3548 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

Hearing presentations should be limited

to no more than five minutes to allow

for possible questions from the

Chairman and the panel. Additional

time for oral presentations may be

granted as time and the number of

participants permit. Any business

proprietary material must be clearly

marked as such on the cover page (or

letter) and succeeding pages. Such

submissions must be accompanied by a

public summary thereof.

Written Briefs: Those persons not

wishing to participate in the hearing

may submit written comments, in 20

typed copies, not later than 10 a.m.,

January 18, 2001, to Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration: In re Public Hearing on

Establishment of Import Restrictions on

Certain Steel Products From Ukraine to

the United States, Room 1870, Herbert

C. Hoover Building, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave.,

NW, Washington, DC. Comments should

state clearly the position taken and

describe with particularity the evidence

supporting that position. Any business

proprietary material must be clearly

marked as such on the cover page (or

letter) and succeeding pages. Such

submissions must be accompanied by a

public summary thereof. Public

submissions will be available for public

inspection at the Import Administration

Central Records Unit. An appointment

to review the file may be made by

contacting Thomas Harley at (202) 482–

1248.

Dated: January 10, 2001.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–1247 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 010901E]

Western Pacific Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The 76th meeting of the

Western Pacific Fishery Management

Council’s (Council) Scientific and

Statistical Committee (SSC) will

convene January 30 through February 1,

2001, in Honolulu, HI.

DATES: The SSC meeting will be held

from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on January 30 and

from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on January 31

and February 1, 2001.

ADDRESS: The 76th SSC meeting will be

held at the Council office conference

room, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400,

Honolulu, HI; telephone: (808–522–

8220).

Council address: Western Pacific

Fishery Management Council, 1164

Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI

96813.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director;

telephone: 808–522–8220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SSC

will discuss and may make

recommendations to the Council on the

agenda items below. The order in which

agenda items will be addressed can

change.

Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 9 a.m.

1. Precious corals fisheries

A. Status of 2000 framework

adjustment regarding Hawaiian Islands

exploratory area quota increase

B. Growth rates of gold coral

C. November research surveys

D. Summary of Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (DEIS)

E. Plan Team recommendations

2. Crustaceans fisheries (Northwestern

Hawaiian Islands [NWHI] lobsters)

A. Status of framework closure of

fishery

B. Status of spring research tagging

charter

C. Status of plans for 5–year review/

technical review panel

D. Status of DEIS

3. Bottomfish fisheries

A. Status of the NWHI stocks

B. Status of litigation

C. Status of DEIS

Wednesday, January 31, 2001, 8:30 a.m.

4. Pelagic fisheries

A. 3rd quarter 2000 Hawaii and

American Samoa longline fishery

reports

Exclusion of purse seiners from

provisions of 50 nm closed area around

American Samoa

B. Turtle management

(1) Pelagic EIS: NMFS preferred

alternative

(2) NMFS Biological opinion,

recommended measures

(3) Turtle Mitigation Working Group

(4) Atlantic Turtle Working Group

(TWG)

(5) Turtle Recovery Plan

(6) Criteria for de-listing species

under Endangered Species Act (ESA)

C. Shark management

Amendment 9 blue shark quota

following state & federal finning bans

D. Seabird management

U.S. Fish & Wildlife (FWS) Biological

opinion on short-tailed albatross and

Council recommended mitigation

regime

E. Kingman Reef Environmental

Assessment(EA)

F. Hawaii offshore handline fishery

and gear conflicts at Cross seamount

G. Other issues

Thursday, February 1, 2001, 8:30 a.m.

5. Ecosystem and Habitat

A. Draft Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP/

DEIS

(1) Aspects for further discussion

(2) Review of (initial) public/agency

comments

B. Impacts of Clinton’s Executive

Order (EO) on NWHI fisheries

C. Marine/wildlife inventory at

remote atolls

D. Other issues

6. De-listing of protected species

(green sea turtle)/allowing for cultural

take

7. Other business

8. Schedule for 2001

Although non-emergency issues not

contained in this agenda may come

before this group for discussion, those

issues may not be the subject of formal

action during this meeting. Action will

be restricted to those issues specifically

identified in this notice and any issues

arising after publication of this notice

that require emergency action under

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act, provided the public has been

notified of the Council’s intent to take

final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible

to people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other

auxiliary aids should be directed to

Kitty M. Simonds, 808–522–8220

(voice) or 808–522–8226 (fax), at least 5

days prior to meeting date.

Dated: January 10, 2001.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 01–1215 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE: 3510–22–S

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Notice of Policy Guidance on Title VI’s

Prohibition Against National Origin

Discrimination as it Affects Limited

English Proficient Persons

AGENCY: Corporation for National and

Community Service.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3549

ACTION: Notice of policy guidance.

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National

and Community Service (Corporation) is

publishing policy guidance on Title VI’s

prohibition against national origin

discrimination as it affects limited

English proficient persons. This policy

clarifies the existing responsibilities of

Corporation grantees to take reasonable

steps to provide access to their programs

and activities for persons with limited

English proficiency. This document

provides an opportunity for public

comment. The Corporation will review

all comments and will determine what

modifications to the policy guidance, if

any, are necessary.

DATES: This guidance is effective

immediately. Comments must be

submitted on or before March 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should

submit written comments to Ms. Wilsie

Y. Minor, Associate General Counsel,

Corporation for National Service, 1201

New York Ave., NW., Washington, DC

20525. Comments may also be

submitted by facsimile at 202–565–

2796.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wilsie Y. Minor, Corporation for

National Service, 1201 New York Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC 20525. Telephone

202–606–5000, ext. 129; TDD: 202–565–

2799. Arrangements to receive the

policy in an alternative format may be

made by contacting Wilsie Y. Minor.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title VI of

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

2000d, et seq., and its implementing

regulations provide that no person shall

be subjected to discrimination on the

basis of race, color, or national origin

under any program or activity that

receives federal financial assistance.

The purpose of this policy guidance is

to clarify the responsibilities of

recipients of federal financial assistance

from the Corporation for National and

Community Service (Corporation)

(‘‘grantees’’), and assist them in

fulfilling their responsibilities to limited

English proficient (LEP) persons,

pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 and implementing

regulations. The policy guidance

reiterates the Corporation’s longstanding

position that in order to avoid

discrimination against LEP persons on

the grounds of national origin, grantees

must take reasonable steps to ensure

that such persons have meaningful

access to the programs, services, and

information those grantees provide, free

of charge.

The text of the complete guidance

document follows:

Providing Access to Limited-English

Proficient (LEP) Persons to the

Programs and Activities of Grantees of

the Corporation for National Service

A. Overview

1. What Does the Document Do?

This policy guidance does not create

new obligations but rather clarifies the

existing responsibilities of Corporation

for National Service (hereinafter

Corporation) grantees to take reasonable

steps to provide access to their programs

and activities for persons with limited

English proficiency (LEP). This

document:

(a) Discusses the policies, procedures

and other steps that Corporation

grantees can take to provide access by

LEP persons to national service

programs and to other programs and

activities of our grantees.

(b) Clarifies that failure to take one or

more of these steps does not necessarily

mean noncompliance with Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or with

Executive Order 13166.

(c) Provides that the Corporation’s

Equal Opportunity (EO) Office will

determine compliance on a case-by-case

basis, and that assessments will take

into account:

• Number or proportion of LEP

individuals in the service area;

• Frequency of contact with LEP

language groups;

• Nature and importance of the

program or activity; and

• Total resources available to the

recipient.

(d) Provides that small grantees and

those with limited resources will have

flexibility in achieving compliance.

(e) Applies to all beneficiaries of our

grantees’ programs or activities.

In this document, ‘‘beneficiary’’ refers

to:

• Clients, former clients, and client

applicants of a grantee’s programs or

activities;

• Members of the public who receive

or are eligible to receive benefits or

services from our grantees; and

Participants, former participants, and

participant applicants for positions as a

service member or volunteer.

Our grantees’ programs or activities

include:

• Federally assisted programs such as

AmeriCorps*State/National;

• Part-time programs such as Foster

Grandparents or participants in Learn

and Serve America; and

• Part federally-conducted/part

federally-assisted programs such as

AmeriCorps*VISTA or

AmeriCorps*NCCC.

Our grantees’ programs or activities

include not merely the national service

programs operated by the grantees, but

in most cases they include all

operations of the organization. (See

Legal Underpinnings below for an

explanation of a grantee’s ‘‘programs

and activities’’.)

2. Why Do Our Grantees Need To

Ensure Their Programs or Activities

Provide Services to LEP Persons?

Grantees must comply with various

civil rights statutes, including Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which

prohibits denial of services to and other

forms of discrimination against persons

on the basis of national origin, color,

and race. Often, language identifies

national origin. Language barriers may

be rooted in intentional discrimination.

Most frequently, failure to provide

language assistance to LEP persons on

the basis of national origin leads to

actions having the effect of

discrimination. Such actions have

consistently been held to violate Title

VI. (See Legal Underpinnings below for

more information on Title VI, and on

Executive Order 13166 which clarifies

Title VI in the LEP context.)

English is the predominant language

of the United States. According to the

1990 Census, English is spoken by 95%

of its residents. Of the U.S. residents

who speak languages other than English

at home, the 1990 Census reports that

57% above the age of four speak English

‘‘well to very well.’’ However, the U.S.

is also home to millions of national

origin minority individuals who are

‘‘limited English proficient’’ (LEP). That

is, they cannot speak, read, write or

understand the English language at a

level that permits them to interact

effectively with teachers and education

officials, health care providers, social

service agency staff, police and

emergency workers, officials of public

benefit programs, etc.

Because of these language differences

and their inability to speak or

understand English, LEP persons are

often excluded from programs,

experience delays or denials of services,

or receive care and services based on

inaccurate or incomplete information.

Federal agencies have found that

persons who lack proficiency in English

frequently are unable to obtain basic

knowledge of how to access various

benefits and services for which they are

eligible. Agencies have also found that

LEP persons are sometimes exploited by

unscrupulous persons or unwittingly

are pawns in frauds against benefit

programs.

3550 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

3. What Is Our Policy on Ensuring Our

Grantees’ Programs or Activities Provide

Access to Their Services to LEP Persons?

It is our policy to ensure that our

grantees fully comply with the

requirements of the various civil rights

acts and requirements applicable to

federal grantees, including Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and

Executive Order 13166. One aspect of

compliance is to ensure that our

grantees take reasonable steps to

provide meaningful access for LEP

persons to their program or activities,

including provision of language

interpretive services within the

parameters set forth in this policy

document.

B. Legal Underpinnings of This Policy

1. What Are the Basic Requirements

Under Title VI in the LEP Context?

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(42 U.S.C. 2000–d) prohibits

discrimination on the basis of race,

color, or national origin in programs and

activities that receive federal financial

assistance. Recipients of federal

financial assistance (referred to as

‘‘grantees’’ in this policy) may not, on

the basis of race, color, or national

origin:

• Provide services, financial aid, or

other benefits that are different or

provide them in a different manner;

• Restrict an individual’s enjoyment

of an advantage or privilege enjoyed by

others;

• Deny an individual the right to

participate in federally assisted

programs; and

• Defeat or substantially impair the

objectives of federally assisted

programs.

A grantee whose policies, practices or

procedures exclude, limit, or have the

effect of excluding or limiting, the

participation of any LEP person in a

federally assisted program or activity on

the basis of national origin may be

engaged in discrimination in violation

of Title VI. In order to ensure

compliance with Title VI, grantees must

take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP

persons who are eligible for their

programs or activities have access to the

services they provide. The most

important step in meeting this

obligation is for grantees to provide the

language assistance necessary to ensure

such access and to do so at no cost to

the LEP person.

2. What Does Executive Order 13166

Require in the LEP Context? Does It

Impose Requirements Beyond Those of

Title VI?

On August 11, 2000, the President

issued Executive Order 13166 entitled

‘‘Improving Access to Services for

Persons with Limited English

Proficiency.’’ The purpose of this

Executive Order is to eliminate, to the

maximum extent possible, limited

English proficiency as an artificial

barrier to full and meaningful

participation by beneficiaries in

federally assisted programs and

activities. It clarifies existing Title VI

responsibilities for grantees regarding

access for LEP persons, but does not

impose additional requirements. On

August 16, 2000, the Department of

Justice issued policy guidance which

may be found at 65 Fed.Reg. 50123 or

www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor.

3. Who Are Grantees? What Is Federal

Financial Assistance?

In this document, a grantee is any

entity receiving federal financial

assistance from us to operate a federally

assisted program. Grantees include, but

are not limited to, the State

Commissions, AmeriCorps*VISTA and

Senior Corps sponsors, State

Educational Agencies, and

AmeriCorps*NCCC projects. Grantees

also include other direct recipients,

service sites and intermediary service

programs (entities between the primary

grantee and the service sites).

For example, the Corporation funds a

grant to a state agency. The state agency

provides funding to non-profits or local

governments throughout the state. These

organizations place volunteers with

local organizations. Each level is a

grantee for civil rights purposes.

Federal financial assistance includes

funds, property or services, including

technical assistance, provided to nonfederal organizations to promote

activities serving the public interest. For

civil rights purposes, it also includes aid

that enhances the ability to improve or

expand allocation of a grantee’s own

resources. This may be through the

services of, or training by, service

members or volunteers or federal

personnel at no cost or at less than full

market value. Therefore, assignment of

service members or volunteers

(including VISTA or NCCC)—whether

supported, in whole or in part, under a

Corporation grant or through an

Education Award Program—is a form of

federal financial assistance.

The definition of the ‘‘program or

activity’’ receiving federal financial

assistance is quite broad and for most

organizations extends beyond their

national service program. For example,

it includes all operations of a

department, agency or district of a State

or local government; a college,

university, local education agency; and

an entire corporation or private

organization which is principally

engaged in providing education, health

care, housing, social services, or parks

and recreation when any part of these

entities receives federal financial

assistance.

A grantee may receive financial

assistance directly from us or through

another grantee. A grantee may be a

Native American tribe. While tribes

have sovereign immunity in many

respects, when they receive federal

financial assistance, by the terms of the

grant, they agree to comply with the

civil rights requirements in the

operation of their national service

programs.

4. Who Are Beneficiaries? Why Are They

Beneficiaries? What Rights Do They

Have?

Service members and volunteers are

beneficiaries of federally assisted

programs. They receive a stipend, an

allowance for living expenses, an

education award or post-service stipend,

child care or child care allowance, and/

or health care coverage, or cost

reimbursements paid in whole or in

part, directly or indirectly, by the

Corporation. Former service members or

volunteers and service member and

volunteer applicants are also

beneficiaries as it relates to their

connection to a national service

program funded by the Corporation.

The persons served by the service

members and volunteers (including

AmeriCorps*NCCC members) are

beneficiaries of federally assisted

programs. They receive benefits, be it

tutoring, housing, employment, or

substance abuse counseling,

immunizations, personal living

assistance, etc. which they would not

have but for the national service

programs funded in whole or in part by

the Corporation. Persons previously

served or applying to be served by

service members and volunteers are also

beneficiaries.

The persons served, eligible to be

served, or previously served by other

programs and activities of the grantee

are also beneficiaries of federally

assisted programs. They receive benefits

from a recipient of federal financial

assistance, so by definition they are

beneficiaries. Similarly, members of the

public who receive or are eligible to

receive benefits or services from our

grantees are beneficiaries.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3551

All beneficiaries of federal financial

assistance have the right not to be

subjected to prohibited discrimination.

In the LEP context, this means they have

the right to have the grantee take

reasonable steps to provide meaningful

access to its programs and activities to

enable LEP persons to participate. All

beneficiaries also have the right to file

a discrimination complaint with the

Corporation if he or she believes

discrimination has occurred.

5. Can We Presume That Service

Members or Volunteers Must Be

Proficient in English?

