Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2003 / Notices 70039 

government; State, local or tribal 

government. 

Total Respondents: 35,000. 

Total Responses: 35,000. 

Time per Response: 20 minutes. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

11,667. 

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 

$0. 

Total Burden Cost (operating/ 

maintenance): $0. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for Office of 

Management and Budget approval of the 

information collection request; they will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Dated: December 10, 2003. 

Bruce Bohanon, 

Chief, Branch of Management Review and 

Internal Control, Division of Financial 

Management, Office of Management, 

Administration and Planning, Employment 

Standards Administration. 

[FR Doc. 03–30969 Filed 12–15–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–27–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2003–3] 

Courier Mail 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress.


ACTION: New procedure for courier 


deliveries. 


SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is 

announcing the implementation of new 

procedures for deliveries made by nongovernment, in-person, commercial 

couriers or messengers. These 

procedures do not apply to deliveries 

made by U.S. government 

representatives or those made by large 

commercial carriers such as Federal 

Express or United Parcel Service. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 29, 2003. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Dadant, Chief, Receiving and 

Processing Division. Telephone: (202) 

707–7700. Telefax: (202) 707–1899. 

Tanya M. Sandros, Senior Attorney. 

Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax: 

(202) 707–8366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Beginning 

on December 29, 2003, the Library of 

Congress will no longer accept on site 

deliveries from non-governmental, inperson, commercial couriers or 

messengers. Instead, couriers must 

deliver materials for staff at the Library 

of Congress, including deliveries to 

Copyright Office employees, directly to 

the Congressional Courier Acceptance 

Site (‘‘CCAS’’), located on 2nd and D 

Streets, NE. The CCAS will accept items 

from couriers with proper identification, 

e.g., a valid driver’s license, Monday 

through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 4 

p.m. Short-term parking for both cars 

and bikes is available at the site. The 

date of receipt at the CCAS will be 

considered as the date materials would 

have been received at the Copyright 

Office but for the change in the Library’s 

policy for accepting courier mail. 

A courier may make a delivery of up 

to ten items to the CCAS at any one 

time. When a courier makes a delivery 

to the acceptance site, each item will be 

logged-in, noting date and time, x-rayed 

and screened for hazardous materials 

and substances. Packages no larger than 

4′′ × 14′′ × 18′′ will be accepted at the 

CCAS for processing on site. Larger 

packages delivered to the CCAS will be 

redirected to the Library of Congress’ 

off-site mail processing center for 

inspection. Items will not be presorted 

and redirected based on their weight. 

Expected deliveries from a source 

known to the recipient that arrive at the 

CCAS before 10 a.m. will be inspected 

and delivered to the appropriate office 

in the Library of Congress by the end of 

the day. All other deliveries will be 

delivered generally during the morning 

of the next business day. Expected 

deliveries are those which have been 

requested by a staff member of the 

Library from a sender known to the 

Library or a staff member, and which are 

delivered by an employee of a known 

organization, i.e., one that is known by 

the Library and routinely conducts 

business with its staff, or by a courier 

company on its behalf. 

These procedures do not apply to 

normal mail deliveries or deliveries 

from large commercial carriers such as 

Federal Express or United Parcel 

Service (‘‘UPS’’). Deliveries from these 

carriers will continue to be processed at 

the off-site mail facility. 

Dated: December 12, 2003. 

Marybeth Peters, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 03–31125 Filed 12–15–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice: 154] 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

as Amended: Policy Guidance on the 

Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination as It Affects Persons 

With Limited English Proficiency 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Policy guidance document. 

SUMMARY: NASA adopts policy guidance 


to federal financial assistance recipients 


regarding Title VI prohibition against 


national origin discrimination affecting 


Limited English Proficient (LEP) 


persons. The NASA recipient LEP 


policy guidance is issued pursuant to 


Executive Order 13166 and supplants 


existing policy guidance on the same 


subject originally published at 66 FR 


15141 (March 15, 2001).


DATES: Effective immediately.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 


Miguel A. Torres, 202–358–0937, or 


TDD: 202–358–3748. Arrangements to 


receive the policy in an alternative 


format may be made by contacting Mr. 


Miguel A. Torres.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 


purpose of this policy guidance is to 


further clarify the responsibilities of 


institutions and/or entities that receive 


financial assistance from NASA, and 


assist them in fulfilling their 


responsibilities to LEP persons pursuant 


to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 


1964. The policy guidance emphasizes 


that in order to avoid discrimination 


against LEP persons on grounds of 


national origin, recipients of NASA 


financial assistance must take adequate 


steps to ensure that people who are not 


proficient in English can effectively 


participate in and benefit from the 


recipient’s programs and activities. 


Therefore, LEP persons should expect to 


receive the language assistance 


necessary to afford them meaningful 


access to the recipients’ programs and 


activities, free of charge. 


This document was originally 

published as policy guidance for public 

comment on March 15, 2001. See 66 FR 

15141. 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 

50213 (August 16, 2000). No public 

comments were received. 

On October 26, 2001, and January 11, 

2002, the Assistant Attorney General for 

70040 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2003 / Notices 

Civil Rights issued to federal 

departments and agencies guidance 

memoranda, which reaffirmed the 

Department of Justice’s commitment to 

ensuring that federally assisted 

programs and activities fulfill their LEP 

responsibilities and which clarified and 

answered certain questions raised 

regarding the August 16th publication. 

In addition, on March 14, 2002, 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 across all 

federal agencies, with flexibility to 

permit tailoring to each agency’s 

specific recipients. 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 

documents by other Federal grant 

agencies. See 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 

2002). NASA reviewed its March 15, 

2001, publication in light of the 

aforementioned clarifications, to 

determine whether there was a need to 

clarify or modify the March 15th policy 

guidance. 

In furtherance of those memoranda, 

NASA republished revised policy 

guidance for additional public comment 

on August 15, 2003 (68 FR 48947), for 

the purpose of obtaining additional 

public comment. Because the guidance 

must adhere to the federal-wide 

compliance standards and framework 

detailed in the model DOJ LEP 

Guidance, NASA specifically solicited 

comments on the nature, scope and 

appropriateness of the NASA-specific 

examples set out in the revised guidance 

explaining and/or highlighting how 

those consistent federal-wide 

compliance standards are applicable to 

recipients of federal financial assistance 

through NASA. No public comments 

were received. 

It has been determined that this 

guidance, which supplants existing 

guidance on the same subject previously 

published at 66 FR 15141 (March 15, 

2001), does not constitute a regulation 

subject to the rulemaking requirements 

of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 

U.S.C. 553. It also has been determined 

that this guidance is not subject to 

Executive Order 12866. 

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 

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 Spanish-speakers, 

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 Language 

Assistance Plan (LAP). However, the 

fact that ESL classes are made available 

does not obviate the statutory and 

regulatory requirement to provide 

meaningful access for those who are not 

yet English proficient. Recipients of 

federal financial assistance have an 

obligation to reduce language barriers 

that can preclude meaningful access by 

LEP persons to important government 

services.1 

In certain circumstances, failure to 

ensure that LEP persons can effectively 

participate in or benefit from federally 

assisted programs and activities may 

violate the prohibition under Title VI of 

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

2000d and Title VI regulations against 

national origin discrimination. The 

1 NASA recognizes that many recipients had 

language assistance programs in place prior to the 

issuance of Executive Order 13166. This policy 

guidance provides a uniform framework for a 

recipient to integrate, formalize, and assess the 

continued vitality of these existing and possibly 

additional reasonable efforts based on the nature of 

its program or activity, the current needs of the LEP 

populations it encounters, and its prior experience 

in providing language services in the community it 

serves. 

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 

DOJ will use in evaluating whether 

recipients are in compliance with Title 

VI and Title VI regulations. 

There are many productive steps that 

NASA 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, NASA 

plans to continue to provide assistance 

and guidance in this important area. In 

addition, NASA plans to work with its 

recipients, and LEP persons to identify 

and share model plans, examples of best 

practices, and cost-saving approaches. 

Moreover, NASA intends to explore 

how language assistance measures, 

resources and cost-containment 

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, 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, responding to 

the proposed DOJ LEP Policy Guidance, 

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. The Department of Justice has 

taken the position that this is not the 

case, and NASA agrees with that 

position. Accordingly, NASA will strive 

to ensure that federally assisted 

programs and activities work in a way 

2 The policy guidance is not a regulation but 

rather a guide. Title VI and its implementing 

regulations require that recipients take responsible 

steps to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons. 

This guidance provides an analytical framework 

that recipients may use to determine how best to 

comply with statutory and regulatory obligations to 

provide meaningful access to the benefits, services, 

information, and other important portions of their 

programs and activities for individuals who are 

limited English proficient. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2003 / Notices 70041 

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. 

NASA regulations promulgated 

pursuant to Section 602 forbid 

recipients from utilizing 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 to 

individuals of a particular race, color, or 

national origin. 14 CFR 1250.103–2. 

The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 

414 U.S. 563 (1974), interpreted 

regulations promulgated by the former 

Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare, including a regulation similar 

to that of NASA, 45 CFR 80.3(b)(2), to 

hold that Title VI prohibits conduct that 

has a disproportionate effect on LEP 

persons because such conduct 

constitutes national-origin 

discrimination. In Lau, a San Francisco 

school district that had a significant 

number of non-English speaking 

students of Chinese origin was required 

to take reasonable steps to provide them 

with a meaningful opportunity to 

participate in federally funded 

educational programs. 

On August 11, 2000, 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 restricting 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. 

Title VI regulations also prohibit 

utilizing 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). The DOJ role under 

Executive Order 13166 (the Executive 

Order) is unique. The Executive Order 

charges DOJ with responsibility for 

providing LEP Guidance to other 

Federal agencies and for ensuring 

consistency among each agency-specific 

guidance. Consistency among 

Departments of the Federal Government 

is particularly important. Inconsistency 

or contradictory guidance could confuse 

recipients of federal funds and 

needlessly increase costs without 

rendering the meaningful access for LEP 

persons that this guidance is designed to 

address. 

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, 532 U.S. 275 

(2001). 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 

3 The 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 

commentator’s 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 

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. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, 

DOJ developed its own guidance 

document for recipients and initially 

issued it on January 16, 2001. Guidance 

to Federal Financial Assistance 

Recipients Regarding Title VI 

Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination Affecting Limited 

English Proficient Persons, 66 FR 3834 

(January 16, 2001) (LEP Guidance for 

DOJ Recipients). NASA published in the 

Federal Register (66 FR 15141) its own 

LEP Guidance. NASA did not receive 

comments from the public. 

This guidance document is thus 

published pursuant to Executive Order 

13166 and supplants the March 15, 

2001, publication. 

III. Who Is Covered? 

NASA regulations, 14 CFR Part 1250, 

require all recipients of federal financial 

assistance from NASA 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 NASA 

assistance include, for example: 

• State or local agencies 

• Non-profit institutions or 

organizations 

• Educational Institutions 

• Any public or private individual to 

whom federal assistance is extended, 

directly or through another recipient, 

including any successor, assignee, or 

transferee thereof. 

Sub-recipients likewise are covered 

when federal funds are passed through 

from one recipient to a sub-recipient. 

Coverage extends to a recipient’s 

entire program or activity, i.e., to all 

parts of a recipient’s operations. This is 

true even if only one part of the 

recipient receives the federal 

assistance.5 

agencies to enforce their own implementing 

regulations. 

4 Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, the 

meaningful access requirement of Title VI 

regulations and the four-factor analysis set forth in 

the DOJ LEP Guidance are to additionally apply to 

the programs and activities of federal agencies, 

including NASA. 

5 However, if a federal agency were to decide to 

terminate federal funds based on noncompliance 

with Title VI or its regulations, only funds directed 

to the particular program or activity that is out of 

Continued 

70042 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2003 / Notices 

Example: NASA provides assistance 

to a state department of education for 

curriculum enhancement in science and 

mathematics in its public schools. All of 

the operations of the entire state 

department of education—not just the 

schools—are covered. 

Finally, some recipients 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 NASA 

recipients and should be considered 

when planning language services 

include, but are not limited to: 

• Students enrolled in NASA-funded 

science, mathematics, and technology 

enrichment activities. 

• Parents or family members of the 

above. 

• Individuals participating in NASA 

program orientations and visiting 

exhibits at NASA Visitor centers where 

the programs and activities are funded 

and conducted by a NASA financial 

assistance recipient. 

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, 

compliance would be terminated. 42 U.S.C. 2000d– 

1. 

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 and/or have 

greater impact on or contact with LEP 

persons, and thus may require more in 

the way of language assistance. The 

flexibility that recipients have in 

addressing the needs of the LEP 

populations they serve does not 

diminish, and should not be used to 

minimize, the obligation that those 

needs be addressed. NASA 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. 

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 

school district receiving NASA financial 

assistance serves a large LEP 

population, the appropriate service area 

is most likely the school district, and 

not the entire state. 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, provided 

that these designations do not 

themselves discriminatorily exclude 

certain populations. When considering 

the number or proportion of LEP 

individuals in a service area, recipients 

should consider LEP parent(s) when 

their English-proficient or LEP minor 

children and dependents are potential 

or actual participants or beneficiaries of 

NASA-funded programs and activities. 

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, 

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. 

(1) 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. 

6 The 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 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 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2003 / Notices 70043 

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. 

(2) The Nature and Importance of the 

Program, Activity, or Service Provided 

by the Program 

The more important the activity, 

information, service, or program, or the 

greater the possible consequences of the 

contact to the LEP individuals, the more 

likely language services are needed. The 

obligations to communicate information 

on short and long-term weather patterns 

to rural communities via satellite 

pictures and computer modeling differ, 

for example, from those to provide 

curriculum enhancement in science and 

mathematics to middle school students. 

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 NASA 

recipients to make an activity 

compulsory, such as instruction on 

safety and security requirements before 

touring a NASA facility, can serve as 

strong evidence of the program’s 

importance. 

(3) The Resources Available to the 

Recipient and Costs 

A recipient’s level of resources and 

the costs that would be imposed on it 

may have an impact on the nature of the 

steps it should take. Smaller recipients 

with more limited budgets are not 

expected to provide the same level of 

language services as larger recipients 

with larger budgets. In addition, 

reasonable steps may cease to be 

reasonable where the costs imposed 

substantially exceed the benefits. 

Resource and cost issues, however, 

can often be reduced by technological 

advances; the sharing of language 

assistance materials and services among 

and between recipients, advocacy 

groups, and Federal grant agencies; and 

reasonable business practices. Where 

appropriate, training bilingual staff to 

act as interpreters and translators, 

information sharing through industry 

groups, telephonic and video 

conferencing interpretation services, 

pooling resources and standardizing 

documents to reduce translation needs, 

using qualified translators and 

interpreters to ensure that documents 

need not be fixed later and that 

inaccurate interpretations do not cause 

delay or other costs, centralizing 

interpreter and translator services to 

achieve economies of scale, or the 

formalized use of qualified community 

volunteers, 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 

well-substantiated before using this 

factor as a reason to limit language 

assistance. Such recipients may find it 

useful to be able to articulate, through 

documentation or in some other 

reasonable manner, their process for 

determining that language services 

would be limited based on resources or 

costs. 

This four-factor analysis necessarily 

implicates the mix of LEP services 

required. Recipients have two main 

ways to provide language services: Oral 

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 commerciallyavailable 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. For 

instance, a visit by the NASA 

Administrator to a largely Hispanic 

neighborhood may need immediate oral 

interpreters available. (Of course, many 

community organizations may have 

already made such arrangements.) In 

contrast, there may be circumstances 

where the importance and nature of the 

activity and number or proportion and 

frequency of contact with LEP persons 

may be low and the costs and resources 

needed to provide language services 

may be high, such as in the case of a 

voluntary general public tour of a NASA 

program site in which pre-arranged 

language services for the particular 

service may not be necessary. 

7 Small recipients with limited resources my find 

that entering into a bulk telephonic interpretation 

service will prove cost effective. 

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 is helpful. When using 

interpreters, recipients should ensure 

that they: 

Demonstrate proficiency in and 

ability to communicate information 

accurately in both English and in the 

other language and identify and employ 

the appropriate mode of interpreting 

(e.g., consecutive, simultaneous, 

summarization, or sight translation); 

Have knowledge in both languages of 

any specialized terms or concepts 

peculiar to the entity’s program or 

activity and of any particularized 

vocabulary and phraseology used by the 

LEP person,8 and understand and follow 

8 Many 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 

Continued 

70044 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2003 / Notices 

confidentiality and impartiality rules to 

the same extent the recipient employee 

for whom they are interpreting and/or to 

the extent their position requires. 

Understand and adhere to their role as 

interpreters without deviating into a 

role as counselor, legal advisor, or other 

roles. 

Some recipients, such as technical or 

scientific recipients, may have 

additional self-imposed requirements 

for interpreters. Where the technical 

integrity of the information depends on 

precise, complete, and accurate 

interpretation or translations, 

particularly in the contexts of 

communicating technology innovations 

to the public, the use of certified 

interpreters is strongly encouraged.9 

Where such activities are lengthy, the 

interpreter will likely need breaks and 

team interpreting may be appropriate. 

The quality and accuracy of language 

services is part of the appropriate mix 

of LEP services required. The quality 

and accuracy of language services 

during a safety and security briefing, for 

example, must be extraordinarily high, 

while the quality and accuracy of 

language services in responding to 

telephonic inquiries for general 

information need not meet the same 

exacting standards. 

Finally, when interpretation is needed 

and is reasonable, it should be provided 

in a timely manner. To be meaningfully 

effective, language assistance should be 

timely. While there is no single 

definition for timely applicable to all 

types of interactions at all times by all 

types of recipients, one clear guide is 

that the language assistance should be 

provided at a time and place that avoids 

the effective denial of the service, 

benefit, or right at issue or the 

imposition of an undue burden on or 

delay in important rights, benefits, or 

services to the LEP person. For example, 

when the timeliness of services is 

important, such as with certain 

activities of NASA recipients which 

involve the provision of enrollment 

information to parents of potential 

student participants in NASA-funded 

enrichment activities in science, 

mathematics, and/or technology, a 

recipient would likely not be providing 

meaningful access if it had one bilingual 

member of the staff available one day a 

may be languages that do not have an appropriate 

direct interpretation of some technical terms, the 

interpreter should be so aware of the issue. The 

interpreter and recipient can then work to develop 

a consistent and appropriate set of descriptions of 

these terms in that language so that they can be 

used again, when appropriate. 

9 For those languages for which no formal 

accreditation or certification currently exists, NASA 

recipients should consider a formal process for 

establishing the credentials of the interpreter. 

week to provide the service. Such 

conduct would likely result in delays 

for LEP persons that would be 

significantly greater than those for 

English proficient persons. Conversely, 

where access to or exercise of a service, 

benefit, or right is not effectively 

precluded by a reasonable delay, 

language assistance can likely be 

delayed for a reasonable period. 

Hiring Bilingual Staff. When 

particular languages are encountered 

often, hiring bilingual staff offers one of 

the best, and often most economical, 

options. Recipients can, for example, fill 

public contact positions, such as public 

information specialists, guards, or 

program directors, with staff that are 

bilingual and competent to 

communicate directly with LEP persons 

in their language. If bilingual staff is 

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 security guard would 

probably not be able to perform 

effectively the role of a planetary 

science interpreter and security guard at 

the same time, even if the security guard 

were a qualified interpreter). Effective 

management strategies, including any 

appropriate adjustments in assignments 

and protocols for using bilingual staff, 

can ensure that bilingual staff is 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 community-based 

organizations and mutual assistance 

associations provide interpretation 

services for particular languages. 

Contracting with and providing training 

regarding the recipient’s programs and 

processes to these organizations can be 

a cost-effective option for providing 

language services to LEP persons from 

those language groups. 

Using Telephone Interpreter Lines. 

Telephone interpreter service lines often 

offer speedy interpreting assistance in 

many different languages. They may be 

particularly appropriate where the mode 

of communicating with an English 

proficient person would also be over the 

phone. Although telephonic 

interpretation services are useful in 

many situations, it is important to 

ensure that, when using such services, 

the interpreters used are competent to 

interpret any technical or legal terms 

specific to a particular program that may 

be important parts of the conversation. 

Nuances in language and non-verbal 

communication can often assist an 

interpreter and cannot be recognized 

over the phone. Video teleconferencing 

may sometimes help to resolve this 

issue where necessary. In addition, 

where documents are being discussed, it 

is important to give telephonic 

interpreters adequate opportunity to 

review the document prior to the 

discussion and any logistical problems 

should be addressed. 

Using Community Volunteers. In 

addition to consideration of bilingual 

staff, staff interpreters, or contract 

interpreters (either in-person or by 

telephone) as options to ensure 

meaningful access by LEP persons, use 

of recipient-coordinated community 

volunteers, working with, for instance, 

community-based organizations may 

provide a cost-effective supplemental 

language assistance strategy under 

appropriate circumstances. They may be 

particularly useful in providing 

language access for a recipient’s less 

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. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2003 / Notices 70045 

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 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, persons are not competent to 

provide quality and accurate 

interpretations. Issues of confidentiality, 

privacy, or conflict of interest may also 

arise. LEP individuals may feel 

uncomfortable revealing or describing 

sensitive, confidential, or potentially 

embarrassing medical, law enforcement 

(e.g., sexual or violent assaults), family, 

or financial information to a family 

member, friend, or member of the local 

community.10 In addition, such 

informal interpreters may have a 

personal connection to the LEP person 

or an undisclosed conflict of interest, 

such as the desire to protect themselves 

or another person in certain matters. For 

these reasons, when oral language 

services are necessary, recipients should 

generally offer competent interpreter 

services free of cost to the LEP person. 

For NASA recipient programs and 

activities, this is particularly true in 

situations in which health, safety, or 

security is at stake, or when credibility 

10 For example, special circumstances may raise 

additional serious concerns regarding the voluntary 

nature, conflicts of interest, and privacy issues 

surrounding the use of persons other than qualified 

interpreters, particularly where technical 

information, an important right, benefit, service, or 

access to personal or law enforcement information 

is at stake. In some situations, individuals could 

potentially misuse information they obtained in 

interpreting for other persons. In addition to 

ensuring competency and accuracy of the 

interpretation, recipients should take these special 

circumstances into account when determining 

whether a person makes a knowing and voluntary 

choice to use another person to interpret, instead 

of an interpreter provided by the recipient. 

and accuracy are important to protect an 

individual’s rights and access to 

important services. 

An example of such a case is when 

security guards respond to an illegal 

entry call. In such a case, use of family 

members or neighbors to interpret for 

the alleged perpetrator or witnesses may 

raise serious issues of competency, 

confidentiality, and conflict of interest 

and is thus inappropriate. While issues 

of competency, confidentiality, and 

conflict of interest in the use of family 

members (especially children), or 

friends, often make their use 

inappropriate, the use of these 

individuals as interpreters may be an 

appropriate option where proper 

application of the four factors would 

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

example of this is a voluntary, 

unescorted tour of artwork in a NASA 

facility open to the general public. 

There, the importance and nature of the 

activity may be relatively low and 

unlikely to implicate issues of 

confidentiality, conflict of interest, or 

the need for accuracy. In addition, the 

resources needed and costs of providing 

language services may be high. In such 

a setting, an LEP person’s use of family 

members, 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 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 Language 

Assistance Plan (LAP) for its particular 

program or activity includes the 

translation of vital written materials into 

the language of each frequentlyencountered LEP group eligible to be 

served and/or likely to be affected by 

the recipient’s program. 

Such written materials could include, 

for example: 

• Consent and complaint forms 

• Written notices of rights, or 

discontinuation of programs and/or 

activities 

• Notices advising LEP persons of 

free language assistance 

• Security or safety brochures for 

visitors to NASA facilities 

• Applications to participate in a 

recipient’s program or activity or to 

receive recipient benefits or services. 

Whether or not a document (or the 

information it solicits) is vital may 

depend upon the importance of the 

program, information, encounter, or 

service involved, and the consequence 

to the LEP person if the information in 

question is not provided accurately or in 

a timely manner. For instance, 

applications for participation in an 

after-school science and mathematics 

enrichment program could be 

considered vital. Where appropriate, 

recipients are encouraged to create a 

plan for consistently determining, over 

time and across its various activities, 

what documents are vital to the 

meaningful access of the LEP 

populations they serve. 

Classifying a document as vital or 

non-vital is sometimes difficult, 

especially in the case of outreach 

materials like brochures or other 

information on rights and services. 

Awareness of rights or services is an 

important part of meaningful access. 

Lack of awareness that a particular 

program, right, or service exists may 

effectively deny LEP individuals 

meaningful access. Thus, where a 

recipient is engaged in community 

outreach activities in furtherance of its 

activities, it should regularly assess the 

needs of the populations frequently 

encountered or affected by the program 

or activity to determine whether certain 

critical outreach materials should be 

translated. Community organizations 

may be helpful in determining what 

outreach materials may be most helpful 

to translate. In addition, the recipient 

should consider whether translations of 

outreach material may be made more 

effective when done in tandem with 

70046 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2003 / Notices 

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 may serve LEP 

persons who speak many 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, well-substantiated 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 frequently-encountered 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 case-by-case basis, 

looking at the totality of the 

circumstances in light of the four-factor 

analysis. Because translation is a onetime expense, consideration should be 

given to whether the upfront 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 

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. The following actions 

will be considered strong evidence of 

compliance with the recipient’s writtentranslation obligations: 

(a) The NASA 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. 

For example, NASA-funded educational 

enrichment programs should, where 

appropriate, ensure that NASA safety 

and security rules have been explained 

to LEP participants, at orientation, for 

instance, prior to taking a tour of any 

NASA facility. 

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 scientific and other 

technical documents are being 

translated, competence can often be 

achieved by use of certified translators. 

Certification or accreditation may not 

always be possible or necessary.11 

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 Aback 

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.12 Community 

organizations may be able to help 

consider whether a document is written 

at a good level for the audience. 

Likewise, consistency in the words and 

phrases used to translate terms of art, 

legal, or other technical concepts helps 

avoid confusion by LEP individuals and 

may reduce costs. Creating or using 

already-created glossaries of commonly 

11 For those languages in which no formal 

accreditation currently exists, a particular level of 

membership in a professional translation 

association can provide some indicator of 

professionalism. 

12 For instance, there may be languages which do 

not have an appropriate direct translation of some 

technical 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2003 / Notices 70047 

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, of 

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 for LEP persons who rely on 

them may use translators that are less 

skilled than important documents upon 

which reliance has important 

consequences (including, e.g., 

information or documents of NASA 

recipients regarding certain security, 

health, and safety requirements.). 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 LAP for 

LEP persons 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 LAP, their language assistance 

services, and how staff and LEP persons 

can access those services. Despite these 

benefits, certain NASA recipients, such 

as recipients serving very few LEP 

persons and recipients with very limited 

resources, may choose not to develop a 

written LAP. However, the absence of a 

written LAP does not obviate the 

underlying obligation to ensure 

meaningful access by LEP persons to a 

recipient’s program or activities. 

Accordingly, in the event that a 

recipient elects not to develop a written 

plan, it should consider alternative 

ways to articulate in some other 

reasonable manner a plan for providing 

meaningful access. Entities 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 a LAP 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. 

(2) Language Assistance Measures 

An effective LAP 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 LAP plan would 

likely include training to ensure that: 

• Staff know about LEP policies and 

procedures. 

• Staff having contact with the public 

(or those in a recipient’s custody) are 

trained to work effectively with inperson 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 a LAP. 

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 a recipient 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. This is 

particularly true in areas with high 

volumes of LEP persons seeking access 

to certain NASA programs, activities 

and or facilities run by NASA 

recipients. For instance, signs in entry 

areas 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. In 

addition, posting notices in commonly 

encountered languages notifying LEP 

persons of language assistance will 

encourage them to self-identify. 

• Stating in outreach documents that 

language services are available from the 

NASA recipient. Announcements could 

70048 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2003 / Notices 

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 placed on 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 LAP 

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 LAP. Less frequent reevaluation 

may be more appropriate where 

demographics, services, and needs are 

more static. One good way to evaluate 

the LAP 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 LAP and how to 

implement it. 

• Whether identified sources for 

assistance are still available and viable. 

In addition to these five elements, 

effective plans set clear goals, 

management accountability, and 

opportunities for community input and 

planning throughout the process. 

VIII. Voluntary Compliance Effort 

The goal for Title VI and Title VI 

regulatory enforcement is to achieve 

voluntary compliance. The requirement 

to provide meaningful access to LEP 

persons is enforced and implemented by 

NASA through the procedures 

identified in the Title VI regulations. 

These procedures include complaint 

investigations, compliance reviews, 

efforts to secure voluntary compliance, 

and technical assistance. 

The Title VI regulations provide that 

NASA will investigate whenever it 

receives a complaint, report, or other 

information that alleges or indicates 

possible noncompliance with Title VI or 

NASA regulations.13 If an investigation 

results in a finding of noncompliance, 

NASA will inform the recipient in 

writing of this determination, including 

the basis for the determination. NASA 

uses voluntary mediation to resolve 

most complaints. However, if a case is 

fully investigated and results in a 

finding of noncompliance, NASA must 

inform the recipient of the 

noncompliance through a Letter of 

Findings that sets out the areas of 

noncompliance and the steps that must 

be taken to correct the noncompliance. 

It must attempt to secure voluntary 

compliance through informal means. If 

the matter cannot be resolved 

informally, NASA must secure 

compliance through the termination of 

federal assistance after the NASA 

recipient has been given an opportunity 

for an administrative hearing and/or by 

referring the matter to the DOJ to seek 

injunctive relief or pursue other 

enforcement proceedings. NASA 

engages in voluntary compliance efforts 

and provides technical assistance to 

recipients at all stages of an 

investigation. During these efforts, 

NASA proposes reasonable timetables 

for achieving compliance and consults 

with and assists recipients in exploring 

cost-effective ways of coming into 

compliance. In determining a recipient’s 

compliance with the Title VI 

regulations, NASA’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, 

13 At educational institutions, investigations will 

be conducted by the U.S. Department of Education 

under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

between NASA and the U.S. Department of 

Education. 

NASA 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, 

NASA 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, 

NASA recipients should ensure that the 

provision of appropriate assistance for 

significant LEP populations or with 

respect to activities having a significant 

impact on beneficiaries is addressed 

first. Recipients are encouraged to 

document their efforts to provide LEP 

persons with meaningful access to 

federally assisted programs and 

activities. 

Dorothy Hayden-Watkins, 

Assistant Administrator for Equal 

Opportunity Programs. 

[FR Doc. 03–30931 Filed 12–15–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–01–P 

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Approval of Class III Tribal 

Gaming Ordinances 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 


Commission.


ACTION: Notice.


SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is 

to inform the public of class III gaming 

ordinances approved by the Chairman 

of the National Indian Gaming 

Commission and to update and correct 

the last Notice published on August 26, 

2002. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This notice is effective 

upon date of publication in the Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Frances Fragua, Office of General 

Counsel at the National Indian Gaming 

Commission, 202/632–7003, or by 

facsimile at 202/632–7066 (not toll-free 

numbers).