2021-15915.pdf

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

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 field-initiated 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:54 Jul 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JYR1.SGM 26JYR1jb el l o n

D S

K

JL

S W

7X 2P

R O

D w ith R

U

LE

S mailto:160D@ed.gov

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:54 Jul 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JYR1.SGM 26JYR1jb el l o n

D S

K

JL

S W

7X 2P

R O

D w ith R

U

LE

39967 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

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 non-verbal 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 late-deafened 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 general-education 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 high-impact 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:54 Jul 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JYR1.SGM 26JYR1jb el l o n

D S

K

JL

S W

7X 2P

R O

D w ith R

U

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 non-discrimination 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 non-discrimination 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 non-discrimination 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 cost-share requirement given uncertainties due to the COVID–19 pandemic while also ensuring the delivery of high-quality 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:54 Jul 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JYR1.SGM 26JYR1jb el l o n

D S

K

JL

S W

7X 2P

R O

D w ith R

U

39969 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 case-by-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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:54 Jul 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JYR1.SGM 26JYR1jb el l o n

D S

K

JL

S W

7X 2P

R O

D w ith R

U

LE

https://ncrtm.ed.gov/

39970 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations area (5)(d), other topics, allows for field-initiated 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 long-term 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 train-the-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 high-quality 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:54 Jul 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26JYR1.SGM 26JYR1jb el l o n

D S

K

JL

S W

7X 2P

R O

D w ith R

U

39971 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 in-person 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-technology-based 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…