Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 39965 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Amend § 117.1087 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 117.1087 Fox River. 

* * * * * 

(c) The draw of the Canadian National 

Railroad Bridge at mile 55.72 shall open 

on signal, except from October 8 

through April 26; the draw shall open 

if at least 12-hours advance notice is 

given. The bridge is authorized to be 

operated remotely. The owners of the 

bridge shall provide and keep in good 

legible condition two board gauges 

painted white with black figures to 

indicate the vertical clearance under the 

closed draw at all water levels. The 

gauges shall be so placed on the bridge 

that they are plainly visible to operators 

of vessels approaching the bridge either 

up or downstream. The bridge shall 

operate and maintain a VHF–FM Marine 

Radio. In addition to the required bridge 

lights, the owner’s shall install and 

maintain alternating red lights in a 

horizontal line that mimic grade 

crossing lights and bell to warn 

mariners that the bridge is lowering. 

* * * * * 

M.J. Johnston, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15806 Filed 7–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2021–OSERS–0003] 

Final Priority and Requirements— 

Training of Interpreters for Individuals 

Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and 

Individuals Who Are DeafBlind 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priority and requirements. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) announces a priority and 

requirements for the Training of 

Interpreters for Individuals Who Are 

Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals 

Who Are DeafBlind program, Assistance 

Listing Number 84.160D. The 

Department may use the priority and 

requirements for competitions in 

Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2021 and later 

years. We take this action to provide 

training to working interpreters in order 

to develop a new skill area or enhance 

an existing skill area. This notice relates 

to the approved information collection 

under OMB control number 1820–0018. 

DATES: This priority and requirements 

are effective August 25, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW, Room 5094, Potomac 

Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202– 

2800. Telephone: (202) 245–6103. 

Email: 160D@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: The Training of 

Interpreters for Individuals Who Are 

Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals 

Who Are DeafBlind program is designed 

to establish interpreter training 

programs or to provide financial 

assistance for ongoing interpreter 

programs to train a sufficient number of 

qualified interpreters throughout the 

country in order to meet the 

communication needs of individuals 

who are deaf or hard of hearing and 

individuals who are DeafBlind by— 

(a) Training interpreters to effectively 

interpret and transliterate between 

spoken language and sign language and 

to transliterate between spoken language 

and oral or tactile modes of 

communication; 

(b) Ensuring the maintenance of the 

interpreting skills of qualified 

interpreters; and 

(c) Providing opportunities for 

interpreters to raise their skill level 

competence in order to meet the highest 

standards approved by certifying 

associations. 

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709(c) 

and 772(a) and (f). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 396. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority and requirements (NPP) for this 

competition in the Federal Register on 

March 2, 2021 (86 FR 12136). That 

document contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing the priority and 

requirements. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 71 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priority and requirements. Most of the 

commenters expressed support for the 

specialty areas in the priority, which 

included increasing skills of novice 

interpreters, trilingual interpreting 

(including Spanish), advanced skills for 

working interpreters, as well as fieldinitiated projects such as interpreting in 

healthcare (including hard-to-serve 

populations), interpreting for 

individuals who are DeafBlind, and 

atypical language interpreting. 

Commenters expressed that the 

specialty areas are relevant, critical, and 

appropriately value remote learning, 

field work, mentorship, and coaching 

experiences. 

We group major issues according to 

subject and discuss substantive issues 

under the title of the priority or 

requirement to which they pertain. 

Generally, we do not address technical 

and other minor changes. In addition, 

we do not address general comments 

that raised concerns not related to the 

proposed priority or requirements. 

Analysis of the Comments and 

Changes: An analysis of the comments 

and of any changes in the priority and 

requirements since publication of the 

NPP follows. 

Interpreting in Specialty Areas 

Comment: One commenter referenced 

Specialty Area (1) (increasing skills for 

novice interpreters) and reiterated that, 

according to the National Interpreter 

Education Center (NIEC), challenges 

facing interpreter training and education 

programs are prevalent. The commenter 

asserted that interpreter education 

programs fail to produce enough 

American Sign Language (ASL) fluent 

graduates and further stated that there 

needs to be an emphasis on recruiting 

individuals from underrepresented 

groups for interpreter training programs. 

The commenter also stated that 

retention of novice interpreters from 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
39966 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

underrepresented groups is vital to the 

success of the specialty area. The 

commenter noted that there are 

currently gaps in knowledge about the 

interpreting process and ethical 

decision-making among novice 

interpreters. The commenter also stated 

that training programs should include 

curriculum that is accessible for 

students who are deaf and hard of 

hearing. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

with the comments about the 

importance of training and education 

for, and retention of, interpreters, 

including interpreters from 

underrepresented groups. Applicants 

are encouraged to formulate curriculum 

for novice interpreters from 

underrepresented groups, novice 

interpreters who are deaf or hard of 

hearing, and other groups of novice 

interpreters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Six commenters expressed 

support for Specialty Area (2) (trilingual 

interpreting (including Spanish)) and 

explained that the demand for trilingual 

interpreters grows every year as more 

diverse and Spanish-speaking 

individuals who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, and DeafBlind enter higher 

education and the workforce. One 

commenter noted that expanding 

interpreter training to individuals from 

a variety of backgrounds would increase 

the availability of interpreters with 

skills in third languages. The same 

commenter explained that interpreters 

will benefit from this specialty area by 

expanding their skills in trilingual 

interpreting and the recipients of 

services will benefit from the diverse 

range of interpreter skills available to 

them. Furthermore, commenters 

explained that this specialty area will 

help interpreter training participants to 

unlearn bias, develop problem-solving 

skills, and be more open-minded. A 

final commenter recommended adding a 

third language requirement to 

interpreter training programs so that 

interpreters may assist individuals who 

do not use ASL as their primary 

language. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the comments. In the 

background section of the NPP, we 

explained that there may be parts of the 

country where multiple languages are 

spoken by individuals who are deaf and 

hard of hearing. Therefore, applicants 

may propose projects with multiple 

language combinations, which may 

include individuals who use signed 

languages other than ASL as their 

primary language. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Four commenters 

expressed support for Specialty Area (3) 

(advanced skills for working 

interpreters). One commenter stated that 

interpreters with advanced skills and 

knowledge of highly specialized 

terminology, discourse, and emerging 

areas of ASL are drastically needed to 

assist individuals who are deaf and hard 

of hearing and pursuing highly 

specialized areas of education. 

Commenters stated that knowledge and 

awareness of the ethical implications in 

the field of interpreting are vital for 

interpreter training programs. Lastly, 

one commenter emphasized that 

heritage signers would greatly benefit 

from gaining advanced skills in 

interpreting and that heritage language 

interpreters should be explicitly 

included within the specialty area. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comments and agree that it is crucial for 

interpreters, including heritage signers 

who are working as interpreters, to 

improve their working knowledge and 

skills and stay up to date on ethical 

considerations in interpreting. 

Applicants who identify a need for 

advanced skills for working interpreters 

are encouraged to apply under this 

specialty area. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Six commenters expressed 

support for Specialty Area (5), topic area 

(a) (interpreting in healthcare including 

interpreting for hard-to-serve 

populations). Two commenters 

emphasized the severe lack of qualified 

interpreters within the healthcare 

profession and the barriers this creates 

for individuals who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, and DeafBlind. The 

commenters referred to the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA), and stated 

that effective communication is vital to 

ensure individuals who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, and DeafBlind receive quality 

healthcare. The same commenters 

explained that a delay in effective 

communication can lead to a delay in 

direct patient care, including care 

coordination, and can ultimately 

produce poor patient outcomes. Two 

commenters expressed the increased 

need for interpreters who are proficient 

in telehealth and telemedicine settings 

and that training in this area should be 

incorporated within the specialty area. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the comments and agrees 

that effective communication is vital for 

individuals who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, and DeafBlind to receive 

quality healthcare services. 

Furthermore, the Department agrees that 

the demand for telehealth appointments 

has grown due to the COVID–19 

pandemic and accommodations for 

individuals who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, and DeafBlind are necessary. 

Applicants under this specialty area 

may incorporate skills training for 

interpreting in telehealth settings to best 

facilitate telehealth medical 

appointments. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Nine commenters 

expressed support for Specialty Area 

(5), topic area (b) (interpreting for 

individuals who are DeafBlind). 

Commenters highlighted the essential 

connection between access to skilled 

interpreters and autonomy for 

individuals who are DeafBlind. 

Within Specialty Area (5), topic area 

(b), many commenters stated support for 

training in and awareness of protactile 

interpreting because it is critical for the 

success, autonomy, and opportunities 

for employment of individuals who are 

DeafBlind. Commenters asserted that 

the traditional means of communication 

for individuals who are DeafBlind, such 

as manual ASL and print-on-palm, lack 

the fullness and richness of expression 

found in protactile ASL. Three 

commenters stated that grantees focused 

on protactile ASL should commit to 

following evidence-based practices as a 

result of baseline data collected over the 

past five years and should recruit 

experienced DeafBlind language experts 

to assist in the formulation of the 

project. Another commenter referenced 

survey results from multiple training 

cohorts of Deafblind interpreters that 

recognized protactile interpreting as a 

language separate from ASL with its 

own grammatical rules. Finally, one 

commenter shared that the extreme lack 

of protactile interpreters has created a 

compounding negative effect for 

individuals who are DeafBlind, such as 

a lack of educational opportunities, 

isolation, and mental health issues. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comments. We agree with the 

commenters who recommended that 

projects be based on evidence-based 

practices and note that the priority 

addresses the use of evidence-based 

practices. Under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Significance of the 

Proposed Project,’’ paragraphs (a)(3)(i)– 

(ii), applicants must identify 

competencies that working interpreters 

must demonstrate in order to provide 

high-quality services in the identified 

specialty area using practices that 

demonstrate a rationale or are based on 

instruction supported by evidence, 

when available, and demonstrate that 

the identified competencies are based 

on practices that demonstrate a rationale 

or are supported by evidence. 

Additionally, under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Quality of Project 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 39967 

Services,’’ paragraph (c)(6), applicants 

must describe how the project will 

incorporate adult learning principles 

and practices that demonstrate a 

rationale or are supported by promising 

evidence for adult learners. 

In response to the commenter’s 

suggestion that experienced DeafBlind 

language experts should assist in the 

formulation of the project, the 

Department notes that the priority 

addresses how interpreters, interpreter 

educators, and others will be involved 

in the formulation of the project. Under 

Application Requirements, ‘‘Quality of 

Project Design’’ paragraph (b)(3), 

applicants must describe how the 

proposed project will provide skilled, 

diverse, and experienced leaders, 

mentors, facilitators, coaches, and 

subject matter experts, as appropriate 

for the specialty area, to participants, as 

needed. Lastly, the Department 

recognizes the need for training and 

awareness of pro-tactile American sign 

language (PTASL). As we noted in the 

background section of the NPP, projects 

under Specialty Area (5), topic area (b), 

may include various techniques for 

interpreting for individuals who are 

DeafBlind, including print on palm 

(POP), tactile sign language, tracking, 

tactile fingerspelling, Tadoma, PTASL, 

and others. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Four commenters stated 

support for Specialty Area (5), topic area 

(c) (atypical language interpreting). With 

regard to the background information 

provided in the NPP on topic area (c), 

one commenter noted that while 

Specialty Area (5), topic area (c), 

acknowledges the senior deaf 

population, the specialty area should be 

expanded to include training for 

interpreters needed as the result of an 

injury or sudden change in verbal 

communication. The commenter stated 

that although the inclusion of the senior 

deaf population is positive for those 

who can communicate easily with an 

interpreter, it may be difficult for an 

individual who is not used to working 

with an interpreter. The commenter 

explained that having the skillset in 

atypical language interpreting is 

essential, but the ability to meet an 

individual at their level of 

understanding is also essential. 

Additionally, the commenter stated that 

individuals who demonstrate nonverbal communication would also 

benefit from interpreters trained in this 

specialty area. Another commenter 

asked if grantees are permitted to 

expand atypical language interpreting 

services to deaf seniors who may not be 

receiving VR services. 

Discussion: To expand on the 

background information provided in the 

NPP, we support the inclusion of 

individuals who may become deaf as a 

result of injury, illness, or sudden 

change from verbal to non-verbal 

communication (late-deafened 

individuals) as those who may seek 

services from interpreters trained in 

atypical language. According to the 

NIEC trends report (2015), the latedeafened population is growing swiftly 

and includes a growing population of 

returning veterans with hearing loss. 

According to the Hearing Health 

Foundation, 60 percent of veterans 

returning from Iraq and Afghanistan 

have a hearing loss, and the Department 

of Defense identified hearing loss as the 

most prevalent war wound. Lastly, in 

response to a question posed by a 

commenter about expanding atypical 

language interpreting services to deaf 

seniors who may not be receiving VR 

services, atypical language interpreting 

services can be extended to all 

participants supported by the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

(Rehabilitation Act), even if they are not 

actively seeking VR services. 

Changes: None. 

Eligibility Requirements 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed a desire that we expand the 

specialty areas to include training for 

interpreters to meet the needs of 

students who are deaf, hard of hearing, 

and DeafBlind from pre-Kindergarten 

(pre-K) to grade 12 and increase the 

number of highly qualified interpreters 

in the classroom. Two commenters 

referred to Universal Design (UD) for 

Learning, which provides the 

opportunity for all students to access, 

participate in, and progress in generaleducation curriculum by reducing 

barriers to instruction. The same two 

commenters also referred to the least 

restrictive environment, which requires 

that students with disabilities receive an 

education to the maximum extent 

appropriate, with nondisabled peers, 

and that special education students are 

not removed from regular classes unless 

education in regular classes with the use 

of supplemental aids and services 

cannot be achieved. Commenters stated 

that training interpreters and increasing 

standards will positively affect how 

students receive an education and how 

students develop the skills they need to 

succeed in life. Further, commenters 

noted that interpreters trained in 

specialized areas are needed for high 

school students taking advanced classes 

such as calculus, physics, and STEM. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comments describing the need for 

highly qualified interpreters for students 

from pre-K to grade 12, including 

interpreters trained in specialized areas 

needed for high school students, and the 

information about UD and the least 

restrictive environment. The 

Department funds grant awards to train 

interpreters to work with children from 

pre-K to grade 12 under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 

Personnel Preparation in Special 

Education, Early Intervention, and 

Related Services program. It would be 

duplicative to include training for 

interpreters to work with children and 

students from pre-K to grade 12 in this 

priority. The purpose of this priority is 

to fund projects that provide training to 

working interpreters in one of five 

specialty areas to effectively meet the 

communication needs of individuals 

who are deaf or hard of hearing and 

individuals who are DeafBlind receiving 

VR services and/or services from other 

programs, such as independent living 

services, under the Rehabilitation Act. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended adding a requirement 

that eligible applicants possess 

Commission on Collegiate Interpreter 

Education (CCIE) accreditation because 

CCIE is the only recognized external 

reviewing body to provide assurance 

that interpreter education programs 

have met standards of quality. One 

commenter noted that, under 

Application Requirements, ‘‘Quality of 

Project Design,’’ paragraph (b)(1), 

applicants may be required to develop 

a new training program or stand-alone 

modules that can be incorporated into 

existing ASL/English or ASL/other 

spoken language interpreter education 

programs. The commenter stated that if 

the grantee does not hold CCIE 

accreditation, these potentially highimpact deliverables may be of 

insufficient quality. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the comments. We recognize 

that CCIE is the only entity in the field 

of interpreter education that measures 

the standards of interpreter education 

programs. We also understand CCIE was 

founded to promote professionalism in 

the field of interpreter education 

through the process of accreditation. We 

are concerned about budgetary and 

other constraints that may limit 

institutions pursuing CCIE 

accreditation. Additionally, requiring 

applicants to possess CCIE accreditation 

would limit the pool of eligible 

applicants. At this time, there are 58 

identified baccalaureate (BA) 

interpreting programs nationwide 

representing full interpreting BA 

programs or a BA with interpreting 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
39968 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

combined with another study. Of those, 

according to the CCIE website, 16 BA 

programs are CCIE accredited. By not 

requiring CCIE accreditation, we are 

broadening the applicant pool, 

especially for novice applicants, and 

ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion 

among all prospective applicants. 

Changes: None. 

Other Areas 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended expanding the nondiscrimination categories included 

under Application Requirements, 

paragraph (c)(1) and (e)(1), which state 

that applicants must 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. One commenter commended 

the Department for its inclusion of 

‘‘gender’’ within the list of nondiscrimination categories, which 

safeguards transgender individuals or 

those otherwise impacted by gender 

identity. The commenter further noted 

that ‘‘sexual orientation’’ should be 

included within the list of nondiscrimination categories. The 

commenter explained that the inclusion 

of ‘‘sexual orientation’’ is important for 

the protection of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, 

Transgender, and Queer/Questioning 

(LBGTQ) individuals, as members of a 

group that has traditionally been 

underrepresented. Another commenter 

urged the Department to expand the list 

of non-discrimination categories to 

include gender identity or expression, 

racial identity, religious affiliation, 

sexual orientation, socioeconomic 

status, deaf or hard of hearing status, 

disability status, age, geographic locale, 

sign language interpreting experience, 

certification status and level, and 

language basis. The commenter asked 

that applications be evaluated based on 

a commitment to ensuring participation 

from the widest variety of society. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the comments regarding the 

groups of people that have been 

traditionally underrepresented 

described under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Quality of Project 

Services,’’ paragraph (c)(1) and 

‘‘Adequacy of Project Resources,’’ 

paragraph (e)(1). In these requirements, 

the groups of people that we have 

identified as historically 

underrepresented mirror the identified 

groups in the Department’s general 

selection criteria for discretionary grant 

competitions in 34 CFR 75.210. We 

recognize that this list is not exhaustive. 

However, as we intend to use the 

selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 in 

combination with these application 

requirements in the competition for this 

program, it is important that the lists of 

groups align to help ensure clarity and 

consistency. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

trained interpreters need to have 

background checks before working with 

individuals who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, and DeafBlind. 

Discussion: The Department 

acknowledges the importance of safety 

for individuals with disabilities who are 

deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind. 

However, background checks for 

program participants are not required 

under this priority due to the potential 

costs and time associated with 

conducting background check 

investigations, interest in protecting the 

privacy of participants, and concern 

about potentially limiting trainee 

participation. Applicants are 

encouraged to follow their 

organization’s policies and procedures 

to determine if there is a need for 

participant background checks based on 

the type of specialized training. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the Application Requirements would be 

easier to understand if they were 

organized into shorter sections. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comment. We did not receive any 

further comments or recommendations 

regarding the organization and clarity of 

the Application Requirements. We are 

following the typical structure we have 

used for priorities under this program. 

Changes: None. 

Cost-Share 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested reduction or removal of the 

cost-share requirement. One commenter 

emphasized that discretionary grant 

projects require significant effort with 

support needed across multiple areas of 

the university to process, support, and 

effectively manage the project. Another 

commenter asserted that institutions of 

higher education (IHEs) have been 

preparing for a sharp decrease in 

student enrollment, budget cuts, and the 

elimination of academic programs due 

to COVID–19. Commenters explained 

that for eligible applicants, the expected 

cost-share percentage may be a barrier to 

prospective applicants as IHEs may not 

be in position to meet the cost-share 

requirement. 

Discussion: The Department 

recognizes the concerns raised by the 

commenters and acknowledges 

hardships in meeting the cost-share 

requirement, especially due to the 

COVID–19 pandemic. The Department 

is concerned about the ability of 

grantees to effectively meet the costshare requirement given uncertainties 

due to the COVID–19 pandemic while 

also ensuring the delivery of highquality training. Interpreter training 

programs are generally smaller programs 

within IHEs, and they may not fully 

benefit from the financial support 

available during the COVID–19 

pandemic. Therefore, a cost-share 

requirement may discourage eligible 

applicants, especially first-time 

applicants. To address these concerns, 

and as reflected in the notice inviting 

applications (NIA) for this program, 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register, the Department is not 

requiring any cost-share for the Federal 

Fiscal Year 2021 competition. 

Changes: None. 

Working Interpreters 

Comment: Five commenters raised 

concerns about the requirement that 

interpreter training in specialty areas 

focus on working interpreters (i.e., 

interpreters with a baccalaureate degree 

in ASL-English who possess a minimum 

of three years of relevant experience as 

an interpreter) stated in the background 

section of the NPP. One commenter 

stated that, while the priority defines 

working interpreters as those who have 

graduated from four-year bachelor’s 

degree programs in interpreting, the 

Registry for Interpreters of the Deaf 

(RID) requires a bachelor’s degree but it 

does not have to be in interpreting. A 

second commenter asserted that in the 

NPP, the definition of ‘‘working 

interpreters’’ does not align with current 

industry standards. For example, the 

industry accepts life experience, years 

of professional experience, and years of 

education (credit hours) not totaling a 

formal degree and accepts continuing 

education units in addition to the 

aforementioned in order to satisfy the 

educational equivalency application. 

The commenter urged the Department to 

establish similar education equivalency 

standards. A third commenter noted 

that becoming a qualified interpreter is 

very difficult and that it is important to 

help interpreter students obtain the 

necessary qualifications needed to meet 

the needs of individuals who are deaf, 

hard of hearing, and DeafBlind. A fourth 

commenter remarked that this 

requirement appears to be inconsistent 

with the goals of the program. The same 

commenter asserted that requiring three 

years of experience in order to receive 

training defeats the purpose of all 

interpreters nationwide having the 

capabilities to develop specialized 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 39969 

skills. A fifth commenter noted that 

there are many novice and experienced 

interpreters who would not qualify to 

participate in the program under the 

definition of ‘‘working interpreter.’’ The 

commenter also stated that associate 

and certificate interpreter programs 

continue to exist and are a critical entry 

point for many Black, Indigenous, and 

People of Color (BIPOC) interpreters, 

who are often first-generation college 

students and that requiring a bachelor’s 

degree before participating in 

specialized training excludes a viable 

group of participants in the program. 

Conversely, one commenter supported 

requiring three years of experience and 

a diploma for ASL because it would 

raise the standards and quality of 

interpreters across the Nation. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

with the commenters who contended 

that the education and experience 

requirements were too limiting and is 

expanding the definition of ‘‘working 

interpreter’’ to avoid unnecessarily 

limiting the pool of qualified 

participants to those who have a 

baccalaureate degree in ASL-English 

and promote participation within 

projects. To address the commenter’s 

suggestion to recognize educational 

equivalence for participants who may 

not meet the definition of working 

interpreter, educational equivalence 

may be used in place of the 

baccalaureate degree on a case-by-case 

basis and in consultation with the RSA 

project officer. Grantees should apply 

the definition of working interpreter 

when identifying participants for their 

respective projects to the extent 

possible. 

We disagree with the commenter who 

asserted that requiring three years of 

experience to receive training defeats 

the purpose of all interpreters 

nationwide having the capabilities to 

develop specialized skills. The 

Department believes that interpreting 

experience is necessary for participants 

to be successful in the program. 

According to the National Interpreter 

Education Center (NIEC) Trends Report 

(2015), interpreter education programs 

generally do not produce graduates who 

demonstrate fluency in American Sign 

Language (ASL). As a result, recent 

graduates from interpreter training 

programs with little or no work 

experience are limited in the range of 

populations and settings in which they 

can begin to gain work experience. Two 

to four years of academic study of a 

language is generally insufficient to 

acquire fluency in any language, much 

less a modality-different language. 

Based on information gathered from the 

FY 2016 grant cycle, the success of 

interpreter training in specialty areas 

requires a solid foundation in ASL 

fluency and interpreting experience. 

The specialty areas are rigorous, and 

require self-discipline, commitment, 

and time management. Therefore, we 

have established that three years of 

experience for working interpreters is 

needed to demonstrate language 

proficiency in ASL and experience 

interpreting for individuals with a range 

of communication skills. 

Finally, we agree with the comment 

that associate and certificate interpreter 

programs continue to exist and are a 

critical entry point for many BIPOC 

interpreters. Therefore, we have 

expanded the list of locations for 

information dissemination to include 

associate degree level ASL-English 

programs. 

Changes: We have expanded the 

definition of ‘‘working interpreter’’ in 

the first paragraph of the final priority 

to reflect that interpreters who are 

considered for training in specialty 

areas outlined in this priority must 

possess a baccalaureate degree and a 

minimum of three years of relevant 

experience as an interpreter. On a caseby-case basis and in consultation with 

RSA, educational equivalence may be 

used in place of the baccalaureate 

degree. We also expanded the language 

under Application Requirements, 

‘‘Quality of Project Design,’’ paragraph 

(b)(1), and ‘‘Quality of Project Services,’’ 

paragraph (c)(10)(ix), to include 

associate degree level ASL-English 

programs. 

Program Design 

Comment: One commenter asked the 

Department to modify the Application 

Requirements under ‘‘Significance of 

the Project,’’ paragraph (a)(1), which 

requires applicants to demonstrate that 

data signifies a need for interpreters in 

the designated specialty areas. The 

commenter stated that there is limited 

data available regarding interpreting in 

specialty areas. The commenter 

explained that the lack of data makes it 

difficult to demonstrate a need for 

interpreting in specialty areas that are 

mentioned in the priority, especially for 

field-initiated topic area (d) (other 

topics). The commenter asked the 

Department to allow applicants to 

demonstrate need without relying solely 

on data. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the comment and recognizes 

that baseline data for interpreter training 

in specialty areas is limited. We account 

for this under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Significance of the 

Project,’’ paragraph (a)(2). The section 

states that, 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. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters asserted 

that the majority of sign language 

interpreters are non-native users of ASL. 

Commenters explained that, as a result, 

most interpreter training programs focus 

on second language learners (L2) instead 

of native signers, heritage signers, and 

lifelong fluent signers. One commenter 

explained that, while each of these 

groups is different in terms of formative 

experience and language development 

trajectory, they have much more in 

common with each other than they do 

with L2 signers. The commenter 

specified that training programs should 

prioritize these groups and consider 

pedagogical implications. The 

commenter stated that signers with 

strong ties to the Deaf community are an 

untapped pool of potential interpreters 

that can be quickly and effectively 

trained. The commenter further stressed 

the urgent need for high-quality 

interpreters as more States pass 

licensure requirements. One commenter 

noted that recruitment is not enough 

and that interpreter training programs 

should develop programming that 

addresses the needs of this frequently 

overlooked population. To this end, one 

commenter recommended adding the 

recruitment and training of native 

signers, heritage signers, and lifelong 

fluent signers as an additional specialty 

area. Another commenter proposed a 

modification under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Quality of Project 

Services,’’ paragraph (c). The 

commenter recommended the addition 

of a requirement that supports 

interpreters who come from heritage 

signing backgrounds, Deaf and child of 

a Deaf adult (CODA) backgrounds, and 

interpreters who have not engaged in 

structured interpreter training programs. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that native, heritage, and lifelong fluent 

signers have much to contribute to the 

profession of interpreting. The 

Department also recognizes the benefit 

of the increased inclusion of Deaf 

interpreters and has supported 

interpreter practice and training for Deaf 

interpreters in prior grant cycles (see 

https://ncrtm.ed.gov/ for more 

information). In the NIEC 2015 Trends 

Report, 61 percent of service providers 

responding to the trends survey 

reported an increase in the demand for 

the services of Deaf interpreters and 81 

percent reported difficulty finding 

qualified Deaf interpreters. Specialty 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
39970 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

area (5)(d), other topics, allows for fieldinitiated topics in a new topic area or in 

areas for which there is existing training 

that is not adequately meeting the needs 

of interpreters working in the field of 

VR. Under specialty area (5)(d), 

applicants may propose a project that 

addresses the inclusion, training, and 

recruitment of Deaf signers. We agree 

with the recommendation to include 

outreach for individuals who come from 

heritage signing, deaf, and CODA 

backgrounds in the ‘‘Quality of Project 

Services.’’ 

Changes: We are revising Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Quality of Project 

Services,’’ paragraph (c)(3), to include 

individuals who come from heritage 

signing backgrounds, deaf, and CODA 

backgrounds. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the Application Requirements do not 

mention language planning in the 

development or delivery of the project. 

The commenter recommended that a 

section be added under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Quality of Project 

Services,’’ paragraph (c)(7) to require 

that educational content and related 

discussions/activities be developed in 

both English and ASL. According to the 

commenter who had developed a 

bilingual curriculum, the ability to 

engage with the content in both 

languages has improved engagement 

from participants and learning outcomes 

for all participants. 

More specifically, Deaf and CODA 

participants in the commenter’s project 

reported that being able to learn in their 

native language made learning more fun 

and engaging. Hearing participants 

reported that having the opportunity to 

discuss complex topics in ASL 

increased their language flexibility and 

fluency. The commenter noted that 

while the development of a bilingual 

curriculum was time consuming and 

costly, it led to a positive retention rate 

and successful outcomes. 

Discussion: We agree that interpreter 

training in specialized areas could 

benefit from a bilingual curriculum to 

maximize engagement and outcomes for 

all participants, and applicants are 

encouraged to consider creating a 

bilingual curriculum. However, we have 

concerns about time and costs 

associated with this effort. Creating 

video content requires more and 

different resources than educational 

content that is only available in English/ 

print material. We also want to ensure 

grantees are in a position to complete 

pilots by the end of the first year and 

begin training in the second year of the 

project. Accordingly, due to cost and 

timing considerations, we do not think 

it is appropriate to require a bilingual 

curriculum. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Regarding Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Quality of Project 

Design,’’ paragraph (b), one commenter 

stated that the priority aims to address 

the shortage of working interpreters but 

does not give enough attention to the 

shortage of skilled and experienced 

educators and mentors from diverse 

backgrounds available to support 

interpreter training in specialty areas. 

The commenter requested that we 

require applicants to describe how they 

will build and support the skills of 

educators who are also experienced and 

comfortable with remote delivery. The 

commenter reflected on their own 

experience, stating that it took about 

three years and a large part of a project 

to train, build capacity, and support a 

small number of educators. The 

commenter concluded that investing in 

skilled and experienced educators and 

mentors would lead to meaningful 

experiences for participants and longterm impacts for interpreter education. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important to provide participants with a 

high-quality training experience and for 

applicants to identify skilled and 

experienced leaders, mentors, 

facilitators, coaches, and subject matter 

experts, as appropriate for the specialty 

area, and to develop the necessary 

training for them to improve and 

enhance interpreting skills in their 

respective areas and deliver instruction 

remotely, as needed. The remote 

learning environment must be 

accessible to individuals with 

disabilities in accordance with Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

and Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, as applicable. We also 

recognize that there may be a limited 

pool of skilled and experienced leaders, 

mentors, facilitators, coaches, and 

subject matter experts. Applicants are 

strongly encouraged to consider trainthe-trainer models and other relevant 

models to increase their capacity, as 

well as create opportunities for 

participants to advance as mentors, 

coaches, and facilitators in the program. 

Changes: Under Application 

Requirements, we are revising ‘‘Quality 

of Project Design,’’ paragraph (b)(3), to 

address providing skilled, diverse, and 

experienced leaders, mentors, 

facilitators, coaches, and subject matter 

experts, as needed. Under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Quality of Project 

Services,’’ paragraph (c)(5), we are 

adding a requirement that applicants 

describe how they will identify skilled, 

diverse, and experienced leaders, 

mentors, facilitators, coaches, and 

subject matter experts, as appropriate 

for the specialty area, and develop 

necessary training for them to improve 

and enhance interpreting skills in their 

respective areas, as well as in remote 

delivery, as needed. Applicants must 

also describe how they will grow the 

pool of experienced personnel and 

create opportunities for participants to 

advance as mentors, coaches, and 

facilitators in the program. 

Induction Experience 

Comment: We received a number of 

comments with respect to the 

requirements related to the induction 

experience described under Application 

Requirements, paragraph (c)(7)(iii). 

Commenters observed some challenges 

with offering a small number of highquality induction experiences versus a 

large number of induction experiences 

that may be of lower quality. Some 

commenters noted that induction 

experiences would lead to better 

qualified interpreters in specialized 

areas while some other commenters 

noted that participants may not be in a 

position to commit to an induction 

experience and, as a result, potential 

participants may decide not to 

participate in the program, leading to 

programs serving fewer participants. 

Additionally, commenters shared that 

for field-initiated projects, the 

interpreter training specialty area may 

be brand new or in early development 

and, as a result, there may be limited 

opportunities for induction experiences. 

Commenters noted limited availability 

of educators, mentors, and supervisors 

necessary to support the newly 

developed induction experiences. One 

commenter encouraged induction 

experiences to be fully and equally 

accessible to deaf and hard of hearing 

individuals. Finally, commenters noted 

that classroom instruction alone is not 

enough, indicating that inductions offer 

participants a deeper learning 

experience and may offer opportunities 

for employment. 

Discussion: We agree that induction 

experiences are critical and necessary 

for interpreters to raise their skill level 

to effectively meet the communication 

needs of individuals who are deaf, hard 

of hearing, and DeafBlind. The proposed 

priority included a requirement that 

participants receive an induction in 

each specialty area as part of successful 

completion in the program. We 

recognize that in-person inductions may 

need to occur remotely during the 

COVID–19 pandemic. We acknowledge 

limitations regarding available 

induction opportunities and trained 

personnel necessary to support them. 

We also acknowledge that not all 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 39971 

potential participants are in a position 

to participate in an induction but would 

still benefit significantly from 

participating in the program. Finally, we 

agree with the comment that inductions 

must be fully and equally accessible to 

deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind 

participants. 

Changes: We are revising the 

Application Requirements, ‘‘Quality of 

Project Services,’’ paragraph (c)(8)(iii), 

to clarify that, to the extent possible, the 

proposed project will establish 

induction experiences in the specialty 

area for participants as part of 

successful completion in the training 

program. We are also revising this 

requirement to clarify that applicants 

must be prepared to pivot between inperson and remote inductions during 

the grant, as needed, throughout the 

duration of the COVID–19 pandemic. 

We also provide that the number of 

participants completing inductions may 

be based on availability of opportunities 

and trained personnel necessary to 

support them. Applicants must work to 

increase the availability of inductions in 

their respective specialty area, where 

possible. Finally, we are expanding the 

requirements under paragraph (c)(8)(iii) 

to indicate that the induction 

environment must be designed in such 

a way that meets the communication 

preferences of individuals who are deaf, 

hard of hearing, and DeafBlind. 

Impacts of the COVID–19 Pandemic 

and Remote Learning 

Comment: A number of commenters 

noted that the COVID–19 pandemic has 

changed or impacted interpreter 

education. Several commenters raised 

concerns about the training being 

offered remotely during the pandemic 

and described challenges regarding 

access, delivery, and participation, 

particularly for individuals located in 

rural areas. Another commenter noted 

that the COVID–19 pandemic has made 

the process of becoming a qualified 

interpreter more challenging. One 

commenter indicated that the transition 

to a virtual classroom and hiatus of 

onsite practicum opportunities has left 

an entire cohort of interpreting students 

behind. The commenter noted that 

many students took a leave of absence 

and will struggle to return, practicums 

were cancelled, and in-person quality 

assurance screenings were suspended. 

Another commenter focused on how the 

COVID–19 pandemic has impacted the 

learning environment for students 

nationwide and recommended that the 

priority address this issue. One 

commenter asserted that training for 

interpreters in the specialty areas and 

under Application Requirements, 

‘‘Quality of Project Design,’’ paragraphs 

(b)(1), (2), and (4), should not be 

implemented entirely online. The 

commenter contended that online 

training is exclusive and only accessible 

to individuals who have access to the 

equipment needed to participate. 

Conversely, three commenters asserted 

that projects must continue virtually 

during the COVID–19 pandemic. One 

commenter stated that even with the 

challenges of COVID–19 and the 

changes to the learning environment, 

this project can be done virtually. 

Another commenter shared that funding 

could help create a program that 

functions well under current conditions 

in the COVID–19 pandemic. Finally, 

one commenter stated that preparing 

interpreters to work in a nearly 

exclusive virtual platform is necessary 

and nearly non-existent in most 

interpreter education program curricula. 

Discussion: We agree the COVID–19 

pandemic has substantially impacted all 

aspects of interpreter education and 

training from design to delivery of 

services. We also agree that access to 

high-quality training is essential for all 

participants in this program, regardless 

of location and financial status. The 

Department appreciates the concerns 

about remote learning. As stated in the 

background section of the NPP, remote 

learning may include online, hybrid/ 

blended learning, or non-technologybased learning. Applicants may decide 

when to safely offer in-person training 

and must be prepared to pivot between 

in-person and remote learning during 

the project, as needed, throughout the 

duration of the pandemic. Additionally, 

under the Application Requirements, 

‘‘Quality of Project Design,’’ paragraphs 

(b)(1), (2), and (4) offer flexible options 

for implementing both in-person and 

remote learning. Because the 

Department has defined ‘‘remote 

learning’’ broadly, we believe it is 

inclusive and accessible for the majority 

of participants. Further, given the 

restrictions on gatherings caused by the 

COVID–19 pandemic, remote learning is 

a viable option for many programs and 

participants. Applicants are strongly 

encouraged to access the Department’s 

COVID–19 resource page at: 

www.ed.gov/coronavirus. 

Changes: The Department has revised 

Application Requirements, ‘‘Quality of 

Project Design,’’ paragraph (b)(2), to 

convey that applicants may decide 

when to safely offer in-person training 

and must be prepared to pivot between 

in-person and remote learning during 

the project, as needed, throughout the 

duration of the COVID–19 pandemic. To 

ensure consistency with the 

Department’s Administrative Priority 

and Definitions for Discretionary Grant 

Programs, published on December 30, 

2020 (85 FR 86545), we have added to 

Application Requirements, ‘‘Quality of 

Project Design,’’ paragraph (b)(1), that 

the remote learning environment must 

be accessible to individuals with 

disabilities in accordance with Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

and Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, as applicable. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the priority and requirements do not 

mention interpreting services provided 

over the technological medium of video 

(i.e., Over Video Interpreting) and 

recommended the incorporation of Over 

Video Interpreting in the priority and 

application requirements. The 

commenter explained that Over Video 

Interpreting occurs through video 

conferencing software/equipment and a 

high-speed internet connection and can 

be either Video Relay Service (VRS) or 

Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). The 

commenter shared that VRS, 

administered by the Federal 

Communications Commission, employs 

thousands of interpreters to provide 

service to tens of thousands of 

individuals who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, and DeafBlind to support their 

telecommunication needs for daily 

living. The commenter noted that VRI 

has been a growing platform for 

interpreting services for several years in 

a wide variety of settings, including 

medical establishments, mental health 

settings, police stations, schools, and 

the workplace. The commenter further 

stated that video interpreting has seen a 

steep increase with physical distance 

protocols in place during the COVID–19 

pandemic. The commenter emphasized 

that increased use of VRI and VRS is 

likely to continue even after pandemic 

protocols are relaxed, especially in areas 

where there is limited access to on-site 

interpreters or a need for interpreters 

with a specialty. The commenter 

asserted that with rapid growth in 

technology and service provision across 

various settings, there is a need for 

adequate training and standardized 

practice for over video interpreting. 

Under Application Requirements, 

‘‘Quality of Project Design,’’ paragraph 

(b), the commenter recommended that 

we require practice and training 

opportunities for interpreting in 

specialty areas that do not require 

physical touch to include both inperson and over video settings. The 

commenter shared that there is a 

shortage of skilled interpreters, which 

has a significant impact on the needs of 

VR consumers who are seeking and 

maintaining education, training, and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
39972 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

gainful employment. The commenter 

further explained that the lack of 

specialized training available creates a 

gap in skill and readiness for 

interpreters looking for VRS 

employment. The commenter also 

recommended adding a specialty area to 

the priority focused on VRS interpreting 

and training interpreters to use virtual 

and hybrid settings. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comment and agree that the 

incorporation of Over Video (i.e., VRI 

and VRS) services is an important 

aspect of interpreting. We also agree that 

video interpreting has seen a steep 

increase with physical distance 

protocols in place during the COVID–19 

pandemic and that increased use of VRI 

and VRS is likely to continue even after 

the COVID–19 pandemic. However, we 

disagree with the recommendation that 

applicants should be required to include 

practice and training opportunities in 

Over Video settings. We believe 

applicants should have the option to 

determine what practice and training is 

necessary for their respective specialty 

area and may consider Over Video 

settings, as appropriate. Additionally, 

we acknowledge the recommendation to 

create a new specialty area focused on 

VRS interpreting. We believe this 

content area is more appropriate for 

Specialty Area (5) (field-initiated), 

under topic area (d) (other topics). As 

described in the priority, applicants 

under Specialty Area (5) must 

demonstrate the need for the training in 

a proposed new topic area or, in areas 

for which there is existing training, 

demonstrate that the existing training is 

not adequately meeting the needs of 

interpreters working in the field of VR. 

Changes: None. 

Cultural Competency Training, 

Outreach, and Recruitment of 

Interpreters From Multicultural 

Backgrounds 

Comment: The Department received a 

large number of comments focused on 

diversity, equity, and inclusion in the 

field of interpreter training. Commenters 

identified gaps, disparities, and 

inequities in the recruitment, education, 

training, testing, assessments, 

employment, and advancement of 

interpreters from minority backgrounds. 

Commenters reported that in 2018, 88 

percent of interpreters certified by RID 

identified as White and only 3.6 percent 

identified as African American/Black. 

To expand the pool of qualified 

interpreters from diverse backgrounds, 

commenters recommended a new 

specialty area focused on the 

recruitment and training of interpreters 

from diverse backgrounds. Commenters 

explained that linguistic research 

demonstrates that there are significant 

dialectical differences between Black 

ASL (BASL), indigenous varieties of 

ASL, and standard ASL, and that 

interpreters with novice to advanced 

skills need to be familiar with these 

variations. Another commenter noted 

that BASL is not the same as atypical 

language, although it is often 

misconstrued as such. Finally, 

commenters stated the importance of 

culture, values, and language within the 

field of interpreting and the necessity 

for individuals who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, and DeafBlind to have the 

option to work with interpreters who 

are of the same race or ethnicity as 

themselves and to increase 

representation of interpreters from 

traditionally underrepresented groups 

in the field. Commenters recommended 

the incorporation of a cultural 

competency training component within 

the priority. Commenters recommended 

that topics such as BASL, Black deaf 

culture, graduation rates of diverse 

interpreters, bias, and practices that 

support diversity be included in 

cultural competency training. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that a new specialty area is needed to 

develop cultural competency training in 

the field. A new specialty area will 

increase the number of qualified 

interpreters from multicultural 

backgrounds so that individuals who are 

deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind 

have access to a culturally competent, 

diverse, and qualified pool of 

interpreters. This recommended 

specialty area aligns with Executive 

Order 13985, ‘‘Advancing Racial Equity 

and Support for Underserved 

Communities Through the Federal 

Government’’ (86 FR 7009), issued 

January 20, 2021, which provides that 

affirmatively advancing equity, civil 

rights, racial justice, and equal 

opportunity is the responsibility of the 

whole of our Government. It also 

provides that because advancing equity 

requires a systematic approach to 

embedding fairness in decision-making 

processes, Federal agencies must 

recognize and work to redress inequities 

in their policies and programs that serve 

as barriers to equal opportunity. 

Further, this recommended specialty 

area recognizes the fact that, at present, 

a disproportionately high number of 

interpreters identify as Euro-American/ 

White while the demographics of the 

deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind 

individuals mirror that of the general 

population. This specialty area 

addresses the need for more diversity 

among interpreters in order to meet the 

social, cultural, and linguistic needs of 

the deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind 

individuals they serve. 

Under this specialty area, projects 

may contain cultural competency 

training for interpreters at all skill levels 

and could include, for example, 

exploration of unconscious and 

conscious biases, privilege, stereotypes, 

prejudicial attitudes, and the dynamics 

of oppression on interpreters from 

multicultural backgrounds, as well as 

heritage and native signers; examination 

of microaggressions within the 

interpreter training field; and gaps, 

disparities, and inequities in the 

recruitment, education, training, testing, 

assessments, employment, and 

advancement of interpreters from 

minority backgrounds. The specialty 

area may also provide training to 

associate, bachelor’s, and advanced 

degree ASL-English interpreting 

programs to increase and support 

outreach and recruitment of interpreters 

from multicultural backgrounds. When 

preparing outreach and recruitment 

materials, selection criteria for training 

programs, and criteria for selecting 

trainers employed under the grant, 

applicants must cast a wide net for 

participants of all races and not 

preclude participation based on race, 

color, or national origin. 

Changes: To adequately address the 

breadth and scope of comments 

received about diversity, equity, and 

inclusion in the field of interpreting, the 

Department is adding a specialty area 

under the final priority, titled Specialty 

Area (4) (cultural competency training, 

outreach, and recruitment of 

interpreters from multicultural 

backgrounds). We are also making 

revisions under Application 

Requirements, described elsewhere in 

the analysis of comments, to incorporate 

cultural competency under all specialty 

areas within the priority. 

Comment: Many commenters 

described prevalent bias within the field 

of ASL interpreting and indicated a 

strong need to recognize and address 

implications of this bias through the 

priority. Commenters also explained the 

importance of promoting representation 

by exposing interpreters to trainers who 

are of the same race, ethnicity, and 

background as themselves. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

with the comments that it is important 

to expose interpreters to trainers who 

are of the same race, ethnicity, and 

background as themselves. We agree 

that it is of the utmost importance that 

all interpreter training projects funded 

through this priority take steps to 

eliminate barriers and reduce biases. 

Therefore, we believe it is necessary to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 39973 

incorporate cultural competency into 

each of the respective specialty areas. 

Changes: Under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Quality of Project 

Design,’’ paragraph (b)(1), we are adding 

that applicants must consider cultural 

competency as it relates to their 

respective specialty area. Applicants 

must describe how training and 

accompanying materials developed for 

interpreting practice and application, 

especially video content, will include 

diverse and inclusive models and 

perspectives. 

National Certification 

Comment: Two commenters 

highlighted the need for interpreters to 

be certified. One commenter strongly 

encouraged the Department to require 

the attainment of national certification 

as the minimum standard that all ASL 

interpreters should strive for. Another 

commenter noted that without 

certification it is difficult to guarantee 

the skillset of an interpreter. 

Discussion: Part of the purpose of this 

program is to provide opportunities for 

interpreters to raise their skill level in 

order to meet the highest standards 

approved by certifying associations and 

to effectively meet the communication 

needs of individuals who are deaf, hard 

of hearing, and DeafBlind. In FFY 2016, 

the Department funded a national 

project to provide experiential learning 

to novice interpreters to successfully 

attain national certification and reduce 

the length of time between graduation 

and certification. More information 

about this project may be accessed 

through the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration’s NCRTM at 

ncrtm.ed.gov. We also recognize that the 

specialty areas may not yet have 

certification in place or a relevant 

metric of success because they are new 

or in the early stages of development. 

Changes: None. 

Technical Changes 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Upon further review, the 

Department noted that it had included 

the definition of ‘‘remote learning’’ in 

the background section of the NPP but 

omitted it in the requirements. 

Changes: We have added the 

definition of ‘‘remote learning’’ to the 

requirements where the term first 

appears, under ‘‘Quality of Project 

Services,’’ paragraph (b)(1) of the 

Application Requirements. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: The Department is 

interested in exploring whether an 

induction experience contributed to 

greater or more robust outcomes for 

working interpreters compared to those 

that did not complete an induction. 

Changes: Under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Quality of the 

Evaluation Plan,’’ paragraph (d)(3), we 

have added a requirement that 

applicants must describe an approach 

for measuring outcomes for participants 

that completed an induction compared 

to those who did not complete an 

induction prior to successfully 

completing the program. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Significance of the 

Proposed Project,’’ we identified 

duplication between paragraphs (a)(3)(i) 

and (ii) and made technical changes 

needed to improve clarity. 

Changes: Under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Significance of the 

Proposed Project,’’ we have combined 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) and made 

technical changes to reflect that 

applicants must describe the 

competencies working interpreters must 

demonstrate in order to provide highquality services in the identified 

specialty area and explain how those 

competencies are based on practices 

that demonstrate a rationale or are 

supported by promising evidence. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: We are adding an 

assurance statement to the application 

requirements to comply with 34 CFR 

396.20(d), which requires an assurance 

that any interpreter trained or retrained 

under this program will meet the 

standards of competency for a qualified 

professional established by the 

Secretary. 

Changes: Under Application 

Requirements, we have added paragraph 

(g)(3), which requires applicants to 

assure that any interpreter trained or 

retrained under this program will meet 

the standards of competency for a 

qualified professional, as defined in 34 

CFR 396.4(c). 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: We inadvertently 

included the definition of ‘‘working 

interpreter’’ and listed the specialty 

areas in the background to the priority, 

rather than the text of the priority. We 

are moving those provisions into the 

priority, with the changes and 

clarifications discussed in this Analysis 

of the Comments section. 

We are removing language about the 

project outcomes from the priority 

because we have modified and 

incorporated this data into the 

performance measures, which will be 

included in the NIA for this program. 

The performance measures accurately 

reflect the goals and purpose of this 

program and the priority, and therefore 

additional outcome measures are no 

longer needed. 

Changes: In the text of the final 

priority, we have added the revised 

definition of ‘‘working interpreter’’ and 

listed the specialty areas, including a 

new specialty area focused on cultural 

competency, outreach, and recruitment 

of interpreters from multicultural 

backgrounds. We have removed from 

the priority language about the project 

outcomes. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Based on the current and 

prior grant cycles, we have seen that 

participants benefit from gaining a 

foundational understanding of the VR 

program. Further, this information 

aligns with the purpose of the priority, 

which is to meet the communication 

needs of individuals who are deaf or 

hard of hearing and individuals who are 

DeafBlind receiving vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) services and/or 

services from other programs, such as 

independent living services, under the 

Rehabilitation Act. 

Changes: Under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Quality of Project 

Design,’’ paragraph (b)(1), we have 

added that training materials may 

include information to ensure 

participants have a foundational 

understanding of the VR program. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Quality of the 

Evaluation Plan,’’ paragraph (d)(4), we 

determined that the requirement to 

gather information from participants 

about their knowledge of VR can be 

satisfied under paragraph (d)(2), which 

requires an approach for measuring 

knowledge, skills, and competencies 

before and after successful completion 

of training. We also determined that 

paragraph (d)(4) needed to align more 

closely with the priority and the 

performance measures that will be 

included in the NIA for this program. 

Changes: Under Application 

Requirements, ‘‘Quality of the 

Evaluation Plan,’’ paragraph (d)(4), we 

removed the requirement to gather 

information from participants about 

their knowledge of VR. We also 

modified paragraph (d)(4) to require an 

approach for gathering information from 

participants about their estimated 

percentage of workload interpreting for 

individuals who are deaf or hard of 

hearing and individuals who are 

DeafBlind receiving VR services and/or 

services from other programs, such as 

independent living services, before and 

after specialty training. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
39974 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1Remote learning means programming where at 

least part of the learning occurs away from the 

physical building in a manner that addresses a 

learner’s educational needs. Remote learning may 

include online, hybrid/blended learning, or nontechnology-based learning (e.g., lab kits, project 

supplies, paper packets). 

Final Priority 

Interpreter Training in Specialty Areas 

The purpose of this priority is to fund 

projects that provide training to working 

interpreters in one of five specialty areas 

to effectively meet the communication 

needs of individuals who are deaf or 

hard of hearing and individuals who are 

DeafBlind receiving vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) services and/or 

services from other programs, such as 

independent living services, under the 

Rehabilitation Act. For the purposes of 

this priority, working interpreters must 

possess a baccalaureate degree and a 

minimum of three years of relevant 

experience as an interpreter. On a caseby-case basis and in consultation with 

RSA, educational equivalence may be 

used in place of the baccalaureate 

degree. 

The specialty areas are— 

(1) Increasing skills of novice 

interpreters; 

(2) Trilingual interpreting (including 

Spanish) (i.e., language fluency in first, 

second, and third languages with one of 

the three languages being ASL); 

(3) Advanced skills for working 

interpreters; 

(4) Cultural competency training, 

outreach, and recruitment of 

interpreters from multicultural 

backgrounds; and 

(5) National projects in a fieldinitiated area, in topic areas such as- 

(a) Interpreting in healthcare, 

including interpreting for hard-to-serve 

populations; 

(b) Interpreting for individuals who 

are DeafBlind; 

(c) Atypical language interpreting; 

and 

(d) Other topics in new areas for 

which applicants demonstrate that the 

existing training is not adequately 

meeting the needs of interpreters 

working in the field of VR. 

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)). 

Final Application Requirements 

The Assistant Secretary establishes 

the following requirements for this 

priority. We may apply these 

requirements in any year in which this 

priority is in effect. 

Application Requirements 

The following application 

requirements apply to all specialty areas 

under this priority. The Department 

encourages innovative approaches to 

meet these requirements. Applicants 

must— 

(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 and 

delivered 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 the 

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; and 

(3) Describe the competencies that 

working interpreters must demonstrate 

in order to provide high-quality services 

in the identified specialty area and 

explain how those competencies are 

based on practices that demonstrate a 

rationale or are supported by promising 

evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1). 

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of Project Design,’’ how the 

proposed project will— 

(1) Develop a new training program or 

stand-alone modules and conduct a 

pilot by the end of the first year of the 

project. Applicants must provide 

justification in their application if they 

believe additional time may be 

necessary to fully develop and pilot the 

curricula before the end of the first year. 

The training program or stand-alone 

modules must contain remote learning 1

experiences that advance engagement 

and learning (e.g., synchronous and 

asynchronous professional learning, 

professional learning networks or 

communities, and coaching), which 

could also be incorporated into existing 

associate, baccalaureate, or graduate 

degree ASL-English (or ASL-other 

spoken language) programs, as 

appropriate. The remote learning 

environment must be accessible to 

individuals with disabilities in 

accordance with Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

as applicable. Applicants may choose to 

award continuing education credits 

(CEUs) or college or master’s level 

credits to participants in the training 

program. Applicants should note that 

while pre-service training is not the 

focus of this program, a variety of 

resources may be considered (such as 

available pre-service training material) 

that may inform, support, or strengthen 

the development of training for ASLEnglish interpreter training in 

specialized areas. Training materials 

may include information to ensure 

participants have a foundational 

understanding of the VR program. 

Finally, applicants must consider 

cultural competency as it relates to their 

respective specialty area. Applicants 

must describe how training and 

accompanying materials developed for 

interpreting practice and application, 

especially video content, will include 

diverse and inclusive models and 

perspectives; 

(2) Deliver the training or stand-alone 

modules remotely to at least three 

distinct, noncontiguous geographic 

areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of 

these application requirements in years 

two, three, four, and five of the project. 

Applicants may deliver in-person 

training, as appropriate, to support 

participants’ application of knowledge, 

skills, and competencies gained through 

online training. Applicants may decide 

when to safely offer in-person training 

and must be prepared to pivot between 

in-person and remote learning during 

the project, as needed, throughout the 

duration of the COVID–19 pandemic; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 39975 

2When preparing outreach and recruitment 

materials, selection criteria for training programs, as 

well as criteria for selecting trainers employed 

under the grant, applicants must cast a wide net for 

participants of all races and not preclude 

participation based on race, color, or national 

origin. 

(3) Provide skilled, diverse, and 

experienced leaders, mentors, 

facilitators, coaches, and subject matter 

experts, as appropriate for the specialty 

area, to participants, as needed. This 

may include, but is not limited to, oneon-one instruction to address specific 

areas identified by an advisor as 

needing further practice, and providing 

written feedback from observed 

interpreting situations and mentoring 

sessions, from deaf consumers, from 

trained mentors, and from others, as 

appropriate; 

(4) Develop a self-directed track and 

make it available to the public for 

independent remote learning by the end 

of the second year of the project. 

Applicants must develop a curriculum 

guide for each module and make 

available relevant materials from the 

training program. Applicants may offer 

CEUs to participants who successfully 

complete the self-directed track; 

(5) Be based on current research and 

make use of practices that demonstrate 

a rationale or are supported by 

promising evidence. To meet this 

requirement, applicants must describe— 

(i) How the proposed project will 

incorporate current research and 

practices that demonstrate a rationale or 

are supported by promising evidence in 

the development and delivery of 

training and in the development of 

products and materials; 

(ii) How the proposed project will 

ensure interaction between project 

participants and individuals with 

disabilities who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, and DeafBlind and have a range 

of communication skills, from those 

with limited language skills to those 

with high-level, professional language 

skills, as appropriate. 

(c) In the narrative section of the 

application under ‘‘Quality of Project 

Services,’’ applicants 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 applicants for 

participation in the program, including 

any pre-assessments that may be used to 

determine the skill, knowledge base, 

and competencies of the working 

interpreter; 

(3) Describe how the project will 

conduct outreach 2 to working 

interpreters, especially working 

interpreters from rural areas, Indian 

Tribes, traditionally underrepresented 

groups, and individuals who come from 

heritage signing, deaf, and CODA 

backgrounds; 

(4) Describe how the project will 

provide feedback, resources, and next 

steps to applicants who may not be 

accepted into the program due to 

insufficient skills, knowledge base, and 

competencies; 

(5) Describe how the program will 

identify skilled, diverse, and 

experienced leaders, mentors, 

facilitators, coaches, and subject matter 

experts, as appropriate for the specialty 

area, and develop necessary training for 

them to improve and enhance 

interpreting skills in their respective 

areas, as well as in remote delivery, as 

needed. Applicants must also describe 

how they will grow the pool of 

experienced personnel and create 

opportunities for participants to 

advance as mentors, coaches, and 

facilitators in the program; 

(6) 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; 

(7) Describe how the project will 

incorporate adult learning principles 

and practices that demonstrate a 

rationale or are supported by promising 

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, applicants 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) of these 

application requirements; 

(ii) The components of the project 

will provide working interpreters 

opportunities to apply their content 

knowledge in a variety of practical 

settings; 

(iii) The proposed project will 

establish induction experiences in the 

specialty area for participants as a 

requirement for completion in the 

training program, to the extent possible. 

The induction environment must be 

designed in such a way that meets the 

communication preferences of 

individuals who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, and DeafBlind. Applicants 

must be prepared to pivot between inperson and remote inductions during 

the project, as needed, throughout the 

duration of the COVID–19 pandemic. 

The number of participants completing 

inductions may be based on availability 

of opportunities and trained personnel 

necessary to support them. Applicants 

may determine the appropriate scope 

and length of time for the induction and 

must work to increase the availability of 

inductions in their respective specialty 

area, where possible; 

(9) Demonstrate how the proposed 

project will actively engage 

representation from consumers, 

consumer organizations, and service 

providers, especially State VR agencies 

and their partners, interpreters, 

interpreter educators, and individuals 

who are deaf, hard of hearing, and 

DeafBlind, in all aspects of the project; 

and 

(10) Describe how the project will 

conduct dissemination, coordination, 

and communication activities. To meet 

this requirement, the applicant must 

describe how it will— 

(i) Disseminate information to 

working interpreters about training 

available in specialized areas and to 

State VR agencies and their partners, 

American Job Centers, and other 

workforce partners about how to locate 

specialized interpreters in their State 

and local areas; 

(ii) Establish a state-of-the-art website 

or modify an existing website for 

communicating with participants and 

stakeholders and ensure that all material 

developed by the grant and posted on 

the website are accessible to individuals 

with disabilities in accordance with 

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 

and title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, as applicable. The 

website must provide a central location 

for all material related to the project, 

such as reports, training curricula, 

audiovisual materials, webinars, 

communities of practice, and other 

relevant material developed by the 

grantee; 

(iii) Disseminate information about 

the project, including, but not limited 

to, products such as training curricula, 

presentations, reports, effective 

practices for training working 

interpreters in specialized areas, and 

other relevant information through the 

NCRTM; 

(iv) In the final year of the budget 

period, ensure that all training materials 

have been provided to the NCRTM and 

the website and IT platform can be 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
39976 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

sustained, or coordinate with RSA to 

transition the website to the NCRTM; 

(v) Establish one or more 

communities of practice in the specialty 

area of training that focuses on project 

activities and acts as a vehicle for 

communication and exchange of 

information among participants in the 

program and other relevant 

stakeholders; 

(vi) Communicate, collaborate, and 

coordinate with other relevant 

Department-funded projects, as 

applicable; 

(vii) Maintain ongoing 

communication with the RSA project 

officer and other RSA staff as required; 

(viii) 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, and DeafBlind; and relevant 

RSA partner organizations and 

associations; and 

(ix) Disseminate to associate, 

baccalaureate, or graduate degree ASLEnglish programs, as well as to relevant 

Department-funded programs and 

Federal partners, as applicable, the 

training material and products for 

incorporation into existing curricula, as 

well as products, effective practices for 

training working interpreters in 

specialized areas, challenges and 

solutions, results achieved, and lessons 

learned. To satisfy this requirement, the 

grantee must develop participant 

guides, implementation materials, 

toolkits, manuals, and other relevant 

material for interpreter educators and 

others, as appropriate, to incorporate or 

build into existing programs. 

(d) In the narrative section of the 

application under ‘‘Quality of the 

Evaluation Plan,’’ include an evaluation 

plan. To meet this requirement, the 

evaluation plan must describe— 

(1) Standards and targets for 

measuring the effectiveness of the 

program; 

(2) An approach for measuring 

knowledge, skills, and competencies 

before and after successful completion 

of training; 

(3) An approach for measuring 

outcomes for participants that 

completed an induction compared to 

those who did not prior to successfully 

completing the program; 

(4) An approach for gathering 

information from participants about 

their estimated percentage of workload 

interpreting for individuals who are 

deaf or hard of hearing and individuals 

who are DeafBlind receiving VR services 

and/or services from other programs, 

such as independent living services, 

before and after specialty training; 

(5) An approach for incorporating oral 

and written feedback from trainers and 

deaf consumers and any feedback from 

coaching or mentoring sessions 

conducted with the participants; 

(6) Methodologies, including 

instruments, data collection methods, 

and analyses that will be used to 

evaluate the project and how the 

methods of evaluation will produce 

quantitative and qualitative data to 

demonstrate whether the project 

activities achieved their intended 

outcomes; 

(7) Measures of progress in 

implementation, including the extent to 

which the project activities and 

products have reached their intended 

recipients, measures of intended 

outcomes or results in order to evaluate 

those activities, and how well the goals 

and objectives of the proposed project, 

as described in the logic model (as 

defined in 34 CFR 77.1), have been met; 

(8) How the evaluation will be 

coordinated, implemented, and revised, 

as needed, during the project. The 

applicant must designate at least one 

individual with sufficient dedicated 

time, demonstrated experience in 

evaluation, and knowledge of the 

project to coordinate and conduct the 

evaluation. This may include, but is not 

limited to, making revisions post award 

in order to reflect any changes or 

clarifications, as needed, 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); and 

(9) How evaluation results will be 

used to examine the effectiveness of the 

training. To address this requirement, 

applicants must provide an approach for 

determining— 

(i) What practice(s) was most effective 

in training working interpreters in the 

respective specialty area and what data 

demonstrates the practice(s) was 

effective; and 

(ii) What practice(s) was most 

effective in narrowing working 

interpreters’ skill gaps and what data 

demonstrates the practice(s) was 

effective. 

(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) Describe any proposed consultants 

or contractors named in the application 

and their areas of expertise and provide 

a rationale to demonstrate the need; 

(3) Describe costs associated with 

technology, including, but not limited 

to, maintaining an online learning 

platform, state-of-the-art archiving and 

dissemination platform, and 

communication tools (i.e., Microsoft 

Teams, Zoom, Google, Amazon Chime, 

Skype, etc.), ensuring all products and 

services are accessible to individuals 

with disabilities in accordance with 

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 

and title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, as applicable, including 

costs associated with captioning and 

transcription services, and 

cybersecurity; and 

(4) The applicant and any identified 

partners have adequate resources to 

carry out the proposed activities. 

(f) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the Management Plan,’’ how 

applicants will ensure that— 

(1) The project’s intended outcomes, 

including the evaluation, will be 

achieved on time and within budget, 

through— 

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities of 

key project personnel, consultants, and 

contractors, as applicable; 

(ii) Procedures to track and ensure 

completion of the action steps, 

timelines, and milestones established 

for key project activities, requirements, 

and deliverables; 

(iii) Internal monitoring processes to 

ensure that the project is being 

implemented in accordance with the 

established application and project 

plan; and 

(iv) Internal financial management 

controls to ensure accurate and timely 

obligations, drawdowns, and reporting 

of grant funds, as well as monitoring 

contracts, in accordance with the 

Uniform Administrative Requirements, 

Cost Principles, and Audit 

Requirements for Federal Awards at 

2 CFR part 200 and the terms and 

conditions of the Federal award. 

(2) The allocation of key project 

personnel, consultants, and contractors, 

as applicable, including levels of effort 

of key personnel that are appropriate 

and adequate to achieve the project’s 

intended outcomes, including an 

assurance that key personnel will have 

enough availability to ensure timely 

communications with stakeholders and 

RSA; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 39977 

(3) The products and services are of 

high quality, relevance, and usefulness, 

in both content and delivery; 

(4) The proposed project will benefit 

from a diversity of perspectives; and 

(5) Projects will be awarded and must 

be operated in a manner consistent with 

nondiscrimination requirements 

contained in the Federal civil rights 

laws. 

(g) Address the following application 

requirements. Applicants must— 

(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic 

model that depicts, at a minimum, the 

goals, activities, outputs, and short and 

long-term outcomes of the proposed 

project; 

(2) Include, in Appendix A, personloading charts and timelines, as 

applicable, to illustrate the management 

plan described in the narrative; and 

(3) Provide an assurance that any 

interpreters trained or retrained under 

this program will meet the standards of 

competency for a qualified professional, 

defined in 34 CFR 396.4(c) as an 

individual who has: (i) Met existing 

certification or evaluation requirements 

equivalent to the highest standards 

approved by certifying associations; and 

(ii) successfully demonstrated 

interpreting skills that reflect the 

highest standards approved by 

certifying associations through prior 

work experience. 

This document does not preclude us 

from proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This document does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we 

choose to use this priority or these 

requirements we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by 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 and 

requirements only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their 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. 

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 a 

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. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

this regulatory action does not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

Size Standards define proprietary 

institutions as small businesses if they 

are independently owned and operated, 

are not dominant in their field of 

operation, and have total annual 

revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit 

institutions are defined as small entities 

if they are independently owned and 

operated and not dominant in their field 

of operation. Public institutions are 

defined as small organizations if they 

are operated by a government 

overseeing a population below 50,000. 

The small entities that this final 

regulatory action will affect, that is, 

public and private nonprofit agencies 

and organizations including institutions 

of higher education, are eligible for 

assistance under this program. We 

believe that the costs imposed on an 

applicant by the final priority and 

requirements would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

the final priority and requirements 

would outweigh any costs incurred by 

the applicant. There are very few 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
39978 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

entities that could provide the type of 

technical assistance required under the 

final priority and requirements. For 

these reasons, the final priority and 

requirements will not impose a 

significant burden on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

The priority and requirements contain 

information collection requirements that 

are approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1820–0018; the priority 

and requirements do not affect the 

currently approved data collection. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document in an accessible format. 

The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. 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. 

Katherine Neas, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15915 Filed 7–22–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0332; FRL–8717–02– 

R7] 

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Removal 

of Control of Emissions From the 

Application of Deadeners and 

Adhesives 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the Missouri State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Missouri on January 15, 

2019, and supplemented by letter on 

July 11, 2019. Missouri requests that the 

EPA remove a rule related to control of 

emissions from the application of 

deadeners and adhesives in the St. 

Louis, Missouri area from its SIP. This 

rescission does not have an adverse 

effect on air quality and meets the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). The EPA’s approval of this rule 

revision is in accordance with the 

requirements of the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 25, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0332. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ashley Keas, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7629; 

email address: keas.ashley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

III. What action is the EPA taking? 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

The EPA is approving the removal of 

10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10– 

5.370, Control of Emissions from the 

Application of Deadeners and 

Adhesives, from the Missouri SIP. As 

explained in detail in the EPA’s 

proposed rule, Missouri has 

demonstrated that removal of 10 CSR 

10–5.370 will not interfere with 

attainment of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), reasonable 

further progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA because the 

single source subject to the rule has 

permanently ceased operations and 

removal of the rule will not cause VOC 

emissions to increase. 86 FR 26450, May 

14, 2021. The public comment period 

on the EPA’s proposed rule opened May 

14, 2021, the date of its publication in 

the Federal Register and closed on June 

14, 2021. During this period, the EPA 

received no comments. Therefore the 

EPA is finalizing its proposal to remove 

10 CSR 10–5.370 from the Missouri SIP. 

II. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

The State submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. 

The State provided public notice on 

this SIP revision from June 25, 2018, to 

August 2, 2018, and held a public 

hearing on July 26, 2018. Missouri 

received five comments from the EPA 

that related to Missouri’s lack of an 

adequate demonstration that the rule 

could be removed from the SIP in 

accordance with section 110(l) of the 

CAA. Missouri’s July 11, 2019 letter 

addressed the EPA’s comments. In 

addition, the revision meets the 

substantive SIP requirements of the 

CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

III. What action is the EPA taking? 

The EPA is taking final action to 

approve Missouri’s request to remove 10 

CSR 10–5.370 from the SIP. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

amending regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. As described 

in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set 

forth below, the EPA is removing 

provisions of the EPA-Approved 

Missouri Regulations from the Missouri 

State Implementation Plan, which is 

incorporated by reference in accordance 

with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES