[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6733-6747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1745]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket OST-2001-8696]


DOT Guidance to Recipients on Special Language Services to 
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Beneficiaries

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Transportation is publishing 
policy guidance on Title VI's prohibition against national origin 
discrimination as it affects limited English proficient persons.

DATES: This guidance is effective immediately. Comments must be 
submitted on or before March 23, 2001. DOT will review all comments and 
will determine what modifications to the policy guidance, if any, are 
necessary

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should submit written comments to Marc 
Brenman, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Civil Rights, Department of 
Transportation, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20590, or 
[email protected]; comments may also be submitted by facsimile 
at 202-366-9371.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Brenman, Office of Civil Rights, 
400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-1119; e-mail 
[email protected]; or David Tochen, Office of the General 
Counsel, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9153, e-mail 
[email protected]. Arrangements to receive the policy in an 
alternative format may be made by contacting the named individuals.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 
U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. and its implementing regulations provide that no 
person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, 
color, or national origin under any program or activity that receives 
federal financial assistance.
    The purpose of this policy guidance is to clarify the 
responsibilities of recipients of federal financial assistance from the 
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) (``recipients''), and assist 
them in fulfilling their responsibilities to limited English proficient 
(LEP) persons, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 
implementing regulations. The policy guidance reiterates DOT's 
longstanding position that in order to avoid discrimination against LEP 
persons on the grounds of national origin, recipients must take 
reasonable steps to ensure that such persons have meaningful access to 
the programs, services, and information those recipients provide, free 
of charge.
    The policy guidance includes an appendix. Appendix A summarizes 
DOT's Title VI regulations, as they apply to LEP persons.

    Dated: January 16, 2001.
Ronald A. Stroman,
Director, Departmental Office of Civil Rights, Department of 
Transportation.

DOT Guidance to Recipients on Special Language Services to Limited 
English Proficient (LEP) Beneficiaries

I. Background

    On August 11, 2000, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13166, 
entitled ``Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited 
English Proficiency.'' 65 FR 50121 (September 16, 2000). On the same 
day, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights issued a Policy 
Guidance Document titled ``Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964--National Origin Discrimination Against Persons With 
Limited English Proficiency'' (hereinafter referred to as ``DOJ LEP 
Guidance''), reprinted at 65 FR 50123 (September 16, 2000).
    Executive Order 13166 requires Federal departments and agencies 
extending financial assistance to develop and make available guidance 
on how recipients should, consistent with the DOJ LEP Guidance and 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, assess and 
address the needs of otherwise eligible limited English proficient 
persons seeking access to the programs and activities of recipients of 
federal financial assistance. The DOJ LEP Guidance, in turn, provides 
general guidance on how recipients can ensure compliance with their 
Title VI obligation to ``take reasonable steps to ensure `meaningful' 
access to the information and services they provide.'' DOJ LEP 
Guidance, 65 FR at 50124. The DOJ LEP Guidance goes on to provide,

[w]hat constitutes reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access will 
be contingent on a number of factors. Among the factors to be 
considered are the number or proportion of LEP persons in the 
eligible service population, the frequency with which LEP 
individuals come in contact with the program, the importance of the 
service provided by the program, and the resources available to the 
recipient.

Id. The DOJ LEP Guidance explains that the identification of 
``reasonable steps'' to provide oral and written services in languages 
other than English is to be determined on a case-by-case basis through 
a balancing of all four factors.
    The failure to assure that people who are not proficient in English 
can effectively participate in, and have meaningful access to, a 
Department of Transportation (DOT) financial assistance recipient's 
programs and activities may constitute national origin discrimination 
prohibited by Title VI and implementing regulations. Supreme Court 
precedent, and longstanding congressional provisions and federal agency 
regulations have repeatedly instructed that a nexus exists between 
language and national origin. As used throughout this Guidance, ``DOT'' 
is intended to include all the Department's operating administrations, 
components, and Secretarial offices.
    This LEP Guidance addresses the key elements that DOT encourages 
its recipients to consider to ensure meaningful access to programs and 
activities by all people regardless of race or national origin. The 
purpose of the Guidance is to assist recipients in complying with their 
Title VI responsibilities to ensure that access to their programs or 
activities, normally provided in English, are accessible to LEP 
persons. The Guidance is consistent with the requirements of Executive 
Order 13166 and with the DOJ LEP Guidance.
    During the development of this Guidance, DOT has ensured that 
stakeholders, such as LEP persons, their

[[Page 6734]]

representative organizations, recipients, and other appropriate 
individuals and entities have had an adequate opportunity to provide 
input. Additional input is welcome.
    Large numbers of minorities in the United States are linguistically 
isolated. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, 31.8 million persons or 
13% of the total U.S. population (ages 5 and above) speak a language 
other than English at home. Almost 2 million people do not speak 
English at all and 4.8 million people do not speak English well. The 
1990 U.S. Census also found that various minority populations and 
subgroups are linguistically isolated: Approximately 4 million 
Hispanics; approximately 1.6 million Asians and Pacific Islanders; 
approximately 282,000 Blacks; and approximately 77,000 Native Americans 
and Alaska Natives. Of those who speak Spanish in the United States, 
97% are Hispanic. Research indicates that the correlation between 
language and national origin is also very high. As of 1989, 72.5% of 
Chinese Americans speak a language other than English at home. 
Comparable figures for other Asian Pacific Islander groups exist for 
Cambodians (81.9%), Vietnamese (80.7%), Laotians (77.4%), Thai (72.5%), 
Koreans (69.7%), Filipinos (59.9%), Indians (55.3%), and Japanese 
(40.5%).
    School districts in many parts of the country are experiencing a 
substantial increase in the enrollment of national-origin-minority 
students who cannot speak, read, or write English well enough to 
participate meaningfully in educational programs without appropriate 
support services. There are approximately 3.5 million LEP students in 
the United States. The number of LEP students enrolled in public and 
nonpublic schools in the United States continues to increase each year. 
Between 1990 and 1997, the number of LEP students has risen by 57%. 
Most LEP students have parents whose skills in English are less than 
that of the students. The reported number of LEP students in K-12 
public schools comprises 8% of the total public school enrollment in 
the United States. All states enroll LEP students. The states with the 
largest reported number of LEP students are California (1,381,383), 
Texas (513,634), and Florida (288,603). The states with the largest 
reported percentage of LEP students are Alaska (26%), New Mexico (24%), 
and California (22%). Since many public transportation providers also 
transport students to and from school, these figures are important.
    In regard to one state alone, Pennsylvania ranks tenth among all 
states in the numbers of foreign-born persons who reside within its 
borders. Many of these individuals come to the United States with 
limited English skills, and are at varying stages of learning the 
English language. In all, more than seven percent of Pennsylvania's 
residents speak a primary language other than English. It is estimated 
that Philadelphia alone is home to approximately 30,000 Vietnamese, 
25,000 ethnic Chinese, 10,000 Cambodians, and 7,000 Laotians. According 
to the 1990 Census, approximately 54% of persons in Pennsylvania whose 
home language is an Asian language do not speak English very well.
    Many welfare recipients wrestle with poor job skills, health 
problems, and lack of transportation, in addition to language barriers. 
Besides the social, cultural and linguistic barriers, which affect the 
delivery of adequate transportation services, there are other factors 
that contribute to the poor social service status of LEP persons. These 
factors include the following:
     Inadequate number of health care providers and other 
health care professionals skilled in culturally competent and 
linguistically appropriate delivery of services.
     Scarcity of trained interpreters at the community level.
     Deficiency of knowledge about appropriate mechanisms to 
address language barriers in transportation settings.
     Absence of effective partnerships between major mainstream 
provider organizations and LEP minority communities.
     Low economic status.
     Lack of insurance.
     Organizational barriers.
    One recipient reported to DOT as follows, regarding the barriers 
people who are LEP face in transportation:

    Language barriers prohibit people who are LEP from obtaining 
services and information relating to transportation services and 
programs. Because people who are LEP are not able to read 
instructions or correspondence written in English and may not 
understand verbal information, they often are not aware of 
regulatory requirements and legal implications of the services they 
seek. People who are LEP also do not have the ability to read 
variable message signs which alert them to dangerous driving 
conditions. When people who are LEP receive Orders or other legal 
documents, they often do not understand the contents of the 
correspondence and its implication to their daily lives. People who 
are LEP may not be able to take advantage of the transit system, 
which could affect their job and social opportunities. When their 
home or business property is acquired by the State DOT, they may not 
be aware of or understand the benefits to which they are entitled. 
When individuals do not understand or read English, they are 
hampered in seeking employment opportunities.

    It is essential that transportation providers, professionals, and 
other DOT recipients become informed about their diverse clientele from 
a linguistic, cultural and social perspective. These individuals should 
become culturally competent so they can encourage vulnerable LEP 
minority populations to access and receive appropriate transportation 
services with more knowledge and confidence.

Advantages to Recipients Other Than Providing Beneficiary Access to 
Special Language (Spillover Benefits)

    Helping Prevent Complaints: DOT receives complaints from 
beneficiaries alleging that insufficient information has been provided 
by recipients to beneficiaries in the primary or home language of the 
beneficiaries. For example, in the current (as of the date of this 
guidance) Title VI administrative complaint, West Harlem Environmental 
Action v. New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and New York 
City Transit, the complainants seek as a part of their requested 
relief, ``Translating all notices about impending depot and bus parking 
lot developments into Spanish.'' Providing such services before 
complaints are filed may help forestall such complaints and create 
better relations with beneficiary groups.
    Economic Benefits: Translations of public transportation service 
documents may assist tourists and help establish localities as 
thoughtful and appropriate sites for global trade and investment.

II. Definitions

    Limited-English-Proficient Persons: Individuals with a primary or 
home language other than English who must, due to limited fluency in 
English, communicate in that primary or home language if the 
individuals are to have an equal opportunity to participate effectively 
in or benefit from any aid, service or benefit provided by the 
transportation provider or other DOT recipient.
    Linguistically Isolated: This term is defined in the Census as the 
percentage of the persons in households in which no one over the age of 
14 speaks English well, and is used as a direct measure of those 
persons with a severe language barrier, as distinct from those of 
foreign origin who speak English well. Those who are linguistically 
isolated may also be unable to benefit from transportation services and 
the services of other DOT

[[Page 6735]]

recipients, and therefore should receive attention from recipients as a 
high priority.
    Federal financial assistance: The term Federal financial assistance 
to which Title VI applies includes but is not limited to grants and 
loans of Federal funds, grants or donations of Federal property, 
details of Federal personnel, or any agreement, arrangement or other 
contract which has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance.
    Qualified interpreter: Qualified interpreter means an interpreter 
who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, 
either for individuals with disabilities or for individuals with 
limited English skills. The interpreter should be able to interpret 
both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized 
vocabulary.
    Non-English language relay service: A telecommunications relay 
service that allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities who use 
languages other than English to communicate with voice telephone users 
in a shared language other than English, through a communications 
assistant who is fluent in that language.

III. Legal Background

    Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing 
regulations prohibit recipients of federal financial assistance from 
discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. In 
certain circumstances, failure to provide meaningful access to LEP 
persons is national origin discrimination. Most of the statements in 
this Guidance pertain to services provided by a recipient, rather than 
employment by the recipient. However, employment discrimination is 
covered by Title VI if the federal financial assistance is provided for 
the purpose of employment or if employment discrimination results in 
discrimination against program beneficiaries.
    In order to avoid discrimination against LEP persons on the grounds 
of national origin, Title VI and the DOT Title VI regulations require 
recipients to take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons receive 
the language assistance necessary to afford them meaningful access to 
their programs and activities. A useful test of compliance with this 
guidance is to ask the question, ``If we do not provide the service in 
question in a language a beneficiary understands, will the beneficiary 
still receive essentially the same benefit or service that we provide 
to others who are fluent in English?''
    As discussed below, the framework for compliance with Title VI in 
this area is a flexible one, and DOT recognizes that a ``one-size-fits-
all'' approach is not satisfactory. For instance, some recipients may 
have different Title VI LEP concerns in communities affected by their 
programs and activities, and may have different amounts of resources 
available. DOT also recognizes that some recipients are already 
addressing Title VI LEP concerns through existing programs and 
activities. We have tried to include examples of these efforts under 
Section IX, entitled ``Promising Practices/Best Practices.'' More 
examples are welcome.
    Many recipients of Federal financial assistance recognize that the 
failure to provide language assistance to LEP persons may deny them 
vital access to programs or activities. The failure to remove language 
barriers can be attributed to many reasons ranging from ignorance of 
the fact that some members of the community are unable to communicate 
in English to intentional discrimination on the basis of national 
origin. While there is not always a direct relationship between an 
individual's language and national origin, language often serves as an 
identifier of national origin. As the Supreme Court observed in 
Hernandez v. New York, 

    [l]anguage elicits a response from others, * * * ranging from 
admiration and respect, to distance and alienation, to ridicule and 
scorn. Reactions of the latter type all too often result from or 
initiate racial hostility * * * It may well be, for certain ethnic 
groups and in some communities, that proficiency in a particular 
language, like skin color, should be treated as a surrogate for race 
under an equal protection analysis.

500 U.S. 352, 371 (1991). The significant discriminatory effects that 
result from the failure to provide language assistance to LEP persons, 
places the treatment of LEP individuals comfortably within the ambit of 
Title VI and DOT's implementing regulations.
    In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), the Supreme Court 
recognized that, pursuant to Title VI, recipients of Federal financial 
assistance have an affirmative responsibility to provide LEP persons 
with a meaningful opportunity to participate in publicly funded 
programs. Lau involved a group of students of Chinese origin who did 
not speak English to whom the recipient provided the same services--an 
education provided solely in English--that it provided students who did 
speak English. The Court held that, under these circumstances, the 
school district's practice violated the Title VI prohibition against 
discrimination on the basis of national origin. The Court observed that 
``[i]t seems obvious that the Chinese-speaking minority receive fewer 
benefits than the English-speaking majority from respondents' school 
system which denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the 
educational program--all earmarks of the discrimination banned by'' the 
Title VI regulations. Courts have applied the doctrine enunciated in 
Lau both inside and outside of the educational context. It has been 
considered in contexts as varied as what languages drivers' license 
tests must be given in, to whether material relating to unemployment 
benefits must be provided in a language other than English.
    Most recently, and in a transportation context, the Eleventh 
Circuit in Sandoval v. Hagan, 197 F. 3rd 484 (11th Cir. 1999) petition 
for certiorari granted, Alexander v. Sandoval, 121 S.Ct. 28 (Sept. 26, 
2000) (No. 99-1908) held that the State of Alabama's policy of 
administering a driver's license examination only in English was a 
facially neutral practice that had a disproportionate adverse effect on 
the basis of national origin, in violation of Title VI. The Court 
specifically noted the nexus between language policies and potential 
discrimination based on national origin. That is, in Sandoval, the vast 
majority of individuals who were adversely affected by Alabama's 
English-only driver's license examination policy were of foreign 
descent. It is interesting to note that the State produced no evidence 
at trial that non-English speakers pose greater highway safety risks 
than English speakers.
    The Title VI regulations prohibit both intentional discrimination 
and policies and practices that appear neutral but have a 
discriminatory effect. Thus, a recipient's policies or practices 
regarding the provision of benefits and services to LEP persons need 
not be intentional to be discriminatory, but may constitute a violation 
of Title VI if they have a disproportionate adverse effect on LEP 
persons' ability to access programs and services. Accordingly, it is 
useful for recipients to examine their policies and practices to 
determine whether they adversely affect LEP persons disproportionately. 
This LEP Guidance provides a legal framework to assist recipients in 
conducting such assessments.
    Title VI prohibits discrimination in any program or activity that 
receives Federal financial assistance. What constitutes a program or 
activity covered by Title VI was clarified by Congress 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

[[Page 6736]]

particular program or activity, all operations of the recipient are 
covered by Title VI, not just the part of the program that uses the 
Federal assistance. Thus, all parts of the recipient's operations would 
be covered by Title VI, even if the Federal assistance is used only by 
one part.
    The Department of Justice is the principal federal agency for 
coordinating Title VI requirements. The obligation on the part of 
recipients to address the language needs of beneficiaries has been a 
long-standing part of its Title VI coordination policies. See 28 CFR 
42.405(d)(1) (1976). Moreover, other federal agencies have adopted 
Title VI enforcement policies that the denial of benefits to non-
English speakers may result in a disparate impact based on national 
origin in violation of Title VI. For example, inability to drive a car 
adversely affects individuals in the form of lost economic 
opportunities, social services, and other quality of life pursuits.

State or local ``English-Only'' laws

    State and local laws may provide additional obligations to serve 
LEP individuals, but such laws cannot compel recipients of federal 
financial assistance to violate Title VI. For instance, given our 
constitutional structure, state or local ``English-only'' laws do not 
relieve an entity that receives federal funding from its 
responsibilities under federal anti-discrimination laws. State and 
local entities with ``English-only'' laws are certainly not required to 
accept federal funding--but if they do, they have to comply with Title 
VI and its implementing regulations, including their prohibition 
against national origin discrimination by recipients of federal 
assistance. Failing to make federally assisted programs and activities 
accessible to individuals who are LEP will, in certain circumstances, 
violate Title VI.
    In Sandoval v. Hagan, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 
found that Alabama's ``English-Only policy'' had a significant 
disparate impact on foreign-born individuals, and imposed significant 
adversity on individuals by excluding otherwise qualified drivers from 
obtaining licenses. It enjoined the continued use of the ``English-Only 
policy'' and ordered Alabama to submit a plan for compliance. People 
with licenses can get to work in places not served by public 
transportation and earn better wages. The inability to drive also may 
stand in the way of satisfying other important needs, such as the need 
to get emergency medical attention, particularly in rural areas not 
served by public transportation. Additionally, driver's licenses are 
the most common form of identification in this country; without one, it 
is difficult to take part in the life of the community--opening a bank 
account, cashing a check, getting a library card, etc. For these many 
reasons, the inability of LEP persons to obtain driver's licenses 
presents serious problems.

IV. Ensuring Meaningful Access to LEP Persons

    Title VI and its regulations require recipients to take reasonable 
steps to ensure ``meaningful'' access to DOT recipients' programs and 
activities. The key to providing meaningful access to LEP persons is to 
ensure that recipients and LEP beneficiaries can communicate 
effectively and act appropriately based on that communication. Thus, 
DOT recipients should take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons 
are given adequate information, are able to understand that 
information, and are able to participate effectively in recipient 
programs or activities, where appropriate. As the demographics of the 
United States continue to change and the proportion of LEP communities 
and populations continue to grow, a recipient's challenge (as well as 
DOT's challenge) will be to develop linguistically appropriate and 
effective methods of communication with LEP persons within the usual, 
tight resource constraints.

A. Assessment of Meaningful Access

    DOT's main focus when evaluating a Title VI complaint based on 
allegations of national origin discrimination against LEP persons will 
be whether a recipient has taken reasonable steps to eliminate barriers 
to meaningful communication with LEP individuals and to provide 
necessary services equivalent to those provided to people who are fully 
English proficient. What ``reasonable steps'' should be taken will 
depend upon a number of factors. These factors include the following:
     The number and proportion of LEP persons potentially 
served by the recipient's programs or activities, and the variety of 
languages spoken in the recipient's service area:
    The recipient should consider the number or proportion of people 
who will be excluded from participation in programs or activities 
without efforts to remove language barriers. Programs and activities 
that affect a few or even one LEP person are subject to the Title VI 
obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful opportunities 
to obtain services. Nevertheless, the steps that are reasonable for a 
recipient whose programs or activities affect one LEP person a year may 
be different than those expected from a recipient whose program or 
activity affects many LEP persons on a regular basis. However, DOT 
encourages even those recipients whose programs or activities affect 
very few LEP persons on an infrequent basis to consider reasonable 
steps for involvement of LEP persons and to plan for situations in 
which LEP persons will be affected under the program or activity in 
question. This plan need not be intricate; it may be as simple as 
having certain public notices translated into a language other than 
English, providing an interpreter under certain conditions, or making 
available technological solutions such as a telephone language line.
     The frequency with which LEP individuals are affected by 
the program or activity:
    The frequency with which LEP persons are affected by the programs 
or activities is also important. DOT encourages recipients to take into 
account the frequency with which the recipient's program or activity 
may affect LEP persons in its service area and to have the flexibility 
to tailor its actions to those needs. For example, if the recipient 
knows that there is a large LEP community that exists and that 
community is often impacted by the recipient's programs and activities, 
it may want to regularly translate notices of public hearings and post 
them in areas where LEP individuals will see them. DOT encourages 
recipients to use communication methods likely to reach the affected 
community (e.g., insert information with utility bills, place public 
service announcements on local radio shows, place notices on bulletin 
boards in grocery stores, houses of worship, community newspapers and 
community centers). In the notices, you can provide the option of 
translation services at public hearings if individuals contact you by a 
certain date. This way, if no one responds you do not expend valuable 
resources when no actual need for translation services exists.
    Notices and information that are generally available to the public 
should be made available to substantial LEP populations. For example, 
weather and road condition telephone lines and websites should be 
available in translation. In areas with severe weather, such notices 
will probably rise to the level of safety issues, and therefore require 
the higher level of service described elsewhere in this guidance.
     The importance of the effect of the recipient's program or 
activity on LEP

[[Page 6737]]

persons, bearing in mind that transportation is considered an essential 
service to participation in modern society:
    The importance of the effects of the recipient's program or 
activity on LEP persons has a direct bearing on the reasonableness of 
steps taken to ensure meaningful participation. DOT encourages you to 
take more vigorous steps where the denial or delay of access may have 
more crucial implications than in situations that are not as crucial to 
one's day-to-day activities. For example, the obligations of federally-
assisted health, emergency, hazardous materials, and safety efforts 
differ from those of a Federally-assisted program where safety or 
health is not at stake. DOT encourages you to consider the importance 
of the participation in the program or activity to individuals both 
immediately and in the long-term, as well as synergistic effects. In a 
study done in 1995, all Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel who 
participated referred to language as a principal challenge in 
effectively working with Hispanic community members. In addition, many 
recently arrived Hispanics are not accustomed to using the telephone to 
access emergency medical services. Such circumstances justify greater 
efforts by recipients to educate LEP individuals, as discussed 
elsewhere in this Guidance. In addition, inability to access public 
transportation may adversely effect ability to obtain health care, 
education, and jobs.
     The resources available to the recipient, and whether the 
recipient has budgeted for provision of special language services:
    Resources of a recipient may be a factor in determining the level 
and kind of language services it should provide. Larger recipients with 
more resources will have more language service responsibilities than 
smaller recipients with few resources. DOT will use a reasonableness 
standard in evaluating whether a recipient's efforts are sufficient. 
Where excessive cost is proffered by a recipient as a reason for not 
undertaking necessary special language services, DOT will evaluate the 
situation on a case-by-case basis. DOT's evaluation will include a 
consideration of the totality of the recipient's circumstances, 
including the size of the budget of the largest organizational entity 
which supervises the work of the program, project or activity that 
directly receives DOT financial assistance. For example, for a unit of 
a state department of transportation, the budget of the entire state 
DOT will be used as a point of reference. Other considerations will 
include those listed elsewhere in this Guidance, such as the size of 
the LEP population needing services, the degree to which such 
populations have been historically excluded from services, the 
availability of less costly alternative service modalities, whether the 
costs can be amortized over time or are a one-time expense, whether 
services can be phased in to avoid excessive cost in any one year, the 
possibility of alternate sources of funds to pay for the necessary 
services, whether the services are required in response to complaints 
or law suits, and how long the recipient has been on notice that the 
special language services should be provided. Note that Title VI has 
been in existence since 1964, and that recipients have been on notice 
that discrimination on the basis of national origin has been prohibited 
since then.
     The level of services provided to fully English proficient 
people;
     Whether LEP persons are being excluded from services, or 
being provided a lower level of services:
    Only under rare circumstances could this exclusion be justified, 
and the burden of proving the need for the exclusion would be very 
high. Example 1: The recipient provides no services to a neighborhood 
where LEP people live, while providing services to a neighborhood where 
fully English proficient people live. Example 2: Several years ago, a 
job access program funded by DOT's Federal Transit Administration 
stated in its brochures that eligible applicants must ``speak 
English.'' Note that the prohibition on exclusion due to national 
origin would also apply to situations where a recipient excluded a 
beneficiary from bringing an interpreter to a meeting, test, or other 
formal situation with the recipient. Although DOT discourages reliance 
by recipients on beneficiary-supplied interpreters, if the beneficiary 
desires to use one, and the recipient does not supply an interpreter, 
the recipient should permit his/her use. DOT recognizes that issues of 
security of testing are sometimes thought to arise when an non-
recipient-supplied interpreter translates for a beneficiary. These 
issues are the responsibility of the recipient. If security is felt to 
be a potential problem by a recipient, the recipient bears the burden 
of supplying the interpreter.
     Whether the recipient has adequate justification for 
restrictions, if any, on special language services or speaking 
languages other than English:
    Such justifications would be accepted only in rare circumstances. 
Assertions of safety justifications would generally not be accepted 
unless accompanied by statistical and/or scientific causality studies 
and evidence showing a positive correlation between limited English 
proficiency and crash and death/injury rates at rates substantially 
higher than would be expected due to chance.
    There is no one-size fits all solution for Title VI compliance with 
respect to LEP persons. When investigating a Title VI complaint, DOT 
will assess language assistance allegations on a case-by-case basis, 
and will afford considerable flexibility to recipients to determine 
precisely how to fulfill this obligation. DOT will focus on the end 
result--whether recipients have taken the necessary steps to ensure 
that LEP persons have meaningful access to participate in their 
programs and activities, and whether those services are being provided 
so that LEP persons have an equal opportunity to benefit from 
recipients' services.

V. Compliance and Enforcement

    The recommendations outlined in this Guidance are not intended to 
be exhaustive. Recipients should establish and implement policies and 
procedures for providing language assistance sufficient to fulfill 
their Title VI responsibilities and provide LEP persons with meaningful 
access to services. DOT enforces Title VI as it applies to recipients' 
responsibilities to LEP persons through the procedures provided for in 
DOT's Title VI regulations (49 CFR Part 21, see Appendix A), and in 
appropriate DOT operating administration regulations. These procedures 
include complaint investigations, compliance reviews, alternative 
dispute resolution, efforts to secure voluntary compliance and 
technical assistance.
    DOT's Title VI regulations provide that the agency will investigate 
whenever it receives a complaint, report or other information that 
alleges or indicates possible noncompliance with Title VI. If the 
investigation results in a finding of compliance, DOT will inform the 
recipient and the complainant in writing of this determination, 
including the basis for the determination. If the investigation results 
in a finding of noncompliance, DOT 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, and must attempt to secure voluntary compliance through 
informal means. If the matter cannot be resolved informally, DOT must 
secure compliance through (a) the termination of Federal assistance 
after the recipient has been given an opportunity for an administrative 
hearing, (b) referral to DOJ for injunctive relief or other

[[Page 6738]]

enforcement proceedings, or (c) any other means authorized by law.
    As the Title VI regulations set forth in the Appendix indicate, DOT 
has a legal obligation to seek voluntary compliance in resolving cases 
and cannot seek the termination of funds until it has engaged in 
voluntary compliance efforts and has determined that compliance cannot 
be secured voluntarily. During these efforts to secure voluntary 
compliance, DOT consults with and assists recipients entities in 
exploring cost effective ways of coming into compliance, by sharing 
information on potential community resources, by increasing awareness 
of emerging technologies, by sharing information on how other 
recipients entities have addressed the language needs of diverse 
populations, and by proposing reasonable timetables for achieving 
compliance.
    Whenever possible, DOT provides recipients with technical 
assistance upon request and an opportunity to come into voluntary 
compliance with Title VI prior to initiating formal enforcement 
proceedings. In determining a recipient's compliance with Title VI, the 
Departmental Office of Civil Rights' (DOCR) primary concern is to 
ensure that the recipient's policies and procedures allow LEP persons 
to overcome language differences that result in barriers and have a 
meaningful opportunity to participate in and access programs, services 
and benefits to the same extent as fully English proficient persons. A 
recipients's appropriate use of the methods and options discussed in 
this policy guidance will be viewed by DOCR as evidence of a 
recipient's willingness to comply voluntarily with its Title VI 
obligations.
    Further, when reviewing any claim of discrimination, DOT considers 
the severity of the adverse impact on LEP persons, the egregiousness or 
pervasiveness of any adverse action taken by a recipient, and whether 
the recipient has shown an intent to discriminate.

Assurance Forms

    When organizations apply for DOT financial assistance, they submit 
an assurance with their applications that they will comply with the 
requirements of DOT's regulations implementing Title VI with respect to 
their programs and activities. When they receive DOT financial 
assistance, they accept the obligation to comply with DOT's Title VI 
implementing regulations. These assurances should be understood to 
include provision of services to national origin minority persons who 
are limited English proficient.

VI. Framework for Language Assistance

    DOT has determined that effective language assistance programs 
usually address each of the elements described below. The failure to 
incorporate or implement one or more of these elements does not 
necessarily indicate noncompliance with Title VI. When investigating 
Title VI complaints, DOT will review the totality of the circumstances 
to determine whether LEP persons have had meaningful access to 
participate effectively in a recipient's programs and activities.
1. Needs Assessment
     A recipient should conduct a thorough assessment of the language 
needs of the population and communities affected by the recipient.
    The first key to ensuring meaningful access to LEP persons is to 
assess the language needs of the affected population and communities 
served, through application of the analysis described elsewhere in this 
Guidance. Ways to assess language needs include identifying the non-
English languages used in communities affected by the recipient, 
estimating how many people speak each language, where they live, and 
how well they are currently accessing services provided to those who 
are fully English proficient. After identifying LEP communities, DOT 
encourages recipients to consider any barriers to communication with 
these communities. It is possible that, in certain instances, the 
results of the assessment may indicate that, although LEP communities 
are affected by the programs and activities, there are no barriers to 
communication with these communities, because they are bilingual, for 
instance, or do not need or want translation services.
    An approach may be developed to identify geographic areas where LEP 
communities live using existing resources such as census data, data 
from local organizations and community groups, faith-based groups that 
provide services in languages other than English, immigrant aid 
organizations, state refugee coordinators, non-English media outlets, 
and school district LEP statistics. The latter are particularly 
valuable, since all school districts are required to maintain data on 
LEP students and provide necessary special language services. It is 
important to collaborate with community groups and other appropriate 
stakeholders to develop the criteria for identifying geographic areas. 
Once the areas are identified, the recipient can work with the affected 
communities and stakeholders to determine their language assistance 
needs. The recipient may also choose to identify actual or potential 
populations within a particular service area or area of responsibility.
    Specifically, DOT encourages recipients to identify linguistically 
isolated populations or job sites in which LEP persons represent a 
significant proportion of the workforce (e.g., manual labor, hotel 
cleaning, food preparation, auto supplies, etc.) Transportation 
entities in particular should be aware of the potential difficulties 
LEP people may have in public transportation from home to work, health 
facilities, schools, shopping, faith-based facilities, day-care, and 
leisure activities. New immigrants to the United States from non-
English speaking countries may be especially in need of special 
language services. Note that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
covers ``people in the United States.'' Thus, recipients may generally 
not refuse to provide services to non-citizens, regardless of 
immigration status.
    Identifying the points of contact in the program or activity where 
language assistance is likely to be needed, identifying the resources 
that will be needed to provide effective language assistance, 
identifying the location and availability of these resources, and 
identifying the arrangements that should be made to access these 
resources in a timely manner are important factors to ensure effective 
provision of services.
2. Written Language Assistance Plan
    Recipients should develop and implement written language assistance 
plans that will ensure meaningful opportunities for LEP persons to 
access their programs and activities and effectively participate in 
them.
    A recipient can help ensure effective communication with LEP 
persons by developing and implementing a comprehensive, written 
language assistance plan. Such a plan should include policies and 
procedures for identifying and assessing the language needs of LEP 
persons, and provide for a range of written and oral language 
assistance options, periodic training of staff, actual provision of 
services, and monitoring of the program. DOT encourages recipients to 
consider the transportation needs of the LEP community affected by the 
recipient's programs and activities while developing this plan. The 
factor analysis set forth in this Guidance should be the starting point 
for identifying areas in which language services are needed.
    DOT encourages recipients to consider one or more of the following

[[Page 6739]]

ideas as they develop language assistance plans:
     Assigning primary responsibility for development and 
implementation of the plan to an appropriate manager or supervisor.
     Preparing a written summary of results from the needs 
assessment (discussed above).
     Identifying actions already being taken and existing tools 
that can be used to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals, and 
how well they work.
     Creating an inventory of existing materials that have been 
translated into other languages to assist LEP individuals.
     Regularly updating the inventory of translated materials.
     Drafting a plan that is specific and detailed, yet 
flexible enough to respond to existing or potential needs over an 
appropriate time period (i.e., five years).
     Ensuring that translation arrangements have quality 
control (i.e., mechanisms are in place to ensure that the translation 
accurately and appropriately conveys the substance of what is contained 
in the written materials).
     Distributing the names of organizational contacts who will 
respond to inquiries and requests regarding access to programs and 
activities by LEP individuals, in appropriate media and publications.
     Addressing the appropriate mix of written and oral 
language assistance to ensure effective communication with the LEP 
population.
    A plan should generally include:
     Who is responsible for each step.
     When each step is expected to be completed. (Generally 
speaking, the more vital the service, the sooner it should be 
provided.)
     What standards and criteria are to be applied to measure 
the effectiveness of each step.
     What resources will be devoted to each step.
     How the recipient will document implementation of each 
step.
3. Staff Training
    Recipients should ensure that staff understand the recipient's 
language assistance policy and are capable of carrying it out.
    The success of recipients' LEP/Title VI activities will depend on 
the staff's knowledge, credibility, and actions. DOT encourages 
recipients to disseminate the recipient's policy to all employees 
likely to have contact with LEP persons and to periodically train 
employees. Effective training, which includes cultural and community 
relations sensitization, is one way to ensure that there is not a gap 
between your policies and procedures and the actual practices of 
employees who interact with LEP persons. Effective training ensures 
that employees are knowledgeable and aware of LEP policies and 
procedures, can work effectively with in-person and telephone 
interpreters, and understand the dynamics of interpretation between 
beneficiaries, providers and interpreters. It is important that this 
training be part of the orientation for new employees and all employees 
in beneficiary contact positions should be properly trained. Given the 
high turnover rate among some types of employees, a recipient may find 
it useful to maintain a training registry that records the names and 
dates of employees' training.
4. Provision of Special Language Assistance
    Recipients must actually provide necessary services to LEP persons.
    Most important to any LEP plan is to actually provide the necessary 
services. Actual provision of services includes notification of the 
availability of services. A vital part of an effective compliance 
program includes having effective methods for notifying LEP persons 
regarding their right to language assistance and the availability of 
such assistance free of charge. These methods include but are not 
limited to:
     Use of language identification cards that allow LEP 
beneficiaries to identify their language needs to staff and for staff 
to identify the language needs of applicants and clients. To be 
effective, the cards (e.g., ``I speak cards'') should invite the LEP 
person to identify the language he/she speaks. This identification can 
be recorded in the LEP person's file, if the recipient keeps such files 
on beneficiaries.
     Posting and maintaining signs in regularly encountered 
non-English languages in waiting rooms, reception areas and other 
initial points of entry. In order to be effective, these signs should 
inform applicants and beneficiaries of their right to free language 
assistance services and invite them to identify themselves as persons 
needing such services.
     Translation of application forms and instructional, 
informational and other written materials into appropriate non-English 
languages by competent translators. For LEP persons whose language does 
not exist in written form, assistance should be provided from an 
interpreter to explain the contents of the document. LEP persons may 
need assistance, for example, however, in filling out forms such as 
those for transit half-fare benefits or paratransit eligibility under 
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
     Uniform procedures for timely and effective telephone 
communication between staff and LEP persons. This should include 
instructions for English-speaking employees to obtain assistance from 
interpreters or bilingual staff when receiving calls from or initiating 
calls to LEP persons, and
     Inclusion of statements about the services available and 
the right to free language assistance services, in appropriate non-
English languages, in brochures, booklets, outreach and recruitment 
information and other materials that are routinely disseminated to the 
public.
5. Monitoring
    Recipients should conduct regular oversight of their language 
assistance programs to ensure that LEP persons can meaningfully access 
their programs and activities. It is also important that recipients 
regularly monitor their language assistance programs by assessing the 
following:
     Current LEP demographics of the population that is 
affected by the recipient's programs and activities.
     Current communication needs of LEP communities.
     Whether the recipient's plan is adequately supported so 
that it has a realistic chance of success.
     Whether existing assistance is meeting the needs of LEP 
persons.
     Whether recipient staff are knowledgeable about policies 
and procedures and how to implement them.
     Whether sources of, and arrangements for, assistance are 
still current and viable.
     Whether the plan is periodically evaluated and revised, as 
necessary. Note that recipients are required to modify their plans and 
programs of service if they prove to be unsuccessful after a legitimate 
trial.
     Number and type of grievances and complaints received by 
the recipient or against the recipient by DOJ or DOT, alleging lack of 
provision of services due to limited English proficiency.
    One way to evaluate the language assistance program is to seek and 
obtain feedback from the communities served. DOT believes that 
compliance with the Title VI language assistance obligation is most 
likely met when a recipient continuously monitors its program and makes 
modifications where necessary, including meeting public participation 
requirements under other initiatives such as environmental justice.

[[Page 6740]]

VII. Ways of Providing Language Services

    Once the recipient has determined that language services are 
needed, there are three main ways of providing those services: oral 
interpretation; written translation; and alternate, non-verbal methods. 
The following provides information on these three methods.

A. Oral Language Interpretation

    In designing an effective language assistance program, a recipient 
develops procedures for obtaining and providing trained and competent 
interpreters and other oral language assistance services, in a timely 
manner, by taking some or all of the following steps:
     Hiring bilingual staff who are trained and competent in 
the skill of interpreting.
     Hiring staff interpreters who are trained and competent in 
the skill of interpreting.
     Contracting with an outside interpreter service for 
trained and competent interpreters.
     Arranging formally for the services of voluntary community 
interpreters who are trained and competent in the skill of 
interpreting.
     Arranging/contracting for the use of a telephone language 
interpreter service.
    Bilingual Staff--Hiring bilingual staff for beneficiary contact 
positions facilitates participation by LEP persons. However, where 
there are a variety of LEP language groups in a recipient's service 
area, this option may be insufficient to meet the needs of all LEP 
applicants and clients. Where this option is insufficient to meet these 
needs, the recipient should provide additional and timely language 
assistance. Bilingual staff should be trained and should demonstrate 
competence as interpreters.
    Staff Interpreters--Paid staff interpreters are especially 
appropriate where there is a frequent and/or regular need for 
interpreting services. These persons should be competent and readily 
available.
    Contract Interpreters--The use of contract interpreters may be an 
option for recipients that have an infrequent need for interpreting 
services, have less common LEP language groups in their service areas, 
or need to supplement their in-house capabilities on an as needed 
basis. Such contract interpreters should be readily available and 
competent.
    Community Volunteers--Use of community volunteers may provide 
recipients with a cost-effective method for providing interpreter 
services. However, experience has shown that to use community 
volunteers effectively, recipients should ensure that formal 
arrangements for interpreting services are made with community 
organizations so that these organizations are not subjected to ad hoc 
requests for assistance. In addition, recipients should ensure that 
these volunteers are competent as interpreters and understand their 
obligation to maintain client confidentiality. Additional language 
assistance should be provided where competent volunteers are not 
readily available during all hours of service.
    Telephone Interpreter Lines--A telephone interpreter service line 
may be a useful option as a supplemental system, or may be useful when 
a recipient encounters a language that it cannot otherwise accommodate. 
Such a service often offers interpreting assistance in many different 
languages and usually can provide the service in quick response to a 
request. However, recipients should be aware that such services may not 
always have readily available interpreters who are familiar with the 
terminology peculiar to the particular program or service. It is 
important that a recipient not offer this as the only language 
assistance option except where other language assistance options are 
unavailable (e.g., in a rural area visited by a LEP beneficiary who 
speaks a language that is not usually encountered in the area).

B. Translation of Written Materials

    An effective language assistance program ensures that written 
materials that are routinely provided in English to applicants, clients 
and the public are available in regularly encountered languages other 
than English. It is particularly important to ensure that vital 
documents, such as applications, consent forms, letters containing 
important information regarding participation in a program (such as a 
cover letter outlining conditions of participation in a paratransit 
program), notices pertaining to the reduction, denial or termination of 
services or benefits or that require a response from beneficiaries, 
notices advising LEP persons of the availability of free language 
assistance, and other outreach materials be translated into the non-
English language of each regularly encountered LEP group eligible to be 
served or likely to be directly affected by the recipient's program. 
Materials with a ``gatekeeper'' function, such as those concerning the 
necessity for insurance and licensure, should be translated. Notices 
for the public should be published in the primary non-English language 
media serving the recipient's service area. However, note the emphasis 
elsewhere in this document on exploring non-verbal/non-language-based 
approaches to communication. Warning signs should be posted in the 
languages spoken by people likely to encounter the signs.
    Services such as public safety, police, and law enforcement that 
might result in the diminution of personal freedom, in fines and 
penalties, in loss of driving privileges, or in ``points'' on driving 
records, are subject to a high burden on the recipient that provides 
such services, in terms of timeliness and quality of translation of key 
documents. Many DOT recipients are engaged in such services--such as 
state departments of public safety, state motor vehicle departments, 
transit and railroad police, and airport security. More complete 
guidance for such special language services by law enforcement 
personnel is available through the Department of Justice.
    It is important to ensure that written materials routinely provided 
by a recipient in English also are provided in regularly encountered 
languages other than English. It is particularly important to ensure 
that vital documents are translated into the non-English language of 
each regularly encountered LEP group eligible to be served or likely to 
be affected by the recipient's program or activity. A document will be 
considered vital if it contains information that is critical for 
obtaining federal services and/or benefits, or is required by law. 
Vital documents include, for example: applications; consent and 
complaint forms; notices of rights and disciplinary action; notices 
advising LEP persons of the availability of free language assistance; 
and written tests that do not assess English language competency, but 
rather competency for a particular license, job, or skill for which 
English competency is not required; and letters or notices that require 
a response from the beneficiary or client. For instance, if a complaint 
form is necessary in order to file a claim with an agency, that 
complaint form would be vital. Non-vital information includes documents 
that are not critical to access such benefits and services.
    Vital documents should be translated when a significant number or 
percentage of the population eligible to be served, or likely to be 
directly affected by the program/activity, needs services or 
information in a language other than English to communicate 
effectively. For many larger documents, translation of vital 
information contained within the document will suffice and the 
documents need not be translated in their entirety.

[[Page 6741]]

    It may sometimes be difficult to draw a distinction between vital 
and non-vital documents, particularly when considering outreach or 
other documents designed to raise awareness of rights or services. 
Though meaningful access to a program requires an awareness of the 
program's existence, DOT recognizes that it would be impossible, from a 
practical and cost-based perspective, to translate every piece of 
outreach material into every language. Title VI does not require this 
of recipients. Nevertheless, because in some circumstances lack of 
awareness of the existence of a particular program may effectively deny 
LEP individuals meaningful access, it is important to continually 
survey/assess the needs of eligible service populations to determine 
whether certain critical outreach materials should be translated into 
other languages.
    DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has 
found that direct translation of safety pamphlets and brochures that 
have been developed in English into a non-English language often 
results in an inferior or inappropriate product due to the many 
dialects and linguistic styles of foreign languages and because the 
materials were not designed to originally focus on a particular 
dialect-speaking audience. A better approach is to develop the 
materials in the language and dialect in which they are intended to be 
used. Also, involving the target community in review of the final 
brochure or product can eliminate inappropriate word choice and 
increase the effectiveness of the messages. Community group involvement 
can also provide a ready means of distribution of the materials

C. Use of Alternative Communication Methods and Devices:

    To alleviate the concerns of recipients, and to reduce cost, DOT 
encourages recipients to explore use of methods and devices that do not 
use language. For example, use of pictograms, symbol signs, standard 
symbolic signs (SMS's), diagrams, color-coded warnings, illustrations, 
graphics, and pictures can be considered. A major example of the use of 
such methods in transportation infrastructure is the laminated plastic 
safety information cards in the seat back pouches on commercial 
airliners. These cards communicate a great deal of important safety 
information using very few words in any language. Schematic maps can 
similarly quickly communicate large amounts of information without 
words. Standard symbols such as are used on international roads and at 
the Olympics can be used. Use of such non-verbal methods will also help 
alleviate problems of communication for those who are illiterate or 
partially literate, those who are too young to read, and those with 
hearing impairments. Use of symbol signs may help elderly drivers as 
well, since signing in highway work areas raises sign legibility issues 
for older drivers. It may be noted that there is overlap between older 
drivers and those who are more likely to be LEP in some subpopulations, 
such as the Navajo. Symbol signs and pictograms also benefit 
globalization of trade and travel.

    Example 1. ``Transportation engineers world-wide are moving 
toward the use of symbol signs in place of word signs because they 
are easier for people to comprehend in a shorter amount of time. 
Easily recognized symbols also accommodate people who cannot read 
English.'' (Irvine, California, Traffic Research and Control Center 
(ITRAC))

    Example 2. ``Universal design considerations also offer the 
potential to benefit persons with a cognitive disability. For 
example, standardized symbols, pictures, and color coding offer 
benefits to persons with a cognitive disability. If written 
information is provided, the messages should be short and clear. 
Repetition of symbols and information also helps reduce the 
difficulty of remembering information.'' (Transport Canada, 
``Technologies for travelers with sensory or cognitive disabilities 
(TP 13247E)'')

    A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study reached these 
conclusions about symbol signs:
    Minimize symbol complexity by using very few details.
    Maximize the distance between symbol sign elements.
    Use representational rather than abstract symbols.
    Use solid rather than outline figures for designs.
    Standardize the design of arrowheads, human figures, and vehicles. 
Retain maximum contrast between the symbol and the sign background.
    Use of pictograms in dynamic signs can be considered. These are in 
use in Europe. Regulatory speed limit messages are presented using a 
number in a red circle, which is analogous to the European static speed 
limit sign. Other symbol messages presented to drivers in dynamic 
message signs include congestion, snow, and diversion (detour) 
directions. Research is underway to develop additional symbols for 
inclusion in the European standards for traffic control devices. Two 
specific conditions for which symbols are being explored are ``fog'' 
and ``accident.''

    Example: NHTSA, 49 CFR Parts 571 and 575, Consumer Information 
Regulations: Utility Vehicle Label; Final Rule, Federal Register, 
March 9, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 45) ``The rule requires the label's 
header to have an alert symbol (a triangle containing an exclamation 
point) followed by the statement ``WARNING: Higher Rollover Risk'' 
in black text on a yellow background. The following three statements 
must appear below the header in the center of the label: ``Avoid 
Abrupt Maneuvers and Excessive Speed,'' ``Always Buckle Up,'' and 
``See Owner's Manual For Further Information.'' The rule specifies 
that the label must contain two pictograms: one showing a tilting 
utility vehicle on the left of the label, and the other showing a 
seated vehicle occupant with a secured three-point belt system on 
the right. The pictograms and the statement must be in black on a 
white background.'' The label was revised from 77 words to 19 words 
and two pictograms. Permission was granted to companies to produce 
the label with both the required English words and a translation 
into other languages. Labels have been produced with French and 
Spanish translations.

    There are opportunities for higher technology approaches, such as 
use of multimedia pictograms, holograms, photographs, looped 
videotapes, embedded picture instructions to represent destinations and 
instructions, information kiosks with multiple languages, courtesy 
telephones at stations linked to a central number with translators, and 
voice recognition.

VIII. Application of this Guidance for DOT Recipients

Grievance or Complaint Procedures

    Generally, a recipient should maintain a written and publicly known 
grievance or complaint procedure available to members of the public, so 
that LEP persons can bring alleged problems with lack of services to 
the recipient's attention for resolution. DOT encourages recipients to 
resolve such problems at the lowest level possible and encourages use 
of alternate dispute resolution. Grievance and complaint procedures 
should be prompt and equitable while obeying generally accepted 
elements of due process. However, they need not be overly formal. 
Existing grievance or complaint procedures can be used if they are 
modified as necessary to clarify their availability for use with LEP 
disputes and are made available in languages used in the community 
service area.

LEP Community Outreach and Education

    It may be useful for the recipient to have an established, formal 
linkage between a minority community-based organization and a 
transportation provider or infrastructure entity. The linkage can be 
confirmed by a signed agreement between the applicant and linkage 
organizations which specifies in

[[Page 6742]]

detail the roles and resources that each entity will bring to the 
project, and states the duration and terms of the linkage. The document 
can be signed by an individual with the authority to represent the 
community-based organization (e.g., president, chief executive officer, 
executive director).
    Comprehensive outreach includes the following:
     Use of ethnic media, such as radio, television, 
newspapers, magazines and websites.
     Use of faith-based organizations, such as temples, mosques 
and churches.
     Work with community-based organizations at the local (city 
or county) level that provide social services, health care, classes, 
etc. to target LEP communities.
     Outreach to schools with substantial enrollments of LEP 
children.
     Ensure that translated materials provide referrals to 
telephone numbers or websites that are linguistically accessible (i.e., 
a flyer in Vietnamese should refer the caller to a hotline with 
Vietnamese-speaking workers).
     Nontraditional channels, such as day care centers and 
Headstart programs.
     Forming community groups led by a trained lay educator (a 
promotore or promotora) to enable adults to discuss issues and learn 
from each other.
    The content of community outreach is important. For example, DOT 
has been told by a coalition of Southeast Asian-American advocacy 
groups that many people in their communities lack basic information 
about transportation services. The information needs include safety and 
security information, such as what may not be carried on airplanes and 
questions that will be asked at the ticket counter. Knowledge about 
public participation opportunities in transportation planning is 
needed. This area should especially be addressed by metropolitan 
planning organizations (MPOs).
    DOT encourages partnerships among federal recipients and other 
human services organizations. How these can work is shown in the 
following example. ``Expand existing loan programs that assist welfare 
recipients in purchasing cars and increase accessibility to public 
transportation. Counties should expand existing programs or create new 
programs that lend money to welfare recipients and other low-income 
families to purchase cars. Counties should also explore savings 
accounts that enable recipients to save for purchasing their own cars, 
without jeopardizing their financial eligibility for welfare cash aid. 
ERA also recommends that counties partner with transportation agencies 
to translate transportation information and resources into other 
languages.'' (Equal Rights Advocates [ERA's] Immigrant Women and 
Welfare study)

Transportation Planning

    Recipients' transportation plans should identify how the needs of 
LEP persons will be met where a significant number of such persons can 
be reasonably expected to need transportation services.

Numerical Thresholds

    DOT has determined that it will not specify numerical or percentage 
thresholds for LEP populations that need to be served by recipients. 
Generally, the larger the number or percent of LEP beneficiaries within 
a recipient's service area who speak a particular primary or home 
language, the more thorough, intensive, and speedy the special language 
services should be. The extent of the service area will in part 
determine the number or percent of the covered population. For example, 
the service area of state departments of transportation will generally 
be considered to be the entire state. The service area of a 
metropolitan planning organization will be the geographic area for 
which the MPO provides surface transportation planning services. 
International airports serve a very broad geographical area, and may be 
presented with special problems in dealing with a large number of 
languages. Such difficulties will be taken into consideration by DOT, 
but it is expected that such transportation providers will know a great 
deal of demographic information about their users. Similar reasoning 
applies to national networks like AMTRAK. Note that the population 
includes those who may potentially be served by the recipient, rather 
than just those who are presently being served. This is to reach those 
who are not presently receiving adequate or equitable services from the 
recipient, but might receive such services if the recipient were to 
provide special language services to them. DOT recommends that 
recipients become aware of the changing demographics of their service 
areas, especially in terms of increasing numbers and percents of 
languages used, so that recipients can prepare for future service 
needs.

Emergency Services

    DOT funds a number of first responder, emergency, public safety, 
and hazardous materials services. Because of the safety and health 
aspects of these services, the need for special language services 
delivered without noticeable delay by recipients are heightened. 
Workers in these areas render vitally important services whose very 
nature requires quick action to protect public safety and health; quick 
assessment of a situation, often based on input from community members 
on the spot; the establishment of a close relationship with the client 
or patient that is based on empathy, confidence and mutual trust; and 
direction to affected people that must be carried out with specificity 
to be effective. Such relationships depend heavily on the free flow of 
communication between professional and client. This essential exchange 
of information is difficult when the two parties involved speak 
different languages; it may be impeded further by the presence of an 
unqualified third person who attempts to serve as an interpreter.
    Some safety, emergency, and hazardous materials service providers 
have sought to bridge the language gap by encouraging LEP clients to 
provide their own interpreters as an alternative to the agency's hiring 
of qualified bilingual employees or interpreters. Persons of limited 
English proficiency must sometimes rely on their minor children to 
interpret for them during safety incidents. Alternatively, these 
beneficiaries/clients may be required to call upon neighbors or even 
strangers they encounter at the site of the incident to act as 
interpreters or translators.
    These practices have severe drawbacks and may violate Title VI of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In each case, the impediments to 
effective communication and adequate service are formidable. The 
beneficiary's untrained ``interpreter'' is often unable to understand 
the concepts or official terminology he or she is being asked to 
interpret or translate. Even if the interpreter possesses the necessary 
language and comprehension skills, his or her mere presence may 
obstruct the flow of emergency information to the provider.
    When these types of circumstances are encountered, the level and 
quality of safety and emergency services available to LEP persons stand 
in stark conflict to Title VI's promise of equal access to federally 
assisted programs and activities. Services denied, delayed or provided 
under adverse circumstances have serious and sometimes life threatening 
consequences for a LEP person and may constitute discrimination on the 
basis of national origin, in violation of Title VI. Accommodation of 
these language differences through the provision of effective language 
assistance will promote compliance with Title VI.

[[Page 6743]]

Signage

    Signage along highways presents a very difficult LEP topic, due to 
the large number of signs, the cost of changing them, and limitations 
on space on the sign. Nevertheless, at least one state department of 
transportation has reported that some LEP persons may not have the 
ability to read variable message signs that alert them to dangerous 
driving conditions. Due to the life-saving potential, and subject to 
technical and scientific study as to its viability regarding message 
length and time, DOT recommends that recipients explore the possibility 
of either using pictorial or symbol messages or translating messages 
into frequently encountered languages on variable message signs that 
report dangerous driving conditions.
    Regarding multilingual signage, a county long range transportation 
plan has noted, ``Intermodal multilingual referrals and advertising of 
customer services should be developed. This can include visual, 
auditive, and print information on how to use the various modes. 
Appropriate multilingual signage for modes (e.g., bus stops, mode 
shares, etc.) could be developed and implemented with international 
symbol signs. Buses could include next stop digital displays inside the 
bus and/or tone auditory cues for the visually impaired.'' (Bernalillo 
County, New Mexico, Long Range Transportation Plan, 1993) As discussed 
elsewhere in this Guidance, non-verbal methods can be considered, such 
as reducing the amount of text (e.g. ``Glover Park,'' ``Massachusetts 
Avenue,'' ``Addison Road'', etc.) and replacing it with numbers, 
letters, or colors (e.g. D2, L6, Blue Line).

Literacy

    Recipients should be sensitive to literacy levels of LEP consumers 
and clients. Some immigrants and refugees come from pre-literate 
societies and are not literate in their native language, let alone 
English, or are not literate for other reasons. However, note that 
literacy is not covered by Title VI. It makes good sense to consider 
literacy issues when covering LEP issues, because in some cases, the 
solutions are the same. See the discussion above about using symbol 
signs, pictograms, and illustrations. Other solutions include the 
following:
     Contract and work with community-based organizations to 
review translated materials for appropriateness of language.
     Use focus groups to test messages and language 
appropriateness, especially if documents are being translated for the 
first time.
     Be aware that written translations may not be effective 
for some communities but that there are alternative mechanisms such as 
the use of audio or video tapes to provide information.
    How does low literacy, non-literacy, use of non-written languages, 
blindness and deafness among LEP populations affect the 
responsibilities of recipients? Effective communication in any language 
requires an understanding of the literacy levels of the eligible 
populations. Where a LEP person has a limited understanding of 
important matters or cannot read, access to the program is complicated 
by factors not directly related to language. Under these circumstances, 
a recipient should provide transportation and related services 
information to the same extent that it would provide such information 
to English-speakers. Similarly, a recipient should assist LEP 
individuals who cannot read in understanding written materials as it 
would non-literate English-speakers. A non-written language precludes 
the translation of documents, but does not affect the responsibility of 
the recipient to communicate the vital information contained in the 
document or to provide notice of the availability of oral translation 
according to the size of that language group.

Special Language Services Should be Locally Focused

    Language issues are sometimes local issues, due to matters of 
usage, dialect, and local preference. Recipient programs of special 
language services should be designed carefully to accommodate local 
usage and should be field tested with different local language 
populations to make appropriate corrections to ensure effective 
communication. Materials in both English and the primary or home 
language are generally preferred by non-English speaking groups, but 
use of English only may sometimes be more appropriate, especially if 
preferred by the community being served. To account for differences in 
literacy levels and to make materials more attractive, interesting and 
likely to be used, the use of photographs and illustrations is 
recommended. The keys are effectiveness, usability, and transmission of 
information.

Charging for Special Language Services

    Recipients should not impose a charge or a fee for special language 
services to LEP persons.

Separation for Purposes of Provision of Special Language Services

    There may be times when it is most efficient for the recipient to 
provide special language services separately to people who speak a 
particular non-English language. However, the program design should not 
separate these beneficiaries beyond the extent necessary to achieve the 
goals of the recipient's program of services. Methods that do not 
segregate should be used whenever possible.

Puerto Rico

    Much of Puerto Rico's official business is conducted in Spanish. 
Therefore, recipients located in Puerto Rico or doing business there 
should, wherever possible, translate documents into Spanish.

Low-Frequency and Unusual or Unexpected Languages

    When an individual with limited English skills--who does not speak 
a language spoken by a ``significant number or proportion of the 
population''--seeks services or information from the recipient, the 
recipient should then make reasonable efforts to meet the 
particularized needs of that individual. Such efforts may include, but 
are not limited to, using a telephone language line, locating and 
temporarily employing a qualified interpreter who can communicate in 
the appropriate language. As technology advances, various options for 
complying with the requirements of this section, such as computerized 
and/or on-line translation services, are becoming increasingly 
available to recipients, and the cost of these options is decreasing.
    An Asian-Pacific Islander health care advocacy group commented in 
this way on how transportation can present a barrier to health care for 
those who speak an unusual language for their location: ``Removal of 
barriers such as transportation: It is important to ensure that there 
are systems established to address barriers such as transportation and 
portability in order to ensure that geographic location does not 
prevent patients from accessing care. [Medical Care Organizations] need 
to ensure that coverage for enabling transportation is included in the 
benefits package. Medicaid enrollees often need to access services in 
other counties. This is particularly important for patients in rural 
communities, for migrants and for limited English speaking populations. 
Limited English speaking persons may need to travel a great distance to 
see a provider who speaks their language.'' (``Making Managed Care Work 
for Asian

[[Page 6744]]

& Pacific Islanders: An Action Agenda for APIA Communities,'' Dong Suh, 
MPP, Policy Analyst, (415) 954-9966, (415) 954-9999 (fax) or e-mail: 
[email protected].)

Surveys

    Customer and service surveys by recipients and their contractors, 
including ones conducted by telephone, should include the ability to 
obtain information from LEP households and individuals. Given the large 
number and percent of LEP individuals in the U.S., a general survey 
would not be regarded as complete without the participation of people 
who are LEP. For example, NHTSA's semi-annual Motor Vehicle Occupant 
Safety Survey identified areas of seat belt and car seat safety where 
people of Hispanic origin differ from the non-Hispanic population. In 
the 1998 survey, 44% of Hispanic respondents strongly or somewhat 
agreed with the statement ``I would feel self-conscious around my 
friends if I wore a seat belt and they did not,'' as opposed to just 
15% of non-Hispanics. This information was used to tailor public 
information and education to the needs and attitudes of the targeted 
audience.

IX. Promising Practices/Best Practices

    The following examples are provided as illustrations of the 
responses of some recipients to the need to provide services to LEP 
persons. Although interesting and useful, their listing here does not 
constitute endorsement by DOT, which will evaluate recipients' 
situations on a case-by-case basis using the factors described 
elsewhere in this Guidance.
    Language Banks--In several parts of the country, both urban and 
rural, community organizations and providers have created community 
language banks that train, hire and dispatch competent interpreters to 
participating organizations, reducing the need to have on-staff 
interpreters for low demand languages. These language banks are 
frequently nonprofit and charge reasonable rates. This approach is 
particularly appropriate where there is a scarcity of language services 
or where there is a large variety of language needs.
    Language Support Office--A state social services agency has 
established an ``Office for Language Interpreter Services and 
Translation.'' This office tests and certifies all in-house and 
contract interpreters, provides agency-wide support for translation of 
forms, client mailings, publications and other written materials into 
non-English languages, and monitors the policies of the agency and its 
vendors that affect LEP persons.
    Multicultural Delivery Project--Another county agency has 
established a ``Multicultural Delivery Project'' that is designed to 
help immigrants and other LEP persons find someone who speaks their 
language and who can help them navigate the county health and social 
service systems. The project uses community outreach workers to work 
with LEP clients and can be used by employees in solving cultural and 
language issues. A multicultural advisory committee helps to keep the 
county in touch with community needs.
    Use of Technology--Some recipients use their Internet and/or 
intranet capabilities to store translated documents online. These 
documents can be retrieved as needed.
    Telephone Information Lines and Hotlines--Recipients have 
established telephone information lines in languages spoken by 
frequently encountered language groups to instruct callers, in the non-
English languages, on how to leave a recorded message that will be 
answered by someone who speaks the caller's language. For example, 
NHTSA's Auto Safety hotline has four representatives who speak Spanish 
and are available during normal hotline business hours (8 a.m.-10 p.m. 
Eastern Time). The evening hours permit people from the West Coast 
(where a significant number of LEP persons reside) to call after work. 
The automated voice response system has an option for instructions in 
Spanish. Calls from Spanish-speaking customers are placed in a Spanish-
speaking cue which has priority for those four operators who speak 
Spanish.
    Signage and Other Outreach--Other recipients have provided 
information about services, benefits, eligibility requirements, and the 
availability of free language assistance, in appropriate languages by 
(a) posting signs and placards with this information in public places 
such as grocery stores, bus shelters and subway stations; (b) putting 
notices in newspapers, and on radio and television stations that serve 
LEP groups; (c) placing flyers and signs in the offices of community-
based organizations that serve large populations of LEP persons; (d) 
establishing information lines in appropriate languages; and (e) using 
posters with appropriate languages designed to reach potential 
beneficiaries.
    DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), at 49 
CFR 192.616 and 195.440, requires ``Each [pipeline] operator [to] 
establish a continuing educational program to enable customers, the 
public, appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in 
excavation related activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency for 
the purpose of reporting it to the operator or the appropriate public 
officials. The program and the media used should be as comprehensive as 
necessary to reach all areas in which the operator transports gas. The 
program must be conducted in English and in other languages commonly 
understood by a significant number and concentration of the non-English 
speaking population in the operator's area.'' We recommend such an 
approach to recipients to meet their individual service provision 
needs.
    The Governor's Highway Safety Office in New Jersey coordinates 
several programs for the Hispanic community. In Essex County, a 
bilingual counselor provides community education on safety issues.
    Proyecto AASUL (Assistance with Alcohol and Sobriety Uniting 
Latinas/Ayuda con Alcohol y Sobriedad Uniendo Latinas), funded by the 
California Department of Transportation, was developed to educate 
Hispanic women in Southern California about alcohol abuse and related 
problems. Information and services included a brochure listing alcohol-
related service providers with Spanish speaking staff and a fotonovela 
focusing on the problems of alcoholism in a family setting. A 
fotonovela is an extensively illustrated booklet that tells a human-
interest story.
    The El Protector program has been implemented in Del Rio, Texas. 
The Del Rio Police Department has developed radio spots in Spanish, 
about traffic safety issues such as putting people in the back of 
pickup trucks, loading and unloading school buses, drinking and 
driving, and pedestrian safety.
    EMS staff in Los Angeles reported that their system is equipped to 
receive calls in 86 languages, although Spanish is the most frequent 
language used by 911 callers who do not speak English.
    The Michigan DOT has produced a Title VI poster and brochure in 
English and Spanish. It?s public hearings officer speaks English and 
Spanish. One Michigan metropolitan planning organization (MPO) 
translated its I-496 community involvement materials into Spanish.
    The New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has administered 
drivers license tests in more than 14 languages for at least 10 years, 
including French, Greek, Korean, Portuguese, and Turkish. Other states 
conduct such tests in other languages. For example, Oregon DOT is in 
the process of having its tests

[[Page 6745]]

translated into Japanese and Vietnamese. USDOT recommends that state 
agencies share such information, to avoid the necessity of each doing 
every translation.
    The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department has, 
with FHWA support, provided Spanish language translations of its Right-
of-Way Acquisition and Relocation Brochures. The State also employs 
bilingual right-of-way agents capable of discussing project impacts in 
Spanish.
    Oregon's DMV website provides online access to English and Spanish 
versions of its Driver Manual. It has also contracted with a local 
government to provide additional classes to Hispanic drivers on ``rules 
of the road'' after they gain their driver's licenses. The State of 
Oregon is developing a report on multilingual services provided by 
State agencies. The final document will be used by State agencies to 
enhance their existing programs, including expanding communication 
efforts to serve and protect all Oregonians. On the NHTSA web site, the 
Traffic Safety Materials Catalog page has an option to permit a search 
for materials for an Asian-American or Hispanic audience. This search 
will result in several publications that are available in Spanish or 
Chinese.
    In Puerto Rico, LEP needs have been addressed by providing all 
government services, programs and activities in Spanish.
    Tennessee DOT recipients in a geographical area where there is a 
significant (above 5%) population that usually speak a language other 
than English, must translate and post notices and other correspondence 
advising persons that their right to participate in any programs or 
activities receiving federal funding cannot be denied on the basis of 
nation origin.
    Texas DOT has in the past provided forms in Spanish to assist LEP 
persons in filling out forms to request certified copies of vehicle 
titles. TxDOT also utilizes bilingual employees in its permit office to 
provide instruction and assistance to Hispanic truck drivers when 
providing permits to route overweight trucks through Texas. In the On 
the Job Training Supportive Services Program, Spanish language 
television has been used to get the information of the opportunities in 
the construction industry to people who have difficulty reading 
English.
    Virginia DOT became aware that several Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprise (DBE) firms were about to be removed from construction 
projects in Northern Virginia because projects required certified 
concrete inspectors, and the DBE firms were having trouble complying 
because the concrete inspection test was only offered in English. VDOT 
used supportive services funding to have the training manual and test 
material translated into Spanish, and provided tutoring for the DBE 
firms. The Virginia State Police (VSP) maintain a written list of 
interpreters available statewide to troopers through the Red Cross 
Language Bank, as well as universities and local police departments. 
The VSP carry cards with Miranda rights set forth in several different 
languages.
    The Colorado State Patrol has produced safety brochures in Spanish 
for farmer and ranchers. It has also printed brochures in Spanish 
pertaining to regulatory requirements for trucking firms.
    In 1996, the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) was faced 
with the relocation of 14 Spanish-speaking families who were living in 
a trailer park in north Alabama. The State determined that most of the 
residents met the length of occupancy requirements for rental 
relocation housing payments. Through a right-of-way consultant who was 
under contract with ALDOT, an interpreter was hired from the University 
of Alabama--Birmingham to assist the relocation agent in explaining 
Uniform Relocation Act entitlements to the heads of families. The 
interpreter was on call throughout the relocation process to accompany 
the relocation agent whenever it was necessary to contact the 
displacees. The families were successfully relocated to Department of 
Social Services replacement housing. Several families moved into 
surplus Federal Emergency Management Agency mobile homes that were made 
available through a private buyer who gave the displacees the option of 
renting or entering into a purchase agreement.
    Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) authored a manual entitled ``Public 
Involvement Procedures For Planning and Project Development'' that 
details Mn/DOT requirements to provide access to all residents of 
Minnesota under environmental justice standards. The manual takes a 
proactive approach to public involvement. It includes such things as 
publishing notices in non-English newspapers, printing notices in 
appropriate languages and providing translators at public meetings. Mn/
DOT's Office of EEO Contract Management provides a Spanish language 
version of a brochure entitled ``Mn/DOT Construction Contracts: Labor 
Provisions for Contractor Employees'' to construction employees during 
reviews and upon request to Contractors for employee distribution. This 
pamphlet provides general guidelines to labor laws and Mn/DOT contract 
labor provisions. Mn/DOT's Office of EEO Contract Management is on call 
to provide Spanish language translation at Mn/DOT's Information Desk. 
In addition, telephone numbers are provided to persons who wish to 
speak directly to Spanish-speaking EEO Office employees.
    Mn/DOT's Office of EEO Contract Management provides Spanish 
language translations in both written communications and oral 
interviews for labor investigations. In addition, the EEO Office 
provided written materials in Spanish for explanation of processes and 
procedures for such investigations.
    Wisconsin DOT created a Motorist Study Manual Easy reader (3rd 
grade level, translated by the Janesville Literacy Council) version in 
English. It is creating one in Spanish and is considering Hmong. There 
are regular versions (6th grade level) in English, Spanish and Hmong. 
There is a Motorcycle Study Manual in English and Spanish, and a CDL 
(Commercial Drivers License) Study Manual in English and Spanish. 
Knowledge and Highway Sign Tests are provided in 13 languages besides 
English. Some languages have been available since the late 1970s. Bids 
are being prepared to update the bank of questions in non-English 
languages based on demand. Knowledge and Highway Sign Tests are 
provided via various audio means ranging from cassette tapes in English 
and Spanish to allowing bilingual translators to verbally present the 
questions in non-English languages based on demand. A pilot to evaluate 
automated knowledge test systems is underway at three DMV Service 
Centers. The pilot includes tests in English, Spanish, and on 
audiotape. These automated knowledge test systems allow testing in many 
languages. The Division of State Patrol is using a compact disk with 
commonly used phrases and sayings in languages other than English that 
is printable to a paper card, which then contains the phrase in an 
appropriate language for the LEP person who is interacting with the 
officer. The officer points to the appropriate column on the card. 
WIDOT also keeps a roster of employees who speak, read, or write non-
English languages.
    In Indiana, 15 Commercial Drivers License branches offer the CDL 
knowledge test orally, in a true/false format.
    The Zuni Entrepreneurial Enterprises Inc. (ZEE) Public 
Transportation Program was designed to develop, implement, and maintain 
a

[[Page 6746]]

transportation system that provides needed linkages for Native 
Americans and other traditionally unserved/underserved persons in the 
service area to access needed vocational training and employment 
opportunities in order to enhance both the quality of life and the 
attainment and perpetuation of meaningful employment. The trip purposes 
served by the Zuni JOBLINKS project included education, employment, and 
job training. ZEE provided transportation of students to the University 
of New Mexico at Gallup, transportation of employees to their existing 
jobs in Gallup, as well as transportation for individuals requiring 
vocational rehabilitation and job training within the Pueblo of Zuni. 
The Project Director also took a number of steps to market the JOBLINKS 
service. He coordinated the broadcast of a radio spot on a local radio 
station in English and Zuni.
    Seattle's Sound Transit's Link Light Rail to the Rainier Valley in 
south Seattle is an example of best practices. Demographically, the 
Rainier Valley is home to a high percentage of immigrant, refugee, low 
income, and disadvantaged Seattle residents. In addition to providing 
direct service benefits, Sound Transit has also provided the community 
with information they need to access the service in the appropriate 
languages. This has taken the form of translated brochures, outreach 
staff skilled in interpretation, and multi-language phone lines. etc.
    The Washington, DC area's Metro transit system (WMATA) publishes 
pocket guides to the system in French, Spanish, German, and Japanese.
    The following example, although it is focused on people who are 
deaf, is applicable to people who are LEP. Portland's Tri-Met transit 
system had a growing concern that access needs of people who are deaf 
or hard-of-hearing have not been fully addressed, due to more immediate 
ADA priorities such as putting lifts on buses and implementing 
paratransit plans. They contacted the Oregon Deaf Resources Center 
(ODRC) to discuss problems and issues and examine how to make public 
transportation more accessible to this segment of the disability 
community. One of the first things Tri-Met learned was that the main 
barrier in fixed-route travel for people who are deaf is difficulty in 
getting bus drivers to understand questions and provide information. In 
fact, people in Portland's deaf community reported that they seldom 
receive accurate, informative communication from transit drivers. The 
idea developed was to produce a set of pictograms that illustrate 
situations that typically arise during fixed-route travel, particularly 
those that are difficult to verbally communicate to people who are deaf 
or hard of hearing. The pictograms would be laminated and attached to 
the bus close to the driver to be readily available when needed. As 
with many improvements in accessibility, it is expected that enhanced 
communication capability will not only benefit people with hearing 
impairments, but will also improve communication with other passengers 
with disabilities, such as those who have cognitive impairments. Tri-
Met submitted a proposal to Project ACTION and received funding to 
develop a standardized picture language for communicating various 
situations that can occur during fixed-route travel. Suggestions for 
the type of information to be included in the pictograms were solicited 
by from deaf communities across the country. The project also includes 
developing a transit personnel training video, created and produced by 
people who are deaf, to educate transit drivers about deaf culture. 
Another project product is an information booklet that illustrates the 
pictograms and hand signals.
    In 1980 when Souris Basin Transportation in North Dakota first 
started, the illiteracy rate was high among the senior population in 
their area of operation. To help them identify the bus on which they 
were riding, SBT started using visual logos on the sides of the 
vehicles. They have now found that the illiteracy rate has dropped 
among the seniors, but the LEP population has grown. Therefore, SBT 
kept the logos on the vehicles. SBT has also added volunteers who speak 
languages other than English, such as Spanish, German, Norwegian, 
Swedish and French. These volunteers are only a phone call away from 
the drivers or staff that need help. Most of the volunteers are at the 
Minot State University Language Department.
    Florida conducts CDL tests in any language needed, and provides 
interpreters if needed. Out of service warnings for trucks are issued 
in Spanish and English.
    The Iowa Department of Transportation provides a Spanish version of 
the CDL knowledge test, using a touch screen computer. In addition, 
they have worked with Refugee Services of Des Moines, and with a local 
community college in educating Bosnian refugees to take the Commercial 
Motor Vehicle driving course. DOT especially recommends the idea of 
working with local community colleges to educate the LEP community in 
transportation matters.

Sample Notice of Availability of Materials and Services

    ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For hearing impaired individuals 
or non-English speaking attendees wishing to arrange for a sign 
language or foreign language interpreter, please call or fax [name] of 
[organization] at Phone: xxx-yyy-zzzz or Fax: xxx-yyy-zzzz.''
    If there is a known and substantial LEP population which may be 
served by the program discussed in the notice, the notice should be in 
the appropriate non-English language.

Resources

    U.S. Department of Justice, General LEP Guidance, August 2000.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Limited English 
Proficiency Guidance.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ``Cultural 
Competence.''
    Environmental Protection Agency, ``Draft Translation and 
Interpretation Protocol for Promoting Access to EPA Programs, Services, 
and Information by Persons With Limited English Proficiency.''
    Glossary of Transportation Terms, English-Spanish, 1994, Federal 
Highway Administration.
    North American Emergency Response Guidebook (NAERG96), published 
jointly by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Transport Canada 
(TC), and the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation of 
Mexico, in English, French and Spanish.
    National Directory of Asian Pacific American Organizations, 1999-
2000, Organization of Chinese Americans, available through Philip 
Morris Management Corporation, 120 Park Av., NY, NY 10017.
    Southeast Asian American Mutual Assistance Association Directory, 
2000, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, 1628 16th St., NW., 
Washington, DC 20009, 202-667-4690, www.searac.org.
    Red Cross Language Bank.
    ``Highway Safety Needs of U.S. Hispanic Communities: Issues and 
Strategies,'' NHTSA, September 1995, DOT HS 808 373.
    Since 1995, individual border States Division Offices of the 
Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (formerly the 
FHWA Office of Motor Carriers) have translated a number of documents 
into Spanish to be used to educate Mexican carriers and drivers 
operating in the commercial zones. These subjects covered include 
meaning of out-of-service orders, minimum requirements to operate in 
the U.S., one page pamphlet that explains

[[Page 6747]]

the U.S. certification program, one page bulletins on various Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, how to obtain an U.S. DOT vehicle 
identification number, and state specific safety regulations. The 
following brochures/guidance have been translated into Spanish and are 
currently distributed at the border or are being reviewed for possible 
distribution at the U.S. Southern border:
     FMCSRs--Drivers Guide to the FMCSRs (JJ Keller 
Publication).
     Drug and Alcohol Regulations (JJ Keller Publication).
     HM Basic Awareness Training Course (CD FMCSA Publication).
     MX Program Pamphlet (FMCSA Publication) [Currently 
Distributed]
     Road User Guide for North America (FHWA Publication) 
[Currently Distributed in English, Spanish, and French]
     Awake At the Wheel (FMCSA Publication) [Currently 
Distributed] Materials developed for international use, such as those 
developed by FMCSA's ITS/CVO Technology Division for use with border 
partners Canada and Mexico. These include its pocket brochure in 
English, Spanish, and French. It is also developing Spanish video 
scripts.
    The Canadian Council of Motor Vehicle Administrators is developing 
a trilingual chart for conducting roadside commercial vehicle 
inspection.
    ``La Seguridad de los Materiales Peligrosos,'' (The Safety of 
Dangerous Materials), RSPA, DOT.
    The International Pictograms Standard, 414 SE Grand Avenue, 
Portland, Oregon 97214 USA, (503) 234-1400. ``Making conneXions for the 
Transit Customer,'' Breaking down illiteracy and other barriers to 
transit travel. A multi-media computer software program to help people 
with barriers to literacy become independent transit riders. The 
software program includes photos, video and voice narration to help 
clients learn how to best use public transit. Clients use the program 
at their learning level and pace, on their own, or with the help of a 
facilitator.

Data Sources

 Census
 Public Schools
 Community-based organizations
 Advocacy and special interest groups
 Indian tribes
 Immigrant aid organizations
 Welfare to Work organizations
 Job Access service providers
 State Migrant Coordinators
 State Refugee Coordinators
 Local refugee services organizations
 National, regional, and local ethnic advocacy organizations
 Unions that represent farmworkers, service workers, and entry 
level jobholders
 Legal services organizations
 Staff of elected officials in areas with substantial national 
origin minority communities
 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) related demographic 
studies
 Hispanic Data Handbook
 National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education
 Center for Applied Linguistics, www.cal.org
 Hispanic Ministry of Catholic Dioceses, Catholic Social 
Services, Episcopal Bishop's Fund, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and 
other faith-based entities that serve LEP people
 Language, Demographics and Population Studies Departments at 
local universities
 Commercial marketing data
 Minority marketing firms

Appendix A to DOT Guidance

    DOT's Title VI regulation (49 CFR Part 21) states the following, 
in part:

Sec. 21.5  Discrimination prohibited.

    (a) General. No person in the United States shall, on the 
grounds of race, color, or national origin be excluded from 
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise 
subjected to discrimination under, any program to which this part 
applies.
    (b) Specific discriminatory actions prohibited:
    (1) A recipient under any program to which this part applies may 
not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, on the 
grounds of race, color, or national origin.
    (i) Deny a person any service, financial aid, or other benefit 
provided under the program;
    (ii) Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to a 
person which is different, or is provided in a different manner, 
from that provided to others under the program;
    (iii) Subject a person to segregation or separate treatment in 
any matter related to his receipt of any service, financial aid, or 
other benefit under the program;
    (iv) Restrict a person 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;
    (vi) Deny a person an opportunity to participate in the program 
through the provision of services or otherwise or afford him an 
opportunity to do so which is different from that afforded others 
under the program; or
    (vii) Deny a person the opportunity to participate as a member 
of a planning, advisory, or similar body which is an integral part 
of the program.
    (2) A recipient, in determining the types of services, financial 
aid, or other benefits, or facilities which will be provided under 
any such program, or the class of person to whom, or the situations 
in which, such services, financial aid, other benefits, or 
facilities will be provided under any such program, or the class of 
persons to be afforded an opportunity to participate in any such 
program; may not, directly or through contractual or other 
arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration which 
have the effect of subjecting persons 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 with respect to individuals of a 
particular race, color, or national origin.
    (5) The enumeration of specific forms of prohibited 
discrimination in this paragraph does not limit the generality of 
the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (7) This part does not prohibit the consideration of race, 
color, or national origin if the purpose and effect are to remove or 
overcome the consequences of practices or impediments which have 
restricted the availability of, or participation in, the program or 
activity receiving Federal financial assistance, on the grounds of 
race, color, or national origin.

[FR Doc. 01-1745 Filed 1-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P