4026 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

holidays. The PIRIB telephone number

is (703) 305–5805.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

The Agency is publishing guidance

for appropriate first aid language for

pesticide product labels. The Agency

has received updated information for

first aid statements and believes current

pesticide product labels should be

revised to reflect this information. The

Agency, as a result of comments

submitted in response to an earlier PR

notice published in the Federal Register

on April 19, 2000 (65 FR 20978) (FRL–

6552–2), has extended the deadline

until October 1, 2003, for when the

Agency expects to see these revised

statements and has made other changes

to clarify the Agency’s intent.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, First aid,

Labeling, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: December 28, 2000.

Marcia E. Mulkey

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 01–1053 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6933–7]

Ward Transformer Superfund Site

Notice of Prospective Purchaser

Agreement Raleigh, Wake County, NC

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement.

SUMMARY: Under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) proposes to enter into a

‘‘Prospective Purchaser Agreement’’

(P.A.) concerning property that has been

potentially contaminated by releases

from the Ward Transformer Superfund

Site (Ward Site) in Raleigh, Wake

County, North Carolina (P.A. Property).

EPA proposes to enter into the P.A. with

Brier Creek Commons LP (Brier Creek

LP). The P.A. obligates Brier Creek LP

to cooperate fully with any response

action EPA may take on the P.A.

Property. The P.A. resolves Brier Creek

LP’s potential liability for the Existing

Contamination at the Ward Site and/or

the P.A. Property which may otherwise

result from it obtaining an easement

across the P.A. Property and

constructing a roadway. This protection

is contingent upon Brier Creek LP

fulfilling its obligations under the P.A.

EPA will consider public comments on

the proposed settlement for thirty (30)

days.

EPA may withdraw from or modify

the proposed settlement should such

comments disclose facts or

considerations which indicate the

proposed settlement is inappropriate,

improper or inadequate. Copies of the

proposed settlement are available from:

Ms. Paula V. Bachelor, Waste

Management Division, U.S. EPA, Region

4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–

3104, 404/562–8887.

Written comments may be submitted

to Ms. Bachelor at the address noted

above within thirty (30) calendar days of

the date of this publication.

Dated: December 27, 2000.

James T. Miller,

Acting Chief, CERCA Program Services

Branch, Waste Management Division.

[FR Doc. 01–1348 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

Office for Civil Rights; Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964; Limited

English Proficiency Policy Guidance

for Recipients of Federal Financial

Assistance

AGENCY: Office of Civil Rights, GSA.

ACTION: Notice of policy guidance with

request for comment.

SUMMARY: The General Services

Administration (GSA) is publishing

policy guidance on Title VI’s

prohibition against national origin

discrimination as it affects limited

English proficient persons. GSA

provides this policy guidance for its

recipients of Federal financial assistance

to ensure meaningful access to federally

assisted programs and activities for

persons with Limited English

Proficiency (LEP). This policy guidance

does not create new obligations, but

rather, clarifies existing responsibilities

under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, its implementing

regulations and relevant case law.

DATES: This guidance is effective

immediately. Comments must be

submitted on or before March 20, 2001.

The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) will

review all comments and will determine

what modifications to the policy

guidance, if any, are necessary.

ADDRESSEES: Interested persons should

submit written comments to Office of

Civil Rights (AK), Room 5127, General

Services Administration, 1800 F Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20405. Comments

may also be submitted by e-mail at

evelyn.britton@gsa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James M. Taylor or K. Evelyn Britton,

Office of Civil Rights, Room 5127,

General Services Administration, 1800 F

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405,

telephone 202–501–0767 or 1–800–662–

6376; TDD 1–888–267–7660.

Arrangements to receive the policy

guidance in an alternative format may

be made by contacting the named

individuals.

Dated: January 10, 2001.

Madeline Caliendo,

Associate Administrator, Office of Civil

Rights, General Services Administration.

Policy Guidance

1. Subject. Limited English

proficiency policy guidance for

recipients of Federal financial

assistance.

2. Purpose. General Services

Administration (GSA) provides this

policy guidance for its recipients of

Federal financial assistance to ensure

meaningful access to federally assisted

programs and activities for persons with

Limited English Proficiency (LEP). This

policy guidance does not create new

obligations, but rather, clarifies existing

responsibilities under Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, its

implementing regulations and relevant

case law.

3. Dates: This guidance is effective

immediately. Comments are welcome

and must be submitted on or before

sixty (60) days from the date of this

publication. GSA will review all

comments and will determine what

modifications to the policy guidance, if

any, are necessary.

4. Policy. To improve access to

federally assisted programs and

activities for persons who, as a result of

national origin, are limited in their

English proficiency.

5. Action Required. All recipients of

Federal financial assistance from GSA

are to develop an effective plan, in

writing, for ensuring meaningful access

to their programs and activities by LEP

persons, consistent with this guidance.

6. Background Information. English is

the predominant language of the United

States. According to the 1990 Census,

English is spoken by 95% of its

residents. Of those U.S. residents who

speak languages other than English at

home, the 1990 Census reports that 57%

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4027

above the age of four speak English

‘‘well to very well.’’

The United States is also home to

millions of national origin minority

individuals who are LEP. That is, their

primary language is not English and

they cannot speak, read, write or

understand the English language at a

level that permits them to interact

effectively with recipients of Federal

financial assistance. Because of

language differences and the inability to

effectively speak or understand English,

persons with LEP may be subject to

exclusion from programs or activities,

experience delays or denials of services/

benefits, or receive care and services/

benefits from recipients of Federal

financial assistance based on inaccurate

or incomplete information.

Executive Order 13166 (65 FR 50119)

dated August 11, 2000 and policy

guidance issued by Department of

Justice (DOJ) on August 11, 2000 (65 FR

50123), address the responsibility of all

recipients of Federal financial assistance

to ensure meaningful access for persons

with LEP. GSA refers to and

incorporates DOJ’s policy guidance for

recipients as part of this policy

guidance, and for the purpose of

determining compliance with this

policy guidance, within the scope of

Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964, as

amended, its implementing regulations

and relevant case law.

This policy guidance establishes a

four-step process that recipients should

follow in developing an effective LEP

assistance plan. A key element in this

process is stakeholder input. Therefore,

recipients should coordinate with local

community-based organizations (i.e.,

stakeholders) that represent populations

of LEP persons. These organizations can

provide valuable input and assistance in

identifying and addressing the LEP

needs of the serviced population. This

coordinated effort will assist in

developing a practical approach in

providing appropriate LEP assistance

that is reasonable and cost-effective.

Some organizations representing LEP

persons may include the National

Council of La Raza (NCLR), the League

of United Latin American Citizens

(LULAC), the National Council of Asian

Pacific Americans (NCAPA), the

Organization of Chinese Americans

(OCA), the National Congress of

American Indians (NCAI), the National

Urban League (NUL), the National

Association for the Advancement of

Colored People (NAACP), Mexican

American Legal Defense and

Educational Fund, Arab American AntiDiscrimination Committee and National

Coalition for Haitian Rights. This is not

meant to be an exhaustive listing, and

different community-based or national

origin minority organizations may be

available in a recipient’s serviced area.

7. Legal Authority. The legal authority

for OCR’s enforcement actions is Title

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, GSA’s

implementing regulations, and a

consistent body of case law, and is

further described below.

Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section

2000d et. seq. states: ‘‘No person in the

United States 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.’’

State and local laws may provide

additional obligations to serve LEP

individuals, but cannot compel

recipients of Federal financial assistance

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

from its responsibilities under Federal

anti-discrimination laws. Entities in

States and localities with ‘‘Englishonly’’ 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. Thus,

failing to make federally assisted

programs and activities accessible to

individuals who are LEP will, in certain

circumstances, violate Title VI.

GSA’s implementation regulations

provide, in part, at 41 CFR 101–6.204–

1:

No person in the United States shall, on

the ground of race, color, or national origin,

be excluded from participation in, be denied

the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to

discrimination under any program to which

this subpart applies.

Specific discriminatory actions

prohibited are addressed at 41 CFR 101–

6.204–2:

(a)(1) In connection with any program to

which this subpart applies, a recipient may

not, directly or through contractual or other

arrangements, on the ground of race, color, or

national origin:

(i) Deny an individual any services/

benefits, financial aid, or other benefit

provided under the program;

(ii) Provide any service, financial aid, or

other benefit to any individual which is

different, or is provided in a different

manner, from that provided to others under

the program;

(iii) Subject an individual to segregation or

separate treatment in any matter related to

his receipt of any service, financial aid, or

other benefit under the program;

(iv) Restrict 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;

(v) Treat an individual differently from

others in determining whether he satisfies

any admission, enrollment, quota, eligibility,

membership or other requirement or

condition which individuals must meet in

order to be provided any service, financial

aid, or other benefit provided under the

program;

(vi) Deny an individual an opportunity to

participate in the program through the

provision of services or otherwise, or afford

him an opportunity to do so which is

different from that afforded others under the

program * * *

Furthermore, the DOJ coordination

regulations for Title VI, located at 28

CFR 42.405(d)(1), provide that:

(1) Where a significant number or

proportion of the population eligible to be

served or likely to be directly affected by a

federally assisted program (e.g., affected by

relocation) needs service or information in a

language other than English in order

effectively to be informed of or to participate

in the program, the recipient shall take

reasonable steps, considering the scope of the

program and the size and concentration of

such population, to provide information in

appropriate languages to such persons. This

requirement applies with regard to written

material of the type which is ordinarily

distributed to the public.

Extensive case law affirms the

obligation of recipients of Federal

financial assistance to ensure that

persons with LEP can meaningfully

access federally assisted programs.

Specifically, in the case of Lau v.

Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled that a public

school system’s failure to provide

English language instruction to students

of Chinese ancestry who do not speak

English denied the students a

meaningful opportunity to participate in

a public educational program in

violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964.

More recently, the Eleventh Circuit in

Sandoval v. Hagan, 197 F.3d 484 (11th

Cir. 1999), cert. granted sub. Nom.,

Alexander v. Sandoval, 147 L. Ed. 2d

1051 (U.S. Sept. 26, 2000) (No. 99–

1908), held that the State of Alabama’s

policy of administering a driver’s

license examination in English only was

a facially neutral practice that had an

adverse effect on the basis of national

origin, in violation of Title VI. Title VI

regulations prohibit both intentional

discrimination and policies and

practices that appear neutral but have a

discriminatory effect. Thus, a recipient’s

policies or practices regarding the

provision of benefits and services to

persons with LEP need not be

4028 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

intentional to be discriminatory, but

may constitute a violation of Title VI

where they have an adverse effect on the

ability of national origin minorities to

meaningfully access programs and

services.

The DOJ states in its policy guidance

that Title VI does not require recipients

to remove language barriers when

English is an essential aspect of the

program, or there is another ‘‘substantial

legitimate justification for the

challenged practice.’’ See Footnote 13 of

DOJ’s policy guidance.

8. Federal Financial Assistance

Programs. GSA administers two major

Federal financial assistance programs,

in addition to other programs of Federal

financial assistance, such as the direct

transfer of personal property and the

allotment of space in GSA buildings.

The two major programs of Federal

financial assistance are the Federal

Surplus Personal Property Donation

Programs and the Disposal of Federal

Surplus Real Property for Public Use.

a. Federal Surplus Personal Property

Donation Program. Enables certain nonFederal agencies, institutions,

organizations and certain small

businesses to obtain property that the

Federal Government no longer needs.

The personal property includes all types

and categories of property, such as hand

and machine tools, office machines and

supplies, furniture, appliances, medical

supplies, hardware, clothing, motor

vehicles, boats, airplanes, construction

equipment, textiles, communications

and electronic equipment and gifts or

decorations given to Government

officials by foreign dignitaries.

(1) Federal surplus personal property

may be donated to nonprofit

educational and public health activities

exempt from taxation under Section 501

of the Internal Revenue Code. The

property must be used to aid education

or public health, and includes programs

for the homeless. Eligible recipients

include nonprofit educational and

public health activities, such as medical

institutions, hospitals, clinics, health

centers, and drug abuse treatment

centers; schools, colleges and

universities; schools for persons with

mental or physical disabilities; child

care centers; educational radio and

televisions licensed by the Federal

Communications Commission;

museums attended by the public; and

libraries. Nonprofit, tax-exempt

organizations that provide food, shelter,

or support services to homeless people

may also be eligible to receive surplus

property through the donation program

(i.e., soup kitchens, day centers for the

homeless, food banks, shelters for

battered spouses, half-way houses).

(2) Additionally, public agencies

involved in such activities as

conservation, economic development,

education, park and recreation

programs, public safety, public health,

programs for the elderly, and programs

for the homeless may be eligible for

donations of surplus personal property.

Public agencies generally include States,

their departments, divisions and other

instrumentalities; political subdivisions

of States, including cities, counties, and

other local Government units and

economic development districts;

instrumentalities created by compact or

other agreement between State or

political subdivisions; and Indian tribes,

bands, groups, pueblos, or communities

located on State reservations.

b. Disposal of Federal Surplus Real

Property for Public Use. Under existing

Federal law, States and local

government bodies and certain

nonprofit institutions may acquire

Federal surplus real property at

discounts of up to 100% for various

types of public use. These uses include:

homeless services, airports/ports,

correctional, educational, historic

monument, parks/recreation, public

health and wildlife conservation. These

disposals are usually accomplished in

coordination with other Federal

agencies (i.e., Department of Education

(DOE), Department of Health and

Human Services (DHHS), Department of

Transportation (DOT), Department of

Interior (DOI), Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD).

c. GSA Personal Property Utilization

Program. Government regulations

mandate that Federal agencies, to the

fullest extent practicable, use excess

personal property as the first source of

supply in meeting their requirements.

However, certain laws provide Federal

agencies with the ability to directly

transfer certain excess property to nonFederal entities. For example, Executive

Order 12999 (61 FR 17227, 3 CFR, 1996

comp., p. 180) provides that all Federal

agencies, to the extent permitted by law,

shall give highest preference to schools

and nonprofit organizations, including

community-based educational

organizations, in the transfer of

educationally useful Federal equipment.

Thus, GSA recipients in this program

include schools and certain communitybased educational organizations.

d. Allotment of Space. Under existing

Federal law, GSA may allot space for

little or no costs to Federal Credit

Unions, vending stands operated by

blind persons and child care centers.

9. Definition of Terms. The following

definitions are provided for reference.

a. Federal financial assistance. Grants

and loan of Federal funds; grants or

donation of Federal property and

interests in property; detail of Federal

personnel; sale and lease of, and the

permission to use (on other than a

casual or transient basis) Federal

property or any interest in the property

without consideration or at a nominal

consideration, or at a consideration

which is reduced for the purposes of

assisting the recipient, or in recognition

of the public interest to be served by the

sale or lease to the recipient; or any

Federal agreement, arrangement, or

other contract which has as one of its

purposes the provision of assistance.

b. Recipient: Any State or political

subdivision, any instrumentality of a

State or political subdivision, any

public or private agency, institution,

organization, or other entity, or any

person to which Federal financial

assistance is extended, directly or

through another recipient, except that

such term does not include any ultimate

beneficiary of the assistance.

c. Person with Limited English

Proficiency: A person whose primary

language is not English and whose

ability to speak, read, write or

understand the English language does

not permit effective interaction with

recipients of Federal financial

assistance.

d. Vital Documents: A document or

information will be considered vital if it

contains information that is critical for

accessing the recipient’s program(s)

and/or activities, or is required by law.

Thus, vital documents include, for

example, applications; consent forms;

letters and notices pertaining to the

reduction, denial or termination of

services or benefits; and letters or

notices that require a response from the

beneficiary or client. Generally, entire

web sites need not be translated. Only

the vital information or documents

within the web site should be

translated. See subparagraph 11b(3)

below for further discussion about web

sites.

e. Beneficiary: Individuals and/or

entities that directly or indirectly

receive an advantage through the

operation of a Federal program, (i.e., one

who is within the serviced population

of the recipient of Federal financial

assistance and who ultimately benefits

from those services.)

10. LEP Procedures and Guidelines:

Executive Order 13166 (65 FR 50119)

provides for a flexible standard stating

that recipients of Federal financial

assistance are to take reasonable steps to

ensure meaningful access to their

programs and activities by LEP persons.

Thus, it is important that all recipients

take the following steps in determining

their LEP responsibilities and providing

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4029

appropriate LEP assistance. These four

steps are more fully explained below,

and include: (1) Conduct an assessment

of the serviced population, (2) develop

written LEP assistance plans, (3)

implement the LEP plan, and (4)

monitor the effectiveness of the LEP

plan.

a. Step 1. Conduct an assessment of

the serviced population. This

assessment includes identifying the

types of service(s) being provided by the

recipient and determining the serviced

population (i.e., individuals served by

the recipient’s program(s) and

activities).

b. Step 2. Develop written LEP

assistance plans. These plans should

address the recipient’s LEP

responsibilities and the types of LEP

assistance that the recipient will

provide, consistent with this policy

guidance. Recipients are to develop a

written plan based on a balanced

analysis of the following four factors, to

ensure meaningful access for eligible

LEP persons.

(1) Factor 1: Number or Proportion of

LEP Persons. One factor in determining

the reasonableness of a recipient’s

efforts in providing LEP assistance is the

number or proportion of people who

will be excluded from the benefits or

services absent efforts to remove

language barriers. The key here is to

focus on persons who are eligible to

access the recipient’s program or

activity.

The steps reasonable for a recipient

that serves one LEP person a year may

be different than those expected of a

recipient that serves several LEP

persons per day. However, those who

serve a few are still subject to the

requirements of Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order

13166 (65 FR 50119). This plan need not

be intricate, and may be as simple as

being prepared to use one of the

commercially available language lines to

obtain interpreter services within a

reasonable period of time.

Methods of obtaining estimates of

serviced LEP population include taking

a census of contacts with LEP persons

over a given period of time or using

demographic data of the service area.

The 1990 U. S. Census information may

be found at a local library or on the

Internet at www.Census.gov. The 2000

Census data may not be available until

the 2001–02 timeframe. In addition to

the U. S. Census, other potential

resources include State and local

government offices; the Mayor’s office;

the local school superintendent’s office;

the State education department; the

State social services department, and

local hospitals; or other elected officials

offices. Combining these methods will

probably result in the most realistic and

accurate estimates.

Local or State Yellow Pages may also

be helpful in identifying organizations

that serve or represent particular

language minority populations. Local

national origin minority organizations

may be able to provide, or assist in

obtaining, certain demographic

information regarding LEP populations

in the local area. The information that

can be obtained and the network

established in coordinating this type of

effort with members of local and State

government offices and minority

organizations may prove to be valuable

resources for recipients into the future.

(2) Factor 2: Frequency of Contact

with the Program. Frequency of contacts

between the recipient’s program or

activity and LEP persons is another

factor to be weighed. For example, if

LEP persons must access the program or

activity on a daily basis, the recipient

has a greater LEP responsibility than if

such contact is unpredictable or

infrequent.

Recipients should take into account

local or regional conditions when

determining frequency of contact.

Although past experience may be

helpful in determining the frequency of

contact, it should not be used as the

exclusive criteria since the lack of prior

LEP notice and assistance may have

contributed to such minimal or nonexistent contact.

(3) Factor 3: Nature and Importance

of the Program. The importance of the

services or benefits provided to the

beneficiaries will affect the

determination of the reasonable steps

required. More affirmative steps are

required in those programs where the

denial or delay of access may have life

or death implications than in programs

that are not as crucial to one’s day-today existence. For example, fire

protection services are of more

importance to the serviced population

than access to a museum.

Recipients must also consider the

importance of the program or activity to

the eligible LEP population, both

immediately, as well as the long-term.

(i.e., what is the short-term and longterm impact to the LEP population if

translation assistance is not provided?)

(4) Factor 4: Resources Available. The

resources available to a recipient of

Federal financial assistance may impact

the steps that recipients take. For

example, a small recipient with limited

resources may not need to take the same

steps as a larger recipient to provide

LEP assistance in programs that have a

limited number of eligible LEP persons

or where the contact is infrequent.

However, small recipients are still

subject to this policy guidance, although

the type of LEP mitigation measures

may differ from that of larger recipients.

Claims of limited resources from larger

entities should be well substantiated.

A recipient that has limited resources

may consider exploring whether State

and local government offices provide

translation assistance. These offices may

provide resources for the recipient’s use.

Also, recipients may consider

contacting local minority organizations

for possible translation assistance.

c. Step 3: Implement the LEP plan.

The key to successful implementation of

an effective LEP assistance plan is to

ensure that the serviced population is

notified regarding the availability of free

LEP assistance. Also, it is important that

a recipient’s staff is aware of LEP

responsibilities and the recipient’s LEP

assistance plan.

(1) Notice of LEP assistance to be

provided. Each recipient of Federal

financial assistance is to notify the

public of available LEP assistance at no

cost to the LEP person. This may be

done through a brochure or poster in the

language(s) identified in the location(s)

where the recipient’s federally assisted

service(s) and/or benefits are being

provided. Posters should be placed in a

conspicuous place to ensure LEP

persons will see it. It may also include

posting such notice on the recipient’s

internet site(s). Sample language to use

for such notice is as follows: ‘‘Language

assistance is available upon request if

you cannot speak or write English very

well.’’

(2) Ensure staff is aware of LEP

responsibilities. Recipients are to ensure

that GSA’s policy regarding LEP

responsibilities is communicated to all

staff members whose duties may bring

them in contact with LEP persons

accessing the services and/or benefits of

the recipient. This communication

should ensure an understanding of the

types of LEP assistance being offered by

the recipient, and the mechanisms in

place for the staff to use when a request

for LEP assistance is made.

d. Step 4: Monitor the effectiveness of

the LEP plan. LEP assistance

requirements may change over a period

of time. Therefore, it is important to

regularly monitor, and when

appropriate, adjust the LEP procedures

to ensure meaningful access for persons

with LEP. New programs, activities,

forms, outreach documents, etc. should

be considered for translation services as

they arise. In addition, to be effective, it

is crucial for recipients to re-assess

language assistance services at least

every three years to determine the

effectiveness of existing assistance. This

4030 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

assessment should include a review of

LEP policies and procedures (i.e., the

LEP plan) with the recipient’s staff.

Feedback from LEP persons and

community-based organizations will

also provide helpful insights into the

effectiveness of LEP assistance

procedures.

11. Translation Requirements. In

determining what is reasonable, the

analysis should address the appropriate

mix of written and oral language

assistance. This includes information

provided using the Internet, video and

audio. When applying the four factors as

outlined above, decisions should be

made regarding which documents must

be translated, when is oral translation

necessary and whether such assistance

(i.e., oral or written translation) should

be immediately available or provided

within a reasonable period of time.

a. Oral Communication: Depending

on the need, options for providing oral

language assistance range from hiring

bilingual staff or on-staff interpreters to

contracting for interpreter services as

needed, engaging community

volunteers, or contracting with a

telephone interpreter services. Oral

communication between recipients and

beneficiaries often is a necessary part of

the exchange of information. Proper

analysis should include looking at what

kind of communication (oral or written)

you normally provide to an English

speaking person in order to fully

communicate the program to them.

