[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70771-70784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27960]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 70771]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

7 CFR Part 15

[OES-2014-0002]
RIN 051-AA70


Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding the 
Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting 
Persons With Limited English Proficiency

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, USDA.

ACTION: Significant final guidance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is publishing the 
final guidance on the Title VI prohibition against national origin 
discrimination as it affects limited English proficient persons. 
Consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 
Title VI regulations, and Executive Order 13166, ``Improving Access to 
Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP),'' the 
guidance clarifies the obligations of entities that receive Federal 
financial assistance from USDA. The guidance does not create new 
obligations, but, rather, provides guidance for USDA recipients in 
meeting their existing obligations to provide meaningful access for LEP 
persons.

DATES: This final guidance is effective November 28, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Anna 
G. Stroman, Chief, Policy Division, Telephone (202) 205-5953; Fax (202) 
690-2345.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 
U.S.C. 2000d-2000d-6 and the USDA implementing regulations at 7 CFR 
part 15, subpart A, ``Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs 
of the Department of Agriculture Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964,'' provide that no person shall be discriminated 
against on the basis of race, color, or national origin, be excluded 
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise 
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity of an 
applicant or recipient receiving Federal financial assistance from the 
Department of Agriculture or any Agency thereof. The purpose of this 
guidance is to clarify the responsibilities of recipients and 
subrecipients (recipients) who receive financial assistance from USDA 
and to assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities to LEP persons 
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the 
implementing regulations. This guidance does not impose any new 
requirements, but reiterates longstanding Title VI and regulatory 
principles and clarifies USDA's position that, in order to avoid 
discrimination against LEP persons on the ground of national origin, 
recipients must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons 
receive the language assistance necessary to afford them meaningful 
access to USDA programs and activities, free of charge.
    On March 14, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Report to Congress entitled, ``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, 
the Department of Justice (DOJ) published LEP Guidance for DOJ 
recipients, which was drafted and organized to function as a model for 
similar guidance by other Federal agencies. See 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 
2002). Consistent with this directive, USDA has developed this final 
guidance, which is designed to reflect the application of the DOJ 
Guidance standards to the programs and activities of USDA recipients.
    This guidance sets out the policies, procedures, and steps that 
USDA recipients may take to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful 
access to Federally assisted programs and activities and provides 
examples of policies and practices that USDA may find violative of 
Title VI and Title VI regulations.
    It also sets out the general parameters for recipients in providing 
translations of written materials, provides examples that illustrate 
the importance of such translations, and describes the flexibility that 
recipients have in meeting this obligation. For recipients who desire 
greater specificity regarding written translations for LEP persons, the 
guidance contains population thresholds. Use of these population 
thresholds is not mandatory. The guidance explicitly states that the 
failure to meet these population thresholds will not result in a 
finding of noncompliance, but that USDA will review a number of other 
factors in determining compliance.
    The guidance also describes some of the methods recipients may use 
to meet their obligation to provide, under certain circumstances, 
competent oral interpretative services to LEP persons. It has been 
determined that this guidance does not constitute a regulation subject 
to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Comments on Proposed Guidance

    On March 8, 2012, USDA published a proposed final Guidance in the 
Federal Register which resulted in 18 public interest groups/firms 
responding with over 160 comments and recommendations. The comments 
and/or the recommendations are addressed as follows:

1. Recipient LEP Plan

    We received five comments recommending that the Guidance should 
require recipients to develop an LEP plan. USDA is cognizant of the 
value of written LEP plans in documenting a recipient's compliance with 
its obligation to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons, and in 
providing a framework for the provision of reasonable and necessary 
language assistance to LEP persons. USDA is also aware of the related 
training, operational, and planning benefits most recipients would 
derive from the generation and maintenance of an updated written 
language assistance plan for use by its employees. In the large 
majority of cases, the benefits flowing from a written language 
assistance plan have caused or will likely cause recipients to develop, 
with

[[Page 70772]]

varying degrees of detail, such written plans. Even small recipients 
with limited contact with LEP persons would likely benefit from having 
a plan in place to assure that, when the need arises, staff have a 
written plan to turn to even if it addresses only how to access a 
telephonic or community-based interpretation service when determining 
what language services to provide and how to provide them.
    However, the fact that the vast majority of USDA's recipients 
already have or will likely develop a written LEP plan to reap its many 
benefits does not necessarily mean that every recipient, however small 
its staff, limited its resources, or focused its services, will realize 
the same benefits and thus must follow an identical path. Without clear 
evidence suggesting that the absence of written plans for every 
recipient is impeding accomplishment of the goal of meaningful access, 
USDA elects at this juncture to strongly recommend but not require 
written language assistance plans. USDA stresses in this regard that 
neither the absence of a requirement of written LEP plans in all cases 
nor the election by an individual recipient against drafting a plan 
obviates the underlying obligation on the part of each recipient to 
provide, consistent with Title VI, the Title VI regulations, and this 
Guidance, reasonable, timely, and appropriate language assistance to 
the LEP populations each serves.
    One commentator recommended that the Guidance should require 
community involvement in developing the recipients' written LEP plans. 
The Guidance currently contains language to encourage recipients to 
involve the community in developing their written LEP plans. No 
additional language is being added to address this recommendation.

2. USDA LEP Plan for Conducted Programs

    We received 10 comments recommending that USDA develop its own LEP 
Plan for Federally conducted programs to ensure that it is accessible 
in USDA operations. USDA issued its Departmental Regulation 4330-005, 
Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Persons 
with Limited English Proficiency in Programs and Activities Conducted 
by U.S. Department of Agriculture effective June 4, 2013. This 
Departmental Regulation functions as USDA's LEP Plan and is publicly 
available at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/document/ departmental-
regulation-4330-005.

3. Updating Automated Online Services

    We received seven comments recommending the expansion of online 
language assistance services. Some of the commenters specifically 
identified programs providing essential services like food and shelter 
to consumers, and cited the Social Security Web site as an example. In 
response to this comment, USDA added a new subparagraph under Section 
VI in the Guidance that recommends USDA recipients who provide online 
communications and services to customers include in their LEP plans 
their strategies for addressing language access needs. (See Section VI, 
No. 5 Ensuring Online Automation Services).

4. Expansion of Language Beyond Spanish

    We received 10 comments recommending that recipients translate 
outreach material in non-English languages in addition to Spanish. We 
agree that recipients must take into account the language or languages 
of their LEP customers within their programs and specific locations. 
Part V (B) of the Guidance indicates that considering the four-factor 
analysis can be helpful for determining when to provide language 
services, including translating vital written materials into additional 
languages. Moreover, the Safe Harbor Provision in Part V (B) also 
supports translation into non-Spanish languages when the ``LEP language 
group constitutes 5 percent or 1,000, whichever is less, of the 
population of persons eligible to be served or likely to be affected or 
encountered.'' Nevertheless, we have added additional recommendations 
that recipients post notices/links regarding the availability of 
language assistance services in the most commonly encountered languages 
for their programs and/or areas (See Section VI, Elements of Effective 
Plan on Language Assistance for LEP Persons, No. 4, Notice to LEP 
Persons).

5. ``Reasonable'' Steps

    We received six comments stating that the Guidance standard that 
requires recipients to take ``reasonable'' steps in providing LEP 
persons with a meaningful opportunity to participate in Federally 
funded educational programs is vague. Rather than have recipients 
consider how to apply this standard, commenters recommended that the 
standard should clarify that if an individual is LEP, interpretation 
should always be deemed reasonable.
    The Guidance provides criteria for recipients to consider when 
deciding to provide language assistance services to LEP individuals. 
Specifically, the Guidance provides specific steps that recipients may 
take to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access by utilizing a 
balancing test as a starting point (See Section IV, ``How Does a 
Recipient Determine the Extent of Its Obligation to Provide LEP 
Services?''). The Guidance further defines the balancing test as an 
individualized assessment that balances the following four factors:
    a. The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or 
likely to be encountered within the area serviced by the recipient;
    b. The frequency with which LEP persons come in contact with the 
program or activity;
    c. The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service 
to people's lives; and
    d. The resources available to the recipient and costs.
    The Guidance states that the four-factor analysis is a ``starting 
point'' to help a recipient determine when the recipient is ``required 
to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs 
and activities by LEP persons.'' Given the flexibility of this standard 
and its context-specific nature, it is inherently flexible to adjust 
for the various populations, languages, programs, and activities 
served. Consequently, we recognize that there are some instances when 
interpreters constitute reasonable steps but we also acknowledge that 
different scenarios may yield different results, based on the four-
factor analysis.

6. Interpreter and Translation Services

    We received five comments on the use of interpreter and translation 
services. Specifically, the comments received indicated that the 
language in the Guidance should be changed or strengthened to clearly 
state that USDA-funded recipients must use qualified interpreters and 
provide free interpreter services to all LEP persons. The commenters 
also noted that vital documents must also be translated by qualified 
translators. We believe that the Guidance addresses the issue of 
qualifications adequately under ``Competence of Interpreters (See 
Section A ``Oral Language Services'') and that stronger language is not 
needed nor added. However, to guarantee that recipients ensure the 
competency of the language service provider, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) shall recommend that all recipients 
include their strategy for utilizing competent and impartial 
interpreters and translators in the LEP plans.

[[Page 70773]]

    Two commenters focused on the use of children as interpreters. Both 
commenters indicated that the use of children should not be allowed. 
The Guidance, in accordance with DOJ requirements, cautions that ``in 
many circumstances, family members, especially children, are not 
competent to provide quality and accurate interpretations, as issues of 
confidentiality, privacy, or conflict of interest may arise.'' This 
language makes clear that children may only be used under the most 
exigent of circumstances and only as a last-resort alternative. To 
provide further clarity on this issue, we have modified the Guidance's 
language to note that reliance on children is discouraged unless it is 
an emergency situation that is not reasonably foreseeable. (See Section 
V ``Selecting Language Assistance Services, Subsection, Use of Family 
Members, Friends or Others as Interpreters.'')

7. Considering Low Literacy

    We received six comments recommending that written communication by 
the recipient (such as online translations and program applications) be 
written so as to be understood by individuals with low literacy (such 
as language directed to a 6th grade level). No change was made as 
USDA's current policy follows the Federal plain written language 
standards, which includes taking the audience's current level of 
knowledge into account. (See section V, ``Language Assistance Services 
and Competence of Translators'') to ensure that individuals with low 
literacy level can understand written material.

8. Using Other Regulations To Set Minimum Thresholds for Translations 
and Interpretations

    We received nine comments recommending that the Department consider 
using regulations or sub-regulatory guidance to set specific minimum 
thresholds for translation and interpretation in particular programs 
such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; and 
the Child Nutrition Program. No changes were made since the Guidance 
offers a fact-dependent four-factor assessment to determine the extent 
of a recipient's obligation to provide LEP services. Moreover, with 
respect to translation, the Guidance outlines Safe Harbor Provisions, 
actions that are considered strong evidence of compliance with the 
recipient's written-translation obligation. (See section IV, ``How Does 
a Recipient Determine the Extent of Its Obligation to Provide LEP 
Services'' and section V ``Selecting Language Assistance Services.'') 
However, to ensure that this issue is taken into further consideration, 
OASCR will encourage USDA agencies to consider this recommendation in 
their work with recipients, since the recipient's LEP plan would be the 
proper vehicle to set specifics on the thresholds for translation and 
interpretation stated in the Guidance.

9. Require Data Collection

    We received 10 comments from various organizations on the need for 
data collection, as well as the need to track and monitor receipt of 
translation requests. The commenters specifically recommended that 
recipients be required to collect language preference data on their LEP 
beneficiaries and report this data to USDA on at least an annual basis.
    In response to the comments received, while language preference 
data is collected in connection with some assisted programs, making 
language preference data collection an assisted program requirement 
across-the-board would involve a mandatory requirement under a review 
process beyond the Agency. However, we do note that effective recipient 
LEP plans often incorporate a system for tracking and monitoring the 
number of LEP persons served, language preferences, translations 
provided, and other data points. But not mandating data collection for 
all programs does not mean that such data cannot be required as 
necessary. Federal regulations, such as 28 CFR 42.406, make clear that 
data collection requests made during the course of compliance reviews 
can be broad and provide ``for the collection of data and information 
from applicants for and recipients of federal assistance sufficient to 
permit effective enforcement of title VI.''

10. ``Summarization'' as Appropriate Mode of Interpretation

    We received one comment on the use of ``summarization'' as an 
appropriate mode of interpretation. The commenter expressed concern for 
the competence of interpreters and their ability to summarize when 
performing interpretations. The commenter indicated that interpreters 
should refrain from summarizing because it allowed for the interpreter 
to decide or evaluate on what is and what is not relevant. After 
careful consideration of the comment received, no change will be made. 
However, we recognize that summarization may not always be the ideal 
mode of interpretation when complete and accurate renditions of the 
communication are necessary. In keeping with the DOJ LEP Guidance, we 
place summarization within the context of assessing the competency of 
an interpreter. The DOJ Guidance states that recipients should ensure 
that interpreters ``demonstrate[s] proficiency in an ability to 
communicate information accurately in both English and in the other 
languages and identify and employ the appropriate mode of interpreting 
(e.g., consecutive, simultaneous, summarization, or sight 
translation).'' In situations where complete and accurate 
interpretation is necessary, a competent interpreter will assist the 
recipient in selecting the most appropriate mode of interpreting that 
will yield the most accurate information.

11. Definition of LEP

    We received three comments recommending that we provide a clearer 
definition of LEP in the Guidance because the language contained in the 
`Background' section of the Guidance states ``If these people have a 
limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English, they 
`are' limited English proficient or `LEP.' '' The commenters believed 
that this language appears to contradict the definition of LEP in 
Section III, which states ``Persons 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' 
(Who Is a Limited English Proficient Person?).'' In order to have 
consistent and valid language throughout both sections, the language in 
Section III, which defines LEP, has been revised to delete ``can be'' 
and inserted with `are' limited English proficient, or `LEP'.

12. Require Meaningful Notice of Rights to Language Services

    We received three comments recommending that USDA and sub-agencies 
strengthen the Guidance's language in regards to informing LEP persons 
of their right to language services. Commenters recommended that using 
multilingual telephone voice mail prompts or menus would be one easy 
way of informing LEP persons of their right to language services.
    The Guidance addresses this issue by recommending telephone voice 
mail menus, among other approaches, when providing notice to LEP 
persons about the availability of language assistance services (See 
Section VI, part 4 ``Providing Notice to LEP Persons''). Therefore, no 
change was made.

[[Page 70774]]

13. Include Existing LEP Regulations in Legal Authority

    We received one comment recommending that the Guidance include 
existing regulations that establish mandatory legal requirements.
    In response to this comment, no change was made as the Guidance 
includes reference to existing regulations. USDA makes its programs and 
subprograms aware of their obligations and requirements to comply with 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, Title VI 
regulations, and program-specific regulations as noted in the Guidance 
in the Background on page 9 and in the Legal Authority on pages 11-15e.

14. Require Adequate Signs Regarding Critical LEP Services

    We received one comment, which notes that the language in the 
guidance is inconsistent regarding posting notices in places that LEP 
individuals commonly encounter. According to the commenter, the current 
language should be made consistent with 7 CFR 272.6(f) and 7 CFR 
272.4(b), which require adequate signs in the offices with respect to 
information critical to LEP services.
    No change was made to the Guidance in reference to this comment. 
Both 7 CFR 272.6(f) and 7 CFR 272.4(b) regulations refer to 
requirements set forth for participating agencies in the Food and 
Nutrition Service Agency's programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP). Specifically, 7 CFR 272.6, paragraph (f) 
``Public Notification'' requires State agencies to ensure that all 
offices involved in administering the SNAP program must publicly 
display the nondiscrimination poster. 7 CFR 272.4, paragraph (b) 
``Bilingual Requirements'' requires State agencies to provide bilingual 
program information, certification materials, and staff or interpreters 
to households that speak the same non-English language and that do not 
have an adult(s) fluent in English as a second language. Both of these 
issues are adequately addressed in the Guidance. The Guidance 
specifically recommends that recipients (which, in this case, would be 
State agencies) ensure that adequate signage is posted in the offices 
and all information for the public be translated. The Guidance further 
defines the importance of these issues as stated in the following 
language contained in Section VI, Elements of an Effective Language 
Assistance Plan for LEP Persons:
Providing Notice to LEP Persons
    Once a recipient has decided, based on the four factors that it 
will provide language services, it is important 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 that LEP persons 
will understand. Examples of notification that recipients should 
consider include posting signs in intake areas and other entry points 
and noting the availability of language assistance services on 
recipient Web sites. 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 (including Web sites) 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 important 
programs, activities, services, or benefits provided by USDA 
recipients. For instance, signs in intake offices could state that free 
language assistance is available. The signs should be translated into 
the most common languages encountered and should explain how to get the 
language help.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Outreach to LEP Persons

    We received two comments recommending that in addition to 
developing procedures to serve LEP individuals, it is equally important 
that LEP community members be made aware of the policies that are in 
place to serve the LEP population through radio programs, ethnic media, 
and other news outlets.
    USDA agrees with the importance of finding effective methods of 
disseminating this information and we believe this has been adequately 
addressed in the Guidance. The Guidance notes that an effective 
language access plan includes information about notifying LEP 
individuals about the availability of language assistance services. 
This can include ``providing notices on non-English language radio and 
television stations about the available language assistance services 
and benefits and how to get them.'' (See Section VI, Part 4.) 
Therefore, no change was made to the Guidance and USDA agencies are 
encouraged to work with recipients to ensure that this issue is 
addressed in recipient LEP plans.

16. Conduct Roundtable and Follow-up

    We received one comment recommending follow-up roundtable 
discussions to solicit further recommendations. USDA acknowledges the 
importance of gathering feedback and following up on recommendations 
gathered from roundtable discussions. However, no further roundtable 
discussions are warranted in advance of issuing this final Guidance. 
Instead, OASCR will encourage USDA agencies to conduct roundtable 
discussions with the community as a strategy to inform LEP individuals 
of the resources available to them, as a means to determine the most 
critical outreach material to translate, as well as a mechanism to 
obtain feedback on an LEP plan from the community. This is in keeping 
with our Guidance's emphasis on relying on community-based 
organizations to provide important feedback to ensure LEP individuals 
have meaningful access.

17. Appoint a Language Access Coordinator

    We received one comment recommending that each recipient appoint a 
person to handle LEP issues as they arise, review the LEP plan 
annually, work toward a more effective implementation of the policy, 
organize necessary trainings, etc. We believe that an LEP Coordinator 
would be useful for recipients in ensuring that all aspects of the LEP 
Guidance are being carried out. However, the appointment of this 
position is based on the funding and hiring responsibilities of the 
recipients and not USDA. USDA is committed to ensuring that all aspects 
of the Guidance are carried out effectively and efficiently, and will, 
therefore, recommend to recipients the usefulness of designating a 
Language Access Coordinator; but we do not have the authority to 
require that they designate one. Therefore, no change was made. 
Nonetheless, the importance of designating a Language Access 
Coordinator cannot be emphasized enough, and such an appointment will 
greatly increase the likelihood of effective implementation and 
maintenance of a language access plan.

18. Broaden Monitoring and Enforcement Activities

    We received three comments asking that USDA broaden its monitoring 
and enforcement activities to ensure that funding recipients meet their 
Title VI language access obligations. We agree that USDA should closely 
monitor the performance of recipients it funds and, where appropriate, 
take enforcement

[[Page 70775]]

action against those entities that fail to meet their language 
assistance obligations. This oversight responsibility is addressed in 
the LEP Guidance under Section VII, which states that ``the requirement 
to provide meaningful access to LEP persons is enforced and implemented 
by USDA through its regulations at 7 CFR'' In addition, USDA will 
monitor the effectiveness of recipients LEP programs through its 
compliance reviews. Therefore, no change was made.

Background

    Most people living in the United States read, write, speak and 
understand English. There are many people, however, for whom English is 
not their primary language. For instance, based on the 2000 Census, 
over 26 million individuals speak Spanish, over 10 million speak 
another Indo-European language,\2\ and almost 7 million speak an Asian 
or Pacific Island language at home. If these people have a limited 
ability to read, write, speak, or understand English, they are limited 
English proficient, or ``LEP.'' According to the 2000 Census data, 28.3 
percent of all Spanish speakers, 27.2 percent of all Russian speakers, 
28.2 percent of all Chinese speakers, and 32.4 percent of all 
Vietnamese speakers reported that they spoke English ``not well'' or 
``not at all'' in response to the 2000 Census.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Other Indo-European languages include most languages of 
Europe and the Indic languages of India, such as German, Yiddish, 
Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, French, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, 
Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Hindi, Gujarathi, Punjabi, Urdu, Greek, 
Baltic and Iranian languages.
    \3\ Other languages include Hungarian, Arabic, Hebrew, languages 
of Africa, native North American languages, including the American 
Indian and Alaska native languages; and some indigenous languages of 
Central and South America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Language for LEP persons 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 are available 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 people 
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. The fact that ESL 
classes are made available, however, does not obviate the statutory and 
regulatory requirements 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ USDA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the USDA Title VI regulations 
against national origin discrimination, 7 CFR part 15. 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 by providing a description of the factors recipients 
should consider in fulfilling their responsibilities to LEP persons.\5\ 
These are the same criteria USDA has been using and will continue to 
use in evaluating whether recipients are in compliance with Title VI 
and Title VI regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The policy guidance is not a regulation but rather a guide. 
Title VI and implementing regulations require 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 persons who are limited English proficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Executive Order 13166, DOJ is responsible for providing LEP 
guidance to all Federal agencies and for ensuring consistency among the 
agency-specific guidance documents issued by Federal agencies. 
Consistency among the agency-specific guidance documents issued by 
Federal agencies 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. As with most 
government initiatives, this requires balancing several principles. 
While this Guidance discusses that balance in some detail, it is 
important to note the basic principles behind that balance. First, we 
must ensure that Federally assisted programs aimed at the American 
public do not leave some behind simply because those individuals face 
challenges communicating in English. This is of particular importance 
because, in many cases, LEP persons 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 
nonprofits that receive Federal financial assistance.
    There are many productive steps the Federal Government, either 
collectively or as individual agencies, can take to help recipients 
reduce the costs of language services without sacrificing meaningful 
access for LEP persons. Without these steps, certain smaller potential 
recipients may well choose not to participate in Federally assisted 
programs, threatening the critical functions that the programs strive 
to provide. To that end, USDA plans to continue to provide assistance 
and guidance in this important area. In addition, USDA plans to work 
with potential and actual recipients, other Federal agencies, and LEP 
persons to identify and share model plans, examples of best practices, 
and cost-saving approaches.
    Moreover, USDA 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, local governments, and small nonprofit organizations. An 
interagency working group on LEP has developed a Web site, http://www.lep.gov, to assist in disseminating this information to recipients, 
other Federal agencies, and the communities being served.
    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. We do 
not believe this is an accurate reading of the decision as the Supreme 
Court, in Sandoval, addressed whether a private right of action existed 
to enforce a DOJ regulation promulgated pursuant to Title VI, not the 
validity of those regulations themselves. The

[[Page 70776]]

regulation at issue, 28 CFR 42.104(b)(2), prohibited recipients of 
federal funding from utilizing criteria which had a discriminatory 
effect. The plaintiffs, who were non-English speakers, challenged a 
State policy of administering driver's license examinations exclusively 
in English on the ground that the policy had a discriminatory effect on 
non-English speakers and, consequently, violated 28 CFR 42.104(b)(2). 
The Court concluded that the regulation was not enforceable through a 
private right of action and, thus, held that the disparate-impact 
regulation at issue, promulgated under Title VI, did not give rise to 
private rights of action. See Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 293. The Court, 
however, did not undermine the substance of other regulatory 
requirements and we will continue to follow the Court's approach. 
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.

I. Legal Authority

    Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 
Section 2000d, states that no person in the United States shall on the 
ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from 
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal 
financial assistance.
    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.
    In addition to Title VI, some USDA recipients must implement a 
statutory provision of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2011 et 
seq., which requires them to use appropriate bilingual personnel and 
printed materials in the administration of SNAP, formerly the Food 
Stamp Program, in areas where a substantial number of potentially 
eligible households speak a language other than English. The Food Stamp 
Act also requires recipients to establish procedures governing the 
operation of SNAP offices that best serve households in each State, 
including households in areas where a substantial number of potentially 
eligible households speak a language other than English.
    USDA regulations prohibit discrimination in all of its federally 
assisted and conducted programs. Recipients may not, on the grounds of 
race, color, or national origin, deny an individual any service, 
financial aid or other benefit provided under the program, deny an 
opportunity to participate in the program through the provisions of 
services, or subject or restrict an individual to segregation or 
separate treatment in any matter related to their receipt of service, 
financial aid, or other benefit under the program. Please see 7 CFR 
15.3(b)(1)-(2) for additional information.
    In addition, USDA regulations implementing the Food Stamp Act of 
1977 require that the State agency shall provide bilingual program 
information and certification materials, and staff or interpreters. See 
7 CFR 15.3(b)(6)(i)-(ii), for additional information.
    In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), the Supreme Court concluded 
that Title VI and its implementing regulations required a federally 
funded school district to ensure that LEP students were provided with 
meaningful access to the district's educational programs. That case 
involved a group of approximately 1,800 public school students of 
Chinese origin who did not speak English, and to whom the school system 
provided the same services--an education solely in English--that it 
provided to students who spoke English. The Court held that by failing 
to provide LEP Chinese-speaking students meaningful access to 
educational programs, the school's practices violated Title VI's 
prohibition against national origin discrimination.
    On August 11, 2000, Executive Order 13166, ``Improving Access to 
Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,'' was issued; 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 
``utilize[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 
their 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, 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.\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 
(``[We] assume for purposes of this decision that section 602 
confers the authority to promulgate disparate-impact 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 
agencies to enforce their own implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This guidance clarifies the responsibilities of recipients and will 
assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities to LEP persons under 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title VI 
regulations. It is consistent with Executive Order 13166, and DOJ LEP 
guidance. To avoid discrimination against LEP persons on the ground of 
national origin, USDA recipients should take reasonable steps to ensure 
that such persons receive the language assistance necessary to afford 
them meaningful access to recipient programs or activities, free of 
charge.

[[Page 70777]]

II. Who is covered?

    USDA regulations require all recipients of Federal financial 
assistance from USDA to provide meaningful access to LEP persons.\7\ 
Federal financial assistance includes grants, below-market loans, 
training, and use of equipment, donations of surplus property, and 
other assistance. Covered entities include, but are not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, the meaningful access 
requirement of the Title VI regulations and the four-factor analysis 
set forth in the DOJ LEP Guidance are to additionally apply to USDA 
federally conducted programs and activities.

-- State and County agencies, offices, and their subdivisions;
-- Private vendors, agents, contractors, associations, and 
corporations;
-- Colleges, universities, and elementary and secondary schools;
-- County, district, and regional committees/councils;
-- Nursing homes, summer camps, food banks, and housing authorities;
-- Research and promotion boards; and
-- Other entities receiving, directly or indirectly, Federal financial 
assistance provided by USDA.

    Subrecipients likewise are covered when Federal funds are passed 
through from a recipient to a subrecipient.
    Coverage extends to a recipient's entire program or activity, i.e., 
to all parts of a recipient's operations.\8\ This is true even if only 
one part of the recipient receives the Federal financial assistance.\9\ 
For example, USDA provides assistance to a University's outreach 
department to provide business development services to local farmers 
and ranchers. In such a case, all operations of the University, not 
just those of the University's outreach department are covered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ What constitutes a program or activity covered by Title VI 
was clarified by Congress in 1988, when the Civil Rights Restoration 
Act of 1987 (CRRA) was enacted. The CRRA provides that, in most 
cases, when a recipient receives Federal Financial assistance for a 
particular program or activity, all operations of the recipient are 
covered by Title VI, not just the part of the program or activity 
that uses the Federal assistance.
    \9\ 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 compliance would be terminated. 42 U.S.C. 
2000d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some recipients operate in jurisdictions in which English has been 
declared the official language. These recipients continue to be subject 
to Federal nondiscrimination requirements, including those applicable 
to the provision of Federally assisted services and benefits to persons 
with limited English proficiency.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Recipients should also be mindful of their responsibilities 
under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in meeting their obligation to ensure 
access to LEP individuals with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Who is a limited English proficient person?

    Persons who do not speak English as their primary language and who 
have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English are 
limited English proficient or ``LEP'' and entitled to language 
assistance with respect to a particular type of benefit, service, or 
encounter. Examples of populations likely to include LEP persons who 
are encountered and/or served by USDA recipients and should be 
considered when planning language services include, but are not limited 
to, for example:

-- Persons seeking access to or needing assistance to obtain food 
stamps or other food assistance from a recipient;
-- Persons seeking information, seeking to enforce rights, or seeking 
benefits or services from recipient State and County agencies, offices, 
and their subdivision;
-- Persons encountering recipient private vendors, agents, contractors, 
associations, and corporations;
-- Students, community members, and others encountering recipient 
extension programs, colleges, universities, and elementary and 
secondary schools;
-- Persons seeking to participate in public meetings or otherwise 
participate in the activities of county, district, and regional 
committees/councils;
-- Persons seeking access to, or services or information from nursing 
homes, summer camps, food banks, and housing authorities;
-- Persons subject to the work of research and promotion boards;
-- Persons encountering other entities or persons who receive, directly 
or indirectly, Federal financial assistance provided by USDA; and
-- Parents and family members of the above.

IV. How does a recipient determine the extent of its obligation to 
provide LEP services?

    In order to ensure compliance with Title VI and Title VI 
regulations, recipients are required to take reasonable steps to ensure 
that LEP persons have meaningful access to their programs and 
activities. 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 within the area serviced by the recipient;
    (2) The frequency with which LEP persons come in contact with the 
program or activity;
    (3) The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service 
to people's lives; and
    (4) The resources available to the 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 avoiding 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 relevant to the 
public than others and/or have greater impact on or contact with LEP 
persons, and thus may require more in the way of language assistance. 
However, the flexibility that recipients have to address the needs of 
the LEP populations they serve does not diminish and should not be used 
to minimize their obligation to address those needs. USDA recipients 
should apply the four factors to the various kinds of contacts that 
they have with the public to assess language needs and decide what 
reasonable steps they should take to ensure meaningful access for LEP 
persons.
    (1) The Number or Proportion of LEP Persons Served or Encountered 
in the Eligible Service Population.
    One factor in determining what language services recipients should 
provide is the number or proportion of LEP persons from a particular 
language group served or encountered in the eligible service 
population. The greater the number or proportion of LEP persons within 
the eligible service population, 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. The 
eligible service population is program/activity-specific, and includes 
persons who are in the recipient's geographic service area as 
established by USDA, State or local authorities, or the recipient, as 
appropriate, provided that those designations do not themselves 
discriminatorily exclude certain populations. For instance, if a 
statewide

[[Page 70778]]

conservation district serves a large LEP population within a particular 
county, the appropriate service area will be the county, and not the 
entire population eligible to participate in the program or activity 
within the State. Below are additional examples of how USDA would 
determine the relevant service areas when assessing who is eligible to 
be served or likely to be directly affected.


    Example A: A complaint filed with USDA alleges that a local food 
stamp certification office discriminates against Hispanic and 
Chinese LEP applicants by failing to provide such persons with 
language assistance in connection with its programs and activities, 
including written translations. The certification office identifies 
its service area as the geographic area identified in its plan of 
operations. USDA determines that a substantial number of the 
recipient's food stamp applicants and beneficiaries are drawn from 
the area identified in the plan of operations and that no area with 
concentrations of racial, ethnic, or other minorities is 
discriminatorily excluded from the plan. USDA is likely to accept 
the area identified in the plan of operations as the relevant 
service area.

    Example B: A privately owned limited-profit housing corporation 
enters into an agreement with USDA to provide low-income rural 
rental housing that will serve beneficiaries in three counties. The 
agreement is reviewed and approved by USDA. In determining the 
persons eligible to be served or likely to be affected, the relevant 
service area would generally be that designated in the agreement. 
However, if one of the counties has a significant population of LEP 
persons, and the others do not, consideration of that particular 
county as a service population for purposes of determining the 
proportion of LEP persons in the population served by that portion 
of the recipient's program or activity would be appropriate.
    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 encounter or 
participate in a portion of a recipient's program or activity.
    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 and from community organizations, 
and data from State and local governments.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The focus of the analysis is on the 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 persons. When using demographic data, it 
is important to focus in on the languages spoken by those who are 
not proficient in English.

    (2) The Frequency With Which LEP Persons Come Into Contact With the 
Program or Activity.
    Recipients should assess, as accurately as possible, the frequency 
with which they have or should have contact with an LEP person 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 contact 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 person accesses a program or service on a daily basis, 
recipient has greater duties than if the same person'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 person 
seeks services under the program in question. This plan needs 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 or Activity or Service 
by the Program.
    The more important the information, service, or benefit provided in 
a program or activity, or the greater the possible consequences of the 
contact to LEP persons, the more likely language services are needed. 
For instance, in determining importance, the obligation to communicate 
information on the availability of emergency food assistance in a 
designated disaster area may differ significantly from the obligation 
to communicate information on the opportunity to attend a one-time free 
luncheon at a community recreation center. A recipient needs to 
determine whether denial or delay of access to services, benefits or 
information could have serious or even life-threatening implications 
for an LEP person. For example, the failure to translate consent forms 
and applications for important benefits or services could have serious 
or life-threatening implications for LEP persons in need of food, 
shelter, emergency services, and many other important benefits. In the 
same vein, to avoid serious, negative consequences to an LEP person, a 
recipient must also determine the appropriate media or format that will 
reach the target LEP population and does not result in a delay in 
providing information on a program, service, or benefit. Further, 
decisions by a Federal, State, or local entity, or by the recipient, to 
make an activity compulsory, such as educational programs and 
notifications of the right to a hearing or appeal, can serve as strong 
evidence of the program's importance.
    (4) The Resources Available to the Recipient and Costs.
    A recipient's level of resources and the costs that would be 
imposed on it may have an impact on the nature of the steps it should 
take. Smaller recipients with more limited budgets are not expected to 
provide the same level of language services as those 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 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

[[Page 70779]]

formalized use of qualified community volunteers, for example, may help 
reduce costs.\12\ 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 is not to suggest that smaller 
entities are immune from the requirement to provide meaningful access. 
Any recipient of federal financial assistance must be sure that any 
claim of resource limitations is well substantiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Small recipients with limited resources may find that 
entering into a bulk telephonic interpretation service contract will 
prove cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 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 person 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 social 
service recipient having a service area with a significant Hispanic LEP 
population may need immediate oral interpreters available and should 
give serious consideration to hiring some bilingual staff. (Of course, 
many social services 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 recreational facility in which pre-arranged 
language services for the particular service may not be necessary. All 
recipients must provide meaningful access to all their programs. 
However, the four-factor analysis recognizes that there may be 
gradations of import concerning certain activities that will lessen the 
burden on a recipient in certain unique situations. Regardless of the 
type of language service provided, quality and accuracy of those 
services can be critical in order to avoid serious consequences to LEP 
persons and to recipients. Recipients have substantial flexibility in 
determining the appropriate mix.

V. Selecting Language Assistance Services

    Recipients have two main ways to provide language assistance to LEP 
persons--oral interpretation and written translations. Quality and 
accuracy of the language service is critical in order to avoid serious 
consequences to LEP persons and to recipients.

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 recipient's program or activity and of any 
particularized vocabulary and phraseology used by the LEP person who is 
being assisted; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 may be languages that do not 
have an appropriate direct interpretation of some programmatic 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Understand and follow confidentiality and impartiality rules to the 
same extent as the recipient for whom he or she is interpreting; and
--Understand and adhere to their role as interpreters, without 
deviating into a role as counselor, advisor, or other inappropriate 
roles.

    Some recipients may have additional self-imposed requirements for 
interpreters.
    Where individual rights depend on precise, complete, and accurate 
interpretation or translations, particularly where ambiguous, 
incomplete, or inaccurate information may result in the denial or 
reduction of services or benefits, the use of certified interpreters is 
strongly encouraged.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For those languages in which no formal accreditation or 
certification exists, recipients should consider a formal process 
for establishing the credentials of the interpreter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 a hearing regarding the reduction of benefits, for 
example, must be extraordinarily high, while the quality and accuracy 
of language services in a voluntary recreational program may not need 
to meet the same exacting standards.
    Finally, when interpretation is needed, it should be provided in a 
timely manner. 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

[[Page 70780]]

provided at a time and place that avoids the effective denial of the 
service or benefit at issue or the imposition of an undue burden on or 
delay in the provision of important information rights, benefits, or 
services to the LEP person. For example, when the timelines of 
information, benefits, or services is important, such as with certain 
activities related to various types of emergency assistance by way of 
nutrition or housing services, or emergency loans, grants, etc., a 
recipient would likely not be providing meaningful access if it had one 
bilingual staffer available one day a week to provide language 
assistance. 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 information, service, or benefit 
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 receptionists, secretaries, program specialists, 
and/or program aides, with staff who are bilingual and competent to 
communicate directly with LEP persons in their language. If bilingual 
staff are also used to interpret between English speakers and LEP 
persons, or to orally interpret written documents from English into 
another language, they should be competent in the skill of 
interpreting. Being bilingual does not necessarily mean that a person 
has the ability to interpret. In addition, there may be times when the 
role of the bilingual employee may conflict with the role of an 
interpreter (for instance, a bilingual program specialist would 
probably not be able to perform effectively the role of an interpreter 
in a benefits hearing and also carry out his or her duties to 
administer requirements of the program or activity at the same time, 
even if the program specialist 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 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 or activity 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 documents 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, services, or 
benefits of the program or activity 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 readily available.
    Use of Family Members, Friends, or Others 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, 
friend, or other person of their choosing) in place of or as a 
supplement to the free language services expressly offered by the 
recipient. LEP persons may feel more comfortable when a trusted family 
member, friend, or other person 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 
members, friends, 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 regulatory interest in accurate 
interpretation.
    In many circumstances, family members (especially children), 
friends, or others identified by LEP persons, are not competent to 
provide quality and accurate interpretations. Issues of 
confidentiality, privacy, or conflict of interest may also arise. LEP 
persons may feel uncomfortable revealing or describing sensitive, 
confidential, or potentially embarrassing family, medical, or financial 
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.

[[Page 70781]]

For USDA recipient programs and activities, this is particularly true 
in an administrative hearing or in situations in which health, safety, 
or access to sustenance or important benefits and services are at 
stake, or when credibility and accuracy are important to protect an LEP 
person's rights or access to important benefits and services. An 
example of such a case is when an LEP recipient applies for food stamps 
or a low-interest farm loan. The recipient should not rely on friends 
or family members of the LEP recipient or other informal interpreters.
    While issues of competency, confidentiality, and conflict of 
interest in the use of family members (especially children), friends, 
or other informal interpreters often make their use inappropriate, 
their use as interpreters may be an appropriate option where proper 
application of the four factors would lead to a rare conclusion that 
recipient-provided services are not necessary. An example of this is a 
voluntary tour of a recipient's farmland offered to the 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, 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 for adjudicatory or legal reasons, 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, using children/minors as interpreters may create additional 
issues of competency, confidentiality, or conflict of interest. 
Reliance on children is especially discouraged unless there is an 
extreme emergency and no preferable qualified interpreters are 
available.
    The recipient should ensure that the LEP person's choice is 
voluntary, the LEP person is aware of the possible problems if the 
preferred interpreter is a minor child, and that the LEP person knows 
that the recipient could provide a competent interpreter at no cost (to 
the LEP person).

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 four-factor 
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, but are not limited to:

--Applications to participate in a recipient's program or activity or 
to receive recipient benefits or services;
--Consent forms, complaint forms, intake forms, letters containing 
important information related to participation (such as cover letters 
outlining conditions of participation in a loan program or committee 
election);
--Written notices pertaining to eligibility requirements, rights, 
losses, denials, decreases in benefits or services, foreclosures, or 
terminations of services or benefits and/or the right to appeal such 
actions;
--Notices advising LEP persons of the availability of free language 
assistance;
--Written tests that do not assess English language proficiency, but 
test competency for a particular license, job, or skill for which 
knowing English is not required;
--Outreach materials; and
--Any documents that require a response from applicants, beneficiaries, 
and other participants.

    Whether or not a document (or the information it solicits) is 
``vital'' may depend upon the importance of the program or activity, 
information, encounter, service, or benefit 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 voluntary credit management courses are not necessarily vital (so 
long as they are not a prerequisite to obtaining or maintaining better 
credit), whereas, applications for rural rental housing would 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. Note, however, that even when 
a document is not vital, the recipient still must provide meaningful 
access, which may require sight translation or other language 
assistance services.
    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 persons 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, and religious or 
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 frequently-encountered 
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 more 
information about the document.
    Into What Languages Should Documents Be Translated? The languages 
spoken by the LEP persons with whom the recipient has contact determine 
the languages into which vital documents should be translated. A 
distinction should be made, however, between languages that are 
frequently encountered by a recipient and less commonly encountered 
languages. Many recipients serve communities in large cities or across 
the country. They regularly serve LEP persons who speak dozens and 
sometimes over 100 different languages. To translate all

[[Page 70782]]

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 one-time 
expense, consideration should be given to whether the up-front costs of 
translating a document (as opposed to oral interpretation) should be 
amortized over the likely life span 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) 
below outline the circumstances that can provide a ``safe harbor,'' 
which means that if a recipient provides written translations under 
these circumstances, such action will be considered strong evidence of 
compliance with the recipient's written-translation 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 a recipient's program or 
activity, 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 Provisions. The following actions will be considered 
strong evidence of compliance with the recipient's written-translation 
obligations:
    a. The USDA recipient provides written translations of vital 
documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes 5 
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 5 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 persons through competent oral interpreters 
where oral language services are needed and are reasonable. The four 
factor analysis must always be used in evaluating the need for, and 
extent of use of, oral interpreters.
    For example, recipients should, where appropriate, ensure that 
program rules have been explained to LEP program participants prior to 
taking adverse action against them.
    Competence of Translators. As with oral interpreters, translators 
of written documents should be competent. Many of the same 
considerations apply. However, the skill of translating is very 
different from the skill of interpreting, and a person who is a 
competent interpreter may or may not be competent to translate.
    Particularly where legal or other vital documents are being 
translated, competence can often be achieved by use of certified 
translators, though certification or accreditation may not always be 
possible or necessary.\15\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recipients should ensure that translators understand the expected 
reading level of their audiences 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.\16\ 
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 technical 
concepts helps avoid confusion by LEP persons and may reduce costs. 
Providing translators with examples of previous accurate translations 
of similar material by the recipient, other recipients, or Federal 
agencies may be helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For instance, there may be languages that do not have an 
appropriate direct translation of some program-specific terms of art 
or technical concepts and the translator should be able to provide 
an appropriate translation. The translator also should likely make 
the recipient aware of this. Recipients can work with translators to 
develop a consistent and appropriate set of descriptions of these 
terms. 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 technical concepts. Creating or using 
already-created glossaries of commonly used terms may be useful for 
LEP persons and translators and cost-effective for the recipient. 
Providing translators with examples of previous 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 
assessing the appropriate mix of LEP services required. For instance, 
documents that are simple and have no legal or other negative 
consequence for LEP persons may be translated by individuals who are 
less skilled than those who translate documents with legal or other 
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.

VI. 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 it serves. Recipients have considerable

[[Page 70783]]

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 cost-effective means of 
documenting compliance and providing a framework for the provision of 
timely and reasonable language assistance. Moreover, such written plans 
would likely provide additional benefits to a recipient's managers in 
the areas of training, administration, planning, and budgeting. These 
benefits should lead most recipients to document in a written LEP plan 
their language assistance services, and how staff and LEP persons can 
access those services. Despite these benefits, certain USDA 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 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 six steps may be helpful in designing an LEP plan and 
are typically part of effective implementation plans:

(1) Identifying LEP Persons Who Need Language Assistance

    The first two factors in the four-factor analysis require an 
assessment of the number of proportion of LEP persons eligible to be 
served or encountered and the frequency of encounters. This requires 
recipients to identify LEP persons with whom they have 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 www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/Pubs/ISpeakCards.pdf. 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 persons who have in-person contact with 
recipient staff; and
--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; and
--Staff having contact with the public is trained to work effectively 
with in-person and telephone interpreters.

    Recipients may want to include this training as part of the 
orientation for new employees. It is important to ensure that all 
employees in public contact positions 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 a recipient has decided, based on the four factors, that it 
will provide language services, it is important to let LEP persons know 
that those services are available and they are free of charge. 
Recipients should provide this notice in a language that LEP persons 
will understand. Examples of notification that recipients should 
consider include:

--Posting signs in intake areas and other entry points and adequate 
posting on Web sites. 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 (including Web sites) 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 important 
programs, activities, services, or benefits provided by USDA 
recipients. For instance, signs in intake offices could state that free 
language assistance is available. The signs should be translated into 
the most common languages encountered and should explain how to get the 
language help; \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Stating in outreach documents that language services are available 
from the recipient. 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 ``tagged'' onto 
the front of common documents;
--Working with community-based organizations and other stakeholders to 
inform LEP persons 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-English-language radio and television 
stations about the available language assistance services and benefits 
and how to get them;
--Presentations and/or notices at schools and religious organizations; 
and
--Posting notices/links for language assistance on recipient agency Web 
sites. These should be translated into the most commonly encountered

[[Page 70784]]

languages and tagged on the agency home pages.

(5) Ensuring Online Automation Services

    USDA recipients who provide online communications and services to 
customers, including but not limited to online applications, forms and 
brochures, must include in their LEP plan their strategy for ensuring 
that LEP individuals have meaningful access to online automation 
services.

(6) Monitoring and Updating the LEP Plan

    Recipients should, where appropriate, have a process for 
determining, on an ongoing basis, whether new documents, programs, 
activities, services, and benefits need to be made accessible for LEP 
persons, 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 know and understand the LEP plan and how to implement 
it; and
--Whether identified sources for assistance are still available and 
viable.

    In addition to these six elements, effective plans set clear goals, 
management accountability, and opportunities for community input and 
planning throughout the process.

VII. 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 USDA through its 
regulations at 7 CFR part 15, Departmental Regulation 4330-2, 
``Nondiscrimination in Programs and Activities Receiving Federal 
Financial Assistance From USDA,'' and Departmental Manual 4330-2, 
``Procedures for Processing Discrimination Complaints and Conducting 
Civil Rights Compliance Reviews in USDA Assisted Programs and 
Activities.'' These documents contain USDA requirements and procedures 
for discrimination complaints processing, complaint investigations, 
compliance reviews, efforts to secure voluntary compliance, and 
technical assistance.
    USDA will investigate whenever it receives a complaint, report, or 
other information that alleges or indicates possible noncompliance with 
Title VI or its regulations. If the investigation results in a finding 
of compliance, USDA will inform the recipient in writing of this 
determination, including the basis for the determination. USDA uses 
voluntary mediation to resolve most complaints. However, if a case is 
fully investigated and results in a finding of noncompliance, USDA 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 necessary. If the matter cannot 
be resolved informally, USDA must secure compliance either through the 
termination of Federal assistance after the USDA recipient has been 
given an opportunity for an administrative hearing and/or by referring 
the matter to DOJ to seek injunctive relief or pursue other enforcement 
proceedings. USDA engages in voluntary compliance efforts and provides 
technical assistance to recipients at all stages of an investigation. 
During these efforts, USDA 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, USDA'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 persons, USDA acknowledges that the 
implementation of a comprehensive system to serve LEP persons 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, USDA 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, USDA recipients should ensure that the provision of 
appropriate assistance for significant LEP populations or with respect 
to programs or activities having a significant impact on important 
benefits, and services, are addressed first. Recipients are encouraged 
to document their efforts to provide LEP persons with meaningful access 
to Federally assisted programs and activities.

VIII. Effect on State and Local Laws

    Some State and local laws may identify language access obligations/
requirements. Recipients may meet these obligations, so long as they do 
not conflict with or set a lower standard than is required under Title 
VI and Title VI regulations. Moreover, recipients must also comply as a 
matter of state law with higher requirements if those requirements 
exist under state laws. Finally, as noted above, some recipients 
operate in a jurisdiction in which English has been declared the 
official language. Nonetheless, these recipients continue to be subject 
to Federal non-discrimination requirements, including those applicable 
to the provision of Federally assisted benefits and services to persons 
with limited English proficiency.

    Dated: November 17, 2014.
Thomas J. Vilsack,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27960 Filed 11-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-9R-P