intended outcomes.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of Project Resources,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of groups that have historically been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to provide
experiential learning to novice interpreters and to achieve the
project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the Management Plan,'' how--
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes, including an
assurance that such personnel will have adequate availability to ensure
timely communications with stakeholders and RSA;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including the advisory committee, as well as other
relevant groups in its development and operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant
must--
(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a
minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the
proposed project;
(2) Include, in Appendix A, a Memorandum of Understanding or a
Letter of Intent between the lead applicant, members of the consortium,
other proposed training and TA providers, and other relevant partners;
(3) Include, in Appendix A, a conceptual framework for the project;
(4) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines as
applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(5) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC,
after receipt of the award;
(ii) An annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, with the RSA
project officer and other relevant RSA staff during each subsequent
year of the project period; and
(iii) A one-day intensive review meeting in Washington, DC, during
the third quarter of the third year of the project period.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority,
[[Page 48345]]
we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding
additional points, depending on the extent to which the application
meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an
application that meets the priority over an application of comparable
merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact
of collection requirements on respondents.
This final priority contains information collection requirements
that are approved by OMB under the National Interpreter Education
program 1820-0018; this final priority does not affect the currently
approved data collection.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing this final priority only on a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net
benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes
that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Through this priority, experiential learning and TA will be
provided to novice interpreters in order for them to achieve national
certification. These activities will help interpreters to more
effectively meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or
hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind. The training
ultimately will improve the quality of VR services and the competitive
integrated employment outcomes achieved by individuals with
disabilities. This priority will promote the efficient and effective
use of Federal funds.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order
12372 is in the application package for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site, you can view this document, as
well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Portable Document Format
[[Page 48346]]
(PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: July 19, 2016.
Sue Swenson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2016-17404 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P