8828 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 2012 / Notices 

1 DoD recognizes that many recipients had 

language assistance programs in place prior to the 

issuance of Executive Order 13166. This Guidance 

provides a uniform framework for a recipient to 

integrate, formalize, and assess the continued 

vitality of these existing and possibly additional 

reasonable efforts based on the nature of its program 

or activity, the current needs of the LEP population 

it encounters, and its prior experience in providing 

language services in the community it serves. 

Dated: January 31, 2012. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3509 Filed 2–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Guidance to Federal Financial 

Assistance Recipients Regarding Title 

VI Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination Affecting Limited 

English Proficient Persons 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, DoD. 

ACTION: Interim final guidance. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

(DoD) publishes for public comment 

Interim Final Guidance to Federal 

Financial Assistance Recipients 

Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against 

National Origin Discrimination 

Affecting Limited English Proficient 

Persons (DoD Recipient LEP Guidance). 

The DoD Recipient LEP Guidance is 

based on the prohibition against 

national origin discrimination in Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

affects limited English proficient 

persons. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit only one set 

of comments via one of the methods 

described. 

• Fax: (703) 571–9338. 

• Mail: DoD/ODMEO LEP Public 

Comments, 4000 Defense Pentagon, 

Room 5D641, Washington, DC 20301– 

4000. 

• Email: james.love@osd.mil. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James E. Love, (703) 571–9331. 

Arrangements to receive the policy in an 

alternative format may be made by 

contacting the named individual. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. (Title VI), and 

DoD regulations implementing Title VI, 

recipients of Federal financial assistance 

from the DoD (‘‘recipients’’) have a 

responsibility to ensure meaningful 

access by persons with limited English 

proficiency (LEP) to their programs and 

activities. See 32 CFR 195.4. Executive 

Order 13166, reprinted at 65 FR 50121 

(August 16, 2000), directs each Federal 

agency that extends assistance subject to 

the requirements of Title VI to publish, 

after review and approval by the 

Department of Justice (DOJ), guidance 

for its recipients clarifying that 

obligation. The Executive Order also 

directs that all such guidance be 

consistent with the compliance 

standards and framework set forth by 

DOJ. 

On March 14, 2002, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Report to Congress titled ‘‘Assessment 

of the Total Benefits and Costs of 

Implementing Executive Order No. 

13166: Improving Access to Services for 

Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency.’’ Among other things, the 

Report recommended the adoption of 

uniform guidance across all Federal 

agencies, with flexibility to permit 

tailoring to each agency’s specific 

recipients. Consistent with this OMB 

recommendation, the DOJ published 

LEP Guidance for DOJ recipients which 

was drafted and organized to also 

function as a model for similar guidance 

by other Federal grant agencies. See 67 

FR 41455 (June 18, 2002). This interim 

final DoD Guidance is based upon the 

model of June 18, 2002, DOJ LEP 

Guidance for Recipients. 

The primary focus of this Guidance is 

on entities that receive Federal financial 

assistance from DoD, either directly or 

indirectly, through a grant, cooperative 

agreement, contract or subcontract, and 

operate programs or activities or 

portions of programs or activities in the 

United States and its territories. 

In connection with the issuance of 

this Guidance, each DoD component is 

encouraged to review their current 

programs and activities to determine 

whether they provide the type of 

external assistance to a recipient which 

is subject to Title VI. If Title VI is 

determined to be applicable to one or 

more program or activity, the 

administering component should 

consider developing a program-specific 

Appendix to this Guidance. The 

Appendix should explain how the 

component’s recipients may ensure 

meaningful linguistic access consistent 

with the principles and compliance 

standards set out in DoD’s LEP 

Guidance for Recipients below. The 

Appendix will be submitted to DOJ for 

review and approval prior to 

publication in the Federal Register. 

It has been determined that the 

Guidance does not constitute a 

regulation subject to the rulemaking 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 533. It has also 

been determined that this Guidance is 

not subject to the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866. 

The text of the complete proposed 

Guidance document appears below. 

Dated: January 18, 2012. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

I. Introduction 

Most individuals living in the United 

States read, write, speak and understand 

English. There are many individuals, 

however, for whom English is not their 

primary language. For instance, based 

on the 2000 census, over 26 million 

individuals speak Spanish and almost 7 

million individuals speak an Asian or 

Pacific Island language at home. If these 

individuals have a limited ability to 

read, write, speak, or understand 

English, they are limited English 

proficient, or ‘‘LEP.’’ The 2000 census 

indicates that 28.1% of all Spanishspeakers, 28.2% of all speakers of 

Chinese languages, and 32.3% of all 

Vietnamese-speakers reported that they 

spoke English ‘‘not well’’ or ‘‘not at all.’’ 

Language for LEP individuals can be 

a barrier to accessing important benefits 

or services, understanding and 

exercising important rights, complying 

with applicable responsibilities, or 

understanding other information 

provided by federally funded programs 

and activities. The Federal Government 

funds an array of services that can be 

made accessible to otherwise eligible 

LEP persons. The Federal Government 

is committed to improving the 

accessibility of these programs and 

activities to eligible LEP persons, a goal 

that reinforces its equally important 

commitment to promoting programs and 

activities designed to help individuals 

learn English. Recipients should not 

overlook the long-term positive impacts 

of incorporating or offering English as a 

Second Language (ESL) programs in 

parallel with language assistance 

services. ESL courses can serve as an 

important adjunct to a proper LEP plan. 

However, the fact that ESL classes are 

made available does not obviate the 

statutory and regulatory requirement to 

provide meaningful access for those 

who are not yet English proficient. 

Recipients of Federal financial 

assistance have an obligation to reduce 

language barriers that can preclude 

meaningful access by LEP persons to 

important government services.1

This policy Guidance clarifies 

existing legal requirements for LEP 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 2012 / Notices 8829 

2This policy guidance is not a regulation but 

rather a guide. Title VI and its implementing 

regulations require that recipients take responsible 

steps to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons. 

This Guidance provides an analytical framework 

that recipients may use to determine how best to 

comply with statutory and regulatory obligations to 

provide meaningful access to the benefits, services, 

information, and other important portions of their 

programs and activities for individuals who are 

limited English proficient. 

persons by providing a description of 

the factors recipients should consider in 

fulfilling their responsibilities to LEP 

persons.2 These are the same criteria 

DoD has been and will continue to use 

in evaluating whether recipients are in 

compliance with Title VI and Title VI 

regulations. 

In certain circumstances, failure to 

ensure that LEP persons can effectively 

participate in or benefit from federally 

assisted programs and activities may 

violate the prohibition under Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 

2000d, and Title VI regulations against 

national origin discrimination. The 

purpose of this policy Guidance is to 

assist recipients in fulfilling their 

responsibility to provide meaningful 

access to LEP persons under existing 

law. 

As with most government initiatives, 

this policy Guidance requires balancing 

several principles. While this Guidance 

discusses that balance in some detail, it 

is important to note the basic principles 

behind that balance. First, we must 

ensure that federally assisted programs 

aimed at the American public do not 

leave some behind simply because they 

face challenges communicating in 

English. This is of particular importance 

because, in many cases, LEP individuals 

form a substantial portion of those 

encountered in federally assisted 

programs. Second, we must achieve this 

goal while finding constructive methods 

to reduce the costs of LEP requirements 

on small businesses, small local 

governments, or small non-profits that 

receive Federal financial assistance. 

In addition, many DoD recipients also 

receive Federal financial assistance from 

other Federal agencies, such as the 

Department of Education or the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. While guidance from those 

Federal agencies is consistent with this 

Guidance, recipients receiving 

assistance from multiple agencies 

should review those agencies’ guidance 

documents at http://www.lep.gov for a 

more focused explanation of how the 

standards apply in portions of programs 

or activities that are the focus of funding 

from those agencies. 

There are many productive steps that 

the Federal government, either 

collectively or as individual grant 

agencies, can take to help recipients 

reduce the costs of language services 

without sacrificing meaningful access 

for LEP persons. Without these steps, 

certain smaller grantees may well 

choose not to participate in federally 

assisted programs, threatening the 

critical functions that the programs 

strive to provide. To that end, the DoD 

plans to continue to provide assistance 

and guidance in this important area. In 

addition, the DoD plans to work with 

representatives of research and defenserelated institutions, grant organizations, 

administrative agencies, other Federal 

entities, and LEP persons to identify and 

share model plans, examples of best 

practices, and cost-saving approaches. 

Moreover, DoD intends to explore how 

language assistance measures, resources 

and cost-containment approaches 

developed with respect to its own 

Federally conducted programs and 

activities can be effectively shared or 

otherwise made available to recipients, 

particularly small businesses, small 

local governments, and small nonprofits. An interagency working group 

on LEP developed a Web site, 

www.lep.gov, to assist in disseminating 

this information to recipients, Federal 

agencies, and the communities being 

served. 

II. Legal Authority 

Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, 

provides that no person shall ‘‘on the 

ground of race, color, or national origin, 

be excluded from participation in, be 

denied the benefits of, or be subjected 

to discrimination under any program or 

activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance.’’ Section 602 of Title VI, 42 

U.S.C. 2000d–1, authorizes and directs 

Federal agencies that are empowered to 

extend Federal financial assistance to 

any program or activity ‘‘to effectuate 

the provisions of [section 601] * * * by 

issuing rules, regulations, or orders of 

general applicability.’’ 

DoD regulations promulgated 

pursuant to section 602 forbid recipients 

from ‘‘utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of 

administration which have the effect of 

subjecting individuals to discrimination 

because of their race, color, or national 

origin, or have the effect of defeating or 

substantially impairing accomplishment 

of the objectives of the program as 

respect individuals of a particular race, 

color, or national origin.’’ 32 CFR 

195.4(b)(2). 

The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 

414 U.S. 563 (1974), interpreted 

regulations promulgated by the former 

Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare, including a regulation similar 

to that of DOD, 45 CFR 80.3(b)(2), to 

hold that Title VI prohibits conduct that 

has a disproportionate effect on LEP 

persons because such conduct 

constitutes national-origin 

discrimination. In Lau, a San Francisco 

school district that had a significant 

number of non-English speaking 

students of Chinese origin was required 

to take reasonable steps to provide them 

with a meaningful opportunity to 

participate in federally funded 

educational programs. 

Executive Order 13166, ‘‘Improving 

Access to Services for Persons with 

Limited English Proficiency,’’ 65 FR 

50121 (August 16, 2000) was issued on 

August 11, 2000. Under that Executive 

Order, every Federal agency that 

provides financial assistance to nonFederal entities must publish guidance 

on how their recipients can provide 

meaningful access to LEP persons and 

thus comply with Title VI regulations 

forbidding funding recipients from 

‘‘restrict[ing] an individual in any way 

in the enjoyment of any advantage or 

privilege enjoyed by others receiving 

any service, financial aid, or other 

benefit under the program’’ or from 

‘‘utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of 

administration which have the effect of 

subjecting individuals to discrimination 

because of their race, color, or national 

origin, or have the effect of defeating or 

substantially impairing accomplishment 

of the objectives of the program as 

respects individuals of a particular race, 

color, or national origin.’’ 

On that same day, DOJ issued a 

general guidance document addressed 

to ‘‘Executive Agency Civil Rights 

Officers’’ setting forth general principles 

for agencies to apply in developing 

guidance documents for recipients 

pursuant to the Executive Order. 

‘‘Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 National Origin 

Discrimination Against Persons With 

Limited English Proficiency,’’ 65 FR 

50123 (August 16, 2000) (‘‘DOJ LEP 

Guidance’’). 

Subsequently, Federal agencies raised 

questions regarding the requirements of 

the Executive Order, especially in light 

of the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 

(2001). On October 26, 2001, the Civil 

Rights Division of DOJ issued a 

memorandum clarifying and reaffirming 

the DOJ LEP Guidance in light of 

Sandoval.[1] The Assistant Attorney 

General stated that because Sandoval 

did not invalidate any Title VI 

regulations that proscribe conduct that 

has a disparate impact on covered 

groups—the types of regulations that 

form the legal basis for the part of 

Executive Order 13166 that applies to 

federally assisted programs and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8830 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 2012 / Notices 

3However, if a Federal agency were to decide to 

terminate Federal funds based on noncompliance 

with Title VI or its regulations, only funds directed 

to the particular program or activity that is out of 

compliance would be terminated. 42 U.S.C. 2000d– 

1. 

4For additional guidance on providing 

meaningful access to LEP individuals at public 

hearings or meetings, see Department of Housing 

and Urban Development Notice of Guidance to 

Federal Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI 

Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination 

Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 68 FR 

70980 (Dec. 19, 2003) (available at http:// 

www.lep.gov). 

activities—the Executive Order remains 

in force. Mindful of the limitations on 

bringing a private action to enforce Title 

VI regulations addressing disparate 

impact, DoD is committed to vigorously 

enforcing the requirements of Title VI 

and its implementing regulations on 

behalf of LEP beneficiaries and other 

LEP persons encountered by DoD 

assisted agencies and entities. 

This Guidance document is thus 

published at the direction of Executive 

Order 13166 and pursuant to Title VI 

and the Title VI regulations. It is 

consistent with the relevant DOJ 

Guidance. 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 2002) 

(also available at www.lep.gov). 

III. Who is covered? 

All entities that receive Federal 

financial assistance from the DoD, either 

directly or indirectly, through a grant, 

cooperative agreement, contract or 

subcontract, and operate programs or 

activities or portions thereof in the 

United States and its territories, are 

covered by this Guidance. Title VI 

applies to all Federal financial 

assistance, which includes but is not 

limited to awards and loans of Federal 

funds, awards or donations of Federal 

land or property, details of Federal or 

Federally funded personnel, or any 

agreement, arrangement or other 

contract that has as one of its purposes 

the provision of assistance. 

Examples of recipients of DoD 

assistance covered by this Guidance 

include, but are not limited to: 

— State and local government 

agencies and any other entities that 

receive DoD-donated land or land that is 

sold at a below-market rate; and 

— Organizations and institutions, 

such as nonprofit organizations or 

educational institutions, receiving 

grants to conduct scientific, medical, 

environmental or other research. 

Title VI prohibits discrimination in 

any program or activity that receives 

Federal financial assistance. In most 

cases, when a recipient receives Federal 

financial assistance for a particular 

program or activity, all operations of the 

recipient are covered by Title VI, not 

just the part of the program that uses the 

Federal assistance. Thus, all parts of the 

recipient’s operations would be covered 

by Title VI, even if the Federal 

assistance were used only by one part.3

Sub-recipients likewise are covered 

when Federal funds are passed through 

from one recipient to a sub-recipient. 

Finally, some recipients operate in 

jurisdictions in which English has been 

declared the official language. 

Nonetheless, these recipients continue 

to be subject to Federal nondiscrimination requirements, including 

those applicable to the provision of 

federally assisted services to persons 

with limited English proficiency. 

IV. Who is a limited English proficient 

individual? 

Individuals who do not speak English 

as their primary language and who have 

a limited ability to read, write, speak, or 

understand English can be limited 

English proficient, or ‘‘LEP,’’ entitled to 

language assistance with respect to a 

particular type of service, benefit, or 

encounter. 

Examples of populations likely to 

include LEP persons who are 

encountered and/or served by DoD 

recipients and should be considered 

when planning language services 

include, but are not limited to: 

—Persons who are included in DoDfunded medical studies; 

—Persons who participate in support 

groups that are funded by DoD; 

—Persons who encounter or who are 

eligible to receive benefits or services 

from a state or local agency that is a 

recipient of DoD assistance; 

—Persons who encounter or are eligible 

to participate in portions of programs 

or activities of an institution of higher 

learning that receives DoD assistance; 

—Persons who are served by programs 

or activities run by recipients of DoDdonated land; 

—Persons who attend community 

meetings or other public meetings 

organized by DoD recipients; 4

—Other LEP persons who encounter or 

are eligible to receive benefits or 

services from DoD recipients; and 

—Parents and family members of the 

above. 

V. How does a recipient determine the 

extent of its obligation to provide LEP 

services? 

Recipients are required to take 

reasonable steps to ensure meaningful 

access to their programs and activities 

by LEP persons. While designed to be a 

flexible and fact-dependent standard, 

the starting point is an individualized 

assessment that balances the following 

four factors: (1) The number or 

proportion of LEP persons eligible to be 

served or likely to be encountered by 

the program or activity or portion 

thereof; (2) the frequency with which 

LEP individuals come in contact with 

the program or activity or portion 

thereof; (3) the nature and importance of 

the program, activity, service, benefit, or 

information provided by the recipient to 

people’s lives; and (4) the resources 

available to the grantee/recipient and 

costs. As indicated above, the intent of 

this Guidance is to suggest a balance 

that ensures meaningful access by LEP 

persons to critical services while not 

imposing undue burdens on small 

business, small local governments, or 

small nonprofits. 

After applying the above four-factor 

analysis, a recipient may conclude that 

different language assistance measures 

are sufficient for the different types of 

encounters. For instance, some portions 

of a recipient’s program or activity will 

be more important than others and/or 

have greater impact on or contact with 

LEP persons, and thus may require more 

in the way of language assistance. The 

flexibility that recipients have in 

addressing the needs of the LEP 

populations they serve does not 

diminish, and should not be used to 

minimize, the obligation that those 

needs be addressed. DOD recipients 

should apply the following four factors 

to the various kinds of contacts that they 

have with the public to assess language 

needs and decide what reasonable steps 

they should take to ensure meaningful 

access for LEP persons. 

(1) The Number or Proportion of LEP 

Persons Served or Encountered in the 

Eligible Service Population 

One factor in determining what 

language services recipients should 

provide is the number or proportion of 

LEP persons from a particular language 

group served or encountered in the 

eligible service population. The greater 

the number or proportion of these LEP 

persons, the more likely language 

services are needed. Ordinarily, persons 

‘‘eligible to be served or likely to be 

encountered by’’ a recipient’s program 

or activity are those who are served or 

encountered in the eligible service 

population. This population will be 

program-specific, and includes persons 

who are in the geographic area that has 

been approved by a Federal grant 

agency as the recipient’s service area. 

However, where, for instance, a regional 

office of a nonprofit that provides 

support services for cancer survivors 

serves a large LEP population, the 

appropriate service area is most likely 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 2012 / Notices 8831 

5The focus of the analysis is on lack of English 

proficiency, not the ability to speak more than one 

language. Note that demographic data may indicate 

the most frequently spoken languages other than 

English and the percentage of people who speak 

that language who speak or understand English less 

than well. Some of the most commonly spoken 

languages other than English may be spoken by 

people who are also overwhelmingly proficient in 

English. Thus, they may not be the languages 

spoken most frequently by limited English 

proficient individuals. When using demographic 

data, it is important to focus in on the languages 

spoken by those who are not proficient in English. 

6Small recipients with limited resources may 

find that entering into a telephonic interpretation 

service contract will prove cost effective. 

the regional office of the nonprofit 

organization, and not the entire 

population served by the non-profit. 

Where no service area has previously 

been approved, the relevant service area 

may be that which is approved by state 

or local authorities or designated by the 

recipient itself, provided that these 

designations do not themselves 

discriminatorily exclude certain 

populations. In addition, there may be 

circumstances in which recipients 

appropriately identify English language 

skills as an eligibility criterion, such as 

in the case of a university English 

language masters program. But other 

portions of the program, such as a 

university daycare or clinic open to the 

public, or various public community 

events, cultural exchanges, campus 

security, or other portions of a 

recipient’s operations, may have a more 

significant LEP population that may be 

encountered or is eligible to participate. 

When considering the number or 

proportion of LEP individuals in a 

service area, recipients should consider 

LEP parent(s) when their Englishproficient or LEP minor children and 

dependents encounter the recipient’s 

program or activity. 

Recipients should first examine their 

prior experiences with LEP encounters 

and determine the breadth and scope of 

language services that were needed. In 

conducting this analysis, it is important 

to include language minority 

populations that are eligible for their 

programs or activities but may be 

underserved because of existing 

language barriers. 

Other data in addition to prior 

experiences should be consulted to 

refine or validate a recipient’s prior 

experience, including the latest census 

data for the area served, data from 

school systems and from community 

organizations, and data from state and 

local governments.5 Community 

agencies, school systems, religious 

organizations, legal aid entities, and 

others can often assist in identifying 

populations for whom outreach is 

needed and who would benefit from the 

recipients’ programs and activities were 

language services provided. 

(2) The Frequency With Which LEP 

Individuals Come in Contact With the 

Program 

Recipients should assess, as 

accurately as possible, the frequency 

with which they have or should have 

contact with an LEP individual from 

different language groups seeking 

assistance. The more frequent the 

contact with a particular language 

group, the more likely that enhanced 

language services in that language are 

needed. The steps that are reasonable 

for a recipient that serves an LEP person 

on a one-time basis will be very 

different than those expected from a 

recipient that serves LEP persons daily. 

It is also advisable to consider the 

frequency of different types of language 

contacts. For example, frequent contacts 

with Spanish-speaking people who are 

LEP may require certain assistance in 

Spanish. Less frequent contact with 

different language groups may suggest a 

different and less intensified solution. If 

an LEP individual accesses a program or 

service on a daily basis, a recipient has 

greater duties than if the same 

individual’s program or activity contact 

is unpredictable or infrequent. But even 

recipients that serve LEP persons on an 

unpredictable or infrequent basis should 

use this balancing analysis to determine 

what to do if an LEP individual seeks 

services under the program in question. 

This plan need not be intricate. It may 

be as simple as being prepared to use 

one of the commercially-available 

telephonic interpretation services to 

obtain immediate interpreter services. In 

applying this standard, recipients 

should take care to consider whether 

appropriate outreach to LEP persons 

could increase the frequency of contact 

with LEP language groups. 

(3) The Nature and Importance of the 

Program, Activity, or Service Provided 

by the Program 

The more important the activity, 

information, service, or program, or the 

greater the possible consequences of the 

contact to the LEP individuals, the more 

likely language services are needed. A 

recipient needs to determine whether 

denial or delay of access to services or 

information could have serious, 

economic, safety, education or even lifethreatening implications for the LEP 

individual. For instance, the obligations 

of a federally assisted entity providing 

medical advice or services differ from 

those of a federally assisted program 

providing purely recreational activities 

(however, if a language barrier could 

result in denial or delay of access to 

important benefits, services, or 

information, or have a serious 

implication for a LEP person who 

participates in the recreational activity, 

the legal obligation to provide language 

services in that circumstance would be 

higher). Decisions by a Federal, state, or 

local entity to make an activity 

compulsory or required in order to 

maintain or receive an important benefit 

or service or preserve a right, such as 

access to medical care, appeals 

procedures, or compliance with rules 

and responsibilities, can serve as strong 

evidence of the program’s importance. 

(4) The Resources Available to the 

Recipient and Costs 

A recipient’s level of resources and 

the costs that would be imposed on it 

may have an impact on the nature of the 

steps it should take. Smaller recipients 

with more limited budgets are not 

expected to provide the same level of 

language services as larger recipients 

with larger budgets. In addition, 

‘‘reasonable steps’’ may cease to be 

reasonable where the costs imposed 

substantially exceed the benefits. 

Resource and cost issues, however, 

can often be reduced by technological 

advances; the sharing of language 

assistance materials and services among 

and between recipients, advocacy 

groups, and Federal grant agencies; and 

reasonable business practices. Where 

appropriate, training bilingual staff to 

act as interpreters and translators, 

information sharing through industry 

groups, telephonic and video 

conferencing interpretation services, 

pooling resources and standardizing 

documents to reduce translation needs, 

using qualified translators and 

interpreters to ensure that documents 

need not be ‘‘fixed’’ later and that 

inaccurate interpretations do not cause 

delay or other costs, centralizing 

interpreter and translator services to 

achieve economies of scale, or the 

formalized use of qualified community 

volunteers, for example, may help 

reduce costs.6

Recipients should carefully explore 

the most cost-effective means of 

delivering competent and accurate 

language services before limiting 

services due to resource concerns. Large 

entities and those entities serving a 

significant number or proportion of LEP 

persons should ensure that their 

resource limitations are wellsubstantiated before using this factor as 

a reason to limit language assistance. 

Such recipients may find it useful to be 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8832 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 2012 / Notices 

7Many languages have ‘‘regionalisms,’’ or 

differences in usage. For instance, a word that may 

be understood to mean something in Spanish for 

someone from Cuba may not be so understood by 

someone from Mexico. In addition, because there 

may be languages which do not have an appropriate 

direct interpretation of some terms, the interpreter 

or translator should be so aware and be able to 

provide the most appropriate interpretation. The 

interpreter should make the recipient aware of the 

issue and the interpreter and recipient can then 

work to develop a consistent and appropriate set of 

descriptions of these terms in that language that can 

be used again, when appropriate. 

able to articulate, through 

documentation or in some other 

reasonable manner, their process for 

determining that language services 

would be limited based on resources or 

costs. 

This four-factor analysis necessarily 

implicates the ‘‘mix’’ of LEP services 

required. Recipients have two main 

ways to provide language services: Oral 

interpretation either in person or via 

telephone interpretation service 

(hereinafter ‘‘interpretation’’) and 

written translation (hereinafter 

‘‘translation’’). Oral interpretation can 

range from on-site interpreters for 

critical services provided to a high 

volume of LEP persons to access 

through commercially-available 

telephonic interpretation services. 

Written translation, likewise, can range 

from translation of an entire document 

to translation of a short description of 

the document. In some cases, language 

services should be made available on an 

expedited basis while in others the LEP 

individual may be referred to another 

office of the recipient for language 

assistance. 

The correct mix should be based on 

what is both necessary and reasonable 

in light of the four-factor analysis. For 

instance, a job training center that was 

created three years ago after DoD 

donated land from a former military 

base serves a large Hispanic population. 

The job training center may need 

immediate oral interpreters to be 

available and should give serious 

consideration to hiring some bilingual 

staff if they have not done so already. 

By contrast, the center may be able to 

rely on a telephonic interpretation 

service to assist those LEP individuals 

who speak a language that is not 

commonly encountered by the center. 

Regardless of the type of language 

service provided, quality and accuracy 

of those services can be critical in order 

to avoid serious consequences to the 

LEP person and to the recipient. 

Recipients have substantial flexibility in 

determining the appropriate mix. 

VI. Selecting Language Assistance 

Services 

Academic institutions, nonprofit 

organizations, and other recipients of 

DoD funds have a long history of 

interacting with people with varying 

language backgrounds and capabilities. 

In fact, many DoD recipients choose not 

only to provide interpretation and 

translation services, but also to provide 

English-language training for LEP 

individuals. This approach is consistent 

with the purpose of Executive Order 

13166. DoD’s goal is to continue to 

encourage these efforts and to encourage 

the sharing of such promising practices 

among recipients, as well as to ensure 

meaningful linguistic access for LEP 

individuals. 

Recipients have two main ways to 

provide language services: oral and 

written language services. Quality and 

accuracy of the language service is 

critical in order to avoid serious 

consequences to the LEP person and to 

the recipient. 

A. Oral Language Services 

(Interpretation) 

Interpretation is the act of listening to 

something in one language (source 

language) and orally translating it into 

another language (target language). 

Where interpretation is needed and is 

reasonable, recipients should consider 

some or all of the following options for 

providing competent interpreters in a 

timely manner: 

—When providing oral assistance, 

recipients should ensure competency 

of the language service provider, no 

matter which of the strategies 

outlined below are used. Competency 

requires more than self-identification 

as bilingual. Some bilingual staff and 

community volunteers, for instance, 

may be able to communicate 

effectively in a different language 

when communicating information 

directly in that language, but not be 

competent to interpret in and out of 

English. Likewise, they may not be 

able to do written translations. 

—Competency to interpret, however, 

does not necessarily mean formal 

certification as an interpreter, 

although certification is helpful. 

When using interpreters, recipients 

should ensure that they: 

—Demonstrate proficiency in and 

ability to communicate information 

accurately in both English and in the 

other language and identify and 

employ the appropriate mode of 

interpreting (e.g., consecutive, 

simultaneous, summarization, or sight 

translation); 

—Have knowledge in both languages of 

any specialized terms or concepts 

peculiar to the entity’s program or 

activity and of any particularized 

vocabulary and phraseology used by 

the LEP person;7 and understand and 

follow confidentiality and 

impartiality rules to the same extent 

the recipient employee for whom they 

are interpreting and/or to the extent 

their position requires; 

—Understand and adhere to their role as 

interpreters without deviating into a 

role as counselor, legal advisor, or 

other roles, particularly in a formal 

context such as a hearing. 

While quality and accuracy of 

language services is critical, the quality 

and accuracy of language services is 

nonetheless part of the appropriate mix 

of LEP services required. The quality 

and accuracy of language services 

provided during the medical screening 

of a LEP individual must be 

extraordinarily high, while the quality 

and accuracy of language services 

provided at a university’s social 

program need not meet the same 

exacting standards. 

Finally, when interpretation is needed 

and is reasonable, it should be provided 

in a timely manner. To be meaningfully 

effective, language assistance should be 

timely. While there is no single 

definition for ‘‘timely’’ applicable to all 

types of interactions at all times by all 

types of recipients, one clear guide is 

that the language assistance should be 

provided at a time and place that avoids 

the effective denial of the service, 

benefit, or right at issue or the 

imposition of an undue burden on or 

delay in important rights, benefits, or 

services to the LEP person. For example, 

when the timeliness of services is 

important, such as with certain 

activities of DOD recipients providing 

health, economic, educational, and 

safety services on DOD-donated land, a 

recipient would likely not be providing 

meaningful access if it had one bilingual 

staffer available one day a week to 

provide the service. Such conduct 

would likely result in delays for LEP 

persons that would be significantly 

greater than those for English proficient 

persons. Conversely, where access to or 

exercise of a service, benefit, or right is 

not effectively precluded by a 

reasonable delay, language assistance 

can likely be delayed for a reasonable 

period. 

