Page 5

5

appreciates the work of the facilities serving the District’s diverse population, there is not current precedent for the translation of District rulemakings. This is because, pursuant to the Language Access Act of 2004, effective June 19, 2004 (D.C. Law 15-167; D.C. Official Code §§ 2-1931 et seq. (2012 Repl.)), District agencies, including OSSE, are not legally required to provide the requested translations of the proposed rulemaking. Specifically, D.C. Official Code § 2-1933 provides that:

A covered entity shall provide translations of vital documents into any non- English language spoken by a limited or no-English proficient population that constitutes 3% or 500 individuals, whichever is less, of the population served or encountered, or likely to be served or encountered, by the covered entity in the District of Columbia.

(Emphasis added). The relevant portion of the definition of “vital document” provides:

Vital documents means applications, notices, complaint forms, legal contracts, and outreach materials published by a covered entity in a tangible format that inform individuals about their rights or eligibility requirements for benefits and participation.

D.C. Official Code § 2-1931. The definition does not expressly state that proposed regulations are vital documents. Rather, it concerns documents that are actually in effect and being used. Further a regulation is not itself an application, notice, complaint form, legal contract, or outreach material. Therefore, the proposed text of Chapter 1 in Title 5-A was not a vital document for which translation was legally required. Nonetheless, OSSE will issue a document summarizing key components of the regulations that will be available in Amharic, Chinese, French, Spanish, and Vietnamese on OSSE’s website in the near future.

In summary, a majority of the comments received requested clarification around the various requirements but did not seek amendments. Accordingly, the comments received did not compel the State Superintendent to make any substantive changes to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and the State Superintendent is therefore issuing these regulations without further request for comment. However, to provide further transparency and respond to requests for clarification, the State Superintendent (1) responds to a majority of the stakeholders’ comments and (2) identifies any non-substantive technical changes included in this final rulemaking, below:

A. General Licensure Provisions

Sections 100 through 102 provide the general provisions for child development licenses. The State Superintendent did not receive many comments in these sections. One commenter sought clarification regarding § 102.9, which provides that a licensed facility that does not accept public funding may participate in OSSE’s Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS). Licensed facilities that do not receive public funding are, therefore, not required to participate in the QRIS. The State Superintendent received a number of comments during the ANPR requesting that the mandate to participate in the QRIS was aligned to the CCDBG Act and limited to licensed facilities accepting public funding. The State Superintendent accepted the recommendation in the