Thus, there may be instances where

simply providing written translation

may not be providing meaningful access

to persons with LEP in the same manner

as that provided to non-LEP

beneficiaries.

b. Written Communication: As part of

its overall language assistance program,

a recipient’s LEP assistance plan should

provide for the translation of certain

written materials in languages other

than English, where a significant

number or percentage of the population

eligible to be served or likely to be

directly affected by the program, needs

services or information in a language

other than English to communicate

effectively. See 28 CFR 42.405(d)(1).

(1) In determining what should be

translated, identify vital documents and

non-vital documents. Vital documents

must be translated when a significant

number or percentage of the population

eligible to be served, or likely to be

directly affected by the recipient’s

program(s) or activities, seeks services

or information in a language other than

English to communicate effectively. For

many larger documents, translation of

vital information contained within the

document will suffice and the

documents need not be translated in

their entirety. Non-vital documents/

information need not be translated.

(2) OCR recognizes that it may

sometimes be difficult to draw a

distinction between vital and non-vital

documents, particularly when

considering outreach or awareness

documents. Although meaningful access

to a program or activity requires an

awareness of the program’s existence,

OCR recognizes that it would be

impossible, from a practical and costbased perspective, to translate every

piece of outreach material into every

language. Title VI does not require this

of its recipients. However, lack of

awareness regarding the existence of a

particular program may effectively deny

LEP persons meaningful access. Thus, it

is important that recipients continually

survey and assess the needs of the

eligible serviced populations in order to

determine whether certain critical

outreach materials should be translated

into other languages.

(3) The same analysis is to be used in

determining the translation of web site

information, forms, etc. The decision to

place a document or information on the

Internet will not affect whether the

document or information must be

translated. For example, placement on

the web site should not change the

recipient’s original assessment regarding

the number or proportion of LEP

persons that comprise the intended

audience for that document or

information. Generally, entire web sites

need not be translated. Only the vital

information or documents within the

web site should be translated. The fourfactor analysis as outlined above

determines the appropriate language(s)

for translation. If the four-factor analysis

determines that written information or a

document should be translated, the

same written document or information

should be translated on the recipient’s

web site—if the recipient’s English

version of the information or document

is on the web site. A notice regarding

the presence of a translated document or

information on the web site should be

posted at an initial entry point onto the

site (usually the homepage).

(4) Oral translation assistance will be

provided to those persons with LEP

whose language does not exist in

written form. This oral translation

assistance will explain the contents of

vital documents.

c. Reliability of Translation Resources

and Interpretive Services: In order to

provide effective services to LEP

persons, it is important to ensure the

use of competent interpreters. Although

it is not a requirement, membership in

or accreditation by the American

Translators Association (ATA) is one

indicator regarding the reliability and

professionalism of language assistance

vendors. However, competency does not

necessarily mean formal certification as

an interpreter, although certification is

helpful. Yet, competency refers to more

than being bilingual. It refers to

demonstrated proficiency in both

English and the other language,

orientation and training that includes

the skills and ethics of interpreting (i.e.,

issues of confidentiality), fundamental

knowledge in both languages of terms or

concepts peculiar to the program or

activity, and sensitivity to the LEP

person’s culture.

It is also important to note that in

some circumstances, verbatim

translation of materials may not

accurately and appropriately convey the

substance of what is contained in the

written language. An effective way to

address this concern is to reach out to

community-based organizations to

review translated materials to ensure

that the translation is accurate and

easily understood by LEP persons.

It is recommended that a different

contractor conduct a second review of a

translated document, when such

document is of a highly technical or

complex nature. Another method of

ensuring reliability of such documents

is to have the document translated back

into English to determine if the source

document lost important meaning in its

foreign translation.

Generally, it is not acceptable for

recipients to rely upon an LEP

individual’s family members or friends

to provide the interpreter services. The

recipient should meet its obligations

under Title VI by supplying competent

language services free of cost. In rare

emergency situations, the recipient may

have to rely on an LEP person’s family

members or other persons whose

language skills and competency in

interpreting have not been established.

Proper planning by recipients is

important in order to ensure that those

situations rarely occur. Therefore, it is

not acceptable to rely upon an LEP

person to provide his/her own

interpreter, unless the LEP person

requests the use of his/her own

interpreter or in the case of an

emergency.

12. Examples. The following

examples are being provided to facilitate

the assessment, planning and

implementation of a successful LEP

plan.

a. Examples of problem areas include:

Providing services and/or benefits to

LEP persons that are more limited in

scope or lower in quality than those

provided to other individuals;

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices 4031

subjecting LEP persons to unreasonable

delays; limiting participation in a

recipient’s program(s) or activities on

the basis of English proficiency;

providing services and/or benefits to

LEP persons that are not as effective as

those provided to persons proficient in

English; failing to inform LEP persons of

the right to receive free interpreter

services; or requiring LEP persons to

provide their own interpreter.

b. Examples of satisfactory LEP

assistance include: Having policies and

procedures in place for identifying and

assessing the language needs of the

recipient’s serviced LEP population;

providing a range of oral language

assistance options, appropriate to each

of the recipient’s circumstances;

providing notice to LEP persons of the

right to free language services;

communicating LEP responsibilities and

available services to staff members;

program monitoring; establishing a plan

for providing written materials in

languages other than English where a

significant number or percentage of the

affected population needs services or

information in a language other than

English.

c. Examples of applying the 4 factors:

The following are examples of how

meaningful access will be assessed by

OCR:

(1) Example 1. A small child care

center has three LEP parents (two who

are Chinese and one who is Cuban)

whose English-speaking children attend

its child care center on a regular basis.

The center has a staff of six, and has

limited financial resources to afford to

hire bilingual staff, contract with a

professional interpreter service, or

translate written documents. To

accommodate the language needs of

their LEP parents, the Center made

arrangements with a Chinese and a

Hispanic community organization for

trained and competent volunteer

interpreters, and with a telephone

interpreter language line, to interpret

during parent meetings and to orally

translate written documents. There have

been no client complaints of inordinate

delays or other service related problems

with respect to LEP clients.

Application of the 4 factors to

Example 1: Factor 1: The center has

three LEP parents (a small number);

Factor 2: The frequency of contact is

every day, but mostly for greeting;

Factor 3: The nature and importance of

the recipient’s program to the serviced

population relates to the health, safety

and welfare of their children (i.e., child

care); Factor 4: The child care center has

limited resources and a small staff.

The assistance that the child care

center is providing will probably be

considered appropriate, given the

center’s resources, the size of staff, and

the size of the LEP population. Thus,

OCR would find the center in

compliance with Title VI.

(2) Example 2. A county social service

program has a large budget and serves

500,000 beneficiaries. Of the

beneficiaries eligible for its services/

benefits, 3,500 are LEP Chinese persons,

4,000 are LEP Hispanic persons, 2000

are LEP Vietnamese persons and about

400 are LEP Laotian persons. The

county frequently encounters an LEP

client, but has no policy regarding

language assistance to LEP persons

other than telling LEP clients to bring

their own interpreters. LEP clients are

provided with application and consent

forms in English and, if unaccompanied

by their own interpreters, must solicit

the help of other clients or must return

at a later date with an interpreter.

Application of the 4 factors to

Example 2: Factor 1: The eligible LEP

population is significant; Factor 2: The

frequency of contact is frequent; Factor

3: The nature and importance of the

county’s program relates to the social

welfare of the community it serves;

Factor 4: The county has a large budget.

Given the size of the county program,

its resources, the size of the eligible LEP

population, the frequency of contact and

the nature of the program, OCR would

likely find the county in violation of

Title VI and would require it to develop

a comprehensive language assistance

program.

d. The intent of this guidance is to

provide recipients with information

regarding the requirements of Title VI

and its implementing regulations for

providing meaningful access for LEP

persons to federally assisted services

and/or benefits. The examples and

framework outlined above are not

intended to be exhaustive. Thus,

recipients have considerable flexibility

in determining how to comply with

their legal obligation in meeting their

LEP responsibilities, and are not

required to use all of the suggested

methods and options listed. However,

recipients must establish and

implement policies and procedures for

providing language assistance sufficient

to fulfill their Title VI responsibilities.

13. Compliance. All recipients must

take reasonable steps (consistent with

this policy guidance) to overcome

language differences that result in

barriers and provide the language

assistance needed to ensure that persons

with LEP have meaningful access to

services and benefits.

a. The failure to take all of the steps

as outlined herein will not necessarily

mean that a recipient has failed to

provide meaningful access to LEP

persons. OCR will make assessments on

a case by case basis and will consider

several factors in determining whether

the steps taken by a recipient provide

meaningful access. (i.e., nature and

importance of recipient’s services to the

serviced population, recipient’s size,

availability of financial and other

resources, and frequency of contact with

LEP persons).

b. Those factors include the size of the

recipient and the eligible LEP

population, the nature of the program or

service, the objectives of the program,

the total resources available, the

frequency with which particular

languages are encountered, and the

frequency with which LEP persons

come into contact with the recipient’s

program.

c. There are instances where

recipients of Federal financial assistance

from GSA may also be recipients of

Federal financial assistance from other

Federal agencies. For instance, hospitals

and health clinics may receive financial

assistance from the Department of

Health and Human Services (DHHS);

schools and universities may receive

financial assistance from the

Department of Education (DOE); police

departments and other law enforcement

agencies/organizations may receive

financial assistance from Department of

Justice (DOJ). In order to avoid the

potential for confusion with such

recipient organizations as to their LEP

responsibilities, OCR will apply, where

appropriate, the Federal agency’s LEP

guidance that is more specific and/or

stringent regarding LEP responsibilities

and assistance.

14. Enforcement. OCR will enforce

Title VI, and the recipient’s

responsibility to establish LEP

procedures and provide appropriate LEP

assistance, consistent with enforcement

procedures as provided in Title VI

regulations. These procedures include

complaint investigations, compliance

reviews, efforts to secure voluntary

compliance, and technical assistance.

GSA’s Title VI regulations provide

that OCR will investigate whenever it

receives a complaint, report or other

information that alleges or indicates

possible noncompliance with Title VI. If

the investigation results in a finding of

compliance, OCR will inform the

recipient in writing of this

determination, including the basis for

the determination. If the investigation

results in a finding of noncompliance,

OCR will inform the recipient of the

noncompliance through a Letter of

Findings that identifies the areas of

noncompliance and the steps that must

be taken to correct the noncompliance,

4032 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Notices

and will attempt to secure voluntary

compliance through informal means. If

the matter cannot be resolved

informally, the procedure for effecting

compliance as described at 41 CFR 101–

6.211–2, et. seq. will be followed.

15. Technical Assistance. A program

of language assistance should provide

for effective communication between

the recipient and the person with LEP

so as to facilitate participation in, and

meaningful access to the services and/

or benefits provided by the recipient.

The key to ensuring meaningful access

for LEP persons is effective

communication.

OCR is available to provide assistance

to recipients seeking to ensure that they

operate an effective language assistance

program. In addition, during its

investigative process, OCR is available

to provide technical assistance to enable

recipients to come into voluntary

compliance. OCR may be reached at

202–501-0767 or toll free 1–800–662–

6376, or by mail at General Services

Administration, Office of Civil Rights,

Title VI, 1800 F Street NW, Suite 5127,

Washington, DC, 20405, for further

assistance. Arrangements to receive this

policy guidance in alternative format

may be made by contacting OCR.

[FR Doc. 01–1268 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

[30DAY–01–01]

Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork

Reduction Act Review

The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of

information collection requests under

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) in compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35). To request a copy of these

requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance

Officer at (404) 639–7090. Send written

comments to CDC, Desk Officer; Human

Resources and Housing Branch, New

Executive Office Building, Room 10235;

Washington, DC 20503. Written

comments should be received within 30

days of this notice.

Proposed Project

Evaluating CDC Funded Health

Department HIV Prevention Programs—

New—The Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC), National Center

for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention

(NCHSTP), proposes a collection of

standardized HIV evaluation data from

health department grantees to ensure

delivery of the best possible HIV

prevention services. The CDC needs

standardized evaluation data from

health department grantees for the

following reasons: (1) To determine the

extent to which HIV prevention efforts

have contributed to a reduction in HIV

transmission, (2) to improve programs to

better meet that goal, (3) to help focus

technical assistance and support and (4)

to be accountable to stakeholders by

informing them of progress made in HIV

prevention nationwide.

CDC and its prevention partners have

specifically identified the types of

standardized evaluation data they need

to be accountable for the use of federal

funds and to conduct systematic

analysis of HIV prevention to improve

policies and programs. Generally,

evaluation data that are needed (but not

yet available at the national level)

include the types and quality of HIV

prevention interventions provided by

CDC health department grantees and

their grantees, the characteristics of

clients targeted and reached by the

interventions, and the effects of

interventions on client behavior and

HIV transmission.

The annual burden hours are

estimated to be 1248.

Respondents No. of respondents

No. of forms

per jurisdiction

No. of responses per

respondent

(per yr.)

Average burden per response (in

hrs.)

Health Department Grantees ........................................................................... 65 16 1 1.2

Dated: January 10, 2001.

Nancy E. Cheal,

Acting Associate Director for Policy, Planning

and Evaluation, Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC).

[FR Doc. 01–1297 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

[30DAY–06–01]

Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork

Reduction Act Review; Correction

A notice announcing Jail STD

Prevalence Monitoring System was

published in the Federal Register on

November 6, 2000, (65 FR 66546). This

notice is a correction.

On page 66546, in the third column

of the notice, the last line of the last

paragraph, the burden hours should be

changed from 1248 to 3296.

On page 66546, at the end of the

notice, the burden table should be

replaced with the following table:

Respondents No. of respondents Avg. No. of forms/respondent

No. of responses/respondentAvg. burden/response (in

hrs.)

State/local health departments ... ......................................... 4 datasets/year ............... .........................................

A. With access to electronic data A. 8 health departments ......................................... A. 3/dataset .................... A. 96

B. Without access to electronic

data.

B. 8 health departments ......................................... B. 100/dataset ................ B. 3,200