[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53271-53280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19273]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2016-OSERS-0018; CFDA Number: 84.160D.]
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 September 12, 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 May 6, 2016 (81 FR 27375). That
notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing
the particular priority.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed priority, 25 parties submitted comments on the proposed
priority.
We group major issues according to subject. 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 notice of
proposed priority follows.
Specialty Training Supported Through This Priority
Comment: A number of commenters recommended continuing the
specialty area training developed in prior grant cycles for deaf-blind
interpreting, health care interpreting, legal interpreting, trilingual
interpreting in American Sign Language (ASL)/English/Spanish, deaf
self-advocacy training (DSAT), interpreting in a Vocational
Rehabilitation (VR) setting, interpreting provided by deaf \1\
interpreters, and
[[Page 53272]]
video remote interpreting and video relay interpreting. The commenters
stated that these specialty areas are growing or emerging practice
areas and that prior grant cycles only laid the foundation for them.
Therefore, commenters recommended the Department of Education
(Department) support specialty training in eight specific areas that
were funded in prior grant cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 ASL. When we use
``Deaf,'' we refer only to the third group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, commenters supported trilingual interpreting in ASL/English/
Spanish and argued that there is still a critical need for more
training for interpreters in Spanish-influenced settings. One commenter
stated that existing training developed for ASL/English/Spanish is
still in its very initial stages and, if continued, has the potential
to develop model partnerships that could be replicated into a training
process for other spoken languages.
Second, commenters supported continued funding for training for
deaf-blind interpreting. They indicated that deaf-blind consumers are
one of the least well-served groups and there continues to be a
critical need to increase the number of interpreters skilled in this
area. For example, one commenter shared that there is a new movement
occurring within the deaf-blind community around the concept of ``pro-
tactile,'' which is altering the nature of communication, language,
leadership, and interaction, and is one of the new areas in which
interpreters need to be skilled to effectively work with individuals
who are deaf-blind.
Finally, one commenter stated that the importance of accessible and
advanced training for interpreters in healthcare and legal settings is
underscored in a report entitled ``Preparing Interpreters for Tomorrow:
Report on a Study of Emerging Trends in Interpreting and Implications
for Interpreter Education.'' This report was prepared by a current
grantee under this program, the National Interpreter Education Center,
Northeastern University, in January 2015. According to this report,
interpreters and consumers continue to identify these two specialty
areas as areas of priority training needs for interpreters.
Discussion: We agree that there continues to be a critical need for
more training in some of the specialty areas funded in the 2010-2016
grant cycle and in earlier cycles. For example, the U.S. Department of
Labor predicts that ``employment of interpreters and translators is
expected to grow 42 percent from 2010 to 2020 and the demand for
American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters is expected to grow rapidly.
. . .'' \2\ Therefore, we have concluded that applications may be
submitted for specialty training areas developed in the 2010-2016 grant
cycles for deaf-blind interpreting, health care interpreting, legal
interpreting, trilingual interpreting in ASL/English/Spanish,
interpreting in a Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) setting, interpreting
provided by Deaf interpreters, and video remote interpreting and video
relay interpreting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012-13 Edition, Interpreters and
Translators, on the Internet at www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/interpreters-and-translators.htm (visited June 3,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific to trilingual interpreting, we also believe there may be
parts of the country where multiple languages are spoken by deaf
individuals. Therefore, we are permitting applicants to address
multiple language combinations in their proposals.
However, we believe it would be an inefficient use of Federal
resources to allocate funds to focus solely on replicating rather than
scaling up or expanding existing training or to train interpreters
where there is no need. Therefore, applicants proposing to provide
training in existing specialty areas will be expected to describe how
their proposed projects expand on, rather than replicate, existing
training in these areas. Applications for training in existing
specialty areas will also be expected to specify that they plan to
serve areas of the country in which there are not enough interpreters
to adequately meet the communication needs of deaf, hard-of-hearing,
and deaf-blind consumers.
Changes: We revised Specialty Area 2: Trilingual interpreting that
immediately follows the application requirements in the priority to
allow applicants to submit proposals for trilingual interpreting in
ASL/English/Spanish. We added language to the priority requiring
applicants that propose to continue existing training in trilingual
interpreting for English/Spanish/ASL to provide evidence to support the
demand for trilingual interpreters in English/Spanish/ASL and, to the
extent possible, specify areas of the country in which there are not
enough trilingual English/Spanish/ASL interpreters to adequate meet the
communication needs of Deaf, hard-of-hearing, and Deaf-blind consumers.
We also added language that applicants proposing to continue existing
training in ASL/English/Spanish without improvement, update, or
addition of new material will not be eligible for funding.
We added language to Specialty Area 2 to allow applicants to
propose multiple language combinations in their proposals. As such, in
this specialty area, we will require applicants to propose a framework
that will be used to provide trilingual interpreter training and to
develop separate modules for each language in order to ensure the
training content appropriately addresses the cultural nuances of each
language.
Additionally, we revised Specialty Area 3: Field-initiated projects
to allow specialty area training for deaf-blind interpreting, health
care interpreting, legal interpreting, interpreting in a Vocational
Rehabilitation (VR) setting, interpreting provided by Deaf
interpreters, and video remote interpreting and video relay
interpreting. We added language requiring that applicants ensure that
projects will improve, update, and develop new material for training in
these specialty areas. We also added language requiring applicants to
demonstrate the demand for interpreters in these specialty areas and,
to the extent possible, specify areas of the country in which there are
not enough interpreters to adequately meet the communication needs of
deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-blind consumers. Finally, we added
language that applicants proposing to continue existing training in
these areas without improvement, update, or addition of new material
will not be eligible for funding.
Comments: A number of commenters recommended the Department
continue to fund DSAT, which was funded from 2010 to 2016 and in prior
grant cycles. Commenters stated that, while the DSAT curriculum is
complete and available online, further efforts are necessary to
increase training opportunities and ultimately reach more deaf
individuals. Some of these commenters also described DSAT's ability to
improve the advocacy skills of a deaf person by helping to understand
the role of the interpreter, the right to be provided interpreting
services, and the impact interpreting services have on obtaining,
maintaining, and advancing in competitive integrated employment as well
as in other situations. Several commenters argued that those who have
gone through the training can more effectively advocate not only for
themselves but also for other deaf consumers including those who have
dysfluent language. A commenter stated that DSAT directly ties into
enhanced employment outcomes and creates jobs for deaf individuals as
trainers and
[[Page 53273]]
educators in a variety of settings, including secondary and post-
secondary education, community-based agencies, and private practice.
Finally, a commenter stated that the DSAT curriculum filled a
significant gap experienced by educators, VR counselors, and community
agency personnel, such as staff from centers for independent living and
community rehabilitation programs.
Discussion: We recognize and value DSAT for individuals who are
deaf and hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind, but the
Department has determined not to continue funding for DSAT. We agree
that it is important for deaf consumers to understand their basic legal
rights and be equipped with knowledge and confidence in order to
effectively communicate their preferred accommodations and make
appropriate requests as they transition from secondary education to
post-secondary settings and competitive integrated employment. For this
program, however, every specialty area project must be focused
specifically on interpreting, which DSAT is not. We believe that
funding the specialty areas described in this notice will provide
interpreters with critically needed skills.
There are other vehicles funded by the Department that protect and
advocate for individuals with disabilities, many of which teach self-
advocacy skills. For example, the Client Assistance Program (CAP) is
designed to advise and inform clients, client applicants, and other
individuals with disabilities of all the available services and
benefits under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and of the
services and benefits available to them under Title I of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). In addition, CAP grantees may assist and
advocate for clients and client applicants about projects, programs,
and services provided under the Rehabilitation Act. In providing
assistance and advocacy under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act, a CAP
agency may provide assistance and advocacy about services directly
related to employment for the client or client applicant.
The Department also funds Parent Training and Information Centers
(PTI centers) authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). Each State has at least one PTI center to provide
training and information to students with disabilities and their
families about their rights and services under IDEA. In addition, RSA
currently funds seven State and regional PTI centers under section
303(c) of the Rehabilitation Act. All of these PTI centers provide
training and information to enable individuals and their families to
participate more effectively in meeting the vocational, independent
living, and rehabilitation needs of such individuals.
Finally, the Centers for Independent Living authorized under title
VII of the Rehabilitation Act and administered by the Department of
Health and Human Services provide advocacy services for individuals
with disabilities, and the modules developed on DSAT are among the
tools they may use to teach deaf consumers to advocate for their
rights. The existence of the programs described here, and their ability
to use DSAT materials developed in previous grant cycles make it less
necessary to continue to support DSAT through this competition.
We also believe that there is sufficient demand in the market for
DSAT to sustain the curriculum without Federal investment. Since the
DSAT curriculum was unveiled in 2010, more than 2,000 deaf, hard of
hearing, and deaf-blind consumers have attended a DSAT consumer
training and more than 250 deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind
individuals have been trained as DSAT trainers. In 2013, the DSAT
curriculum was expanded to include deaf-blind-specific adaptations, and
10 deaf-blind individuals undertook a rigorous four-day deaf-blind self
advocacy training (DBSAT) train the trainer course in preparation to
provide future DBSAT to their peers.
We agree that the DSAT curriculum fills a significant gap
experienced by educators, VR counselors, and community agency
personnel, such as staff from centers for independent living and
community rehabilitation programs. For example, as part of the
Postsecondary Educational Programs Network (pepnet 2) Building State
Capacity Summit, the team from Georgia recognized the value of the
training materials and focused their five-year plan on improving self-
advocacy and self-determination skills among deaf and hard of hearing
high school and middle school students across the State. After piloting
the project, they have worked closely with DSAT trainers to ensure that
the curriculum addressed the needs of the population served. We expect
that these and other strategies for using the existing DSAT materials
will grow.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed priority is
unnecessarily narrow and restrictive; needs greater input from more
perspectives, especially those of the deaf communities to be served by
the funding; and should embrace creativity and innovation. The
commenter maintained that, while the emphasis on evidence and data that
the proposed priority encourages is important, more evidence to support
the proposed priority would have been useful as well.
Discussion: We do not agree that the priority is narrow or
restrictive. However, we agree that creativity, innovation, and input
from multiple perspectives are important for this program. Accordingly,
in addition to the specialty areas the Department specified in this
priority, we are also seeking field-initiated projects. While only one
report was cited as support in the background section of the notice of
proposed priority for this program, we acknowledge there are other
works of research in the field of interpreter training that are equally
valid. Therefore, for each area of specialty training, applicants may
consult and incorporate relevant studies and evidence into their
proposals.
Change: None.
Eligibility Requirements
Comments: A few commenters recommended the Department change the
requirement in the priority that prevents applicants from submitting
different proposals under more than one specialty area.
Another commenter asked whether an application may focus on
multiple specialty areas, such as dysfluent language competencies and
trilingual interpreting. For example, the commenter stated that for
many deaf refugees in the United States, ASL is their first readily
accessible language, and it becomes their primary communication choice
despite their recent acquisition of this language. These individuals
could benefit from interpreters who trained as trilingual interpreters
and are familiar with working with dysfluent individuals.
Discussion: We agree that applicants should be able to submit
different proposals for different specialty areas. However, the
proposed components of the project (i.e., the competencies working
interpreters must demonstrate in order to provide high-quality services
in the identified specialty area, as well as the design, delivery of
training, and evaluation) must be tailored to the specific specialty
area. Applications proposing the same content for multiple specialty
areas will not be considered.
We also agree that applicants may submit proposals that focus on
more than one specialty area. We regard these combined proposals as
field-initiated topics that should be submitted under Specialty Area 3.
[[Page 53274]]
However, as to the comment suggesting combining dysfluent language
competencies and trilingual interpreting, we believe applicants could
include trilingual interpreting as a secondary focus for working
interpreters along with training in dysfluent language competencies.
Applications for this combination should still be submitted under
Specialty Area 1.
Changes: We revised the specialty areas that immediately follow the
application requirements in the priority in order to allow applicants
to submit different proposals under more than one specialty area and to
allow applicants to submit proposals that combine areas of specialty
training. We added language directing proposals combining areas of
specialty training to be submitted under Specialty Area 3: Field-
initiated topics.
Under Specialty Area 1, we added language allowing applicants to
include trilingual interpreting as a secondary focus for working
interpreters who may require both training as trilingual interpreters
and gaining familiarity working with dysfluent individuals.
Comment: One commenter recommended removing the proposed
eligibility requirement for applicants under ``Specialty Area 3: Field-
initiated topics'' in order to allow topics focused on interpreting for
pre-K to grade 12 students. The commenter suggested that one way to
address the increase in providing services to deaf individuals with
idiosyncratic and dysfluent language is to ensure that educational
interpreters working in pre-K to grade 12 have the training and
supports they need to effectively serve students.
Discussion: Programs that prepare working interpreters to work in
pre-K to grade 12 are not eligible because the focus of this program is
to prepare interpreters to work in VR settings. To that end, we chose
to limit eligible applicants to those programs that provide training to
interpreters in such settings. We acknowledge there is emphasis in the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) on providing services
and support to transition-age youth. However, the Department has other
resources to support programs preparing pre-K to grade 12 personnel.
For example, the Department currently funds grant awards under the IDEA
Personnel Preparation in Special Education, Early Intervention, and
Related Services program to improve the quality and increase the number
of personnel who are fully credentialed to serve children, including
infants and toddlers, with disabilities, especially in areas of chronic
personnel shortage, by supporting projects that prepare special
education, early intervention, and related services personnel at the
baccalaureate, master's, and specialist levels. More specifically, this
program funds a specialty area to serve school-age children with low
incidence disabilities by training personnel who serve children with
low incidence disabilities, such as visual impairments, hearing
impairments, and simultaneous visual and hearing impairments. Projects
preparing educational interpreters are eligible under this focus area.
For these reasons, we have chosen to limit applicants under this
competition to those who train interpreters to work in VR settings.
Change: None.
Comments: Several commenters noted that the priority does not
specify entities eligible to apply for funds, such as associate of the
arts (AA) programs, associate in applied sciences (AAS) programs,
baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs accredited by the Commission
on Collegiate Interpreter Education (CCIE), and non-CCIE-accredited
baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs. Many commenters recommended
that eligible applicants be degree-granting institutions with a
demonstrated track record of relationships with relevant stakeholders
such as the National Association of the Deaf, Registry of Interpreters
for the Deaf, Conference of Interpreter Trainings, and others, as
appropriate.
Discussion: Under the statute authorizing this program (section
302(f)(1)(A) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended), eligible
applicants are States and public or nonprofit agencies and
organizations, including American Indian tribes and institutions of
higher education, which includes CCIE-accredited and non-CCIE-
accredited baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs. We do not believe
further clarification in the priority is needed.
As a technical matter, AA/AAS programs are eligible, but the focus
of this program is to prepare working interpreters to work in VR
settings. To that end, in order to be eligible, applicants must be able
to provide training to working interpreters in such settings, and such
applicants would typically be institutions granting baccalaureate
degrees.
Change: None.
Working Interpreter
Comments: Several commenters recommended expanding the proposed
definition of ``working interpreter.'' One commenter noted that there
may be a number of certified, qualified deaf interpreters who would
otherwise be successful participants but do not possess a baccalaureate
degree in ASL-English interpretation. Other commenters recommended
aligning the definition of ``working interpreter'' with requirements
established by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID). One
commenter indicated RID requires interpreters to possess a
baccalaureate degree in order to be eligible for generalist
certification, with certain limited exceptions. RID does not currently
specify the type of degree a candidate must possess but instead
recognizes that any baccalaureate degree represents a liberal arts
education that sets a strong foundation of critical thinking and broad
world view. Therefore, this commenter suggested the Department create
an equivalency determination when the degree requirement would
unnecessarily exclude underrepresented populations.
For example, the commenter stated that equivalent alternative
criteria that could be allowable in lieu of the educational
requirements might include life experience, years of professional
experience, and years of education (credit hours) not totaling a formal
degree. The commenter noted that RID also accepts continuing education
credits in addition to these other requirements in order to satisfy the
educational equivalency requirements.
Discussion: We agree that we should expand the definition of
``working interpreter'' to more closely align with RID requirements.
This will avoid unnecessarily limiting the pool of qualified
participants and promote participation within projects.
Change: We amended the definition of ``working interpreter'' in the
first paragraph of the final priority to include interpreters with a
baccalaureate degree in ASL-English who possess a minimum of three
years of relevant experience as an interpreter or equivalence such as
relevant professional experience and years of education (credit hours)
not equivalent to a formal degree.
Credentials and Certifications
Comments: Some commenters indicated that the priority does not
mention credentials that participants must achieve upon successful
completion of the training program. One commenter recommended the
Department consider other available national-level credentials that are
equivalent to credentials awarded by the RID. Another commenter
suggested the Department consider State-level certification or
licensure, such as the Board for Evaluation of Interpreters (BEI), for
certification or licensure to
[[Page 53275]]
offer interpreting services within the State. One commenter noted that
the BEI testing options include basic, advanced, and master's level
certification tests, as well as testing in legal interpreting,
trilingual interpreting, a certified deaf interpreter test, and a soon-
to-be-released medical interpreting test.
Discussion: The priority does not designate a specific
certification as a desired outcome for this program, nor does it
require participants to achieve a designated certification upon
successful completion in the program. However, applicants may choose to
award continuing education credits or college or master's level credits
to participants in the training program and we encourage applicants to
consider doing so.
We believe 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.
Applicants may use national and State-level licensures and
certifications, as applicable, to assess participant progress in
competency and skill level. Any proposed instruments must be valid and
reliable and the applicant must submit a rationale to support the use
of each instrument. However, the Department does not consider it
appropriate at this time to require all applicants to adopt specific
national or State-level certifications or licensures.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the priority requires trainers
to be certified or recognized in the specialty area of training, but
does not believe there is enough data to determine whether there are
enough trainers in specialty areas to meet this requirement.
The commenter also does not believe there is data to indicate
whether a sufficiently large pool of working interpreters that possess
baccalaureate degrees in ASL-English and three years of interpreting
experience who also possess competence in the proposed specialty
training areas.
This commenter recommended the Department include flexibility on
the qualifications of trainers, as well in the definition of ``working
interpreter.''
Discussion: We believe the priority provides sufficient flexibility
on the qualifications of trainers. Under paragraph (b)(2) of the
requirements for this program, applicants may identify and partner with
trainers who are either certified or recognized in the specialty area
through formal or informal certification. If certification is not
available in the specialty area, applicants may provide evidence of
relevant training and experience (e.g., provide a portfolio that
includes training verification, video samples, letters of support from
consumers and employers, etc.).
As stated earlier, we have also amended the definition of ``working
interpreter'' to include interpreters with a baccalaureate degree in
ASL-English who possess a minimum of three years of relevant experience
as an interpreter or equivalence such as relevant professional
experience, and years of education (credit hours) not totaling a formal
degree.
Change: None.
Project Requirements
Comment: One commenter asked the Department to clarify the baseline
numbers against which ``increased'' numbers will be measured for
project outcomes (i.e. an increase in the number of interpreters who
are trained to work with deaf consumers who require specialized
interpreting and an increase in the number of interpreters trained in
specialty areas who obtain or advance in employment in the areas for
which they were prepared).
Discussion: We intend for applicants to provide baseline data in
their applications for the actual or estimated number of working
interpreters currently trained in a specialty area. We acknowledge that
baseline numbers may not be available to applicants proposing to
develop training in topics that address new specialty areas. In those
cases, we will accept zero as a baseline, provided that the applicants
adequately explain the lack of data to establish a baseline. We also
expect applicants to provide a target number of new working
interpreters that will be trained in a specialty area.
Change: We added a new paragraph (a)(2) to the requirements to
clarify baseline and target data that must be included in the
application.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department clarify the
purpose of the coordination and communication requirement in paragraph
(c)(10)(iv)(B). For example, one commenter asked if this requirement
allows applicants to interact with specific projects funded by the
Department, such as the IDEA Personnel Development to Improve Services
and Results for Children with Disabilities Program, which can support
projects focused on K-12 interpreting.
One commenter recommended interaction with other Department-funded
projects and stated that dysfluent language evident in deaf adults can
be traced, in part, to inadequate language models early in life.
According to this commenter, coordination of interpreter education
efforts between children and adults could be a key step to addressing
dysfluency among future Deaf generations.
Discussion: We intended for the language in requirement
(c)(10)(iv)(B) to mean that grantees would communicate, coordinate, and
collaborate with other Department-funded projects for the purposes of
exchanging relevant information such as outcome data and promising
practices, as well as disseminating training material and products
developed under this program. Applicants may also communicate,
coordinate, and collaborate with other Department-funded projects for
the purposes of informing, improving, and strengthening training
developed under this program. The priority does not require formal
relationships (e.g., memoranda of understanding) with other Department-
funded projects.
We will not further specify how this communication, collaboration,
or coordination will occur because we believe applicants are well
suited to make this determination.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of the second
paragraph under the proposed priority concerning whether pre-service
training is an allowable project activity. The commenter suggested the
Department consider allowing the development of content for pre-service
training because it could have a positive long-term impact on the
quality of interpreting.
Discussion: Pre-service training is not the focus of this priority.
The priority states that applicants may develop a new training program
or stand-alone modules that could also be incorporated into an existing
baccalaureate degree ASL-English program. Applicants are expected to
develop and deliver training of sufficient scope, intensity, and
duration for working interpreters to achieve increased skill,
knowledge, and competence in a specialty area. However, applicants may
consider a variety of resources (such as available pre-service training
material) that may inform, support, or strengthen the development of
training for English-ASL
[[Page 53276]]
interpreter training in specialized areas. As a result of new training
curricula established through this program, pre-service training
modules could be developed as a ``feeder'' into existing baccalaureate
degree ASL-English programs.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that project timelines be
proposed, but not required, in the priority. The commenter reasoned
that the requirement to develop training materials and curricula in a
single year and then implement them over the following four years is
not unreasonable but noted that, with a focus on new specialty training
areas, a complete curriculum could require two or more years to
develop. The commenter also recommended that the timeline in each
application be reviewed on its own merits. For example, an application
to address training in a new specialty area may require more time,
funding, and extended collaboration to fully develop a curriculum. On
the other hand, an application that demonstrates the intention of
building on, enhancing, or significantly revising a previously
developed curriculum might be completed more quickly.
Discussion: We agree that an application to address training in a
new specialty area may require more time to fully develop a curriculum.
Therefore, if applicants determine additional time may be necessary to
fully develop a curriculum and obtain input and feedback from key
partners, relevant stakeholders, and consumers, they must provide
adequate justification in their application.
Change: In the final priority we have added that applicants must
provide adequate justification in their application if they determine
additional time may be necessary to fully develop a curriculum and
obtain input and feedback from key partners, relevant stakeholders, and
consumers.
Administration of the Grants
Comment: One commenter suggested the Department award these
projects as cooperative agreements rather than grants. Another
commenter stated that implementing a cooperative agreement for this
funding would be a positive strategy to monitor quality and achievement
of proposed goals. This commenter further stated that providing
transparent decision-making by RSA, with open and explicit rationales
for funding choices and re-funding choices, is needed in order to
insure that an evaluation is effectively conducted and that funds are
awarded (or withheld) based on evidence of effective program
management. This commenter urged the Department to require transparent
reporting by, and evaluation of, the grantee that is easily and quickly
accessible and that encourages public input at every evaluation point,
in order to help insure that such evaluation is incorporated and
integrated throughout.
Discussion: The priority does not specify whether these projects
would be awarded as cooperative agreements. The Department has
flexibility to make this determination, and we will announce that
decision in the notice inviting applications. As to the commenter's
recommendation that the Department involve the public in reporting by
grantees and evaluation of the projects, the Department already has
established processes and procedures for monitoring project
performance. Further, the Notice Inviting Applications will specify
annual and final reporting requirements and performance measures.
The Department is committed to transparency and will make available
to the public abstracts of successful applications. Products produced
as a result of these grants will be made available to the public
through the National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training
Materials.
Change: None.
Final Priority: This notice contains one final priority.
Interpreter Training in Specialty Areas.
Final Priority: The purpose of this priority is to fund projects
that provide training for English-American Sign Language (ASL)
interpreter training in specialty areas. The training must be provided
to working interpreters (e.g., interpreters with a baccalaureate degree
in ASL-English who possess a minimum of three years of relevant
experience as an interpreter or equivalence such as relevant
professional experience, and years of education (credit hours) not
totaling a formal degree) who need to develop a new skill area or
enhance an existing skill area. Within this final priority, the
Assistant Secretary intends to fund training in the following specialty
areas: (1) Interpreting for consumers with dysfluent language
competencies (e.g., individuals who use idiosyncratic signs or display
limited first language competency in either spoken or sign language,
due to delayed acquisition of the first language); (2) trilingual
interpreting (e.g., language fluency in first, second, and third
languages with one of the three languages being ASL); and (3) field-
initiated topics.
During the project, applicants must develop and deliver training of
sufficient scope, intensity, and duration for working interpreters to
achieve increased skill, knowledge, and competence in a specialty area.
Applicants may develop a new training program or stand-alone modules
that could also be incorporated into an existing baccalaureate degree
ASL-English program. The training program or modules must be developed
by the end of the first year of the project period and delivered in
years two, three, four, and five of the project period. Applicants must
provide adequate justification in their application if they determine
additional time may be necessary to fully develop a curriculum and
obtain input and feedback from key partners, relevant stakeholders, and
consumers.
The projects must be designed to achieve, at a minimum, the
following outcomes:
(a) An increase in the number of interpreters who are trained to
work with deaf consumers who require specialized interpreting; and
(b) An increase in the number of interpreters trained in specialty
areas who obtain or advance in employment in the areas for which they
were prepared.
To be considered for funding, applicants must meet the requirements
contained in this final priority, which are as follows:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance of the Project,'' how the proposed project will address
the need for sign language interpreters in a specialty area. To address
this requirement, applicants must:
(1) Present applicable data demonstrating the need for interpreters
in the specialty area for which training will be developed by the
project in at least three distinct, noncontiguous geographic areas,
which may include the U.S. Territories;
(2) Present baseline data for the number or estimated number of
working interpreters currently trained in a specialty area. In the
event that an applicant proposes training in a new specialty area that
does not currently exist or for which there are no baseline data, the
applicant should provide an adequate explanation of the lack of
reliable data and may report zero as a baseline;
(3) Explain how the project will increase the number of working
interpreters in a specialty area who demonstrate the necessary
competencies to meet the communication needs of individuals who are
deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must--
[[Page 53277]]
(i) Identify competencies that working interpreters must
demonstrate in order to provide high-quality services in the identified
specialty area using practices that are promising or based on
instruction supported by evidence and intervention, when available; and
(ii) Demonstrate that the identified competencies are based on
practices that are promising or supported by evidence that will result
in effectively meeting the communication needs of individuals who are
deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of Project Design,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Provide training in person or remotely to at least three
distinct, noncontiguous geographic areas identified in paragraph
(a)(1);
(2) Identify and partner with trainers who are certified and
recognized in the specialty area through formal or informal
certification to develop and deliver the training. If certification is
not available in the specialty area, provide evidence of relevant
training and experience (e.g., provide a portfolio that includes
training verification, video samples, letters of support from consumers
and employers, etc.);
(3) 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 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;
(ii) How the proposed project will engage working interpreters with
different learning styles; and
(iii) How the proposed project will ensure that working
interpreters interact with deaf individuals who have a range of
communication skills, from those with limited language skills to those
with high-level, professional language skills.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
Project Services,'' the applicant must--
(1) Demonstrate how the project will ensure equal access and
treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups
who have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color,
national origin, gender, age, or disability;
(2) Describe the criteria that will be used to identify high-
quality applicants for participation in the program, including any pre-
assessments that may be used to determine the skill, knowledge base,
and competence of the working interpreter;
(3) Describe the recruitment strategies the project will use to
attract high-quality working interpreters, including specific
strategies targeting high-quality participants from traditionally
underrepresented groups (e.g., individuals with disabilities and
individuals living in remote areas);
(4) Describe how the project will ensure that all training
activities and materials are fully accessible;
(5) Describe the approach that will be used to enable more working
interpreters to participate in and successfully complete the training
program, specifically participants who need to work while in the
program, have child care or elder care considerations, or live in
geographically isolated areas. The approach must emphasize innovative
instructional delivery methods, such as distance learning or block
scheduling (a type of academic scheduling that offers students fewer
classes per day for longer periods of time), which would allow working
interpreters to more easily participate in the program;
(6) Describe the approach that will be used to enable working
interpreters to successfully complete the program or stand-alone
modules, to include mentoring, monitoring, and accommodation support
services;
(7) Describe how the project will incorporate practices that are
promising and supported by evidence for adult learners;
(8) Demonstrate how the project is of sufficient scope, intensity,
and duration to adequately prepare working interpreters in the
identified specialty area of training. To address this requirement, the
applicant must describe how--
(i) The components of the proposed project will support working
interpreters' acquisition and enhancement of the competencies
identified in paragraph (a)(2)(i);
(ii) The components of the project will allow working interpreters
to apply their content knowledge in a practical setting;
(iii) The proposed project will provide working interpreters with
ongoing guidance and feedback; and
(iv) The proposed project will provide ongoing induction
opportunities and support working interpreters after completion of the
specialty area program.
(9) Demonstrate how the proposed project will actively engage
representation from consumers, consumer organizations, and service
providers, especially vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies,
interpreters, interpreter training programs, and individuals who are
deaf and deaf-blind in the project, including project development,
design, implementation, delivery of training, dissemination,
sustainability planning, program evaluation, and other relevant areas
as determined by the applicant;
(10) Describe how the project will conduct dissemination and
coordination activities. To meet this requirement, the applicant must--
(i) Describe its plan for disseminating information to and
coordinating with VR agencies, American Job Centers and other workforce
partners regarding finding interpreters with the specialized
interpreting skills needed; disseminating information to working
interpreters about training available in the specialty area, and
broadly disseminating successful strategies for preparing working
interpreters in a specialty area;
(ii) Describe its strategy for disseminating products developed
during the project period. To meet this requirement the applicant
must--
(A) Develop and maintain a state-of-the-art archiving and
dissemination system that is open and available to the public and
provides a central location for later use of training materials,
including curricula, audiovisual materials, Webinars, examples of
emerging and promising practices, and any other relevant material;
(B) Provide a minimum of three Webinars or video conferences over
the course of the project. Applicants may determine the audience,
content, and goals of this activity. For instance, applicants may
consider disseminating information to working interpreters not enrolled
in the program about training in a specialty area, as well as
interacting with interpreter educators about the curriculum or training
module design, challenges, solutions, and results achieved.
Note: All products produced by the grantees must meet
government- and industry-recognized standards for accessibility,
including section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
(iii) Describe its approach for incorporating the use of
information technology (IT) into all aspects of the project. The
approach must include establishing and maintaining a state-of-the-art
IT platform that is sufficient to support Webinars, teleconferences,
video conferences, and other virtual methods of dissemination of
information.
Note: In meeting the requirements mentioned in paragraphs
(c)(10)(ii)(A) and
[[Page 53278]]
(B) and (c)(10)(iii) above, projects may either develop new
platforms or systems or may modify existing platforms or systems, so
long as the requirements of this priority are met.
(iv) Describe its approach for conducting coordination and
collaboration activities. To meet this requirement, the applicant
must--
(A) Establish a community of practice \3\ in the specialty area of
training that focuses on project activities in this priority and acts
as a vehicle for communication and exchange of information among
participants in the program and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate with other relevant
Department-funded projects, as applicable;
(C) Maintain ongoing communication with the RSA project officer and
other RSA staff as required; and
(D) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate, as appropriate, with
key staff in State VR agencies, such as the State Coordinators for the
Deaf; State and local partner programs; consumer organizations and
associations, including those that represent individuals who are deaf,
hard of hearing, deaf-blind, and late deafened; and relevant RSA
partner organizations and associations.
(d) 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 evaluation plan must describe--
(1) An approach, using pre- and post-assessments, for assessing the
level of knowledge, skills, and competencies gained among participants;
(2) An approach for assessing the application of knowledge, skills,
and competencies after completion; and
(3) An approach for incorporating oral and written feedback from
trainers, from deaf consumers, and any feedback from mentoring sessions
conducted with the participants;
(4) Evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data
collection methods, and analyses that will be used to evaluate the
project;
(5) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) 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 coordinate the design and
implementation of the evaluation. For example, coordination with any
identified partners in the application and RSA to make revisions post
award to the logic model in order to reflect any changes or
clarifications to the model and to the evaluation design and
instrumentation with the logic model (e.g., designing instruments and
developing quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit
collecting of progress data and assessing project outcomes);
(7) The standards and targets for determining effectiveness of the
project;
(8) How evaluation results will be used to examine the
effectiveness of implementation and the progress toward achieving the
intended outcomes; and
(9) How the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and
qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project activities
achieved their intended outcomes.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of Project Resources,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
with the project from persons who are members of groups that have
historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability;
(2) The proposed project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors
have the qualifications and experience to provide training to working
interpreters and to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any identified 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;
(f) 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
will be 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, especially relevant partners, groups, and organizations
described throughout this notice, in its development and operation.
(g) 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, person-loading charts and timelines, as
applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative; and
(3) Include, in the budget, attendance at a one-day intensive
review meeting in Washington, DC, during the third quarter of the third
year of the project period.
Specialty Areas
With this final priority, the Secretary intends to fund four
national projects in the following specialty areas: (1) Interpreting
for consumers with dysfluent language competencies (e.g., individuals
who use idiosyncratic signs or display limited first language
competency in either spoken or sign language, due to delayed
acquisition of the first language); (2) trilingual interpreting (e.g.,
language fluency in first, second, and third languages with one of the
three languages being ASL); and (3) field-initiated topics. Applicants
must identify the specific focus area (1, 2, or 3) under which they are
applying as part of the competition title on the application cover
sheet (SF form 424, line 4).
Applicants may submit proposals under one or more specialty area.
[[Page 53279]]
Applications proposing the same content for different specialty areas
will not be considered.
Applicants may combine more than one specialty and these
applications must be submitted under Specialty Area 3: Field-initiated
topics.
Specialty Area 1: Interpreting for Consumers With Dysfluent Language
Competencies
Interpreting for deaf and hard of hearing, and deaf-blind consumers
with dysfluent language competencies include: (1) Those with limited,
idiosyncratic, or differing levels of first and second language fluency
in English and ASL); (2) those who have families using non-English
spoken languages at home and have limited or no fluency in English and
ASL; and (3) those with cognitive and physical disabilities that impact
linguistic competencies. Under this specialty area, applicants may
include trilingual interpreting as a secondary focus for working
interpreters who may require both training as trilingual interpreters
and gaining familiarity working with dysfluent individuals.
Specialty Area 2: Trilingual Interpreting
Trilingual interpreting is interpreting between three different
languages; that is, two spoken languages such as English and Spanish,
and ASL. This requires a working interpreter to be competent in three
different languages and seamlessly facilitate communication between
those languages in real time. RSA is seeking to fund similar projects
in trilingual interpreting that includes languages that may be spoken
in the United States. Applications may address multiple language
combinations. In this instance, applicants must propose a framework
that will be used to provide trilingual interpreter training.
Applicants must develop separate modules for each language and ensure
the training content appropriately addresses the cultural nuances of
the language.
Applicants that choose to focus on trilingual interpreting in
English/Spanish/ASL must propose to improve, update, and develop new
material to support existing specialty training in this area.
Applicants must describe in their application specific improvements,
updates, and new material to be developed and provide rationale for why
this is needed. Applicants must provide evidence to support the demand
for trilingual interpreters in English/Spanish/ASL and, to the extent
possible, specify areas of the country in which there are not enough
trilingual English/Spanish/ASL interpreters to adequate meet the
communication needs of Deaf, hard-of-hearing, and Deaf-blind consumers.
Trilingual interpreting in English/Spanish/ASL that proposes only
to continue existing training developed during the 2010-2016 grant
cycle or earlier cycles is not eligible under this priority.
Specialty Area 3: Field-Initiated Topics
Field-initiated topics that address the needs of working
interpreters to acquire specialized knowledge and competencies. These
topics may address new specialty areas that require development of
training modules of sufficient intensity, duration, and scope of
sequence to warrant funding of an entire grant. Proposed topics may
also replace training in an established specialty area that is no
longer relevant. For instance, applicants may propose new or updated
training, such as interpreting in a VR setting given reauthorization of
the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, by WIOA. Applicants may also
propose new subsets of training in established specialty areas. For
instance, in health care interpreting, mental health might be one
permissible subset of training because it has its own unique challenges
and complexities in terms of setting and deaf consumer needs. In
addition, applicants must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate
the need for the proposed new specialty training project or to show
that an existing specialty training project is not adequately meeting
the training needs of interpreters in order to better meet the
linguistic and communication needs of deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-
blind consumers.
Applicants may also propose to enhance existing training developed
in prior grant cycles for deaf-blind interpreting, health care
interpreting, legal interpreting, interpreting in a VR setting,
interpreting provided by Deaf interpreters, and video remote
interpreting and video relay interpreting. In this instance, applicants
must propose to improve, update, and develop new material to support
existing specialty training in these areas. Applicants must describe in
their application specific improvements, updates, and new material to
be developed and provide rationale for why this is needed. Applicants
must demonstrate the demand for interpreters in these existing
specialty areas and, to the extent possible, specify areas of the
country in which there are not enough trained interpreters to
adequately meet the communication needs of deaf, hard-of-hearing, and
deaf-blind consumers.
Applications that propose only to continue existing training in
these areas are not eligible for funding. Additional field-initiated
topics not eligible under this final priority include topics focusing
on educational interpreting for pre-k-12 and deaf self-advocacy
training.
Note: The Secretary intends to fund a total of four projects in
FY 2016 that have been awarded at least eighty-percent of the
maximum possible points, including at least one project from each of
the three specialty areas. As a result, the Secretary may fund
applications out of rank order.
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, 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
[[Page 53280]]
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, training will be provided to working
interpreters for English-ASL interpreter training in specialty areas.
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. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on
processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and
review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions 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 (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: August 9, 2016.
Sue Swenson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2016-19273 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P