Final Priority-Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind Program, 53271-53280 [2016-19273]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[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: Kristen.Rhinehart@ed.gov.
    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