Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 2010 / Notices 34465 

notice to correct the effective date of the 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

between FDA and Drugs.Com that 

published in the Federal Register of 

May 26, 2010 (75 FR 29561). The 

purpose of the cooperative program is to 

extend the reach of FDA Consumer 

Health Information and to provide 

consumers with better information and 

timely content concerning public health 

and safety topics, including alerts of 

emerging safety issues and product 

recalls. 

DATES: The agreement became effective 

October 13, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Brodsky, Consumer Health 

Information Staff, Office of External 

Relations, Food and Drug 

Administration, 10903 New Hampshire 

Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 5378, Silver Spring, 

MD 20993–0002, 301–796–8234, e-mail: 

Jason.Brodsky@fda.hhs.gov. 

Dated: June 11, 2010. 

Leslie Kux, 

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14599 Filed 6–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

Statement of Organization, Functions, 

and Delegations of Authority 

Part C (Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention) of the Statement of 

Organization, Functions, and 

Delegations of Authority of the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (45 FR 67772–76, dated 

October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 

69296, October 20, 1980, as amended 

most recently at 75 FR 28811–28813, 

dated April 24, 2010) is amended to 

reflect the establishment of the Office of 

the Associate Director for Program, 

Office of the Director, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. 

Section C–B, Organization and 

Functions, is hereby amended as 

follows: 

Delete in their entirety the titles and 

function statements for the Office of 

Strategy and Innovation (CAM) and the 

Office of Chief of Public Health Practice 

(CAR) and insert the following: 

Office of the Associate Director for 

Program (CAF). The mission of the 

Office of the Associate Director for 

Program is to increase the impact and 

effectiveness of public health programs 

and eliminate health disparities through 

the application of science to practice, 

the promotion of policy interventions, 

and the use of performance and 

evaluation data for continuous 

improvement. 

Office of the Director (CAF1). (1) 

Provides agency-wide direction, 

standards, and technical assistance for 

program planning, performance and 

accountability, and program evaluation 

and effectiveness; (2) serves as advisor 

to the CDC Director, HHS and the 

Administration on key programmatic 

activities; (3) provides intensive analytic 

and advisory assistance to enable 

effective redesign of select program 

priorities; (4) represents CDC vision, 

mission, and program strategy internally 

and externally; (5) develops and 

promotes new initiatives based on 

emerging issues, science, and policy; (6) 

supports the harmonization and 

integration of performance 

measurement, accountability, and 

program evaluation; (7) provides 

agency-wide direction, standards, and 

technical assistance to support and 

guide program evaluation, monitoring, 

and performance measurement by 

programs; (8) supports the 

harmonization and integration of 

performance measurement, 

accountability, and program evaluation; 

(9) guides the collection and analysis of 

performance and accountability data, 

including Healthy People 2020, the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool, the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act, and the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act; (10) conducts 

quarterly program reviews; (11) 

supports assessment of program 

effectiveness to guide further science, 

policy, and programmatic efforts; (12) 

provides financial support to conduct 

both innovative program evaluations 

and innovative methods for evaluating 

programs; (13) manages evaluation 

contracts; (14) guides performancebased strategic planning; (15) drives 

short-term and long-term program 

planning; (16) establishes routine, 

continuous improvement based on 

effective program evaluation, and 

performance measurement; (17) 

supports implementation of policy as 

intervention; (18) supports evidencedriven program redesign; (19) 

coordinates action planning for high 

impact initiatives; and (20) develops, 

promotes and coordinates new 

initiatives. 

Office of Women’s Health (CAF13). 

The mission of the Office of Women’s 

Health (OWH) is to provide leadership, 

advocacy, and support for the agency’s 

research, policy, and prevention 

initiatives to promote and improve the 

health of women and girls. As the 

agency’s leader for women’s health 

issues, OWH: (1) Advises the CDC 

Director and leads the Women’s Health 

Workgroup in the advancement of 

research, policies, and programs related 

to the health of women and girls; (2) 

provides leadership, assistance, and 

consultation to the agency’s centers, 

offices, and programs to address 

women’s health issues; (3) advances 

sound scientific knowledge, promotes 

the role of prevention, and works to 

improve the communication and 

understanding of women’s health 

priorities for public health action by 

CDC and a diverse group of state and 

local programs, providers, consumers, 

and organizations; (4) creates, publishes, 

and disseminates communicative 

products and materials that highlight 

CDC priorities, opportunities, and 

strategies to improve health; (5) 

establishes and fosters relationships 

with others (i.e., government agencies, 

professional groups, academic 

institutions, organizations and small 

businesses) to increase awareness and 

strengthen implementation of women’s 

health programs and practices; (6) 

represents the agency and serves as a 

liaison on women’s health issues within 

and outside HHS; and (7) coordinates 

and manages efforts through dialogues, 

meetings, and other activities to 

increase awareness of public health and 

women’s health issues. 

Dated June 6, 2010. 

William P. Nichols, 

Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14424 Filed 6–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–18–M 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

[DHS Docket No. DHS–2009–0032] 

Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties; Guidance to Federal 

Financial Assistance Recipients 

Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against 

National Origin Discrimination 

Affecting Limited English Proficient 

Persons 

AGENCY: Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed policy 

guidance. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland 

Security is publishing for public 

comment proposed guidance to 

recipients of Federal financial assistance 

regarding Title VI’s prohibition against 

national origin discrimination affecting 

persons with limited English proficient 

persons. This proposed guidance is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34466 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 2010 / Notices 

1 DHS 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 

population it encounters, and its prior experience 

in providing language services in the community it 

serves. 

issued pursuant to Executive Order 

13166 and is consistent with 

government-wide guidance previously 

issued by the Department of Justice. 

DATES: Written comments are invited 

from interested persons and 

organizations no later than July 11, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent 

to: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Officer for Civil Rights and 

Civil Liberties, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, 

SW., Building 410, Washington, DC 

20528, Mail Stop 0190. To ensure 

proper handling, please reference DHS 

Docket No. DHS–2009–0032 on the 

correspondence. This mailing address 

may also be used for paper, disk, or CD– 

ROM submissions. DHS will accept 

comments in alternate formats such as 

Braille, audiotape, etc. by mail. 

• E–Mail: crcl@dhs.gov. The subject 

line should include ‘‘LEP Docket DHS– 

2009–0032.’’ 

• TTY: 202–401–0470, Toll Free TTY: 

1–866–644–8361. TTY callers may also 

contact us through the Federal Relay 

Service TTY at (800) 877–8339. Other 

Federal Relay Service options are 

available at http://www.gsa.gov/ 

fedrelay. 

• Facsimile: (202) 401–4708 (not a 

toll-free number). 

Instructions for filing comments: All 

submissions received must include the 

agency name and DHS docket number 

DHS–2009–0032. All comments 

received (including any personal 

information provided) will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Reviewing comments: Public 

comments may be viewed online at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebekah Tosado, Senior Advisor to the 

Officer for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties, Office for Civil Rights and 

Civil Liberties, Department of Homeland 

Security, 245 Murray Lane, SW., 

Building 410, Washington, DC 20528, 

Mail Stop 0190. Toll free: 1–866–644– 

8360 or TTY 1–866–644–8361. Local: 

202–401–1474 or TTY: 202–401–0470. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive 

Order 13166 directs each Federal agency 

that extends assistance subject to the 

requirements of Title VI of the Civil 

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

seq., to publish guidance for its 

respective recipients clarifying that 

obligation. Executive Order 13166, 

Improving Access to Services for 

Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency, 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 

2000). Executive Order 13166 further 

directs that all such guidance 

documents be consistent with the 

compliance standards and framework 

detailed by the Department of Justice 

(DOJ). See Enforcement of Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964—National 

Origin Discrimination Against Persons 

with Limited English Proficiency, 65 FR 

50121 (August 16, 2000) (DOJ LEP 

Guidance). 