Hiring Bilingual Staff. When 

particular languages are encountered 

often, hiring bilingual staff offers one of 

the best and often most economical, 

options. Recipients can, for example, fill 

public contact positions, such as 

receptionists, guards, or social workers, 

with staff who are bilingual and 

competent to communicate directly 

with LEP persons in their language. If 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 2012 / Notices 8833 

bilingual staff are also used to interpret 

between English speakers and LEP 

persons, or to orally interpret written 

documents from English into another 

language, they should be competent in 

the skill of interpreting. Being bilingual 

does not necessarily mean that a person 

has the ability to interpret. In addition, 

there may be times when the role of the 

bilingual employee may conflict with 

the role of an interpreter. Effective 

management strategies, including any 

appropriate adjustments in assignments 

and protocols for using bilingual staff, 

can ensure that bilingual staff are fully 

and appropriately utilized. When 

bilingual staff cannot meet all of the 

language service obligations of the 

recipient, the recipient should turn to 

other options. 

Hiring Staff Interpreters. Hiring 

interpreters may be most helpful where 

there is a frequent need for interpreting 

services in one or more languages. 

Depending on the facts, sometimes it 

may be necessary and reasonable to 

provide on-site interpreters to provide 

accurate and meaningful 

communication with an LEP person. 

Contracting for Interpreters. Contract 

interpreters may be a cost-effective 

option when there is no regular need for 

a particular language skill. In addition 

to commercial and other private 

providers, many community-based 

organizations and mutual assistance 

associations provide interpretation 

services for particular languages. 

Contracting with and providing training 

regarding the recipient’s programs and 

processes to these organizations can be 

a cost-effective option for providing 

language services to LEP persons from 

those language groups. 

Using Telephone Interpreter Lines. 

Telephone interpreter service lines often 

offer speedy interpreting assistance in 

many different languages. They may be 

particularly appropriate where the mode 

of communicating with an English 

proficient person would also be over the 

phone. Although telephonic 

interpretation services are useful in 

many situations, it is important to 

ensure that, when using such services, 

the interpreters used are competent to 

interpret any technical or legal terms 

specific to a particular program that may 

be important parts of the conversation. 

Nuances in language and non-verbal 

communication can often assist an 

interpreter and cannot be recognized 

over the phone. Video teleconferencing 

may sometimes help to resolve this 

issue where appropriate or necessary. In 

addition, where documents are being 

discussed, it is important to give 

telephonic interpreters adequate 

opportunity to review the document 

prior to the discussion and any 

logistical problems should be addressed. 

Using Community Volunteers. In 

addition to consideration of bilingual 

staff, staff interpreters, or contract 

interpreters (either in-person or by 

telephone) as options to ensure 

meaningful access by LEP persons, use 

of recipient-coordinated community 

volunteers, working with, for instance, 

community-based organizations may 

provide a cost-effective supplemental 

language assistance strategy under 

appropriate circumstances. They may be 

particularly useful in providing 

language access for a recipient’s less 

critical programs and activities. To the 

extent the recipient relies on 

community volunteers, it is often best to 

use volunteers who are trained in the 

information or services of the program 

and can communicate directly with LEP 

persons in their language. Just as with 

all interpreters, community volunteers 

used to interpret between English 

speakers and LEP persons, or to orally 

translate documents, should be 

competent in the skill of interpreting 

and knowledgeable about applicable 

confidentiality and impartiality rules. 

Recipients should consider formal 

arrangements with community-based 

organizations that provide volunteers to 

address these concerns and to help 

ensure that services are available more 

regularly. 

Use of Family and Friends and 

Informal Interpreters. Although 

recipients should not plan to rely on an 

LEP person’s family members, friends, 

or other informal interpreters to provide 

meaningful access to important 

programs and activities, where LEP 

persons so desire, they should be 

permitted to use, at their own expense, 

an interpreter of their own choosing 

(whether a professional interpreter, 

family member, friend, or other person) 

in place of or as a supplement to the free 

language services expressly offered by 

the recipient. LEP persons may feel 

more comfortable when a trusted family 

member or friend acts as an interpreter. 

The recipient should take care to ensure 

that the LEP person’s choice is 

voluntary, that the LEP person is aware 

of the possible problems if the preferred 

interpreter is a minor child, and that the 

LEP person knows that a competent 

interpreter could be provided by the 

recipient at no cost. In addition, in 

exigent circumstances that are not 

reasonably foreseeable, temporary use of 

interpreters not provided by the 

recipient may be necessary. However, 

with proper planning and 

implementation, recipients should be 

able to avoid most such situations. 

Recipients, however, should take 

special care to ensure that informal 

interpreters are appropriate in light of 

the circumstances and subject matter of 

the program, service or activity, 

including protection of the recipient’s 

own administrative or enforcement 

interest in accurate interpretation. In 

many circumstances, family members 

(especially children), friends, or other 

informal interpreters are not competent 

to provide quality and accurate 

interpretations. Issues of confidentiality, 

privacy, or conflict of interest may also 

arise. LEP individuals may feel 

uncomfortable revealing or describing 

sensitive, confidential, or potentially 

embarrassing information to a family 

member, friend, or member of the local 

community. In addition, such informal 

interpreters may have a personal 

connection to the LEP person or an 

undisclosed conflict of interest. For 

these reasons, when oral language 

services are necessary, recipients should 

generally offer competent interpreter 

services free of cost to the LEP person. 

For DoD recipient programs and 

activities, this is particularly true in 

situations in which health, safety, 

economic livelihood, or access to 

important benefits and services are at 

stake, or when mistakes in 

interpretation or translation could have 

other serious consequences to the LEP 

person. 

While issues of competency, 

confidentiality, and conflict of interest 

in the use of family members, friends, 

or other informal interpreters often 

make their use inappropriate, the use of 

these individuals as interpreters may be 

an appropriate option where proper 

application of the four factors would 

lead to a conclusion that recipientprovided services are not necessary. An 

example of this is a voluntary 

educational tour of a DoD facility 

offered to the public. There, the 

importance and nature of the activity 

may be relatively low and unlikely to 

implicate issues of confidentiality, 

conflict of interest, or the need for 

accuracy. In addition, the resources 

needed and costs of providing language 

services may be high, and the number 

or proportion and frequency of LEP 

encounters may be quite low. In such a 

setting, an LEP person’s use of family, 

friends, or others to interpret may be 

appropriate. However, children should 

not be used as interpreters. 

B. Written Language Services 

(Translation) 

Translation is the replacement of a 

written text from one language (source 

language) into an equivalent written text 

in another language (target language). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8834 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 2012 / Notices 

What Documents Should be 

Translated? After applying the fourfactor analysis, a recipient may 

determine that an effective LEP plan for 

its particular program or activity 

includes the translation of vital written 

materials into the language of each 

frequently-encountered LEP group 

eligible to be served and/or likely to be 

affected by the recipient’s program. 

Such written materials could include, 

for example: 

——Consent, application, and 

complaint forms; 

——Intake forms with the potential for 

important consequences; 

——Written notices of rights, denial, 

loss, or decreases in benefits or 

services, and other hearings; 

——Notices advising LEP persons of 

free language assistance; 

——Written tests that do not assess 

English language competency, but test 

competency for a particular license, 

job, or skill for which knowing 

English is not required; 

——Applications to participate in a 

recipient’s program or activity or to 

receive recipient benefits or services. 

Whether or not a document (or the 

information it solicits) is ‘‘vital’’ may 

depend upon the importance of the 

program, information, encounter, or 

service involved, and the consequence 

to the LEP person if the information in 

question is not provided accurately or in 

a timely manner. For instance, a flyer 

announcing a soccer program run by a 

city agency at a former military base that 

was donated to that agency would not 

generally be considered vital, whereas 

written information about the 

application process for new affordable 

housing provided by the agency at that 

same base should likely be considered 

vital. Where appropriate, recipients are 

encouraged to create a plan for 

consistently determining, over time and 

across its various activities, what 

documents are ‘‘vital’’ to the meaningful 

access of the LEP populations they 

serve. 

Categorizing a document as vital or 

non-vital is sometimes difficult, 

especially in the case of outreach 

materials like brochures or other 

information on rights and services. 

Awareness of rights or services is an 

important part of ‘‘meaningful access.’’ 

Lack of awareness that a particular 

program, right, or service exists may 

effectively deny LEP individuals 

meaningful access. Thus, where a 

recipient is engaged in community 

outreach activities in furtherance of its 

activities, it should regularly assess the 

needs of the populations frequently 

encountered or affected by the program 

or activity to determine whether certain 

critical outreach materials should be 

translated. Community organizations 

may be helpful in determining what 

outreach materials may be most helpful 

to translate. In addition, the recipient 

should consider whether translations of 

outreach material may be made more 

effective when done in tandem with 

other outreach methods, including 

utilizing the ethnic media, schools, and 

religious and community organizations 

to spread a message. 

Sometimes a document includes both 

vital and non-vital information. This 

may be the case when the document is 

very large. It may also be the case when 

the title and a phone number for 

obtaining more information on the 

contents of the document in frequentlyencountered languages other than 

English is critical, but the document is 

sent out to the general public and 

cannot reasonably be translated into 

many languages and/or the language of 

the recipient is not known. Thus, vital 

information may include, for instance, 

the provision of information in 

appropriate languages other than 

English regarding where a LEP person 

might obtain an interpretation or 

translation of the document. 

Into What Languages Should 

Documents be Translated? The 

languages spoken by the LEP 

individuals with whom the recipient 

has contact determine the languages 

into which vital documents should be 

translated. A distinction should be 

made, however, between languages that 

are frequently encountered by a 

recipient and less commonlyencountered languages. Many recipients 

serve communities in large cities or 

across the country. They regularly serve 

LEP persons who speak dozens and 

sometimes over 100 different languages. 

To translate all written materials into all 

of those languages is unrealistic, for 

although recent technological advances 

have made it easier for recipients to 

store and share translated documents, 

such an undertaking could incur 

substantial costs and require substantial 

resources. Nevertheless, wellsubstantiated claims of lack of resources 

to translate all vital documents into 

dozens of languages do not necessarily 

relieve the recipient of the obligation to 

translate those documents into at least 

several of the more frequentlyencountered languages and to set 

benchmarks for continued translations 

into the remaining languages over time. 

As a result, the extent of the recipient’s 

obligation to provide written 

translations of documents should be 

determined by the recipient on a caseby-case basis, looking at the totality of 

the circumstances in light of the fourfactor analysis. Because translation is a 

one-time expense, consideration should 

be given to whether the upfront cost of 

translating a document (as opposed to 

oral interpretation) should be amortized 

over the likely lifespan of the document 

when applying this four-factor analysis. 

Safe Harbor. Many recipients would 

like to ensure with greater certainty that 

they comply with their obligations to 

provide written translations in 

languages other than English. 

Paragraphs (a) and (b) below outline the 

circumstances that can provide a ‘‘safe 

harbor’’ for recipients regarding the 

requirements for translation of written 

materials. A ‘‘safe harbor’’ means that if 

a recipient provides written translations 

under these circumstances, such action 

will be considered strong evidence of 

compliance with the recipient’s writtentranslation obligations. 

The failure to provide written 

translations under the circumstances 

outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) does 

not mean there is non-compliance. 

Rather, they provide a common starting 

point for recipients to consider whether 

and at what point the importance of the 

service, benefit, or activity involved; the 

nature of the information sought; and 

the number or proportion of LEP 

persons served call for written 

translations of commonly-used forms 

into frequently-encountered languages 

other than English. Thus, these 

paragraphs merely provide a guide for 

recipients that would like greater 

certainty of compliance than can be 

provided by a fact-intensive, four-factor 

analysis. 

Example: Even if the safe harbors are 

not used, if written translation of a 

certain document(s) would be so 

burdensome as to defeat the legitimate 

objectives of its program, the translation 

of the written materials is not necessary. 

Other ways of providing meaningful 

access, such as effective oral 

interpretation of certain vital 

documents, might be acceptable under 

such circumstances. 

When determining whether to provide 

translated documents or oral language 

services, recipients should consider the 

literacy rates of the LEP communities 

they serve. For example, certain 

languages (e.g., Hmong) until recently 

have been oral and not written, thus a 

high percentage of such LEP speakers 

may be unable to read translated 

documents or written instructions. Data 

analysis, utilizing information from a 

range of community groups and other 

sources, may provide a recipient with 

insight into whether translation of vital 

documents meets the goal of providing 

meaningful access, or whether it makes 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 2012 / Notices 8835 

8For those languages in which no formal 

accreditation currently exists, a particular level of 

membership in a professional translation 

association can provide some indicator of 

professionalism. 

more sense to focus those resources on 

oral, and, where appropriate, graphicsor visually-based information exchange. 

Safe Harbor. The following actions 

will be considered strong evidence of 

compliance with the recipient’s writtentranslation obligations: 

(a) The DoD recipient provides 

written translations of vital documents 

for each eligible LEP language group 

that constitutes five percent or 1,000, 

whichever is less, of the population of 

persons eligible to be served or likely to 

be affected or encountered. Translation 

of other documents, if needed, can be 

provided orally; or 

(b) If there are fewer than 50 persons 

in a language group that reaches the five 

percent trigger in (a), the recipient does 

not translate vital written materials but 

provides written notice in the primary 

language of the LEP language group of 

the right to receive competent oral 

interpretation of those written materials, 

free of cost. 

These safe harbor provisions apply to 

the translation of written documents 

only. They do not affect the requirement 

to provide meaningful access to LEP 

individuals through competent oral 

interpreters where oral language 

services are needed and are reasonable. 

For example, even when there is only 

one LEP individual who is participating 

in a medical study, vital information 

should be provided orally in a language 

that person understands, even if it is not 

translated in writing. 

Competence of Translators. As with 

oral interpreters, translators of written 

documents should be competent. Many 

of the same considerations apply. 

However, the skill of translating is very 

different from the skill of interpreting, 

and a person who is a competent 

interpreter may or may not be 

competent to translate. 

Particularly where legal or other vital 

documents are being translated, 

competence can often be achieved by 

use of certified translators. Certification 

or accreditation may not always be 

possible or necessary.8 Competence can 

often be ensured by having a second, 

independent translator ‘‘check’’ the 

work of the primary translator. 

Alternatively, one translator can 

translate the document, and a second, 

independent translator could translate it 

back into English to check that the 

appropriate meaning has been 

conveyed. This is called ‘‘back 

translation.’’ 

Translators should understand the 

expected reading level of the audience 

and, where appropriate, have 

fundamental knowledge about the target 

language group’s vocabulary and 

phraseology. Sometimes direct 

translation of materials results in a 

translation that is written at a much 

more difficult level than the English 

language version or has no relevant 

equivalent meaning. Community 

organizations may be able to help 

consider whether a document is written 

at an appropriate level for the audience. 

Also, there may be languages which do 

not have an appropriate direct 

translation of some terms. The translator 

should make the recipient aware of this. 

Recipients can then work with 

translators to develop a consistent and 

appropriate set of descriptions of these 

terms in that language that can be used 

again, when appropriate. Likewise, 

consistency in the words and phrases 

used to translate terms of art, legal, or 

other technical concepts helps avoid 

confusion by LEP individuals and may 

reduce costs. Creating or using alreadycreated glossaries of commonly-used 

terms may be useful for LEP persons 

and translators and cost effective for the 

recipient. Providing translators with 

examples of previous accurate 

translations of similar material by the 

recipient, other recipients, or Federal 

agencies may be helpful. 

While quality and accuracy of 

translation services is critical, the 

quality and accuracy of translation 

services is nonetheless part of the 

appropriate mix of LEP services 

required. For instance, documents that 

are simple and have no legal or other 

consequence for LEP persons who rely 

on them may call for translators that are 

less skilled than important documents 

with legal or other information upon 

which reliance has important 

consequences (including, e.g., 

information or documents of DoD 

recipients regarding certain health, 

economic, education, and safety 

services). The permanent nature of 

written translations, however, imposes 

additional responsibility on the 

recipient to ensure that the quality and 

accuracy permit meaningful access by 

LEP persons. 

VII. Elements of Effective Plan on 

Language Assistance for LEP Persons 

After completing the four-factor 

analysis and deciding what language 

assistance services are appropriate, a 

recipient should develop an 

implementation plan to address the 

identified needs of the LEP populations 

they serve. Recipients have considerable 

flexibility in developing this plan. The 

development and maintenance of a 

periodically-updated written plan on 

language assistance for LEP persons 

(‘‘LEP plan’’) for use by recipient 

employees serving the public will likely 

be the most appropriate and costeffective means of documenting 

compliance and providing a framework 

for the provision of timely and 

reasonable language assistance. 

Moreover, such written plans would 

likely provide additional benefits to a 

recipient’s managers in the areas of 

training, administration, planning, and 

budgeting. These benefits should lead 

most recipients to document in a 

written LEP plan their language 

assistance services, and how staff and 

LEP persons can access those services. 

Despite these benefits, certain DoD 

recipients, such as recipients serving 

very few LEP persons and recipients 

with very limited resources, may choose 

not to develop a written LEP plan. 

However, the absence of a written LEP 

plan does not obviate the underlying 

obligation to ensure meaningful access 

by LEP persons to a recipient’s program 

or activities. Accordingly, in the event 

that a recipient elects not to develop a 

written plan, it should consider 

alternative ways to articulate in some 

other reasonable manner a plan for 

providing meaningful access. Entities 

having significant contact with LEP 

persons, such as schools, religious 

organizations, community groups, and 

groups working with new immigrants 

can be very helpful in providing 

important input into this planning 

process from the beginning. 

The following five steps may be 

helpful in designing an LEP plan and 

are typically part of effective 

implementation plans. 

(1) Identifying LEP Individuals Who 

Need Language Assistance 

The first two factors in the four-factor 

analysis require an assessment of the 

number or proportion of LEP 

individuals eligible to be served or 

encountered and the frequency of 

encounters. This requires recipients to 

identify LEP persons with whom it has 

contact. 

One way to determine the language of 

communication is to use language 

identification cards (or ‘‘I speak cards’’), 

which invite LEP persons to identify 

their language needs to staff. Such 

cards, for instance, might say ‘‘I speak 

Spanish’’ in both Spanish and English, 

‘‘I speak Vietnamese’’ in both English 

and Vietnamese, etc. To reduce costs of 

compliance, the Federal government has 

made a set of these cards available on 

the Internet. The Census Bureau ‘‘I 

speak card’’ can be found and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8836 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 2012 / Notices 

9The Social Security Administration has made 

such signs available at http://www.ssa.gov/

multilanguage/langlist1.htm. These signs could, for 

example, be modified for recipient use. 

downloaded at http://www.usdoj.gov/ 

crt/cor/13166.htm and www.lep.gov. 

When records are normally kept of past 

interactions with members of the public, 

the language of the LEP person can be 

included as part of the record. In 

addition to helping employees identify 

the language of LEP persons they 

encounter, this process will help in 

future applications of the first two 

factors of the four-factor analysis. In 

addition, posting notices in commonly 

encountered languages notifying LEP 

persons of language assistance will 

encourage them to self-identify. 

(2) Language Assistance Measures 

An effective LEP plan would likely 

include information about the ways in 

which language assistance will be 

provided. For instance, recipients may 

want to include information on at least 

the following: 

—Types of language services available. 

—How staff can obtain those services. 

—How to respond to LEP callers. 

—How to respond to written 

communications from LEP persons. 

—How to respond to LEP individuals 

who have in-person contact with 

recipient staff. 

—How to ensure competency of 

interpreters and translation services. 

(3) Training Staff 

Staff should know their obligations to 

provide meaningful access to 

information and services for LEP 

persons. An effective LEP plan would 

likely include training to ensure that: 

—Staff know about LEP policies and 

procedures. 

—Staff having contact with the public 

(or those in a recipient’s custody) are 

trained to work effectively with inperson and telephone interpreters. 

Recipients may want to include this 

training as part of the orientation for 

new employees. It is important to 

ensure that all employees in public 

contact positions (or having contact 

with those in a recipient’s custody) are 

properly trained. Recipients have 

flexibility in deciding the manner in 

which the training is provided. The 

more frequent the contact with LEP 

persons, the greater the need will be for 

in-depth training. Staff with little or no 

contact with LEP persons may only have 

to be aware of an LEP plan. However, 

management staff, even if they do not 

interact regularly with LEP persons, 

should be fully aware of and understand 

the plan so they can reinforce its 

importance and ensure its 

implementation by staff. 

(4) Providing Notice to LEP Persons 

Once an agency has decided, based on 

the four factors, that it will provide 

language services, it is important for the 

recipient to let LEP persons know that 

those services are available and that 

they are free of charge. Recipients 

should provide this notice in a language 

LEP persons will understand. Examples 

of notification that recipients should 

consider include: 

Posting signs in intake areas and other 

entry points. When language assistance 

is needed to ensure meaningful access 

to information and services, it is 

important to provide notice in 

appropriate languages in intake areas or 

initial points of contact so that LEP 

persons can learn how to access those 

language services. This is particularly 

true in areas with high volumes of LEP 

persons seeking access to certain health, 

educational, safety, or economic 

services or activities run by DOD 

recipients. For instance, signs in intake 

offices could state that free language 

assistance is available. The signs should 

be translated into the most common 

languages encountered. They should 

explain how to get the language help.9

—Stating in outreach documents that 

language services are available from 

the agency. Announcements could be 

in, for instance, brochures, booklets, 

and in outreach and recruitment 

information. These statements should 

be translated into the most common 

languages and could be ‘‘tagged’’ onto 

the front of common documents. 

—Working with community-based 

organizations and other stakeholders 

to inform LEP individuals of the 

recipients’ services, including the 

availability of language assistance 

services. 

—Using a telephone voice mail menu. 

The menu could be in the most 

common languages encountered. It 

should provide information about 

available language assistance services 

and how to get them. 

—Including notices in local newspapers 

in languages other than English. 

—Providing notices on non-Englishlanguage radio and television stations 

about the available language 

assistance services and how to get 

them. 

—Presentations and/or notices at 

schools and religious organizations. 

(5) Monitoring and Updating the LEP 

Plan 

Recipients should, where appropriate, 

have a process for determining, on an 

ongoing basis, whether new documents, 

programs, services, and activities need 

to be made accessible for LEP 

individuals, and they may want to 

provide notice of any changes in 

services to the LEP public and to 

employees. In addition, recipients 

should consider whether changes in 

demographics, types of services, or 

other needs require annual reevaluation 

of their LEP plan. Less frequent 

reevaluation may be more appropriate 

where demographics, services, and 

needs are more static. One good way to 

evaluate the LEP plan is to seek 

feedback from the community. 

In their reviews, recipients may want 

to consider assessing changes in: 

—Current LEP populations in service 

area or population affected or 

encountered. 

—Frequency of encounters with LEP 

language groups. 

—Nature and importance of activities to 

LEP persons. 

—Availability of resources, including 

technological advances and sources of 

additional resources, and the costs 

imposed. 

—Whether existing assistance is 

meeting the needs of LEP persons. 

—Whether staff knows and understands 

the LEP plan and how to implement 

it. 

—Whether identified sources for 

assistance are still available and 

viable. 

In addition to these five elements, 

effective plans set clear goals, 

management accountability, and 

opportunities for community input and 

planning throughout the process. 

VIII. Voluntary Compliance Effort 

The goal for Title VI and Title VI 

regulatory enforcement is to achieve 

voluntary compliance. The requirement 

to provide meaningful access to LEP 

persons is enforced and implemented by 

DoD through the procedures identified 

in the Title VI regulations. These 

procedures include complaint 

investigations, compliance reviews, 

efforts to secure voluntary compliance, 

and technical assistance. 

The Title VI regulations provide that 

DoD will investigate whenever it 

receives a complaint, report, or other 

information that alleges or indicates 

possible noncompliance with Title VI or 

its regulations. If the investigation 

results in a finding of compliance, DoD 

will inform the recipient in writing of 

this determination, including the basis 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 2012 / Notices 8837 

for the determination. The DoD uses 

voluntary mediation to resolve most 

complaints. However, if a case is fully 

investigated and results in a finding of 

noncompliance, DoD must inform the 

recipient of the noncompliance through 

a Letter of Findings that sets out the 

areas of noncompliance and the steps 

that must be taken to correct the 

noncompliance. It must attempt to 

secure voluntary compliance through 

informal means. If the matter cannot be 

resolved informally, DoD must secure 

compliance through the termination of 

Federal assistance after the DoD 

recipient has been given an opportunity 

for an administrative hearing and/or by 

referring the matter to a DOJ litigation 

section to seek injunctive relief or 

pursue other enforcement proceedings. 

The DoD engages in voluntary 

compliance efforts and provides 

technical assistance to recipients at all 

stages of an investigation. During these 

efforts, DoD proposes reasonable 

timetables for achieving compliance and 

consults with and assists recipients in 

exploring cost-effective ways of coming 

into compliance. In determining a 

recipient’s compliance with the Title VI 

regulations, the DoD’s primary concern 

is to ensure that the recipient’s policies 

and procedures provide meaningful 

access for LEP persons to the recipient’s 

programs and activities. 

While all recipients must work 

toward building systems that will 

ensure access for LEP individuals, DoD 

acknowledges that the implementation 

of a comprehensive system to serve LEP 

individuals is a process and that a 

system will evolve over time as it is 

implemented and periodically 

reevaluated. As recipients take 

reasonable steps to provide meaningful 

access to federally assisted programs 

and activities for LEP persons, DoD will 

look favorably on intermediate steps 

recipients take that are consistent with 

this Guidance, and that, as part of a 

broader implementation plan or 

schedule, move their service delivery 

system toward providing full access to 

LEP persons. This does not excuse 

noncompliance but instead recognizes 

that full compliance in all areas of a 

recipient’s activities and for all potential 

language minority groups may 

reasonably require a series of 

implementing actions over a period of 

time. However, in developing any 

phased implementation schedule, DoD 

recipients should ensure that the 

provision of appropriate assistance for 

significant LEP populations or with 

respect to activities having a significant 

impact on the health, safety, legal rights, 

education, economic status, or 

livelihood of beneficiaries is addressed 

first. Recipients are encouraged to 

document their efforts to provide LEP 

persons with meaningful access to 

federally assisted programs and 

activities. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3523 Filed 2–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Publication of Housing Price Inflation 

Adjustment Under 50 U.S.C. App. § 531 

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary 

for Personnel and Readiness, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Servicemembers Civil 

Relief Act, as codified at 50 U.S.C. App. 

§ 531, prohibits a landlord from evicting 

a Service member (or the Service 

member’s family) from a residence 

during a period of military service 

except by court order. The law as 

originally passed by Congress applied to 

dwellings with monthly rents of $2400 

or less. The law requires the Department 

of Defense to adjust this amount 

annually to reflect inflation and to 

publish the new amount in the Federal 

Register. We have applied the inflation 

index required by the statute. The 

maximum monthly rental amount for 50 

U.S.C. App. § 531 (a)(1)(A)(ii) as of 

January 1, 2012, will be $3,047.45. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Major Shawn McKelvy, Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness, (703) 697– 

3387. 

Patricia Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3524 Filed 2–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Termination of the Department of 

Defense Web-Based TRICARE 

Assistance Program Demonstration 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of demonstration 

termination. 

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise 

interested parties of the termination of 

the Military Health System (MHS) 

demonstration project, under authority 

of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1092, 

entitled Web-Based TRICARE 

Assistance Program (TRIAP). The 

demonstration project uses existing 

health care support contracts (HCSC) to 

allow web-based behavioral health and 

related services including non-medical 

counseling and advice services to active 

duty service members (ADSM), their 

families and members and their 

dependents enrolled in TRICARE 

Reserve Select, and those eligible for the 

Transition Assistance Management 

Program (TAMP) who reside in the 

continental United States. 

DATES: The demonstration will 

terminate on March 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: TRICARE Management 

Activity (TMA), Health Plan Operations, 

5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810, Falls 

Church, VA 22041. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions pertaining to this 

demonstration project, please contact 

Mr. Richard Hart at (703) 681–0047. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

demonstration was effective August 1, 

2009, as referenced in the original 

Federal Register Notice, 74 FR 36676, 

July 24, 2009. The demonstration was 

extended to March 31, 2011, as 

referenced by Federal Register Notice, 

75 FR 15693, March 30, 2010 and again 

extended to March 31, 2012 as 

referenced by Federal Register Notice, 

76 FR 12073, March 4, 2011. The 

demonstration provides capability for 

short-term, problem solving counseling 

between eligible beneficiaries and 

licensed counselors utilizing video 

technology and software such as Skype 

or iChat. TRIAP services are available 

24/7 and ADSMs, their spouses of any 

age, and other family members 18 years 

of age or older who reside in the United 

States are eligible to participate. 

Enrollees in TRICARE Reserve Select 

and the Transitional Assistance 

Management Program may also use the 

program. TRIAP is based on commercial 

employee assistance models and 

provides counseling in a virtual face-toface environment. There is no diagnosis 

made, there are no limits to usage, and 

no notification about those seeking 

counseling are made to their primary 

care managers or others, unless required 

by the counselor’s licensure (e.g., 

spouse abuse). Participant 

confidentiality is protected, as no 

medical record entry is made. 

Monthly measures of Web-based 

behavioral health care access were 

collected and analyzed from each 

TRICARE region with the intent to 

inform Department leaders whether this 

type of program is a valid mechanism to 

improve access. Only 5109 calls were 

recorded in the two-year period from 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES