64604 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2002 / Notices 

and threatened species (50 CFR 222–

226).

Permit No. 1346 authorizes the permit 

holder to captively maintain bred white 

abalone for scientific research and 

enhancement at the CIMRI hatchery. 

Research activities include feeding 

studies, propagation studies and studies 

identified as goals for the long-term 

recovery of the white abalone. The 

permit holder requests authorization to 

collect 20 white abalone per year off of 

the southern California coast. These 

animals will then be propagated, treated 

for wounds, tagged and inoculated 

against withering syndrome. The 

progeny of these animals will have the 

same treatments and be subjects of the 

studies mentioned above as well as 

behavioral studies. In accordance with 

recommendations from the recovery 

team, the permit holder will also place 

these animals back into their natural 

habitat. The permit holder is expecting 

mortalities of 9.3 million per year for 

early juveniles, 15,000 per year for 

juveniles and adults and 134,000 in 

2002 to reduce stock due to space 

limitations.

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement.

Dated: October 15, 2002.

Eugene T. Nitta,

Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 02–26695 Filed 10–18–02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Guidance to Federal Financial 

Assistance Recipients Regarding Title 

VI Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination Affecting Limited 

English Proficient Persons

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service.

ACTION: Policy guidance document.

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’) adopts final Guidance to 

Federal Financial Assistance Recipients 

Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against 

National Origin Discrimination 

Affecting Limited English Proficient 

Persons (the Corporation’s Recipient 

LEP Guidance). The Corporation’s 

Recipient LEP Guidance is issued 

pursuant to Executive Order 13166, and 

supplants existing guidance on the same 

subject originally published at 66 FR 

3548 (January 16, 2001).

DATES: This ‘‘Guidance’’ is effective 

October 21, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Corporation for National and 

Community Service, Nancy B. Voss, 

Director, Equal Opportunity Office, 

1201 New York Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20525. Telephone 202–

606–5000, extension 309; TDD: 202–

565–2799.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

Department of Justice regulations 

implementing Title VI of the Civil 

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

seq. (Title VI), recipients of federal 

financial assistance have a 

responsibility to ensure meaningful 

access to their programs and activities 

by persons with limited English 

proficiency (LEP). See 28 CFR 

42.104(b)(2). 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 

guidance for its respective recipients 

clarifying that obligation. Executive 

Order 13166 further directs that all such 

guidance documents be consistent with 

the compliance standards and 

framework detailed in Department of 

Justice Policy Guidance entitled 

‘‘Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964—National Origin 

Discrimination Against Persons with 

Limited English Proficiency.’’ See 65 FR 

50123 (August 16, 2000). 

Initial guidance on obligations of 

recipients of the Corporation to take 

reasonable steps to ensure access by LEP 

persons was published on January 16, 

2001. See 66 FR 3548. That guidance 

document was republished for 

additional public comment on February 

5, 2002. See 67 FR 5258. 

The Corporation received two 

comments in response to its February 5, 

2002 publication of revised draft 

guidance on obligations of the 

Corporation’s recipients to take 

reasonable steps to ensure access to 

programs and activities by LEP persons. 

The comments reflected the views of 

organizations serving LEP populations. 

While the comments identified areas for 

improvement and/or revision, the 

overall response to the draft of the 

Corporation’s Recipient LEP Guidance 

was favorable. 

Specific comments suggested 

strengthening the guidance to ensure 

that ‘‘grantee’’ includes every entity 

receiving direct or indirect federal 

financial assistance from the 

Corporation and that all of the 

recipient’s activities are covered, as well 

as providing more guidance to 

recipients in promoting sub-recipients’

compliance and recipients’ liability for 

failure to do so. Additional comments 

requested that grantees be required to 

document language assistance efforts; 

that the balancing test not be used to 

deny LEP individuals access to 

important services; that recipients be 

provided assistance in determining the 

population within which to assess the 

number of LEP persons without relying 

on census data alone; that staff be 

required to receive periodic refresher 

training; that maintaining a written 

policy for language access be mandatory 

rather than advisory and that greater 

detail be included regarding policies, 

such as directing recipients to post 

notices and provide a telephone 

voicemail menu and addressing goals 

and accountability; that a ‘‘safe harbor’’

for translation of documents be 

included; and that translators in 

addition to community organizations 

check translated documents. 

Subsequent to the Corporation’s 

publication and republication of its 

Guidance, the Corporation received 

notification from the Department of 

Justice that the Corporation should 

conform its Guidance to guidance 

issued by the Department of Justice. By 

memorandum to federal agencies 

received July 8, 2002, Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., 

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 

Division, Department of Justice, stated 

that it is critical that agency LEP 

recipient guidance documents be 

consistent with one another. He noted 

that in its March 14, 2002 Report to 

Congress on the Assessment of the Total 

Benefits and Costs of Implementing 

Executive Order Number 13166 (http://

www.lep.gov), the Office of Management 

and Budget has made it clear that the 

benefits of Executive Order 13166 can 

be substantial, both to the recipients and 

to the ultimate beneficiaries. However, 

OMB also stressed that in order to 

reduce costs of compliance, consistency 

in agency guidance documents is 

critical, particularly since many 

recipients receive assistance from more 

than one federal agency. Therefore, 

Assistant Attorney General Boyd 

directed federal agencies to use the 

Department of Justice’s final guidance to 

Department of Justice recipients 

published at 67 FR 41455 on June 18, 

2002 as their model for publication or 

republication of recipient LEP guidance, 

modifying examples to make them 

relevant to the particular agency’s 

recipients. 

Accordingly, the Corporation adopted 

the Department of Justice’s model in 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2002 / Notices 64605

1The Corporation recognizes that many recipients 

had language assistance programs in place prior to 

the issuance of Executive Order 13166. This policy 

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 

populations it encounters, and its prior experience 

in providing language services in the community it 

serves.

2The 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.

issuing this final version of the 

Corporation’s Guidance. Therefore, we 

are not responding directly to the 

comments received by the Corporation. 

We believe that the Department of 

Justice fully considered the issues 

identified by those commenting on the 

Corporation’s Guidance when the 

Department of Justice issued its final 

guidance. 

The text of the Corporation’s final 

guidance document appears below. 

It has been determined that this 

Guidance, which supplants existing 

Guidance on the same subject 

previously published at 66 FR 3548 

(January 16, 2001), does not constitute 

a regulation subject to the rulemaking 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.

Dated: October 15, 2002. 

Wendy Zenker, 

Chief Operating Officer.

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.’’ While detailed 

data from the 2000 census has not yet 

been released, 26% of all Spanishspeakers, 29.9% of all Chinese-speakers, 

and 28.2% of all Vietnamese-speakers 

reported that they spoke English ‘‘not 

well’’ or ‘‘not at all’’ in response to the 

1990 census.

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

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 

responsibilities to provide meaningful 

access to LEP persons under existing 

law. This policy guidance clarifies 

existing legal requirements for LEP 

persons by providing a description of 

the factors recipients should consider in 

fulfilling their responsibilities to LEP 

persons.2 These are the same criteria the 

Corporation will use in evaluating 

whether recipients are in compliance 

with Title VI and Title VI regulations.

Many commentators have noted that 

some have interpreted the case of 

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 

(2001), as impliedly striking down the 

regulations promulgated under Title VI 

that form the basis for the part of 

Executive Order 13166 that applies to 

federally assisted programs and 

activities. The Department of Justice has 

taken the position that this is not the 

case, and has reaffirmed its LEP 

Guidance to federal grant-making 

agencies. Accordingly, we will strive to 

ensure that federally assisted programs 

and activities work in a way that is 

effective for all eligible beneficiaries, 

including those with limited English 

proficiency. 

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 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.’’ 42 

U.S.C. 2000d–1. 

Department of Justice 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 

respects individuals of a particular race, 

color, or national origin.’’ 28 CFR 

42.104(b)(2). The Corporation’s 

regulations impose the same 

prohibitions on recipients. 45 CFR 

1203.4. 

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 Department of Justice, 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. 

On August 11, 2000, Executive Order 

13166 was issued. ‘‘Improving Access to 

Services for Persons with Limited 

English Proficiency,’’ 65 FR 50121 

(August 16, 2000). Under that order, 

every federal agency that provides 

financial assistance to non-federal 

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 

64606 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2002 / Notices 

3Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, the 

meaningful access requirement of the Title VI 

regulations and the four-factor analysis set forth in 

the DOJ LEP Guidance are to additionally apply to 

the programs and activities of federal agencies, 

including the Corporation.

4However, 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.

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, Department of 

Justice 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) (Department of Justice ‘‘LEP 

Guidance’’). 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, 

the Corporation developed its own 

guidance document for recipients and 

initially issued it on January 16, 2001. 

‘‘Guidance to Federal Financial 

Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI 

Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination Affecting Limited 

English Proficient Persons,’’ 66 FR 3548 

(January 16, 2001). Subsequent to the 

Corporation’s publication and 

republication of its Guidance for further 

comment on February 5, 2002, the 

Corporation received notification from 

the Department of Justice that the 

Corporation should conform its 

Guidance to guidance issued by the 

Department of Justice. By memorandum 

to federal agencies received July 8, 2002, 

Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney 

General, Civil Rights Division, 

Department of Justice, stated that it is 

critical that agency LEP recipient 

guidance documents be consistent with 

one another. Assistant Attorney General 

Boyd directed federal agencies to use 

the Department of Justice’s final 

guidance to Department of Justice 

recipients published at 67 FR 41455 on 

June 18, 2002 as their model for 

publication or republication of recipient 

LEP guidance, modifying examples to 

make them relevant to the particular 

agency’s recipients.

This guidance document is thus 

published pursuant to Executive Order 

13166 and supplants the January 16, 

2001 publication in light of Assistant 

Attorney General Boyd’s July 8, 2002 

clarifying memorandum. 

III. Who Is Covered? 

All recipients of federal financial 

assistance from the Corporation are 

required to provide meaningful access 

to LEP persons.3 Federal financial 

assistance includes grants, cooperative 

agreements, training, technical 

assistance, use of equipment, donations 

of surplus property, and other 

assistance. A grantee is any entity 

receiving federal financial assistance 

from the Corporation to operate a 

federally assisted program. Recipients of 

the Corporation’s assistance include, for 

example:

• State Commissions. 

• AmeriCorps*VISTA and Senior 

Corps sponsors. 

• State educational agencies and 

schools from elementary through 

graduate level. 

• AmeriCorps*NCCC projects. 

• Community based organizations, 

both secular and faith-based. 

• Non-profits, from national 

organizations such as Boys and Girls 

Clubs of America to neighborhood 

entities such as senior centers.

Subrecipients likewise are covered 

when federal funds are passed through 

from one recipient to a subrecipient. 

Coverage extends to a recipient’s 

entire program or activity, i.e., to all 

parts of a recipient’s operations. This is 

true even if only one part of the 

recipient receives the federal 

assistance.4

Example: The Corporation provides 

assistance to a school to facilitate an 

after school program. The entire school 

system’not just the particular school’is 

covered. 

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 the 

Corporation’s recipients and should be 

considered when planning language 

services include, but are not limited to:

• Applicants for or participants 

enrolled in national service programs 

(AmeriCorps, National Senior Service 

Corps or Learn and Serve America). 

• Persons receiving services, or 

eligible to receive, services performed 

by participants in national service 

programs or by other portions of the 

recipient’s program or activity. 

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 grantee; (2) the 

frequency with which LEP individuals 

come in contact with the program; (3) 

the nature and importance of the 

program, activity, or service provided by 

the program 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 

programs or activities in which it 

engages. For instance, some of a 

recipient’s activities 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. Recipients of the 

Corporation 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2002 / Notices 64607

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 bulk telephonic 

interpretation service contract will prove cost 

effective.

(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 

directly affected, 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 

State Commission serves a large LEP 

population, the appropriate service area 

is most likely the geographic service 

areas or operating sites defined in the 

Corporation’s grant applications, and 

not the entire state. 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.

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 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. The 

obligations to communicate information 

in situations involving health and safety 

(such as home visits to the frail elderly, 

vaccinations and immunizations, 

maternal health screening); disaster 

response; homeland security; legal 

rights (such as assisting persons 

preparing to apply for citizenship or 

enrolling for government or social 

services) differ, for example, from those 

to provide recreational programming. A 

recipient needs to determine whether 

denial or delay of access to services or 

information could have serious or even 

life-threatening implications for the LEP 

individual. 

(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 

well-substantiated before using this 

factor as a reason to limit language 

assistance. Such recipients may find it 

useful to be 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 

64608 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2002 / 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 legal terms and the 

interpreter should be so aware and be able to 

provide the most appropriate interpretation. The 

interpreter should likely 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.

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, programs focusing on 

providing critical services to immigrants 

and refugees, such as providing 

assistance with enrollment in public 

services or access to emergency or 

medical care, may need immediate oral 

interpreters available and should give 

serious consideration to hiring some 

bilingual staff. (Of course, many 

recipients focusing on serving LEP 

populations have already made such 

arrangements.) In contrast, there may be 

circumstances where the importance 

and nature of the activity and number 

or proportion and frequency of contact 

with LEP persons may be low and the 

costs and resources needed to provide 

language services may be high—such as 

in the case of a voluntary general public 

tour of a public facility—in which prearranged language services for the 

particular service may not be necessary. 

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 

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: 

Competence of Interpreters. 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 contacts with 

health care providers, social services, 

schools, and public services). 

Some recipients, such as those 

dealing with assisting indigents 

dependent on the recipient for 

interpretation with health care 

providers, law enforcement or 

administrative boards, may have 

additional self-imposed requirements 

for interpreters. Where such 

proceedings are lengthy, the interpreter 

will likely need breaks and team 

interpreting may be appropriate to 

ensure accuracy and to prevent errors 

caused by mental fatigue of interpreters. 

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 in a 

hospital emergency room, for example, 

must be extraordinarily high, while the 

quality and accuracy of language 

services in a bicycle safety class 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 recipients providing health 

and safety services or disaster response, 

and when important rights are at issue, 

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 teachers, 

service providers, or program directors, 

with staff who are bilingual and 

competent to communicate directly 

with LEP persons in their language. If 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2002 / Notices 64609

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 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 Members or Friends as 

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 or friend) 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. 

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 family, legal 

guardians, caretakers, and other 

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 interest in accurate 

interpretation. In many circumstances, 

family members (especially children) or 

friends 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 

medical, law enforcement (e.g., sexual 

or violent assaults), family, or financial 

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, such as the desire to protect 

themselves or another perpetrator in a 

domestic violence or other criminal 

matter. For these reasons, when oral 

language services are necessary, 

recipients should generally offer 

competent interpreter services free of 

cost to the LEP person. For the 

Corporation’s recipient programs and 

activities, this is particularly true in 

situations in which health, safety, or 

access to important benefits and 

services are at stake, or when credibility 

and accuracy are important to protect an 

individual’s rights and access to 

important services. 

While issues of competency, 

confidentiality, and conflict of interest 

in the use of family members (especially 

children) or friends 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 public 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. In such a setting, 

an LEP person’s use of family, friends, 

or others may be appropriate. 

If the LEP person voluntarily chooses 

to provide his or her own interpreter, a 

recipient should consider whether a 

record of that choice and of the 

recipient’s offer of assistance is 

appropriate. Where precise, complete, 

and accurate interpretations or 

translations of information and/or 

testimony are critical for medical or 

legal reasons, or where the competency 

of the LEP person’s interpreter is not 

established, a recipient might decide to 

provide its own, independent 

interpreter, even if an LEP person wants 

to use his or her own interpreter as well. 

Extra caution should be exercised when 

the LEP person chooses to use a minor 

as the interpreter. While the LEP 

person’s decision should be respected, 

there may be additional issues of 

competency, confidentiality, or conflict 

of interest when the choice involves 

using children as interpreters. The 

recipient should take care to ensure that 

64610 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2002 / Notices 

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. 

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). 

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: 

• Applications for benefits or 

services; 

• Consent forms; 

• Documents containing important 

information regarding participation in a 

program (such as descriptions of 

eligibility for tutoring, assignment of a 

Senior Companion, instructions for 

filing for reimbursement of expenses, 

application for health care or child care 

benefits);

• Notices pertaining to the reduction, 

denial or termination of services or 

benefits, or to the right to appeal such 

actions or that require a response from 

beneficiaries; 

• The member contract, job 

description, and an explanation of the 

Grievance Procedure; 

• Notices advising LEP persons of the 

availability of free language assistance; 

and 

• Other outreach materials. 

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, 

applications for bicycle safety courses 

should not generally be considered 

vital, whereas applications for benefits 

regarding disaster relief, medical 

services or housing could 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. 

Classifying 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, 

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. 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. 

Although recent technological advances 

have made it easier for recipients to 

store and share translated documents, 

such an undertaking would incur 

substantial costs and require substantial 

resources. 

Nevertheless, well-substantiated 

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 frequently-encountered 

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) 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2002 / Notices 64611

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.

9For instance, there may be languages which do 

not have an appropriate direct translation of some 

legal terms and the translator should be able to 

provide an appropriate translation. The translator 

should likely also 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. Recipients will 

find it more effective and less costly if they try to 

maintain consistency in the words and phrases 

used to translate terms of art and legal or other 

technical concepts. 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 translations of similar 

material by the recipient, other recipients, or federal 

agencies may be helpful.

documents, might be acceptable under 

such circumstances. 

Safe Harbor. The following actions 

will be considered strong evidence of 

compliance with the recipient’s writtentranslation obligations: 

(a) The Corporation 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, programs that address the 

needs of immigrants and refugees who 

may not be literate should, where 

appropriate, ensure that crucial 

information regarding medical, financial 

or legal rights have been explained.

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 medical, 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.9 Community 

organizations may be able to help 

consider whether a document is written 

at a good level for the audience. 

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.

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 use 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 recipients regarding 

certain health and safety services and 

certain legal rights). 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 recipients 

of the Corporation, 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 

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

crt/cor/13166.htm. When records are 

64612 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2002 / Notices 

10The 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.

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 selfidentify. 

(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 

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 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 services or activities run by 

recipients of the Corporation dealing 

with assisting individuals in accessing 

health, safety or social services. 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.10

• 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 

the Corporation 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 

the Corporation 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, the Corporation will inform 

the recipient in writing of this 

determination, including the basis for 

the determination. The Corporation uses 

voluntary mediation to resolve most 

complaints. However, if a case is fully 

investigated and results in a finding of 

noncompliance, the Corporation must 

inform the recipient of the 

noncompliance through a Letter of 

Findings that sets out the areas of 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2002 / Notices 64613

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, the Corporation must secure 

compliance through the termination of 

federal assistance after the Corporation 

recipient has been given an opportunity 

for an administrative hearing and/or by 

referring the matter to the Department of 

Justice to seek injunctive relief or 

pursue other enforcement proceedings. 

The Corporation engages in voluntary 

compliance efforts and provides 

technical assistance to recipients at all 

stages of an investigation. During these 

efforts, the Corporation proposes 

reasonable timetables for achieving 

compliance and consults with and 

assists recipients in exploring costeffective ways of coming into 

compliance. In determining a recipient’s 

compliance with the Title VI 

regulations, the Corporation’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, the 

Corporation 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, 

the Corporation 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, 

recipients of the Corporation 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, 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. 

IX. Promising Practices 

This section provides examples of 

promising practices that recipients 

engage in using the federal financial 

assistance (the national service 

volunteers) provided by the 

Corporation. Recipient programs are 

responsible for ensuring meaningful 

access to all portions of their program or 

activity, not just the portions in which 

national service participants serve. So 

long as the language services are 

accurate, timely, and appropriate in the 

manner outlined in this guidance, the 

types of promising practices 

summarized below can assist recipients 

in meeting the meaningful access 

requirements of Title VI and the Title VI 

regulations. 

Examples of Promising Practices That 

Provide Access to LEP Persons 

The Association of Farmworker 

Opportunity Programs AmeriCorps 

program recruits former farmworkers to 

serve as AmeriCorps members. Most 

members are bilingual, and many are 

LEP. Members are encouraged to take 

English as a Second Language classes as 

a part of their member development 

plan. The program provides pesticide 

safety training to farmworkers and their 

families. Members conduct the training 

in Spanish. 

The program uses the following 

techniques to ensure that members 

understand their terms of service and 

benefits: 

• Recruiting posters, flyers and the 

Member Service Contract are provided 

in Spanish. 

• AmeriCorps project staff are 

bilingual (Spanish/English). 

• Orientation training is provided in 

Spanish and English. 

• Conference calls are held in 

Spanish when all members speak 

Spanish. 

• Two bilingual second-year members 

led a team of members that 

communicated about their service 

projects exclusively in Spanish. 

• Members had to be bilingual, but 

did not require English as the first 

language. 

• Recruitment took place at the local 

field office level, and candidates were 

often from the farmworker community. 

The Parents Making a Difference 

AmeriCorps program recruits a diverse 

corps including many bilingual 

members to provide outreach to parents 

in low-income school communities. 

Members translate at parent-teacher 

conferences, call parents about absent 

children, and organize a wide variety of 

parent-oriented outreach and 

educational activities. 

‘‘Classroom in the Kitchen’’ gives 

parents tips on how to support the 

educational growth of their children in 

their homes. Diverse language abilities 

and cultural knowledge are extremely 

important in this regard. The range of 

English proficiency is varied, allowing 

members to help each other, and 

communication about program activities 

is largely bilingual. 

The program provides EnglishSecond-Language classes for LEP 

AmeriCorps members as part of their 

Member Development Plan. (This 

language support is required by the 

Rhode Island Commission for all 

AmeriCorps programs, in the same vein 

as the GED training requirement.)

The Temple University Center for 

Intergenerational Learning, Students 

Helping in the Naturalization of Elders 

(SHINE) program. SHINE is a national, 

multicultural, intergenerational servicelearning initiative in five cities. College 

students provide language, literacy, and 

citizenship tutoring to elderly 

immigrants and refugees. Currently, 

students serve as coaches in ESL/

citizenship classes or as tutors in 

community centers, temples, churches, 

housing developments, and ethnic 

organizations. 

Northeastern University, San 

Francisco State University, Loyola 

University, Florida International 

University and Temple University are 

involved with SHINE. Students 

participate through courses, work study, 

and campus volunteer organizations. 

SHINE program coordinators partner 

with local community organizations; 

recruit, train, place, and monitor 

students at community sites; and 

provide support and technical 

assistance. 

Since 1997, more than 60 faculty from 

education, social work, anthropology, 

political science, modern languages, 

sociology, English, Latino, and Asian 

studies have offered SHINE as a servicelearning option in their courses. Over 

1,000 students provided over 25,000 

hours of instruction to 3,500 older 

learners at 37 sites in Boston, San 

Francisco, Chicago, Miami, and 

Philadelphia. 

The Albuquerque Senior Companion 

Program (SCP), sponsored by the City of 

Albuquerque, Department of Senior 

Affairs, serves a diverse senior 

population with Native American, 

Hispanic, and Anglo volunteers. Senior 

Companions assist the frail elderly with 

household tasks and companionship. 

Ten of its volunteer stations are 

located on Pueblos. Each Pueblo has its 

own language. The program works 

closely with its site managers/

supervisors who are bilingual 

64614 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2002 / Notices 

employees of the individual Pueblo 

governments and generally are residents 

of the Pueblos. Senior Companions 

serve on their own Pueblos and walk to 

the homes of their clients. 

Due to language and cultural barriers 

these supervisors assist with all areas of 

the program. They are familiar with the 

population in their individual Pueblos 

and use this knowledge to assist with 

recruitment, placement, and training. 

ACCION International, an 

AmeriCorps*VISTA project sponsor, is a 

nonprofit that fights poverty through 

microlending. ACCION Chicago did 

outreach to home-based businesses that 

rarely have access to capital. An 

AmeriCorps*VISTA member found that 

many of the women make ends meet 

through programs such as Mary Kay 

cosmetics. The AmeriCorps*VISTA 

member worked with the ACCION loan 

officer to develop a loan product 

specifically for these women and has 

organized bilingual information sessions 

throughout Chicago neighborhoods. 

‘‘Bring New Jersey Together’’ is an 

AmeriCorps program in Jersey City, 

New Jersey that seeks to bridge the 

cultural and linguistic barriers 

separating new Americans from the rest 

of the community. AmeriCorps 

members serve LEP community 

members by translating documents and 

escorting them to places such as 

medical appointments, the grocery 

store, or anywhere else where a 

translator may be necessary. The 

primary languages of the program are 

Spanish, Russian, and Vietnamese, but 

also Albanian, Creole, Indian languages, 

and others depending on the influx of 

refugees. 

The New Jersey Commission built a 

partnership with the International 

Institute of New Jersey, which had 

provided services to the immigrant 

community for fifty years, to establish 

an AmeriCorps program that served the 

needs of the community. 

The Honolulu Chinese Citizenship 

Tutorial Program is a service-learning 

project site in the Campus Compact 

National Center for Community 

Colleges, ‘‘2+4=Service on Common 

Ground’’. The University of Hawaii at 

Monoa’s College of Social Sciences 

collaborated with the Kapl’olani 

Community College, Chaminade 

University, the Chinese Community 

Action Coalition and Child and Family 

Service. Local bilingual college students 

serve as tutors (during a 10-week 

session) for Chinese immigrants to help 

them pass their citizenship exams. The 

immigrants are recruited by visiting 

adult education classes, through 

Chinese radio programs, flyers, and 

Chinese language newspapers. The 

Chinese Community Action Coalition 

provides the curriculum and resources 

such as Scrabble, books, word-picture 

matching games, and card games for 

constructing simple English sentences. 

The tutorial sessions focus on passing 

the INS exam and conversational 

English. Many of the immigrants are 

senior citizens. The classes are held in 

Chinatown. Since the project began, 

about 1,000 immigrants and refugees 

have enrolled. Over 300 students have 

participated as tutors and approximately 

one-third of the Chinese immigrants 

became citizens. 

Transition House, Santa Barbara, CA., 

is a facility that primarily serves 

homeless Hispanic women. The services 

are tailored to meet the needs of each 

family to help women and their 

children move from homelessness and 

unemployment to employment and 

permanent housing. The 

AmeriCorps*VISTA members assigned 

to the project are bilingual. The clientele 

is 60% monolingual Spanish speakers. 

The AmeriCorps*VISTA members are 

creating a Career Development 

Curriculum that is fully translated into 

Spanish and members host seminars 

about immigration and consumer credit 

counseling services. There was a need to 

improve communication with clients. 

One of the AmeriCorps*VISTA 

members developed ‘‘halfsheets’’, one 

side in Spanish, the other in English, 

that explain the services offered by 

Transition House. 

The AmeriCorps*VISTA members are 

responsible for placement of children in 

daycare to enable parents to work. They 

accompany families to childcare 

providers to assist with translation and 

to help make the families feel at ease 

with placing their children in childcare.

[FR Doc. 02–26632 Filed 10–18–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Defense has 

submitted to OMB for clearance, the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by November 20, 

2002. 

Title, form, and OMB number:

Validation of Public or Community 

Service Employment Performed by 

Retired Personnel Retired Under the 

Temporary Early Retirement Authority 

(TERA) for Increased Retirement 

Compensation; DD Form 2676; OMB 

Number 0704–0357. 

Type of request: Revision. 

Number of respondents: 756. 

Responses pre respondent: 1. 

Annual responses: 756. 

Average burden per responses: 10 

minutes. 

Annual burden hours: 126. 

Needs and Uses: This information 

collection requirement is necessary to 

validate the public service or 

community service of military members 

who retired under the Temporary Early 

Retirement Authority. The Military 

Services and the Coast Guard had the 

authority until December 31, 2001, to 

permit early retirement for selected 

Service personnel with more than 15, 

but less than 20 years of service. All of 

these members who retired under 

Section 4403(a) before the completion of 

at least 20 years of active duty service 

may take employment in public or 

community service, making them 

eligible for increased early retirement 

compensation. A retiree may receive 

service credit for all qualifying periods 

of employment by a registered public or 

community service organization during 

the ‘‘enhanced requirement 

qualification period.’’ This qualification 

period begins on the date of retirement 

and ends on the date the retired member 

would have attained 20 years of 

creditable service for retirement 

purposes. This information collection is 

needed to provide certification of a 

member’s full-time public and/or 

community service employment by a 

registered public or community service 

organization and to recomputed the 

member’s retired pay for all qualifying 

periods of employment. 

Affected public: Business or Other 

For-Profit; Not-For-Profit Institutions; 

State, Local or Tribal Government. 

Frequency: On Occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

Obtain or Retain benefits. 

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jackie Zieher. 

Written comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

information collection should be sent to 

Ms. Zeiher at the Office of Management 

and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 

10236, New Executive Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20503. 

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert 

Cushing. 

Written requests for copies of the 

information collection proposal should 

be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, suite 

1204, Arlington, VA 22202–4302.