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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

70771 

Vol. 79, No. 229 

Friday, November 28, 2014 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
70772 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 fourfactor 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 USDAfunded 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 subregulatory 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 subagencies 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
70774 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 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. 

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

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 nonEnglish 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 communitybased 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70775 

2Other 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. 

3Other 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. 

4USDA 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. 

5The 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. 

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

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

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. 

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 costsaving 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
70776 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

6The 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. 

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 Chinesespeaking 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. 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70777 

7Pursuant 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. 

8What 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. 

9However, 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. 

10Recipients 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. 

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: 

— 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. 

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

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
70778 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

11The 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. 

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 limitedprofit 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. 

(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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70779 

12Small recipients with limited resources may 

find that entering into a bulk telephonic 

interpretation service contract will prove cost 

effective. 

13Many 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. 

14For those languages in which no formal 

accreditation or certification exists, recipients 

should consider a formal process for establishing 

the credentials of the interpreter. 

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. 

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 prearranged 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

— 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. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
70780 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 fourfactor analysis, a recipient may 

determine that an effective LEP plan for 

its particular program or activity 

includes the translation of vital written 

materials into the language of each 

frequently encountered LEP group 

eligible to be served and/or likely to be 

affected by the recipient’s program. 

Such written materials could include, 

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 frequentlyencountered languages other than 

English is critical, but the document is 

sent out to the general public and 

cannot reasonably be translated into 

many languages. Thus, vital information 

may include, for instance, the provision 

of information in appropriate languages 

other than English regarding where a 

LEP person might obtain an 

interpretation or 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
70782 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

15For 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. 

16For 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. 

written materials into all of those 

languages is unrealistic. Although 

recent technological advances have 

made it easier for recipients to store and 

share translated documents, such an 

undertaking would incur substantial 

costs and require substantial resources. 

Nevertheless, well-substantiated claims 

of lack of resources to translate all vital 

documents into dozens of languages do 

not necessarily relieve the recipient of 

the obligation to translate those 

documents into at least several of the 

more frequently encountered languages 

and to set benchmarks for continued 

translations into the remaining 

languages over time. As a result, the 

extent of the recipient’s obligation to 

provide written translations of 

documents should be determined by the 

recipient on a case-by-case basis, 

looking at the totality of the 

circumstances in light of the four-factor 

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

given to whether the 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 writtentranslation obligations. 

The failure to provide written 

translations under the circumstances 

outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) does 

not mean there is non-compliance. 

Rather, they provide a common starting 

point for recipients to consider whether 

and at what point the importance of the 

service, benefit, or activity involved; the 

nature of the information sought; and 

the number or proportion of LEP 

persons served call for written 

translations of commonly-used forms 

into frequently encountered languages 

other than English. Thus, these 

paragraphs merely provide a guide for 

recipients that would like greater 

certainty of compliance than can be 

provided by a fact-intensive, four-factor 

analysis. 

Example: Even if the safe harbors are not 

used, if written translation of a certain 

document(s) would be so burdensome as to 

defeat the legitimate objectives of 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.’’ 

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. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70783 

17The 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. 

flexibility in developing this plan. The 

development and maintenance of a 

periodically updated written plan on 

language assistance for LEP persons 

(‘‘LEP plan’’) for use by recipient 

employees serving the public will likely 

be the most appropriate and costeffective means of documenting 

compliance and providing a framework 

for the provision of timely and 

reasonable language assistance. 

Moreover, such written plans would 

likely provide additional benefits to a 

recipient’s managers in the areas of 

training, administration, planning, and 

budgeting. These benefits should lead 

most recipients to document in a 

written LEP plan their language 

assistance services, and how staff and 

LEP persons can access those services. 

Despite these benefits, certain 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 inperson and telephone interpreters. 

Recipients may want to include this 

training as part of the orientation for 

new employees. It is important to 

ensure that all employees in public 

contact positions are properly trained. 

Recipients have flexibility in deciding 

the manner in which the training is 

provided. The more frequent the contact 

with LEP persons, the greater the need 

will be for in-depth training. Staff with 

little or no contact with LEP persons 

may only have to be aware of 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

—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-Englishlanguage 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
70784 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nondiscrimination 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES