[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10066-10075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4672]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding
Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting
Limited English Proficient Persons
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of final guidance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing
final policy guidance on Title VI's prohibition against national origin
discrimination as it affects limited English proficient persons.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marva C. Gary, Civil Rights Program
Manager, at 301-415-7382, TDD 301-415-5244, or by e-mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. and its implementing regulations provide that no
person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race,
color, or national origin under any program or activity that receives
Federal financial assistance. In Executive Order 13166, reprinted at 65
FR 50119 (August 16, 2000), Federal grant agencies are directed to
issue guidance to their respective recipients of Federal financial
assistance on ensuring meaningful access to their programs and
activities by persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). Executive
Order 13166 further requires that agency guidance be consistent with
the compliance standards set out in Department of Justice Policy
Guidance issued contemporaneous with the Executive Order and published
at 65 FR 50123 (August 16, 2000).
On October 26, 2001, and January 11, 2002, the Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights issued to Federal departments and agencies
guidance memoranda, which reaffirmed the Department of Justice's
commitment to ensuring that federally assisted programs and activities
fulfill their LEP responsibilities, which clarified and answered
certain questions raised regarding the August 16th publication. On
March 14, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
[[Page 10067]]
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,
the Department of Justice (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. The final NRC
guidance is consistent with the model LEP Guidance document published
by DOJ.
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. It has also been determined that this
guidance document is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12866.
The text of the final guidance document appears below.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Travers,
Executive Director for Operations.
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.'' While
detailed data from the 2000 census has not yet been released, 26
percent of all Spanish-speakers, 29.9 percent of all Chinese-speakers,
and 28.2 percent of all Vietnamese-speakers reported that they spoke
English ``not well'' or ``not at all'' in response to the 1990 census.
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 services 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.
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.\1\ These are the same
criteria the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will use
in evaluating whether recipients are in compliance with Title VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before discussing these criteria in greater detail, it is important
to note two basic underlying principles. 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. Second, we must achieve this goal while finding constructive
methods to reduce the costs of LEP requirements on recipients of
Federal financial assistance.
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. To that end, the NRC, in conjunction
with the Department of Justice (DOJ), plans to continue to provide
assistance and guidance in this important area. In addition, the NRC
plans to work with its recipients and LEP persons to identify and share
model plans, examples of best practices, and cost-saving approaches.
Moreover, the NRC intends to explore how language assistance
measures, resources and cost-containment approaches developed with
respect to its own federally conducted programs and activities can be
effectively shared or otherwise made available to recipients. An
interagency working group on LEP has developed a Web site: www.lep.gov,
to assist in disseminating this information to recipients, Federal
agencies, and the communities being served.
In cases where a recipient of Federal financial assistance from the
NRC also receives assistance from one or more other Federal agencies,
there is no obligation to conduct and document separate data, when the
data would be identical and for the same purpose. The same analyses and
language assistance plans can be used. The NRC, in discharging its
compliance and enforcement obligations under Title VI, will look to
analyses performed and plans developed in response to similar detailed
LEP guidance issued by other Federal agencies. Accordingly, as an
adjunct to this guidance, recipients may, where appropriate, also rely
on guidance issued by other agencies in discharging their Title VI LEP
obligations.
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. The NRC and DOJ have taken the position that
this is not the case, and will continue to do so. Accordingly, NRC 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.
[[Page 10068]]
In pertinent part, the NRC's regulations promulgated pursuant to
section 602 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 [with respect to] individuals of a
particular race, color, or national origin.'' See 10 CFR part 4 subpart
A, Sec. 4.12 (b) [29 FR 19277, December 31, 1964].
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 language identical to that of 45 CFR
part 1110, 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, ``Improving Access to
Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,'' (65 FR 50121;
August 16, 2000), was issued. 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 ``[restricting] 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.''
On that same day, DOJ issued a general guidance document addressed
to ``Executive Agency Civil Rights Officers'' setting forth general
principles for agencies to apply in developing guidance documents for
recipients pursuant to the Executive Order. ``Enforcement of Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 National Origin Discrimination Against
Persons With Limited English Proficiency,'' (65 FR 50123; August 16,
2000) (``DOJ LEP Guidance'').
Subsequently, Federal agencies raised questions regarding the
requirements of the Executive Order, especially in light of the Supreme
Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). On
October 26, 2001, Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General for
the Civil Rights Division, issued a memorandum for ``Heads of
Departments and Agencies, General Counsels and Civil Rights
Directors.'' This memorandum clarified and reaffirmed the DOJ LEP
guidance in light of Sandoval.\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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
(``[W]e assume for purposes of this decision that section 602
confers the authority to promulgate disparate-impact regulations; *
* *. We cannot help observing, however, how strange it is to say
that disparate-impact regulations are `inspired by, at the service
of, and inseparably intertwined with ' Sec. 601 * * * when Sec. 601
permits the very behavior that the regulations forbid.''). The
memorandum, however, made clear that DOJ disagreed with the
commentators' interpretation. Sandoval holds principally that there
is no private right of action to enforce Title VI disparate-impact
regulations. It did not address the validity of those regulations or
Executive Order 13166 or otherwise limit the authority and
responsibility of Federal grant agencies to enforce their own
implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This guidance is thus published pursuant to Executive Order 13166.
III. Who Is Covered?
The NRC regulations at 10 CFR part 4 subpart A require all
recipients of Federal financial assistance from the NRC to provide
meaningful access to LEP persons.\3\ Federal financial assistance
includes grants, training, use of equipment, donations of surplus
property, and other assistance. Recipients of assistance from the NRC
typically include, but are not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, the meaningful access
requirement of the Title VI regulations and the four-factor analysis
set forth in the DOJ LEP guidance are to additionally apply to the
Federally conducted programs and activities of Federal agencies,
including the NRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[sbull] Educational systems, universities, colleges, and research
institutions;
[sbull] Day care center providers;
[sbull] Food service providers;
[sbull] Emergency response entities;
[sbull] State Health and Radiological Offices;
[sbull] Fitness center providers;
[sbull] Profit and non-profit organizations and institutions;
[sbull] Healthcare center providers; and
[sbull] Professional societies.
Subrecipients are also covered when Federal funds are passed
through from one recipient to a subrecipient.
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
part of the recipient receives Federal assistance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ However, if a Federal agency were to decide to terminate
Federal funds based on noncompliance with Title VI or its
regulations, only funds directed to the particular program or
activity that is out of compliance would be terminated. 42 U.S.C.
2000d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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, or ``LEP,'' entitled to language
assistance with respect to a particular type of service, benefit, or
encounter.
Examples of populations likely to include LEP persons who are
encountered and/or served by the NRC's recipients and should be
considered when planning language services include, but are not limited
to:
[sbull] Persons reasonably likely to be subject to emergency
evacuation measures;
[sbull] Residents located in reasonable proximity to NRC-licensed
facilities;
[sbull] Persons served by or subject to State health and
radiological offices; and
[sbull] Students and faculty at colleges and universities with
associated research centers.
V. How Does a Recipient Determine the Extent of Its Obligation To
Provide LEP Services?
Recipients are required to take reasonable steps to ensure
meaningful access to their programs and activities by LEP persons.
While designed to be a flexible and fact-dependent standard, the
starting point is an individualized assessment that balances the
following
[[Page 10069]]
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, the intent of this guidance is to suggest a balance that ensures
meaningful access by LEP persons to critical services while not
imposing undue burdens on small state and local governments or small
nonprofit entities.
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 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. The NRC's recipients should
apply the following four factors to the various kinds of contacts that
they have with the public to assess language needs and decide what
reasonable steps they should take to ensure meaningful access for LEP
persons.
(1) The Number or Proportion of LEP Persons Served or Encountered in
the Eligible Service Population
One factor in determining what language services recipients should
provide is the number or proportion of LEP persons from a particular
language group served or encountered in the eligible service
population. The greater the number or proportion of 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 research facility or university
operates a day care center limited to children of recipient personnel,
and that extended groups include a significant LEP population, the
appropriate service area is most likely the pool of eligibles from
which the center draws its potential participants. When considering the
number or proportion of LEP individuals in a service area, recipients
providing services to minor LEP individuals should also include the
individuals' LEP parent(s) or primary caretaker(s) among those likely
to be encountered.
Recipients should first examine their prior experiences with LEP
encounters and determine the breadth and scope of language services
that were needed. In conducting this analysis, it is important to
include language minority populations that are eligible for their
programs or activities, but may be under-served 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.\5\ Community
agencies, school systems, religious organizations, legal aid entities,
and others can often assist in identifying populations for whom
outreach is needed and who would benefit from the recipients' programs
and activities where language services are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The focus of the analysis is on lack of English proficiency,
not the ability to speak more than one language. Note that
demographic data may indicate the most frequently spoken languages
other than English and the percentage of people who speak that
language who speak or understand English less than well. Some of the
most commonly spoken languages other than English may be spoken by
people who are also overwhelmingly proficient in English. Thus, they
may not be the languages spoken most frequently by limited English
proficient individuals. When using demographic data, it is important
to focus in on the languages spoken by those who are not proficient
in English.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The Frequency With Which LEP 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 an 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 an LEP person on a one-time
basis will be very different from 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 intensified solution. If an 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. Recipients that serve LEP persons on an
unpredictable or infrequent basis should use this balancing analysis to
determine what to do if an LEP individual seeks services under the
program in question. This plan need not be intricate. It may be as
simple as using 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. For example,
due to its direct impact on the public, the obligations of a federally
assisted state health and radiological office enforcing health and
safety standards are generally far greater than those of a federally
assisted science or engineering program. A recipient needs to determine
whether denial or delay of access to services 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 participation in an educational program or
compliance with emergency procedures, can serve as strong evidence of
the program's importance. While all situations must be analyzed on a
case-by-case basis, the following general observations may be helpful
to the NRC's recipients considering the implications of applying this
factor of the four-factor test to their respective programs:
[sbull] An assisted local environmental protection office providing
information on radiological hazards and charged with responsibility to
receive and investigate environmental complaints that serves in a city
with a large Hispanic population including a significant number of LEP
members should consider translating at least some of its informational
pamphlets and its complaint form into Spanish (or implementing a
procedure through which Spanish-speaking LEP persons
[[Page 10070]]
could be served by Spanish-speaking officers). This same office could
also consider Spanish summaries of its vital but technical or complex
public documents as a possible alternative to full text translations.
[sbull] Assisted emergency response entities serving a significant
LEP community which are part of an emergency evacuation plan
coordinated by an NRC Licensed Facility should consider either for
themselves or as part of a coordinated plan on the part of related
entities:
(1) Employing of bilingual State Liaison Officers, or staff members
capable of providing timely and vital information in the language and
dialogue of the LEP population located in the vicinity of the NRC
licensed facility;
(2) Ensuring that the LEP population has access to emergency
evacuation information, procedures for filing complaints of
contamination, hazards, safety concerns, or denial of access;
(3) Posting and disseminating information in the language of the
LEP population, in high stress situations; and
(4) Identifying individuals or community groups who might serve as
bi-lingual volunteers with a small LEP population.
As part of a language assistance emergency response plan, such
recipients could, for example, consider reliance upon a telephonic
interpretation service that is fast enough and reliable enough to
attend to the emergency situation, or include some other accommodation
short of hiring bilingual staff.
With respect to the importance of a program, activity, or service
provided by one of the Agency's recipients, the obligation to provide
interpretation or translation services will most likely be greatest in
educational/training situations or in connection with the provision of
safety, and/or emergency evacuation services. Entities that receive
Federal financial assistance from another agency such as the Department
of Education, may rely on the more particularized LEP guidance of that
other agency to ensure compliance with the obligation to provide
meaningful access in those respective contexts.
(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
grant agencies; and reasonable business practices. Where appropriate,
training bilingual staff to act as interpreters and translators,
information sharing through industry groups, telephonic and video
conferencing interpretation services, pooling resources and
standardizing documents to reduce translation needs, using qualified
translators and interpreters to ensure that documents need not be
``fixed'' later and that inaccurate interpretations do not cause delay
or other costs, centralizing interpreter and translator services to
achieve economies of scale, or the formalized use of qualified
community volunteers, for example, may help reduce costs.\6\ 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. These 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Small recipients with limited resources may find that
entering into a bulk telephonic interpretation service contract will
prove cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 onsite interpreters for critical services provided to a high
volume of LEP persons to access through commercially-available
telephonic interpretation services. A written translation can range
from translation of an entire document to translation of a short
description of the document. In some cases, language services should be
made available on an expedited basis while in others the LEP 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. Regardless of the type
of language service provided, quality and accuracy of those services
can be critical to avoid serious consequences to the LEP person and to
the recipient. Recipients have substantial flexibility in determining
the appropriate mix.
VI. Selecting Language Assistance Services
Recipients have two main ways to provide language services: oral
and written language services. Quality and accuracy of the language
service is critical to avoid serious consequences to the LEP person and
to the recipient.
A. Oral Language Services (Interpretation)
Interpretation is the act of listening to something in one language
(source language) and orally translating it into another language
(target language). Where interpretation is needed and is reasonable,
recipients should consider some or all of the following options for
providing competent interpreters in a timely manner:
Competence of Interpreters. When providing oral assistance,
recipients should ensure competency of the language service provider no
matter which of the strategies outlined below are used. Competency
requires more than self-identification as bilingual. Some bilingual
staff and community volunteers, for instance, may be able to
communicate effectively in a different language when communicating
information directly in that language, but not be competent to
interpret in and out of English. Also, 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 in and ability to communicate
information accurately in both English and in the other language and
identify and employ the appropriate mode of interpreting (e.g.,
consecutive, simultaneous, summarization, or sight translation);
[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 used by the
[[Page 10071]]
LEP person;\7\ and, if applicable, 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Many languages have ``regionalisms,'' or differences in
usage. For instance, a word that may be understood to mean something
in Spanish for someone from Cuba may not be so understood by someone
from Mexico. In addition, because there may be languages which do
not have an appropriate direct interpretation of some terms and, the
interpreter should be so aware and be able to provide the most
appropriate interpretation. The interpreter should likely make the
recipient aware of the issue and the interpreter and recipient can
then work to develop a consistent and appropriate set of
descriptions of these terms in that language that can be used again,
when appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[sbull] Understand and adhere to their role as interpreters without
deviating into any other role such as counselor, or advisor.
Some recipients may have additional self-imposed requirements for
interpreters. Where individual rights depend on precise, complete, and
accurate interpretation or translations, the use of certified
interpreters is strongly encouraged.\8\ Where such proceedings are
lengthy, the interpreter will likely need breaks and team interpreting
may be appropriate to ensure accuracy and to prevent errors caused by
mental fatigue of interpreters. The NRC recognizes, however, that such
situations are infrequent in the types of programs and activities it
typically funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For those languages in which no formal accreditation or
certification currently exists, courts and law enforcement agencies
should consider a formal process for establishing the credentials of
the interpreter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While quality and accuracy of language services is critical, the
quality and accuracy of language services is nonetheless part of the
appropriate mix of LEP services required. The quality and accuracy of
language services in compulsory educational classes, for example, must
be quite high while the quality and accuracy of language services in
translation of general public announcements, need not meet the same
exacting standards.
Finally, when interpretation is needed and is reasonable, it should
be provided in a timely manner. To be meaningfully effective, language
assistance should be timely. While there is no single definition for
``timely'' applicable to all types of interactions at all times by all
types of recipients, one clear guide is that the language assistance
should be 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. Conversely, where access to or exercise of a service,
benefit, or right is not effectively precluded by a reasonable delay,
language assistance can likely be delayed for a reasonable period.
Hiring Bilingual Staff. When particular languages are encountered
often, hiring bilingual staff offers one of the best, and often most
economical, options. Recipients and sub-recipients can, for example,
fill public contact positions, such as program directors, with staff
who are bilingual and competent to communicate directly with LEP
persons in their language and at the appropriate level of competency.
Similarly, a State Liaison Officer or a State Tribal Program serving an
area with a significant LEP population could seek to match individuals
with limited English skills with language-appropriate bilingual
mentors. If bilingual staff are also used to interpret between English
speakers and LEP persons, or to orally interpret written documents from
English into another language, they should be competent in the skill of
interpreting. Being bilingual does not necessarily mean that a person
has the ability to interpret. In addition, there may be times when the
role of the bilingual employee may conflict with the role of an
interpreter (for instance, a bilingual member of a formal review panel
adjudicating allegations of program or fiscal noncompliance would
probably not be able to perform effectively the role of interpreter and
adjudicator at the same time, even if the bilingual employee were a
qualified interpreter). Effective management strategies, including any
appropriate adjustments in assignments and protocols for using
bilingual staff, can ensure that bilingual staff are fully and
appropriately used. 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 onsite interpreters to provide accurate and
meaningful communication with an LEP person.
Contracting for Interpreters. Contract interpreters may be a cost-
effective option when there is no regular need for a particular
language skill. In addition to commercial and other private providers,
many community-based organizations and mutual assistance associations
provide interpretation services for particular languages. Contracting
with and providing training regarding the recipient's programs and
processes to these organizations can be a cost-effective option for
providing language services to LEP persons from those language groups.
Using Telephone Interpreter Lines. Telephone interpreter service
lines often offer speedy interpreting assistance in many different
languages in public-contact situations. They may be particularly
appropriate where the mode of communicating with a LEP proficient
person would also be over the phone. Although telephonic interpretation
services are useful in many situations, it is important to ensure that,
when using these services, the interpreters are competent to interpret
any technical terms specific to a particular program that may be
important parts of the conversation. Nuances in language and non-verbal
communication can often assist an interpreter and cannot be recognized
over the phone. Video teleconferencing may sometimes help to resolve
this issue where necessary. In addition, when discussing documents, it
is important to give telephonic interpreters adequate opportunity to
review the document prior to the discussion, and to address any
logistical problems.
Using Community Volunteers. In addition to consideration of
bilingual staff, staff interpreters, or contract interpreters (either
in-person or by telephone) as options to ensure meaningful access by
LEP persons, use of recipient-coordinated community volunteers, working
with, for instance, community-based organizations may provide a cost-
effective supplemental language assistance strategy under appropriate
circumstances. They may be particularly useful in providing language
access for a recipient's less critical programs and activities. To the
extent the recipient relies on community volunteers, it is often best
to use volunteers who are trained in the information or services of the
program and can communicate directly with LEP persons in their
language. Just as with all interpreters, community volunteers skilled
in interpreting between English speakers and LEP persons, or when sight
translating documents, one should be competent in the skill of
interpreting, and knowledgeable about applicable confidentiality and
impartiality rules, if any. Recipients should consider formal
arrangements with community-based organizations that provide volunteers
to address these concerns and to help ensure that services are
available more regularly.
Use of Family Members or Friends as Interpreters. Although
recipients should not plan to rely on an LEP person's
[[Page 10072]]
family members, friends, or other informal interpreters to provide
meaningful access to important programs and activities 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. LEP persons may feel more comfortable when a
trusted family member or friend acts as an interpreter. In addition, in
exigent circumstances that are not reasonably foreseeable, temporary
use of interpreters not provided by the recipient may be necessary.
However, with proper planning and implementation, recipients should be
able to avoid most of these 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 interest in accurate interpretation. In many circumstances, family
members (especially children) or friends 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 confidential information to
a family member, friend, or member of the local community. In addition,
these informal interpreters may have a personal connection to the LEP
person or an undisclosed conflict of interest. For these reasons, when
oral language services are necessary, recipients should generally offer
competent interpreter services free of cost to the LEP person.
While issues of competency, confidentiality, and conflict of
interest in the use of family members or friends often make their use
inappropriate, the use of these individuals as interpreters may be an
appropriate option where proper application of the four factors would
lead to a conclusion that recipient-provided services are not
necessary. An example of this might be to use, as one part of a public
information program, language-capable community groups or volunteers to
help provide oral notice or disseminate written postings about
important public meetings. There, the nature of the activity may be
unlikely to implicate issues of confidentiality, conflict of interest,
or the need for accuracy. In addition, the resources needed and costs
of providing language services may be high. In such a setting, an LEP
person's use of family, friends, or others may be appropriate.
If the LEP person voluntarily chooses to provide his or her own
interpreter, a recipient should consider whether a record of that
choice and of the recipient's offer of assistance is appropriate. Where
precise, complete, and accurate interpretations or translations of
information and/or testimony are critical, or where the competency of
the LEP person's interpreter is not established, a recipient might
decide to provide its own, independent interpreter, even if an LEP
person wants to use his or her own interpreter as well. Extra caution
should be exercised when the LEP person chooses to use a minor as the
interpreter. While the LEP person's decision should be respected, 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 and/or likely to be affected by the
recipient's program.
These written materials could include, for example:
[sbull] Notices advising LEP persons of free language assistance;
[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; or
[sbull] Applications to participate in a recipient's program or
activity or to receive recipient benefits, grants, or services.
Whether 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. Where appropriate, recipients are encouraged to create a plan
for consistently determining, over time and across its various
activities, what documents are ``vital'' to the meaningful access of
the LEP populations they serve.
Classifying a document as vital or non-vital is sometimes
difficult, especially in the case of outreach materials like brochures
or other information on rights and services. Awareness of rights or
services is an important part of ``meaningful access.'' Lack of
awareness that a particular program, right, or service exists may
effectively deny LEP 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 material may
be made more effective when done in tandem with other outreach methods,
including using the ethnic 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 on the contents of the document in frequently-encountered
languages other than English is critical, but the document is sent out
to the general public and cannot reasonably be translated into many
languages. Thus, vital information may include, for instance, the
provision of information in appropriate languages other than English
regarding where a LEP person might obtain an interpretation or
translation of the 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 dozens and sometimes over 100 different languages.
[[Page 10073]]
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 extent of the
recipient's obligation to provide written translations of documents
should be determined by the recipient on a case-by-case basis, looking
at the totality of the circumstances in light of the four-factor
analysis. Because translation is a one-time expense, consideration
should be given to whether the up-front 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),
under Safe Harbor Guides, 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 paragraphs (a) and (b), under Safe Harbor Guides, 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 is involved; the nature
of the information sought; and the number or proportion of LEP persons
served call for written translations of commonly-used forms into
frequently-encountered languages other than English. Thus, these
paragraphs merely provide a guide for recipients that would like
greater certainty of compliance than can be provided by a fact-
intensive, four-factor analysis.
Example: Even if the safe harbors are not used, if written
translation of a certain document(s) would be so burdensome as to
defeat the legitimate objectives of 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 these circumstances.
Safe Harbor Guides. The following actions will be considered strong
evidence of compliance with the recipient's written-translation
obligations:
(a) The 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.
The NRC acknowledges that it provides assistance to a wide range of
programs and activities serving different geographic areas with varying
populations. Moreover, as noted above, the obligation to consider
translations applies only to a recipient's vital documents having a
significant impact on access rather than all types of documents used or
generated by a recipient in the course of its activities. For these
reasons, a strict reliance on the numbers or percentages set out in the
safe harbor standards may not be appropriate for all of the NRC's
recipients and for all their respective programs or activities. While
the safe harbor standards outlined above offer a common guide, the
decision as to what documents should be translated should ultimately be
governed by the underlying obligation under Title VI to provide
meaningful access by LEP persons by ensuring that the lack of
appropriate translations of vital documents does not adversely impact
upon an otherwise eligible LEP person's ability to access its programs
or activities.
Competence of Translators. As with oral interpreters, translators
of written documents should be competent. Many of the same
considerations apply. However, the skill of translating is very
different from the skill of interpreting, and a person who is a
competent interpreter may or may not be competent to translate.
Particularly where vital documents are being translated, competence
can often be achieved by use of certified translators. Certification or
accreditation may not always be possible or necessary.\9\ Competence
can often be ensured by having a second, independent translator
``check'' the work of the primary translator. Alternatively, one
translator can translate the document, and a second, independent
translator could translate it back into English to check that the
appropriate meaning has been conveyed. This is called ``back
translation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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.\10\ Community organizations may be able to
help consider whether a document is written at a good level for the
audience. Likewise, consistency in the words and phrases used to
translate terms of art, or other technical concepts helps avoid
confusion by LEP individuals and may reduce costs. Creating or using
already-created glossaries of commonly-used terms may be useful for LEP
persons and translators and cost effective for the recipient. Providing
translators with examples of previous accurate translations of similar
material by the
[[Page 10074]]
recipient, other recipients, or Federal agencies may be helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ There may be languages which do not have an appropriate
direct translation of some terms and the translator should be able
to provide an appropriate translation. The translator should likely
also make the recipient aware of this. 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 terms of art and legal 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
previous translations of similar material by the recipient, other
recipients, or Federal agencies may be helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While quality and accuracy of translation services is critical, it
is nonetheless part of the appropriate mix of LEP services required.
For instance, documents that are simple and have no significant
consequence for LEP persons who rely on them may use translators that
are less skilled than important documents with legal or other
information upon which reliance has important consequences. The
permanent nature of written translations, however, imposes additional
responsibility on the recipient to ensure that the quality and accuracy
permit meaningful access by LEP persons.
VII. Elements of Effective Plan on Language Assistance for LEP Persons
After completing the four-factor analysis and deciding what
language assistance services are appropriate, a recipient should
develop an implementation plan to address the identified needs of the
LEP populations 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, these written
plans would provide additional benefits to a recipient's managers in
the areas of training, administration, planning, and budgeting. These
benefits should lead most recipients to document their language
assistance services in a written LEP plan, and show how the staff and
LEP persons can access those services. Despite these benefits, certain
recipients, such as recipients serving very few LEP persons and
recipients with very limited resources, may choose not to develop a
written LEP plan. However, the absence of a written LEP plan does not
obviate the underlying obligation to ensure meaningful access by LEP
persons to a recipient's program or activities. Accordingly, in the
event that a recipient elects not to develop a written plan, he/she
should consider alternative ways to articulate in some other reasonable
manner a plan for providing meaningful access. Entities having
significant contact with LEP persons, such as schools, religious
organizations, community groups, and groups working with new immigrants
can be very helpful in providing important input into this planning
process from the beginning.
The following five steps may be helpful in designing an 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
recipients 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 to staff. Such cards, for
instance, might say ``I speak Spanish'' in both Spanish and English,
``I speak Vietnamese'' in both English and Vietnamese, etc. When
records are normally kept of past interactions with members of the
public, the language of the LEP person can be included as part of the
record. In addition to helping employees identify the language of LEP
persons they encounter, this process will help in future applications
of the first two factors of the four-factor analysis. In addition,
posting notices in commonly encountered languages notifying LEP persons
of language assistance will encourage them to self-identify.
(2) Language Assistance Measures
An effective LEP plan would likely include information about the
ways in which language assistance will be provided. For instance,
recipients may want to include information on at least the following:
[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 obligations to provide meaningful access to
information and services for LEP persons. An effective LEP plan would
likely include training to ensure that:
[sbull] Staff know about LEP policies and procedures; and
[sbull] Staff having contact with the public are trained to work
effectively with in-person and telephone interpreters.
Recipients may want to include this training as part of the
orientation for new employees. It is important to ensure that all
employees in public contact positions are properly trained. Recipients
have flexibility in deciding the manner in which the training is
provided. The more frequent the contact with LEP persons, the greater
the need will be for in-depth training. Staff with little or no contact
with LEP persons may only have to be aware of an LEP plan. However,
management staff, even if they do not interact regularly with LEP
persons, should be fully aware of and understand the plan so they can
reinforce its importance and ensure its implementation by staff.
(4) Providing Notice to LEP Persons
Once an organization has decided, based on the four factors, that
it will provide language services, 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 notification that recipients
should consider include:
[sbull] Posting signs in intake areas and other entry points. When
language assistance is needed to ensure meaningful access to
information and services, it is important to provide notice in
appropriate languages in intake areas or initial points of contact so
that LEP persons can learn how to access those language services. 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Social Security Administration has made such signs
available at www.ssa.gov/multilanguage/langlist1.htm. These signs
could, for example, be modified for recipient use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[sbull] Stating in outreach documents that language services are
available from the agency. Announcements could be in brochures,
booklets, and in outreach and recruitment information. These statements
should be translated into the most common languages and could be
``tagged'' onto the front of common documents.
[sbull] Working with community-based organizations and other
stakeholders to inform LEP individuals of the recipients' 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
[[Page 10075]]
language assistance services and how to get them.
[sbull] Including notices in local newspapers in languages other
than English.
[sbull] Providing notices on non-English-language radio and
television stations about the available language assistance services
and how to get them.
[sbull] Presentations and/or notices at schools and religious
organizations.
(5) Monitoring and Updating the LEP Plan
Recipients should, where appropriate, have a process for
determining, on an ongoing basis, whether new documents, programs,
services, and activities need to be made accessible for LEP
individuals, and they may want to provide notice of any changes in
services to the LEP public and to employees. In addition, recipients
should consider whether changes in demographics, types of services, or
other needs require annual reevaluation of their LEP plan. Less
frequent reevaluation may be more appropriate where demographic
services, and needs are more static. One 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 service area or population
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
and sources of additional resources, and the costs imposed;
[sbull] Whether existing assistance is meeting the needs of LEP
persons;
[sbull] Whether staff knows and understands the LEP plan and how to
implement it; and
[sbull] Whether identified sources for assistance are still
available and viable.
In addition to these five elements, effective 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 regulatory enforcement is to achieve
voluntary compliance. The requirement to provide meaningful access to
LEP persons is enforced and implemented by the NRC 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 the NRC 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,
the NRC will inform the recipient in writing of this determination,
including the basis for the determination. The NRC uses voluntary
mediation to resolve most complaints. However, if a case is fully
investigated and results in a finding of noncompliance, the NRC must
inform the recipient of the noncompliance through a Letter of Findings
that sets out the areas of noncompliance and the steps that must be
taken to correct the noncompliance. It must attempt to secure voluntary
compliance through informal means. If the matter cannot be resolved
informally, the NRC must secure compliance through the termination of
Federal assistance after the recipient has been given an opportunity
for an administrative hearing and/or by referring the matter to a DOJ
litigation section to seek injunctive relief or pursue other
enforcement proceedings. The NRC engages in voluntary compliance
efforts and provides technical assistance to recipients at all stages
of an investigation. During these efforts, the NRC proposes reasonable
timetables for achieving compliance and consult with and assist
recipients in exploring cost-effective ways of coming into compliance.
In determining a recipient's compliance with the Title VI regulations,
the NRC'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, the NRC acknowledges that the
implementation of a comprehensive system to serve LEP 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, the NRC will look favorably on intermediate steps
recipients take that are consistent with this guidance, and that, as
part of a broader implementation plan or schedule, move their service
delivery system toward providing full access to LEP persons. This does
not excuse noncompliance but instead recognizes that full compliance in
all areas of a recipient's activities and for all potential language
minority groups may reasonably require a series of implementing actions
over a period of time. However, in developing any phased implementation
schedule, recipients should ensure that the provision of appropriate
assistance for significant LEP populations or with respect to
activities having a significant impact on the health, safety, legal
rights, or livelihood of beneficiaries is addressed first. Recipients
are encouraged to document their efforts to provide LEP persons with
meaningful access to federally assisted programs and activities.
In determining a recipient entity's compliance with Title VI, the
NRC's primary concern is to ensure that the entity'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 entity's
appropriate use of the methods and options discussed in this policy
guidance is viewed by the NRC as evidence of that entity's willingness
to comply voluntarily with its Title VI obligations.
[FR Doc. 04-4672 Filed 3-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P