Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Notices 6067

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

275 hours.

OMB Number: 1545–1478. 

Regulation Project Number: INTL–9–

95 Final. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Certain Transfers of Domestic 

Stock or Securities by U.S. Persons to 

Foreign Corporations. 

Description: Transfers of stock or 

securities by U.S. persons in tax-free 

transactions are treated as taxable 

transactions when the acquirer is a 

foreign corporation, unless an exception 

applies (section 367(a)). Under the 

regulations, no U.S. person will qualify 

for an exception unless the U.S. target 

company complies with certain 

reporting requirements. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

100. 

Estimated Burden Hours Respondent:

10 hours. 

Frequency of Response: Other (once). 

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

1,000 hours.

OMB Number: 1545–1634. 

Regulation Project Number: REG–

106902–98 Final. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Consolidated Returns—

Consolidated Overall Foreign Losses 

and Separate Limitation Losses. 

Description: The regulations provide 

guidance relating to the amount of 

overall foreign losses and separate 

limitation losses in the computation of 

the foreign tax credit. The regulations 

affect consolidated groups of 

corporations that compute the foreign 

tax credit limitation or that disposes of 

property used in a foreign trade or 

business. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

2,000. 

Estimated Burden Hours Respondent:

1 hour, 30 minutes. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

3,000 hours.

OMB Number: 1545–1750. 

Form Number: IRS Form 8038–R. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Request for Recovery of 

Overpayments under Arbitrage Rebate 

Provisions. 

Description: Under Treasury 

Regulations section 1.148–3(i), bond 

issuers may recover an overpayment of 

arbitrage rebate paid to the United 

States under Internal Revenue Code 

section 148. Form 8038–R is used to 

request recovery of any overpayment of 

arbitrage rebate made under the 

arbitrage rebate provisions. 

Respondents: State, Local or Tribal 

Government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 200. 

Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/

Recordkeeper:

Recordkeeping—5 hr., 44 min. 

Learning about the law or the form—3 

hr., 16 min. 

Preparing, copying, assembling, and 

sending the form to the IRS—3 hr., 30 

min.

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 2,458 hours.

Clearance Officer: Paul H. Finger, 

Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20224, (202) 622–3634. 

OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Room 10235, New Executive Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 

395–7316.

Lois K. Holland, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 05–2167 Filed 2–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Guidance to Federal Financial 

Assistance Recipients Regarding Title 

VI Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination Affecting Limited 

English Proficient Persons

AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of final guidance.

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury is publishing its final policy 

guidance on the prohibition in Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against 

national origin discrimination as it 

affects limited English proficient (LEP) 

persons. This policy guidance replaces 

policy guidance published March 7, 

2001 and republished on March 7, 2002. 

On December 22, 2003, the Department 

published proposed guidance for public 

comment. No comments were received.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pamela Proctor, Office of Equal 

Opportunity and Diversity, Department 

of the Treasury, 1750 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Room 8127 Washington, 

DC 20220; (202) 622–0324.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title VI of 

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

2000d, et seq. provides 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. 

Treasury’s initial guidance regarding 

Title VI was published on March 7, 

2001. See 66 FR 13829. The document 

was based on the policy guidance issued 

by the Department of Justice entitled 

‘‘Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964—National Origin 

Discrimination Against Persons with 

Limited English Proficiency.’’ 65 FR 

50123 (August 16, 2000). 

On October 26, 2001 and January 11, 

2002, the Assistant Attorney General for 

Civil Rights issued to Federal 

departments and agencies guidance 

memoranda that reaffirmed the 

Department of Justice’s (DOJ) 

commitment to ensuring that federally 

assisted programs and activities fulfill 

their LEP responsibilities, and which 

clarified and answered certain questions 

raised regarding the August 16, 2000 

guidance. In furtherance of those 

memoranda, the Department of the 

Treasury republished its guidance for 

the purpose of obtaining additional 

public comment on March 7, 2002. See

67 FR 10477. 

On March 14, 2002, following 

republication of Treasury’s policy 

guidance, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) issued a Report to 

Congress titled ‘‘Assessment of the Total 

Benefits and Costs of Implementing 

Executive Order No. 13166: Improving 

Access to Services for Persons with 

Limited English Proficiency.’’ Among 

other things, the Report recommended 

the adoption of uniform guidance by all 

Federal agencies, with flexibility to 

permit each agency to tailor its guidance 

to its specific customers. Consistent 

with this OMB recommendation, DOJ 

published LEP Guidance for DOJ 

recipients that was drafted and 

organized to also function as a model for 

similar guidance by other Federal 

agencies. See 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 

2002). To the extent appropriate, 

Treasury’s final guidance is consistent 

with the LEP guidance document 

published by DOJ. 

The text of the complete final 

guidance document appears below.

Dated: December 21, 2004. 

Jesus H. Delgado-Jenkins, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Management.

I. Introduction 

Most individuals living in the United 

States read, write, speak and understand 

English. There are many individuals, 

however, for whom English is not their 

primary language. For instance, based 

on the 2000 census, over 26 million 

individuals speak Spanish and almost 7 

million individuals speak an Asian or 

Pacific Island language at home. If these 

individuals have a limited ability to 

6068 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Notices 

1Treasury recognizes that many recipients may 

have had language assistance programs in place 

prior to the issuance of Executive Order 13166. This 

policy guidance provides a uniform framework for 

a recipient to integrate, formalize, and assess the 

continued vitality of these existing and possibly 

additional reasonable efforts based on the nature of 

its program or activity, the current needs of the LEP 

populations it encounters, and its prior experience 

in providing language services in the community it 

serves.

2The policy guidance is not a regulation but 

rather a guide. Title VI requires that recipients take 

reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access by 

LEP persons. This guidance provides an analytical 

framework that recipients may use to determine 

how best to comply with statutory and regulatory 

obligations to provide meaningful access to the 

benefits, services, information, and other important 

portions of their programs and activities for 

individuals who are limited English proficient.

read, write, speak, or understand 

English, they are limited English 

proficient, or ‘‘LEP.’’ While detailed 

data from the 2000 census has not yet 

been released, 26% of all Spanishspeakers, 29.9% of all Chinese-speakers, 

and 28.2% of all Vietnamese-speakers 

reported that they spoke English ‘‘not 

well’’ or ‘‘not at all’’ in response to the 

1990 census. 

Language for LEP individuals can be 

a barrier to accessing important benefits 

or services, understanding and 

exercising important rights, complying 

with applicable responsibilities, or 

understanding other information 

provided by federally funded programs 

and activities. The Federal Government 

funds an array of services that can be 

made accessible to otherwise eligible 

LEP persons. The Federal Government 

is committed to improving the 

accessibility of these programs and 

activities to eligible LEP persons, a goal 

that reinforces its equally important 

commitment to promoting programs and 

activities designed to help individuals 

learn English. Recipients should not 

overlook the long-term positive impacts 

of incorporating or offering English as a 

Second Language (ESL) programs in 

parallel with language assistance 

services. ESL courses can serve as an 

important adjunct to a proper LEP plan. 

However, the fact that ESL classes are 

made available does not obviate the 

statutory requirement to provide 

meaningful access for those who are not 

yet English proficient. Recipients of 

Federal financial assistance have an 

obligation to reduce language barriers 

that can preclude meaningful access by 

LEP persons to important government 

services.1

In certain circumstances, failure to 

ensure that LEP persons can effectively 

participate in or benefit from federally 

assisted programs and activities may 

violate the prohibition under Title VI of 

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

2000d . The purpose of this policy 

guidance is to assist recipients in 

fulfilling their responsibilities to 

provide meaningful access to LEP 

persons under existing law. This policy 

guidance clarifies existing legal 

requirements for LEP persons by 

providing a description of the factors 

recipients should consider in fulfilling 

their responsibilities to LEP persons.2

These are the same criteria Treasury 

will use in evaluating whether 

recipients are in compliance with Title 

VI.

Before discussing these criteria in 

greater detail, it is important to note two 

basic underlying principles. First, we 

must ensure that federally-assisted 

programs aimed at the American public 

do not leave some behind simply 

because they face challenges 

communicating in English. This is of 

particular importance because, in many 

cases, LEP individuals form a 

substantial portion of those encountered 

in federally-assisted programs. Second, 

we must achieve this goal while finding 

constructive methods to reduce the 

costs of LEP requirements on small 

businesses, small local governments, or 

small non-profits that receive Federal 

financial assistance. There are many 

productive steps that the Federal 

Government, either collectively or as 

individual grant agencies, can take to 

help recipients reduce the costs of 

language services without sacrificing 

meaningful access for LEP persons. 

Without these steps, certain smaller 

grantees may well choose not to 

participate in federally assisted 

programs, threatening the critical 

functions that the programs strive to 

provide. To that end, the Department of 

the Treasury, in conjunction with the 

Department of Justice (DOJ), plans to 

continue to provide assistance and 

guidance in this important area. In 

addition, Treasury plans to work with 

its recipients and LEP persons to 

identify and share model plans, 

examples of best practices, and costsaving approaches. Moreover, Treasury 

intends to explore how language 

assistance measures, resources and costcontainment approaches developed 

with respect to its own federally 

conducted programs and activities can 

be effectively shared or otherwise made 

available to recipients, particularly 

small businesses, small local 

governments, and small non-profits. An 

interagency working group on LEP has 

developed a Web site, http://

www.lep.gov, to assist in disseminating 

this information to recipients, Federal 

agencies, and the communities being 

served. 

Many commentators have noted that 

some have interpreted the case of 

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 

(2001), as impliedly striking down the 

regulations promulgated under Title VI 

that form the basis for the part of 

Executive Order 13166 that applies to 

federally assisted programs and 

activities. Treasury and the Department 

of Justice have taken the position that 

this is not the case, and will continue 

to do so. Accordingly, we will strive to 

ensure that federally assisted programs 

and activities work in a way that is 

effective for all eligible beneficiaries, 

including those with limited English 

proficiency. 

II. Legal Authority 

Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil 

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

provides that no person shall ‘‘on the 

ground of race, color, or national origin, 

be excluded from participation in, be 

denied the benefits of, or be subjected 

to discrimination under any program or 

activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance.’’ Section 602 authorizes and 

directs Federal agencies that are 

empowered to extend Federal financial 

assistance to any program or activity ‘‘to 

effectuate the provisions of [section 601] 

* * * by issuing rules, regulations, or 

orders of general applicability.’’ 42 

U.S.C. 2000d–1. 

Agency regulations promulgated 

pursuant to Section 602 of Title VI 

universally forbid recipients from 

‘‘utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of 

administration which have the effect of 

subjecting individuals to discrimination 

because of their race, color, or national 

origin, or have the effect of defeating or 

substantially impairing accomplishment 

of the objectives of the program as 

respects individuals of a particular race, 

color, or national origin.’’ See, e.g., 28 

CFR 42.104(b) (2) (DOJ), 7 CFR 15.3(b) 

(2) (Department of Agriculture), 34 CFR 

100.3(b) (2) (Department of Education), 

45 CFR 80.3(b) (2) (Department of 

Health and Human Services), and 45 

CFR 1110.3(b) (2) (National Endowment 

for the Arts and Humanities). Treasury 

has not yet, but intends to, issue 

regulations implementing Title VI. 

These will be consistent with this longstanding Federal policy prohibiting the 

use of criteria or methods of 

administration which have the effect of 

discriminating on the basis of race, 

color, or national origin. 

The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols,

414 U.S. 563 (1974), interpreted 

regulations promulgated by the former 

Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare, including language identical to 

that quoted above, to hold that Title VI 

prohibits conduct that has a 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Notices 6069

3The memorandum noted that some 

commentators have interpreted Sandoval as 

impliedly striking down the disparate-impact 

regulations promulgated under Title VI that form 

the basis for the part of Executive Order 13166 that 

applies to federally assisted programs and activities. 

See, e.g., Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 286, 286 n.6 (‘‘[W]e 

assume for purposes of this decision that section 

602 confers the authority to promulgate disparateimpact regulations; * * * We cannot help 

observing, however, how strange it is to say that 

disparate-impact regulations are ‘inspired by, at the 

service of, and inseparably intertwined with Sec. 

601 * * * when Sec. 601 permits the very behavior 

that the regulations forbid.’’). The memorandum, 

however, made clear that DOJ disagreed with the 

commentators’ interpretation. Sandoval holds 

principally that there is no private right of action 

to enforce Title VI disparate-impact regulations. It 

did not address the validity of those regulations or 

Executive Order 13166 or otherwise limit the 

authority and responsibility of Federal grant 

agencies to enforce their own implementing 

regulations.

4Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, the 

meaningful access requirement of Title VI and the 

four-factor analysis set forth in the DOJ LEP 

Guidance are to additionally apply to the federally 

conducted programs and activities of federal 

agencies, including Treasury.

5However, if a Federal agency were to decide to 

terminate Federal funds based on noncompliance 

with Title VI, only funds directed to the particular 

program or activity that is out of compliance would 

be terminated. 41 U.S.C. 2000d–1.

disproportionate effect on LEP persons 

because such conduct constitutes 

national-origin discrimination. In Lau, a 

San Francisco school district that had a 

significant number of non-English 

speaking students of Chinese origin was 

required to take reasonable steps to 

provide them with a meaningful 

opportunity to participate in federally 

funded educational programs. 

On August 11, 2000, Executive Order 

13166 was issued. ‘‘Improving Access to 

Services for Persons with Limited 

English Proficiency,’’ 65 FR 50121 

(August 16, 2000). Under that order, 

every Federal agency that provides 

financial assistance to non-Federal 

entities must publish guidance on how 

their recipients can provide meaningful 

access to LEP persons and thus comply 

with Title VI regulations forbidding 

funding recipients from ‘‘restrict[ing] an 

individual in any way in the enjoyment 

of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by 

others receiving any service, financial 

aid, or other benefit under the program’’

or from ‘‘utiliz[ing] criteria or methods 

of administration which have the effect 

of subjecting individuals to 

discrimination because of their race, 

color, or national origin, or have the 

effect of defeating or substantially 

impairing accomplishment of the 

objectives of the program as respects 

individuals of a particular race, color, or 

national origin.’’

On that same day, DOJ issued a 

general guidance document addressed 

to ‘‘Executive Agency Civil Rights 

Officers’’ setting forth general principles 

for agencies to apply in developing 

guidance documents for recipients 

pursuant to the Executive Order. 

‘‘Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 National Origin 

Discrimination Against Persons With 

Limited English Proficiency,’’ 65 FR 

50123 (August 16, 2000) (‘‘DOJ LEP 

Guidance’’). 

Subsequently, Federal agencies raised 

questions regarding the requirements of 

the Executive Order, especially in light 

of the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Alexander v. Sandoval. On October 26, 

2001, Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General for the Civil Rights 

Division, issued a memorandum for 

‘‘Heads of Departments and Agencies, 

General Counsels and Civil Rights 

Directors.’’ This memorandum clarified 

and reaffirmed the DOJ LEP Guidance in 

light of Sandoval.3 The Assistant 

Attorney General stated that because 

Sandoval did not invalidate any Title VI 

regulations that proscribe conduct that 

has a disparate impact on covered 

groups—the types of regulations that 

form the legal basis for the part of 

Executive Order 13166 that applies to 

federally assisted programs and 

activities—the Executive Order remains 

in force. This Guidance is thus 

published pursuant to Executive Order 

13166.

III. Who Is Covered? 

Recipients of Federal financial 

assistance from Treasury are required to 

provide meaningful access to LEP 

persons.4 Federal financial assistance 

includes grants, training, use of 

equipment, donations of surplus 

property, and other assistance. 

Recipients of assistance from Treasury 

typically include, but are not limited to, 

for example:

• Nonprofit organizations engaged in 

taxpayer education, 

• Financial institutions serving 

distressed communities. 

Subrecipients likewise are covered 

when Federal funds are passed through 

from one recipient to a subrecipient. 

This is true even if only one part of the 

recipient receives the Federal 

assistance.5 Coverage extends to a 

recipient’s entire program or activity; 

i.e., to all parts of a recipient’s 

operations.

Some recipients may operate in 

jurisdictions in which English has been 

declared the official language. 

Nonetheless, these recipients continue 

to be subject to Federal nondiscrimination requirements, including 

those applicable to the provision of 

federally assisted services to persons 

with limited English proficiency. 

IV. Who Is a Limited English Proficient 

Individual? 

Individuals who do not speak English 

as their primary language and who have 

a limited ability to read, write, speak, or 

understand English can be limited 

English proficient, or ‘‘LEP,’’ entitled to 

language assistance with respect to a 

particular type of service, benefit, or 

encounter. 

Examples of populations likely to 

include LEP persons who are 

encountered and/or served by 

Treasury’s recipients and should be 

considered when planning language 

services include, but are not limited to: 

• Persons participating in taxpayer 

education programs conducted by 

assisted non-profit organizations, and, 

• Members of distressed communities 

seeking fiscal services from assisted 

financial institutions. 

V. How Does a Recipient Determine the 

Extent of Its Obligation To Provide LEP 

Services? 

Recipients are required to take 

reasonable steps to ensure meaningful 

access to their programs and activities 

by LEP persons. While designed to be a 

flexible and fact-dependent standard, 

the starting point is an individualized 

assessment that balances the following 

four factors: (1) The number or 

proportion of LEP persons eligible to be 

served or likely to be encountered by 

the program or grantee; (2) the 

frequency with which LEP individuals 

come in contact with the program; (3) 

the nature and importance of the 

program, activity, or service provided by 

the program to people’s lives; and (4) 

the resources available to the grantee/

recipient and costs. As indicated above, 

the intent of this guidance is to suggest 

a balance that ensures meaningful 

access by LEP persons to critical 

services while not imposing undue 

burdens on small business, small local 

governments, or small nonprofits. 

After applying the above four-factor 

analysis, a recipient may conclude that 

different language assistance measures 

are sufficient for the different types of 

programs or activities in which it 

engages. For instance, some of a 

recipient’s activities will be more 

important than others or have greater 

impact on or contact with LEP persons, 

and thus may require more in the way 

of language assistance. The flexibility 

that recipients have in addressing the 

needs of the LEP populations they serve 

does not diminish, and should not be 

used to minimize, the obligation that 

those needs be addressed. Treasury’s 

6070 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Notices 

6The focus of the analysis is on lack of English 

proficiency, not the ability to speak more than one 

language. Note that demographic data may indicate 

the most frequently spoken languages other than 

English and the percentage of people who speak 

that language who speak or understand English less 

than well. Some of the most commonly spoken 

languages other than English may be spoken by 

people who are also overwhelmingly proficient in 

English. Thus, they may not be the languages 

spoken most frequently by limited English 

proficient individuals. When using demographic 

data, it is important to focus in on the languages 

spoken by those who are not proficient in English.

recipients should apply the following 

four factors to the various kinds of 

contacts that they have with the public 

to assess language needs and decide 

what reasonable steps they should take 

to ensure meaningful access for LEP 

persons. 

(1) The Number or Proportion of LEP 

Persons Served or Encountered in the 

Eligible Service Population 

One factor in determining what 

language services recipients should 

provide is the number or proportion of 

LEP persons from a particular language 

group served or encountered in the 

eligible service population. The greater 

the number or proportion of these LEP 

persons, the more likely language 

services are needed. Ordinarily, persons 

‘‘eligible to be served, or likely to be 

directly affected, by’’ a recipient’s 

program or activity are those who are 

served or encountered in the eligible 

service population. This population will 

be program-specific, and includes 

persons who are in the geographic area 

that has been approved by a Federal 

grant agency as the recipient’s service 

area. However, where, for instance, a 

precinct in the case of a law 

enforcement entity or a school in the 

case of an educational system serves a 

large LEP population, the appropriate 

service area is most likely the precinct 

or school, and not the entire population 

served by the recipient. Where no 

service area has previously been 

approved, the relevant service area may 

be that which is approved by State or 

local authorities or designated by the 

recipient itself, provided that these 

designations do not themselves 

discriminatorily exclude certain 

populations. When considering the 

number or proportion of LEP 

individuals in a service area, recipients 

providing educational services to minor 

LEP students should also include the 

students’ LEP parent(s) or primary 

caretakers among those likely to be 

encountered. 

Recipients should first examine their 

prior experiences with LEP encounters 

and determine the breadth and scope of 

language services that were needed. In 

conducting this analysis, it is important 

to include language minority 

populations that are eligible for their 

programs or activities but may be 

underserved because of existing 

language barriers. Other data should be 

consulted to refine or validate a 

recipient’s prior experience, including 

the latest census data for the area 

served, data from school systems and 

from community organizations, and data 

from State and local governments.6

Community agencies, school systems, 

religious organizations, legal aid 

entities, and others can often assist in 

identifying populations for whom 

outreach is needed and who would 

benefit from the recipients’ programs 

and activities were language services 

provided.

(2) The Frequency With Which LEP 

Individuals Come in Contact With the 

Program 

Recipients should assess, as 

accurately as possible, the frequency 

with which they have or should have 

contact with an LEP individual from 

different language groups seeking 

assistance. The more frequent the 

contact with a particular language 

group, the more likely that enhanced 

language services in that language are 

needed. The steps that are reasonable 

for a recipient that serves an LEP person 

on a one-time basis will be very 

different than those expected from a 

recipient that serves LEP persons daily. 

It is also advisable to consider the 

frequency of different types of language 

contacts. For example, frequent contacts 

with Spanish-speaking people who are 

LEP may require certain assistance in 

Spanish. Less frequent contact with 

different language groups may suggest a 

different and less intensified solution. If 

an LEP individual accesses a program or 

service on a daily basis, a recipient has 

greater duties than if the same 

individual’s program or activity contact 

is unpredictable or infrequent. But even 

recipients that serve LEP persons on an 

unpredictable or infrequent basis should 

use this balancing analysis to determine 

what to do if an LEP individual seeks 

services under the program in question. 

This plan need not be intricate. It may 

be as simple as being prepared to use 

one of the commercially-available 

telephonic interpretation services to 

obtain immediate interpreter services. In 

applying this standard, recipients 

should take care to consider whether 

appropriate outreach to LEP persons 

could increase the frequency of contact 

with LEP language groups. 

(3) The Nature and Importance of the 

Program, Activity, or Service Provided 

by the Program 

The more important the activity, 

information, service, or program, or the 

greater the possible consequences of the 

contact to the LEP individuals, the more 

likely language services are needed. For 

example, the obligations of a federally 

assisted school or hospital to LEP 

constituents are generally far greater 

than those of a federally assisted zoo or 

theater. A recipient needs to determine 

whether denial or delay of access to 

services or information could have 

serious or even life-threatening 

implications for the LEP individual. 

Decisions by a Federal, state, or local 

entity to make an activity compulsory, 

such as a particular educational 

program, can serve as strong evidence of 

the program’s importance. While all 

situations must of course be analyzed on 

a case-by-case basis, the following 

general observations may be helpful to 

Treasury’s recipients considering the 

implications of applying this factor of 

the four-factor test to their respective 

programs: 

Examples 

• An assisted financial institution in 

a city with a large Hispanic population 

including a significant number of LEP 

members should consider translating 

account and loan applications into 

Spanish (or implementing a procedure 

through which Spanish-speaking LEP 

persons could be served by Spanishspeaking officers). 

With respect to the importance of a 

program, activity, or service provided by 

one of the Agency’s recipients, the 

obligation to provide translation 

services will most likely be greatest in 

educational/training situations or in 

connection with the provision of law 

enforcement services. As an aid in 

applying this guidance to their own 

programs or activities, entities that 

receive Federal financial assistance from 

either the Department of Education or 

Department of Justice and Treasury may 

rely on the more particularized LEP 

Guidance of the Department of 

Education (in the case of a school-based 

educational program) or the Department 

of Justice (in the case of a law 

enforcement entity) to ensure 

compliance with the obligation to 

provide meaningful access in those 

respective contexts. 

(4) The Resources Available to the 

Recipient and Costs 

A recipient’s level of resources and 

the costs that would be imposed on it 

may have an impact on the nature of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Notices 6071

7Small recipients with limited resources may 

find that entering into a bulk telephonic 

interpretation service contract will prove cost 

effective.

8Many languages have ‘‘regionalisms,’’ or 

differences in usage. For instance, a word that may 

be understood to mean something in Spanish for 

someone from Cuba may not be so understood by 

someone from Mexico. In addition, because there 

may be languages which do not have an appropriate 

direct interpretation of some terms, the interpreter 

should be so aware and be able to provide the most 

appropriate interpretation. The interpreter should 

likely make the recipient aware of the issue and the 

interpreter and recipient can then work to develop 

a consistent and appropriate set of descriptions of 

these terms in that language that can be used again, 

when appropriate.

steps it should take. Smaller recipients 

with more limited budgets are not 

expected to provide the same level of 

language services as larger recipients 

with larger budgets. In addition, 

‘‘reasonable steps’’ may cease to be 

reasonable where the costs imposed 

substantially exceed the benefits. 

Resource and cost issues, however, 

can often be reduced by technological 

advances; the sharing of language 

assistance materials and services among 

and between recipients, advocacy 

groups, and Federal grant agencies; and 

reasonable business practices. Where 

appropriate, training bilingual staff to 

act as interpreters and translators, 

information sharing through industry 

groups, telephonic and video 

conferencing interpretation services, 

pooling resources and standardizing 

documents to reduce translation needs, 

using qualified translators and 

interpreters to ensure that documents 

need not be ‘‘fixed’’ later and that 

inaccurate interpretations do not cause 

delay or other costs, centralizing 

interpreter and translator services to 

achieve economies of scale, or the 

formalized use of qualified community 

volunteers, for example, may help 

reduce costs.7

Recipients should carefully explore 

the most cost-effective means of 

delivering competent and accurate 

language services before limiting 

services due to resource concerns. Large 

entities and those entities serving a 

significant number or proportion of LEP 

persons should ensure that their 

resource limitations are wellsubstantiated before using this factor as 

a reason to limit language assistance. 

Such recipients may find it useful to be 

able to articulate, through 

documentation or in some other 

reasonable manner, their process for 

determining that language services 

would be limited based on resources or 

costs. 

Treasury is well aware of the fact that 

some of its grant recipients may 

experience difficulties with resource 

allocation. Treasury emphasizes that 

reasonable translation and 

interpretation costs are appropriately 

included in grant and award budget 

requests. 

This four-factor analysis necessarily 

implicates the ‘‘mix’’ of LEP services 

required. Recipients have two main 

ways to provide language services: Oral 

interpretation either in person or via 

telephone interpretation service 

(hereinafter ‘‘interpretation’’) and 

written translation (hereinafter 

‘‘translation’’). Oral interpretation can 

range from on-site interpreters for 

critical services provided to a high 

volume of LEP persons to access 

through commercially-available 

telephonic interpretation services. 

Written translation, likewise, can range 

from translation of an entire document 

to translation of a short description of 

the document. In some cases, language 

services should be made available on an 

expedited basis while in others the LEP 

individual may be referred to another 

office of the recipient for language 

assistance. 

The correct mix should be based on 

what is both necessary and reasonable 

in light of the four-factor analysis. 

Regardless of the type of language 

service provided, quality and accuracy 

of those services can be critical in order 

to avoid serious consequences to the 

LEP person and to the recipient. 

Recipients have substantial flexibility in 

determining the appropriate mix. 

VI. Selecting Language Assistance 

Services 

Recipients have two main ways to 

provide language services: Oral and 

written language services. Quality and 

accuracy of the language service is 

critical in order to avoid serious 

consequences to the LEP person and to 

the recipient.

A. Oral Language Services 

(Interpretation) 

Interpretation is the act of listening to 

something in one language (source 

language) and orally translating it into 

another language (target language). 

Where interpretation is needed and is 

reasonable, recipients should consider 

some or all of the following options for 

providing competent interpreters in a 

timely manner: 

• Competence of Interpreters. When 

providing oral assistance, recipients 

should ensure competency of the 

language service provider, no matter 

which of the strategies outlined below 

are used. Competency requires more 

than self-identification as bilingual. 

Some bilingual staff and community 

volunteers, for instance, may be able to 

communicate effectively in a different 

language when communicating 

information directly in that language, 

but not be competent to interpret in and 

out of English. Likewise, they may not 

be able to do written translations. 

Competency to interpret, however, 

does not necessarily mean formal 

certification as an interpreter, although 

certification may be helpful. When 

using interpreters, recipients should 

ensure that they:

—Demonstrate proficiency in and 

ability to communicate information 

accurately in both English and in the 

other language and identify and 

employ the appropriate mode of 

interpreting (e.g., consecutive, 

simultaneous, summarization, or sight 

translation); 

—Have knowledge in both languages of 

any specialized terms or concepts 

peculiar to the entity’s program or 

activity and of any particularized 

vocabulary and phraseology used by 

the LEP person; 8 and, if applicable, 

understand and follow confidentiality 

and impartiality rules to the same 

extent as the recipient employee for 

whom they are interpreting and/or to 

the extent their position requires.

—Understand and adhere to their role as 

interpreters without deviating into 

any other role such as counselor or 

advisor.

Some recipients may have additional 

self-imposed requirements for 

interpreters. Where individual rights 

depend on precise, complete, and 

accurate interpretation or translations, 

the use of certified interpreters is 

strongly encouraged. Where such 

proceedings are lengthy, the interpreter 

will likely need breaks and team 

interpreting may be appropriate to 

ensure accuracy and to prevent errors 

caused by mental fatigue of interpreters. 

While quality and accuracy of 

language services is critical, the quality 

and accuracy of language services is 

nonetheless part of the appropriate mix 

of LEP services required. The quality 

and accuracy of language services in 

information about completion of tax 

forms, for example, must be quite high 

while the quality and accuracy of 

language services in translation of a 

brochure about the history of money 

need not meet the same exacting 

standards. 

Finally, when interpretation is needed 

and is reasonable, it should be provided 

in a timely manner. To be meaningfully 

effective, language assistance should be 

timely. While there is no single 

definition for ‘‘timely’’ applicable to all 

6072 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Notices 

types of interactions at all times by all 

types of recipients, one clear guide is 

that the language assistance should be 

provided at a time and place that avoids 

the effective denial of the service, 

benefit, or right at issue or the 

imposition of an undue burden on or 

delay in important rights, benefits, or 

services to the LEP person. Conversely, 

where access to or exercise of a service, 

benefit, or right is not effectively 

precluded by a reasonable delay, 

language assistance can likely be 

delayed for a reasonable period.

—Hiring Bilingual Staff. When 

particular languages are encountered 

often, hiring bilingual staff offers one 

of the best, and often most 

economical, options. Recipients and 

sub-recipients can, for example, fill 

public contact positions with staff 

who are bilingual and competent to 

communicate directly with LEP 

persons in their language and at the 

appropriate level of competency. If 

bilingual staff are also used to 

interpret between English speakers 

and LEP persons, or to orally interpret 

written documents from English into 

another language, they should be 

competent in the skill of interpreting. 

Being bilingual does not necessarily 

mean that a person has the ability to 

interpret. In addition, there may be 

times when the role of the bilingual 

employee may conflict with the role 

of an interpreter (for instance, a 

bilingual member of a formal review 

panel adjudicating allegations of 

program or fiscal noncompliance 

would probably not be able to perform 

effectively the role of interpreter and 

adjudicator at the same time, even if 

the bilingual employee were a 

qualified interpreter). Effective 

management strategies, including any 

appropriate adjustments in 

assignments and protocols for using 

bilingual staff, can ensure that 

bilingual staff are fully and 

appropriately utilized. When 

bilingual staff cannot meet all of the 

language service obligations of the 

recipient, the recipient should turn to 

other options. 

—Hiring Staff Interpreters. Hiring 

interpreters may be most helpful 

where there is a frequent need for 

interpreting services in one or more 

languages. Depending on the facts, 

sometimes it may be necessary and 

reasonable to provide on-site 

interpreters to provide accurate and 

meaningful communication with an 

LEP person. 

—Contracting for Interpreters. Contract 

interpreters may be a cost-effective 

option when there is no regular need 

for a particular language skill. In 

addition to commercial and other 

private providers, many communitybased organizations and mutual 

assistance associations provide 

interpretation services for particular 

languages. Contracting with and 

providing training regarding the 

recipient’s programs and processes to 

these organizations can be a costeffective option for providing 

language services to LEP persons from 

those language groups. 

—Using Telephone Interpreter Lines.

While of limited value for live 

performances or museum exhibits, 

telephone interpreter service lines 

often offer speedy interpreting 

assistance in many different languages 

in other public-contact situations. 

They may be particularly appropriate 

where the mode of communicating 

with an English proficient person 

would also be over the phone. 

Although telephonic interpretation 

services are useful in many situations, 

it is important to ensure that, when 

using such services, the interpreters 

used are competent to interpret any 

technical terms specific to a particular 

program that may be important parts 

of the conversation. Nuances in 

language and non-verbal 

communication can often assist an 

interpreter and cannot be recognized 

over the phone. Video 

teleconferencing may sometimes help 

to resolve this issue where necessary. 

In addition, where documents are 

being discussed, it is important to 

give telephonic interpreters adequate 

opportunity to review the document 

prior to the discussion and any 

logistical problems should be 

addressed. 

—Using Community Volunteers. In 

addition to consideration of bilingual 

staff, staff interpreters, or contract 

interpreters (either in-person or by 

telephone) as options to ensure 

meaningful access by LEP persons, 

use of recipient-coordinated 

community volunteers, working with, 

for instance, community-based 

organizations may provide a costeffective supplemental language 

assistance strategy under appropriate 

circumstances. They may be 

particularly useful in providing 

language access for a recipient’s less 

critical programs and activities. To 

the extent the recipient relies on 

community volunteers, it is often best 

to use volunteers who are trained in 

the information or services of the 

program and can communicate 

directly with LEP persons in their 

language. Just as with all interpreters, 

community volunteers used to 

interpret between English speakers 

and LEP persons, or to orally translate 

documents, should be competent in 

the skill of interpreting and 

knowledgeable about applicable 

confidentiality and impartiality rules, 

if any. Recipients should consider 

formal arrangements with 

community-based organizations that 

provide volunteers to address these 

concerns and to help ensure that 

services are available more regularly. 

—Use of Family Members or Friends as 

Interpreters. Although recipients 

should not plan to rely on an LEP 

person’s family members, friends, or 

other informal interpreters to provide 

meaningful access to important 

programs and activities, where LEP 

persons so desire, they should be 

permitted to use, at their own 

expense, an interpreter of their own 

choosing (whether a professional 

interpreter, family member, or friend) 

in place of or as a supplement to the 

free language services expressly 

offered by the recipient. LEP persons 

may feel more comfortable when a 

trusted family member or friend acts 

as an interpreter. In addition, in 

exigent circumstances that are not 

reasonably foreseeable, temporary use 

of interpreters not provided by the 

recipient may be necessary. However, 

with proper planning and 

implementation, recipients should be 

able to avoid most such situations.

Recipients, however, should take 

special care to ensure that family, legal 

guardians, caretakers, and other 

informal interpreters are appropriate in 

light of the circumstances and subject 

matter of the program, service or 

activity, including protection of the 

recipient’s own administrative or 

enforcement interest in accurate 

interpretation. In many circumstances, 

family members (especially children) or 

friends are not competent to provide 

quality and accurate interpretations. 

Issues of confidentiality, privacy, or 

conflict of interest may also arise. LEP 

individuals may feel uncomfortable 

revealing or describing sensitive, 

confidential, or potentially embarrassing 

information to a family member, friend, 

or member of the local community. In 

addition, such informal interpreters may 

have a personal connection to the LEP 

person or an undisclosed conflict of 

interest. For these reasons, when oral 

language services are necessary, 

recipients should generally offer 

competent interpreter services free of 

cost to the LEP person. 

While issues of competency, 

confidentiality, and conflict of interest 

in the use of family members or friends 

often make their use inappropriate, the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Notices 6073

use of these individuals as interpreters 

may be an appropriate option where 

proper application of the four factors 

would lead to a conclusion that 

recipient-provided services are not 

necessary. If the importance and nature 

of the activity is relatively low and 

unlikely to implicate issues of 

confidentiality, conflict of interest, or 

the need for accuracy, and the resources 

needed and costs of providing language 

services are high, an LEP person’s use 

of family, friends, or others may be 

appropriate. 

If the LEP person voluntarily chooses 

to provide his or her own interpreter, a 

recipient should consider whether a 

record of that choice and of the 

recipient’s offer of assistance is 

appropriate. Where precise, complete, 

and accurate interpretations or 

translations of information and/or 

testimony are critical, or where the 

competency of the LEP person’s 

interpreter is not established, a recipient 

might decide to provide its own, 

independent interpreter, even if an LEP 

person wants to use his or her own 

interpreter as well. Extra caution should 

be exercised when the LEP person 

chooses to use a minor as the 

interpreter. While the LEP person’s 

decision should be respected, there may 

be additional issues of competency, 

confidentiality, or conflict of interest 

when the choice involves using children 

as interpreters. The recipient should 

take care to ensure that the LEP person’s 

choice is voluntary, that the LEP person 

is aware of the possible problems if the 

preferred interpreter is a minor child, 

and that the LEP person knows that a 

competent interpreter could be provided 

by the recipient at no cost. 

B. Written Language Services 

(Translation) 

Translation is the replacement of a 

written text from one language (source 

language) into an equivalent written text 

in another language (target language). 

What Documents Should be 

Translated? After applying the fourfactor analysis, a recipient may 

determine that an effective LEP plan for 

its particular program or activity 

includes the translation of vital written 

materials into the language of each 

frequently-encountered LEP group 

eligible to be served and/or likely to be 

affected by the recipient’s program. 

Such written materials could include, 

for example:

—Notices advising LEP persons of free 

language assistance 

—Written tests that do not assess 

English language competency, but test 

competency for a particular license, 

job, or skill for which knowing 

English is not required 

—Applications to participate in a 

recipient’s program or activity or to 

receive recipient benefits, grants, or 

services.

Whether or not a document (or the 

information it solicits) is ‘‘vital’’ may 

depend upon the importance of the 

program, information, encounter, or 

service involved, and the consequence 

to the LEP person if the information in 

question is not provided accurately or in 

a timely manner. Where appropriate, 

recipients are encouraged to create a 

plan for consistently determining, over 

time and across its various activities, 

what documents are ‘‘vital’’ to the 

meaningful access of the LEP 

populations they serve. 

Classifying a document as vital or 

non-vital is sometimes difficult, 

especially in the case of outreach 

materials like brochures or other 

information on rights and services. 

Awareness of rights or services is an 

important part of ‘‘meaningful access.’’

Lack of awareness that a particular 

program, right, or service exists may 

effectively deny LEP individuals 

meaningful access. Thus, where a 

recipient is engaged in community 

outreach activities in furtherance of its 

activities, it should regularly assess the 

needs of the populations frequently 

encountered or affected by the program 

or activity to determine whether certain 

critical outreach materials should be 

translated. Community organizations 

may be helpful in determining what 

outreach materials may be most helpful 

to translate. In addition, the recipient 

should consider whether translations of 

outreach material may be made more 

effective when done in tandem with 

other outreach methods, including 

utilizing the ethnic media, schools, 

religious, and community organizations 

to spread a message. 

Sometimes a document includes both 

vital and non-vital information. This 

may be the case when the document is 

very large. It may also be the case when 

the title and a phone number for 

obtaining more information on the 

contents of the document in frequentlyencountered languages other than 

English is critical, but the document is 

sent out to the general public and 

cannot reasonably be translated into 

many languages. Thus, vital information 

may include, for instance, the provision 

of information in appropriate languages 

other than English regarding where a 

LEP person might obtain an 

interpretation or translation of the 

document. 

Into What Languages Should 

Documents be Translated? The 

languages spoken by the LEP 

individuals with whom the recipient 

has contact determine the languages 

into which vital documents should be 

translated. A distinction should be 

made, however, between languages that 

are frequently encountered by a 

recipient and less commonlyencountered languages. Many recipients 

serve communities in large cities or 

across the country. They regularly serve 

LEP persons who speak dozens and 

sometimes over 100 different languages. 

To translate all written materials into all 

of those languages is unrealistic. 

Although recent technological advances 

have made it easier for recipients to 

store and share translated documents, 

such an undertaking would incur 

substantial costs and require substantial 

resources. Nevertheless, wellsubstantiated claims of lack of resources 

to translate all vital documents into 

dozens of languages do not necessarily 

relieve the recipient of the obligation to 

translate those documents into at least 

several of the more frequentlyencountered languages and to set 

benchmarks for continued translations 

into the remaining languages over time. 

As a result, the extent of the recipient’s 

obligation to provide written 

translations of documents should be 

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

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

one-time expense, consideration should 

be given to whether the up-front cost of 

translating a document (as opposed to 

oral interpretation) should be amortized 

over the likely lifespan of the document 

when applying this four-factor analysis.

Safe Harbor. Many recipients would 

like to ensure with greater certainty that 

they comply with their obligations to 

provide written translations in 

languages other than English. 

Paragraphs (a) and (b) outline the 

circumstances that can provide a ‘‘safe 

harbor’’ for recipients regarding the 

requirements for translation of written 

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

a recipient provides written translations 

under these circumstances, such action 

will be considered strong evidence of 

compliance with the recipient’s writtentranslation obligations. 

The failure to provide written 

translations under the circumstances 

outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) does 

not mean there is non-compliance. 

Rather, they provide a common starting 

point for recipients to consider whether 

and at what point the importance of the 

service, benefit, or activity involved; the 

nature of the information sought; and 

the number or proportion of LEP 

persons served call for written 

6074 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Notices 

9For those languages in which no formal 

accreditation currently exists, a particular level of 

membership in a professional translation 

association can provide some indicator of 

professionalism.

10For instance, there may be languages which do 

not have an appropriate direct translation of some 

terms and the translator should be able to provide 

an appropriate translation. The translator should 

likely also make the recipient aware of this. 

Recipients can then work with translators to 

develop a consistent and appropriate set of 

descriptions of these terms in that language that can 

be used again, when appropriate. Recipients will 

find it more effective and less costly if they try to 

maintain consistency in the words and phrases 

used to translate terms of art and legal or other 

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

useful for LEP persons and translators and cost 

effective for the recipient. Providing translators 

with examples of previous translations of similar 

material by the recipient, other recipients, or federal 

agencies may be helpful.

translations of commonly-used forms 

into frequently-encountered languages 

other than English. Thus, these 

paragraphs merely provide a guide for 

recipients that would like greater 

certainty of compliance than can be 

provided by a fact-intensive, four-factor 

analysis. 

Example: Even if the safe harbors are 

not used, if written translation of a 

certain document(s) would be so 

burdensome as to defeat the legitimate 

objectives of its program, the translation 

of the written materials is not necessary. 

Other ways of providing meaningful 

access, such as effective oral 

interpretation of certain vital 

documents, might be acceptable under 

such circumstances. 

Safe Harbor Guides. The following 

actions will be considered strong 

evidence of compliance with the 

recipient’s written-translation 

obligations: 

(a) The recipient provides written 

translations of vital documents for each 

eligible LEP language group that 

constitutes five percent or 1,000, 

whichever is less, of the population of 

persons eligible to be served or likely to 

be affected or encountered. Translation 

of other documents, if needed, can be 

provided orally; or 

(b) If there are fewer than 50 persons 

in a language group that reaches the five 

percent trigger in (a), the recipient does 

not translate vital written materials but 

provides written notice in the primary 

language of the LEP language group of 

the right to receive competent oral 

interpretation of those written materials, 

free of cost. 

These safe harbor provisions apply to 

the translation of written documents 

only. They do not affect the requirement 

to provide meaningful access to LEP 

individuals through competent oral 

interpreters where oral language 

services are needed and are reasonable. 

Treasury provides assistance to a 

range of programs and activities serving 

different geographic areas with varying 

populations. Moreover, as noted above, 

the obligation to consider translations 

applies only to a recipient’s vital 

documents having a significant impact 

on access rather than all types of 

documents used or generated by a 

recipient in the course of its activities. 

For these reasons, a strict reliance on 

the numbers or percentages set out in 

the safe harbor standards may not be 

appropriate for all of Treasury’s 

recipients and for all their respective 

programs or activities. While the safe 

harbor standards outlined above offer a 

common guide, the decision as to what 

documents should be translated should 

ultimately be governed by the 

underlying obligation under Title VI to 

provide meaningful access by LEP 

persons by ensuring that the lack of 

appropriate translations of vital 

documents does not adversely impact 

upon an otherwise eligible LEP persons 

ability to access its programs or 

activities. 

Competence of Translators. As with 

oral interpreters, translators of written 

documents should be competent. Many 

of the same considerations apply. 

However, the skill of translating is very 

different from the skill of interpreting, 

and a person who is a competent 

interpreter may or may not be 

competent to translate. 

Particularly where vital documents 

are being translated, competence can 

often be achieved by use of certified 

translators. Certification or accreditation 

may not always be possible or 

necessary.9 Competence can often be 

ensured by having a second, 

independent translator ‘‘check’’ the 

work of the primary translator. 

Alternatively, one translator can 

translate the document, and a second, 

independent translator could translate it 

back into English to check that the 

appropriate meaning has been 

conveyed. This is called ‘‘back 

translation.’’

Translators should understand the 

expected reading level of the audience 

and, where appropriate, have 

fundamental knowledge about the target 

language group’s vocabulary and 

phraseology. Sometimes direct 

translation of materials results in a 

translation that is written at a much 

more difficult level than the English 

language version or has no relevant 

equivalent meaning.10 Community 

organizations may be able to help 

consider whether a document is written 

at a good level for the audience. 

Likewise, consistency in the words and 

phrases used to translate terms of art or 

other technical concepts helps avoid 

confusion by LEP individuals and may 

reduce costs. Creating or using alreadycreated glossaries of commonly-used 

terms may be useful for LEP persons 

and translators and cost effective for the 

recipient. Providing translators with 

examples of previous accurate 

translations of similar material by the 

recipient, other recipients, or Federal 

agencies may be helpful.

While quality and accuracy of 

translation services is critical, the 

quality and accuracy of translation 

services is nonetheless part of the 

appropriate mix of LEP services 

required. For instance, documents that 

are simple and have no significant 

consequence for LEP persons who rely 

on them may use translators that are less 

skilled than important documents with 

legal or other information upon which 

reliance has important consequences. 

The permanent nature of written 

translations, however, imposes 

additional responsibility on the 

recipient to ensure that the quality and 

accuracy permit meaningful access by 

LEP persons. 

VII. Elements of Effective Plan on 

Language Assistance for LEP Persons 

After completing the four-factor 

analysis and deciding what language 

assistance services are appropriate, a 

recipient should develop an 

implementation plan to address the 

identified needs of the LEP populations 

they serve. Recipients have considerable 

flexibility in developing this plan. The 

development and maintenance of a 

periodically-updated written plan on 

language assistance for LEP persons 

(‘‘LEP plan’’) for use by recipient 

employees serving the public will likely 

be the most appropriate and costeffective means of documenting 

compliance and providing a framework 

for the provision of timely and 

reasonable language assistance. 

Moreover, such written plans would 

likely provide additional benefits to a 

recipient’s managers in the areas of 

training, administration, planning, and 

budgeting. These benefits should lead 

most recipients to document in a 

written LEP plan their language 

assistance services, and how staff and 

LEP persons can access those services. 

Despite these benefits, certain 

recipients, such as recipients serving 

very few LEP persons and recipients 

with very limited resources, may choose 

not to develop a written LEP plan. 

However, the absence of a written LEP 

plan does not obviate the underlying 

obligation to ensure meaningful access 

by LEP persons to a recipient’s program 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Notices 6075

11The Social Security Administration has made 

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

multilanguage/langlist1.htm. These signs could, for 

example, be modified for recipient use.

or activities. Accordingly, in the event 

that a recipient elects not to develop a 

written plan, it should consider 

alternative ways to articulate in some 

other reasonable manner a plan for 

providing meaningful access. Entities 

having significant contact with LEP 

persons, such as schools, religious 

organizations, community groups, and 

groups working with new immigrants 

can be very helpful in providing 

important input into this planning 

process from the beginning. 

The following five steps may be 

helpful in designing an LEP plan and 

are typically part of effective 

implementation plans. 

(1) Identifying LEP Individuals Who 

Need Language Assistance 

The first two factors in the four-factor 

analysis require an assessment of the 

number or proportion of LEP 

individuals eligible to be served or 

encountered and the frequency of 

encounters. This requires recipients to 

identify LEP persons with whom it has 

contact. One way to determine the 

language of communication is to use 

language identification cards (or ‘‘I 

speak cards’’), which invite LEP persons 

to identify their language needs to staff. 

Such cards, for instance, might say ‘‘I 

speak Spanish’’ in both Spanish and 

English, ‘‘I speak Vietnamese’’ in both 

English and Vietnamese, etc. To reduce 

costs of compliance, the federal 

government has made a set of these 

cards available on the Internet. The 

Census Bureau ‘‘I speak card’’ can be 

found and downloaded at http://

www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/13166.htm.

When records are normally kept of past 

interactions with members of the public, 

the language of the LEP person can be 

included as part of the record. In 

addition to helping employees identify 

the language of LEP persons they 

encounter, this process will help in 

future applications of the first two 

factors of the four-factor analysis. In 

addition, posting notices in commonly 

encountered languages notifying LEP 

persons of language assistance will 

encourage them to self-identify.

(2) Language Assistance Measures 

An effective LEP plan would likely 

include information about the ways in 

which language assistance will be 

provided. For instance, recipients may 

want to include information on at least 

the following:

— Types of language services available. 

— How staff can obtain those services. 

— How to respond to LEP callers. 

— How to respond to written 

communications from LEP persons. 

— How to respond to LEP individuals 

who have in-person contact with 

recipient staff. 

— How to ensure competency of 

interpreters and translation services. 

(3) Training Staff 

Staff should know their obligations to 

provide meaningful access to 

information and services for LEP 

persons. An effective LEP plan would 

likely include training to ensure that:

— Staff know about LEP policies and 

procedures. 

— Staff having contact with the public 

are trained to work effectively with 

in-person and telephone interpreters.

Recipients may want to include this 

training as part of the orientation for 

new employees. It is important to 

ensure that all employees in public 

contact positions are properly trained. 

Recipients have flexibility in deciding 

the manner in which the training is 

provided. The more frequent the contact 

with LEP persons, the greater the need 

will be for in-depth training. Staff with 

little or no contact with LEP persons 

may only have to be aware of an LEP 

plan. However, management staff, even 

if they do not interact regularly with 

LEP persons, should be fully aware of 

and understand the plan so they can 

reinforce its importance and ensure its 

implementation by staff. 

(4) Providing Notice to LEP Persons 

Once an organization has decided, 

based on the four factors, that it will 

provide language services, it is 

important for the recipient to let LEP 

persons know that those services are 

available and that they are free of 

charge. Recipients should provide this 

notice in a language LEP persons will 

understand. Examples of notification 

that recipients should consider include: 

Posting signs in intake areas and other 

entry points. When language assistance 

is needed to ensure meaningful access 

to information and services, it is 

important to provide notice in 

appropriate languages in intake areas or 

initial points of contact so that LEP 

persons can learn how to access those 

language services. For instance, signs in 

intake offices could state that free 

language assistance is available. The 

signs should be translated into the most 

common languages encountered. They 

should explain how to get the language 

help.11

— Stating in outreach documents that 

language services are available from 

the agency. Announcements could be 

in, for instance, brochures, booklets, 

and in outreach and recruitment 

information. These statements should 

be translated into the most common 

languages and could be ‘‘tagged’’ onto 

the front of common documents. 

— Working with community-based 

organizations and other stakeholders 

to inform LEP individuals of the 

recipients’ services, including the 

availability of language assistance 

services. 

— Using a telephone voice mail menu. 

The menu could be in the most 

common languages encountered. It 

should provide information about 

available language assistance services 

and how to get them. 

— Including notices in local 

newspapers in languages other than 

English. 

— Providing notices on non-Englishlanguage radio and television stations 

about the available language 

assistance services and how to get 

them. 

— Presentations and/or notices at 

schools and religious organizations. 

(5) Monitoring and Updating the LEP 

Plan 

Recipients should, where appropriate, 

have a process for determining, on an 

ongoing basis, whether new documents, 

programs, services, and activities need 

to be made accessible for LEP 

individuals, and they may want to 

provide notice of any changes in 

services to the LEP public and to 

employees. In addition, recipients 

should consider whether changes in 

demographics, types of services, or 

other needs require annual reevaluation 

of their LEP plan. Less frequent 

reevaluation may be more appropriate 

where demographics, services, and 

needs are more static. One good way to 

evaluate the LEP plan is to seek 

feedback from the community. 

In their reviews, recipients may want 

to consider assessing changes in: 

— Current LEP populations in service 

area or population affected or 

encountered. 

— Frequency of encounters with LEP 

language groups.

• Nature and importance of activities 

to LEP persons. 

• Availability of resources, including 

technological advances and sources of 

additional resources, and the costs 

imposed. 

• Whether existing assistance is 

meeting the needs of LEP persons. 

• Whether staff knows and 

understands the LEP plan and how to 

implement it. 

6076 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Notices 

• Whether identified sources for 

assistance are still available and viable. 

In addition to these five elements, 

effective plans set clear goals, 

management accountability, and 

opportunities for community input and 

planning throughout the process. 

VIII. Voluntary Compliance Effort 

The goal for Title VI and Title VI 

regulatory enforcement is to achieve 

voluntary compliance. The requirement 

to provide meaningful access to LEP 

persons is implemented by Treasury 

through complaint investigations, 

compliance reviews, efforts to secure 

voluntary compliance, and technical 

assistance. Upon publication of 

Treasury’s Title VI regulations, the 

enforcement procedures in those 

regulations will be applicable to this 

program. 

Treasury 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, Treasury will inform the 

recipient in writing of this 

determination, including the basis for 

the determination. Treasury will use 

voluntary mediation to resolve most 

complaints. However, if a case is fully 

investigated and results in a finding of 

noncompliance, Treasury will inform 

the recipient of the noncompliance 

through a Letter of Findings that sets out 

the areas of noncompliance and the 

steps that must be taken to correct the 

noncompliance. It will first attempt to 

secure voluntary compliance through 

informal means. If the matter cannot be 

resolved informally, Treasury will 

secure compliance through the 

termination of federal assistance after 

the recipient has been given an 

opportunity for an administrative 

hearing and/or by referring the matter to 

a DOJ litigation section to seek 

injunctive relief or pursue other 

enforcement proceedings. Treasury will 

engage in voluntary compliance efforts 

and provide technical assistance to 

recipients at all stages of an 

investigation. During these efforts, 

Treasury will propose reasonable 

timetables for achieving compliance and 

consult with and assist recipients in 

exploring cost-effective ways of coming 

into compliance. In determining a 

recipient’s compliance with the Title VI 

regulations, Treasury’s primary concern 

is to ensure that the recipient’s policies 

and procedures provide meaningful 

access for LEP persons to the recipient’s 

programs and activities. 

While all recipients must work 

toward building systems that will 

ensure access for LEP individuals, 

Treasury acknowledges that the 

implementation of a comprehensive 

system to serve LEP individuals is a 

process and that a system will evolve 

over time as it is implemented and 

periodically reevaluated. As recipients 

take reasonable steps to provide 

meaningful access to federally assisted 

programs and activities for LEP persons, 

Treasury will look favorably on 

intermediate steps recipients take that 

are consistent with this Guidance, and 

that, as part of a broader 

implementation plan or schedule, move 

their service delivery system toward 

providing full access to LEP persons. 

This does not excuse noncompliance 

but instead recognizes that full 

compliance in all areas of a recipient’s 

activities and for all potential language 

minority groups may reasonably require 

a series of implementing actions over a 

period of time. However, in developing 

any phased implementation schedule, 

recipients should ensure that the 

provision of appropriate assistance for 

significant LEP populations or with 

respect to activities having a significant 

impact on the health, safety, legal rights, 

or livelihood of beneficiaries is 

addressed first. Recipients are 

encouraged to document their efforts to 

provide LEP persons with meaningful 

access to federally assisted programs 

and activities. 

In cases where a recipient of Federal 

financial assistance from Treasury also 

receives assistance from one or more 

other Federal agencies, there is no 

obligation to conduct and document 

separate but identical analyses and 

language assistance plans. Treasury, in 

discharging its compliance and 

enforcement obligations under Title VI, 

will look to analyses performed and 

plans developed in response to similar 

detailed LEP guidance issued by other 

Federal agencies. Accordingly, as an 

adjunct to this Guidance, recipients 

may, where appropriate, also rely on 

guidance issued by other agencies in 

discharging their Title VI LEP 

obligations. 

In determining a recipient entity’s 

compliance with Title VI, Treasury’s 

primary concern is to ensure that the 

entity’s policies and procedures 

overcome barriers resulting from 

language differences that would deny 

LEP persons a meaningful opportunity 

to participate in and access programs, 

services, and benefits. A recipient 

entity’s appropriate use of the methods 

and options discussed in this policy 

guidance is viewed by Treasury as 

evidence of that entity’s willingness to 

comply voluntarily with its Title VI 

obligations. 

IX. Complaint Process 

Anyone who believes that he/she has 

been discriminated against because of 

race, color or national origin in violation 

of Title VI may file a complaint with 

Treasury within 180 days of the date on 

which the discrimination took place. 

The following information should be 

included: 

• Your name and address (a 

telephone number where you may be 

reached during business hours is 

helpful, but not required); 

• A general description of the 

person(s) or class of persons injured by 

the alleged discriminatory act(s); 

• The name and location of the 

organization or institution that 

committed the alleged discriminatory 

act(s); 

• A description of the alleged 

discriminatory act(s) in sufficient detail 

to enable the Office of Equal 

Opportunity and Diversity (OEOD) to 

understand what occurred, when it 

occurred, and the basis for the alleged 

discrimination. 

• The letter or form must be signed 

and dated by the complainant or by 

someone authorized to do so on his or 

her behalf. 

A recipient may not retaliate against 

any person who has made a complaint, 

testified, assisted or participated in any 

manner in an investigation or 

proceeding under the statutes governing 

Federal financial assistance programs. 

Civil rights complaints should be filed 

with: Department of the Treasury, Office 

of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, 

1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 

8157, Washington, DC 20220.

[FR Doc. 05–2156 Filed 2–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4811–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

[OMB Control No. 2900–0501] 

Proposed Information Collection 

Activity: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits 

Administration (VBA), Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

proposed collection of certain 

information by the agency. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 

1995, Federal agencies are required to 

publish notice in the Federal Register