No. Programs should assess whether

individuals with limited English

proficiency can effectively serve in their

programs with or without language

assistance. Programs may not deny

access on the basis of lack of English

proficiency unless providing language

assistance would fundamentally alter

the nature of their program or

unreasonably burden the organization.

There may be programs where the

member or volunteer must be proficient

in English, but in some of the

Corporation’s programs such as Senior

Companions, limited English

proficiency may not hinder the ability to

serve. Individuals who speak the

language of one of the minority groups

within a community, even when they

are LEP, may effectively help to serve

the community.

6. If a Grantee Is Covered by a State or

Local ‘‘English-only’’ Law, Must It Still

Comply With the Title VI Obligation and

Corporation Guidance Interpreting That

Obligation?

Yes. State and local laws may provide

additional obligations to serve LEP

individuals, but cannot compel grantees

to violate Title VI. For instance, given

our constitutional structure, State or

local ‘‘English-only’’ laws do not relieve

an entity that receives federal funding or

other financial assistance from its

responsibilities under federal antidiscrimination laws. Entities in States

and localities with ‘‘English-only’’ laws

are certainly not required to accept

federal funding—but if they do, they

have to comply with Title VI, including

its prohibition against national origin

discrimination by recipients of federal

assistance. Failing to make federally

assisted programs and activities

accessible to individuals who are LEP

will, in certain circumstances, violate

Title VI.

C. LEP Requirements

1. What Are the Basic Requirements

Under Title VI for LEP Persons?

The basic requirement is to provide

meaningful access for LEP persons to a

grantee’s programs and activities. There

is no ‘‘one size fits all’’ solution for

providing meaningful access, and our

assessment of a grantee’s compliance

will be made on a case-by-case basis. A

grantee will have considerable

flexibility in determining precisely how

to fulfill this obligation, and we will

focus on the grantee’s end result. The

key to providing meaningful access is to

ensure that the grantee and the LEP

person can communicate effectively.

Effective communication means the LEP

person is:

• Able to understand the services and

benefits available;

• Able to receive those benefits for

which he or she is eligible; and

• Able to effectively communicate the

relevant circumstances of his or her

situation to the service provider.

The type of language assistance

provided depends on a variety of

factors, including:

• Number or proportion of LEP

individuals in the service area;

• Frequency of contact with LEP

language groups;

• Nature and importance of the

program or activity; and

total resources available to the recipient.

2. What Are the Basic Elements of an

Effective Language Assistance Program?

Effective language assistance

programs usually contain four elements:

• Assessment;

• Comprehensive written policy;

• Staff training; and

• Monitoring.

Failure to incorporate or implement

one or more elements does not

necessarily mean noncompliance with

Title VI, and we will focus on whether

meaningful access is achieved. Further,

if implementation of one or more

accessibility options would be so

financially burdensome as to defeat the

legitimate objectives of a grantee’s

program, the grantee will not be found

in noncompliance with Title VI.

3. How Does a Grantee Assess the

Language Needs of the Affected

Population (the First Key for Ensuring

Meaningful Access to LEP Persons)?

A grantee assesses language needs by

considering a variety of factors,

including the total resources and size of

the recipient/covered entity, the number

or proportion of the eligible LEP

population it serves, the nature and

importance of the program or service,

including the objectives of the program,

the total resources available to the

recipient/covered entity, and the

frequency with which particular

languages are encountered and the

frequency with which LEP persons

come into contact with the program.

Assessing the number or proportion of

the eligible LEP population may be done

through review of census data, client

utilization data from client files, data

from local school systems and

community agencies and organizations,

or other sources. Grantees are

encouraged to identify local

organizations that serve the LEP

populations in their community.

Collaborations with these organizations

may not only assist in assessing

language needs, but may improve

outreach to and recruitment from the

communities they serve.

4. What Should Be Included in a

Comprehensive Written Policy and

Procedures on Language Access (the

Second Key for Ensuring Meaningful

Access to LEP Persons)?

Presuming the assessment reveals

more than merely a few LEP persons

being served or eligible to be served or

likely to be directly affected by the

program, a grantee should develop and

implement a language assistance policy,

including implementation procedures.

The policy should be comprehensive

and should be in writing. It should

address periodic staff training and

monitoring the effectiveness of the

program. Ideally, a range of oral

language assistance options should be

included, and it should provide for

translation of vital written materials in

certain circumstances. (See D.2.)

The implementation procedures

should be comprehensive, should be in

writing, and should include:

• How to identify and assess the

language needs of LEP persons, and to

record this information in individual

client files, as applicable;

• How to notify LEP persons, in a

language they can understand, of their

right to receive free language assistance;

• Identify where in the program or

activity language assistance is likely to

be needed;

• Identify what resources are likely to

be needed, their location, and their

availability;

• How to access these resources to

provide language assistance in a timely

manner.

3552 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

5. How Does a Grantee Effectively Train

Its Staff Regarding the Policy and

Procedures (the Third Key for Ensuring

Meaningful Access to LEP Persons)?

A grantee must disseminate its policy

to all employees, especially to those

likely to have contact with LEP persons.

It must also periodically train its

employees. Effective training ensures

that employees are knowledgeable and

aware of LEP policies and procedures,

are trained to work effectively with inperson and telephone interpreters, and

understand the dynamics of

interpretation between clients,

providers and interpreters. Training

should be part of the orientation for new

employees, and all employees in client

contact positions need to receive

additional training. For

AmeriCorps*State/National grantees,

State Commissions request Professional

Development and Training Funds

(PDAT) funds to provide professional

development and training for

AmeriCorps staff. To support the LEP

initiatives, funds might be used for

activities that train AmeriCorps staff

about best practices for working with

LEP members, and for building the

language capacity of LEP AmeriCorps

members.

6. How Does a Grantee Effectively

Monitor and Evaluate Its Language

Assistance Program To Ensure It

Provides Meaningful Access to LEP

Persons (the Fourth Key for Ensuring

Meaningful Access to LEP Persons)?

A grantee should monitor its language

assistance program at least annually. As

part of the monitoring, the grantee

should seek feedback from clients and

advocates. The monitoring and

evaluation should:

• Assess the current LEP makeup of

its service area and frequency of contact

with LEP language groups;

• Assess the current communication

needs of LEP applicants and clients;

• Determine whether existing

assistance is meeting the needs of such

persons;

• Evaluate whether staff is

knowledgeable about the policy and

procedures and how to implement

them; and

• Determine whether sources of and

arrangements for assistance are still

current and viable.

D. Specific LEP Implementation

Methods, Their Pros and Cons

1. What Does a Grantee Need To Know

About Providing Trained and

Competent Interpreters?

Meaningful access to programs and

activities includes providing trained

and competent interpreters and other

oral language assistance services in a

timely manner. This may include taking

some or all of the following steps:

• Bilingual Staff—Hire bilingual staff

for critical direct client contact

positions (such as emergency room

intake personnel). Bilingual staff must

be trained and must demonstrate

competence as interpreters.

• Staff Interpreters—Hire paid staff

interpreters, especially when there is a

frequent and/or regular need for

interpreting services. These persons

must be competent and readily

available.

• Contract Interpreters—Use contract

interpreters, especially when there is an

infrequent need for interpreting

services, when less common LEP

language groups are in the service areas,

or when there is a need to supplement

in-house capabilities on an as-needed

basis. Contract interpreters must be

readily available and competent.

• Community Volunteers—Use

community volunteers. While

volunteers may be cost-effective, to use

them effectively, grantees must enter

into formal arrangements for

interpreting services with community

organizations so the organizations are

not subjected to ad hoc requests for

assistance. Volunteers must be

competent as interpreters and

understand their obligation to maintain

client confidentiality. Additional

language assistance must be provided

where competent volunteers are not

readily available during all hours of

service. (NOTE: Except in the conditions

explained at the end of this section, use

of family member volunteers, especially

children, is never appropriate, and, even

if a child speaks English, the parent

must be able to fully understand in

order to provide informed consent for

medical services or participation in

program activities.)

• Telephone Interpreter Lines—

Utilize a telephone interpreter service

line, as a supplemental system or when

a grantee encounters a language that it

cannot otherwise accommodate. Such a

service often offers interpreting

assistance in many different languages

and usually can provide the service in

quick response to a request. However,

the interpreters may not be familiar with

the terminology peculiar to the

particular program or service. (Note: this

should not be the only language

assistance option used, except where

other language assistance options are

unavailable (e.g., in a rural clinic visited

by an LEP patient who speaks a

language that is not usually encountered

in the area).)

In order to provide effective services

to LEP persons, a grantee must ensure

that it uses persons who are competent

to provide interpreter services.

Competency does not necessarily mean

formal certification as an interpreter,

though certification is helpful, but

competency requires more than selfidentification as bilingual. The

competency requirement contemplates:

• Demonstrated proficiency in both

English and the other language;

• Orientation and training that

includes the skills and ethics of

interpreting (e.g. issues of

confidentiality);

• Fundamental knowledge in both

languages of any specialized terms or

concepts peculiar to the grantee’s

program or activity;

• Sensitivity to the LEP person’s

culture; and

• A demonstrated ability to

accurately convey information in both

languages.

A grantee may expose itself to liability

under Title VI if it requires, suggests, or

encourages an LEP person to use

friends, minor children, or family

members as interpreters, as this could

compromise the effectiveness of the

service. Use of such persons could

result in a breach of confidentiality or

reluctance on the part of individuals to

reveal personal information critical to

their situations. In a medical setting,

this reluctance could have serious, even

life threatening, consequences. In

addition, family and friends usually are

not competent to act as interpreters,

since they are often insufficiently

proficient in both languages, unskilled

in interpretation, and unfamiliar with

specialized terminology.

If, after a grantee informs an LEP

person of the right to free interpreter

services, the person declines such

services and requests the use of a family

member or friend, the grantee may use

the family member or friend, if the use

of such a person would not compromise

the effectiveness of services or violate

the LEP person’s confidentiality. The

grantee should document the offer and

declination in the LEP person’s file.

Even if an LEP person elects to use a

family member or friend, the grantee

should suggest that a trained interpreter

sit in on the encounter to ensure

accurate interpretation.

2. What Does a Grantee Need to Know

About Providing Translation of Written

Materials?

An effective language assistance

program may include providing

translation of certain written materials.

For instance, written materials routinely

provided in English to applicants,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3553

clients and the public should be

available in regularly encountered

languages other than English. Spanish,

Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and

Korean are the major languages spoken

by non-English speaking persons in the

U.S. It is particularly important to

ensure that vital documents are

translated into the non-English language

of each regularly encountered LEP

group eligible to be served or likely to

be directly affected by the grantee’s

program. Examples of vital documents

include:

• Applications for benefits or

services;

• Consent forms;

• Documents containing important

information regarding participation in a

program (such as descriptions of

eligibility for tutoring, assignment of a

Senior Companion, instructions for

filing for reimbursement of expenses,

application for health care or child care

benefits);

• Notices pertaining to the reduction,

denial or termination of services or

benefits, or to the right to appeal such

actions or that require a response from

beneficiaries;

• The member contract, job

description, and an explanation of the

Grievance Procedure;

• Notices advising LEP persons of the

availability of free language assistance;

and

• Other outreach materials.

In contrast, documents prepared for a

selected portion of the public, such as

laws, regulations, and detailed policy

manuals, may not be a priority for

translation and perhaps only short

summaries of the contents are needed.

When making decisions about doing

written translation of documents, it is

important to consider the level of

literacy in the ethnic community’s first

language. If a document is translated in

writing for a community with high rates

of first language illiteracy, access for

LEP individuals may still be denied.

Meaningful access may require making

the information available in an oral

format.

It is important to ensure that the

person translating the materials is well

qualified. Verbatim translations may not

accurately or appropriately convey the

substance of what is contained in the

written materials. An effective way to

address this potential problem is to

reach out to community-based

organizations to review translated

materials to ensure that they are

accurate and easily understood by LEP

persons. Recent technological advances

have made it easier to store translated

documents. It is advisable to maintain a

data base of translated documents, to

avoid the cost and time of repeated

translations of the same document.

3. Is Corporation Funding Available to

Assist With the Cost of Translation?

The cost of translation may be an

allowable cost of a grant.

Grant funds are not available for

AmeriCorps*NCCC project sponsors.

4. What Does a Grantee Need to Know

About Effectively Notifying LEP Persons

of Their Right to Language Assistance

and of the Availability of Language

Assistance Free of Charge?

For a language assistance program to

be effective, LEP persons need to know

they have the right to receive language

assistance, and that the language

assistance will be provided at no charge

to them. Effective notification methods

include, but are not limited to:

• Posting and maintaining signs in

regularly encountered languages other

than English in waiting rooms,

reception areas and other initial points

of entry. In order to be effective, these

signs must inform applicants and

beneficiaries of their right to free

language assistance services and invite

them to identify themselves as persons

needing such services.

• Including statements about the

services available and the right to free

language assistance services, in

appropriate non-English languages, in

brochures, booklets, outreach and

recruitment information and other

materials that are routinely

disseminated to the public.

• Providing this information to

advocacy organizations, faith-based

organizations, and societies providing

services to LEP persons in the

community.

5. What Other Innovative Methods Are

There To Provide Meaningful Access to

LEP Persons?

• Simultaneous Translation—This

allows a grantee and client to

communicate using wireless remote

headsets while a trained competent

interpreter, located in a separate room,

provides simultaneous interpreting

services. The interpreter can be miles

away, and thereby reduces delays since

the interpreter does not have to travel to

the grantee’s facility. In addition, a

grantee that operates more than one

facility can deliver interpreter services

to all facilities using this central bank of

interpreters, as long as each facility is

equipped with the proper technology.

• Language Banks—In several parts of

the country, both urban and rural,

community organizations and providers

have created community language banks

that train, hire and dispatch competent

interpreters to participating

organizations, reducing the need to have

on-staff interpreters for low demand

languages. These language banks are

frequently nonprofit and charge

reasonable rates. This approach is

particularly appropriate where there is a

scarcity of language services or where

there is a large variety of language

needs.

• Language Support Office—This is

an office that tests and certifies all inhouse and contract interpreters,

provides agency-wide support for

translation of forms, client mailings,

publications and other written materials

into non-English languages, and

monitors the policies of the agency and

its vendors that affect LEP persons.

• Multicultural Delivery Project—

This is a project that finds interpreters

for immigrants and other LEP persons.

It uses community outreach workers to

work with LEP clients and can be used

by employees in solving cultural and

language issues. A multicultural

advisory committee helps to keep the

county in touch with community needs.

• Pamphlets—The pamphlets are

intended to facilitate basic

communication between clients and

staff as they await receipt of interpreter

services. They are not intended to

replace interpreters but may aid in

increasing the comfort level of LEP

persons as they wait for services.

E. Compliance Monitoring

1. By What Mechanisms Does the

Corporation Ensure its Grantees Comply

With These LEP Requirements?

The Corporation uses or may use a

variety of mechanisms to monitor

compliance with civil rights

requirements, including LEP

requirements, by its grantees. These

include review of grant application

submissions, pre-award and/or postaward compliance reviews (desk audit

or on-site), discrimination complaint

investigations, and information gathered

during outreach and technical

assistance activities. Other federal

agencies often provide far more

monetary federal assistance to its

grantees than does the Corporation.

Each federal agency extending federal

financial assistance maintains

mechanisms to ensure compliance with

Title VI and its implementing

regulations. Compliance determinations

by larger federal agencies are given great

weight by the Corporation, and grantees

receiving substantial federal financial

assistance from agencies such as the

U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, the U.S. Department of

Education, the U.S. Department of

3554 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

Veteran’s Affairs, the U.S. Department

of Justice, and the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development

should make sure to be familiar with the

Title VI enforcement mechanisms of all

federal agencies. If the Corporation

receives a complaint alleging failure to

provide effective access to LEP persons,

we may refer it for processing to a larger

federal agency who also funds the

grantee. However, under these

circumstances, we maintain our

authority to independently determine a

grantee’s compliance.

2. What Can Happen to a Grantee if Its

Actions Are Determined by the

Corporation’s EO Office To Be

Discriminatory?

The Corporation is obligated to take

appropriate action regarding any grantee

that does not comply with the civil

rights laws, implementing regulations

and policies. If the Equal Opportunity

Director finds that a grantee has

discriminated, it is in noncompliance

with the civil rights laws. If the grantee

refuses to voluntarily correct the

noncompliance, the Corporation may

pursue a number of options, including

suspension, termination or the

discontinuation of aid. The ultimate

sanction may be termination of all

federal funding to the program or

activity.

However, the purpose of the civil

rights laws is to achieve compliance

with the laws, not to terminate federal

funding to programs. Therefore, we

make great efforts to encourage our

grantees to voluntarily comply with the

laws.

3. What Responsibilities and Liabilities

Do Primary Grantees Have When a

Subgrantee Discriminates?

A primary grantee extends federal

financial assistance to subgrantees. A

primary grantee has continuing

oversight responsibilities for ensuring

the operations of each of its subgrantees

comply with the civil rights laws. When

reviewing grant proposals, the primary

grantee should consider whether

applicants for subgrants have identified

a means for providing access to LEP

persons. During the term of the grant,

the primary grantee should monitor the

provision of meaningful access in the

same manner that it monitors

compliance with other grant provisions.

When a beneficiary claims a

subgrantee has discriminated, the

primary grantee should take action to

bring the subgrantee into voluntary

compliance, and take appropriate action

when a subgrantee does not voluntarily

comply. In cases of noncompliance,

appropriate action may include but is

not limited to:

• Providing relief to the beneficiary;

• Submitting reports of any internal

investigation to our EO Director for

review;

• Initiating action to terminate,

suspend, or refuse to grant federal

financial assistance to the

discriminatory subgrantee; and

• Notifying our EO Director of the

subgrantee’s noncompliant status so our

EO Office may take appropriate action,

including notifying other federal

granting agencies.

4. May Our EO Director Restore

Compliant Status When a Grantee

Remedies Violations?

Yes. Our EO Director may restore a

grantee to compliant status if it satisfies

terms and conditions established by the

Corporation, or if it otherwise brings

itself into compliance and provides

reasonable assurance of future

compliance.

Examples of Promising Practices That

Provide Access to LEP Persons

The Association of Farmworker

Opportunity Programs AmeriCorps

program recruits former farmworkers to

serve as AmeriCorps members. Most

members are bilingual, and many are

LEP. Members are encouraged to take

English as a Second Language classes as

a part of their member development

plan. The program provides pesticide

safety training to farmworkers and their

families. Members conduct the training

in Spanish.

The program uses the following

techniques to ensure that members

understand their terms of service and

benefits:

b Recruiting posters, flyers and the

Member Service Contract are

provided in Spanish.

b AmeriCorps project staff are bilingual

(Spanish/English).

b Orientation training is provided in

Spanish and English.

b Conference calls are held in Spanish

when all members speak Spanish.

b Two bilingual second-year members

led a team of members that

communicated about their service

projects exclusively in Spanish.

b Members had to be bilingual, but did

not require English as the first

language.

b Recruitment took place at the local

field office level, and candidates

were often from the farmworker

community.

The Parents Making a Difference

AmericCorps program recruits a diverse

corps including many bilingual

members to provide outreach to parents

in low-income school communities.

Members translate at parent-teacher

conferences, call parents about absent

children, and organize a wide variety of

parent-oriented outreach and

educational activities.

‘‘Classroom in the Kitchen’’ gives

parents tips on how to support the

educational growth of their children in

their homes. Diverse language abilities

and cultural knowledge is extremely

important in this regard. The range of

English proficiency is varied, allowing

members to help each other, and

communication about program activities

is largely bilingual.

The program provides EnglishSecond-Language classes for LEP

AmericCorps members as part of their

Member Development Plan. (This

language support is required by the

Rhode Island Commission for all

AmericCorps programs, in the same

vein as the GED training requirement.)

The Temple University Center for

Intergenerational Learning, Students

Helping in the Naturalization of Elders

(SHINE) program. SHINE is a national,

multicultural, intergenerational servicelearning initiative in five cities. College

students provide language, literacy, and

citizenship tutoring to elderly

immigrants and refugees. Currently,

students serve as coaches in ESL/

citizenship classes or as tutors in

community centers, temples, churches,

housing developments, and ethnic

organizations.

Northeastern University, San

Francisco State University, Loyola

University, Florida International

University and Temple University are

involved with SHINE. Students

participate through courses, work study,

and campus volunteer organizations.

SHINE program coordinators partner

with local community organizations;

recruit, train, place, and monitor

students at community sites; and

provide support and technical

assistance.

Since 1997, more than 60 faculty from

education, social work, anthropology,

political science, modern languages,

sociology, English, Latino, and Asian

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

1,000 students provided over 25,000

hours of instruction to 3,500 older

learners at 37 sites in Boston, San

Francisco, Chicago, Miami, and

Philadelphia.

The Albuquerque Senior Companion

Program (SCP), sponsored by the City of

Albuquerque, Department of Senior

Affairs, serves a diverse senior

population with Native American,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3555

Hispanic, and Anglo volunteers. Senior

Companions assist the frail elderly with

household tasks and companionship.

Ten of its volunteer stations are

located on Pueblos. Each Pueblo has its

own language. The program works

closely with its site managers/

supervisors who are bilingual

employees of the individual Pueblo

governments and generally are residents

of the Pueblos. Senior Companions

serve on their own Pueblos and walk to

the homes of their clients.

Due to language and cultural barriers

these supervisors assist with all areas of

the program. They are familiar with the

population in their individual Pueblos

and use this knowledge to assist with

recruitment, placement, and training.

Each Pueblo celebrates ‘‘Days of Feast’’

separately. In order to honor individual

feasts, the program has adjusted the

‘‘leave time’’ for Pueblo volunteers.

Each volunteer is given paid leave to

celebrate his or her Pueblo’s feast. This

is one of the ways the program remains

culturally sensitive.

ACCION International, a VISTA

project sponsor, is a nonprofit that fights

poverty through microlending. ACCION

Chicago did outreach to home-based

businesses that rarely have access to

capital. A VISTA found that many of the

women make ends meet through

programs such as Mary Kay cosmetics.

The VISTA worked with the ACCION

loan officer to develop a loan product

specifically for these women and has

organized bilingual information sessions

throughout Chicago neighborhoods.

Bring New Jersey Together is an

AmeriCorps program in Jersey City,

New Jersey that seeks to bridge the

cultural and linguistic barriers

separating new Americans from the rest

of the community. AmeriCorps

members serve LEP community

members by translating documents and

escorting them to places such as

medical appointments, the grocery

stores, or anywhere else where a

translator may be necessary. The

primary languages of the program are

Spanish, Russian, and Vietnamese, but

also Albanian, Creole, Indian languages,

and others depending on the influx of

refugees.

The New Jersey Commission built a

partnership with the International

Institute of New Jersey, which had

provided services to the immigrant

community for fifty years, to establish

an AmeriCorps program that served the

needs of the community. The best

practice aspect of this example is that

program was designed in partnership

with an established organization instead

of starting a brand new AmeriCorps

project to address this issue.

The Honolulu Chinese Citizenship

Tutorial Program is a service-learning

project site in the Champus Compact

National Center for Community Colleges

‘‘2+4=Service on Common Ground’’.

The University of Hawai’i at Monoa’s

College of Social Sciences collaborated

with the Kapl’olani Community College,

Chaminade University, the Chinese

Community Action Coalition and Child

and Family Service.

Local bilingual college students serve

as tutors (during a 10-week session) for

Chinese immigrants to help them pass

their citizenship exams. The immigrants

are recruits by visiting adult education

classes, through Chinese radio

programs, flyers, and Chinese language

newspapers. The Chinese Community

Action Coalition provides the

curriculum and resources such as

Scrabble, books, word-picture matching

games, and card games for constructing

simple English sentences.

The tutorial sessions focus on passing

the INS exam and conversational

English. Many of the immigrants are

senior citizens. The classes are held in

Chinatown. Since the project began,

about 1,000 immigrants and refugees

have enrolled. Over 300 students have

participated as tutors and approximately

one-third of the Chinese immigrants

became citizens.

Transitional House, Santa Barbara,

C.A., is a facility that primarily serves

homeless Hispanic women. The services

are tailored to meet the needs of each

family to help women and their

children move from homelessness and

unemployment to employment and

permanent housing. The VISTAs

assigned to the project are bilingual. The

clientele is 60% monolingual Spanish

speakers.

The VISTAs are creating a Career

Development Curriculum that is fully

translated into Spanish and members

host seminars about immigration and

consumer credit counseling services.

There was a need to improve

communication with clients. One of the

VISTAs developed ‘‘halfsheets’’, one

side in Spanish, the other in English,

that explain the services offered by

Transition House.

The VISTAs are responsible for

placement of children in daycare to

enable parents to work. They

accompany families to childcare

providers to assist with translation and

to help make the families feel at ease

with placing their children in childcare.

Dated: January 9, 2001.

Wendy Zenker,

Chief Operating Officer, Corporation for

National and Community Service.

[FR Doc. 01–1171 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6050–28–U

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting

Pursuant to the provision of the

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5

U.S.C. § 552b), notice is hereby given of

the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board’s (Board) meeting described

below.

TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 9 a.m.,

February 13, 2001.

PLACE: The Defense Nuclear Facilities

Safety Board, Public Hearing Room, 625

Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 300,

Washington, DC 20004.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

(‘‘Board’’) will convene the fourteenth

quarterly briefing regarding the status of

progress of the activities associated with

the Department of Energy’s

Implementation Plan for the Board’s

Recommendations 95–2, Integrated

Safety Management (‘‘ISM’’). Specific

topics will include the status of ISM

implementation in the DOE complex

and key actions at DOE Headquarters to

fully implement ISM. The status of

implementing Recommendation 98–1,

Integrated Safety Management

(Response to Issues Identified by the

Office of Internal Oversight) will also be

presented. Specific matters related to

Recommendation 98–1 will include the

status of the Corrective Action

Management team, the corrective action

tracking system, and the

implementation of issues identified

during the Recommendation 98–1

verification review. Finally, the status of

implementing Recommendation 2000–2,

Configuration Management, Vital Safety

Systems, will be discussed. Topics will

include the Recommendation 2000–2

Executive Team membership, roles and

responsibilities, as well as the status of

commitments in the Recommendation

2000–2 Implementation Plan.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Richard A. Azzaro, General Counsel,

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,

625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700,

Washington, DC 20004, (800) 788–4016.

This is a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

reserves its right to further schedule and