In this document, the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing 

to adopt guidance that adheres to the 

Government-wide compliance standards 

and framework detailed in the model 

DOJ LEP Guidance, as modified. 

Guidance to Federal Financial 

Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI 

Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination Affecting Limited 

English Proficient Persons, 67 FR 41455 

(June 18, 2002). The Departments of 

Commerce, Education, Health and 

Human Services, Energy, Housing and 

Urban Development, Labor, Interior, 

State Transportation, Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency, have issued similar 

guidance. DHS specifically solicits 

comments on the nature, scope, and 

appropriateness of the DHS-specific 

examples set out in this guidance 

explaining and/or highlighting how 

those Federal-wide guidelines are 

applicable to recipients of DHS financial 

assistance. 

This guidance does not constitute a 

regulation subject to the rulemaking 

requirements of the Administrative 

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

guidance is published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to the instructions in 

Executive Order 13166. DHS, however, 

is seeking public comment as a matter 

of discretion. 

This Guidance is applicable to all LEP 

persons seeking services and shall be 

interpreted to be consistent with 

Executive Order 13404, Task Force on 

New Americans (June 7, 2006). 

I. Introduction 

Most individuals living in the United 

States read, write, speak, and 

understand English. Many individuals, 

however, do not read, write, speak, or 

understand English as their primary 

language. Based on the 2000 census, 

over 28 million individuals speak 

Spanish and almost 7 million 

individuals speak an Asian or Pacific 

Island language at home. If these 

individuals have a limited ability to 

read, write, speak, or understand 

English, they are limited English 

proficient, or LEP. The 2000 census 

indicates that 28.1 percent of all 

Spanish-speakers, 28.2 percent of all 

Chinese-speakers, and 32.3 percent of 

all Vietnamese-speakers reported that 

they spoke English ‘‘not well’’ or ‘‘not at 

all.’’ More recent data from the 2008 

American Community Survey estimates 

that 24.4 million individuals in 

America, or 8.6 percent of the 

population 5 years and older, speak 

English less than ‘‘very well.’’ 

For LEP individuals, language can be 

a barrier to accessing important benefits 

or services, understanding and 

exercising important rights, providing 

timely and critical information to first 

responders in times of emergency, 

complying with applicable 

responsibilities, or understanding other 

information provided by Federally 

funded programs and activities. The 

Federal Government is committed to 

improving the accessibility of these 

programs and activities to eligible LEP 

persons, a goal that reinforces its 

equally important commitment to 

promoting programs and activities 

designed to help individuals learn 

English. Recipients should not overlook 

the long-term positive impacts of 

incorporating or offering English as a 

Second Language (ESL) programs in 

parallel with language assistance 

services. ESL courses can serve as an 

important adjunct to a proper LEP plan. 

However, the fact that ESL classes are 

made available does not obviate the 

statutory and regulatory requirement to 

provide meaningful access for those 

who are not yet English proficient. 

Recipients of Federal financial 

assistance have an obligation to reduce 

language barriers that can preclude 

meaningful access by LEP persons to 

important government services.1

In certain circumstances, failure to 

ensure that LEP persons can effectively 

participate in or benefit from Federally 

assisted programs and activities may 

violate the prohibition under Title VI of 

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

2000d, and DHS Title VI regulations 

against national origin discrimination, 6 

CFR part 21. 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 2010 / Notices 34467 

2The policy guidance is not a regulation but 

rather a guide. Title VI and its implementing 

regulations require that recipients take responsible 

steps to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons. 

This guidance provides an analytical framework 

that recipients may use to determine how best to 

comply with statutory and regulatory obligations to 

provide meaningful access to the benefits, services, 

information, and other important portions of their 

programs and activities for individuals who are 

limited English proficient. 

3The memorandum noted that some commenters 

have interpreted Sandoval as impliedly 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 § 602 confers the 

authority to promulgate disparate-impact 

regulations; * * *. We cannot help observing, 

however, how strange it is to say that disparateimpact regulations are ‘inspired by, at the service 

or, and inseparably intertwined with’ § 601 * * * 

when § 601 permits the very behavior that the 

regulations forbid.’’). The memorandum, however, 

made clear that DOJ disagreed with the 

commenters’ interpretation. Sandoval holds 

principally that there is no private right of action 

to enforce Title VI disparate-impact regulations. 

The court explicitly stated in Sandoval that it did 

not address the validity of those regulations or 

Executive Order 13166 or otherwise limits the 

authority and responsibility of Federal grant 

agencies to enforce their own implementing 

regulations. 532 U.S. at 279. 

providing a description of the factors 

recipients should consider in fulfilling 

their responsibilities to LEP persons.2

These are the same criteria DHS uses in 

evaluating whether recipients are in 

compliance with Title VI and Title VI 

regulations. 

Consistency among agencies of the 

Federal Government is particularly 

important. Inconsistency or 

contradictory guidance could confuse 

recipients of Federal funds and 

needlessly increase costs without 

rendering the meaningful access for LEP 

persons that this guidance is designed to 

address. As with most government 

initiatives, this requires balancing 

several principles. While this guidance 

discusses that balance in some detail, it 

is important to note the basic principles. 

First, we must ensure that Federally 

assisted programs aimed at the 

American public do not leave some 

behind simply because they face 

challenges communicating in English. 

This is of particular importance 

because, in many cases, LEP individuals 

form a substantial portion of those 

individuals encountered in Federally 

assisted programs. Second, we must 

achieve this goal while finding 

constructive methods to reduce the 

costs of LEP requirements on small 

businesses, small local governments, or 

small non-profits that receive Federal 

financial assistance. 

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, DHS 

plans to continue to work with the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) and 

recipients to explore how language 

assistance measures, resources, and 

activities can effectively be shared or 

otherwise made available to recipients. 

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. 

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. 

DHS regulations promulgated 

pursuant to section 602 forbid recipients 

from ‘‘utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of 

administration which have the effect of 

subjecting persons 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 with 

respect to individuals of a particular 

race, color, or national origin.’’ 6 CFR 

21.5(b)(2). 

The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 

414 U.S. 563 (1974), interpreted 

regulations promulgated by the former 

Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare, 45 CFR 80.3(b)(2), which is 

similar to the DHS Title VI interim 

regulation, 6 CFR part 21, 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, the President 

signed Executive Order 13166, 

Improving Access to Services for 

Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency, 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 

2000). Under that order, every Federal 

agency that provides financial 

assistance to non-Federal entities must 

publish guidance on how their 

recipients can provide meaningful 

access to LEP persons and thus comply 

with Title VI regulations forbidding 

funding recipients from ‘‘restrict[ing] an 

individual in any way in the enjoyment 

of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by 

others receiving any service, financial 

aid, or other benefit under the program’’ 

or from ‘‘utiliz[ing] criteria or methods 

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.’’ 

At the same time, DOJ provided 

further guidance to Executive Agency 

civil rights officers, setting forth general 

principles for agencies to apply in 

developing guidance documents for 

recipients pursuant to the Executive 

Order. ‘‘Enforcement of Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 National Origin 

Discrimination Against Persons With 

Limited English Proficiency,’’ 65 FR 

50123 (August 16, 2000) (DOJ LEP 

Guidance). 

Subsequently, the Supreme Court 

decided that Title VI does not create a 

private right of action to enforce 

regulations promulgated under Section 

602. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 

275, 293 (2001). Federal agencies raised 

questions regarding the requirements of 

the Executive Order, in light of the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander 

v. Sandoval. On October 26, 2001, DOJ’s 

Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 

Rights Division advised agency General 

Counsels and civil rights directors, 

clarifying and reaffirming the DOJ LEP 

Guidance in light of Sandoval.3 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 guidance document is published 

pursuant to Executive Order 13166 and 

reflects Assistant Attorney General’s 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34468 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 2010 / Notices 

4Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, the 

meaningful access requirement of the Title VI 

regulations and the four-factor analysis set forth in 

the DOJ LEP Guidance are to additionally apply to 

the programs and activities of Federal agencies, 

including DHS. 

5However, 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. 

October 26, 2001, clarifying 

memorandum. 

III. Covered Recipients 

DHS regulations 6 CFR 21.5(b)(2) and 

44 CFR 7.5(b) require all recipients of 

Federal financial assistance from DHS to 

provide meaningful access to LEP 

persons.4 Federal financial assistance 

includes grants, training, use of 

equipment, donations of surplus 

property, and other assistance. 

Recipients of DHS assistance include, 

but are not limited to: 

a. State and local fire departments; 

b. State and local police departments; 

c. State and local emergency 

management agencies; 

d. State and local governments, 

together with certain qualified private 

non-profit organizations, when they 

receive assistance pursuant to a 

Presidential declaration of disaster or 

emergency; 

e. Certain non-profit agencies that 

receive funding under the Emergency 

Food and Shelter Program; 

f. Urban areas and mass transit 

authorities that enhance local 

emergency, prevention and response 

agencies’ ability to prepare for and 

respond to threats of terrorism or other 

emergencies; 

g. Community Emergency Response 

Teams (CERT), which conduct training 

and other activities to enhance 

individual, community, family, and 

workplace preparedness; 

h. Jails and detention facilities that 

house detainees of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement; 

i. Coast Guard assisted boating safety 

programs; 

j. Entities that receive specialized 

training through the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC); 

k. Intercity buses. 

The Catalogue of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) contains current 

information on DHS Federal financial 

assistance and can be found at http:// 

www.cfda.gov/. Sub-recipients likewise 

are covered when Federal funds are 

passed through from one recipient to a 

sub-recipient. 

Coverage extends to a recipient’s 

entire program or activity, i.e. to all 

parts of a recipient’s operations. This is 

true even if only one part of the 

recipient receives the Federal 

assistance.5 For example, if DHS 

provides assistance to a particular 

division of a State emergency 

management agency to improve 

planning capabilities in that division, 

all of the operations of the entire State 

emergency management agency—not 

just the particular division—are 

covered. 

Finally, some recipients operate in 

jurisdictions in which English has been 

declared the official language. 

Nonetheless, DHS recipients continue to 

be subject to Federal non-discrimination 

requirements including those applicable 

to access to and provision of Federally 

assisted programs and activities to 

persons with limited English 

proficiency. 

IV. Limited English Proficient 

Individual 

Individuals who do not speak English 

as their primary language and those who 

have a limited ability to read, write, 

speak, or understand English can be 

limited English proficient, or ‘‘LEP,’’ and 

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 DHS 

recipients and should be considered 

when planning language services 

include but are not limited to: 

a. Persons who require the aid of a 

local or State police or fire department, 

or other emergency services; 

b. Persons who seek assistance at 

airports that receive TSA funds; 

c. Persons who are applying for 

assistance under a FEMA or State 

disaster relief program; 

d. Persons who seek to enroll in a safe 

boating course that is offered by a State 

receiving funds; 

e. Persons who use mass transit 

services such as buses or subways that 

receive DHS financial assistance; 

f. Persons subject to or serviced by 

law enforcement activities, including for 

example, suspects, violators, witnesses, 

victims, those subject to immigrationrelated investigations by recipient law 

enforcement agencies, agencies, and 

community members seeking to 

participate in crime prevention and 

awareness activities; or 

g. Parents and family members of LEP 

individuals. 

V. Recipient Determination of the 

Extent of Its Obligation To Provide LEP 

Services 

Recipients are required to take 

reasonable steps to ensure meaningful 

access to their programs and activities 

by LEP persons. While designed to be a 

flexible and fact-dependent standard, 

the starting point is an individualized 

assessment that balances the following 

four factors: 

1. The number or proportion of LEP 

persons eligible to be served or likely to 

be encountered by the program or 

grantee; 

2. The frequency with which LEP 

individuals come in contact with the 

program; 

3. The nature and importance of the 

program, activity, or service provided by 

the program to people’s lives; and 

4. The resources available to the 

grantee/recipient and costs. 

As indicated above, the intent of this 

guidance is to suggest a balance that 

ensures meaningful access by LEP 

persons to critical services while not 

imposing undue burdens on small 

business, small local governments, or 

small non-profits. 

After applying the above four-factor 

analysis, a recipient may conclude that 

different language assistance measures 

are sufficient for the different types of 

programs or activities in which it 

engages. For instance, some of a 

recipient’s activities will be more 

important than others and/or have 

greater impact on or contact with LEP 

persons, and thus may require more in 

the way of language assistance. The 

flexibility that recipients have in 

addressing the needs of the LEP 

populations they serve does not 

diminish, and should not be used to 

minimize, the obligation that those 

needs be addressed. DHS recipients 

should apply the four factors to the 

various kinds of contacts that they have 

with the public to assess language needs 

and decide what reasonable steps they 

should take to ensure meaningful access 

for LEP persons. 

1. The Number or Proportion of LEP 

Persons Served or Encountered in the 

Eligible Service Population 

One factor in determining what 

language services recipients should 

provide is the number or proportion of 

LEP persons from a particular language 

group served or encountered in the 

eligible service population. The greater 

the number or proportion of these LEP 

persons, the more likely language 

services are needed. Ordinarily, persons 

‘‘eligible to be served, or likely to be 

directly affected, by’’ a recipient’s 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 2010 / Notices 34469 

6The focus of the analysis is on lack of English 

proficiency, not the ability to speak more than one 

language. Note that demographic data may indicate 

the most frequently spoken languages other than 

English and the percentage of people who speak 

that language who speak or understand English less 

than well. Some of the most commonly spoken 

languages other than English may be spoken by 

people who are also overwhelmingly proficient in 

English. Thus, they may not be the languages 

spoken most frequently by limited English 

proficient individuals. When using demographic 

data, it is important to focus in on the languages 

spoken by those who are not proficient in English. 

7Small recipients with limited resources may 

find that entering into a bulk telephonic 

interpretation service contract will prove cost 

effective. 

program or activity are those who are 

served or encountered in the eligible 

service population. This population will 

be program-specific, and includes 

persons who are in the geographic area 

that has been approved by a Federal 

grant agency as the recipient’s service 

area. 

However, where, for instance, a fire 

station serves a large LEP population, 

the appropriate service area is most 

likely the area served by that station, 

and not the entire population served by 

the agency. 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. When considering 

the number or proportion of LEP 

individuals in a service area, recipients 

should consider LEP parent(s) when 

their English-proficient or LEP minor 

children and dependents access or 

encounter the recipients’ services. 

Recipients should first examine their 

prior experiences with LEP encounters 

and determine the breadth and scope of 

language services that were needed. In 

conducting this analysis, it is important 

to include language minority 

populations that are eligible for their 

programs or activities but may be 

underserved because of existing 

language barriers. Other data should be 

consulted to refine or validate a 

recipient’s prior experience, including 

the latest census data for the area 

served, data from school systems, and 

from community organizations, and data 

from State and local governments.6

Community agencies, school systems, 

religious organizations, legal aid 

entities, and others can often assist in 

identifying populations for whom 

outreach is needed and who would 

benefit from the recipients’ programs 

and activities if language services were 

provided. 

2. The Frequency With Which LEP 

Individuals Come in Contact With the 

Program 

Recipients should assess, as 

accurately as possible, the frequency 

with which they have or should have 

contact with an LEP individual from 

different language groups seeking 

assistance. The more frequent the 

contact with a particular language 

group, the more likely that enhanced 

language services in that language are 

needed. The steps that are reasonable 

for a recipient that serves an LEP person 

on a one-time basis will be very 

different than those expected from a 

recipient that serves LEP persons daily. 

It is also advisable to consider the 

frequency of different types of language 

contacts. For example, frequent contacts 

with Spanish-speaking people who are 

LEP may require certain assistance in 

Spanish. Less frequent contact with 

different language groups may suggest a 

different and less intensified solution. If 

an LEP individual accesses a program or 

service on a daily basis, a recipient has 

greater duties than if the same 

individual’s program or activity contact 

is unpredictable or infrequent. But even 

recipients that serve LEP persons on an 

unpredictable or infrequent basis should 

use this balancing analysis to determine 

what to do if an LEP individual seeks 

services under the program in question. 

This plan need not be intricate. It may 

be as simple as being prepared to use a 

commercially available telephonic 

interpretation service to obtain 

immediate interpreter services. In 

applying this standard, recipients 

should take care to consider whether 

appropriate outreach to LEP persons 

could increase the frequency of contact 

with LEP language groups. 

3. The Nature and Importance of the 

Program, Activity, or Service Provided 

by the Program 

The more important the activity, 

information, service, or program, or the 

greater the possible consequences of the 

contact to the LEP individuals, the more 

likely language services are needed. The 

obligations to communicate with 

individual disaster applicants or to 

provide fire safety information to 

residents of a predominantly LEP 

neighborhood differ, for example, from 

those to provide recreational 

programming on the part of a municipal 

parks department receiving disaster aid. 

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 a Federal, 

State, or local entity to make an activity 

compulsory, such as the requirement to 

complete an application to receive 

certain State disaster assistance benefits, 

can serve as strong evidence of the 

program’s importance. 

4. The Resources Available to the 

Recipient and Costs 

A recipient’s level of resources and 

the costs that would be imposed on it 

may have an impact on the nature of the 

steps it should take. Smaller recipients 

with more limited budgets are not 

expected to provide the same level of 

language services as larger recipients 

with larger budgets. In addition, 

‘‘reasonable steps’’ may cease to be 

reasonable where the costs imposed 

substantially exceed the benefits. 

Resource and cost issues, however, 

can often be reduced by technological 

advances; the sharing of language 

assistance materials and services among 

and between recipients, advocacy 

groups, and Federal grant agencies; and 

reasonable business practices. Where 

appropriate, training bilingual staff to 

act as interpreters and translators, 

information sharing through industry 

groups, telephonic and video 

conferencing interpretation services, 

pooling resources and standardizing 

documents to reduce translation needs, 

using qualified translators and 

interpreters to ensure that documents 

need not be ‘‘fixed’’ later and that 

inaccurate interpretations do not cause 

delay or other costs, centralizing 

interpreter and translator services to 

achieve economies of scale, or the 

formalized use of qualified community 

volunteers may, for example, help 

reduce costs.7 Recipients should 

carefully explore the most cost-effective 

means of delivering competent and 

accurate language services before 

limiting services due to resource 

concerns. Large entities and those 

entities serving a significant number or 

proportion of LEP persons should 

ensure that their resource limitations are 

well-substantiated before using this 

factor as a reason to limit language 

assistance. Such recipients may find it 

useful to be able to articulate, through 

documentation or in some other 

reasonable manner, their process for 

determining that language services 

would be limited based on resources or 

costs. 

This four-factor analysis necessarily 

implicates the ‘‘mix’’ of LEP services 

required. Recipients have two main 

ways to provide language services: Oral 

and written. 

Oral interpretation either in person or 

via telephone interpretation service 

(hereinafter ‘‘interpretation’’): Oral 

interpretation can range from on-site 

interpreters for critical services 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34470 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 2010 / Notices 

8Many languages have ‘‘regionalisms,’’ or 

differences in usage. For instance, a word that may 

be understood to mean something in Spanish for 

someone from Cuba may not be so understood by 

someone from Mexico. In addition, because there 

may be languages which do not have an appropriate 

direct interpretation of some disaster-specific, 

nautical or legal terms, for example, the interpreter 

should be so aware and be able to provide the most 

appropriate interpretation. The interpreter should 

likely make the recipient aware of the issue and the 

interpreter and recipient can then work to develop 

a consistent and appropriate set of descriptions of 

these terms in that language that can be used again, 

when appropriate. 

9For those languages in which no formal 

accreditation or certification currently exists, 

recipients should consider a formal process for 

establishing the credentials of the interpreter. 

provided to a high volume of LEP 

persons to access through commercially 

available telephonic interpretation 

services. 

Written translation (hereinafter 

‘‘translation’’): 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 fire department in a largely 

Hispanic community may need 

immediate oral interpreters available 

and should give serious consideration to 

hiring some bilingual staff. (Of course, 

many fire departments have already 

made such arrangements). In contrast, 

there may be circumstances where the 

importance and nature of the activity 

and number or proportion and 

frequency of contact with LEP persons 

may be low and the costs and resources 

needed to provide language services 

may be high, such as in the case of a 

voluntary general public tour of a 

firehouse, 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, namely, oral 

and written language services. Quality 

and accuracy of the language service is 

critical in order to avoid serious 

consequences to the LEP person and to 

the recipient. 

A. Oral Language Services 

(Interpretation) 

Interpretation is the act of listening to 

something in one language (source 

language) and orally translating it into 

another language (target language). 

Where interpretation is needed and is 

reasonable, recipients should consider 

some or all of the following options for 

providing competent interpreters in a 

timely manner. 

Competence of Interpreters. When 

providing oral assistance, recipients 

should ensure competency of the 

language service provider, no matter 

which of the strategies outlined below 

are used. Competency requires more 

than self-identification as bilingual. 

Some bilingual staff and community 

volunteers, for instance, may be able to 

communicate effectively in a different 

language when communicating 

information directly in that language, 

but not be competent to interpret in and 

out of English. Likewise, they may not 

be able to do written translations. 

Competency to interpret, however, 

does not necessarily mean formal 

certification as an interpreter, although 

certification is helpful. When using 

interpreters, recipients should ensure 

that they: 

• Demonstrate proficiency in, and 

ability to communicate information 

accurately in both English and in the 

other language, and identify and employ 

the appropriate mode of interpreting 

(e.g., consecutive, simultaneous, 

summarization, or sight translation); 

• Have knowledge in both languages 

of any specialized terms or concepts 

peculiar to the entity’s program or 

activity and of any particularized 

vocabulary and phraseology used by the 

LEP person; 8 and understand and 

follow confidentiality and impartiality 

rules to the same extent the recipient 

employee for whom they are 

interpreting and/or to the extent their 

position requires; 

• Understand and adhere to their role 

as interpreters without deviating into a 

role as a counselor, legal advisor, or 

other roles (particularly during the 

assistance application process, in 

administrative hearings, or public safety 

contexts). 

Some recipients, such as certain 

private nonprofit organizations or 

administrative courts, may have 

additional self-imposed requirements 

for interpreters. Where individual rights 

depend on precise, complete, and 

accurate interpretation or translations, 

such as in the context of application for 

disaster or food and shelter assistance or 

administrative hearings, the use of 

certified interpreters is strongly 

encouraged.9 Where the process is 

lengthy, the interpreter will likely need 

breaks and team interpreting may be 

appropriate to ensure accuracy and to 

prevent errors caused by mental fatigue 

of interpreters. 

While the quality and accuracy of 

language services is critical, the quality 

and accuracy of language services is 

nonetheless part of the appropriate mix 

of LEP services required. The quality 

and accuracy of language services at a 

State-operated emergency assistance 

center, for example, must be 

extraordinarily high, while the quality 

and accuracy of language services in 

recreational programs sponsored by a 

DHS recipient need not meet the same 

exacting standards. 

Finally, when interpretation is needed 

and is reasonable, it should be provided 

in a timely manner. To be meaningfully 

effective, language assistance should be 

timely. While there is no single 

definition for ‘‘timely’’ applicable to all 

types of interactions at all times by all 

types of recipients, one clear guide is 

that the language assistance should be 

provided at a time and place that avoids 

the effective denial of the service, 

benefit, or right at issue or the 

imposition of an undue burden on or 

delay in important rights, benefits, or 

services to the LEP person. For example, 

when the timeliness of services is 

important, such as with certain 

activities of DHS recipients providing 

evacuation coordination, food and 

shelter, medical care, and fire and 

rescue services, and when important 

legal rights are at issue, a recipient 

would likely not be providing 

meaningful access if it had one bilingual 

staffer available one day a week to 

provide the services. Such conduct 

would likely result in delays for LEP 

persons that would be significantly 

greater than those for English proficient 

persons. Conversely, where access to or 

exercise of a service, benefit, or right is 

not effectively precluded by a 

reasonable delay, language assistance 

can likely be delayed for a reasonable 

period. 

• Hiring Bilingual Staff. When 

particular languages are encountered 

often, hiring bilingual staff offers one of 

the best, and often most economical, 

options. Recipients can, for example, fill 

public contact and other positions 

involving potential contact with LEP 

individuals, such as 911 operators, law 

enforcement officers, fire safety 

educators, or application takers, with 

staff who are bilingual and competent to 

communicate directly with LEP persons 

in their language. If bilingual staff are 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 2010 / Notices 34471 

10For example, special circumstances of 

confinement may raise additional serious concerns 

regarding the voluntary nature, conflicts of interest, 

and privacy issues surrounding the use of inmates 

and detainees as interpreters, particularly where an 

important right, benefit, service, disciplinary 

concern, or access to personal or law enforcement 

information is at stake. In some situations, inmates 

could potentially misuse information they obtained 

in interpreting for other inmates. In addition to 

ensuring competency and accuracy of the 

interpretation, recipients should take these special 

circumstances into account when determining 

whether an inmate or detainee makes a knowing 

and voluntary choice to use another inmate or 

detainee as an interpreter. 

also used to interpret between English 

speakers and LEP persons, or to orally 

interpret written documents from 

English into another language, they 

should be competent in the skill of 

interpreting. Being bilingual does not 

necessarily mean that a person has the 

ability to interpret. In addition, there 

may be times when the role of the 

bilingual employee may conflict with 

the role of an interpreter. Effective 

management strategies, including any 

appropriate adjustments in assignments 

and protocols for using bilingual staff, 

can ensure that bilingual staff are fully 

and appropriately utilized. When 

bilingual staff cannot meet all of the 

language service obligations of the 

recipient, the recipient should turn to 

other options. 

• Hiring Staff Interpreters. Hiring 

interpreters may be most helpful where 

there is a frequent need for interpreting 

services in one or more languages. 

Depending on the facts, sometimes it 

may be necessary and reasonable to 

provide such on-site interpreters in 

order to assure accurate and meaningful 

communication with an LEP person. 

• Contracting for Interpreters. 

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

need for interpreters in a particular 

language. In addition to commercial and 

other private providers, many 

community-based organizations and 

mutual assistance associations provide 

interpretation services for particular 

languages. Contracting with and 

providing training regarding the 

recipient’s programs and processes to 

these organizations can be a costeffective option for providing language 

services to LEP persons from those 

language groups. 

• Using Telephone Interpreter Lines. 

Telephone interpreter service lines often 

offer speedy interpreting assistance in 

many different languages. They may be 

particularly appropriate where the mode 

of communicating with an English 

proficient person would also be over the 

phone. Although telephonic 

interpretation services are useful in 

many situations, it is important to 

ensure that, when using such services, 

the interpreters used are competent to 

interpret any technical or legal terms 

specific to a particular program that may 

be important parts of the conversation. 

Nuances in language and non-verbal 

communication can often assist an 

interpreter and cannot be recognized 

over the phone. Video teleconferencing 

may sometimes help to resolve this 

issue where necessary. In addition, 

where documents are being discussed, it 

is important to give telephonic 

interpreters adequate opportunity to 

review the document prior to the 

discussion and any logistical problems 

should be addressed. 

• Using Community Volunteers. In 

addition to consideration of bilingual 

staff, staff interpreters, or contract 

interpreters (either in person or by 

telephone) as options to ensure 

meaningful access by LEP persons, use 

of recipient-coordinated community 

volunteers, working with, for instance, 

community-based organizations, may 

provide a cost-effective supplemental 

language assistance strategy under 

appropriate circumstances. They may be 

particularly useful in providing 

language access for a recipient’s less 

crucial programs and activities. To the 

extent the recipient relies on 

community volunteers, it is often best to 

use volunteers who are trained in the 

information or services of the program 

and can communicate directly with LEP 

persons in their language. Just as with 

all interpreters, community volunteers 

used to interpret between English 

speakers and LEP persons, or to orally 

translate documents, should be 

competent in the skill of interpreting 

and knowledgeable about applicable 

confidentiality and impartiality rules. 

Recipients should consider formal 

arrangements with community-based 

organizations that provide volunteers to 

address these concerns and to help 

ensure that services are available more 

regularly. 

• Use of Family Members, Friends, or 

Other Applicants, Detainees, or Inmates 

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, acquaintance, or 

other applicant), 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, friend, 

fellow inmate or detainee, or other 

applicant acts as an interpreter. In 

addition, in exigent circumstances that 

are not reasonably foreseeable, 

temporary use of interpreters not 

provided by the recipient may be 

necessary. However, with proper 

planning and implementation, 

recipients should be able to avoid most 

such situations. 

Recipients, however, should take 

special care to ensure that family, legal 

guardians, caretakers, and other 

informal interpreters are appropriate in 

light of the circumstances and subject 

matter of the program, service or 

activity, including protection of the 

recipient’s own administrative or 

mission-related interests in accurate 

interpretation. In many circumstances, 

family members (especially children), 

friends, inmates, detainees, or other 

applicants, are not competent to provide 

quality and accurate interpretations. 

Issues of confidentiality, privacy, or 

conflict of interest may also arise. LEP 

individuals may feel uncomfortable 

revealing or describing sensitive, 

confidential, or potentially embarrassing 

medical, law enforcement, family or 

financial information to a family 

member, friend, acquaintance, or 

member of the local community.10 In 

addition, such informal interpreters may 

have a personal connection to the LEP 

person or an undisclosed conflict of 

interest, such as the desire to obtain 

greater assistance than the LEP person 

from a locally administered mitigation 

program. For these reasons, when oral 

language services are necessary, 

recipients should generally offer 

competent interpreter services free of 

cost to the LEP person. For some DHS 

recipients, such as those providing 

disaster assistance, performing law 

enforcement functions, this is 

particularly true in processing 

applications; conducting administrative 

hearings, managing situations in which 

health, safety, or access to important 

benefits and services are at stake; or 

when credibility and accuracy are 

important to protect an individual’s 

rights and access to important services. 

An example of such a case is when 

fire service officers investigate an 

alleged case of arson. 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), friends, 

inmates, detainees, or other applicants 

often make their use inappropriate, the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34472 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 2010 / Notices 

use of these individuals as interpreters 

may be an appropriate option where 

proper application of the four factors 

would lead to a conclusion that 

recipient-provided services are not 

necessary. An example of this is a 

voluntary educational tour of a 

firehouse offered to the general public. 

There, the importance and nature of the 

activity may be relatively low and 

unlikely to implicate issues of 

confidentiality, conflict of interest, or 

the need for accuracy. In addition, the 

resources needed and costs of providing 

language services may be high. In such 

a setting, an LEP person’s use of family, 

friends, or others may be appropriate. 

If the LEP person voluntarily chooses 

to provide his or her own interpreter, a 

recipient should consider whether a 

record of that choice and of the 

recipient’s offer of assistance is 

appropriate. Where precise, complete, 

and accurate interpretations or 

translations of information and/or 

testimony are critical for law 

enforcement, adjudicatory or legal 

reasons, or where the competency of the 

LEP person’s interpreter is not 

established, a recipient might decide to 

provide its own, independent 

interpreter, even if an LEP person wants 

to use his or her own interpreter as well. 

Extra caution should be exercised when 

the LEP person chooses to use a minor 

as the interpreter. While the LEP 

person’s decision should be respected, 

there may be additional issues of 

competency, confidentiality, or conflict 

of interest when the choice involves 

using children as interpreters. The 

recipient should take care to ensure that 

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 at 

no cost would provide a competent 

interpreter. 

B. Written Language Services 

(Translation) 

Translation is the replacement of a 

written text from one language (source 

language) into an equivalent written text 

in another language (target language). 

What Documents Should Be 

Translated? After applying the fourfactor analysis, a recipient may 

determine that an effective LEP plan for 

its particular program or activity 

includes the translation of vital written 

materials into the language of each 

frequently encountered LEP group 

eligible to be served and/or likely to be 

affected by the recipient’s program. 

Such written materials could include, 

for example: 

• 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 disciplinary action. 

• Notices advising LEP persons of 

free language assistance. 

• Procedural guidebooks. 

• 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 programs 

should not generally be considered 

vital, whereas applications for disaster 

assistance could be considered vital. 

Where appropriate, recipients are 

encouraged to create a plan for 

consistently determining, over time and 

across its various activities, what 

documents are ‘‘vital’’ to the meaningful 

access of the LEP populations they 

serve. 

Classifying a document as vital or 

non-vital is sometimes difficult, 

especially in the case of outreach 

materials like brochures or other 

information on rights and services. 

Awareness of rights or services is an 

important part of ‘‘meaningful’’ access. 

Lack of awareness that a particular 

program, right, or service exists may 

effectively deny LEP individuals 

meaningful access. Thus, where a 

recipient is engaged in community 

outreach activities in furtherance of its 

activities, it should regularly assess the 

needs of the populations frequently 

encountered or affected by the program 

or activity to determine whether certain 

critical outreach materials should be 

translated. Community organizations 

may be helpful in determining what 

outreach materials may be most helpful 

to translate. In addition, the recipient 

should consider whether translations of 

outreach material may be made more 

effective when done in tandem with 

other outreach methods, including 

utilizing the ethnic media, schools, 

religious, and community organizations 

to spread a message. 

Sometimes a document includes both 

vital and non-vital information. This 

may be the case when the document is 

very large. It may also be the case when 

the title and a phone number for 

obtaining more information on the 

contents of the document in 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. 

Into What Languages Should 

Documents Be Translated? The 

languages spoken by the LEP 

individuals with whom the recipient 

has contact determine the languages 

into which vital documents should be 

translated. A distinction should be 

made however, between languages that 

are frequently encountered by a 

recipient and less commonly 

encountered languages. Many recipients 

serve communities in large cities or 

across the country. They regularly serve 

LEP persons who speak dozens and 

sometimes over 100 different languages. 

To translate all written materials into all 

of those languages is unrealistic. 

Although recent technological advances 

have made it easier for recipients to 

store and share translated documents, 

such an undertaking would incur 

substantial costs and require substantial 

resources. Nevertheless, wellsubstantiated claims of lack of resources 

to translate all vital documents into 

dozens of languages do not necessarily 

relieve the recipient of the obligation to 

translate those documents into at least 

several of the more frequentlyencountered languages and to set 

benchmarks for continued translations 

into the remaining languages over time. 

As a result, the extent of the recipient’s 

obligation to provide written 

translations of documents should be 

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

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

one-time expense, consideration should 

be given to whether the upfront costs of 

translating a document (as opposed to 

oral interpretation) should be amortized 

over the likely lifespan of the document 

when applying this four-factor analysis. 

Safe Harbor. Many recipients would 

like to ensure with greater certainty that 

they comply with their obligations to 

provide written translations in 

languages other than English. 

Paragraphs (a) and (b) outline the 

circumstances that can provide a ‘‘safe 

harbor’’ for recipients regarding the 

requirements for translation of written 

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

a recipient provides written translations 

under these circumstances, such action 

will be considered strong evidence of 

compliance with the recipient’s writtentranslation obligations. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 2010 / Notices 34473 

11For 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. 

12For instance, there may be languages which do 

not have an appropriate direct translation of some 

legal or program-specific terms and the translator 

should be able to provide an appropriate 

translation. The translator should likely also make 

the recipient aware of this. Recipients can then 

work with translators to develop a consistent and 

appropriate set of descriptions of these terms in that 

language that can be used again, when appropriate. 

Recipients will find it more effective and less costly 

if they try to maintain consistency in the words and 

phrases used to translate terms of art and legal or 

other technical concepts. Creating or using alreadycreated glossaries of commonly used terms may be 

useful for LEP persons and translators and cost 

effective for the recipient. Providing translators 

with examples of previous translations of similar 

material by the recipient, other recipients, or 

Federal agencies may be helpful. 

The failure to provide written 

translations under the circumstances 

outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) does 

not mean there is non-compliance. 

Rather, they provide a common starting 

point for recipients to consider whether 

and at what point the importance of the 

service, benefit, or activity involved; the 

nature of the information sought; and 

the number or proportion of LEP 

persons served call for written 

translations of commonly used forms 

into frequently-encountered languages 

other than English. Thus, these 

paragraphs merely provide a guide for 

recipients that would like greater 

certainty of compliance than can be 

provided by a fact-intensive, four-factor 

analysis. 

Even if the safe harbors are not used, 

if written translation of a certain 

document(s) would be so burdensome 

as to defeat the legitimate objectives of 

its program, the translation of the 

written materials is not necessary. Other 

ways of providing meaningful access, 

such as effective oral interpretation of 

certain vital documents, might be 

acceptable under such circumstances. 

Pursuant to the safe harbor 

provisions, the following actions will be 

considered strong evidence of 

compliance with the recipient’s writtentranslation obligations: 

a. The DHS recipient provides written 

translations of vital documents for each 

eligible LEP language group that 

constitutes five percent or 1,000, 

whichever is less, of the population of 

persons eligible to be served or likely to 

be affected or encountered. Translation 

of other documents, if needed, can be 

provided orally; or, 

b. If there are fewer than 50 persons 

in a language group that reaches the five 

percent trigger in the above, the 

recipient does not translate vital written 

materials but provides written notice in 

the primary language of the LEP 

language group of the right to receive 

competent oral interpretation of those 

written materials, free of cost. 

These safe harbor provisions apply to 

the translation of written documents 

only. They do not affect the requirement 

to provide meaningful access to LEP 

individuals through competent oral 

interpreters where oral language 

services are needed and are reasonable. 

For example, homeless shelters, 

correctional facilities and detention 

centers should, where appropriate, 

ensure that rules have been explained to 

LEP persons in the language(s) they 

understand prior to taking action against 

them that would deprive them of certain 

rights. 

Competence of Translators. As with 

oral interpreters, translators of written 

documents should be competent. Many 

of the same considerations apply. 

However, the skill of translating is very 

different from the skill of interpreting, 

and a person who is a competent 

interpreter may or may not be 

competent to translate. 

Particularly where legal or other vital 

documents are being translated, 

competence can often be achieved by 

use of certified translators. Certification 

or accreditation may not always be 

possible or necessary.11 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 material results in a 

translation that is written at a much 

more difficult level than the English 

language version or has no relevant 

equivalent meaning.12 Community 

organizations may be able to help 

consider whether a document is written 

at a good level for the audience. 

Likewise, consistency in the words and 

phrases used to translate terms of art, 

legal, or other technical concepts helps 

avoid confusion by LEP individuals and 

may reduce costs. 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 

accurate translations of similar material 

by the recipient, other recipients, or 

Federal agencies may be helpful. 

While quality and accuracy of 

translation services is critical, the 

quality and accuracy of translation 

services is nonetheless part of the 

appropriate mix of LEP services 

required. For instance, documents that 

are simple and have no legal or other 

consequence for LEP persons who rely 

on them may use translators that are less 

skilled than important documents with 

legal or other information upon which 

reliance has important consequences 

(including, e.g., information or 

documents of DHS recipients regarding 

certain law enforcement, health, and 

safety services and certain legal rights). 

The permanent nature of written 

translations, however, imposes 

additional responsibility on the 

recipient to ensure that the quality and 

accuracy permit meaningful access by 

LEP persons. 

VII. Elements of An Effective Plan on 

Language Assistance for LEP Persons 

After completing the four-factor 

analysis and deciding what language 

assistance services are appropriate, a 

recipient should develop an 

implementation plan to address the 

identified needs of the LEP populations 

they serve. Recipients have considerable 

flexibility in developing this plan. The 

development and maintenance of a 

periodically-updated written plan on 

language assistance for LEP persons 

(‘‘LEP plan’’) for use by recipient 

employees serving the public will likely 

be the most appropriate and costeffective means of documenting 

compliance and providing a framework 

for the provision of timely and 

reasonable language assistance. 

Moreover, such written plans would 

likely provide additional benefits to a 

recipient’s managers in the areas of 

training, administration, planning, and 

budgeting. These benefits should lead 

most recipients to document in a 

written LEP plan their language 

assistance services, and how staff and 

LEP persons can access those services. 

Despite these benefits, certain DHS 

recipients, such as recipients serving 

very few LEP persons and recipients 

with very limited resources, may choose 

not to develop a written LEP plan. 

However, the absence of a written LEP 

plan does not obviate the underlying 

obligation to ensure meaningful access 

by LEP persons to a recipient’s program 

or activities. Accordingly, in the event 

that a recipient elects not to develop a 

written plan, it should consider 

alternative ways to articulate in some 

other reasonable manner a plan for 

providing meaningful access. Entities 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34474 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 2010 / Notices 

13The 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. 

having significant contact with LEP 

persons, such as schools, religious 

organizations, community groups, and 

groups working with new immigrants 

can be very helpful in providing 

important input into this planning 

process from the beginning. The 

following five steps may be helpful in 

designing an LEP plan and are typically 

part of effective implementation plans: 

1. Identifying LEP Individuals Who 

Need Language Assistance 

The first two factors in the four-factor 

analysis require an assessment of the 

number or proportion of LEP 

individuals eligible to be served or 

encountered and the frequency of 

encounters. This requires recipients to 

identify LEP persons with whom it has 

contact. 

One way to determine the language of 

communication is to use language 

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

which invite LEP persons to identify 

their language needs to staff. Such 

cards, for instance, might say, ‘‘I speak 

Spanish’’ in both Spanish and English, 

‘‘I speak Vietnamese’’ in both English 

and Vietnamese, etc. To reduce costs of 

compliance, the Federal Government 

has made a set of these cards available 

on the Internet. The Census Bureau ‘‘I 

speak’’ card can be found and 

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

When records are normally kept of past 

interactions with members of the public, 

the language of the LEP person can be 

included as part of the record. In 

addition to helping employees identify 

the language of LEP persons they 

encounter, this process will help in 

future applications of the first two 

factors of the four-factor analysis. In 

addition, posting notices in commonly 

encountered languages notifying LEP 

persons of language assistance will 

encourage them to self-identify. 

2. Language Assistance Measures 

An effective LEP plan would likely 

include information about the ways in 

which language assistance will be 

provided. For instance, recipients may 

want to include information on at least 

the following: 

• Types of language services 

available; 

• How staff can obtain those services; 

• How to respond to LEP callers; 

• How to respond to written 

communications from LEP persons; 

• How to respond to LEP individuals 

who have in-person contact with 

recipient staff; and 

• How to ensure competency of 

interpreters and translation services. 

3. Training Staff 

Staff should know their obligations to 

provide meaningful access to 

information and services for LEP 

persons. An effective LEP plan would 

likely include training to ensure that: 

• Staff knows about LEP policies and 

procedures; and 

• Staff having contact with the 

public, or with individuals in the 

recipient’s custody, is trained to work 

effectively with in-person 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, as well as employees 

who potentially interact with 

individuals in the 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 

need to be aware of an LEP plan. 

However, management staff, even if they 

do not interact regularly with LEP 

persons, should be fully aware of and 

understand the plan so they can 

reinforce its importance and ensure its 

implementation by staff. 

4. Providing Notice to LEP Persons 

Once an agency has decided, based on 

the four factors, that it will provide 

language services, it is important for the 

recipient to let LEP persons know that 

those services are available and that 

they are free of charge. Recipients 

should provide this notice in a language 

LEP persons will understand. Examples 

of notification that recipients should 

consider include: 

• Posting signs in intake areas and 

other entry points. When language 

assistance is needed to ensure 

meaningful access to information and 

services, it is important to provide 

notice in appropriate languages in 

intake areas or at initial points of 

contact so that LEP persons can learn 

how to access those language services. 

This is particularly true in areas with 

high volumes of LEP persons seeking 

access to certain assistance, such as 

disaster, medical, or other critical 

assistance from DHS recipients. For 

instance, signs in intake offices could 

state that free language assistance is 

available. The signs should be translated 

into the most common languages 

encountered. They should explain how 

to get the language help.13

• Stating in outreach documents that 

language services are available from the 

agency. Announcements could be in, for 

instance, brochures, booklets, and in 

outreach and recruitment information. 

These statements should be translated 

into the most common languages and 

could be ‘‘tagged’’ onto the front of 

common documents. 

• Working with community-based 

organizations and other stakeholders to 

inform LEP individuals of the 

recipients’ services, including the 

availability of language assistance 

services. 

• Using a telephone voice mail menu. 

The menu could be in the most common 

languages encountered. It should 

provide information about available 

language assistance services and how to 

get them. 

• Including notices in local 

newspapers in languages other than 

English. 

• Providing notices on non-Englishlanguage radio and television stations 

about the available language assistance 

services and how to get them. 

• Presentations and/or notices at 

schools and religious organizations. 

5. Monitoring and Updating the LEP 

Plan 

Recipients should, where appropriate, 

have a process for determining, on an 

ongoing basis, whether new documents, 

programs, services, and activities need 

to be made accessible for LEP 

individuals, and they may want to 

provide notice of any changes in 

services to the LEP public and to 

employees. In addition, recipients 

should consider whether changes in 

demographics, types of services, or 

other needs require annual reevaluation 

of their LEP plan. Less frequent 

reevaluation may be more appropriate 

where demographics, services and 

needs are more static. One good way to 

evaluate the LEP plan is to seek 

feedback from the community. In their 

reviews recipients may want to consider 

assessing changes in the following: 

• Current LEP populations in service 

area or population affected or 

encountered. 

• Frequency of encounters with LEP 

language groups. 

• Nature and importance of activities 

to LEP persons. 

• Availability of resources, including 

technological advances and sources of 

additional resources, and the costs 

imposed. 

• Whether existing assistance is 

meeting the needs of LEP persons. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 2010 / Notices 34475 

• Whether staff knows and 

understands the LEP plan and how to 

implement it. 

• Whether identified sources for 

assistance are still available and viable. 

In addition to these five elements, 

effective plans set clear goals, 

management accountability, and 

opportunities for community input and 

planning throughout the process. 

VIII. Voluntary Compliance Effort 

The goal for Title VI and Title VI 

regulatory enforcement is to achieve 

voluntary compliance. The requirement 

to provide meaningful access to LEP 

persons is enforced and implemented by 

DHS 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 

DHS will investigate when it receives a 

complaint, report, or other information 

that alleges or indicates possible 

noncompliance with Title VI or its 

regulations. If the investigation results 

in a finding of compliance, DHS will 

inform the recipient in writing of this 

determination, including the basis for 

the determination. DHS uses voluntary 

mediation to resolve most complaints. 

However, if a complaint is fully 

investigated and results in a finding of 

noncompliance, DHS must inform the 

recipient of the noncompliance through 

a Letter of Findings that sets out the 

areas of noncompliance and the steps 

that must be taken to correct the 

noncompliance. It must attempt to 

secure voluntary compliance through 

informal means. If the matter cannot be 

resolved informally, DHS must secure 

compliance through the termination of 

Federal assistance after the DHS 

recipients have been given an 

opportunity for an administrative 

hearing and/or by referring the matter to 

the Department of Justice Civil Rights 

Division to seek injunctive relief or 

other enforcement proceedings. DHS 

engages in voluntary compliance efforts 

and provides technical assistance to 

recipients at all stages of an 

investigation. During these efforts, DHS 

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, DHS’s primary concern is to 

ensure that the recipient’s policies and 

procedures provide meaningful access 

for LEP persons to the recipient’s 

programs and activities. 

While all recipients must work 

toward building systems that will 

ensure access for LEP individuals, DHS 

acknowledges that the implementation 

of a comprehensive system to serve LEP 

individuals is a process and that a 

system will evolve over time as it is 

implemented and periodically 

reevaluated. As recipients take 

reasonable steps to provide meaningful 

access to Federally assisted programs 

and activities for LEP persons, DHS 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, DHS 

recipients should ensure that the 

provision of appropriate assistance for 

significant LEP populations or with 

respect to activities having a significant 

impact on the health, safety, legal rights, 

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 

This Guidance is issued for recipients 

that receive Federal funds from the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

There may be cases in which entities 

receive Federal funds from other 

Federal agencies as well as from DHS. 

Entities that receive funding from other 

Federal agencies may also look to the 

LEP guidance issued by those agencies, 

which are consistent with the DHS 

Guidance. Other Federal agencies that 

have issued similar guidance with 

regard to limited English proficient 

persons include the Departments of 

Commerce, Education, Health and 

Human Services, Energy, Housing and 

Urban Development, Labor, Interior, 

State Transportation, Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. An up-to-date listing 

of Federal agencies that have published 

LEP Guidance can be found at http:// 

www.lep.gov/. The Department of 

Justice LEP Recipient Guidance in 

particular provides many helpful 

examples of how to apply the four-factor 

analysis when making decisions about 

the need for translating documents, 

obtaining interpreter, and hiring 

bilingual staff. See 65 FR 50123 Part IX 

(August 16, 2000). These examples are 

incorporated by reference herein. 

As explained in this Guidance, all 

recipients of Federal financial assistance 

from DHS must meet the obligation to 

take reasonable steps to ensure access to 

programs and activities by LEP persons. 

This Guidance clarifies the Title VI 

regulatory obligation to address the 

language needs of LEP persons, in 

appropriate circumstances and in a 

reasonable manner by applying the fourfactor analysis. In the context of 

emergency planning and response, 

health and safety, immigration and 

other detention, and law enforcement 

operations, where the potential for 

greater consequences are at issue, DHS 

will look for strong evidence that 

recipients have taken reasonable steps 

to ensure access to services to LEP 

persons. The lessons learned from 

natural disasters, for example, 

underscore the need to provide 

meaningful access to LEP persons who 

are otherwise eligible in all aspects of 

Federally assisted programs that serve 

the public. 

Margo Schlanger, 

Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14630 Filed 6–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA–1881– 

DR; Docket ID FEMA–2010–0002] 

West Virginia; Amendment No. 1 to 

Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice 

of a major disaster declaration for the 

State of West Virginia (FEMA–1881– 

DR), dated March 2, 2010, and related 

determinations. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 10, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20472, (202) 646–3886. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice 

of a major disaster declaration for the 

State of West Virginia is hereby 

amended to include the following areas 

among those areas determined to have 

been adversely affected by the event 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES