[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1763-1768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-545]


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

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION


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

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration.

ACTION: Notice of guidance.

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

SUMMARY: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 
publishes policy guidance on Title VI's prohibition against national 
origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient persons.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before 60 days from the date of 
publication. NARA will review all comments and will determine what 
modifications, if any, to this policy guidance are necessary.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to Regulation Comments Desk (NPOL), 
Room 4100, Policy and Communications Staff, National Archives and 
Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. 
They may be faxed to 301-837-0319. Electronic comments may be submitted 
through Regulations.gov. You may also comment via email to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Dimkoff at telephone number 301-
837-1659. Arrangements to receive the policy in an alternative format 
may be made by contacting the named individual.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NARA's mission statement is to ensure, for 
the citizen and the public servant, for the President and for the 
Congress and the Courts, ready access to essential evidence. The 
National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) 
supports a wide range of activities to preserve, publish, and encourage 
the use of documentary sources, created in every medium ranging from 
quill pen to computer, relating to the history of the United States. 
Each year, the Commission receives an appropriation from Congress to 
support its grant program. Its administrative staff at the National 
Archives Building in Washington, DC, implements its policies and

[[Page 1764]]

recommendations, advises the Commission on proposals, and provides 
advice and assistance to potential applicants and grantees.
    Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et 
seq. (Title VI) and regulations implementing Title VI, recipients of 
federal financial assistance from NARA (``recipients'') have a 
responsibility to ensure meaningful access by persons with limited 
English proficiency (LEP) to their programs and activities. See, e.g., 
28 CFR 401-415. 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, after review and approval 
by the Department of Justice (DOJ), guidance for its recipients 
clarifying that obligation. The Executive Order also directs that all 
such guidance be consistent with the compliance standards and framework 
set forth by DOJ.
    On March 14, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Report To Congress titled ``Assessment of the Total Benefits and 
Costs of Implementing Executive Order No. 13166: Improving Access to 
Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.'' Among other 
things, the Report recommended the adoption of uniform guidance across 
all federal agencies, with flexibility to permit tailoring to each 
agency's specific recipients. Consistent with this OMB recommendation, 
DOJ published LEP Guidance for DOJ recipients which was drafted and 
organized to also function as a model for similar guidance by other 
Federal grant agencies. See 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 2002). This NARA 
guidance is based upon and incorporates the legal analysis and 
compliance standards of the model June 18, 2002, DOJ LEP Guidance for 
Recipients, but it has been tailored to NARA recipients, which include 
historical societies and archives, universities, colleges, and 
libraries.
    It has been determined that the guidance does not constitute a 
regulation subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative 
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It has also been determined that this 
guidance is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12866. 
The text of the complete proposed guidance document appears below.

    Dated: January 6, 2004.
John W. Carlin,
Archivist of the United States.

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.''
    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. 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.
    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 clarify the responsibilities of recipients of federal financial 
assistance from the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA), 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 the 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. See, e.g., 28 CFR 401-415.
    This policy guidance is modeled on and incorporates the legal 
analysis and compliance standards and framework set out in Section I 
through Section VIII of Department of Justice (DOJ) Policy Guidance 
titled ``Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding 
Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting 
Limited English Proficient Persons,'' published at 67 FR 41455, 41457-
41465 (June 18, 2002) (DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance). To the extent 
additional clarification is desired on the obligation under Title VI to 
ensure meaningful access by LEP persons and how recipients can satisfy 
that obligation, a recipient should consult the more detailed 
discussion of the applicable compliance standards and relevant factors 
set out in DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance. The June 18, 2002 DOJ Guidance 
may be viewed and downloaded at http://www.lep.gov.
    In addition, NARA recipients also receiving federal financial 
assistance from other federal agencies, such as the Department of 
Education or the Institute of Museum and Library Services, should 
review those agencies' guidance documents at http://www.lep.gov for a 
more focused explanation of how they can comply with their Title VI and 
regulatory obligations in the context of similar federally assisted 
programs or activities.
    Agency regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 602 of Title VI 
universally forbid recipients 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.'' See, e.g., 28 CFR 
42.104(b)(2) (DOJ), 29 CFR 15.3(b)(2) (Department of Agriculture), 34 
CFR 100.3(b)(2) (Department of Education), 45 CFR 80.3(b)(2) 
(Department of Health and Human Services), and 45 CFR 1110.3(b)(2) 
(National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities). NARA regulations 
implementing Title VI will be consistent with this long-standing 
federal policy prohibiting the use of criteria or methods of 
administration which have the effect of discriminating on the basis of 
race, color, or national origin.
    Many commentators have noted that some have interpreted the case of 
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), as impliedly striking down 
the regulations promulgated under Title VI that form the basis for the 
part of Executive Order 13166 that applies to federally assisted 
programs and activities. NARA and the DOJ 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.

[[Page 1765]]

II. Purpose and Application

    This policy guidance provides a legal framework to assist 
recipients in developing appropriate and reasonable language assistance 
measures designed to address the needs of LEP individuals. As noted 
above, Title VI and its implementing regulations prohibit both 
intentional discrimination and policies and practices that appear 
neutral but have a discriminatory effect. Thus, a recipient entity'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 an adverse effect on 
the ability of national origin minorities to meaningfully access 
programs and services. Recipient entities have considerable flexibility 
in determining how to comply with their legal obligation in the LEP 
setting and are not required to use the suggested methods and options 
that follow. However, recipient entities must 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.

III. Policy Guidance

1. Who Is Covered?

    All entities that receive Federal financial assistance from NARA, 
either directly or indirectly, through a grant, cooperative agreement, 
contract or subcontract, are covered by this policy guidance. Title VI 
applies to all Federal financial assistance, which includes but is not 
limited to awards and loans of Federal funds, awards or donations of 
Federal property, details of Federal personnel, or any agreement, 
arrangement or other contract that has as one of its purposes the 
provision of assistance.
    NARA recipients include, but are not limited to: State, county, and 
local historical societies and archives; universities; colleges; and 
libraries.
    Title VI prohibits discrimination in any program or activity that 
receives Federal financial assistance. In most cases, when a recipient 
receives Federal financial assistance for a particular program or 
activity, all operations of the recipient are covered by Title VI, not 
just the part of the program that uses the Federal assistance. Thus, 
all parts of the recipient's operations would be covered by Title VI, 
even if the Federal assistance were used only by one part.
    Finally, some recipients operate in jurisdictions 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 
services to persons with limited English proficiency.

2. Basic Requirement: All Recipients Must Take Reasonable Steps To 
Provide Meaningful Access to LEP Persons

    Title VI and Title VI regulations require that recipients take 
reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to the information, 
programs, and services they provide. Recipients of federal assistance 
have considerable flexibility in determining precisely how to fulfill 
this obligation.
    It is also important to emphasize that libraries, archives, and 
historical societies are generally in the business of maintaining, 
sharing, and disseminating vast amounts of information and items, most 
of which are created or generated by third parties. In large measure, 
the common service provided by these recipients is access to 
information, whether maintained on-site or elsewhere, not the 
generation of the sources information itself. This distinction is 
critical in properly applying Title VI to libraries, historical 
societies, and similar programs. For example, in the context of library 
services, recipients initially should focus on their procedures or 
services that directly impact access in three areas. First, 
applications for library or membership cards, instructions on card 
usage, and dissemination of information on where and how source 
material is maintained and indexed, should be available in appropriate 
languages other than English. Second, recipients should, consistent 
with the four factor analysis, determine what reasonable steps could be 
taken to enhance the value of their collections or services to LEP 
persons, including, for example, accessing language-appropriate books 
through inter-library loans, direct acquisitions, and/or on-line 
materials. Third, to the extent a recipient provides services beyond 
access to books, art, or cultural collections to include the generation 
of information about those collections, research aids, or community 
educational outreach such as reading or discovery programs, these 
additional or enhanced services should be separately evaluated under 
the four-factor analysis. A similar distinction can be employed with 
respect to a historical society's exhibits versus procedures for 
meaningful access to those exhibits.
    What constitute reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access in the 
context of federally-assisted programs and activities will be 
contingent upon a balancing of four factors: (1) The number and 
proportion of eligible LEP constituents; (2) the frequency of LEP 
individuals' contact with the program; (3) the nature and importance of 
the program; and (4) the resources available, including costs. Each of 
these factors is summarized below. In addition, recipients should 
consult Section V of the June 18, 2002 DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients, 
67 FR 41459-41460 or http://www.lep.gov, for additional detail on the 
nature, scope, and application of these factors.
(1) Number or Proportion of LEP Individuals
    The appropriateness of any action will depend on the size and 
proportion of the LEP population that the recipient serves and the 
prevalence of particular languages. Programs that serve a few or even 
one LEP person are still subject to the Title VI obligation to take 
reasonable steps to provide meaningful opportunities for access. The 
first factor in determining the reasonableness of a recipient's efforts 
in the number or proportion of people who will be effectively excluded 
form meaningful access to the benefits or services if efforts are not 
made to remove language barriers. The steps that are reasonable for a 
recipient who serves one LEP person a year may be different than those 
expected from a recipient that serves several LEP persons each day.
(2) Frequency of Contact With the Program
    Frequency of contact between the program or activity and LEP 
individuals is another factor to be weighed. If LEP individuals must 
access the recipient's program or activity on a daily basis, a 
recipient has greater duties than if such contact is unpredictable and 
infrequent. For instance, a NHPRC-supported project to arrange and 
describe a collection consisting primarily of documents originally 
created in the Spanish language could provide finding aids that are 
linguistically accessible for LEP Spanish-speakers. Recipients should 
take into account local or regional conditions when determining 
frequency of contact with the program, and should have the flexibility 
to tailor their services to those needs.
(3) Nature and Importance of the Program
    The importance of the recipient's program to beneficiaries will 
affect the determination of what reasonable steps are required. More 
affirmative steps must be taken in programs where the denial or delay 
of access may have serious, or even life or death implications than in 
programs that are

[[Page 1766]]

not crucial to one's day-to-day existence, economic livelihood, safety, 
or education. For example, the obligations, of a federally assisted 
school or hospital differ from those of a federally assisted library or 
historical society. This factor implies that the obligation to provide 
translation services will be highest in programs providing education, 
job training, medical/health services, social welfare services, and 
similar services. As a general matter, it is less likely that 
libraries, archives, and historical societies receiving assistance from 
NARA will provide services having a similar immediate and direct impact 
on a person's life or livelihood. Thus, in large measure, it is the 
first factor (number or proportion of LEP individuals) that will have 
the greatest impact in determining the initial need for language 
assistance services.
    In assessing the effect on individuals of failure to provide 
language services, recipients must consider the importance of the 
benefit to individuals both immediately and in the long-term. Another 
aspect of this factor is the nature of the program itself. Some content 
(such as pictures) may be extremely accessible regardless of language. 
In these instances, little translation might be required.
(4) Resources Available
    NARA is aware that its recipients may experience difficulties with 
resource allocation. Many of the organizations' overall budgets, and 
awards involved are quite small. The resources available to a recipient 
of federal assistance may have an impact on the nature of the steps 
that recipient must take to ensure meaningful access. For example, a 
small recipient with limited resources may not have to take the same 
steps as a larger recipient to provide LEP assistance in programs that 
have a limited number of eligible LEP individuals, where contact is 
infrequent, where the total cost of providing language services is 
relatively high, and/or where the program is not providing an important 
service or benefit from, for instance, a health, education, economic, 
or safety perspective. Translation and interpretation costs are 
appropriately included as program costs in award budget requests.
    This four-factor analysis necessarily implicates the ``mix'' of LEP 
services required. The correct mix should be based on what is both 
necessary and reasonable in light of the four-factor analysis. Even 
those award recipients who serve very few LEP persons on an infrequent 
basis should use a balancing analysis to determine whether the 
importance of the services(s) provided and minimal costs make language 
assistance measures reasonable even in the case of limited and 
infrequent interactions with LEP persons. Recipients have substantial 
flexibility in determining the appropriate mix.

IV. Strategies for Ensuring Meaningful Access

    Many NARA recipients, such as libraries, have a long history of 
interacting with people with varying language backgrounds and 
capabilities within the communities where they are located. NARA's goal 
is to continue to encourage these efforts and share practices so that 
other libraries, archives, and historical societies can benefit from 
these experiences.
    The following are examples of language assistance strategies that 
are potentially useful for all recipients. These strategies incorporate 
a variety of options and methods for providing meaningful access to LEP 
beneficiaries and provide examples of how recipients should take each 
of the four factors discussed above into account when developing an LEP 
strategy. Not every option is necessary or appropriate for every 
recipient with respect to all of its programs and activities. Indeed, a 
language assistance plan need not be intricate; it may be as simple as 
being prepared to use a commercially available ``language line'' to 
obtain immediate interpreting services and/or having bilingual staff 
members available who are fluent in the most common non-English 
languages spoken in the area. Recipients should exercise the 
flexibility afforded under this Guidance to select those language 
assistance measures which have the greatest potential to address, at 
appropriate levels and in reasonable manners, the specific language 
needs of the LEP populations they serve.
    Finally, the examples below are not intended to suggest that if 
services to LEP populations aren't legally required under Title VI and 
Title VI regulations, they should not be undertaken. Part of the way in 
which libraries and historical societies build communities is by 
cutting across barriers like language. A small investment in outreach 
to a linguistically diverse community may well result in a rich 
cultural exchange that benefits not only the LEP population, but also 
the recipient and the community as a whole.

Examples

--Identification of the languages that are likely to be encountered 
in, and the number of LEP persons that are likely to be affected by, 
the program. This information may be gathered through review of 
census and constituent data as well as data from school systems and 
community agencies and organizations;
--Posting signs in public areas in several languages, informing the 
public of its right to free interpreter services and inviting 
members of the public to identify themselves as persons needing 
language assistance;
--Use of ``I speak'' cards for public-contact personnel so that the 
public can easily identify staff language abilities;
--Employment of staff, bilingual in appropriate languages, in public 
contact positions;
--Contracts with interpreting services that can provide competent 
interpreters in a wide variety of languages in a timely manner;
--Formal arrangements with community groups for competent and timely 
interpreter services by community volunteers;
--An arrangement with a telephone language interpreter line for on-
demand service;
--Translations of application forms, instructional, informational 
and other key documents into appropriate non-English languages and 
provide oral interpreter assistance with documents for those persons 
whose language does not exist in written form;
--Procedures for effective telephone communication between staff and 
LEP persons, including instructions for English-speaking employees 
to obtain assistance from bilingual staff or interpreters when 
initiating or receiving calls to or from LEP persons;
--Notice to and training of all staff, particularly public contact 
staff, with respect to the recipient's Title VI obligation to 
provide language assistance to LEP persons, and on the language 
assistance policies and the procedures to be followed in securing 
such assistance in a timely manner;
--Insertion of notices, in appropriate languages, about access to 
free interpreters and other language assistance, in brochures, 
pamphlets, manuals, and other materials disseminated to the public 
and to staff; and
--Notice to and consultation with community organizations that 
represent LEP language groups, regarding problems and solutions, 
including standards and procedures for using their members as 
interpreters.

    In identifying language assistance measures, recipients should 
avoid relying on an LEP person's family members, friends, or other 
informal interpreters to provide meaningful access to important 
programs and activities. However, where LEP persons so desire, they 
should be permitted to use, at their own expense, an interpreter of 
their own choosing (whether a professional interpreter, family member, 
or friend) in place of or as a supplement to the free language services 
expressly offered by the recipient. But where a

[[Page 1767]]

balancing of the four factors indicate that recipient-provided language 
assistance is warranted, 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.
    The use of family and friends as interpreters may be an appropriate 
option where proper application of the four factors would lead to a 
conclusion that recipient-provided language assistance is not 
necessary. An example of this might be a bookstore or cafeteria 
associated with a library or archive. 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 technical 
accuracy. In addition, the resources needed and costs of providing 
language services may be high. In such a setting, an LEP person's use 
of family, friends, or other informal ad hoc interpreters may be 
appropriate.
    As noted throughout this guidance, NARA award recipients have a 
great deal of flexibility in addressing the needs of their constituents 
with limited English skills. That flexibility does not diminish, and 
should not be used to minimize, the obligation that those needs be 
addressed. NARA recipients should apply the four factors outlined above 
to the various kinds of contacts that they have with the public to 
assess language needs and decide what reasonable steps they should take 
to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons. By balancing the number or 
proportion of people with limited English skills served, the frequency 
of their contact with the program, the importance and nature of the 
program, and the resources available, NARA awardees' Title VI 
obligations in many cases will be satisfied by making available oral 
language assistance or commissioning translations on an as-requested 
and as-needed basis. There are many circumstances where, after an 
application and balancing of the four factors noted above, Title VI 
would not require translation. For example, Title VI does not require a 
library to translate its collections, but it does require the 
implementation of appropriate language assistance measures to permit an 
otherwise eligible LEP person to apply for a library card and 
potentially to access appropriate-language materials through inter-
library loans or other reasonable methods. NARA views this policy 
guidance as providing sufficient flexibility to allow NARA to continue 
to fund language-dependent programs in both English and other languages 
without requiring translation that would be inconsistent with the 
nature of the program. Recipients should consult Section VI of the June 
18, 2002 DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients, 67 FR at 41461-41464 or 
http://www.lep.gov, for additional clarification on the standards 
applicable to assessing interpreter and translator competence, and for 
determining when translations of documents vital to accessing program 
benefits should be undertaken.
    The key to ensuring meaningful access for people with limited 
English skills is effective communication. A recipient can ensure 
effective communication by developing and implementing a comprehensive 
language assistance program that includes policies and procedures for 
identifying and assessing the language needs of its LEP constituents. 
Such a program should also provide for a range of oral language 
assistance options, notice to LEP persons of the right to language 
assistance, periodic training of staff, monitoring of the program and, 
in certain circumstances, the translation of written materials.
    Each recipient should, based on its own volume and frequency of 
contact with LEP clients and its own available resources, adopt a 
procedure for the resolution of complaints regarding the provision of 
language assistance and for notifying the public of their right to and 
how to file a complaint under Title VI. State recipients, who will 
frequently serve large numbers of LEP individuals, may consider 
appointing a senior level employee to coordinate the language 
assistance program and to ensure that there is regular monitoring of 
the program.

V. Compliance and Enforcement

    Executive Order 13166 requires that each federal department or 
agency extending federal financial assistance subject to Title VI issue 
separate guidance implementing uniform Title VI compliance standards 
with respect to LEP persons. Where recipients of federal financial 
assistance from NARA also receive assistance from one or more other 
federal departments or agencies, there is no obligation to conduct and 
document separate but identical analyses and language assistance plans 
for NARA. NARA, in discharging its compliance and enforcement 
obligations under Title VI, looks to analyses performed and plans 
developed in response to similar detailed LEP guidance issued by other 
federal agencies. Recipients may rely upon guidance issued by those 
agencies.
    The Title VI enforcement structure focuses on voluntary compliance. 
NARA will investigate (or contact its State recipient of funds to 
investigate, if appropriate) 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, 
NARA will inform the recipient in writing of this determination, 
including the basis for the determination. If the investigation results 
in a finding of noncompliance, NARA 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, NARA will 
secure compliance through (a) the suspension of termination of Federal 
assistance after the recipient has been given an opportunity for an 
administrative hearing, (b) referral to the DOJ for injunctive relief 
or other enforcement proceedings, or (c) any other means authorized by 
federal, state, or local law.
    NARA will seek voluntary compliance in resolving cases and does not 
seek the termination of funds until it has engaged in voluntary 
compliance efforts and has determined that compliance cannot be secured 
voluntarily. NARA will engage in voluntary compliance efforts and will 
provide technical assistance to recipients at all stages of its 
investigation. During these efforts to secure voluntary compliance, 
NARA will propose reasonable timetables for achieving compliance and 
will consult with and assist recipients in exploring cost-effective 
ways of coming into compliance.
    In determining a recipient's compliance with Title VI, NARA's 
primary concern is to ensure that the recipient's policies and 
procedures overcome barriers resulting from language differences that 
would deny LEP persons a meaningful opportunity to participate in and 
access programs, services, and benefits. A recipient's appropriate use 
of the methods and options discussed in this policy guidance will be 
reviewed by NARA as evidence of a recipient's willingness to comply 
voluntarily with its Title VI obligations. If implementation of one or 
more of these options would be so financially burdensome as to defeat 
the legitimate objectives of a recipient/covered entity's program, or 
if there are equally effective alternatives for ensuring that LEP 
persons have

[[Page 1768]]

meaningful access to programs and services (such as timely effective 
oral interpretation of vital documents), NARA will not find the 
recipient/covered entity in noncompliance.

[FR Doc. 04-545 Filed 1-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P