2732 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–4878–N–02] 

Final Guidance to Federal Financial 

Assistance Recipients Regarding Title 

VI Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination Affecting Limited 

English Proficient Persons 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity, HUD. 

ACTION: Final notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) is 

publishing the final ‘‘Guidance to 

Federal Financial Assistance Recipients 

Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against 

National Origin Discrimination 

Affecting Limited English Proficient 

(LEP) Persons’’ (Guidance) as required 

by Executive Order (EO) 13166. EO 

13166 directs federal agencies that 

extend assistance, subject to the 

requirements of Title VI, to publish 

Guidance to clarify recipients’ 

obligations to LEP persons. This final 

Guidance follows publication of the 

proposed Guidance on December 19, 

2003. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 21, 

2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pamela D. Walsh, Director, Program 

Standards and Compliance Division, 

Office of Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh 

Street SW., Room 5226, Washington, DC 

20410, telephone: (202) 708–2904 (this 

is not a toll-free number). Persons with 

hearing or speech impairments may 

access this number via TTY by calling 

the toll-free Federal Information Relay 

Service at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background—December 19, 2003, 

Proposed Guidance 

On December 19, 2003 (68 FR 70968), 

HUD published proposed Guidance to 

help recipients of federal financial 

assistance take reasonable steps to meet 

their regulatory and statutory 

obligations to ensure that LEP persons 

have meaningful access to HUD 

programs and activities. Under Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) 

and its implementing regulations, 

recipients of federal financial assistance 

have a responsibility to ensure 

meaningful access to programs and 

activities by LEP persons. Specifically, 

EO 13166, issued on August 11, 2000, 

and 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 this obligation. 

This Guidance must adhere to the 

federal-wide compliance standards and 

framework detailed in the Department 

of Justice (DOJ) model LEP Guidance, 

published at 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 

2002). HUD’s proposed Guidance 

followed the established format used in 

the DOJ model, and solicited comments 

on the Guidance’s nature, scope, and 

appropriateness. Specific examples set 

out in HUD’s Guidance explain and/or 

highlight how federal-wide compliance 

standards are applicable to recipients of 

HUD’s federal financial assistance. 

II. Significant Differences Between the 

December 19, 2003, Proposed Guidance 

and This Final Guidance 

This final Guidance takes into 

consideration the public comments 

received on the December 19, 2003, 

proposed Guidance. There are no 

significant changes between the 

proposed Guidance and this final 

Guidance. However, for purposes of 

clarification, several minor changes 

were made in Appendix A, and a new 

Appendix B has been added to the 

Guidance. Appendix B, ‘‘Questions and 

Answers (Q&A),’’ responds to frequently 

asked questions (FAQs) related to 

providing meaningful access to LEP 

persons. 

III. Discussion of Public Comments 

Received on the December 19, 2003, 

Proposed Guidance 

The public comment period on the 

December 19, 2003, proposed Guidance 

closed on January 20, 2004. On January 

20, 2004, the comment period was 

extended to February 5, 2004. HUD 

received 21 comments. Comments were 

received from public housing agencies, 

state housing agencies, private sector 

housing providers, organizations serving 

LEP populations, organizations 

advocating that English be the official 

U.S. language, and trade associations 

representing public housing agencies. 

HUD also received more than 7,000 

postcards from concerned citizens who 

opposed the Guidance as an ‘‘onerous 

burden’’ on small and underfunded 

organizations and groups that advocated 

adoption of English as the official 

language of the United States. 

The comments expressed a wide 

range of viewpoints. Many of the 

comments identified areas of the 

Guidance for improvement and/or 

revision. Other comments objected to 

sections of the Guidance or to the 

Guidance in its entirety. The most 

frequent dissenting comments involved: 

(1) Opposition to the Alexander v. 

Sandoval Supreme Court decision [53 

U.S. 275 (2001)]; (2) enforcement and 

compliance efforts (including legal 

enforceability, validity of housingrelated legal documents, and 

vulnerability of recipients); (3) 

applicability of the Guidance (including 

HUD’s provision of clearer standards 

regarding when the provision of 

language services are needed); (4) cost 

considerations; (5) competency of 

interpreters (including use of informal 

interpreters) and translators; (6) 

vulnerability of recipients as a result of 

this Guidance (including ‘‘safe 

harbors’’); and (7) consistency of 

translations (including standardized 

translations of documents). 

In addition, four commenters stated 

that HUD did not solicit the input of 

stakeholders for the proposed Guidance, 

despite the mandate of EO 13166. These 

and other comments are discussed in 

greater depth below. This preamble 

presents a more detailed review of the 

most significant concerns raised by the 

public in response to the December 19, 

2003, proposed Guidance and HUD’s 

response to each concern. The 

preamble’s sections are: 

• Section IV, which discusses 

comments regarding the Sandoval 

Supreme Court decision (including 

enforcement under Title VI); 

• Section V, which discusses 

comments regarding enforcement and 

compliance efforts (including legal 

enforceability, validity of housingrelated legal documents, and 

vulnerability of recipients); 

• Section VI, which discusses 

comments regarding applicability of the 

Guidance (i.e., clearer standards 

regarding when language services can 

reasonably be expected to be provided); 

• Section VII, which discusses 

comments regarding cost 

considerations; 

• Section VIII, which discusses 

comments regarding competency of 

interpreters (including use of informal 

interpreters) and translators; 

• Section IX, which discusses 

comments regarding vulnerability of 

recipients as a result of this Guidance 

(including ‘‘safe harbors’’); 

• Section X, which discusses 

comments regarding consistency of 

translations (including standardized 

translations of documents); and 

• Section XI, which discusses other 

comments. 

IV. Comments Regarding the Sandoval 

Supreme Court Decision (Including 

Enforcement Under Title VI) 

Comment: Several commenters wrote 

that the proposed Guidance was 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 2733 

unsupported by law and, therefore, 

urged its withdrawal. The commenters 

expressed disagreement with the HUD 

and DOJ positions on the holding in 

Alexander v. Sandoval. Sandoval 

precludes individuals from bringing 

judicial actions to enforce those agency 

regulations based on Title VI. The 

commenters wrote that federal agencies 

have no power to enforce such 

regulations through this Guidance 

because it would violate the Sandoval 

decision to use the Guidance to 

determine compliance with Title VI and 

Title VI’s regulations. 

HUD Response. HUD reiterates here, 

as it did in the proposed Guidance 

published on December 19, 2003, that 

its commitment to implement Title VI 

through regulations reaching language 

barriers is longstanding and is 

unaffected by the Sandoval decision. In 

its proposed Guidance, HUD stated that 

DOJ had disagreed with the 

interpretation voiced by the 

commenters, and in its final Guidance, 

HUD continues to take this position. 

The Guidance and the response to 

Appendix B, Q&As XV, XXIV, and XXV, 

state that the Supreme Court, in the 

Sandoval decision, did not strike down 

Title VI itself or Title VI’s disparate 

impact regulations (at HUD, that would 

be its civil rights-related program 

requirements or ‘‘CRRPRs’’), but only 

ruled that individuals could not enforce 

these Title VI regulations through the 

courts and could only bring such court 

action under the statute itself. The 

Guidance further states that because the 

Supreme Court did not address the 

validity of the regulations or EO 13166, 

that both remain in effect. Individuals 

may still file administrative complaints 

with HUD alleging Title VI and Title VI 

regulatory violations for failing to take 

reasonable steps to provide meaningful 

access to LEP persons. 

Appendix B, Q&As II, III, and IV 

further clarify the requirements of both 

the EO and Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964. These responses describe 

the obligations of federal agencies under 

the EO and how Title VI applies to 

situations involving discrimination 

against LEP persons. These Q&As 

explain that Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 is the federal law that 

protects individuals from 

discrimination on the basis of their race, 

color, or national origin in programs 

that receive federal financial assistance. 

Federally conducted programs and 

activities are required to meet the 

standards for taking reasonable steps to 

provide meaningful access to LEP 

persons under EO 13166. In addition, all 

programs and operations of entities that 

receive financial assistance from the 

federal government, including, but not 

limited to, state agencies, local agencies, 

and for-profit and nonprofit entities, 

and all sub-recipients (those that receive 

funding passed through a recipient) 

must comply with the Title VI 

obligations (including those in the 

regulations). Programs that do not 

receive federal funding, such as those 

that receive Federal Housing 

Administration (FHA) insurance, are not 

required to comply with Title VI’s 

obligations. (If the recipient received 

FHA insurance along with Rental 

Assistance, construction subsidy, or 

other federal assistance, it would be 

required to comply with Title VI 

requirements.) In certain situations, 

failure to ensure that LEP persons can 

effectively participate in, or benefit 

from, federally assisted programs may 

violate Title VI’s prohibition against 

national origin discrimination. EO 

13166, signed on August 11, 2000, 

directs all federal agencies, including 

HUD, to work to ensure that programs 

receiving federal financial assistance 

provide meaningful access to LEP 

persons. Section 3 of the EO requires all 

federal agencies to issue LEP guidance 

to help federally assisted recipients in 

providing such meaningful access to 

their programs. This guidance must be 

consistent with DOJ Guidance, but 

tailored to the specific federal agency’s 

federally assisted recipients. HUD has 

written its general Guidance and 

Appendices to meet these requirements. 

V. Comments Regarding Enforcement 

and Compliance Efforts (Including 

Legal Enforceability and Validity of 

Housing-Related Legal Documents and 

Vulnerability of Recipients) 

Comment: Two commenters who 

supported adoption of the proposed 

Guidance recommended that HUD 

provide more detailed Guidance to its 

staff on enforcement and compliance 

and encouraged collaboration with 

nonprofit organizations, such as fair 

housing groups funded by the Fair 

Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP). A 

number of commenters, while 

supportive of the Guidance and HUD’s 

leadership in this area, suggested 

modifications that would, in their view, 

provide a more definitive statement of 

the minimal compliance standards or 

better describe how HUD would 

evaluate activities under a more flexible 

compliance standard. There were also 

comments that claimed the Guidance 

was actually a set of regulatory 

requirements masquerading as 

‘‘Guidance’’; one commenter stated that 

the Guidance would be used to 

determine compliance with Title VI and 

its regulations, rather than as 

discretionary advice. 

HUD Response. HUD’s rule at 24 CFR 

1.7(c) requires HUD to undertake ‘‘a 

prompt investigation whenever a 

compliance review, report, complaint, 

or any other information indicates a 

possible failure to comply with this part 

1.’’ As explained further in Appendix B, 

Q&As XVI, XVIII, and XIX, FHEO will 

investigate or review complaints or 

other information that suggests a 

recipient is not in compliance with its 

Title VI obligations. HUD will 

determine whether the recipient has 

made reasonable efforts to ensure 

participation of LEP persons in 

programs or activities receiving federal 

financial assistance from HUD. Review 

of the evidence will include, but may 

not be limited to, application of the 

four-factor analysis identified in the LEP 

Guidance, which provides a framework 

for reviewing the totality of the 

circumstances and objectively balances 

the need to ensure meaningful access by 

LEP persons and without imposing 

undue burdens on recipients. HUD will 

also collect and evaluate evidence about 

whether the recipient has adopted a 

Language Access Plan (LAP) that 

reflects LEP needs (or addressed LEP 

needs in another official plan, such as 

the PHA or Consolidated Plan), 

implemented the Plan, and maintained 

Title VI compliance records that 

demonstrate services provided to LEP 

persons. HUD will inform the recipient 

of any findings of compliance or noncompliance in writing. If the 

investigation or review results in 

findings that the recipient has failed to 

comply with HUD’s rules at 24 CFR part 

1, HUD will inform the recipient and 

attempt to resolve the findings by 

informal means [24 CFR 1.7(d)]. HUD 

may use other means of voluntary 

cooperation, such as negotiation and 

execution of a voluntary compliance 

agreement. If HUD determines that 

compliance cannot be secured by 

voluntary means, HUD may use other 

means to enforce its rules under Title 

VI, such as the suspension or 

termination of approved funding or 

refusal to grant future funding [24 CFR 

1.8(a), (c), and (d)]. HUD also may refer 

the matter to DOJ for enforcement 

action. 

Appendix B, Q&A VII, provides 

additional guidance on the four-factor 

analysis by explaining that recipients 

are required to take reasonable steps to 

ensure meaningful access to LEP 

persons. This standard is intended to be 

both flexible and fact-dependent and 

also to balance the need to ensure 

meaningful access by LEP persons to 

critical services while not imposing 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
2734 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 

undue financial burdens on small 

businesses, small local governments, or 

small nonprofit organizations. The 

recipient may conduct an 

individualized assessment that balances 

the following four factors: (1) Number or 

proportion of LEP persons served or 

encountered in the eligible service 

population (‘‘served or encountered’’

includes those persons who would be 

served or encountered by the recipient 

if the persons were afforded adequate 

education and outreach); (2) frequency 

with which LEP persons come into 

contact with the program; (3) nature and 

importance of the program, activity, or 

service provided by the program; and (4) 

resources available to the recipient and 

costs to the recipient. It further refers 

recipients to examples of applying the 

four-factor analysis to HUD-specific 

programs in Appendix A of HUD LEP 

Guidance. 

Appendix B, Q&A IX, explains that 

after completing the four-factor analysis 

and deciding what language assistance 

services are appropriate, a recipient may 

develop a LAP or Implementation Plan 

to address identified needs of the LEP 

populations it serves. Some elements 

that may be helpful in designing an LAP 

include: (1) Identifying LEP persons 

who need language assistance and the 

specific language assistance that is 

needed; (2) identifying ways in which 

language assistance will be provided; (3) 

providing effective outreach to the LEP 

community; (4) training staff; (5) 

translating informational materials in 

identified language(s) that detail 

services and activities provided to 

beneficiaries (e.g., model leases, tenants’

rights and responsibilities brochures, 

fair housing materials, first-time 

homebuyer guide); (6) providing 

appropriately translated notices to LEP 

persons (e.g., eviction notices, security 

information, emergency plans); (7) 

providing interpreters for large, 

medium, small, and one-on-one 

meetings; (8) developing community 

resources, partnerships, and other 

relationships to help with the provision 

of LEP services; and (9) making 

provisions for monitoring and updating 

the LAP. 

However, HUD did not make changes 

to the Guidance itself. At this time, HUD 

does not feel that a specific separate 

statement of compliance standards is 

needed. HUD will continue to apply 

current Title VI investigative standards 

when conducting LEP investigations or 

compliance reviews. (See Appendix B, 

Q&A VI, for further discussion.) 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that housing documents of a legal 

nature, such as leases, sales contracts, 

etc., that are translated into foreign 

languages might not be upheld in court 

as legally enforceable. 

HUD Response. HUD appreciates this 

concern that the documents required by 

the Guidance would complicate 

possible eviction actions. State and local 

law govern contractual agreements 

between residents and landlords. 

Comment: Commenters stated that 

questions could be raised about the 

accuracy of the translation and whether, 

for example, a tenant’s signature on both 

English language and foreign language 

versions of a housing-related legal 

document would be upheld as valid in 

a judicial proceeding. 

HUD Response. HUD recommends 

that when leases are translated into 

other languages than English, the 

recipient only ask the tenant to sign the 

English lease. The translated document 

would be provided to the tenant but 

marked ‘‘For information only.’’

However, this recommendation in no 

way minimizes the need to ensure 

meaningful access, and therefore to take 

reasonable measures, such as second 

checks by professional translators, to 

ensure that the translation is accurate. 

VI. Comments Regarding Applicability 

of the Guidance (i.e., HUD Should 

Provide Clearer Standards Regarding 

the Provision of Language Services) 

Comment: Several commenters wrote 

that the statement ‘‘coverage extends to 

a recipient’s entire program or activity 

* * * even if only one part of the 

recipient receives the federal 

assistance,’’ places an unwarranted 

burden on an entire program. One 

commenter gave the example of a PHA 

that contracts with a Residents’ Council 

that provides some level of LEP 

services. The commenter recommended 

that the PHA should not be required to 

enforce LEP requirements against the 

Residents’ Council unless there is clear 

evidence of discriminatory intent. 

HUD Response. With regard to the 

specific example of a Residents’ Council 

that provides some level of LEP 

services, given the context, we assume 

that this comment intended to 

characterize the Council as a 

subrecipient of federal financial 

assistance. The proposed Guidance 

issued on December 19, 2003, states that 

‘‘subrecipients likewise are covered 

when federal funds are passed through 

from one recipient to a subrecipient.’’

Recipients such as Community 

Development Block Grant (CDBG) 

Entitlement jurisdictions, CDBG state 

programs, and PHAs are required to 

monitor their subrecipients who receive 

federal financial assistance for a variety 

of purposes. Among these purposes are 

that such entities are also subject to the 

requirements of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the 

Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. 

This final Guidance does not change the 

position taken on this issue as cited in 

the proposed Guidance. Therefore, the 

Resident Counsel in the above comment 

would be subject to Title VI if it 

received any funding from the PHA, 

although its analysis may indicate that 

it must provide little, if any, LEP 

services. The Guidance and Appendix 

B, Q&A IV, restate that Title VI’s LEP 

obligations apply to (1) all programs and 

activities of entities that receive federal 

financial assistance, and (2) all 

subrecipients that receive federal funds 

that are passed through a recipient. 

Entities that are not recipients or 

subrecipients of federal financial 

assistance are not, themselves, subject to 

Title VI requirements (see 24 CFR 1.2), 

although recipients using contractors to 

carry out recipient activities remain 

obligated to ensure civil rights 

compliance in those activities. With 

regard to the comment that LEP 

requirements should only apply to 

subrecipients in the case of clear 

evidence of discriminatory intent, refer 

to Appendix B, Q&A IV, for a more indepth response. Finally, this Guidance 

in no way expands the scope of 

coverage mandated by Title VI, as 

amended by the Civil Rights Restoration 

Act of 1987, which defined the terms 

‘‘program’’ and ‘‘program or activity.’’

VII. Comments Regarding Cost 

Considerations 

Comments: A number of comments 

focused on the cost considerations as an 

element of HUD’s flexible four-factor 

analysis for identifying and addressing 

the language assistance needs of LEP 

persons. For example, several 

commenters said that implementing this 

Guidance would constitute an unfunded 

mandate and that the total costs 

nationally would exceed the $100 

million limit stipulated in the Unfunded 

Mandates Control Act. Commenters also 

stated that document translation is not 

a ‘‘one-time’’ cost, since laws, 

regulations, and Guidance all change 

over time. In addition, several 

commenters noted that private housing 

providers and PHAs would not be able 

to recover the costs of implementing 

LEP services through rent increases, 

since LEP services are not included in 

HUD formulae used to calculate and 

approve rent increases. A few comments 

suggested that the flexible factdependent compliance standard 

incorporated by the Guidance, when 

combined with the desire of most 

recipients to avoid the risk of 

noncompliance, could lead some large, 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 2735 

statewide recipients to incur 

unnecessary or inappropriate financial 

burdens in conjunction with already 

strained program budgets. 

While no comments urged that costs 

be excluded from the analysis, some 

commenters wrote that a recipient could 

use cost as an inappropriate justification 

for avoiding otherwise reasonable and 

necessary language assistance to LEP 

persons. 

HUD Response. HUD believes that 

costs are a material consideration in 

identifying the reasonableness of 

particular language assistance measures, 

and that the Guidance identifies an 

appropriate framework by which costs 

are to be considered. The Department 

recognizes that some projects’ budgets 

and resources are constrained by 

contracts and agreements with the 

Department. These constraints may 

impose a material burden upon the 

projects. Where a recipient of HUD 

funds can demonstrate such a material 

burden, HUD views this as a critical 

item in the consideration of costs in the 

four-factor analysis. However, where 

documents share common text, costs 

can be significantly decreased through 

pooling resources. For instance, many 

HUD recipients of HUD funds belong to 

national organizations that represent 

their interests. HUD recommends that 

these national groups set aside some 

funds from membership fees to offset 

the written translations. In addition, the 

same national groups may contract with 

a telephone interpreter service to 

provide oral interpretation on an asneeded basis. Appendix A discusses 

this issue in greater depth. Appendix B, 

Q&A VII, integrates the issue of cost as 

part of the discussion of the four-factor 

analysis described in the Guidance by 

advising the recipient to take into 

account both the costs and resources 

available to the recipient. 

In addition, Appendix B, Q&A XII, 

explains how a recipient may 

supplement its limited resources to 

provide necessary language services 

without sacrificing quality and 

accuracy. The federal government’s LEP 

Web site, http://www.lep.gov/recip.html 

(scroll to translator and interpreter 

organizations), lists some examples of 

associations and organizations whose 

members may provide translation and 

interpretation services. In addition, the 

General Services Administration 

maintains a language services database 

for both written translations and oral 

interpretation that can be accessed at: 

http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/

ElibMain/ 

SinDetails?executeQuery=YES&

scheduleNumber=738+II&flag &

filter=&specialItemNumber=382+1. Site 

visitors may choose an interpreter or 

translator from among a list of language 

service providers. Language service 

providers are available through other 

means, as well, and the above list is in 

no way meant to be an exclusive list or 

recommendations, but rather is shared 

for information purposes only. 

VIII. Comments Regarding Competency 

of Interpreters (Including Use of 

Informal Interpreters) and Translators 

Comment: Several commenters wrote 

that written LAPs should include 

language strongly discouraging or 

severely limiting the use of informal 

interpreters, such as family members, 

guardians, or friends. Some 

recommended that the Guidance 

prohibit the use of informal interpreters 

except in limited or emergency 

situations. Commenters expressed 

concern that the technical and ethical 

competency of interpreters could 

jeopardize meaningful and appropriate 

access at the level and type 

contemplated under the Guidance. 

HUD Response. HUD believes that the 

Guidance is sufficient to allow 

recipients to achieve the proper balance 

between the many situations where the 

use of informal interpreters is 

inappropriate, and the few where the 

transitory and/or limited use of informal 

interpreters is necessary and 

appropriate in light of the nature of the 

service or benefit being provided and 

the factual context in which that service 

or benefit is being provided. Appendix 

B, Q&A XIII, states that a recipient 

should generally discourage the use of 

family members or other informal 

interpreters, but should permit the use 

of interpreters of the LEP person’s 

choosing when that LEP person rejects 

the recipient’s free language assistance 

services. This Guidance further explains 

and clarifies all aspects of how a 

recipient can provide different types of 

interpretation services, including 

informal interpreters for different 

situations. To ensure the quality of 

written translations and oral 

interpretations, HUD encourages 

recipients to use professional 

interpreters and translators. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

objected to requiring recipients to 

determine the competency of 

interpreters or translators, and strongly 

stated that such a requirement was too 

burdensome for the small- to mediumsized housing providers. A few 

commenters urged HUD to provide 

details on particular interpretation 

standards or approaches that would 

apply on a national basis. 

HUD Response. HUD declines to set 

such professional or technical 

standards. General guidelines for 

translator and interpreter competency 

are set forth in the Guidance. 

Recipients, beneficiaries, and 

associations of professional interpreters 

and translators could collaborate in 

identifying the applicable professional 

and technical interpretation standards 

that are appropriate for particular 

situations. For example, local, state, or 

national chapters of businesses or 

housing trade organizations can set up 

and enforce a set of rules and standards 

that will qualify interpreters and 

translators to participate in housingrelated legal and other program-related 

transactions. Alternatively, PHAs may 

be able to find qualified interpreters and 

translators through associations 

representing that industry (e.g., 

American Translators Association, 

National Association of Judicial 

Interpreters and Translators, Translators 

and Interpreters Guild, and others) or 

even from for-profit organizations. 

Housing provider groups and/or 

individual housing providers can, as 

part of their LAPs, communicate with 

the state Attorney General’s Office or 

the State Administrative Offices of the 

Courts regarding the regulations that 

govern the use of interpreters in most 

legal proceedings in state courts. 

Sections VI.A.1 and VI.B.4 of the 

general Guidance provide information 

on how to determine the competency of 

interpreters and translators. In addition, 

Appendix B, Q&A XII, re-emphasizes 

that the recipient should try to ensure 

the quality and accuracy of any 

interpretation or translation services 

provided. 

IX. Comments Regarding Vulnerability 

of Recipients as a Result of This 

Guidance (Including ‘‘Safe Harbors’’) 

Comments: Some comments focused 

on providing ‘‘safe harbors’’ for oral 

translations and provision of written 

translation for vital documents. The 

commenters stated that there should be 

a level below which there would be no 

need to provide language services where 

the numbers and proportions of the 

population that are LEP are 

insignificant. Another commenter 

recommended that the ‘‘safe harbor’’

standards be less stringent and that 

compliance be determined based on the 

total circumstances. 

Comment: While not clearly stated in 

any of the comments, there appeared to 

be a misunderstanding about how the 

safe harbor requirements applied to the 

eligible population of the market area as 

opposed to current beneficiaries of the 

recipient. 

HUD Response. This final Guidance 

makes no changes to the ‘‘safe harbor’’


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
2736 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 

provisions found at Paragraph VI.B.3 or 

the Guidance in Appendix A. 

Oral Interpretation v. Written 

Translation: The ‘‘safe harbor’’ provided 

in this Guidance is for written 

translations only. There is no ‘‘safe 

harbor’’ for oral interpretation. In fact, 

Q&As XXII and XXIII clarify that no 

matter how few LEP persons the 

recipient is serving, oral interpretation 

services should be made available in 

some form. Recipients should apply the 

four-factor analysis to determine 

whether they should provide reasonable 

and timely, oral interpretation 

assistance, free of charge, in all cases, to 

any beneficiary that is LEP. Depending 

on the circumstances, reasonable oral 

interpretation assistance might be an inperson or telephone service line 

interpreter. 

Safe Harbor for Written Translations: 

Q&A XX explains how the four-factor 

analysis and the recipient’s subsequent 

actions may be used to provide a ‘‘safe 

harbor’’ for written translations. HUD 

LEP Guidelines in Paragraph VI(B)(3) 

explains how certain recipient activities 

would constitute a ‘‘safe harbor’’ against 

a HUD finding that the recipient had not 

made reasonable efforts to provide 

written language assistance. As has 

already been noted, this Guidance is not 

intended to provide a definitive answer 

governing the translation of written 

documents for all recipients, nor one 

that is applicable in all cases and for all 

situations. Rather, in drafting the ‘‘safe 

harbor’’ and vital documents provisions 

of the Guidance, HUD sought to provide 

one, but not necessarily the only point 

of reference for when a recipient should 

consider translations of documents (or 

the implementation of alternatives to 

translating such documents). The 

recipient should consider its particular 

program or activity, the document or 

information in question, and the 

potential LEP populations served. 

Specific Safe Harbor Guidance: 

Appendix B, Q&A XXI, provides a 

helpful table that further clarifies the 

‘‘safe harbors’’ for written translations 

based on the number and percentages of 

the market area-eligible population or 

current beneficiaries and applicants that 

speak a specific language. According to 

the table, HUD would expect 

translations of vital documents to be 

provided when the eligible LEP 

population in the market area or the 

current beneficiaries exceeds 1,000 

persons or if it exceeds 5 percent of the 

eligible population or beneficiaries 

along with more than 50 persons. In 

cases where more than 5 percent of the 

eligible population speaks a specific 

language, but fewer than 50 persons are 

affected, there should be a translated 

written notice of the person’s right to an 

oral interpretation. An oral 

interpretation should be made available 

in all cases. 

Vital Documents: Q&A XX defines a 

‘‘safe harbor’’ for written translations for 

purposes of this Guidance as one where 

the recipient has undertaken efforts to 

prevent a finding of non-compliance 

with respect to the needed translation of 

vital written materials. HUD’s Guidance 

follows DOJ’s Guidance that define a 

‘‘safe harbor’’ only for the translation of 

vital documents. Q&A X describes how 

to determine if a document is a ‘‘vital 

document.’’ Vital documents are those 

that are critical for ensuring meaningful 

access by beneficiaries or potential 

beneficiaries generally and LEP persons 

specifically. If a recipient (1) undertakes 

the four-factor analysis, (2) determines a 

need for translated materials, and (3) 

translates vital documents to 

accommodate the primary languages of 

its LEP applicants, beneficiaries, and 

potential beneficiaries, then HUD will 

consider this strong evidence of 

compliance with respect to translation 

of vital documents. 

The decision as to what programrelated documents should be translated 

into languages other than English is a 

complex one. While documents 

generated by a recipient may be helpful 

in understanding a program or activity, 

not all are critical or vital to ensuring 

meaningful access by beneficiaries 

generally and LEP persons specifically. 

Some documents may create or define 

legally enforceable rights or 

responsibilities on the part of individual 

beneficiaries (e.g., leases, rules of 

conduct, notices of benefit denials, etc.). 

Others, such as applications or 

certification forms, solicit important 

information required to establish or 

maintain eligibility to participate in a 

federally assisted program or activity. 

For some programs or activities, written 

documents may be the core benefit or 

service provided. Moreover, some 

programs or activities may be 

specifically focused on providing 

benefits or services to significant LEP 

populations. Finally, a recipient may 

elect to solicit vital information orally as 

a substitute for written documents. 

Certain languages are oral rather than 

written, and thus a high percentage of 

such LEP speakers will likely be unable 

to read translated documents or written 

instructions. Each of these factors 

should play a role in deciding: (1) What 

documents should be translated; (2) 

what target languages other than English 

are appropriate; and (3) whether more 

effective alternatives exist, rather than 

continued reliance on written 

documents to obtain or process vital 

information. 

Eligible population in the housing 

market area vs. current beneficiaries 

and applicants: While the final 

Guidance makes no changes to the safe 

harbor provisions found in Section 

VI.B.3. of the Guidance or to that found 

in Appendix A, the latter has been 

changed to differentiate between how 

the results of the ‘‘safe harbor’’ will 

affect a recipient’s outreach efforts to 

eligible LEP populations as opposed to 

its LEP services for current beneficiaries 

and applicants of its programs. We have 

clarified in the ‘‘Housing’’ portion of 

Appendix A, as well as in Appendix B, 

Q&A XXI, that the ‘‘safe harbor’’

evaluation will differ depending on the 

population the recipient is considering. 

When conducting outreach to the 

eligible population in the housing 

market area, the number and percentage 

of the eligible LEP population in that 

housing market area should be 

evaluated. When working with a 

recipient’s own beneficiaries (e.g., 

residents of a specific housing 

development or applicants to the 

housing development), the number and 

percentage of LEP persons living in the 

housing and on the waiting list should 

be evaluated. 

Guidance v. Requirements: Regarding 

written translations, the general HUD 

Guidance does identify actions that will 

be considered strong evidence of 

compliance with Title VI LEP 

obligations. However, the failure to 

provide written translations under these 

cited circumstances does not necessarily 

mean that the recipient is in noncompliance. Rather, the ‘‘safe harbors’’

provide a starting point for recipients to 

consider whether the following justify 

written translations of commonly used 

forms into frequently encountered 

languages other than English: (1) The 

importance of the service, benefit, or 

activity and the nature of the 

information sought; (2) the number or 

proportion of LEP persons served; (3) 

the frequency with which LEP persons 

need this particular information and the 

frequency of encounters with the 

particular language being considered for 

translation; and (4) resources available, 

including costs. 

Comment: One comment pointed out 

that current demographic information 

based on the 2000 Census or other data 

was not readily available to assist 

recipients in identifying the number or 

proportion of LEP persons and the 

significant language groups among their 

otherwise eligible beneficiaries. 

HUD Response. This information is 

now available at: http:// 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 2737 

www.census.gov/main/www/ 

com2000.html. 

X. Comments Regarding Consistency of 

Translations (Including Standardized 

Translations of Documents) 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the concept of ‘‘safe harbors’’ should 

reflect an agreed-upon split of 

responsibilities between HUD and its 

private and public sector partners. 

Several commenters proposed that HUD 

provide standardized translations of 

basic programmatic and legal 

documents associated with HUD 

housing programs (e.g., public housing 

lease, housing discrimination complaint 

form, etc). They also recommended that 

HUD assume the cost of such 

translations as a means of reducing the 

costs of LEP services. 

HUD Response. On an ad hoc basis, 

HUD’s individual program offices have 

translated ‘‘as needed’’ important 

documents that affect that particular 

office’s programs. This approach has 

been effective and will be continued. 

XI. Other Comments 

Comment: Several national 

organizations representing assisted 

housing providers said HUD should 

place a ‘‘disclaimer’’ on its translated 

documents that stipulates they are: (1) 

HUD translations, (2) provided as 

supplementary information, (3) not 

replacement for the official English 

document, and (4) not word-for-word 

translations of the housing providers 

documents. 

HUD Response. After undertaking 

reasonable quality control measures to 

ensure the accuracy of the translation, 

HUD will use the following language as 

a disclaimer in its translated lease or 

other documents: ‘‘This document is a 

translation of a HUD-issued legal 

document. HUD provides this 

translation to you merely as a 

convenience to assist in your 

understanding of your rights and 

obligations. The English language 

version of this document is the official, 

legal, controlling document. This 

translated document is not an official 

document.’’

Comment: Recipients of HUD funds 

have commented on potential 

complications that may arise during 

legal proceedings on the eviction of 

non-compliant residents. Recipients 

noted that failure on the part of the 

housing providers to provide all vital 

documents in the resident’s native 

language would create a defense against 

eviction. 

HUD Response. HUD appreciates this 

concern that the documents required by 

the Guidance would complicate 

possible eviction actions. As stated in 

Appendix B, Q&A XIV, state and local 

laws control contractual agreements 

between residents and landlords. 

Notwithstanding, HUD is unaware of 

any state or local case law that would 

encumber the eviction process. 

Comment: National organizations 

representing assisted housing providers 

commented that the definition of ‘‘Who 

is LEP?’’ is misleading. They pointed 

out that since all members of the family 

over 18 years of age must sign the lease 

and related documents, they, therefore, 

are all legally responsible for the terms 

and conditions of the lease. If a member 

of the family who signs the lease is 

English proficient, then this family 

should not be counted as LEP, and the 

standards for providing alternate 

language services to that family should 

not apply. 

HUD response. HUD and its recipients 

do not determine who is LEP. The 

beneficiaries of the services and 

activities identify themselves as LEP. 

Comment: HUD received more than 

7,000 postcards from individual citizens 

who opposed the Guidance as an 

‘‘onerous burden’’ on small and 

underfunded organizations and who 

advocated adoption of English as the 

official language of the United States. 

HUD Response. As stated in 

Appendix B, Q&As II and III, the 

Guidance is based on Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, which 

prohibits discrimination based on 

national origin in programs and 

activities receiving federal financial 

assistance, and is, therefore, not a new 

requirement. The Guidance requires that 

meaningful access to programs, 

activities, and services that receive such 

assistance are expected to be provided 

to LEP persons. As explained in 

Appendix B, Q&A XXVI, recipients 

operating in jurisdictions in which 

English has been declared the official 

language continue to be subject to Title 

VI federal nondiscrimination 

requirements, including those 

applicable to the provisions of federally 

assisted services to LEP persons. 

Comment: Four commenters stated 

that HUD did not solicit the input of 

housing industry stakeholders in 

drafting the Guidance, despite the 

mandate of EO 13166. They 

recommended that HUD convene a 

stakeholder meeting to discuss issues 

relating to the final version of this 

Guidance. 

HUD Response. HUD contends that 

the process of publishing the December 

19, 2003, proposed Guidance, providing 

the public comment period, reviewing 

the issues raised by the comments, and 

issuing this final version of the 

Guidance (with Appendices A and B) 

provided adequate opportunity for all 

housing industry stakeholders to 

review, discuss, and comment on the 

Guidance. HUD has determined that no 

separate housing industry stakeholder 

meetings are necessary. 

Since publication of the proposed 

Guidance, HUD has provided several 

training sessions to industry groups. 

After this final Guidance is published, 

HUD plans to hold a series of public 

forums where PHAs, housing and 

service providers, and other HUD 

program recipients and beneficiaries 

may exchange ideas on how to 

implement this Guidance and discuss 

and identify ‘‘promising practices’’ in 

serving LEP persons. 

In addition, the following clarifying 

comments have been added in 

Appendix B: (1) Q&A I defines LEP 

persons as ‘‘persons who, as a result of 

national origin, do not speak English as 

their primary language and who have a 

limited ability to speak, read, write or 

understand English;’’ (2) Q&A V 

describes the applicability of these 

requirements to immigration and 

citizenship by explaining that U.S. 

citizenship and LEP should not be used 

interchangeably. It is possible for a 

person to be a citizen and LEP, or for 

a person to be fluent in English but not 

a U.S. citizen. Some, but not all, HUD 

programs do require recipients to 

document the citizenship or eligible 

immigrant status of program 

beneficiaries. Title VI applies equally to 

citizens, documented non-citizens and 

undocumented non-citizens, based on 

the LEP status of those who meet 

program requirements; (3) Q&A VIII 

specifies the types of language 

assistance that may be used. These 

include, but are not limited to, oral 

interpretation services, bilingual staff, 

telephone service lines interpreters, 

written translation services, notices to 

staff and recipients of the availability of 

LEP services, and referrals to 

community liaisons proficient in the 

language of LEP persons; (4) Q&A XI 

helps to determine the language needs 

of a beneficiary. Recipients may ask 

about language service needs from all 

prospective beneficiaries (regardless of 

the prospective beneficiary’s race or 

national origin) and use language 

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

invite LEP persons to identify their own 

language needs. To reduce costs of 

compliance, the Bureau of the Census 

has made a set of these cards available 

on the Internet at http://www.usdoj.gov/ 

crt/cor/13166.htm; (5) Q&A XIII tells 

beneficiaries how to file a complaint; 

and (6) Q&A XXVII provides the address 

for the Web site to obtain further 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
2738 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 

information. The Web site also contains 

a link to another set of ‘‘I speak’’ cards 

in a different format. A recipient of DOJ 

funds and translator and interpreter 

organizations jointly created these. They 

are available at http://www.lep.gov/ 

ocjs_languagecard.pdf. Other promising 

practices can also be found in the 

General Chapter (Chapter 1) of DOJ’s 

Tips and Tools document, found at 

http://www.lep.gov/ 

tips_tools_92104.pdf and at http:// 

www.lep.gov/tips_tools_92104.htm. 

In addition to addressing the concerns 

noted above, HUD has substituted, 

where appropriate, technical or stylistic 

changes that more clearly articulate, in 

HUD’s view, the underlying principles, 

guidelines, or recommendations 

detailed in the final Guidance. Language 

has been added that clarifies the 

Guidance’s application to activities 

undertaken by a recipient either 

voluntarily or under contract in support 

of a federal agency’s functions. After 

appropriate revision based on an indepth review and analysis of the 

comments, with particular focus on the 

common concerns summarized above, 

HUD adopts its final ‘‘Notice of 

Guidance to Federal Financial 

Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI 

Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination Affecting Limited 

English Proficiency Persons.’’ The text 

of this final Guidance, along with 

Appendices A and B, are below. Title VI 

regulations that deal with 

discrimination based on national origin 

have not changed, and violations of the 

prohibition on national origin 

discrimination will continue to be 

enforced as in the past. Therefore, no 

substantive changes have been made to 

the general Guidance, although some 

editorial changes were made. A few 

substantive changes were made to the 

HUD-specific Guidance in Appendix A, 

from that which was published as 

proposed Guidance at 68 FR 70968 on 

December 19, 2003. The changes were 

made to provide clarity. Some editorial 

changes were also made. 

Final Guidance 

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.’’ In the 2000 

census, 28 percent of all Spanish and 

Chinese speakers and 32 percent of all 

Vietnamese-speakers reported that they 

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

Language for LEP persons 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 programs, services, 

and activities 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 

or Language Access Plan (LAP). 

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 programs, services, and 

activities. HUD 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. 

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 describing the factors 

recipients should consider in fulfilling 

their responsibilities to LEP persons. 

The 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. These are the same criteria 

HUD will use in evaluating whether 

recipients are in compliance with Title 

VI and Title VI regulations. 

As with most government initiatives, 

guidance on LEP 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, HUD 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, HUD must achieve 

this goal while finding constructive 

methods to reduce the costs of LEP 

requirements on small businesses, small 

local governments, or small non-profit 

entities that receive federal financial 

assistance. 

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, HUD 

plans to continue to provide assistance 

and guidance in this important area. In 

addition, HUD plans to work with 

representatives of state and local 

governments, public housing agencies, 

assisted housing providers, fair housing 

assistance programs and other HUD 

recipients, and LEP persons to identify 

and share model plans, examples of best 

practices, and cost-saving approaches. 

Moreover, HUD intends to explore how 

language assistance measures, resources, 

and cost-containment approaches 

developed with respect to its own 

federally conducted programs and 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 2739 

activities can be effectively shared or 

otherwise made available to recipients, 

particularly small businesses, small 

local governments, and small non-profit 

entities. An interagency working group 

on LEP has developed a Web site, 

http://www.lep.gov, to assist in 

disseminating this information to 

recipients, federal agencies, and the 

communities being served. 

Many persons who commented on the 

Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed 

LEP guidance, published January 16, 

2001 (66 FR 3834), later published for 

additional public comment on January 

18, 2002 (67 FR 2671), and published as 

final on June 18, 2002 (67 FR 41455), 

have noted that some have interpreted 

the case of Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 

U.S. 275 (2001), as implicitly 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. DOJ and HUD have taken 

the position that this is not the case, for 

reasons explained below. Accordingly, 

HUD 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). 

HUD 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’’ (24 CFR 1.4). 

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 HUD, 24 CFR 1.4, 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, ‘‘Improving Access to Services 

for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency,’’ was issued and published 

on August 16, 2000 (65 FR 50121). 

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 

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. The 

DOJ document is titled, ‘‘Enforcement of 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

National Origin Discrimination Against 

Persons With Limited English 

Proficiency,’’ published on August 16, 

2000 (65 FR 50123) (‘‘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 

Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 

Rights Division issued a memorandum 

for ‘‘Heads of Departments and 

Agencies, General Counsels and Civil 

Rights Directors.’’ This memorandum 

clarified and reaffirmed the DOJ LEP 

Guidance in light of Sandoval. This 

Guidance noted that some have 

interpreted Sandoval as implicitly 

striking down the disparate-impact 

regulations promulgated under Title VI 

that form the basis for the part of 

Executive Order 13166 that applies to 

federally assisted programs and 

activities. See, e.g., Sandoval,, 532 U.S. 

at 286, 286 n.6 (‘‘[W]e assume for 

purposes of this decision that section 

602 confers the authority to promulgate 

disparate-impact regulations; We cannot 

help observing, however, how strange it 

is to say that disparate-impact 

regulations are ‘inspired by, at the 

service of, and inseparably intertwined 

with’ Sec. 601 * * * when Sec. 601 

permits the very behavior that the 

regulations forbid.’’). This guidance, 

however, makes clear that the DOJ 

disagreed with this interpretation. 

Sandoval holds principally that there is 

no private right of action to enforce Title 

VI disparate-impact regulations. The 

case did not address the validity of 

those regulations or Executive Order 

13166, or otherwise limit the authority 

and responsibility of federal grant 

agencies to enforce their own 

implementing regulations. 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 

activities—the Executive Order remains 

in force. 

This HUD policy is thus published 

pursuant to Title VI, Title VI 

regulations, and Executive Order 13166. 

It is consistent with the final DOJ 

‘‘Guidance to Federal Financial 

Recipients Regarding Title VI 

Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination Affecting Limited 

English Proficient Persons,’’ published 

on June 18, 2002 (67 FR 41455). 

III. Who Is Covered? 

HUD’s regulation, 24 CFR Part 1, 

‘‘Nondiscrimination in Federally 

Assisted Programs of the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development—

Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964,’’ requires all 

recipients of federal financial assistance 

from HUD to provide meaningful access 

to LEP persons. Pursuant to Executive 

Order 13166, the meaningful access 

requirement of the Title VI regulations 

and the four-factor analysis set forth in 

this LEP Guidance are to additionally 

apply to the programs and activities of 

federal agencies, including HUD. 

Federal financial assistance includes 

grants, training, use of equipment, 

donations of surplus property, and other 

assistance. Recipients of HUD assistance 

include, for example: 

• State and local governments; 

• Public housing agencies; 

• Assisted housing providers; 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
2740 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 

• The Fair Housing Initiative Program 

and the Fair Housing Assistance 

Program; and 

• Other entities receiving funds 

directly or indirectly from HUD. 

Subrecipients and state grant 

recipients are likewise covered when 

federal funds are passed to them 

through the grantee. For example, 

Entitlement Community Development 

Block Grant, State Community 

Development Block Grant, and HOME 

Investment Partnership Program 

recipients’ subrecipients are covered. 

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 federal assistance. 

For example, HUD provides 

assistance to a state government’s 

Department of Community 

Development, which provides funds to 

a local government to improve a 

particular public facility. All of the 

operations of the entire state 

Department of Community 

Development—not just the particular 

community and/or facility—are covered. 

However, 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). 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? 

Persons 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,’’ and may 

be 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 HUD recipients and should be 

considered when planning language 

services include, but are not limited to: 

• Persons who are seeking housing 

assistance from a public housing agency 

or assisted housing provider or are 

current tenants in such housing; 

• Persons seeking assistance from a 

state or local government for home 

rehabilitation; 

• Persons who are attempting to file 

housing discrimination complaints with 

a local Fair Housing Assistance Program 

grantee; 

• Persons who are seeking supportive 

services to become first-time 

homebuyers; 

• Persons seeking housing-related 

social services, training, or any other 

assistance from HUD 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 grantee; (2) the 

frequency with which LEP persons 

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 nonprofit 

entities. 

After applying the 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. HUD 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 could take to ensure meaningful 

access for LEP persons. 

A. The Number or Proportion of LEP 

Persons Served or Encountered in the 

Eligible Service Area 

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 have been approved by HUD as the 

recipient’s jurisdiction or service area. 

However, where, for instance, a public 

housing project serves a large LEP 

population, the appropriate service area 

for LEP services is most likely the 

public housing project neighborhood, 

and not the entire population served by 

the PHA. 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. Appendix A 

provides examples to assist in 

determining the relevant service area. 

When considering the number or 

proportion of LEP persons in a service 

area, recipients should consider LEP 

parent(s) when their English-proficient 

or LEP minor children and dependents 

encounter the recipient. 

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 could 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. The 

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 and who speak 

or understand English less than well. 

Some of the most commonly spoken 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 2741 

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 proficiency persons. When 

using demographic data, it is important 

to focus in on the languages spoken by 

those who are not proficient in English. 

Community agencies, school systems, 

grassroots and faith-based 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 if language 

services were provided. 

B. 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 the need for 

enhanced language services in that 

language. 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 extensive 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 consider whether appropriate 

outreach to LEP persons could increase 

the frequency of contact with LEP 

language groups. 

C. 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 persons, the more 

likely the need for language services. 

The obligations to communicate rights 

to a person who is being evicted 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. Decisions by HUD, another 

Federal, State, or local entity, or the 

recipient to make a specific activity 

compulsory in order to participate in 

the program, such as filling out 

particular forms, participating in 

administrative hearings, or other 

activities, can serve as strong evidence 

of the program’s importance. 

D. 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; 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. Recipients should 

carefully explore the most cost-effective 

means of delivering competent and 

accurate language services before 

limiting services due to resource 

concerns. Small recipients with limited 

resources may find that entering into a 

bulk telephonic interpretation service 

contract will prove cost effective. 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 

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 the 

recipient will provide. Recipients have 

two main ways to provide language 

services: Oral interpretation in person or 

via telephone interpretation service 

(hereinafter ‘‘interpretation’’) and 

through written translation (hereinafter 

‘‘translation’’). Oral interpretation can 

range from on-site interpreters for 

critical services provided to a high 

volume of LEP persons 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 public housing provider in a 

largely Hispanic neighborhood may 

need immediate oral interpreters 

available and should give serious 

consideration to hiring some bilingual 

staff. (Of course, many have already 

made such arrangements.) By 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 public tour of a recreational 

facility—in which pre-arranged 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
2742 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 

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 (target language). Where 

interpretation is needed and is a 

reasonable service to provide, recipients 

should consider some or all of the 

following options for providing 

competent interpreters in a timely 

manner: 

1. Competence of Interpreters 

When providing oral assistance, 

recipients are expected to ensure 

competency of the language service 

provider, no matter which of the 

strategies outlined below are used. 

Competency requires more than selfidentification 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. 

Formal certification as an interpreter is 

not necessary, although it would serve 

as documentation of competency to 

interpret. When using interpreters, 

recipients are expected to 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; 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. Many 

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, 

there may be languages that do not have 

an appropriate direct interpretation of 

some courtroom or legal terms. The 

interpreter should be so aware and be 

able to provide the most appropriate 

interpretation. The interpreter should 

make the recipient aware of the issue 

when it arises and then work to develop 

a consistent and appropriate set of 

descriptions of these terms so that the 

terms can be used again, when 

appropriate; and 

• Understand and adhere to their role 

as interpreters without deviating into a 

role as counselor, legal advisor, or other 

roles (particularly in court, 

administrative hearings, or law 

enforcement contexts). 

Some recipients may have additional 

self-imposed requirements for 

interpreters. Where individual rights 

depend on precise, complete, and 

accurate interpretation or translations, 

the use of certified interpreters is 

strongly encouraged. For the many 

languages in which no formal 

certification assessments currently exist, 

other qualifications should be 

considered, such as whether the person 

has been deemed otherwise qualified by 

a state or federal court, level of 

experience and participation in 

professional trainings and activities, 

demonstrated knowledge of interpreter 

ethics, etc. Where such proceedings are 

lengthy, the interpreter will likely need 

breaks. Therefore, team interpreting may 

be appropriate to ensure accuracy and to 

prevent errors caused by mental fatigue 

of interpreters and to allow for breaks. 

While quality and accuracy of 

language services is critical, it should be 

evaluated as part of the appropriate mix 

of LEP services. The quality and 

accuracy of language services in an 

abused woman’s shelter, for example, 

should be extraordinarily high, while 

the quality and accuracy of language 

services in a recreational program 

generally need not meet such 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 certain activities of 

HUD recipients in providing housing, 

health, and safety services, and when 

important legal rights are at issue, a 

recipient would likely not be providing 

meaningful access if it had one bilingual 

staff person 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 be delayed for a reasonable period. 

2. 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 persons who take public 

housing or Section 8 applications, with 

staff who are bilingual and competent to 

communicate directly with LEP persons 

in the LEP persons’ own language. If 

bilingual staff is 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 (for instance, 

a bilingual intake specialist would 

probably not be able to perform 

effectively the role of an administrative 

hearing interpreter and intake specialist 

at the same time, even if the intake 

specialist were a qualified interpreter). 

Effective management strategies, 

including any appropriate adjustments 

in assignments and protocols for using 

bilingual staff, can ensure that bilingual 

staff is fully and appropriately utilized. 

When bilingual staff cannot meet all of 

the language service obligations of the 

recipient, the recipient would turn to 

other options. 

3. 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. 

4. Contracting for Interpreters 

Contract interpreters may be a costeffective option when there is no regular 

need for a particular language skill. In 

addition to commercial and other 

private providers, many communitybased 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 costVerDate Aug<31>2005 15:22 Jan 19, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JAN2.SGM 22JAN2

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 2743 

effective option for providing language 

services to LEP persons from those 

language groups. 

5. Using Telephone Interpreter Line 

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. 

6. 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 be 

a cost-effective way of providing 

supplemental language assistance 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. 

7. 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, 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 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 administrative or enforcement 

interest in accurate interpretation. In 

many circumstances, family members 

(especially children) or friends are not 

competent to provide quality and 

accurate interpretations. Confidentiality, 

privacy, or conflict-of-interest issues 

may also arise. LEP persons 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. For example, special 

circumstances may raise additional 

serious concerns regarding the 

voluntary nature, conflicts of interest, 

and privacy issues surrounding the use 

of family members and friends as 

interpreters, particularly where an 

important right, benefit, service, 

disciplinary concern, or access to 

personal or law enforcement 

information is at stake. In addition to 

ensuring competency and accuracy of 

the interpretation, recipients should 

take these special circumstances into 

account when determining whether a 

beneficiary makes a knowing and 

voluntary choice to use another family 

member or friend as an interpreter. 

Furthermore, 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 would generally offer 

competent interpreter services free of 

cost to the LEP person. For HUDrecipient programs and activities, this is 

particularly true in a courtroom or 

administrative hearing or in situations 

in which health, safety, or access to 

important housing benefits and services 

are at stake; or when credibility and 

accuracy are important to protect an 

individual’s rights and access to 

important services. 

An example of such a case is when a 

property manager/or PHA security 

personnel or local police respond to a 

domestic disturbance. In such a case, 

use of family members or neighbors to 

interpret for the alleged victim, 

perpetrator, or witnesses may raise 

serious issues of competency, 

confidentiality, and conflict of interest 

and is thus inappropriate. 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 public 

tour of a community recreational facility 

built with CDBG funds. 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 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 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. 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. Extra 

caution should be exercised when the 

LEP person chooses to use a minor. The 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
2744 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 

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 the recipient 

could provide a competent interpreter at 

no cost to the LEP person. 

B. Written Language Services 

(Translation) 

Translation is the replacement of a 

written text from one language (source 

language) into an equivalent written text 

in the target language. It should be kept 

in mind that because many LEP persons 

may not be able to read their native 

languages, back-up availability of oral 

interpretation is always advantageous. 

1. What Documents Should be 

Translated? 

After applying the four-factor 

analysis, a recipient may determine that 

an effective LAP for its particular 

program or activity includes the 

translation of vital, or generic widely 

used 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 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 of eviction; 

• Notices advising LEP persons of 

free language assistance; 

• Notices of public hearings, 

especially those that meet Community 

Planning and Development’s citizen 

participation requirements; 

• Leases and tenant rules; and/or 

• 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, 

applications for recreational activities 

would not generally be considered vital 

documents, relative to applications for 

housing. 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 such as 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 persons 

meaningful access. Thus, where a 

recipient is engaged in community 

outreach activities in furtherance of its 

activities, it would 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, 

grassroots and faith-based organizations, 

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 frequently 

encountered 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. 

2. Into What Languages Should 

Documents be Translated? 

The languages spoken by the LEP 

persons 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 those less commonly 

encountered. Many recipients serve 

communities in large cities or across the 

country. They regularly serve LEP 

persons speaking dozens and sometimes 

more than 100 different languages. To 

translate all written materials into all 

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 case-by-case basis, 

looking at the totality of the 

circumstances in light of the four-factor 

analysis. Because translation is a onetime 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. 

3. 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 

noncompliance. Rather, the 

circumstances provide a common 

starting point for recipients to consider 

the importance of the service, benefit, or 

activity involved; the nature of the 

information sought; and whether 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. 

For example, even if the safe harbors 

are not used, should written translation 

of a certain document(s) be so 

burdensome as to defeat the legitimate 

objectives of its program, translation of 

the written materials is not necessary. 

Other ways of providing meaningful 

access, such as effective oral 

interpretation of vital documents, might 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 2745 

be acceptable under such 

circumstances. 

The following actions will be 

considered strong evidence of 

compliance with the recipient’s writtentranslation obligations: 

(a) The HUD recipient provides 

written translations of vital documents 

for each eligible LEP language group 

that constitutes 5 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 5 

percent trigger in (a), the recipient does 

not translate vital written materials but 

instead 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 

persons through competent oral 

interpreters where oral language 

services are needed and are reasonable. 

For example, housing facilities should, 

where appropriate, ensure that leases 

have been explained to LEP residents, at 

intake meetings, for instance, prior to 

taking adverse action against such 

persons. 

4. Competence of Translators 

As with oral interpreters, all attempts 

should be made to ensure that 

translators of written documents are 

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. For 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. Having a second, 

independent translator ‘‘check’’ the 

work of the primary translator can often 

ensure competence. 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. For instance, there 

may be languages that do not have an 

appropriate direct translation of some 

English language terms. In such cases, 

the translator should be able to provide 

an appropriate alternative. 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 already created 

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. Community organizations may 

be able to help consider whether a 

document is written at an appropriate 

level for the audience. Likewise, 

consistency in the words and phrases 

used to translate terms of art, legal, or 

other technical concepts will help avoid 

confusion by LEP persons and may 

reduce costs. 

While quality and accuracy of 

translation services is critical, they are 

part of the appropriate mix of LEP 

services. For instance, documents that 

are simple and have no legal or other 

consequence for LEP persons who rely 

on them may require translators that are 

less skilled than important documents 

with legal or other information upon 

which reliance has important 

consequences (including, for example, 

information or documents of HUD 

recipients regarding safety issues and 

certain legal rights or programmatic or 

other obligations). 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 an Effective LAP 

After completing the four-factor 

analysis and deciding what language 

assistance services are appropriate, a 

recipient would develop an 

implementation plan to address the 

identified needs of the LEP populations 

they serve. Recipients have flexibility in 

developing this plan. The development 

and maintenance of a periodically 

updated written plan on language 

assistance for LEP persons, or a LAP for 

use by recipient employees serving the 

public will likely be the most 

appropriate and cost-effective 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 LAP their language assistance 

services, and how staff and LEP persons 

can access those services. Despite these 

benefits, certain HUD recipients, such as 

recipients serving very few LEP persons 

and recipients with very limited 

resources, may choose not to develop a 

written LAP. However, the absence of a 

written LAP 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, grassroots and faithbased 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 LAP and are 

typically part of effective 

implementation plans. 

A. 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 they 

have 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, and ‘‘I speak Vietnamese’’ in 

both English and Vietnamese. To reduce 

costs of compliance, the federal 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
2746 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 

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 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. 

B. Language Assistance Measures 

An effective Language Assistance Plan 

(LAP) 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 persons 

who have in-person contact with 

recipient staff; and 

• How to ensure competency of 

interpreters and translation services. 

C. Training Staff 

Staff should know their obligations to 

provide meaningful access to 

information and services for LEP 

persons. An effective LAP would likely 

include training to ensure that: 

• Staff knows about LEP policies and 

procedures; and 

• Staff having contact with the public 

is 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 a Language Action 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. 

D. 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 

that LEP persons will understand. 

Examples of notification that recipients 

should consider include: 

• Posting signs in common areas, 

offices, and anywhere applications are 

taken. When language assistance is 

needed to ensure meaningful access to 

information and services, it is important 

to provide notice in appropriate 

languages in initial points of contact so 

that LEP persons can learn how to 

access those language services. This is 

particularly true in geographic areas 

with high volumes of LEP persons 

seeking access to the recipient’s major 

programs and activities. For instance, 

signs in offices where applications are 

taken 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. 

The 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; 

• Stating in outreach documents that 

language services are available from the 

recipient. 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 grassroots and faithbased community 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; and 

• Presentations and/or notices at 

schools and grassroots and faith-based 

organizations. 

E. Monitoring and Updating the LAP 

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 persons, 

and recipients 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 LAP. Less 

frequent reevaluation may be more 

appropriate where demographics, 

services, and needs are more static. One 

good way to evaluate the LAP is to seek 

feedback from members of the 

community that the plan serves. 

In their reviews, recipients may want 

to consider assessing changes in: 

• Current LEP populations in the 

housing jurisdiction geographic area or 

population affected or encountered; 

• Frequency of encounters with LEP 

language groups; 

• The nature and importance of 

activities to LEP persons; 

• The 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 LAP and how to 

implement it; and 

• Whether identified sources for 

assistance are still available and viable. 

In addition to these elements, 

effective plans set clear goals, make 

management accountable, and provide 

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 

HUD 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 

HUD will investigate whenever it 

receives a complaint, report, or other 

information that alleges or indicates 

possible noncompliance with Title VI or 

its regulations. The Office of Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) 

is responsible for conducting the 

investigation to ensure that federal 

program recipients are in compliance 

with civil rights-related program 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 2747 

requirements. If the investigation results 

in a finding of compliance, HUD will 

inform the recipient in writing of this 

determination, including the basis for 

the determination. HUD uses voluntary 

methods to resolve most complaints. 

However, if a case is fully investigated 

and results in a finding of 

noncompliance, HUD must inform the 

recipient of the noncompliance through 

a Letter of Findings that sets out the 

areas of noncompliance and the steps 

that should be taken to correct the 

noncompliance. HUD must attempt to 

secure voluntary compliance through 

informal means. If the matter cannot be 

resolved informally, HUD must secure 

compliance through the termination of 

federal assistance after the HUD 

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. 

At all stages of an investigation, HUD 

engages in voluntary compliance efforts 

and provides technical assistance to 

recipients. During such efforts, HUD 

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, HUD’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 persons, HUD 

acknowledges that the implementation 

of a comprehensive system to serve LEP 

persons 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, HUD 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, HUD 

expects its recipients to ensure that the 

provision of appropriate assistance for 

significant LEP populations or with 

respect to activities having a significant 

impact on the housing, 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. Application to Specific Types of 

Recipients 

Appendix A of this Guidance 

provides examples of how the 

meaningful access requirement of the 

Title VI regulations applies to HUD 

funded recipients. It further explains 

how recipients can apply the four 

factors to a range of situations, to 

determine their responsibility for 

providing language services in each of 

these situations. This Guidance helps 

recipients identify the population they 

should consider when determining the 

extent and types of services to provide. 

For instance, it gives examples on how 

to apply this guidance in situations like: 

• Holding public meetings on 

Consolidated Plans for Community 

Planning and Development Programs 

[Community Development Block Grants 

(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership 

Program (HOME), Housing 

Opportunities for Persons with AIDS 

(HOPWA), and Emergency Shelter 

Grants (ESG)]; 

• Interviewing victims of housing 

discrimination; 

• Helping applicants to apply for 

public housing units; 

• Explaining lease provisions; and 

• Providing affirmative marketing 

housing counseling services. 

X. Environmental Impact 

This notice sets out 

nondiscrimination standards. 

Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19 (c) (3), 

this notice is categorically excluded 

from environmental review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321). 

Dated: August 16, 2006. 

Kim Kendrick, 

Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing, and 

Equal Opportunity. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received at the Office of the Federal Register 

on January 16, 2007. 

Appendix A:—Application of Limited 

English Proficiency (LEP) Guidance for 

JUH Recipients 

Introduction 

A wide range of entities receives federal 

financial assistance through HUD. HUD 

provides assistance to the following types of 

recipients, among others: Assisted housing 

providers; public housing agencies (PHAs); 

Indian tribes, state and local governments; 

nonprofit organizations, including housing 

counseling agencies, grassroots communitybased organizations, and faith-based 

organizations; state and local fair housing 

agencies; and providers of a variety of 

services. Most organizations can check their 

status as to whether or not they are covered 

by reviewing the ‘‘List of Federally Assisted 

Programs,’’ published in the Federal Register 

on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68700). This 

list may not be all-inclusive or reflect newer 

programs. Subrecipients are also covered. All 

HUD-funded recipients, except for Indian 

tribes, are required to certify to 

nondiscrimination and affirmatively 

furthering fair housing, either through the 

Office of Community Planning and 

Development’s (CPD) Consolidated Plan [24 

CFR 91.225 (a)(1) and (b)(6), 92.325(a)(1), and 

91.425(a)(i)]; the public housing agency plans 

[24 CFR 903.7(o)] or the certifications 

required in the competitive programs funded 

through the Super Notice of Funding 

Availability (SuperNOFA). HUD publishes 

the SuperNOFA on an annual basis. The 

nondiscrimination and the affirmatively 

furthering fair housing requirements are 

found in the General Section of the 

SuperNOFA. The Web site link to the 

SuperNOFA is: http://www.hud.gov/library/ 

bookshelf18/supernofa/nofa05/gensec.pdf. 

This appendix does not change current civil 

rights-related program requirements 

contained in HUD regulations. 

Appendix A provides examples of how 

HUD recipients might apply the four-factor 

analysis described in the general Guidance. 

The Guidance and examples in Appendix A 

are not meant to be exhaustive and may not 

apply in some situations. CPD’s citizen 

participation plan requirement, in particular, 

specifically instructs jurisdictions that 

receive funds through the Consolidated Plan 

process to take appropriate actions to 

encourage the participation of ‘‘* * * nonEnglish speaking persons * * *’’ [24 CFR 

91.105(a)(2)(ii), 91.115(a)(2), 24 CFR 

91.105(a)(2)(ii), and 91.115(a)(2)]. Such 

recipients may therefore have processes in 

place to address the needs of their LEP 

beneficiaries that already take into 

consideration the four-factor analysis and 

meet the Title VI and Title VI regulatory 

requirements described in this Guidance. 

This Guidance does not supplant any 

constitutional, statutory, and/or regulatory 

provisions that may require LEP services. 

Rather, this Guidance clarifies the Title VI 

and Title VI regulatory obligation to address, 

in appropriate circumstances and in a 

reasonable manner, the language assistance 

needs of LEP persons. The Guidance does not 

address those required by the Constitution or 

statutes and regulations other than Title VI 

and the Title VI regulations. 

Tribes and tribally designated housing 

entities (TDHEs) are authorized to use federal 

housing assistance made available under the 

Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 

4101–4212) (NAHASDA) for low-income 

housing programs or activities for the specific 

benefit of tribal members and/or other Native 

Americans. Programs or activities funded in 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
2748 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 

whole or in part with federal assistance and 

in compliance with NAHASDA are exempt 

from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. 

Although Title VI may not apply to housing 

programs undertaken by these entities under 

NAHASDA, recipients of NAHASDA funds 

are encouraged to use this Guidance as a 

technical assistance tool in determining 

whether and to what degree language 

assistance may be appropriate to ensure 

meaningful access by otherwise eligible lowincome Native Americans. 

Members of the public are most likely to 

come into contact with recipients of HUD 

funds when they need housing and/or 

housing-related services or when the 

recipients conduct education and community 

outreach activities. The common thread 

running through contacts between the public 

and recipients of HUD funds is the exchange 

of information. Recipients of HUD assistance, 

depending on circumstances, have an 

obligation to provide appropriate types and 

levels of LEP services to LEP persons to 

ensure that they have meaningful access to, 

and choice of, housing and other HUDfunded programs. Language barriers can, for 

instance, prevent persons from learning of 

housing opportunities or applying for and 

receiving such opportunities; learning of 

environmental or safety problems in their 

communities and of the means available for 

dealing with such problems; and/or 

effectively reporting housing discrimination 

to the local fair housing agency or HUD, thus 

hindering investigations of these allegations. 

Many recipients already provide language 

services in a wide variety of circumstances to 

obtain information effectively and help 

applicants obtain suitable housing and/or 

support services. For example, PHAs may 

have leases available in languages other than 

English and has interpreters available to 

inform LEP persons of their rights and 

responsibilities. In areas where significant 

LEP populations reside, PHAs may have 

forms and notices in languages other than 

English or they may employ bilingual intake 

personnel, housing counselors, and support 

staff. Such recipients may, therefore have 

processes in place to address the needs of 

their LEP beneficiaries that already take into 

consideration the four-factor analysis and 

meet the Title VI and regulatory Title VI 

requirements described in this Guidance. 

These experiences can form a strong basis for 

applying the four-factor analysis and 

complying with the Title VI regulations. 

General Principles 

The touchstone of the four-factor analysis 

is reasonableness based upon: (a) The 

specific needs and capabilities of the LEP 

population among the beneficiaries of HUD 

programs (tenants, applicants, community 

residents, complainants, etc.); (b) the 

program purposes and capabilities of the 

HUD-funded recipients providing the 

services to the LEP population; and (c) local 

housing, demographics, and other 

community conditions and needs. 

Accordingly, the analysis cannot provide a 

single uniform answer on how service to LEP 

persons must be provided in all programs or 

activities in all situations or whether such 

service need be provided at all. Each HUD 

recipient’s evaluation of the need for, and 

level of LEP services must be highly 

individualized for each process in its 

services. 

Before giving specific program examples, 

several general points should assist the wide 

variety of recipients of HUD funds in 

applying this analysis. 

Factors (1) and (2): Target Audiences 

In evaluating the target audience, the 

recipient should take into account the 

number and proportion of LEP persons 

served or eligible to be served in the target 

population, as well as the frequency with 

which this target audience will or should be 

served. 

Factor (1): For most recipients, the target 

audience is defined in geographic rather than 

programmatic terms. In many cases, even if 

the overall number or proportion of LEP 

persons in the local area is low, the number 

of contacts with LEP persons may be high. 

Recipients of HUD funds are required by 

existing regulations to outreach, educate, and 

affirmatively market the availability of 

housing and housing-related services to 

eligible persons in the geographic area that 

are least likely to apply for and/or receive the 

benefits of the program without such 

outreach and education activities and/or 

affirmative marketing [(24 CFR 200.625; 24 

CFR 92.351; and 24 CFR 903.2(d)(1) and (2)]. 

In many cases, those least likely to apply for 

a benefit are LEP persons. In addition, in 

some cases where there are few LEP persons 

in the immediate geographic area, outreach, 

education, and affirmative marketing may 

require marketing to residents of adjoining 

areas, communities, or neighborhoods [(24 

CFR 200.625; 24 CFR 92.351; 903.2(d)(1) and 

(2)]. 

The programs of many recipients require 

public meetings and input (24 CFR 91, 

subpart B; 24 CFR 903.13(a); 24 CFR part 

964). Even within the large geographic area 

covered by a city government, certain target 

areas may have concentrations of LEP 

persons. These persons may be those who 

might be most affected by the issue being 

discussed. In addition, some programs are 

specifically targeted to reach a particular 

audience (e.g., persons with HIV/AIDS, 

elderly, residents of high crime areas, 

persons with disabilities, and minority 

communities). In some communities, these 

populations may disproportionately be LEP 

persons. 

Factor (2): Frequency of contact should be 

considered in light of the specific program or 

the geographic area being served. Some 

education programs or complaint processing 

may only require a single or limited 

interaction with each LEP individual served. 

In contrast, housing, counseling, and housing 

supportive services programs require ongoing 

communication. In the former case, the type 

and extent of LEP services may be of shorter 

duration, even for a greater number of LEP 

persons, than in the latter case. Therefore, 

decisions must be made accordingly. 

Factor (3): Importance of Service/ 

Information/Program/Activity 

Given the critical role housing plays in 

maintaining quality of life, housing and 

complementary housing services rank high 

on the critical/non-critical continuum. 

However, this does not mean that all services 

and activities provided by recipients of HUD 

funds must be equally accessible in 

languages other than English. For instance, 

while clearly important to the quality of life 

in the community, certain recreational 

programs provided by a HUD-funded 

recipient may not require the same level of 

interpretive services as does the recipient’s 

underlying housing service. Nevertheless, the 

need for language services with respect to 

these programs should be considered in 

applying the four-factor analysis. The 

recipient should always consider the basic 

activity for which it was funded as being of 

high importance. 

Factor (4): Costs v. Resources and Benefits 

The final factor that must be taken into 

account is the cost of providing various 

services balanced against the resources 

available to the HUD-funded recipient 

providing the service. 

Type of Program: There are some programs 

for which translation and interpretation are 

such an integral part of the funded program 

that services would be provided in some way 

to any client that requires them. In important 

programs or activities (e.g., tenant selection 

and assignment, homeownership counseling, 

fair housing complaint intake, conflict 

resolution between tenants and landlords, 

etc.) that require one-on-one contact with 

clients, oral and written translations would 

be provided consistent with the four-factor 

analysis used earlier. Recipients could have 

competent bi-or multilingual employees, 

community translators, or interpreters to 

communicate with LEP persons in languages 

prevalent in the community. In some 

instances, a recipient may have to contract or 

negotiate with other agencies for language 

services for LEP persons. 

Outreach: Affirmative marketing activities, 

as described above, require written materials 

in other languages, at a minimum [24 CFR 

200.625; 24 CFR 92.351; and 24 CFR 903.2 

(d)(1) and (2)]. As with counseling, 

affirmative marketing in large LEP 

communities could be fruitless without 

translations of outreach materials. Preferably, 

outreach workers would speak the language 

of the people to whom they are marketing. 

Size of Program: A major issue for deciding 

on the extent of translation/interpretation/ 

bilingual services is the size of the program. 

A large PHA may be expected to have 

multilingual employees representing the 

languages spoken by LEP persons who may 

reside in the communities. These employees 

may be involved in all activities, including 

affirmative marketing, taking and verifying 

applications, counseling, explaining leases, 

holding and/or interpreting at tenant 

meetings, and ongoing tenant contact, as well 

as translating documents into applicable 

languages. Similarly, a funded recipient 

receiving millions of dollars in CDBG 

Program funds may be expected to provide 

translation/interpretation services in major 

local languages and have bilingual staff in 

those languages. Recipients with limited 

resources (e.g., PHAs with a small number of 

units, or small nonprofit organizations) 

would not be expected to provide the same 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 2749 

level and comprehensiveness of services to 

the LEP population, but should consider the 

reasonable steps, under the four-factor 

analysis, they should take in order to provide 

meaningful access. 

Outreach v. Size of the Program: When the 

same recipient conducts a range of activities, 

even within the same community, translation 

needs for each activity may differ. The 

translation needs may also be mandated 

according to the number of LEP persons 

being served. For instance, a housing 

provider doing outreach and marketing to an 

eligible population may have to provide 

written translations of materials because the 

target population itself is large. Within that 

target population, there could be an LEP 

population that exceeds 1,000 persons for 

one language, or a specific language group 

that exceeds 5 percent of the population. 

Outreach materials to that LEP population 

should be provided in translation to that 

language. Written translations may not be 

necessary if, within a housing development, 

there is no LEP population that meets the 

‘‘safe harbor’’ threshold for written 

translation. In these situations, housing 

providers need only arrange for oral 

interpretation. 

Relevance of Activity to the Program: A 

program with monthly information sessions 

in a community with many LEP persons 

speaking the same language should consider 

employing a bilingual employee who can 

hold these sessions in the LEP language. 

Alternatively, if a community’s major LEP 

language does not have many applicants to 

the program, having an interpreter at sessions 

only when needed (by, for instance, 

announcing in major languages in any public 

notice of the meeting that anyone in need of 

an interpreter should call a certain number 

before the meeting to request one, and 

ensuring that someone at that number can 

communicate with the person) may be 

sufficient. 

Availability/Costs of Services: A HUD 

recipient with limited resources and located 

in a community with very few LEP persons 

speaking any one language should target 

interpretation and translation to the most 

important activities. The recipients may 

decide, as appropriate, to provide those 

services through agreements with competent 

translators and interpreters in the 

community-based organizations, or through 

telephonic interpretation services. Costs may 

also be reduced if national organizations pool 

resources to contract with oral interpretation/ 

written translation services. 

Services Provided: HUD recipients have a 

variety of options for providing language 

services. Under certain circumstances, when 

interpreters are needed and recipients should 

provide competent interpreter services free of 

cost to the LEP person, LEP persons should 

be advised that they may choose either to use 

a competent interpreter provided by the 

recipient or to secure the assistance of an 

interpreter of the LEP person’s own choosing, 

at his or her own expense. If the LEP person 

decides to provide his/her own interpreter, 

the LEP person’s election of this choice 

would be documented. The Guidance doesn’t 

preclude the use of family members or 

friends as oral interpreters. However, HUD 

recommends that the recipient use caution 

when family members or friends are used. 

While an LEP person may prefer bilingual 

family members, friends, or other persons 

with whom they are comfortable, there are 

many situations where recipient-supplied 

interpretative services may be better. Family 

and friends may not be available when and 

where they are needed, or may not have the 

ability to interpret program-specific technical 

information. Alternatively, an individual 

may feel uncomfortable revealing or 

describing sensitive, confidential, or 

potentially embarrassing medical, family, or 

financial information to a family member, 

friend, or member of the local community. 

Similarly, there may be situations where a 

HUD-funded recipient’s own interests justify 

the provision of an interpreter regardless of 

whether the LEP individual also provides 

his/her own interpreter. For example, where 

precise, complete, and accurate translations 

of information are critical for lease 

enforcement, a recipient might decide to 

provide its own, independent interpreter, 

even if several LEP persons use their own 

interpreter(s) as well. In group meetings 

dealing with vital issues, such as 

explanations of pending displacement, 

having the recipient provide interpretation 

services among multiple interpreters may be 

preferable, even if the LEP person brings his/ 

her own interpreter as well. 

In emergency situations that are not 

reasonably foreseeable, the recipient may 

have to temporarily rely on non-recipientprovided language services. Reliance on 

children is especially discouraged unless 

there is an extreme emergency and no 

competent interpreters are available. 

While all language services need to be 

competent, the greater the potential 

consequences, the greater the need to 

monitor interpretation services for quality. 

For instance, it is important that interpreters 

of legal concepts be highly competent to 

translate legal and lease enforcement 

concepts, as well as be extremely accurate in 

their interpretation when discussing 

relocation and displacement issues. It may be 

sufficient, however, for a desk clerk who is 

fully bilingual but not skilled at interpreting 

to help an LEP person fill out an application 

in the language shared by the LEP person and 

bilingual person. 

Applying the Four-Factor Analysis 

While all aspects of a recipient’s programs 

and activities are important, the four-factor 

analysis requires some prioritizing so that 

language services are targeted where most 

needed because of the nature and importance 

of the particular activity involved. In 

addition, because of the ‘‘reasonableness’’

standard, and frequency of contact and 

resources/costs factors, the obligation to 

provide language services increases where 

the importance of the programs and activities 

is greater. 

HUD has translated generic documents into 

some of the most frequently encountered 

languages (i.e., Spanish, and depending on 

circumstances, Russian, Chinese, Korean, 

Vietnamese, and Arabic). Recipients should 

not interpret this to mean that these 

translations are the total universe of 

documents and languages requiring 

translations. HUD translations are intended 

to help recipients. However, the recipientresponsibility is determined by the fourfactor analysis and the documents that are 

vital to their programs. Since most 

documents are not generic and there are so 

many languages spoken throughout the 

country, HUD cannot provide all applicable 

translations. 

‘‘Promising Practices.’’ This section 

provides hypothetical examples of 

‘‘promising practices’’ in which recipients 

may engage. Grantees or funded recipients 

are responsible for ensuring meaningful 

access to all portions of their program or 

activity, not just those portions to which 

HUD funds are targeted. 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. 

Office of Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity 

1. The Fair Housing Initiatives Program 

(FHIP): FHIP assists fair housing activities 

that promote compliance with the Fair 

Housing Act or with substantially equivalent 

fair housing laws administered by state and 

local government agencies under the Fair 

Housing Assistance Program. FHIP awards 

funds competitively and these funds enable 

recipients to carry out activities to educate 

and inform the public and housing providers 

of their fair housing rights and 

responsibilities. 

For example, a community organization in 

a large metropolitan area has received FHIP 

funds to develop an education curriculum to 

assist newly arrived immigrants. Data 

showed that non-English speaking persons 

were having difficulty in applying and 

securing housing in that geographic area. The 

organization has identified a large Hispanic 

clientele in the area who need this service, 

and has a well-developed program for this 

LEP population. However, the community’s 

population was changing. The recipient 

found that there was also a large community 

of recent immigrants from Cambodia who are 

also in need of this service. To address this 

need, the FHIP partnered with Asian Action 

Network, a community-based social service 

agency, to translate materials and to present 

free seminars at the local public library. In 

addition, if needed, the Asian Action 

Network has on its staff a Cambodianspeaking counselor who is able to provide 

interpretation services. 

2. The Fair Housing Assistance Program 

(FHAP): FHAP provides funds to state and 

local agencies that administer fair housing 

laws that are substantially equivalent to the 

federal Fair Housing Act. 

A local FHAP is located in a small 

metropolitan area that has a population that 

is 3 percent Korean-speaking, 25 percent 

Spanish-speaking and 72 percent Englishspeaking. One of the FHAP agency’s primary 

responsibilities is to process fair housing 

discrimination complaints. The FHAP Office 

has many Hispanic complainants who are 

LEP and Spanish-speaking; therefore, it has 

hired a Hispanic intake clerk who is 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
2750 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 

proficient in Spanish and English. The Fair 

Housing Poster and the complaint form have 

been translated into Spanish. The FHAP 

Office has a contract with a nonprofit 

Hispanic organization for interpreters on an 

as-needed basis, for its education and 

outreach activities to the Hispanic 

community. Some of the FHAP’s 

organizations are small and have limited 

resources. In competing for the available 

resources, the FHAP chooses not to translate 

the material into the language of the Korean 

population this year. However, it has plans 

to translate material into Korean in coming 

years to address the accessibility needs of the 

LEP population. 

Office of Public and Indian Housing 

1. HOPE VI: The HOPE VI Revitalization of 

Distressed Public Housing Program provides 

revitalization and demolition-only grants on 

a competitive basis for eligible PHAs that 

operate public housing units. During the 

HOPE VI lifecycle, PHAs are required to 

communicate with all tenants, including LEP 

tenants, through informational meetings that 

describe both the proposed project and the 

rights of the tenants during every stage of the 

application and implementation process. All 

residents need to be educated about both the 

HOPE VI project and their rights to be 

relocated into decent, safe, and sanitary 

housing and how they can return to the new 

project once it is completed. 

A housing agency is planning to demolish 

a 400-unit public housing project and 

construct a 375-unit HOPE VI mixed-finance 

development and other amenities on the site. 

The 400-unit building is still occupied by a 

tenant population, of which 55 percent are 

Spanish-speaking LEP families. For a number 

of years, the PHA has had bilingual 

employees in its occupancy office, as well as 

copies of leases and other written documents 

translated into Spanish. The PHA would now 

need to translate public notices and other 

documents into Spanish. 

2. Public Housing (leases and other vital 

documents): There are approximately 3,400 

PHAs in the United States that provide a 

majority of the housing to very low income 

and low-income families. A PHA in a large 

metropolitan area has a large number of 

Hispanic, Chinese, and Vietnamese LEP 

tenants such that they would translate vital 

documents into all three languages under the 

‘‘safe harbor.’’ All tenants must sign a lease 

before they can live in public housing. The 

lease clearly states the rules and 

requirements that the PHA and tenants must 

follow. Therefore, the PHA should have its 

lease and rental notices translated into 

Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese. The 

documents should be clearly labeled ‘‘for 

information purposes only.’’ PHAs should 

have a procedure to access interpreters for 

these languages if oral discussions of the 

lease are necessary. 

3. Public Housing (outreach for waiting 

list): The same PHA is preparing to re-open 

its waiting list for its Low-Income Public 

Housing (LIPH) after having it closed for over 

a year. The PHA must affirmatively market 

the availability of its units to all eligible 

families living in its jurisdiction. It should 

place a public service announcement in 

English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese 

in the local general circulation Spanish, 

Chinese, and Vietnamese newspapers and/or 

radio and TV stations. 

Office of Community Planning and 

Development 

1. Consolidated Plan: Consolidated 

planning means developing a Consolidated 

Plan based upon public participation and 

input. When planning the required public 

hearings, jurisdictions must identify how the 

needs of LEP residents will be met, if a 

significant number of LEP residents can be 

reasonably expected to participate (24 CFR 

91, Subpart B, ‘‘Citizen Participation and 

Consultation’’). In addition, there are 

activities surrounding citizen participation 

where the needs of the LEP population are 

expected to be met, such as: (1) Translation 

of the notification of the public hearings; and 

(2) translation of draft and final action, and 

consolidated plans, and dissemination of 

those documents to individuals and the 

appropriate organization(s) in the LEP 

community. 

2. Housing Opportunities for Persons with 

AIDS (HOPWA): A major city has been 

providing permanent supportive housing to 

persons living with AIDS, and such 

assistance has been an integral part of its 

Consolidated Plan. However, it recently 

learned from a national study that 20 percent 

of its 2,000 HIV-infected persons are LEP 

persons. The city previously had not 

contacted these people about their needs. In 

formulating its Consolidated Plan, the city’s 

Community Development Department 

contacted both the Department of Health and 

the city’s leading AIDS-related housing 

provider for assistance in reaching out to this 

population. The city offered to provide 

funding for housing information services 

through its HOPWA formula grant to fund 

bilingual interpreters and health outreach 

workers who would contact the LEP persons 

living with HIV to assist eligible persons to 

locate, acquire, and maintain housing. In 

addition, as part of fulfilling the citizen 

participation requirements under the 

Consolidated Plan provisions, the city offered 

to conduct a multilingual meeting in which 

local government officials and local AIDS 

housing and service providers would 

participate and inform the public at large of 

the resources available to assist those living 

with HIV/AIDS. 

3. HOME Investment Partnership Program 

(HOME): In general, under the HOME 

Program, HUD allocates funds by formula 

among eligible state and local governments to 

strengthen public-private partnerships and to 

expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, 

and affordable housing. Families, including 

LEP families, may obtain homeownership 

and rental housing opportunities from 

participating jurisdictions (PJs). Under the 

program requirements, PJs are required to 

implement affirmative marketing strategies, 

under which they identify groups within the 

eligible population that are least likely to 

apply and to conduct special outreach efforts 

through advertising in local media, including 

media targeted at LEP citizens (24 CFR 

92.351). 

A small HOME participating jurisdiction is 

using its HOME formula-based funds to 

implement a tenant-based rental assistance 

(TBRA) program. Under TBRA, the assisted 

tenant may move from a dwelling unit, but 

retains the right to continued assistance. The 

rental assistance also includes the security 

deposit. The HOME PJ, as part of its 

affirmative marketing strategy, has submitted 

advertising to the local Spanish language 

newspapers and radio station that serve the 

community’s small but growing Hispanic 

population. Since the costs of implementing 

the affirmative marketing strategy are eligible 

costs under the program regulations, the PJ 

is increasing its budget to train occupancy 

staff to address issues faced by LEP 

applicants and to hire a bilingual staff 

member. 

Office of Housing 

1. Single-Family Housing Counseling 

Program: HUD provides funds to housing 

counseling agencies that assist persons and 

families in specific geographic areas to 

enable them to buy homes and to keep homes 

already purchased. This requires one-on-one 

and group counseling on home-selection 

skills, understanding mortgages, 

understanding legal ramifications of various 

documents, establishing a budget, 

housekeeping and maintenance skills, 

understanding fair housing rights, etc. 

In a majority-Hispanic community, La Casa 

has been the only HUD-funded counseling 

agency, and has been providing these 

services for many years. It has bilingual staff 

to serve the largely Hispanic population. 

Frequently, clients from a neighboring, lowincome and primarily African-American 

community also use its services, since La 

Casa is well known in the area. However, 

over the past few years, many low-income 

LEP Iranian-Americans have been moving 

into the neighboring community, so that they 

now constitute almost 5 percent of the 

population. A housing counseling agency is 

required to provide one-on-one counseling 

services as the nature of its program. It is also 

required to outreach to those who are least 

likely to apply for its services. As a relatively 

small Agency, La Casa employs at least one 

person or has regular access to a person who 

can speak Farsi and interpret English to 

Farsi. This person should contact the Iranian 

communities and work through the local 

agencies to affirmatively market La Casa’s 

program. La Casa should arrange to get key 

materials translated to Farsi and provide 

counseling and interpretation services, as 

needed. 

2. Single-Family Property Disposition 

Program: When developers or organizations 

buy HUD-held housing to renovate and 

resell, they are required to affirmatively 

market the properties. Such developers or 

organizations are required to provide 

language assistance to attract eligible LEP 

persons who are least likely to apply as does 

any other housing provider. 

3. Supportive Housing for the Elderly and 

Persons with Disabilities: The Section 202 

Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program 

funds the construction of multifamily 

projects that serve elderly persons. Project 

sponsors are required to affirmatively market 

their services and housing opportunities to 

those segments of the elderly population that 

are identified as least likely to apply for the 

housing without special outreach. Even more 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 2751 

importantly, many LEP elderly may require 

care from bilingual medical or support 

services staff, and recipients may devote 

considerable financial and other resources to 

provide such assistance. 

The sponsor of a Section 202 Supportive 

Housing for the Elderly Project identifies in 

its Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan 

the city’s large numbers of East and South 

Asian immigrants as least likely to apply for 

the new housing without special outreach. 

After examining Census and other data and 

consulting with the city’s Office of Immigrant 

Affairs, the sponsor learns that more than 

1,000 of the city’s 5,000 South and East Asian 

families have at least one elderly relative that 

may be eligible for the new units. The 

sponsor hires translators fluent in Hindi, 

Urdu, Dari, Vietnamese, and Chinese to 

translate written materials and advertising for 

the local press in those languages. The 

recipient also partners with communitybased organizations that serve the city’s East 

and South Asian immigrants to arrange for 

interpreters at meetings. 

4. Assisted Housing: An assisted housing 

development is located in a city of 20,000 

people, about 2,000 of whom are recent 

immigrants from Korea. Few of the 2,000 

have applied for assisted housing. Only eight 

of the development’s 200 residents and no 

applicants among the 20 on the waiting list 

are LEP speakers of Korean. Koreans 

constitute about 10 percent of the eligible 

population of the community but only 4 

percent of the development’s residents. 

In its Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing 

Plan for the development, the management 

agent specified Asian (Korean) as the 

population least likely to apply for housing 

and to whom it would outreach. Under the 

safe-harbor guidelines, the housing provider 

should outreach to the Korean community 

using written Korean language materials. 

However, even after extensive outreach, only 

one Korean family applied for the waiting 

list, although during that time the total 

waiting list increased by eight families to 38. 

Even after extensive outreach, the occupancy 

of the project is 4 percent, and its waiting list 

is less than 3 percent, LEP Korean. 

Therefore, under safe-harbor guidelines, no 

translation of occupancy documents into 

Korean is necessary. However, the housing 

provider should be prepared to provide for 

oral interpretation, when needed. In 

addition, outreach to the eligible Korean 

community should continue using written 

Korean language materials. 

Appendix B—Questions and Answers 

I. Who are limited English proficient (LEP) 

persons? 

For persons who, as a result of national 

origin, do not speak English as their primary 

language and who have a limited ability to 

speak, read, write, or understand. For 

purposes of Title VI and the LEP Guidance, 

persons may be entitled to language 

assistance with respect to a particular 

service, benefit, or encounter. 

II. What is Title VI and how does it relate to 

providing meaningful access to LEP persons? 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is 

the federal law that protects individuals from 

discrimination on the basis of their race, 

color, or national origin in programs that 

receive federal financial assistance. In certain 

situations, failure to ensure that persons who 

are LEP can effectively participate in, or 

benefit from, federally assisted programs may 

violate Title VI’s prohibition against national 

origin discrimination. 

III. What do Executive Order (EO) 13166 and 

the Guidance require? 

EO 13166, signed on August 11, 2000, 

directs all federal agencies, including the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), to work to ensure that 

programs receiving federal financial 

assistance provide meaningful access to LEP 

persons. Pursuant to EO 13166, the 

meaningful access requirement of the Title VI 

regulations and the four-factor analysis set 

forth in the Department of Justice (DOJ) LEP 

Guidance apply to the programs and 

activities of federal agencies, including HUD. 

In addition, EO 13166 requires federal 

agencies to issue LEP Guidance to assist their 

federally assisted recipients in providing 

such meaningful access to their programs. 

This Guidance must be consistent with the 

DOJ Guidance. Each federal agency is 

required to specifically tailor the general 

standards established in DOJ’s Guidance to 

its federally assisted recipients. On December 

19, 2003, HUD published such proposed 

Guidance. 

IV. Who must comply with the Title VI LEP 

obligations? 

All programs and operations of entities that 

receive financial assistance from the federal 

government, including but not limited to 

state agencies, local agencies and for-profit 

and non-profit entities, must comply with the 

Title VI requirements. A listing of most, but 

not necessarily all, HUD programs that are 

federally assisted may be found at the ‘‘List 

of Federally Assisted Programs’’ published in 

the Federal Register on November 24, 2004 

(69 FR 68700). Sub-recipients must also 

comply (i.e., when federal funds are passed 

through a recipient to a sub-recipient). As an 

example, Federal Housing Administration 

(FHA) insurance is not considered federal 

financial assistance, and participants in that 

program are not required to comply with 

Title VI’s LEP obligations, unless they receive 

federal financial assistance as well. [24 CFR 

1.2 (e)]. 

V. Does a person’s citizenship and 

immigration status determine the 

applicability of the Title VI LEP obligations? 

United States citizenship does not 

determine whether a person is LEP. It is 

possible for a person who is a United States 

citizen to be LEP. It is also possible for a 

person who is not a United States citizen to 

be fluent in the English language. Title VI is 

interpreted to apply to citizens, documented 

non-citizens, and undocumented noncitizens. Some HUD programs require 

recipients to document citizenship or eligible 

immigrant status of beneficiaries; other 

programs do not. Title VI LEP obligations 

apply to every beneficiary who meets the 

program requirements, regardless of the 

beneficiary’s citizenship status. 

VI. What is expected of recipients under the 

Guidance? 

Federally assisted recipients are required 

to make reasonable efforts to provide 

language assistance to ensure meaningful 

access for LEP persons to the recipient’s 

programs and activities. To do this, the 

recipient should: (1) Conduct the four-factor 

analysis; (2) develop a Language Access Plan 

(LAP); and (3) provide appropriate language 

assistance. 

The actions that the recipient may be 

expected to take to meet its LEP obligations 

depend upon the results of the four-factor 

analysis including the services the recipient 

offers, the community the recipient serves, 

the resources the recipient possesses, and the 

costs of various language service options. All 

organizations would ensure 

nondiscrimination by taking reasonable steps 

to ensure meaningful access for persons who 

are LEP. HUD recognizes that some projects’

budgets and resources are constrained by 

contracts and agreements with HUD. These 

constraints may impose a material burden 

upon the projects. Where a HUD recipient 

can demonstrate such a material burden, 

HUD views this as a critical item in the 

consideration of costs in the four-factor 

analysis. However, refusing to serve LEP 

persons or not adequately serving or delaying 

services to LEP persons would violate Title 

VI. The agency may, for example, have a 

contract with another organization to supply 

an interpreter when needed; use a telephone 

service line interpreter; or, if it would not 

impose an undue burden, or delay or deny 

meaningful access to the client, the agency 

may seek the assistance of another agency in 

the same community with bilingual staff to 

help provide oral interpretation service. 

VII. What is the four-factor analysis? 

Recipients are required to take reasonable 

steps to ensure meaningful access to LEP 

persons. This ‘‘reasonableness’’ standard is 

intended to be flexible and fact-dependent. It 

is also intended to balance the need to ensure 

meaningful access by LEP persons to critical 

services while not imposing undue financial 

burdens on small businesses, small local 

governments, or small nonprofit 

organizations. As a starting point, a recipient 

may conduct an individualized assessment 

that balances the following four factors: 

• The number or proportion of LEP 

persons served or encountered in the eligible 

service population (‘‘served or encountered’’

includes those persons who would be served 

or encountered by the recipient if the persons 

received adequate education and outreach 

and the recipient provided sufficient 

language services); 

• The frequency with which LEP persons 

come into contact with the program; 

• The nature and importance of the 

program, activity, or service provided by the 

program; and 

• The resources available and costs to the 

recipient. 

Examples of applying the four-factor 

analysis to HUD-specific programs are 

located in Appendix A of this Guidance. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
2752 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 

VIII. What are examples of language 

assistance? 

Language assistance that a recipient might 

provide to LEP persons includes, but is not 

limited to: 

• Oral interpretation services; 

• Bilingual staff; 

• Telephone service lines interpreter; 

• Written translation services; 

• Notices to staff and recipients of the 

availability of LEP services; or 

• Referrals to community liaisons 

proficient in the language of LEP persons. 

IX. What is a Language Access Plan (LAP) 

and what are the elements of an effective 

LAP? 

After completing the four-factor analysis 

and deciding what language assistance 

services are appropriate, a recipient may 

develop an implementation plan or LAP to 

address identified needs of the LEP 

populations it serves. Some elements that 

may be helpful in designing an LAP include: 

• Identifying LEP persons who need 

language assistance and the specific language 

assistance that is needed; 

• Identifying the points and types of 

contact the agency and staff may have with 

LEP persons; 

• Identifying ways in which language 

assistance will be provided; 

• Outreaching effectively to the LEP 

community; 

• Training staff; 

• Determining which documents and 

informational materials are vital; 

• Translating informational materials in 

identified language(s) that detail services and 

activities provided to beneficiaries (e.g., 

model leases, tenants’ rights and 

responsibilities brochures, fair housing 

materials, first-time homebuyer guide); 

• Providing appropriately translated 

notices to LEP persons (e.g., eviction notices, 

security information, emergency plans); 

• Providing interpreters for large, medium, 

small, and one-on-one meetings; 

• Developing community resources, 

partnerships, and other relationships to help 

with the provision of language services; and 

• Making provisions for monitoring and 

updating the LAP, including seeking input 

from beneficiaries and the community on 

how it is working and on what other actions 

should be taken. 

X. What is a vital document? 

A vital document is any document that is 

critical for ensuring meaningful access to the 

recipients’ major activities and programs by 

beneficiaries generally and LEP persons 

specifically. 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 auxiliary activities, 

such as certain recreational programs in 

public housing, would not generally be 

considered a vital document, whereas 

applications for housing would be 

considered vital. However, if the major 

purpose for funding the recipient were its 

recreational program, documents related to 

those programs would 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. 

XI. How may a recipient determine the 

language service needs of a beneficiary? 

Recipients should elicit language service 

needs from all prospective beneficiaries 

(regardless of the prospective beneficiary’s 

race or national origin). If the prospective 

beneficiary’s response indicates a need for 

language assistance, the recipient may want 

to give applicants or prospective 

beneficiaries a language identification card 

(or ‘‘I speak’’ card). Language identification 

cards invite LEP persons to identify their 

own language needs. Such cards, for 

instance, might say ‘‘I speak Spanish’’ in both 

Spanish and English, ‘‘I speak Vietnamese’’

in both Vietnamese and English, 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. 

The State of Ohio Office of Criminal Justice 

Services, the National Association of 

Judiciary Interpreters and Translators, the 

Summit County Sheriff’s Office, and the 

American Translators Association have made 

their language identification card available at 

http://www.lep.gov/ocjs_languagecard.pdf. 

XII. How may a recipient’s limited resources 

be supplemented to provide the necessary 

LEP services? 

A recipient should be resourceful in 

providing language assistance as long as 

quality and accuracy of language services are 

not compromised. The recipient itself need 

not provide the assistance, but may decide to 

partner with other organizations to provide 

the services. In addition, local community 

resources may be used if they can ensure that 

language services are competently provided. 

In the case of oral interpretation, for example, 

demonstrating competency requires more 

than self-identification as bilingual. Some 

bilingual persons may be able to 

communicate effectively in a different 

language when communicating information 

directly in that language, but may not be 

competent to interpret between English and 

that language. In addition, the skill of 

translating is very different than the skill of 

interpreting and a person who is a competent 

interpreter may not be a competent 

translator. To ensure the quality of written 

translations and oral interpretations, HUD 

encourages recipients to use members of 

professional organizations. Examples of such 

organizations are: National organizations, 

including American Translators Association 

(written translations), National Association of 

Judicial Interpreters and Translators, and 

International Organization of Conference 

Interpreters (oral interpretation); state 

organizations, including Colorado 

Association of Professional Interpreters and 

Florida Chapter of the American Translators 

Association; and local legal organizations 

such as Bay Area Court Interpreters. While 

HUD recommends using the list posted on 

http://www.LEP.gov, its limitations must be 

recognized. Use of the list is encouraged, but 

not required or endorsed by HUD. It does not 

come with a presumption of compliance. 

There are many other qualified interpretation 

and translation providers, including in the 

private sector. 

XIII. May recipients rely upon family 

members or friends of the LEP person as 

interpreters? 

Generally, recipients should not rely on 

family members, friends of the LEP person, 

or other informal interpreters. In many 

circumstances, family members (especially 

children) or friends may not be competent to 

provide quality and accurate interpretations. 

Therefore, such language assistance may not 

result in an LEP person obtaining meaningful 

access to the recipients’ programs and 

activities. However, when LEP persons 

choose not to utilize the free language 

assistance services expressly offered to them 

by the recipient but rather choose to rely 

upon an interpreter of their own choosing 

(whether a professional interpreter, family 

member, or friend), LEP persons should be 

permitted to do so, at their own expense. 

Recipients may consult HUD LEP Guidance 

for more specific information on the use of 

family members or friends as interpreters. 

While HUD guidance does not preclude use 

of friends or family as interpreters in every 

instance, HUD recommends that the recipient 

use caution when such services are provided. 

XIV. Are leases, rental agreements and other 

housing documents of a legal nature 

enforceable in U.S. courts when they are in 

languages other than English? 

Generally, the English language document 

prevails. The HUD translated documents may 

carry the disclaimer, ‘‘This document is a 

translation of a HUD-issued legal document. 

HUD provides this translation to you merely 

as a convenience to assist in your 

understanding of your rights and obligations. 

The English language version of this 

document is the official, legal, controlling 

document. This translated document is not 

an official document.’’ Where both the 

landlord and tenant contracts are in 

languages other than English, state contract 

law governs the leases and rental agreements. 

HUD does not interpret state contract law. 

Therefore, questions regarding the 

enforceability of housing documents of a 

legal nature that are in languages other than 

English should be referred to a lawyer wellversed in contract law of the appropriate 

state or locality. 

XV. Are EO 13166 and HUD LEP Guidance 

enforceable by individuals in a court of law? 

Neither EO 13166 nor HUD LEP Guidance 

grants an individual the right to proceed to 

court alleging violations of EO 13166 or HUD 

LEP Guidance. In addition, current Title VI 

case law only permits a private right of action 

for intentional discrimination and not for 

action based on the discriminatory effects of 

a recipient’s practices. However, individuals 

may file administrative complaints with HUD 

alleging violations of Title VI because the 

HUD recipient failed to take reasonable steps 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 2753 

to provide meaningful access to LEP persons. 

The local HUD office will intake the 

complaint, in writing, by date and time, 

detailing the complainant’s allegation as to 

how the HUD recipient failed to provide 

meaningful access to LEP persons. HUD will 

determine jurisdiction and follow up with an 

investigation of the complaint. 

XVI. Who enforces Title VI as it relates to 

discrimination against LEP persons? 

Most federal agencies have an office that is 

responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964. To the extent that a 

recipient’s actions violate Title VI 

obligations, then such federal agencies will 

take the necessary corrective steps. The 

Secretary of HUD has designated the Office 

of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 

(FHEO) to take the lead in coordinating and 

implementing EO 13166 for HUD, but each 

program office is responsible for its 

recipients’ compliance with the civil-rights 

related program requirements (CRRPRs) 

under Title VI. 

XVII. How does a person file a complaint if 

he/she believes a HUD recipient is not 

meeting its Title VI LEP obligations? 

If a person believes that a HUD federally 

assisted recipient is not taking reasonable 

steps to ensure meaningful access to LEP 

persons, that individual may file a complaint 

with HUD’s local Office of FHEO. For contact 

information of the local HUD office, go to 

http://www.hud.gov or call the housing 

discrimination toll free hotline at 800–669–

9777 (voice) or 800–927–9275 (TTY). 

XVIII. What will HUD do with a complaint 

alleging noncompliance with Title VI 

obligations? 

HUD’s Office of FHEO will conduct an 

investigation or compliance review whenever 

it receives a complaint, report, or other 

information that alleges or indicates possible 

noncompliance with Title VI obligations by 

one of HUD’s recipients. If HUD’s 

investigation or review results in a finding of 

compliance, HUD will inform the recipient in 

writing of its determination. If an 

investigation or review results in a finding of 

noncompliance, HUD also will inform the 

recipient in writing of its finding and identify 

steps that the recipient must take to correct 

the noncompliance. In a case of 

noncompliance, HUD will first attempt to 

secure voluntary compliance through 

informal means. If the matter cannot be 

resolved informally, HUD may then secure 

compliance by: (1) Terminating the financial 

assistance of the recipient only after the 

recipient has been given an opportunity for 

an administrative hearing; and/or (2) 

referring the matter to DOJ for enforcement 

proceedings. 

XIX. How will HUD evaluate evidence in the 

investigation of a complaint alleging 

noncompliance with Title VI obligations? 

Title VI is the enforceable statute by which 

HUD investigates complaints alleging a 

recipient’s failure to take reasonable steps to 

ensure meaningful access to LEP persons. In 

evaluating the evidence in such complaints, 

HUD will consider the extent to which the 

recipient followed the LEP Guidance or 

otherwise demonstrated its efforts to serve 

LEP persons. HUD’s review of the evidence 

will include, but may not be limited to, 

application of the four-factor analysis 

identified in HUD LEP Guidance. The fourfactor analysis provides HUD a framework by 

which it may look at all the programs and 

services that the recipient provides to 

persons who are LEP to ensure meaningful 

access while not imposing undue burdens on 

recipients. 

I.What is a ‘‘safe harbor?’

A ‘‘safe harbor,’’ in the context of this 

guidance, means that the recipient has 

undertaken efforts to comply with respect to 

the needed translation of vital written 

materials. If a recipient conducts the fourfactor analysis, determines that translated 

documents are needed by LEP applicants or 

beneficiaries, adopts an LAP that specifies 

the translation of vital materials, and makes 

the necessary translations, then the recipient 

provides strong evidence, in its records or in 

reports to the agency providing federal 

financial assistance, that it has made 

reasonable efforts to provide written language 

assistance. 

XXI. What ‘‘safe harbors’’ may recipients 

follow to ensure they have no compliance 

finding with Title VI LEP obligations? 

HUD has adopted a ‘‘safe harbor’’ for 

translation of written materials. The 

Guidance identifies actions that will be 

considered strong evidence of compliance 

with Title VI obligations. Failure to provide 

written translations under these cited 

circumstances does not mean that the 

recipient is in noncompliance. Rather, the 

‘‘safe harbors’’ provide a starting point for 

recipients to consider: 

• Whether and at what point the 

importance of the service, benefit, or activity 

involved warrants written translations of 

commonly used forms into frequently 

encountered languages other than English; 

• Whether the nature of the information 

sought warrants written translations of 

commonly used forms into frequently 

encountered languages other than English; 

• Whether the number or proportion of 

LEP persons served warrants written 

translations of commonly used forms into 

frequently encountered languages other than 

English; and 

• Whether the demographics of the eligible 

population are specific to the situations for 

which the need for language services is being 

evaluated. In many cases, use of the ‘‘safe 

harbor’’ would mean provision of written 

language services when marketing to the 

eligible LEP population within the market 

area. However, when the actual population 

served (e.g., occupants of, or applicants to, 

the housing project) is used to determine the 

need for written translation services, written 

translations may not be necessary. 

The table below sets forth ‘‘safe harbors’’

for written translations. 

Size of language group Recommended provision of written language assistance 

1,000 or more in the eligible population in the market area or among 

current beneficiaries.

Translated vital documents. 

More than 5% of the eligible population or beneficiaries and more than 

50 in number.

Translated vital documents. 

More than 5% of the eligible population or beneficiaries and 50 or less 

in number.

Translated written notice of right to receive free oral interpretation of 

documents. 

5% or less of the eligible population or beneficiaries and less than 

1,000 in number.

No written translation is required. 

When HUD conducts a review or 

investigation, it will look at the total services 

the recipient provides, rather than a few 

isolated instances. 

XXII. Is the recipient expected to provide any 

language assistance to persons in a language 

group when fewer than 5 percent of the 

eligible population and fewer than 50 in 

number are members of the language group? 

HUD recommends that recipients use the 

four-factor analysis to determine whether to 

provide these persons with oral 

interpretation of vital documents if 

requested. 

XXIII. Are there ‘‘safe harbors’’ provided for 

oral interpretation services? 

There are no ‘‘safe harbors’’ for oral 

interpretation services. Recipients should use 

the four-factor analysis to determine whether 

they should provide reasonable, timely, oral 

language assistance free of charge to any 

beneficiary that is LEP (depending on the 

circumstances, reasonable oral language 

assistance might be an in-person interpreter 

or telephone interpreter line). 

XXIV. Is there a continued commitment by 

the Executive Branch to EO 13166? 

There has been no change to the EO 13166. 

The President and Secretary of HUD are fully 

committed to ensuring that LEP persons have 

meaningful access to federally conducted 

programs and activities. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2
2754 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Notices 

XXV. Did the Supreme Court address and 

reject the LEP obligation under Title VI in 

Alexander v. Sandoval [121 S. Ct. 1511 

(2001)]? 

The Supreme Court did not reject the LEP 

obligations of Title VI in its Sandoval ruling. 

In Sandoval, 121 S. Ct. 1511 (2001), the 

Supreme Court held that there is no right of 

action for private parties to enforce the 

federal agencies’ disparate impact regulations 

under Title VI. It ruled that, even if the 

Alabama Department of Public Safety’s 

policy of administering driver’s license 

examinations only in English violates Title 

VI regulations, a private party may not bring 

a lawsuit under those regulations to enjoin 

Alabama’s policy. Sandoval did not 

invalidate Title VI or the Title VI disparate 

impact regulations, and federal agencies’

(versus private parties) obligations to enforce 

Title VI. Therefore, Title VI regulations 

remain in effect. Because the legal basis for 

the Guidance required under EO 13166 is 

Title VI and, in HUD’s case, the civil rightsrelated program requirements (CRRPR), 

dealing with differential treatment, and since 

Sandoval did not invalidate either, the EO 

remains in effect. 

XXVI. What are the obligations of HUD 

recipients if they operate in jurisdictions in 

which English has been declared the official 

language? 

In a jurisdiction where English has been 

declared the official language, a HUD 

recipient is still subject to federal 

nondiscrimination requirements, including 

Title VI requirements as they relate to LEP 

persons. 

XXVII. Where can I find more information on 

LEP? 

You should review HUD’s LEP Guidance. 

Additional information may also be obtained 

through the federal-wide LEP Web site at 

http://www.lep.gov and HUD’s Web site, 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/ 

promotingfh/lep.cfm. HUD also intends to 

issue a Guidebook to help HUD recipients 

develop an LAP. A HUD-funded recipient 

who has questions regarding providing 

meaningful access to LEP persons may 

contact Pamela D. Walsh, Director, Program 

Standards Division, HUD/FHEO, at (202) 

708–2288 or 800–877–8339 (TTY). You may 

also email your question to 

limitedenglishproficiency@hud.gov. 

[FR Doc. 07–217 Filed 1–16–07; 4:01 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES2