Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Notices 21755 

amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is 

hereby given of the following meetings. 

The meetings will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special 

Emphasis Panel; Preclinical Services for the 

Development of Biopharmaceutical Products 

for Infectious Diseases. 

Date: May 11, 2011. 

Time: 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate contract 

proposals. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6610 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. 

Contact Person: Yong Gao, PhD, Scientific 

Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, 

DHHS/NIH/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 

Room 3246, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–443– 

8115, gaol2@niaid.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special 

Emphasis Panel; Immune Response to Viral 

Infections. 

Date: May 12, 2011. 

Time: 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817. 

(Telephone Conference Call.) 

Contact Person: Richard W. Morris, PhD, 

Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review 

Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Room 

2217, 6700–B Rockledge Drive, MSC–7616, 

Bethesda, MD 20892–7616, 301–496–2550, 

rmorris@niaid.nih.gov. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, 

and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 

Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 

Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: April 12, 2011. 

Jennifer S. Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9322 Filed 4–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Office of the Director, National 

Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting 

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is 

hereby given of a meeting of the 

Director’s Council of Public 

Representatives. 

The meeting will be open to the 

public, with attendance limited to space 

available. Individuals who plan to 

attend and need special assistance, such 

as sign language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodations, should 

notify the Contact Person listed below 

in advance of the meeting. 

Name of Committee: Director’s Council of 

Public Representatives. 

Date: May 6, 2011. 

Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 

Agenda: The Council will discuss issues 

related to how best to gather input from the 

public as well as how COPR can assist in 

promoting K–12 education. Further 

information will be available on the COPR 

Web site. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 

Building 31, Conference Room 6, 31 Center 

Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. 

Contact Person: Sheria Washington, 

Executive Secretary/Outreach Program 

Specialist, Office of Communications and 

Public Liaison, Office of the Director, 

National Institutes of Health, 1 Center Drive, 

Room 331, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–594– 

4837, Sheria.Washington@nih.gov. 

Any interested person may file written 

comments with the committee by forwarding 

the statement to the Contact Person listed on 

this notice. The statement should include the 

name, address, telephone number and when 

applicable, the business or professional 

affiliation of the interested person. 

In the interest of security, NIH has 

instituted stringent procedures for entrance 

onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, 

including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles 

will be inspected before being allowed on 

campus. Visitors will be asked to show one 

form of identification (for example, a 

government-issued photo ID, driver’s license, 

or passport) and to state the purpose of their 

visit. 

Information is also available on the 

Institute’s/Center’s home page: http:// 

www.copr.nih.gov, where an agenda and any 

additional information for the meeting will 

be posted when available. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.14, Intramural Research 

Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research 

Loan Repayment Program for Individuals 

from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232, 

Loan Repayment Program for Research 

Generally; 93.39, Academic Research 

Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired 

Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan 

Repayment Program; 93.187, Undergraduate 

Scholarship Program for Individuals from 

Disadvantaged Backgrounds, National 

Institutes of Health, HHS.) 

Dated: April 12, 2011. 

Jennifer S. Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9320 Filed 4–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

[DHS Docket No. DHS–2009–0032] 

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; final policy guidance. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland 

Security is finalizing guidance to 

recipients of Federal financial assistance 

regarding Title VI’s prohibition against 

national origin discrimination affecting 

persons with limited English proficient 

persons. This guidance is issued 

pursuant to Executive Order 13166 and 

is consistent with government-wide 

guidance previously issued by the 

Department of Justice. 

DATES: This guidance is effective May 

18, 2011. 

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 11, 

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 

50123 (August 16, 2000) (DOJ Agency 

LEP Guidance). 

The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) adopts guidance that 

adheres to the Government-wide 

compliance standards and framework 

detailed in the DOJ Agency LEP 

Guidance and in the DOJ’s own 

guidance to its financial assistance 

recipients. Guidance to Federal 

Financial Assistance Recipients 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
21756 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Notices 

Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against 

National Origin Discrimination 

Affecting Limited English Proficient 

Persons, 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 2002) 

(DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance). The 

Departments of Commerce, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Housing and Urban Development, 

Interior, Justice, Labor, State, 

Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans 

Affairs, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, and several other independent 

and Executive Branch agencies have 

issued similar guidance. DHS solicited 

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 was published for public 

comment in the Federal Register 

pursuant to the instructions in 

Executive Order 13166. 

A. Response to Comments 

The DHS draft guidance on DHS 

recipients’ obligations to take reasonable 

steps to ensure access by LEP persons 

was published on June 17, 2010. See 75 

FR 34465. The comment period was 

clarified to extend to July 17, 2010. See 

75 FR 38821 (July 6, 2010). DHS 

received 9 comments representing at 

least 24 organizations in response to its 

publication of draft guidance on DHS 

recipients’ obligations to take reasonable 

steps to ensure access to programs and 

activities by LEP persons. The 

comments reflected the views of 

individuals, organizations serving LEP 

populations, national civil rights 

organizations, a public policy and law 

institute, and several legal service 

providers. 

The comments were generally 

supportive of DHS’s effort to issue this 

guidance, and all provided constructive 

comments for amplifying specific 

examples, strengthening certain 

language, and better ensuring the 

effectiveness of the guidelines. No 

comments generally unfavorable to the 

guidance were received, and seven 

comments endorsed or applauded the 

guidance as a general matter. Nearly all 

comments noted that failure to 

communicate with or understand an 

LEP person can pose a risk to life, limb, 

and property in cases of emergency, 

disaster, or law enforcement activity. 

DHS agrees; the final guidance informs 

recipients that if they provide benefits 

and services or operate in the context of 

emergency preparedness, response and 

recovery, health and safety, or law 

enforcement they should be prepared to 

provide language services to LEP 

persons in the jurisdictions in which 

they operate. DHS looks forward to 

continued progress, in partnership with 

recipients and beneficiaries, on ensuring 

meaningful access to LEP persons. 

One comment urged DHS’s Office for 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to 

provide technical assistance to 

recipients on meeting their 

responsibilities under Title VI as 

outlined in the guidance and to serve as 

a centralized resource center on model 

plans and promising practices for 

recipients to better serve LEP persons. 

As noted in the guidance, CRCL will be 

available to provide such technical 

assistance and will continue to work 

with the U.S. Department of Justice and 

other agencies to make resources 

available through LEP.gov (http:// 

www.lep.gov), the Web site of the 

Federal Interagency Working Group, 

with information for recipients, Federal 

agencies, and the communities being 

served. Two comments urged that DHS 

proceed to issuance of LEP guidance for 

Federally conducted activities as well, 

as required by Executive Order 13166. A 

plan for DHS is forthcoming; in the 

meantime, this guidance recognizes, in 

footnote 4, that Departmental activities 

are subject to the same four-factor 

framework for providing LEP access as 

are recipients. One comment proposed 

revising draft LEP guidance prepared by 

the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) in 2002, prior to its 

transfer into DHS, and consider issuing 

LEP guidance by other DHS 

components. DHS disagrees, and 

believes uniform department-wide LEP 

guidance will provide a clearer 

framework for recipients of assistance 

than potentially conflicting guidance 

from different components. This 

guidance to recipients will apply to all 

DHS components. 

The comments received on more 

specific subjects are summarized and 

addressed below. 

1. Motor Vehicle Departments and Mass 

Transit Providers 

Three comments recommended 

express mention of motor vehicle 

departments, and two recommended 

inclusion of mass transit providers, as 

recipients with high rates of contact 

with, and potential obstacles to 

meaningful participation by, LEP 

persons. Mass transit authorities were 

already included in the draft guidance. 

The guidance now includes motor 

vehicle departments as well. 

2. Detention 

Five comments urged revisions to the 

guidance to discuss alien detention 

programs operated by U.S. Immigrations 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

Federally conducted activity, including 

ICE’s immigration detention, is not 

regulated by Title VI and is not within 

the scope of this guidance. We note 

again, however, that Executive Order 

13166 governs DHS’s own Federally 

conducted activity. DHS and ICE take 

very seriously the need to strengthen the 

provision of language access for all ICE 

detainees who are LEP. ICE detention 

standards, including detention 

standards related to health care, 

grievances, searches, sexual abuse 

prevention, and staff-detainee 

communication, require that detainees 

be provided information in a language 

they can understand. Among other 

steps, ICE has increased the number of 

translated forms available and 

commercial interpreter lines are used to 

facilitate communication with 

detainees. ICE has provided training to 

detention managers on Executive Order 

13166, and on how to provide 

meaningful access to LEP persons who 

are detained and will continue to make 

training and resources available to 

personnel that interact with LEP 

detainees. In addition, LEP persons in 

ICE detention will be covered by the 

forthcoming LEP plan for DHS 

activities. Similarly, ICE’s immigration 

enforcement activities and its 

alternatives to detention programs, 

which were addressed by several 

comments, are Federally conducted 

activities that fall outside the scope of 

this guidance but will be covered by the 

LEP plan. Several other comments 

referred to ‘‘detention’’ generally, with 

one comment suggesting greater 

incorporation of language included in 

the DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance with 

respect to conditions of confinement 

and provision of health services. As 

explained below, where DOJ is the 

primary provider of Federal assistance 

to recipients—as it is with recipients 

that operate non-immigration 

detention—recipients will generally be 

well served by referring directly to that 

guidance, which these guidelines 

incorporate by reference. Because State 

and local jails and prisons are primarily 

assisted by DOJ, additional references to 

the unique issues presented by 

detention would not clarify the 

guidance for recipients of Departmental 

assistance. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Notices 21757 

3. State and Local Law Enforcement and 

Other Specific Recipients 

At least four comments suggested 

more expansive discussion of local law 

enforcement agencies, with particular 

attention to programs through which 

State and local law enforcement entities 

partner with ICE through a joint 

memorandum of agreement (MOA) to 

perform certain functions of an 

immigration officer in the enforcement 

of Federal immigration law within their 

jurisdiction. Immigration and 

Nationality Act, as amended (INA), 

section 287(g), 8 U.S.C. 1357(g). The 

MOA between ICE and participating 

agencies states that Title VI, including 

the necessity of providing access for 

LEP persons, applies to all participating 

State and local law enforcement 

personnel. The agreements already 

make clear that law enforcement 

agencies have obligations to provide 

language services to LEP persons 

encountered in exercising the authority 

under the INA and the guidance already 

lists State and local police departments 

as examples of DHS recipients to which 

the guidance applies. Nevertheless, the 

guidance has been revised in several 

places to emphasize aspects pertinent to 

State and local law enforcement 

agencies receiving assistance from DHS. 

Four comments suggested that the 

guidance should expressly refer 

recipients to guidance by other agencies, 

including DOJ and HHS, that conclude 

that LEP assistance must be provided in 

certain critical environments. Recipients 

should look chiefly to the guidance 

promulgated by the agency that is the 

primary source of Federal assistance to 

an entity—as, for example, DOJ is for 

State and local law enforcement. Thus, 

the guidance refers to DOJ’s and other 

agencies’ guidance. In addition, the 

guidance notes that it is (and is 

intended to be) consistent with other 

agencies’ LEP guidance. For that reason, 

DHS has concluded that specific 

reference to particular DHS programs, 

such as those related to INA section 

287(g), would not provide any 

additional clarity to entities covered by 

this guidance. The guidance has been 

revised to direct recipients to other 

agency guidance where appropriate. 

In addition to revisions to the 

guidance, two comments proposed 

substantive revisions to all memoranda 

of agreement implementing INA section 

287(g) agreements pertaining to issues 

that may involve LEP persons including 

domestic abuse and human trafficking. 

While these agreements fall outside the 

scope of this publication, DHS is 

committed to strengthening its technical 

assistance to and oversight of these law 

enforcement partners in meeting their 

obligations toward LEP persons under 

Title VI. For example, in reminding 

State and local partners about their 

obligations with LEP persons, ICE has 

shared a host of resources, including the 

following materials developed by DOJ 

and available online at LEP.gov: 

Planning Tool for Creating a Language 

Assistance Policy and Plan for a Law 

Enforcement Agency, and Lost in 

Translation: Limited English Proficient 

Populations and the Police by Bharathi 

A. Venkatraman, Attorney, Civil Rights 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice. 

ICE has also made language 

interpretation resources available to its 

INA section 287(g) partners. 

Two comments urged that State, 

county, and municipal courts be 

expressly included among entities 

subject to the guidance. As DHS is not 

the principal source of Federal 

assistance to such entities, and rarely a 

significant source of assistance, any 

such recipients will comply with their 

LEP obligations by adhering to the 

guidance promulgated by the primary 

source of such assistance. DOJ recently 

addressed LEP issues in State and 

municipal courts in a letter from 

Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. 

Perez to State chief justices and court 

administrators, available at http:// 

www.LEP.gov. 

4. Application of the Four Factors 

Several comments recommended 

additional language guiding application 

of the four factors used in determining 

the extent of a recipient’s LEP 

obligations with regard to particular 

recipients or activities. With the 

exception of areas already discussed as 

implicating only DHS conducted 

activity, such as ICE detention, these 

helpful comments have generally been 

incorporated into the guidance. For 

example, part V.3. of the guidance now 

discusses the importance of being 

prepared to provide language access for 

recipients that provide services and 

benefits or operate in the context of 

emergency preparedness; response and 

recovery; health and safety; and law 

enforcement. encountering LEP persons. 

5. Interpretation and Translation 

Three comments provided suggestions 

regarding forms, methods, and practices 

in interpretation and translation. The 

final guidance better reflects the 

relevance of accreditation and 

certification of interpreters and 

translators, and to make clear that 

summarization is not an acceptable form 

of interpretation. The guidance suggests 

that certification of interpreters may be 

required (when possible) when legal 

rights are at stake. The guidance also 

reflects one comment’s suggestions that 

legal advocates, civil rights groups, and 

similar associations can play a valuable 

role in determining how best to provide 

language assistance services when 

important rights are at stake. Other 

suggestions, though well taken, are 

already reflected in the guidance, such 

as one comment’s observation that 

bilingual staff may not necessarily have 

appropriate skills to translate 

documents. 

One comment suggested DHS 

recognize ‘‘back-translation’’ as a safe 

harbor practice; two others suggested 

cooperation with legal and other 

community organizations as a safe 

harbor. While back-translation is an 

excellent technique for verifying a 

translation, DHS declines to depart from 

other agencies’ guidance by creating 

new safe harbors. The guidance is 

sufficiently flexible to ensure that 

recipients can readily incorporate 

community organizations and other best 

practices to create an appropriate LEP 

policy. DHS incorporated one 

comment’s suggestion that recipients be 

urged to develop a systemic process for 

determining which documents to 

translate. 

DHS disagrees with one comment’s 

suggestion that the guidance demand 

high-quality interpretation in all 

circumstances. A rigid requirement that 

denies recipients the ability to 

intelligently allocate LEP resources 

would be counter-productive. Similarly, 

DHS disagrees with a comment’s 

argument that in-person oral 

interpretation is always preferable to 

telephonic interpretation. Recipients 

should consider which interpretative 

techniques are best-suited to a given 

program or situation; one size does not 

fit all. Likewise, DHS does not agree 

with a comment urging it to mandate 

that all language services for LEP 

persons be provided in the same manner 

and timeframe as they are for English 

speakers. Nevertheless, the guidance 

explains that it is more likely that a 

recipient is providing meaningful access 

in certain cases when there is 

immediate access to competent 

bilingual staff or on-site or telephonic 

interpretation. DHS agrees with, and has 

adopted, one comment’s 

recommendation that recipients ensure 

staff are suitably trained in, and have 

appropriate equipment to utilize, 

telephonic interpretation services. 

The guidance has been revised in 

light of multiple comments concerning 

use of informal interpretation or 

interpretation by family members, or 

friends. The use of such informal 

interpreters is strongly discouraged in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
21758 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / 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 DHS 

recipients 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. 

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. 

certain situations, such as in most 

medical encounters where recipients 

should make regular use of competent 

interpreters. DHS disagrees with a 

comment suggesting that documentation 

necessarily be kept whenever an LEP 

person wishes to provide his or her own 

interpreter, but the guidance now 

suggests that any such choice be fully 

informed and voluntary. In addition, the 

guidance makes clear that recipients 

need not agree to using an LEP person’s 

interpreter as the sole means of 

interpretation. In response to several 

comments, the guidance now rejects 

using minor children as interpreters 

except in temporary, emergency 

situations when other options are not 

readily available, and it makes clear that 

when interpreters are provided by 

recipients, they must be free of charge. 

6. Language Assistance Plans 

Five comments concerned written 

Language Assistance Plans. The DHS 

guidance now suggests that all 

appropriate staff receive a copy of the 

LEP plan; includes DHS’s processes for 

receiving complaints; encourages 

involvement with civil rights groups 

and similar associations in developing 

and revising a plan; and encourages the 

tracking of encounters with LEP persons 

by, among other things, languages 

spoken. While many, or even most, 

recipients would be well advised to 

develop a written plan, DHS disagrees 

with comments advocating that such 

plans be mandatory; however, the 

guidance suggests that recipients that 

are likely to encounter LEP persons 

have a policy for providing language 

access and that recipients communicate 

the policy with staff and LEP persons. 

One comment suggested the guidance 

encourage recipients to partner with 

groups in the community to help 

determine whether a language access 

plan is necessary and in the creation of 

language access plans. DHS recognizes 

the value of this and has added language 

to this guidance to encourage such 

partnerships. 

Finally, this guidance suggests that 

recipients have a policy as well as an 

implementation plan to address the 

identified language needs of the LEP 

populations they serve. Having such a 

policy, however simple, can serve to 

guide the recipient in its services to LEP 

persons and be a starting point from 

which to plan the delivery of services 

and benefits in a manner designed to 

ensure equal access to LEP individuals 

in the service area who are entitled to 

receive them. 

7. Enforcement and Monitoring 

DHS takes seriously its obligation 

under 6 CFR part 21 and 44 CFR 7.5(b) 

to enforce the non-discriminatory 

requirements of Title VI. The DHS 

Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties, along with FEMA’s Office of 

Equal Rights and other component 

offices, will enforce and monitor efforts. 

As noted in the Guidance, the DHS 

Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties and FEMA’s Office of Equal 

Rights accept complaints or inquires 

related to a recipient’s provision of 

meaningful access to LEP persons and is 

prepared to take enforcement action in 

any case in which a violation has been 

established. 

Guidance to Federal Financial 

Assistance Recipients Regarding Title 

VI Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination Affecting Limited 

English Proficient Persons 

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. DHS, 

like other Federal agencies and the 

Federal Government as a whole, 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 DHS recipients in 

fulfilling their responsibilities to 

provide meaningful access to LEP 

persons under existing law. This policy 

guidance clarifies existing legal 

requirements for LEP persons by 

providing a description of the factors 

DHS 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 its 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. This guidance is consistent 

with both the 2000 DOJ Agency LEP 

Guidance and the 2002 DOJ Recipient 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Notices 21759 

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 limit the 

authority and responsibility of Federal grant 

agencies to enforce their own implementing 

regulations. 532 U.S. at 279. 

LEP Guidance. This guidance, 

moreover, includes additional 

information, resources, and guidance 

that have been developed by the Federal 

Government in the years that have 

followed the publication of Executive 

Order 13166 and the DOJ guidance. 

As with most government initiatives, 

providing meaningful access for LEP 

persons 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. DHS is committed to 

working with its recipients to provide 

information on language assistance 

measures, resources, and activities that 

can effectively be shared or otherwise 

made available to recipients. In 

addition, the Federal Interagency 

Working Group on LEP has developed a 

Web site, http://www.lep.gov, which 

assists 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 a 

regulation 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 11, 

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 Agency 

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 

Agency 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. Mindful of the limitations on 

bringing a private action to enforce Title 

VI regulations addressing disparate 

impact, DHS is committed to vigorously 

enforcing the requirements of Title VI 

and its implementing regulations on 

behalf of LEP beneficiaries and other 

LEP persons encountered by DHS 

assisted agencies and entities. 

DOJ developed further guidance for 

recipients of financial assistance from 

that agency. 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) 

(DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance). 

This guidance document is published 

pursuant to Executive Order 13166 and 

reflects the Assistant Attorney General’s 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
21760 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / 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 Agency LEP Guidance are to additionally 

apply to the programs and activities of Federal 

agencies, including DHS. 

5 If, however, a Federal agency were to decide to 

terminate Federal funds based on noncompliance 

with Title VI or its regulations, this result would 

affect only funds directed to the particular noncompliant program or activity. 

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. 

Examples of 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. Mass transit authorities; 

g. Community Emergency Response 

Teams (CERT), which conduct training 

and other activities to enhance 

individual, community, family, and 

workplace preparedness; 

h. State and local departments that 

operate jails and prisons; 

i. Coast Guard assisted boating safety 

programs; 

j. Entities that receive specialized 

training through the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC); 

k. Intercity bus programs; and 

l. State motor vehicle departments. 

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 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Notices 21761 

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. 

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, and data from school systems, 

community organizations, and 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. 

Many police departments and mass 

transit authorities, for example, may 

expect high rates of contact with LEP 

individuals. It is also advisable to 

consider the frequency of different types 

of language contacts. Frequent contacts 

with Spanish-speaking people who are 

LEP, for example, 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. In particular, recipients that 

provide services and benefits or operate 

in the context of emergency 

preparedness; response and recovery; 

health and safety; and law enforcement 

should be prepared to provide language 

services whenever serving or 

encountering LEP persons. In addition, 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
21762 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / 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 or interpretation settings for 

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 oral 

interpreters immediately 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, so 

long as the fundamental obligation of 

providing meaningful access to LEP 

persons is met. 

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, 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 

appropriate confidentiality and 

impartiality rules; and 

• 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 law 

enforcement encounters, 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, fire and rescue 

services, and when important legal 

rights are at issue, a recipient would 

more likely be providing meaningful 

access if it has immediate access to 

competent bilingual staff or on-site or 

telephonic interpreters, since these 

services can prevent 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Notices 21763 

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 

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 makes a knowing and voluntary 

choice to use another inmate as an interpreter. 

staff who are bilingual and competent to 

communicate directly with LEP persons 

in their language. If bilingual staff are 

also used to interpret between English 

speakers and LEP persons, or to orally 

interpret written documents from 

English into another language, they 

should be competent in the skill of 

interpreting. Being bilingual does not 

necessarily mean that a person has the 

ability to interpret. In addition, there 

may be times when the role of the 

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. It is also important 

to ensure that the equipment used is 

adequate and works appropriately and 

that staff have training or knowledge in 

the use of such services. 

• 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 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, in some situations LEP 

persons, if they so desire, 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 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, friends, 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 offer competent 

interpreter services free of cost to the 

LEP person. For some DHS recipients, 

such as those carrying out law 

enforcement and public safety 

operations and those performing 

disaster assistance functions, this is 

particularly true. The same is 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. Similarly, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
21764 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Notices 

where an emergency medical technician 

responds to the scene of reported 

domestic violence, care must be taken to 

avoid using a family member for 

interpretation who is the alleged 

perpetrator. 

The use of children is strongly 

discouraged except in very limited and 

temporary situations involving an 

emergency impacting life and safety 

when appropriate language services are 

not otherwise readily available. 

While issues of competency, 

confidentiality, and conflict of interest 

in the use of family members, friends, 

or other applicants often make their use 

inappropriate, the use of these 

individuals as interpreters may be an 

appropriate option where proper 

application of the four factors would 

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

example of this is a voluntary 

educational tour of a 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 (except 

children), 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, the recipient’s 

offer of assistance, and the recipient’s 

explanation of the risks of declining the 

offer of interpretation and the benefits of 

accepting such services 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 it must provide its own, 

independent interpreter, even if an LEP 

person wants to use his or her own 

interpreter as well. When the recipient 

allows an individual to use his or her 

own interpreter and the recipient does 

not provide its own, the recipient 

should take care to ensure that the LEP 

person’s choice is voluntary and 

informed and that the LEP person 

knows that the recipient at no cost 

would provide a competent interpreter 

in a timely manner. 

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; and 

• 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 

would 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. Organizations such as civil 

rights and immigrant groups, legal 

service providers, and religious 

organizations are a few examples of 

entities that can provide information to 

recipients that may be helpful in 

determining what outreach materials 

may be most helpful to translate. In 

addition, the recipient should consider 

whether translations of outreach 

material may be made more effective 

when done in tandem with other 

outreach methods, including utilizing 

the ethnic media, schools, religious, and 

community organizations to spread a 

message. 

Sometimes a document includes both 

vital and non-vital information. This 

may be the case when the document is 

very large. It may also be the case when 

the title and a phone number for 

obtaining more information on the 

contents of the document in frequentlyencountered languages other than 

English is critical, but the document is 

sent out to the general public and 

cannot reasonably be translated into 

many languages. Thus, vital information 

may include, for instance, the provision 

of information in appropriate languages 

other than English regarding where a 

LEP person might obtain an 

interpretation or translation of the 

document. 

Into What Languages Should 

Documents Be Translated? The 

languages spoken by the LEP 

individuals with whom the recipient 

has contact determine the languages 

into which vital documents should be 

translated. A distinction should be 

made however, between languages that 

are frequently encountered by a 

recipient and less 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 

often a one-time expense, consideration 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Notices 21765 

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. 

12 Indeed, it is a recommended practice to have 

all translated documents proofread by a second 

professional translator and many companies 

offering translations do this as part of their quality 

review process. 

13For 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. 

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 fourfactor analysis. Recipients may benefit 

from developing a systemic process for 

identifying and prioritizing documents 

for translation. 

Safe Harbor. Many recipients would 

like to ensure with greater certainty that 

they comply with their obligations to 

provide written translations in 

languages other than English. 

Paragraphs (a) and (b) outline the 

circumstances that can provide a ‘‘safe 

harbor’’ for recipients regarding the 

requirements for translation of written 

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

a recipient provides written translations 

under these circumstances, such action 

will be considered strong evidence of 

compliance with the recipient’s writtentranslation obligations. 

The failure to provide written 

translations under the circumstances 

outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) does 

not mean there is non-compliance. 

Rather, those paragraphs provide a 

common starting point for recipients to 

consider whether and at what point they 

will provide written translations. 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. 

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.12

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.13 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 deciding what language 

assistance services are appropriate, a 

recipient should develop policies and 

an implementation plan to address the 

identified needs of the LEP populations 

they serve. Recipients have considerable 

flexibility in developing both the plan 

and the policy. 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 

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 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
21766 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Notices 

14The Social Security Administration has made 

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

multilanguage/langlist1.htm. The Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has made 

a similar sign available at Disaster Recovery Centers 

for disaster assistance applicants to identify the 

language they speak. Once the applicants for FEMA 

benefits identify their language preference they can 

access simultaneous interpretation services when 

registering for assistance or requesting the status of 

the disaster assistance application over the phone. 

These signs could, for example, be modified for 

applicant’s use. 

or activities. Accordingly, in the event 

that a recipient elects not to develop a 

written plan but may encounter LEP 

persons, it should have a policy 

explaining that it is committed to 

providing meaningful access to LEP 

persons, and should consider alternative 

ways to articulate in some other 

reasonable manner a plan for providing 

meaningful access, including informing 

staff and LEP persons of how language 

services will be provided. Entities 

having significant contact with LEP 

persons, such as schools, religious 

organizations, community groups, and 

groups working with new immigrants 

can be very helpful in providing 

important input into this planning 

process from the beginning. The 

following five steps may be helpful in 

designing an LEP plan and are typically 

part of effective implementation plans: 

1. Identifying LEP Individuals Who 

Need Language Assistance 

The first two factors in the four-factor 

analysis require an assessment of the 

number or proportion of LEP 

individuals eligible to be served or 

encountered and the frequency of 

encounters. This requires recipients to 

identify LEP persons with whom it has 

contact. 

One way to determine the language of 

communication is to use language 

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

which invite LEP persons to identify 

their language needs to staff. Such 

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

Spanish’’ in both Spanish and English, 

‘‘I speak Vietnamese’’ in both English 

and Vietnamese, etc. To reduce costs of 

compliance, the Federal Government 

has made a set of these cards available 

on the Internet. The Census Bureau ‘‘I 

speak’’ card can be found and 

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

DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties (CRCL) also makes ‘‘I speak’’ 

booklets available to recipients upon 

request. (Contact information is 

provided below). Recipients will also be 

able to download a PDF of the ‘‘I speak’’ 

booklet and a poster from the CRCL Web 

site (http:www.dhs.gov/CRCL) and 

LEP.gov (http://www.lep.gov), which 

can be printed and posted. 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 establishing policies for 

interactions between the recipient and 

LEP persons and 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. Distribution of Plan and Training for 

Staff 

Staff should know their obligations to 

provide meaningful access to 

information and services for LEP 

persons. Thus, recipients should 

distribute the plan to all appropriate 

staff. An effective LEP plan would also 

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, law enforcement, 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.14

• Stating in outreach documents that 

language services are available from the 

agency. Announcements could be in, for 

instance, brochures, booklets, and 

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. 

Moreover, it is important for recipients 

to provide notice of its complaint 

procedures, including how to file 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Notices 21767 

15Per 6 CFR part 21 and 44 CFR 7.5(b), 

complaints involving recipients of financial 

assistance from FEMA can be sent directly to FEMA 

at: FEMA Office of Equal Rights; 300 D St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20472–3505. FEMA complaints 

received by the Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties will be forwarded to FEMA for response 

and/or investigation. Information on FEMA grant 

and assistance programs may be found at http:// 

www.FEMA.gov/government/grant/index. 16 Id. 

complaints with the DHS Office for 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) 

and FEMA’s Office of Equal Rights.15

Complaints alleging that a recipient has 

failed to provide meaningful access to 

the recipient’s programs and services or 

in its encounters with LEP persons may 

be sent to CRCL in any language as 

follows: 

Mailing Address: Department of 

Homeland Security, Office for Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties, Review and 

Compliance, 245 Murray Lane, SW., 

Building 410, Mail Stop #0190, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

Telephone/Fax: Local: 202–401–1474, 

Toll Free: 1–866–644–8360, Local TTY: 

202–401–0470, Toll Free TTY: 1–866– 

644–8361, Fax: 202–401–4708. 

E-mail Address: crcl@dhs.gov. 

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. Additionally, they may 

want to provide notice of any changes 

in services to the LEP public and to 

employees. DHS encourages recipients 

to keep updated disaggregated data on 

LEP persons encountered and the 

languages spoken. 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, 

including civil rights groups and 

immigrant organizations. 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; 

• Whether staff knows and 

understands the LEP plan and how to 

implement it; and 

• 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. 

Recipients are encouraged to partner 

with or consult with community based 

organizations in assessing the need to 

have written plans, and in developing 

and implementing these LEP plans. 

VIII. Voluntary Compliance Effort 

The goal for 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.16 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. 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. To facilitate compliance 

efforts, recipients are encouraged to 

document their efforts to provide LEP 

persons with meaningful access to these 

and other Federally assisted programs 

and activities. 

IX. Application to Specific Types of 

Recipients 

This guidance is issued for recipients 

that receive Federal funds and other 

Federal assistance from DHS. 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, Energy, Health 

and Human Services, Housing and 

Urban Development, Justice, Interior, 

Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, 

and Veterans Affairs, and the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
21768 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Notices 

Environmental Protection Agency. An 

updated listing of Federal agencies that 

have published LEP Guidance can be 

found at http://www.lep.gov/. The DOJ 

Recipient LEP 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 67 FR 41466 (June 18, 2002). 

Recipients may also benefit from 

learning about the enforcement actions 

of several agencies since the DOJ 

Guidance was first issued in 2002. For 

example, DOJ has entered into several 

agreements that are available online at 

http://www.lep.gov. In addition, HHS 

has resolved several LEP enforcement 

actions against health service providers. 

Those resolution agreements are 

available at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/ 

civilrights/activities/examples/LEP/ 

index.html. In any compliance and 

enforcement activity, DHS will review 

the facts and circumstances pertaining 

to the recipient to determine whether 

the recipient has complied with its 

obligations under this guidance. 

Area-specific guidance and LEP 

planning tools for a number of types of 

recipients, including municipal 

governments, law enforcement agencies, 

and recipients engaged in emergency 

preparedness can be found at http:// 

www.lep.gov/resources/resources.html. 

Recipients are encouraged to avail 

themselves of these resources. In 

addition, the Office for Civil Rights and 

Civil Liberties is available to provide 

technical assistance to recipients on the 

provision of language services to LEP 

persons served or encountered in a 

recipient’s program. 

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, 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. 

Margo Schlanger, 

Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9336 Filed 4–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Office of the Secretary 

Privacy Act of 1974; Consolidation of 

System of Records 

AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice to consolidate one 

Privacy Act system of records notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of 

Homeland Security is giving notice that 

it proposes to consolidate one Privacy 

Act system of records notice from its 

inventory of record systems titled, 

Department of Homeland Security/ 

Directorate of Science and 

Technology—.0001 Support AntiTerrorism by Fostering Effective 

Technologies Act of 2002, September 

26, 2003, into the existing Department 

of Homeland Security system of records 

notice titled, Department of Homeland 

Security/ALL—002 Mailing and Other 

Lists System, November 25, 2008. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 18, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Ellen Callahan, Chief Privacy 

Officer, Department of Homeland 

Security, Washington, DC 20528, by 

telephone (703) 235–0780 or facsimile 

1–866–466–5370. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the Privacy Act of 

1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of its 

ongoing integration and management 

efforts, the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) is giving notice that it 

proposes to consolidate one Privacy Act 

system of records notice (SORN) from 

its inventory of record systems titled, 

DHS/Directorate of Science and 

Technology (S&T)—.0001 Support AntiTerrorism by Fostering Effective 

Technologies Act of 2002, (68 FR 55642, 

September 26, 2003), into the existing 

DHS SORN titled, DHS/ALL—002 

Mailing and Other Lists System, (73 FR 

71659, November 25, 2008). 

DHS originally created the DHS/ 

S&T—.0001 Support Anti-Terrorism by 

Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 

2002 SORN in September 2003. This 

system was originally established in 

order to maintain records on individuals 

who submit applications for 

technologies seeking liability protection 

under provisions of the Support AntiTerrorism by Fostering Effective 

Technologies Act. Given that these 

records are limited to contact 

information of individuals (business 

phone number, mailing address, e-mail 

address), DHS has determined this 

system can be covered under the DHS/ 

ALL—002 Mailing and Other List 

Systems SORN. 

Consolidating this SORN will have no 

adverse impact on individuals, but will 

promote the overall streamlining and 

management of DHS Privacy Act record 

systems. 

Dated: April 12, 2011. 

Mary Ellen Callahan, 

Chief Privacy Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9330 Filed 4–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket No. DHS–2011–0013] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Department of 

Homeland Security/Office of Health 

Affairs—001 Contractor Occupational 

Health and Immunization Records 

System of Records 

AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of Privacy Act system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Privacy Act of 1974 the Department of 

Homeland Security proposes to 

establish a new Department of 

Homeland Security system of records 

notice titled, ‘‘Department of Homeland 

Security/Office of Health Affairs—001 

Contractor Occupational Health and 

Immunization Records System of 

Records.’’ This system collects 

occupational health and immunization 

management records. These records are 

collected as part of the Directorate of 

Science and Technology’s Laboratories 

and field sites occupational health 

surveillance operations, in support of 

the Office of Health Affair’s 

responsibilities for medical and health 

matters. This newly established system 

will be included in the Department of 

Homeland Security’s inventory of 

record systems. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

May 18, 2011. This new system will be 

effective May 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number DHS– 

2011–0013 by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 703–483–2999. 

• Mail: Mary Ellen Callahan, Chief 

Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Washington, DC 20528. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES