[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74633-74643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-31693]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary


Limited English Proficiency Guidance to Recipients of Federal 
Financial Assistance--Request for Comments

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Limited English Proficiency Guidance--request for comments.

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

[[Page 74634]]

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior (DOI or Department) publishes 
for public comment Interim Final Guidance to Federal Financial 
Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National 
Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons (DOI 
Recipient LEP Guidance). The DOI Recipient LEP Guidance is issued 
pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its 
implementing regulations and Executive Order 13166.

DATES: Written comments are invited from interested persons and 
organizations. Comments should be submitted to DOI on or before January 
23, 2004. DOI's Recipient LEP Guidance will become final after the 
comment period. However, DOI will review all timely submitted comments, 
and determine what modifications, if any, are necessary to the policy 
guidance, and issue modifications if necessary.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: E. Melodee Stith, Director, 
Office for Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C 
Street, NW., Mail Stop 5221, Washington, DC 20240, E-mail: [email protected], Phone: (202) 208-5693, FAX: (202) 208-6112.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melvin C. Fowler, Civil Rights Staff 
Assistant, Office for Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the 
Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 5221, Washington, DC 20240, E-
mail: [email protected], Phone: (202) 208-3455, FAX: (202) 
208-6112.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. (Title VI), and Title VI regulations, 
recipients of Federal financial assistance have a responsibility to 
ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by persons 
with limited English proficiency (LEP). Executive Order 13166, 
reprinted at 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 2000), directs each Federal Agency 
that extends assistance subject to the requirements of Title VI to 
publish guidance for its respective recipients clarifying that 
obligation. Executive Order 13166 further directs that all such 
guidance documents be consistent with the compliance standards and 
framework detailed in Department of Justice Policy Guidance entitled 
``Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--National 
Origin Discrimination Against Persons with Limited English 
Proficiency.'' See 65 FR 50123 (August 16, 2000).
    Because this Guidance also must adhere to the Federal-wide 
compliance standards and framework detailed in the model Department of 
Justice LEP Guidance issued on June 18, 2002, DOI specifically solicits 
comments on the nature, scope, and appropriateness of the DOI-specific 
examples set out in this guidance explaining and/or highlighting how 
those Federal-wide guidelines are applicable to recipients of DOI 
financial assistance.
    It has been determined that this guidance does not constitute a 
regulation subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative 
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.

Department of the Interior

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

I. Introduction

    Most individuals living in the United States read, write, speak, 
and understand English. There are many individuals, however, for whom 
English is not their primary language. For instance, based on the 2000 
census, over 26 million individuals speak Spanish, and almost 7 million 
individuals speak an Asian or Pacific Island language at home. If these 
individuals have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand 
English, they are limited English proficient, or ``LEP.''
    Language for LEP individuals can be a barrier to accessing 
important benefits or services, understanding and exercising important 
rights, complying with applicable responsibilities, or understanding 
other information provided by federally funded programs and activities. 
The Federal Government funds an array of programs and activities that 
can be made accessible to otherwise eligible LEP persons. The Federal 
Government is committed to improving the accessibility of these 
programs and activities to eligible LEP persons, a goal that reinforces 
its equally important commitment to promoting programs and activities 
designed to help individuals learn English. Recipients should not 
overlook the long-term positive impacts of incorporating or offering 
English as Second Language (ESL) programs in parallel with language 
assistance services. ESL courses can serve as an important adjunct to a 
proper LEP plan. However, the fact that ESL classes are made available 
does not obviate the statutory and regulatory requirement to provide 
meaningful access for those who are not yet English proficient. 
Recipients of Federal financial assistance have an obligation to reduce 
language barriers that can preclude meaningful access by LEP persons to 
important government assisted programs and activities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department of the Interior recognizes that many 
recipients had language assistance programs in place prior to the 
issuance of Executive Order 13166. This policy guidance provides a 
uniform framework for a recipient to integrate, formalize and assess 
the continued vitality of these existing programs and identify 
additional reasonable efforts based on the nature of its program or 
activity, the current needs of the LEP populations it encounters, 
and its prior experience in providing language services in the 
community it serves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In certain circumstances, failure to ensure that LEP persons can 
effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs 
and activities may violate the prohibition under Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, and Title VI regulations against 
national origin discrimination. The purpose of this policy guidance is 
to assist recipients in fulfilling their responsibilities to provide 
meaningful access to LEP persons under existing law. This policy 
guidance clarifies existing legal requirements for LEP persons by 
providing a description of the factors recipients should consider in 
fulfilling their responsibilities to LEP persons.\2\ These are the same 
criteria DOI will use in evaluating whether recipients are in 
compliance with Title VI and Title VI regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The policy guidance is not a regulation but rather a guide. 
Title VI and its implementing regulations require that recipients 
take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons. 
This guidance provides an analytical framework that recipients may 
use to determine how best to comply with statutory and regulatory 
obligations to provide meaningful access to the benefits, services, 
information, and other important portions of their programs and 
activities for individuals who are limited English proficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are many productive steps that the Federal government, either 
collectively or as individual grant agencies, can take to help 
recipients reduce the costs of language services without sacrificing 
meaningful access for LEP persons. Without these steps, certain smaller 
grantees may well choose not to participate in federally assisted 
programs, threatening the critical functions that the programs strive 
to provide. To that end, the Department plans to work with the 
Department of Justice to continue to provide assistance and guidance in 
this important area and to identify and share model plans, examples of 
best practices, and cost-saving approaches. An interagency working 
group on LEP has developed a Web site, http://www.lep.gov, to assist in 
disseminating this information to recipients, Federal agencies, and the 
communities being served.
    Many commentators have noted that some have interpreted the case of 
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275

[[Page 74635]]

(2001), as implicitly striking down the regulations promulgated under 
Title VI that form the basis for the part of Executive Order 13166 that 
applies to federally assisted programs and activities. We have taken 
the position that this is not the case, and will continue to do so. 
Accordingly, we will strive to ensure that federally assisted programs 
and activities work in a way that is effective for all eligible 
beneficiaries, including those with limited English proficiency.

II. Legal Authority

    Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 
2000d, provides that no person shall ``on the ground of race, color, or 
national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the 
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or 
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' Section 602 
authorizes and directs Federal agencies that are empowered to extend 
Federal financial assistance to any program or activity ``to effectuate 
the provisions of [section 601] by issuing rules, regulations, or 
orders of general applicability.'' 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1. This guidance 
document is thus published pursuant to Title VI, Title VI regulations, 
and Executive Order 13166, and is consistent with the Department of 
Justice model guidance.
    Department of the Interior regulations promulgated pursuant to 
section 602 forbid recipients from ``utilizing criteria or methods of 
administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to 
discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or 
have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment 
of the objectives of the program as respect to individuals of a 
particular race, color, or national origin.'' 43 CFR 17.3(b)(2).
    The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), 
interpreted regulations promulgated by the former Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare, including a regulation similar to that of the 
DOI, 43 CFR 17.3(b)(2), to hold that Title VI prohibits conduct that 
has a disproportionate effect on LEP persons because such conduct 
constitutes national-origin discrimination. In Lau, a San Francisco 
school district that had a significant number of non-English speaking 
students of Chinese origin was required to take reasonable steps to 
provide them with a meaningful opportunity to participate in federally 
funded educational programs.
    On August 11, 2000, Executive Order 13166 was issued.\3\ Under that 
Order, every Federal Agency that provides financial assistance to non-
Federal entities must publish guidance on how their recipients can 
provide meaningful access to LEP persons and thus comply with Title VI 
regulations forbidding funding recipients from ``restrict[ing] an 
individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege 
enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other 
benefit under the program'' or from ``utiliz[ing] criteria or methods 
of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to 
discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or 
have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment 
of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a 
particular race, color, or national origin.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited 
English Proficiency, 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On that same day, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a general 
guidance document addressed to ``Executive Agency Civil Rights 
Officers'' setting forth general principles for agencies to apply in 
developing guidance documents for recipients pursuant to the Executive 
Order. [Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
National Origin Discrimination Against Persons with Limited English 
Proficiency, 65 FR 50123 (August 16, 2000) (``DOJ LEP Guidance'')].
    Subsequently, Federal agencies raised questions regarding the 
requirements of the Executive Order, especially in light of the Supreme 
Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). On 
October 26, 2001, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights 
Division, issued a memorandum for ``Heads of Departments and Agencies, 
General Counsels and Civil Rights Directors.'' This memorandum 
clarified and reaffirmed the DOJ LEP Guidance in light of Sandoval.\4\ 
The Assistant Attorney General stated that because Sandoval did not 
invalidate any Title VI regulations that proscribe conduct that has a 
disparate impact on covered groups--the types of regulations that form 
the legal basis for the part of Executive Order 13166 that applies to 
federally assisted programs and activities--the Executive Order remains 
in force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The memorandum noted that some commentators have interpreted 
Sandoval as impliedly striking down the disparate-impact regulations 
promulgated under Title VI that form the basis for the part of 
Executive Order 13166 that applies to federally assisted programs 
and activities. See, e.g., Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 286, 286 n.6 
(``[DOJ] assumes for purposes of this decision that section 602 
confers the authority to promulgate disparate-impact regulations; * 
* * We cannot help observing, however, how strange it is to say that 
disparate-impact regulations are `inspired by, at the service of, 
and inseparably intertwined with' Sec. 601 * * * when Sec. 601 
permits the very behavior that the regulations forbid.'') According 
to DOJ, ``the memorandum, however, made clear that DOJ disagreed 
with the commentators' interpretation. Sandoval holds principally 
that there is no private right of action to enforce Title VI 
disparate-impact regulations. It did not address the validity of 
those regulations or Executive Order 13166 or otherwise limit the 
authority and responsibility of Federal assistance agencies to 
enforce their own implementing regulations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, DOJ developed its own guidance 
document for recipients (``LEP Guidance for DOJ Recipients'') and 
initially issued it in final on June 18, 2002 (67 FR 41455, also 
available at http://www.lep.gov). Consistency among departments of the 
Federal government is particularly important. Inconsistency or 
contradictory guidance could confuse recipients of Federal funds and 
needlessly increase costs without rendering the meaningful access for 
LEP persons that this Guidance is designed to address. As with most 
government initiatives, this requires balancing several principles. 
While this Guidance discusses that balance in some detail, it is 
important to note the basic principles behind that balance. First, we 
must ensure that federally-assisted programs aimed at the American 
public do not leave some behind simply because they face challenges 
communicating in English. This is of particular importance because, in 
many cases, LEP individuals form a substantial portion of those 
encountered in federally assisted programs. Second, we must achieve 
this goal while finding constructive methods to reduce the costs of LEP 
requirements on small businesses, small local governments, or small 
non-profits that receive Federal financial assistance.

III. Who Is Covered?

    Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et 
seq., and implementing regulations, recipients of Federal financial 
assistance are required to provide meaningful access to LEP persons.\5\ 
Federal financial assistance includes grants, cooperative agreements, 
training, use of equipment, donations of surplus property, and other 
assistance.

[[Page 74636]]

Examples of recipients that receive DOI assistance include the 
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, the meaningful access 
requirement of the Title VI regulations and the four-factor analysis 
set forth in this guidance also apply to the programs and activities 
of Federal agencies, including DOI's programs and activities. 
Examples include, but are not limited to, schools and other programs 
operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, environmental impact 
research and surveys, land management, national parks, fish and 
wildlife programs and activities, power plants run by DOI, and 
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [sbull] State fish and wildlife agencies;
    [sbull] State and local park and recreation departments;
    [sbull] State and local park police departments including fish and 
wildlife conservation law enforcement agencies;
    [sbull] State geological survey agencies;
    [sbull] State and local historic preservation agencies including 
historical sites and places; and
    [sbull] Irrigation districts and other public entities providing 
water and power services.
    Sub-recipients are covered when Federal funds are passed through 
from one recipient to a Sub-recipient. Sub-recipients of DOI assistance 
include, for example:
    [sbull] County and city park and recreation agencies;
    [sbull] State and local government agencies; and
    [sbull] Public and/or private organizations.
    Coverage extends to a recipient's entire program or activity, i.e., 
to all parts of a recipient's operations. This is true even if only one 
of the recipient's programs or activities receives the Federal 
assistance.\6\

    \6\ If DOI decided, however, to terminate Federal assistance to 
a recipient based upon noncompliance with its Title VI regulations, 
only funds directed to the particular program or activity that is 
out of compliance would be terminated. 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example: DOI provides assistance to a city parks and recreation 
department to develop or improve one particular park. All aspects of 
the city parks and recreation department's operations--not just the 
particular park slated for development or improvement--are covered.
    Finally, some recipients operate in jurisdiction in which English 
has been declared the official language. Nonetheless, these recipients 
continue to be subject to Federal non-discrimination requirements, 
including those applicable to the provision of federally assisted 
programs and activities to persons with limited English proficiency.

IV. Who Is a Limited English Proficient Individual?

    Individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and 
who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English 
can be limited English proficient (LEP) and therefore entitled to 
language assistance with respect to a particular type of service, 
benefit, or encounter. Examples of populations likely to include LEP 
persons that DOI recipients serve or encounter and accordingly, should 
consider when planning language services include, but are not limited 
to:
    [sbull] Persons who are actual or potential program beneficiaries 
of recreation or education programs including those applying for 
fishing and hunting licenses, or desiring information regarding program 
availability;
    [sbull] Persons visiting historical sites and places;
    [sbull] Persons who encounter natural resources conservation law 
enforcement officers or other law enforcement recipients of DOI 
assistance;
    [sbull] Persons needing information on health, environmental 
impact, safety, or other warnings or information from recipients of DOI 
assistance; and
    [sbull] Parents and family members of the above.

V. How Does a Recipient Determine the Extent of Its Obligations To 
Provide LEP Services?

    Recipients are required to take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP 
persons have meaningful access to their programs and activities. While 
designed to be a flexible and fact-dependent standard, the starting 
point is an individualized assessment that balances the following four 
factors: (1) The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be 
served or likely to be encountered by the program or grantee; (2) the 
frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the program; 
(3) the nature and importance of the program, activity, or service 
provided by the program to people's lives; and (4) the resources 
available to the grantee/recipient and costs. As indicated above, DOI's 
guidance is intended to strike a balance between ensuring LEP persons 
have meaningful access to critical services, benefits, and information 
while not imposing an undue burden on small business, small local 
governments, or small nonprofits.
    After applying the above four-factor analysis, a recipient may 
conclude that different language assistance measures are sufficient for 
the different types of programs or activities in which it engages. For 
instance, some of a recipient's activities will be more important than 
others and/or have greater impact on or contact with LEP persons, and 
thus may require more in the way of language assistance. The 
flexibility that recipients have in addressing the needs of the LEP 
populations they serve does not diminish, and should not be used to 
minimize, the obligation that those needs be addressed. DOI recipients 
should apply the following four factors to the various kinds of 
contacts they have with the public to assess language needs and decide 
what reasonable steps they should take to ensure meaningful access for 
LEP persons.

(1) The Number or Proportion of LEP Persons Served or Encountered in 
the Eligible Service Population

    One factor in determining what language services recipients should 
provide is the number or proportion of LEP persons from a particular 
language group served or encountered in the eligible service 
population. The greater the number or proportion of these LEP persons, 
the more likely language services are needed. Ordinarily, persons 
eligible to be served or likely to be directly affected by a 
recipient's program or activity are those who are served or encountered 
in the eligible service population. This population will be program-
specific, and includes persons who are in the geographic area that has 
been approved by a Federal grant Agency as the recipient's service 
area. However, where, for instance, a precinct serves a large LEP 
population, the appropriate service area is most likely the precinct, 
and not the entire population served by the department. Where no 
service area previously has been approved, the relevant service area 
may be that which is approved by state or local authorities or 
designated by the recipient itself, provided that these designations do 
not themselves discriminatorily exclude certain populations.
    Recipients should first examine their prior experience with LEP 
encounters and determine the breadth and scope of language services 
that are needed. In conducting this analysis, it is important to 
include language minority populations that are eligible for their 
programs or activities but may be underserved because of existing 
language barriers. Other data should be consulted to refine or validate 
a recipient's prior experience, including the latest census data for 
the area served, data from school systems and from community 
organizations, and data from state and local governments.\7\ Community 
agencies, school systems, religious organizations, legal aid entities, 
and others can often assist in

[[Page 74637]]

identifying populations for whom outreach is needed and who would 
benefit from the recipient's programs and activities were language 
services provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The focus on the analysis is on the lack of English 
proficiency, not the ability to speak more than one language. Note 
that demographic data may indicate the most frequently spoken 
languages other than English and the percentage of people who speak 
that language but are not proficient in English. Some of the most 
commonly spoken languages other than English may be spoken by people 
who are also overwhelmingly proficient in English. Thus, they may 
not be the languages spoken most frequently by limited English 
proficient individuals. When using demographic data, it is important 
to focus upon the language spoken by those who are not proficient in 
English.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) The Frequency With Which LEP Individuals Come in Contact With the 
Program

    Recipients should assess, as accurately as possible, the frequency 
with which they have or should have contact with a LEP individual from 
different language groups seeking assistance. The more frequent the 
contact with a particular language group, the more likely that enhanced 
language services in that language are needed. The steps that are 
reasonable for a recipient that serves a LEP person on a one-time basis 
will be very different than those expected from a recipient that serves 
LEP persons daily. It is also advisable to consider the frequency of 
different types of language contacts. For example, frequent contacts 
with Spanish-speaking people who are LEP may require certain assistance 
in Spanish. Less frequent contact with different language groups may 
suggest a different and less intense solution. If a LEP individual 
accesses a program or service on a daily basis, a recipient has greater 
duties than if the same individual's program or activity contact is 
unpredictable or infrequent. But even recipients that serve LEP persons 
on an unpredictable or infrequent basis should use this balancing 
analysis to determine what to do if a LEP individual seeks services, 
benefits, or information under the program in question. This plan need 
not be intricate. It may be as simple as being prepared to use one of 
the commercially available telephonic interpretation services to obtain 
immediate interpreter services. In applying this standard, recipients 
should take care to consider whether appropriate outreach to LEP 
persons could increase the frequency of contact with LEP language 
groups.

(3) The Nature and Importance of the Program Activity, or Service 
Provided by the Program

    The more important the activity, information, service, or program 
or the greater the possible consequences of the contact to the LEP 
individuals, the more likely language services are needed. The 
obligations to provide language assistance services to residents of a 
community near a raging wildfire or other environmental emergency, to a 
person who is suspected of a crime committed in a park, or to an ill or 
injured park visitor, differ from obligations to individuals seeking to 
enroll in a voluntary conservation class. A recipient needs to 
determine whether denial or delay of access to benefits, services, 
warnings, or information could have serious or even life-threatening 
implications for the LEP individual. Decisions by a Federal, State, or 
local entity to make an activity compulsory, such as particular 
educational programs, essential licenses, or the communication of 
Miranda rights, can serve as strong evidence of the program's 
importance.

(4) The Resources Available to the Recipient and Costs

    A recipient's level of resources and the costs that would be 
imposed on it may have an impact on the nature of the steps it should 
take. Smaller recipients with more limited budgets are not expected to 
provide the same level of language services as larger recipients with 
larger budgets. In addition, ``reasonable steps'' may cease to be 
reasonable where the costs imposed substantially exceed the benefits.
    Resource and cost issues, however, can often be reduced by 
technological advances; the sharing of language assistance materials 
and services among and between recipients, advocacy groups, and Federal 
assistance agencies; and reasonable business practices. Where 
appropriate, training bilingual staff to act as interpreters and 
translators, information sharing through industry groups, telephonic 
and video conferencing interpretation services, pooling resources and 
standardizing documents to reduce translation needs, using qualified 
translators and interpreters to ensure that documents need not be 
``fixed'' later and that inaccurate interpretations do not cause delay 
or other costs, centralizing interpreter and translator services to 
achieve economies of scale, using universally understood pectoral 
signs, or the formalized use of qualified community volunteers, for 
example, may help reduce costs.\8\ Recipients should carefully explore 
the most cost-effective means of delivering competent and accurate 
language services before limiting services due to resource concerns. 
Large entities and those entities serving a significant number or 
proportion of LEP persons should ensure that their resource limitations 
are well-substantiated before using this factor as a reason to limit 
language assistance. Such recipients may find it useful to be able to 
articulate, through documentation or in some other reasonable manner, 
their process for determining that language services would be limited 
based on resources or costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Small recipients with limited resources may find that 
entering into a bulk telephonic interpretation service contract will 
prove cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. How Language Assistance Services Should Be Provided

    This four-factor analysis necessarily implicates the ``mix'' of LEP 
services required. Recipients have two main ways to provide language 
services: Oral interpretation either in person or via telephone 
interpretation service (hereinafter ``interpretation'') and written 
translation (hereinafter ``translation''). Oral interpretation can 
range from on-site interpreters for critical services provided to a 
high volume of LEP persons to access through commercially available 
telephonic interpretation services. Written translation, likewise, can 
range from translation of an entire document to translation of a short 
description of the document. In some cases, language services should be 
made available on an expedited basis while in other cases, the LEP 
individual may be referred to another office of the recipient for 
language assistance.
    The correct mix should be based on what is both necessary and 
reasonable in light of the four-factor analysis. For instance, fire 
departments or other emergency services located near an Indian 
reservation may need immediate oral interpreters available and should 
give serious consideration to hiring some bilingual staff. (Of course, 
many fire departments may have already made such arrangements.) In 
contrast, there may be circumstances where the importance and nature of 
the activity and number or proportion and frequency of contact with LEP 
persons may be low and the costs and resources needed to provide 
language services may be high--such as in the case of a voluntary 
general public tour of a park--in which pre-arranged language services 
for the particular service may not be necessary. Regardless of the type 
of language service provided, quality and accuracy of those services 
can be critical in order to avoid serious consequences to the LEP 
person and to the recipient. Recipients have substantial flexibility in 
determining the appropriate mix.

VII. Selecting Language Assistance Services

    When selecting a language service, it is important to consider the 
quality and accuracy of such service in order to avoid serious 
consequences to the LEP person and the recipient.

[[Page 74638]]

A. Oral Language Services (Interpretation)

    Interpretation is the act of listening to something in one language 
(source language) and orally translating it into another language 
(target language). Where interpretation is needed and is reasonable, 
recipients should consider some or all of the following options for 
providing competent interpreters in a timely manner:
    Competence of Interpreters. When providing oral assistance, 
recipients should ensure competency of the language service provider, 
no matter which of the strategies outlined below are used. Competency 
requires more than identifying oneself as bilingual. Some bilingual 
staff and community volunteers, for instance, may be able to 
communicate effectively in a different language when communicating 
information directly in that language, but not be competent to 
interpret into and out of English. Likewise, they may not be able to do 
written translations.
    Competency to interpret, however, does not necessarily mean formal 
certification as an interpreter, although certification is helpful. 
When using interpreters, recipients should ensure that they:
    [sbull] Demonstrate proficiency and the ability to communicate 
information accurately in both English and the other language and 
identify and employ the appropriate mode of interpreting;
    [sbull] Have knowledge in both languages of any specialized terms 
or concepts peculiar to the entity's program or activity and of any 
particularized vocabulary and phraseology that the LEP person uses; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Many languages have ``regionalisms,'' or differences in 
usage. For instance, a word that may be understood to mean something 
in Spanish for someone from Cuba may not be so understood by someone 
from Mexico. In addition, there may be languages which do not have 
an appropriate interpretation of certain legal or technical terms. 
The interpreter should make the recipient aware of the issue and the 
interpreter and recipient can then work to develop a consistent and 
appropriate set of written translations in that language that can be 
used again, when appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [sbull] Understand and follow confidentiality and impartiality 
rules to the same extent the recipient employee for whom they are 
interpreting and/or to the extent their position requires; and
    [sbull] Understand and adhere to their role as interpreters without 
deviating into a role as counselor, legal advisor, or other roles 
(particularly in administrative hearings or law enforcement 
activities).
    Some recipients, such as those offering educational or 
instructional programs, or public utility services, may have additional 
self-imposed requirements for interpreters. Where individual rights 
depend on precise, complete, and accurate interpretation or 
translations, particularly in the context of public safety and law 
enforcement activities, the use of certified interpreters is strongly 
encouraged.\10\ Where proceedings are lengthy, the interpreter will 
likely need breaks and team interpreting may be appropriate to ensure 
accuracy and to prevent errors caused by mental fatigue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For those languages in which no formal accrediation or 
certification currently exists, recipients should consider a formal 
process for establishing the credentials of the interpreter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While quality and accuracy of language services is critical, the 
standards for such services vary depending on the service, program or 
benefit the recipient provides. For example, the quality and accuracy 
of language services in a hunter education and safety class, an 
interrogation of a suspect by park police, or environmental hazard 
warnings must be extraordinarily high, while the quality and accuracy 
of language services in a lighthouse tour need not meet the same 
exacting standards.
    Finally, when interpretation is needed and is reasonable, it should 
be provided in a timely manner. The language assistance should be 
provided at a time and place that avoids the effective denial of the 
service, benefit, or right at issue or the imposition of an undue 
burden on or delay in important rights, benefits, or services to the 
LEP person. For example, when the timeliness of services is important, 
such as certain activities in law enforcement, health, environmental, 
and safety services, or when important legal rights are at issue, a 
recipient probably would not be providing meaningful access if it only 
had one bilingual staffer available one day a week to provide the 
service. Such conduct would likely result in delays for LEP persons 
that would be significantly greater than those for English proficient 
persons. Conversely, where access to or exercise of a service, benefit, 
or right is not effectively precluded by a reasonable delay, language 
assistance can be delayed for a reasonable period.
    Hiring Bilingual Staff. When particular languages are encountered 
often, hiring bilingual staff offers one of the best, and often most 
economical, options. For example, recipients can fill public contact 
positions such as lifeguards, park ranger, conservation law enforcement 
officers, or recreation program directors, with staff that are 
bilingual and competent to communicate directly with LEP persons in 
their language. If bilingual staff is also used to interpret between 
English speakers and LEP persons, or to orally interpret written 
documents from English into another language, they should be competent 
in the skill of interpreting. Being bilingual does not necessarily mean 
that a person has the ability to interpret. In addition, there may be 
times when the role of the bilingual employee may conflict with the 
role of an interpreter. Effective management strategies, including any 
appropriate adjustments in assignments and protocols for using 
bilingual staff, can ensure that bilingual staff is fully and 
appropriately utilized. When bilingual staff cannot meet all of the 
language service obligations of the recipient, the recipient should 
turn to other options.
    Hiring Staff Interpreters. Hiring interpreters may be most helpful 
where there is a frequent need for interpreting services in one or more 
languages. Depending on the facts, sometimes it may be necessary and 
reasonable to provide on-site interpreters to provide accurate and 
meaningful communication with a LEP person.
    Contracting for Interpreters. Contract interpreters may be a cost-
effective option when there is no regular need for a particular 
language skill. In addition to commercial and other private providers, 
many community-based organizations and mutual assistance associations 
provide interpretation services for particular languages. Contracting 
with and providing training regarding the recipient's programs and 
processes to these organizations can be a cost-effective option for 
providing language services to LEP persons from those language groups.
    Using Telephone Interpreter Lines. Telephone interpreter service 
lines often offer speedy interpreting assistance in many different 
languages. They may be particularly appropriate where the mode of 
communicating with an English proficient person would also be over the 
phone. Although telephonic interpretation services are useful in many 
situations, it is important to ensure that the interpreters used are 
competent to interpret any technical or legal terms specific to a 
particular program. Often an interpreter relies on non-verbal 
communication and nuances in language to accurately translate the 
source language into the target language. Video teleconferencing may 
sometimes help to resolve this issue where necessary. In addition, 
where documents are being discussed, it is important to give telephonic 
interpreters an opportunity to review the document prior to the 
discussion and address any logistical problems.

[[Page 74639]]

    Using Community Volunteers. In addition to considering bilingual 
staff, staff interpreters, or contract interpreters (either in-person 
or by telephone) as options to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful 
access, recipient-coordinated community volunteers working with 
community-based organizations also may provide a cost-effective 
supplemental language assistance strategy under appropriate 
circumstances. They may be particularly useful in providing language 
access for a recipient's less critical programs and activities. To the 
extent the recipient relies on community volunteers, it is often best 
to use volunteers who are trained in the information or services of the 
program and can communicate directly with LEP persons in their 
language. Just as with all interpreters, community volunteers used to 
interpret between English speakers and LEP persons, or to orally 
translate documents, should be competent in the skill of interpreting 
and knowledgeable about applicable confidentiality and impartiality 
rules. Recipients should consider formal arrangements with community-
based organizations that provide volunteers to address these concerns 
and to help ensure that services are regularly available.
    Use of Family Members, Friends, Other Program Participants, or 
Acquaintances as Interpreters. Although recipients should not plan to 
rely on a LEP person's family members, friends, or other informal 
interpreters to provide meaningful access to important programs and 
activities, where LEP persons so desire, they should be permitted to 
use, at their own expense, an interpreter of their own choosing 
(whether a professional interpreter, family member, friend, or other 
informal interpreter) in lieu of or to supplement the free language 
services the recipient offers. LEP persons may feel more comfortable 
when a trusted family member, friend, or other informal interpreter of 
their choice acts as an interpreter. In addition, in exigent 
circumstances that are not reasonably foreseeable, temporary use of 
interpreters not provided by the recipient may be necessary. However, 
with proper planning and implementation, recipients should be able to 
avoid such situations.
    Recipients, however, should take special care to ensure that 
family, legal guardians, caretakers, and other informal interpreters 
are appropriate in light of the circumstances and subject matter of the 
program, service or activity, including protection of the recipient's 
own administrative or enforcement interest in accurate interpretation. 
In many circumstances, family members (especially children), friends, 
or other informal interpreters are not competent to provide quality and 
accurate interpretations. Issues of confidentiality, privacy, or 
conflict of interest may also arise. LEP individuals may feel 
uncomfortable revealing or describing sensitive, confidential, or 
potentially embarrassing medical, law enforcement, family, or financial 
information to a family member, friend, or member of the local 
community. In addition, such informal interpreters may have a personal 
connection to the LEP person or an undisclosed conflict of interest, 
such as the desire to protect themselves or another individual in a 
criminal matter. For these reasons, when oral language services are 
necessary, recipients should generally offer competent interpreter 
services free of cost to the LCP person. For DOI recipient programs and 
activities, this is particularly true in law enforcement settings, 
administrative hearings, situations in which health, safety, or access 
to important benefits, services, or information are at stake, or when 
credibility and accuracy are important to protect an individual's 
rights or access to important services or information.
    An example of such a case is when conservation law enforcement 
officers respond to a hunting or fishing infraction. In such a cases, 
use of family members or friends to interpret for the alleged person 
cited for the hunting or fishing violation may raise serious issues of 
competency, confidentiality, and conflict of interest and is thus 
inappropriate. While issues of competency, confidentiality, and 
conflict of interest in the use of family members (especially 
children), friends, or other program participants often make their use 
inappropriate, the use of these individuals as interpreters may be an 
appropriate option where proper application of the four factors 
indicates that recipient-provided services are not necessary. An 
example of this is a voluntary educational tour of a park offered to 
the public. There, the importance and nature of the activity may be 
relatively low and unlikely to implicate issues of confidentiality, 
conflict of interest, or the need for accuracy. In addition, the 
resources needed and costs of providing language services may be high. 
In such a setting, a LEP person's use of family, friends, or others may 
be appropriate.
    If the LEP person voluntarily chooses to provide his or her own 
interpreter, a recipient should consider whether to document the 
recipient's offer to provide language assistance services and the LEP 
person's response. Where precise, complete and accurate interpretations 
or translations of information and/or testimony are critical for law 
enforcement, adjudicatory, health, safety, or legal reasons, or where 
the competency of the LEP person's interpreter is not established, a 
recipient might decide to provide its own independent interpreter, even 
if a LEP person wants to use his or her own interpreter as well. Extra 
caution should be exercised when the LEP person chooses to use a minor 
as the interpreter. While the LEP person's decision should be 
respected, there may be additional issues of competency, 
confidentiality, or conflict of interest when the choice involves using 
children as interpreters. The recipient should take care to ensure that 
the LEP person's choice is voluntary, that the LEP person is aware of 
the possible problems if the preferred interpreter is a minor child, 
and that the LEP person knows that a competent interpreter could be 
provided by the recipient at no cost.

B. Written Language Services (Translation)

    Translation is the replacement of a written text from one language 
(source language) into an equivalent written text in another language 
(target language).
    What Documents Should be Translated? After applying the four-factor 
analysis, a recipient may determine that an effective LEP plan for its 
particular program or activity includes the translation of vital 
written materials into the language of each frequently-encountered LEP 
group eligible to be served or likely to be affected by the recipient's 
program.
    Such written materials could include, for example:
    [sbull] Consent and complaint forms;
    [sbull] Program materials describing program availability;
    [sbull] Geological maps and informational publications, under 
certain circumstances;
    [sbull] Written notices of rights, denial, loss, or decreases in 
benefits or services, or of public hearings that impact the community;
    [sbull] Hunter and aquatics safety education materials;
    [sbull] Vital portions of websites describing an Agency's mission, 
organization, programs, activities and services;
    [sbull] Notices advising LEP persons of free language assistance;
    [sbull] Prohibit and warning signs, brochures, or other 
informational material, including information on dangerous wildlife, 
natural hazards,

[[Page 74640]]

environmental hazards, and other health and safety-related information;
    [sbull] Written tests that do not assess English language 
competency, but test competency for a particular license, job, or skill 
for which knowing English is not required; and
    [sbull] Applications to participate in a recipient's program or 
activity or to receive recipient benefits, services, licenses, permits, 
etc.
    Whether or not a document (or the information it solicits) is 
``vital'' may depend upon the importance of the program, information, 
encounter, or service involved, and the consequence to the LEP person 
if the information in question is not provided accurately or in a 
timely manner. For instance, applications for bicycle safety courses 
generally should not be considered vital, whereas applications for drug 
and alcohol counseling in prison should be considered vital. Where 
appropriate, recipients are encouraged to create a plan for 
consistently determining, over time and across various activities, what 
documents are ``vital'' to the meaningful access of the LEP populations 
they serve.
    Classifying a document as vital or non-vital is sometimes 
difficult, especially in the case of outreach materials like brochures 
or other general information on rights and services. Awareness of 
rights or services is an important part of ``meaningful access.'' Lack 
of awareness that a particular program, right, or service exists may 
effectively deny LEP individuals meaningful access. Thus, where a 
recipient is engaged in community outreach activities in furtherance of 
its activities, it should regularly assess the needs of the populations 
frequently encountered or affected by the program or activity to 
determine whether certain critical outreach materials should be 
translated. Community organizations may be helpful in determining what 
outreach materials may be most helpful to translate. In addition, the 
recipient should consider whether translations of outreach materials 
may be made more effective when done in tandem with other outreach 
methods, including utilizing the appropriate non-English language 
speaking media, schools, religious and community organizations to 
spread a message.
    Sometimes a document includes both vital and non-vital information. 
This may be the case when the document is very large. It may also be 
the case when the title and a phone number for obtaining more 
information concerning the contents of the document in frequently-
encountered languages other than English is critical, but the document 
is sent out to the general public and reasonably cannot be translated 
into many languages. Thus, vital information may include, for instance, 
the provision of information in appropriate languages other than 
English regarding where a LEP person might obtain language assistance 
services to interpret or translate a document.
    Into What Languages Should Documents Be Translated? The languages 
spoken by the LEP individuals with whom the recipient has contact 
determine the languages into which vital documents should be 
translated. A distinction should be made, however, between languages 
that are frequently encountered by a recipient and less commonly 
encountered languages. Many recipients serve communities in large 
cities or across the country. They regularly serve LEP persons who 
speak numerous different languages. To translate all written materials 
into all of those languages is unrealistic. Although recent 
technological advances have made it easier for recipients to store and 
share translated documents, such an undertaking would incur substantial 
costs and require substantial resources. Nevertheless, well-
substantiated claims of lack of resources to translate all vital 
documents into dozens of languages do not necessarily relieve the 
recipient of the obligation to translate those documents into at least 
several of the more frequently-encountered languages and to set 
benchmarks for continued translations into the remaining languages over 
time. As a result, the recipient should determine its obligation to 
provide written translations of documents on a case-by-case basis, 
looking at the totality of the circumstances in light of the four-
factor analysis. Because translation is a one-time expense, 
consideration should be given to whether the upfront cost of 
translating a document (as opposed to oral interpretation) should be 
amortized over the likely lifespan of the document when applying this 
four-factor analysis.
    Safe Harbor. Many recipients would like to ensure with greater 
certainty that they comply with their obligations to provide written 
translations in languages other than English. Paragraphs (a) and (b), 
(see the next section of this document entitled Safe Harbor 
Guidelines), outline the circumstances that can provide a ``safe 
harbor'' for recipients regarding the requirements for translation of 
written materials. A ``safe harbor'' means that if a recipient provides 
written translations under these circumstances, such action will be 
considered strong evidence of compliance with the recipient's written-
translation obligations.
    The failure to provide written translations under the circumstances 
outlined in the Department's Safe Harbor Guidelines at paragraphs (a) 
and (b) does not mean there is non-compliance. Rather, they provide a 
common starting point for recipients to consider whether and at what 
point the importance of the service, benefit, or activity involved; the 
nature of the information sought; and the number or proportion of LEP 
persons served call for written translations of commonly-used forms 
into frequently-encountered languages other than English. Thus, these 
paragraphs merely provide a guide for recipients that are interested in 
specific examples of safe harbor guidelines. However, even if the safe 
harbors are not used, if written translation of a certain document(s) 
would be so burdensome as to defeat the legitimate objectives of its 
program, the translation of the written materials is not necessary. 
Other ways of providing meaningful access, such as effective oral 
interpretation of certain vital documents, might be acceptable under 
such circumstances.
    Safe Harbor Guidelines. The following actions will be considered 
strong evidence of compliance with the recipient's written-translation 
obligations:
    (a) The DOI recipient provides written translations of vital 
documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes five 
percent or 1,000, whichever is less, of the population of persons 
eligible to be served or likely to be affected or encountered. 
Translation of other documents, if needed, can be provided orally; or
    (b) If there are fewer than 50 persons in a language group that 
reaches the five-percent trigger in (a), the recipient does not 
translate vital written materials but provides written notice in the 
primary language of the LEP language group of the right to receive 
competent oral interpretation of those written materials, free of cost.
    These safe harbor provisions apply to the translation of written 
documents only. They do not affect the requirement to provide 
meaningful access to LEP individuals through competent oral 
interpreters where oral language services are needed and are 
reasonable. For example, even where the safe harbor numbers are not met 
for a particular language, a LEP person speaking that language should 
be given appropriate oral interpretation of important information.
    Competence of Translators. As with oral interpreters, translators 
of written

[[Page 74641]]

documents should be competent. Many of the same considerations apply. 
However, the skill of translating is very different from the skill of 
interpreting, and a person who is competent interpreter may or may not 
be competent to translate.
    Particularly where legal or other vital documents are being 
translated, competence can be often be achieved by use of certified 
translators. Certification or accreditation may not always be possible 
or necessary.\11\ Having a second, independent translator check the 
work of the primary translator can often ensure competence. 
Alternatively, one translator can translate the document, and a second, 
independent translator could translate it back into English to check 
that the appropriate meaning has been conveyed. This is called ``back 
translation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For those languages in which no formal accreditation 
currently exists, a particular level of membership in a professional 
translation association can provide some indicator of 
professionalism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Translators should understand the expected reading level of the 
audience and, where appropriate, have fundamental knowledge about the 
target language group's vocabulary and phraseology. Sometimes direct 
translation of materials results in a translation that is written at a 
much more difficult level than the English language version or has no 
relevant equivalent meaning.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For instance, there may be languages which do not have an 
appropriate direct translation of some natural resources terms or 
historic references. The translator should be able to provide an 
appropriate translation and make the recipient aware that an 
appropriate direct translation does not exist. Recipients can then 
work with translators to develop a consistent and appropriate set of 
descriptions of these terms in that language that can be used again, 
when appropriate. Recipients will find it more effective and less 
costly if they try to maintain consistency in the words and phrases 
used to translate historic references, geological terms or other 
technical concepts. Creating or using already created glossaries of 
commonly used terms may be useful for LEP persons and translators 
and cost effective for the recipient. Providing translators with 
examples of the recipient's previous translations of similar 
material may be helpful. In addition to the translator's assessment 
of the material, community organizations may be able to help 
consider whether a document is written at a good level for the 
audience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While quality and accuracy of translation services is critical, the 
quality and accuracy of translation services is nonetheless part of the 
appropriate mix of LEP services required. For instance, a recipient may 
use less-skilled translators to translate simple documents that have no 
legal, health, access to benefits and services, or safety consequences. 
However, to the extent documents contain this type of critical 
information, recipients should consider using highly skilled 
translators to translate their contents (including, e.g., information 
or documents regarding certain law enforcement, health and safety 
services and certain legal rights, applications, warnings, or 
prohibitions). The permanent nature of written translations, however, 
imposes additional responsibility on the recipient to ensure that LEP 
persons have meaningful access.

VII. Elements of an Effective Plan on Language Assistance for LEP 
Persons

    After completing the four-factor analysis and deciding what 
language assistance services are appropriate, a recipient should 
develop an implementation plan to address the identified needs of the 
LEP populations they serve. Recipients have considerable flexibility in 
developing this plan. The development and maintenance of a 
periodically-updated written plan on language assistance for LEP 
persons (``LEP plan'') for use by recipient employees serving the 
public will likely be the most appropriate and cost-effective means of 
documenting compliance and providing a framework for the provision of 
timely and reasonable language assistance. Moreover, such written plans 
would likely provide additional benefits to a recipient's managers in 
the areas of training, administration, planning, and budgeting. The LEP 
Plan should lead most recipients to document their language assistance 
services, and how staff and LEP persons can access those services.
    Despite the benefits associated with a written plan, certain DOI 
recipients, such as recipients serving very few LEP persons or 
recipients with very limited resources, may choose not to develop a 
written LEP plan. However, the absence of a written LEP plan does not 
obviate the recipient's obligation to ensure that LEP persons have 
meaningful access to its program or activities. Accordingly, in the 
event that a recipient elects not to develop a written plan, it should 
consider alternative ways to articulate its plan for providing 
meaningful access. Entities having significant contact with LEP 
persons, such as schools, religious organizations, community groups, 
and groups working with new immigrants can be very helpful in providing 
important input into this planning process.
    The following five steps may be helpful in designing a LEP plan and 
are typically part of effective implementation plans.

(1) Identifying LEP Individuals Who Need Language Assistance

    The first two factors in the four-factor analysis require an 
assessment of the number or proportion of LEP individuals eligible to 
be served or encountered and the frequency of encounters. This requires 
a recipient to identify LEP persons with whom it has contact.
    One way to determine the language of communication is to use 
language identification cards (or ``I speak cards''), which invite LEP 
persons to identify their language needs. Such cards, for instance, 
might say, ``I speak Spanish'' in both Spanish and English, ``I speak 
Vietnamese'' in both English and Vietnamese, etc. To reduce costs of 
compliance, the Federal government has made a set of these cards 
available on the Internet. At http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/13166.htm or 
http://www.lep.gov the Census Bureau ``I speak card'' can be found and 
downloaded. When records are normally kept of past interactions with 
members of the public, the language of the LEP person can be included 
as part of the record. In addition to helping employees identify the 
language of LEP persons they encounter, this process will help in 
future applications of the first two factors of the four-factor 
analysis. In addition, posting notices in commonly encountered 
languages notifying LEP persons of language assistance will encourage 
them to identify themselves as requiring language assistance services.

(2) Identifying Language Assistance Measures

    An effective LEP plan would likely include information about the 
ways in which language assistance will be provided. For instance, 
recipients may want to include information on at least the following:
    [sbull] Types of language services available;
    [sbull] How staff can obtain those services;
    [sbull] How to respond to LEP callers;
    [sbull] How to respond to written communications from LEP persons;
    [sbull] How to respond to LEP individuals who have in-person 
contact with recipient staff; and
    [sbull] How to ensure competency of interpreters and translation 
services.

(3) Training Staff

    Staff should know their obligation to provide meaningful access to 
information and services for LEP persons. An effective LEP plan would 
likely include training to ensure that:
    [sbull] Staff knows about LEP policies and procedures; and,

[[Page 74642]]

    [sbull] Staff that have contact with the public are trained to work 
effectively with in-person and telephone interpreters and make 
materials that have been translated readily available.
    Recipients may want to include this training as part of its 
orientation for new employees. It is important to ensure that all 
employees in public contact positions (or having contact with those in 
a recipient's custody) are properly trained. Recipients have 
flexibility in deciding the manner in which the training is provided. 
The more frequent the contact with LEP persons, the greater the need 
will be for in-depth training. Staff with little or no contact with LEP 
persons may only have to be aware of a LEP plan. However, management 
staff, even if they do not interact regularly with LEP persons, should 
be fully aware of and understand the plan so they can implement and 
reinforce its terms.

(4) Providing Notice to LEP Persons

    Once an Agency has decided that it will provide language services 
based on the four factors, it is important for the recipient to let LEP 
persons know that those services are available and that they are free 
of charge. Recipients should provide this notice in a language LEP 
persons will understand. Examples of such notice include:
    [sbull] Posting signs in intake areas and other entry points. When 
language assistance is needed to ensure meaningful access to 
information, benefits, and services, it is important to provide notice 
in appropriate languages in intake areas or initial points of contact 
so that LEP persons can learn how to access those language 
services.\13\ For instance, signs in intake offices could state that 
free language assistance is available. The signs should be translated 
into the most common languages encountered. They should explain how to 
get the language help.\14\ This is particularly true in areas with high 
volumes of LEP persons seeking access to the DOI recipient's 
recreational areas, historical sites, and fishing or hunting 
activities. Appropriate notice to LEP persons also is important to 
ensure their access to information about environmental concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For instance, signs in intake offices could state that free 
language assistance is available. The signs should be translated 
into the most common languages encountered and should explain how to 
get language assistance service.
    \14\ The Social Security Administration has made such signs 
available at its Web site, (see http://www.ssa.gov/multilanguage/langlist1.htm). The signs could be modified for recipient use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [sbull] Stating in outreach documents that language services are 
available from the Agency. Announcements could be published in 
brochures, booklets, and in outreach and recruitment information. These 
statements should be translated into the most common languages and 
could be put on the front of common documents.
    [sbull] Community organizations. The recipient could work with 
community-based organizations and other stakeholders to inform LEP 
individuals of the recipient's services, including the availability of 
language assistance services.
    [sbull] Using a telephone voice mail menu. The menu could be in the 
most common languages encountered. It should provide information about 
available language assistance services and how to get them.
    [sbull] Printed media. The recipient could publish notices in local 
newspapers in languages other than English.
    [sbull] Broadcasts. The recipient could provide notices on non-
English-language radio and television stations about the available 
language assistance services and how to get them.
    [sbull] Schools. The recipient could inform LEP persons of the 
availability of language services through presentations and/or by 
providing notices at schools and religious organizations.

(5) Monitoring and Updating the LEP Plan

    Recipients should, where appropriate, have a process for 
determining whether new documents, programs, services, and activities 
need to be made accessible for LEP individuals, and informing employees 
and LEP persons of any changes in services. In addition, recipients 
should consider whether changes in demographics, types of services, or 
other needs require annual reevaluation of their LEP plan. Less 
frequent reevaluation may be more appropriate where demographics, 
services, and needs are more static. One good way to evaluate the LEP 
plan is to seek feedback from the community.
    In their reviews, recipients may want to consider assessing changes 
in:
    [sbull] Current LEP populations in certain service areas or 
populations affected or encountered;
    [sbull] Frequency of encounters with LEP language groups;
    [sbull] Nature and importance of activities to LEP persons;
    [sbull] Availability of resources, including technological 
advances, additional resources and the costs imposed;
    [sbull] Whether existing assistance is meeting the needs of LEP 
persons;
    [sbull] Whether staff knows about and understands the LEP plan how 
to implement it; and
    [sbull] Whether identified sources for assistance are still 
available and viable.
    In addition to the five elements typically found in effective 
implementation plans, such plans set clear goals, management 
accountability, and opportunities for community input and planning 
throughout the process.

VIII. Voluntary Compliance Effort

    The goal for Title VI and Title VI regulatory enforcement is to 
achieve voluntary compliance. The requirement to provide meaningful 
access to LEP persons is enforced and implemented by DOI through the 
procedures identified in the Title VI regulations. These procedures 
include complaint investigations, compliance reviews, efforts to secure 
voluntary compliance, and technical assistance.
    The Title VI regulations provide that DOI will investigate whenever 
it receives a complaint, report, or other information that alleges or 
indicates possible noncompliance with Title VI or its regulations. If 
the investigation results in a finding of compliance, DOI will inform 
the recipient in writing of this determination, including the basis for 
the determination. DOI uses voluntary mediation to resolve most 
complaints. However, if a case is fully investigated and results in a 
finding of noncompliance, DOI will attempt to secure voluntary 
compliance through informal means. If the matter cannot be resolved 
informally, DOI must secure compliance through the termination of 
Federal assistance after the DOI recipient has been given an 
opportunity for an administrative hearing, by referring the matter to a 
Department of Justice litigation section to seek injunctive relief or 
by pursuing other enforcement proceedings. DOI engages in voluntary 
compliance efforts and provides technical assistance to recipients at 
all stages of an investigation. During these efforts, DOI proposes 
reasonable timetables for achieving compliance and consults with and 
assists recipients in exploring cost-effective ways of coming into 
compliance. In determining a recipient's compliance with the Title VI 
regulations, DOI's primary concern is to ensure that the recipient's 
policies and procedures provide meaningful access for LEP persons to 
the recipient's programs and activities.
    While all recipients must work toward building systems that will 
ensure access for LEP individuals, DOI acknowledges that the 
implementation of a comprehensive system to serve LEP

[[Page 74643]]

individuals is a process and that a system will evolve over time as it 
is implemented and periodically reevaluated. As recipients take 
reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to federally assisted 
programs and activities for LEP persons, DOI will look favorably on any 
intermediate steps the recipients take that are consistent with this 
Guidance, and that, as part of a broader implementation plan or 
schedule, move their service delivery system toward providing full 
access to LEP persons. This does not excuse noncompliance but instead 
recognizes that full compliance in all activities of recipients and for 
all potential language minority groups reasonably may require a series 
of implementing actions over a period of time. However, in developing 
any phased implementation schedule, DOI recipients should ensure that 
they first provide appropriate assistance for significant LEP 
populations and activities having a significant impact on the health, 
safety, legal rights, or livelihood of beneficiaries. Recipients are 
encouraged to document their efforts to provide LEP persons with 
meaningful access to federally assisted programs and activities.

    Dated: December 17, 2003.
P. Lynn Scarlett,
Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management, and Budget.
[FR Doc. 03-31693 Filed 12-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RE-M