Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices 41455

local, tribal, and foreign law clarifying that obligation. Executive supportive of the guidance and the enforcement agencies; Federal/State Order 13166 further directs that all such Department’s leadership in this area, probation and judicial offices; Congress; guidance documents be consistent with suggested modifications which would, contract and consulting physicians, the compliance standards and in their view, either (1) clarify the including hospitals; and attorneys for framework detailed in DOJ Policy application of the flexible compliance claimants. Guidance entitled ‘‘Enforcement of Title standard incorporated by the draft VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964— guidance to particular areas or SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS National Origin Discrimination Against situations, or (2) provide a more OF THE ACT: Persons with Limited English definitive statement of the minimal The Attorney General has exempted Proficiency.’’ See 65 FR 50123 (August compliance standards in this area. this system from subsections (c)(3) and 16, 2000). Several areas were raised in more than (4), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(H), (e)(8), (f) Initial guidance on DOJ recipients’ one comment. In the order most often and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to obligations to take reasonable steps to raised, those common areas of comment 5 U.S.C. 552a(j). Rules have been ensure access by LEP persons was were (1) recipient language assistance promulgated in accordance with the published on January 16, 2001. See 66 plans, (2) use of informal interpreters, requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c) and FR 3834. That guidance document was (3) written translation safe harbors, and (e) and have been published in the republished for additional public (4) cost considerations. The comments Federal Register and codified at 28 CFR comment on January 18, 2002. See 67 in each of these area are summarized 16.97(a) and (b). FR 2671. Based on public comments and discussed below. [FR Doc. 02–15299 Filed 6–17–02; 8:45 am] filed in response to the January 18, 2002 Recipient Language Assistance Plans. BILLING CODE 4410–05–P republication, DOJ published revised A large number of comments draft guidance for public comment on recommended that written language April 18, 2002. See 67 FR 19237. assistance plans (LEP Plans) be required DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DOJ received 24 comments in of all recipients. The Department is response to its April 18, 2002 cognizant of the value of written LEP Guidance to Federal Financial publication of revised draft guidance on plans in documenting a recipient’s Assistance Recipients Regarding Title DOJ recipients’ obligations to take compliance with its obligation to ensure VI Prohibition Against National Origin reasonable steps to ensure access to meaningful access by LEP persons, and Discrimination Affecting Limited programs and activities by LEP persons. in providing a framework for the English Proficient Persons The comments reflected the views of provision of reasonable and necessary individuals, organizations serving LEP language assistance to LEP persons. The AGENCY: Department of Justice. populations, organizations favoring the Department is also aware of the related ACTION: Policy guidance document. use of the English language, language training, operational, and planning SUMMARY: The Department of Justice assistance service providers, and state benefits most recipients would derive (DOJ) adopts final Guidance to Federal agencies. While many comments from the generation and maintenance of Financial Assistance Recipients identified areas for improvement and/or an updated written language assistance Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against revision, the overall response to the plan for use by its employees. In the National Origin Discrimination draft DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance was large majority of cases, the benefits Affecting Limited English Proficient favorable. Taken together, a majority of flowing from a written language Persons (DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance). the comments described the draft assistance plan has caused or will likely The DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance is guidance as incorporating ‘‘reasonable cause recipients to develop, with issued pursuant to Executive Order standards’’ or ‘‘helpful provisions’’ varying degrees of detail, such written 13166, and supplants existing guidance providing ‘‘useful suggestions instead of plans. Even small recipients with on the same subject originally published mandatory requirements’’ reflecting limited contact with LEP persons would at 66 FR 3834 (January 16, 2001). ‘‘common sense’’ and a ‘‘more measured likely benefit from having a plan in tone’’ over prior LEP guidance place to assure that, when the need DATES: Effective June 12, 2002. documents. arises, staff have a written plan to turn FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Two of the comments urged to—even if it is only how to access a Merrily A. Friedlander, Chief, withdrawal of the draft guidance as telephonic or community-based Coordination and Review Section, Civil unsupported by law. In response, the interpretation service—when Rights Division, 950 Pennsylvania Department notes here as it did in the determining what language services to Avenue, NW–NYA, Washington, DC draft Recipient LEP Guidance published provide and how to provide them. 20530. Telephone 202–307–2222; TDD: on April 18, 2002 that the Department’s However, the fact that the vast 202–307–2678. commitment to implement Title VI majority of the Department’s recipients SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under through regulations reaching language already have or will likely develop a DOJ regulations implementing Title VI barriers is long-standing and is written LEP plan to reap its many of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. unaffected by recent judicial action benefits does not necessarily mean that 2000d, et seq. (Title VI), recipients of precluding individuals from bringing every recipient, however small its staff, Federal financial assistance have a judicial actions seeking to enforce those limited its resources, or focused its responsibility to ensure meaningful agency regulations. See 67 FR at 19238– services, will realize the same benefits access to their programs and activities 19239. This particular policy guidance and thus must follow an identical path. by persons with limited English clarifies existing statutory and Without clear evidence suggesting that proficiency (LEP). See 28 CFR regulatory requirements for LEP persons the absence of written plans for every 42.104(b)(2). Executive Order 13166, by providing a description of the factors single recipient is impeding reprinted at 65 FR 50121 (August 16, recipients should consider in fulfilling accomplishment of the goal of 2000), directs each Federal agency that their responsibilities to LEP persons. meaningful access, the Department extends assistance subject to the Of the remaining 22 comments, three elects at this juncture to strongly requirements of Title VI to publish supported adoption of the draft recommend but not require written guidance for its respective recipients guidance as published, and 19, while language assistance plans. The

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 41456 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices

Department stresses in this regard that interpreters is necessary and conduct, notices of benefit denials, etc.). neither the absence of a requirement of appropriate in light of the nature of a Others, such as application or written LEP plans in all cases nor the service or benefit being provided and certification forms, solicit important election by an individual recipient the factual context in which that service information required to establish or against drafting a plan obviates the or benefit is being provided. maintain eligibility to participate in a underlying obligation on the part of Nonetheless, the Department concludes Federally-assisted program or activity. each recipient to provide, consistent that the potential for the inappropriate And for some programs or activities, with Title VI, the Title VI regulations, use of informal interpreters or, written documents may be the core and the DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance, conversely, its unnecessary avoidance, benefit or service provided by the reasonable, timely, and appropriate can be minimized through additional program or activity. Moreover, some language assistance to the LEP clarifications in the DOJ Recipient LEP programs or activities may be populations each serves. Guidance. Towards that end, the specifically focused on providing While the Department continues to subsection titled ‘‘Use of Family benefits or services to significant LEP believe that the Recipient LEP Guidance Members, Friends, Other Inmates, or populations. Finally, a recipient may strikes the correct balance between Other Detainees as Interpreters’ of elect to solicit vital information orally as recommendations and requirements in Section VI.A. of the DOJ Recipient LEP a substitute for written documents. For this area, the Department has revised Guidance has been revised to include example, many state unemployment the introductory paragraph of Section guardians and caretakers among the insurance programs are transitioning VII of the Recipient LEP Guidance to potential class of informal interpreters, away from paper-based application and acknowledge a recipient’s discretion in to note that beneficiaries who elect to certification forms in favor of telephone- drafting a written LEP plan yet to provide their own informal interpreter based systems. Also, certain languages emphasize the many benefits that weigh do so at their own expense, to clarify (e.g., Hmong) are oral rather than in favor of such a written plan in the that reliance on informal interpreters written, and thus a high percentage of vast majority of cases. should not be part of any recipient LEP such LEP speakers will likely be unable Informal Interpreters. As in the case of plan, and to expand the discussion of to read translated documents or written written LEP plans, a large number of the the special considerations that should instructions since it is only recently that comments urged the incorporation of guide a recipient’s limited reliance on such languages have been converted to more definitive language strongly informal interpreters. a written form. Each of these factors discouraging or severely limiting the use Safe Harbors. Several comments should play a role in deciding what of informal interpreters such as family focused on safe harbor and vital documents should be translated, what members, guardians, caretakers, friends, documents provisions of the written target languages other than English are or fellow inmates or detainees. Some translations section of the DOJ Recipient appropriate, or even whether more recommended that the draft guidance be LEP Guidance.2 A few comments effective alternatives to a continued revised to prohibit the use of informal observed that the safe harbor standard reliance on written documents to obtain interpreters except in limited or set out in the Recipient LEP Guidance or process vital information exist. emergency situations. A common sub- was too high, potentially permitting As has been emphasized elsewhere, theme running through many of these recipients to avoid translating several the Recipient LEP Guidance is not comments was a concern regarding the critical types of vital documents (e.g., intended to provide a definitive answer technical and ethical competency of notices of denials of benefits or rights, governing the translation of written such interpreters to ensure meaningful leases, rules of conduct, etc.). In documents for all recipients applicable and appropriate access at the level and contrast, another comment pointed to in all cases. Rather, in drafting the safe of the type contemplated under the DOJ this same standard as support for the harbor and vital documents provisions Recipient LEP Guidance.1 position that the safe harbor provision of the Recipient LEP Guidance, the As in the case of written LEP plans, was too low, potentially requiring a Department sought to provide one, but the Department believes that the DOJ large recipient to incur extraordinary not necessarily the only, point of Recipient LEP Guidance provides fiscal burdens to translate all documents reference for when a recipient should sufficient guidance to allow recipients associated with the program or activity. consider translations of documents (or to strike the proper balance between the The decision as to what program- the implementation of alternatives to many situations where the use of related documents should be translated such documents) in light of its informal interpreters is inappropriate, into languages other than English is a particular program or activity, the and the few situations where the difficult one. While documents document or information in question, transitory and/or limited use of informal generated by a recipient may be helpful and the potential LEP populations in understanding a program or activity, served. In furtherance of this purpose, 1 A few comments urged the Department to not all are critical or vital to ensuring the safe harbor and vital document incorporate language detailing particular meaningful access by beneficiaries interpretation standards or approaches. The provisions of the Recipient LEP Department declines to set, as part of the DOJ generally and LEP persons specifically. Guidance have been revised to clarify Recipient LEP Guidance, professional or technical Some documents may create or define the elements of the flexible translation standards for interpretation applicable to all legally enforceable rights or standard, and to acknowledge that recipients in every community and in all situations. responsibilities on the part of individual General guidelines for translator and interpreter distinctions can and should be made competency are already set forth in the guidance. beneficiaries (e.g., leases, rules of between frequently-encountered and Technical and professional standards and necessary less commonly-encountered languages vocabulary and skills for court interpreters and 2 One comment pointed out that current when identifying languages for interpreters in custodial interrogations, for instance, demographic information based on the 2000 Census translation. would be different from those for emergency service or other data was not readily available to assist interpreters, or, in turn, those for interpreters in recipients in identifying the number or proportion Costs Considerations. A number of educational programs for correctional facilities. of LEP persons and the significant language groups comments focused on cost Thus, recipients, beneficiaries, and associations of among their otherwise eligible beneficiaries. The considerations as an element of the professional interpreters and translators should Department is aware of this potential difficulty and Department’s flexible four-factor collaborate in identifying the applicable is, among other things, working with the Census professional and technical interpretation standards Bureau, among other entities, to increase the analysis for identifying and addressing that are appropriate for particular situations. availability of such demographic data. the language assistance needs of LEP

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices 41457

persons. While none urged that costs be clarify the Guidance’s application to of incorporating or offering English as a excluded, some comments expressed activities undertaken by a recipient Second Language (ESL) programs in concern that a recipient could use cost either voluntarily or under contract in parallel with language assistance as a basis for avoiding otherwise support of a Federal agency’s functions. services. ESL courses can serve as an reasonable and necessary language After appropriate revision based on a important adjunct to a proper LEP plan. assistance to LEP persons. In contrast, a careful consideration of the comments, However, the fact that ESL classes are few comments suggested that the with particular focus on the common made available does not obviate the flexible fact-dependent compliance concerns summarized above, the statutory and regulatory requirement to standard incorporated by the DOJ Department adopts final ‘‘Guidance to provide meaningful access for those Recipient LEP Guidance, when Federal Financial Assistance Recipients who are not yet English proficient. combined with the desire of most Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against Recipients of Federal financial recipients to avoid the risk of National Origin Discrimination assistance have an obligation to reduce noncompliance, could lead some large, Affecting Limited English Proficient language barriers that can preclude state-wide recipients to incur Persons.’’ The text of this final guidance meaningful access by LEP persons to unnecessary or inappropriate fiscal document appears below. important government services.1 burdens in the face of already strained It has been determined that this In certain circumstances, failure to program budgets. The Department is Guidance, which supplants existing ensure that LEP persons can effectively mindful that cost considerations could Guidance on the same subject participate in or benefit from Federally be inappropriately used to avoid previously published at 66 FR 3834 assisted programs and activities may providing otherwise reasonable and (January 16, 2001), does not constitute violate the prohibition under Title VI of necessary language assistance. a regulation subject to the rulemaking the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Similarly, cost considerations could be requirements of the Administrative 2000d and Title VI regulations against inappropriately ignored or minimized to Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. national origin discrimination. The justify the provision of a particular level purpose of this policy guidance is to Dated: June 12, 2002. or type of language service where less assist recipients in fulfilling their costly equally effective alternatives R. Alexander Acosta, responsibilities to provide meaningful exist. The Department also does not Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, access to LEP persons under existing dismiss the possibility that the Civil Rights Division. law. This policy guidance clarifies identified need for language services I. Introduction existing legal requirements for LEP might be quite costly for certain types of persons by providing a description of Most individuals living in the United recipients in certain communities, the factors recipients should consider in States read, write, speak and understand particularly if they have not been fulfilling their responsibilities to LEP English. There are many individuals, keeping up with the changing needs of persons.2 These are the same criteria however, for whom English is not their the populations they serve over time. DOJ will use in evaluating whether The potential for possible abuse of primary language. For instance, based recipients are in compliance with Title cost considerations by some does not, in on the 2000 census, over 26 million VI and Title VI regulations. the Department’s view, justify its individuals speak Spanish and almost 7 The Department of Justice’s role elimination as a factor in all cases when million individuals speak an Asian or under Executive Order 13166 is unique. determining the appropriate ‘‘mix’’ of Pacific Island language at home. If these The Order charges DOJ with reasonable language assistance services individuals have a limited ability to responsibility for providing LEP determined necessary under the DOJ read, write, speak, or understand Guidance to other Federal agencies and Recipient LEP Guidance to ensure English, they are limited English for ensuring consistency among each meaningful access by LEP persons to proficient, or ‘‘LEP.’’ While detailed agency-specific guidance. Consistency Federally assisted programs and data from the 2000 census has not yet among Departments of the Federal activities. The Department continues to been released, 26% of all Spanish- government is particularly important. believe that costs are a legitimate speakers, 29.9% of all Chinese-speakers, Inconsistency or contradictory guidance consideration in identifying the and 28.2% of all Vietnamese-speakers could confuse recipients of Federal reasonableness of particular language reported that they spoke English ‘‘not funds and needlessly increase costs assistance measures, and that the DOJ well’’ or ‘‘not at all’’ in response to the without rendering the meaningful Recipient LEP Guidance identifies the 1990 census. access for LEP persons that this appropriate framework through which Language for LEP individuals can be costs are to be considered. a barrier to accessing important benefits 1 DOJ recognizes that many recipients had In addition to the four larger concerns or services, understanding and language assistance programs in place prior to the exercising important rights, complying issuance of Executive Order 13166. This policy noted above, the Department has guidance provides a uniform framework for a substituted, where appropriate, with applicable responsibilities, or recipient to integrate, formalize, and assess the technical or stylistic changes that more understanding other information continued vitality of these existing and possibly clearly articulate, in the Department’s provided by Federally funded programs additional reasonable efforts based on the nature of and activities. The Federal Government its program or activity, the current needs of the LEP view, the underlying principle, populations it encounters, and its prior experience guideline, or recommendation detailed funds an array of services that can be in providing language services in the community it in the Guidance. In addition, the made accessible to otherwise eligible serves. Guidance has been modified to expand LEP persons. The Federal Government 2 The policy guidance is not a regulation but the definition of ‘‘courts’’ to include is committed to improving the rather a guide. Title VI and its implementing regulations require that recipients take responsible administrative adjudications conducted accessibility of these programs and steps to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons. by a recipient; to acknowledge that activities to eligible LEP persons, a goal This guidance provides an analytical framework English language instruction is an that reinforces its equally important that recipients may use to determine how best to important adjunct to (but not substitute commitment to promoting programs and comply with statutory and regulatory obligations to provide meaningful access to the benefits, services, for) the obligation to ensure access to activities designed to help individuals information, and other important portions of their Federally assisted programs and learn English. Recipients should not programs and activities for individuals who are activities by all eligible persons; and to overlook the long-term positive impacts limited English proficient.

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 41458 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices

Guidance is designed to address. As that is effective for all eligible of subjecting individuals to with most government initiatives, this beneficiaries, including those with discrimination because of their race, requires balancing several principles. limited English proficiency. color, or national origin, or have the While this Guidance discusses that effect of defeating or substantially II. Legal Authority balance in some detail, it is important impairing accomplishment of the to note the basic principles behind that Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil objectives of the program as respects balance. First, we must ensure that Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, individuals of a particular race, color, or Federally-assisted programs aimed at provides that no person shall ‘‘on the national origin.’’ the American public do not leave some ground of race, color, or national origin, On that same day, DOJ issued a behind simply because they face be excluded from participation in, be general guidance document addressed challenges communicating in English. denied the benefits of, or be subjected to ‘‘Executive Agency Civil Rights This is of particular importance to discrimination under any program or Officers’’ setting forth general principles because, in many cases, LEP individuals activity receiving Federal financial for agencies to apply in developing form a substantial portion of those assistance.’’ Section 602 authorizes and guidance documents for recipients encountered in Federally-assisted directs Federal agencies that are pursuant to the Executive Order. programs. Second, we must achieve this empowered to extend Federal financial ‘‘Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil goal while finding constructive methods assistance to any program or activity ‘‘to Rights Act of 1964 National Origin to reduce the costs of LEP requirements effectuate the provisions of [section 601] Discrimination Against Persons With on small businesses, small local * * * by issuing rules, regulations, or Limited English Proficiency,’’ 65 FR governments, or small non-profits that orders of general applicability.’’ 42 50123 (August 16, 2000) (‘‘DOJ LEP receive Federal financial assistance. U.S.C. 2000d–1. Guidance’’). There are many productive steps that Department of Justice regulations Subsequently, Federal agencies raised the Federal government, either promulgated pursuant to section 602 questions regarding the requirements of collectively or as individual grant forbid recipients from ‘‘utiliz[ing] the Executive Order, especially in light agencies, can take to help recipients criteria or methods of administration of the Supreme Court’s decision in reduce the costs of language services which have the effect of subjecting Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 without sacrificing meaningful access individuals to discrimination because of (2001). On October 26, 2001, Ralph F. for LEP persons. Without these steps, their race, color, or national origin, or Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General for certain smaller grantees may well have the effect of defeating or the Civil Rights Division, issued a choose not to participate in Federally substantially impairing accomplishment memorandum for ‘‘Heads of assisted programs, threatening the of the objectives of the program as Departments and Agencies, General critical functions that the programs respects individuals of a particular race, Counsels and Civil Rights Directors.’’ color, or national origin.’’ 28 CFR strive to provide. To that end, the This memorandum clarified and 42.104(b)(2). Department plans to continue to provide reaffirmed the DOJ LEP Guidance in assistance and guidance in this The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 3 414 U.S. 563 (1974), interpreted light of Sandoval. The Assistant important area. In addition, DOJ plans Attorney General stated that because to work with representatives of law regulations promulgated by the former Department of Health, Education, and Sandoval did not invalidate any Title VI enforcement, corrections, courts, regulations that proscribe conduct that administrative agencies, and LEP Welfare, including a regulation similar to that of DOJ, 45 CFR 80.3(b)(2), to hold has a disparate impact on covered persons to identify and share model groups—the types of regulations that plans, examples of best practices, and that Title VI prohibits conduct that has a disproportionate effect on LEP persons form the legal basis for the part of cost-saving approaches. Moreover, DOJ Executive Order 13166 that applies to intends to explore how language because such conduct constitutes national-origin discrimination. In Lau, a Federally assisted programs and assistance measures, resources and cost- activities—the Executive Order remains containment approaches developed San Francisco school district that had a significant number of non-English in force. with respect to its own Federally Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, conducted programs and activities can speaking students of Chinese origin was required to take reasonable steps to DOJ developed its own guidance be effectively shared or otherwise made document for recipients and initially available to recipients, particularly provide them with a meaningful opportunity to participate in Federally small businesses, small local 3 The memorandum noted that some governments, and small non-profits. An funded educational programs. commentators have interpreted Sandoval as interagency working group on LEP has On August 11, 2000, Executive Order impliedly striking down the disparate-impact developed a Web site, www.lep.gov, to 13166 was issued. ‘‘Improving Access to regulations promulgated under Title VI that form Services for Persons with Limited the basis for the part of Executive Order 13166 that assist in disseminating this information applies to Federally assisted programs and to recipients, Federal agencies, and the English Proficiency,’’ 65 FR 50121 activities. See, e.g., Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 286, 286 communities being served. (August 16, 2000). Under that order, n.6 (‘‘[W]e assume for purposes of this decision that Many commentators have noted that every Federal agency that provides section 602 confers the authority to promulgate some have interpreted the case of financial assistance to non-Federal disparate-impact regulations; * * * We cannot help observing, however, how strange it is to say that Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 entities must publish guidance on how disparate-impact regulations are ‘inspired by, at the (2001), as impliedly striking down the their recipients can provide meaningful service of, and inseparably intertwined with ’ Sec. regulations promulgated under Title VI access to LEP persons and thus comply 601 * * * when Sec. 601 permits the very behavior that form the basis for the part of with Title VI regulations forbidding that the regulations forbid.’’). The memorandum, however, made clear that DOJ disagreed with the Executive Order 13166 that applies to funding recipients from ‘‘restrict[ing] an commentators’ interpretation. Sandoval holds Federally assisted programs and individual in any way in the enjoyment principally that there is no private right of action activities. We have taken the position of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by to enforce Title VI disparate-impact regulations. It that this is not the case, and will others receiving any service, financial did not address the validity of those regulations or Executive Order 13166 or otherwise limit the continue to do so. Accordingly, we will aid, or other benefit under the program’’ authority and responsibility of Federal grant strive to ensure that Federally assisted or from ‘‘utiliz[ing] criteria or methods agencies to enforce their own implementing programs and activities work in a way of administration which have the effect regulations.

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices 41459

issued it on January 16, 2001. recipient receives the Federal served or likely to be encountered by ‘‘Guidance to Federal Financial assistance.6 the program or grantee; (2) the Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Example: DOJ provides assistance to a frequency with which LEP individuals Prohibition Against National Origin state department of corrections to come in contact with the program; (3) Discrimination Affecting Limited improve a particular prison facility. All the nature and importance of the English Proficient Persons,’’ 66 FR 3834 of the operations of the entire state program, activity, or service provided by (January 16, 2001) (‘‘LEP Guidance for department of corrections—not just the the program to people’s lives; and (4) DOJ Recipients’’). Because DOJ did not particular prison—are covered. the resources available to the grantee/ receive significant public comment on Finally, some recipients operate in recipient and costs. As indicated above, its January 16, 2001 publication, the jurisdictions in which English has been the intent of this guidance is to suggest Department republished on January 18, declared the official language. a balance that ensures meaningful 2002 its existing guidance document for Nonetheless, these recipients continue access by LEP persons to critical additional public comment. ‘‘Guidance to be subject to Federal non- services while not imposing undue to Federal Financial Assistance discrimination requirements, including burdens on small business, small local Recipients Regarding Title VI those applicable to the provision of governments, or small nonprofits. Prohibition Against National Origin Federally assisted services to persons After applying the above four-factor Discrimination Affecting Limited with limited English proficiency. analysis, a recipient may conclude that English Proficient Persons,’’ 67 FR 2671 different language assistance measures IV. Who Is a Limited English Proficient are sufficient for the different types of (January 18, 2002). The Department has Individual? since received substantial public programs or activities in which it comment. Individuals who do not speak English engages. For instance, some of a This guidance document is thus as their primary language and who have recipient’s activities will be more published pursuant to Executive Order a limited ability to read, write, speak, or important than others and/or have 13166 and supplants the January 16, understand English can be limited greater impact on or contact with LEP 2001 publication in light of the public English proficient, or ‘‘LEP,’’ entitled to persons, and thus may require more in comment received and Assistant language assistance with respect to a the way of language assistance. The Attorney General Boyd’s October 26, particular type of service, benefit, or flexibility that recipients have in 2001 clarifying memorandum. encounter. addressing the needs of the LEP Examples of populations likely to populations they serve does not III. Who Is Covered? include LEP persons who are diminish, and should not be used to Department of Justice regulations, 28 encountered and/or served by DOJ minimize, the obligation that those CFR 42.104(b)(2), require all recipients recipients and should be considered needs be addressed. DOJ recipients of Federal financial assistance from DOJ when planning language services should apply the following four factors to provide meaningful access to LEP include, but are not limited to: to the various kinds of contacts that they persons.4 Federal financial assistance • Persons who are in the custody of have with the public to assess language includes grants, training, use of the recipient, including juveniles, needs and decide what reasonable steps equipment, donations of surplus detainees, wards, and inmates. they should take to ensure meaningful property, and other assistance. • Persons subject to or serviced by access for LEP persons. Recipients of DOJ assistance include, for law enforcement activities, including, (1) The Number or Proportion of LEP example: for example, suspects, violators, Persons Served or Encountered in the • Police and sheriffs’ departments witnesses, victims, those subject to Eligible Service Population • immigration-related investigations by Departments of corrections, jails, and One factor in determining what detention facilities, including those recipient law enforcement agencies, and community members seeking to language services recipients should recipients that house detainees of the provide is the number or proportion of Immigration and Naturalization participate in crime prevention or awareness activities. LEP persons from a particular language Service • group served or encountered in the • 5 Persons who encounter the court Courts eligible service population. The greater • Certain non profit agencies with law system. • Parents and family members of the the number or proportion of these LEP enforcement, public safety, and victim persons, the more likely language assistance missions; above. • services are needed. Ordinarily, persons Other entities with public safety and V. How Does a Recipient Determine the ‘‘eligible to be served, or likely to be emergency service missions. Extent of Its Obligation To Provide LEP directly affected, by’’ a recipient’s Subrecipients likewise are covered Services? program or activity are those who are when Federal funds are passed through Recipients are required to take served or encountered in the eligible from one recipient to a subrecipient. reasonable steps to ensure meaningful service population. This population will Coverage extends to a recipient’s access to their programs and activities be program-specific, and includes entire program or activity, i.e., to all by LEP persons. While designed to be a persons who are in the geographic area parts of a recipient’s operations. This is flexible and fact-dependent standard, that has been approved by a Federal true even if only one part of the the starting point is an individualized grant agency as the recipient’s service assessment that balances the following area. However, where, for instance, a 4 Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, the four factors: (1) The number or precinct serves a large LEP population, meaningful access requirement of the Title VI regulations and the four-factor analysis set forth in proportion of LEP persons eligible to be the appropriate service area is most the DOJ LEP Guidance are to additionally apply to likely the precinct, and not the entire the programs and activities of Federal agencies, 6 However, if a Federal agency were to decide to population served by the department. including the Department of Justice. terminate Federal funds based on noncompliance Where no service area has previously 5 As used in this guidance, the word ‘‘court’’ or with Title VI or its regulations, only funds directed ‘‘courts’’ includes administrative adjudicatory to the particular program or activity that is out of been approved, the relevant service area systems or administrative hearings administered or compliance would be terminated. 42 U.S.C. 2000d– may be that which is approved by state conducted by a recipient. 1. or local authorities or designated by the

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 41460 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices

recipient itself, provided that these contacts. For example, frequent contacts assistance materials and services among designations do not themselves with Spanish-speaking people who are and between recipients, advocacy discriminatorily exclude certain LEP may require certain assistance in groups, and Federal grant agencies; and populations. Appendix A provides Spanish. Less frequent contact with reasonable business practices. Where examples to assist in determining the different language groups may suggest a appropriate, training bilingual staff to relevant service area. When considering different and less intensified solution. If act as interpreters and translators, the number or proportion of LEP an LEP individual accesses a program or information sharing through industry individuals in a service area, recipients service on a daily basis, a recipient has groups, telephonic and video should consider LEP parent(s) when greater duties than if the same conferencing interpretation services, their English-proficient or LEP minor individual’s program or activity contact pooling resources and standardizing children and dependents encounter the is unpredictable or infrequent. But even documents to reduce translation needs, legal system. recipients that serve LEP persons on an using qualified translators and Recipients should first examine their unpredictable or infrequent basis should interpreters to ensure that documents prior experiences with LEP encounters use this balancing analysis to determine need not be ‘‘fixed’’ later and that and determine the breadth and scope of what to do if an LEP individual seeks inaccurate interpretations do not cause language services that were needed. In services under the program in question. delay or other costs, centralizing conducting this analysis, it is important This plan need not be intricate. It may interpreter and translator services to to include language minority be as simple as being prepared to use achieve economies of scale, or the populations that are eligible for their one of the commercially-available formalized use of qualified community programs or activities but may be telephonic interpretation services to volunteers, for example, may help underserved because of existing obtain immediate interpreter services. In reduce costs.8 Recipients should language barriers. Other data should be applying this standard, recipients carefully explore the most cost-effective consulted to refine or validate a should take care to consider whether means of delivering competent and recipient’s prior experience, including appropriate outreach to LEP persons accurate language services before the latest census data for the area could increase the frequency of contact limiting services due to resource served, data from school systems and with LEP language groups. concerns. Large entities and those from community organizations, and data (3) The Nature and Importance of the entities serving a significant number or from state and local governments.7 Program, Activity, or Service Provided proportion of LEP persons should Community agencies, school systems, by the Program ensure that their resource limitations are religious organizations, legal aid well-substantiated before using this The more important the activity, entities, and others can often assist in factor as a reason to limit language information, service, or program, or the identifying populations for whom assistance. Such recipients may find it greater the possible consequences of the outreach is needed and who would useful to be able to articulate, through contact to the LEP individuals, the more benefit from the recipients’ programs documentation or in some other likely language services are needed. The and activities were language services reasonable manner, their process for obligations to communicate rights to a provided. determining that language services person who is arrested or to provide would be limited based on resources or (2) The Frequency With Which LEP medical services to an ill or injured costs. Individuals Come in Contact With the inmate differ, for example, from those to This four-factor analysis necessarily Program provide bicycle safety courses or implicates the ‘‘mix’’ of LEP services Recipients should assess, as recreational programming. A recipient required. Recipients have two main accurately as possible, the frequency needs to determine whether denial or ways to provide language services: Oral with which they have or should have delay of access to services or interpretation either in person or via contact with an LEP individual from information could have serious or even telephone interpretation service different language groups seeking life-threatening implications for the LEP (hereinafter ‘‘interpretation’’) and assistance. The more frequent the individual. Decisions by a Federal, written translation (hereinafter contact with a particular language State, or local entity to make an activity ‘‘translation’’). Oral interpretation can group, the more likely that enhanced compulsory, such as particular range from on-site interpreters for language services in that language are educational programs in a correctional critical services provided to a high needed. The steps that are reasonable facility or the communication of volume of LEP persons to access for a recipient that serves an LEP person Miranda rights, can serve as strong through commercially-available on a one-time basis will be very evidence of the program’s importance. telephonic interpretation services. different than those expected from a (4) The Resources Available to the Written translation, likewise, can range recipient that serves LEP persons daily. Recipient and Costs from translation of an entire document It is also advisable to consider the A recipient’s level of resources and to translation of a short description of frequency of different types of language the costs that would be imposed on it the document. In some cases, language services should be made available on an 7 may have an impact on the nature of the The focus of the analysis is on lack of English steps it should take. Smaller recipients expedited basis while in others the LEP proficiency, not the ability to speak more than one individual may be referred to another language. Note that demographic data may indicate with more limited budgets are not the most frequently spoken languages other than expected to provide the same level of office of the recipient for language English and the percentage of people who speak language services as larger recipients assistance. that language who speak or understand English less The correct mix should be based on than well. Some of the most commonly spoken with larger budgets. In addition, ‘‘reasonable steps’’ may cease to be what is both necessary and reasonable languages other than English may be spoken by in light of the four-factor analysis. For people who are also overwhelmingly proficient in reasonable where the costs imposed English. Thus, they may not be the languages substantially exceed the benefits. spoken most frequently by limited English 8 Small recipients with limited resources may proficient individuals. When using demographic Resource and cost issues, however, find that entering into a bulk telephonic data, it is important to focus in on the languages can often be reduced by technological interpretation service contract will prove cost spoken by those who are not proficient in English. advances; the sharing of language effective.

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices 41461

instance, a police department in a Demonstrate proficiency in and in a timely manner. To be meaningfully largely Hispanic neighborhood may ability to communicate information effective, language assistance should be need immediate oral interpreters accurately in both English and in the timely. While there is no single available and should give serious other language and identify and employ definition for ‘‘timely’’ applicable to all consideration to hiring some bilingual the appropriate mode of interpreting types of interactions at all times by all staff. (Of course, many police (e.g., consecutive, simultaneous, types of recipients, one clear guide is departments have already made such summarization, or sight translation); that the language assistance should be arrangements.) In contrast, there may be Have knowledge in both languages of provided at a time and place that avoids circumstances where the importance any specialized terms or concepts the effective denial of the service, and nature of the activity and number peculiar to the entity’s program or benefit, or right at issue or the or proportion and frequency of contact activity and of any particularized imposition of an undue burden on or with LEP persons may be low and the vocabulary and phraseology used by the delay in important rights, benefits, or costs and resources needed to provide LEP person; 9 and understand and services to the LEP person. For example, language services may be high—such as follow confidentiality and impartiality when the timeliness of services is in the case of a voluntary general public rules to the same extent the recipient important, such as with certain tour of a courthouse—in which pre- employee for whom they are activities of DOJ recipients providing arranged language services for the interpreting and/or to the extent their law enforcement, health, and safety particular service may not be necessary. position requires. services, and when important legal Regardless of the type of language Understand and adhere to their role as rights are at issue, a recipient would service provided, quality and accuracy interpreters without deviating into a likely not be providing meaningful of those services can be critical in order role as counselor, legal advisor, or other access if it had one bilingual staffer to avoid serious consequences to the roles (particularly in court, available one day a week to provide the LEP person and to the recipient. administrative hearings, or law service. Such conduct would likely Recipients have substantial flexibility in enforcement contexts). result in delays for LEP persons that determining the appropriate mix. Some recipients, such as courts, may would be significantly greater than have additional self-imposed those for English proficient persons. VI. Selecting Language Assistance requirements for interpreters. Where Conversely, where access to or exercise Services individual rights depend on precise, of a service, benefit, or right is not complete, and accurate interpretation or Recipients have two main ways to effectively precluded by a reasonable translations, particularly in the contexts provide language services: oral and delay, language assistance can likely be of courtrooms and custodial or other written language services. Quality and delayed for a reasonable period. police interrogations, the use of certified accuracy of the language service is interpreters is strongly encouraged.10 Hiring Bilingual Staff. When critical in order to avoid serious Where such proceedings are lengthy, the particular languages are encountered consequences to the LEP person and to interpreter will likely need breaks and often, hiring bilingual staff offers one of the recipient. team interpreting may be appropriate to the best, and often most economical, A. Oral Language Services ensure accuracy and to prevent errors options. Recipients can, for example, fill (Interpretation) caused by mental fatigue of interpreters. public contact positions, such as 911 While quality and accuracy of operators, police officers, guards, or Interpretation is the act of listening to language services is critical, the quality program directors, with staff who are something in one language (source and accuracy of language services is bilingual and competent to language) and orally translating it into nonetheless part of the appropriate mix communicate directly with LEP persons another language (target language). of LEP services required. The quality in their language. If bilingual staff are Where interpretation is needed and is and accuracy of language services in a also used to interpret between English reasonable, recipients should consider prison hospital emergency room, for speakers and LEP persons, or to orally some or all of the following options for example, must be extraordinarily high, interpret written documents from providing competent interpreters in a while the quality and accuracy of English into another language, they timely manner: language services in a bicycle safety should be competent in the skill of Competence of Interpreters. When class need not meet the same exacting interpreting. Being bilingual does not providing oral assistance, recipients standards. necessarily mean that a person has the should ensure competency of the Finally, when interpretation is needed ability to interpret. In addition, there language service provider, no matter and is reasonable, it should be provided may be times when the role of the which of the strategies outlined below bilingual employee may conflict with are used. Competency requires more 9 Many languages have ‘‘regionalisms,’’ or the role of an interpreter (for instance, than self-identification as bilingual. differences in usage. For instance, a word that may a bilingual law clerk would probably be understood to mean something in Spanish for Some bilingual staff and community someone from Cuba may not be so understood by not be able to perform effectively the volunteers, for instance, may be able to someone from Mexico. In addition, because there role of a courtroom or administrative communicate effectively in a different may be languages which do not have an appropriate hearing interpreter and law clerk at the language when communicating direct interpretation of some courtroom or legal same time, even if the law clerk were a terms and the interpreter should be so aware and information directly in that language, be able to provide the most appropriate qualified interpreter). Effective but not be competent to interpret in and interpretation. The interpreter should likely make management strategies, including any out of English. Likewise, they may not the recipient aware of the issue and the interpreter appropriate adjustments in assignments be able to do written translations. and recipient can then work to develop a consistent and appropriate set of descriptions of these terms and protocols for using bilingual staff, Competency to interpret, however, in that language that can be used again, when can ensure that bilingual staff are fully does not necessarily mean formal appropriate. and appropriately utilized. When certification as an interpreter, although 10 For those languages in which no formal bilingual staff cannot meet all of the certification is helpful. When using accreditation or certification currently exists, courts language service obligations of the and law enforcement agencies should consider a interpreters, recipients should ensure formal process for establishing the credentials of the recipient, the recipient should turn to that they: interpreter. other options.

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 41462 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices

Hiring Staff Interpreters. Hiring information or services of the program addition, such informal interpreters may interpreters may be most helpful where and can communicate directly with LEP have a personal connection to the LEP there is a frequent need for interpreting persons in their language. Just as with person or an undisclosed conflict of services in one or more languages. all interpreters, community volunteers interest, such as the desire to protect Depending on the facts, sometimes it used to interpret between English themselves or another perpetrator in a may be necessary and reasonable to speakers and LEP persons, or to orally domestic violence or other criminal provide on-site interpreters to provide translate documents, should be matter. For these reasons, when oral accurate and meaningful competent in the skill of interpreting language services are necessary, communication with an LEP person. and knowledgeable about applicable recipients should generally offer Contracting for Interpreters. Contract confidentiality and impartiality rules. competent interpreter services free of interpreters may be a cost-effective Recipients should consider formal cost to the LEP person. For DOJ option when there is no regular need for arrangements with community-based recipient programs and activities, this is a particular language skill. In addition organizations that provide volunteers to particularly true in a courtroom, to commercial and other private address these concerns and to help administrative hearing, pre- and post- providers, many community-based ensure that services are available more trial proceedings, situations in which organizations and mutual assistance regularly. health, safety, or access to important associations provide interpretation Use of Family Members, Friends, benefits and services are at stake, or services for particular languages. Other Inmates, or Other Detainees as when credibility and accuracy are Contracting with and providing training Interpreters. Although recipients should important to protect an individual’s regarding the recipient’s programs and not plan to rely on an LEP person’s rights and access to important services. processes to these organizations can be family members, friends, or other An example of such a case is when a cost-effective option for providing informal interpreters to provide police officers respond to a domestic language services to LEP persons from meaningful access to important violence call. In such a case, use of those language groups. programs and activities, where LEP family members or neighbors to Using Telephone Interpreter Lines. persons so desire, they should be interpret for the alleged victim, Telephone interpreter service lines often permitted to use, at their own expense, perpetrator, or witnesses may raise offer speedy interpreting assistance in an interpreter of their own choosing serious issues of competency, many different languages. They may be (whether a professional interpreter, confidentiality, and conflict of interest particularly appropriate where the mode family member, friend, other inmate, and is thus inappropriate. While issues of communicating with an English other detainee) in place of or as a of competency, confidentiality, and proficient person would also be over the supplement to the free language services conflict of interest in the use of family phone. Although telephonic expressly offered by the recipient. LEP members (especially children), friends, interpretation services are useful in persons may feel more comfortable other inmates or other detainees often many situations, it is important to when a trusted family member, friend, make their use inappropriate, the use of ensure that, when using such services, or other inmate acts as an interpreter. In these individuals as interpreters may be the interpreters used are competent to addition, in exigent circumstances that an appropriate option where proper interpret any technical or legal terms are not reasonably foreseeable, application of the four factors would specific to a particular program that may temporary use of interpreters not lead to a conclusion that recipient- be important parts of the conversation. provided by the recipient may be provided services are not necessary. An Nuances in language and non-verbal necessary. However, with proper example of this is a voluntary communication can often assist an planning and implementation, educational tour of a courthouse offered interpreter and cannot be recognized recipients should be able to avoid most to the public. There, the importance and over the phone. Video teleconferencing such situations. nature of the activity may be relatively may sometimes help to resolve this Recipients, however, should take low and unlikely to implicate issues of issue where necessary. In addition, special care to ensure that family, legal confidentiality, conflict of interest, or where documents are being discussed, it guardians, caretakers, and other the need for accuracy. In addition, the is important to give telephonic informal interpreters are appropriate in resources needed and costs of providing interpreters adequate opportunity to light of the circumstances and subject language services may be high. In such review the document prior to the matter of the program, service or a setting, an LEP person’s use of family, discussion and any logistical problems activity, including protection of the friends, or others may be appropriate. should be addressed. recipient’s own administrative or Using Community Volunteers. In If the LEP person voluntarily chooses enforcement interest in accurate to provide his or her own interpreter, a addition to consideration of bilingual interpretation. In many circumstances, staff, staff interpreters, or contract recipient should consider whether a family members (especially children), record of that choice and of the interpreters (either in-person or by friends, other inmates or other detainees telephone) as options to ensure recipient’s offer of assistance is are not competent to provide quality appropriate. Where precise, complete, meaningful access by LEP persons, use and accurate interpretations. Issues of of recipient-coordinated community confidentiality, privacy, or conflict of regarding the voluntary nature, conflicts of interest, volunteers, working with, for instance, interest may also arise. LEP individuals and privacy issues surrounding the use of inmates community-based organizations may may feel uncomfortable revealing or and detainees as interpreters, particularly where an provide a cost-effective supplemental describing sensitive, confidential, or important right, benefit, service, disciplinary language assistance strategy under concern, or access to personal or law enforcement potentially embarrassing medical, law information is at stake. In some situations, inmates appropriate circumstances. They may be enforcement (e.g., sexual or violent could potentially misuse information they obtained particularly useful in providing assaults), family, or financial in interpreting for other inmates. In addition to language access for a recipient’s less information to a family member, friend, ensuring competency and accuracy of the critical programs and activities. To the 11 interpretation, recipients should take these special or member of the local community. In circumstances into account when determining extent the recipient relies on whether an inmate or detainee makes a knowing community volunteers, it is often best to 11 For example, special circumstances of and voluntary choice to use another inmate or use volunteers who are trained in the confinement may raise additional serious concerns detainee as an interpreter.

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices 41463

and accurate interpretations or to the LEP person if the information in are frequently encountered by a translations of information and/or question is not provided accurately or in recipient and less commonly- testimony are critical for law a timely manner. For instance, encountered languages. Many recipients enforcement, adjudicatory, or legal applications for bicycle safety courses serve communities in large cities or reasons, or where the competency of the should not generally be considered across the country. They regularly serve LEP person’s interpreter is not vital, whereas applications for drug and LEP persons who speak dozens and established, a recipient might decide to alcohol counseling in prison could be sometimes over 100 different languages. provide its own, independent considered vital. Where appropriate, To translate all written materials into all interpreter, even if an LEP person wants recipients are encouraged to create a of those languages is unrealistic. to use his or her own interpreter as well. plan for consistently determining, over Although recent technological advances Extra caution should be exercised when time and across its various activities, have made it easier for recipients to the LEP person chooses to use a minor what documents are ‘‘vital’’ to the store and share translated documents, as the interpreter. While the LEP meaningful access of the LEP such an undertaking would incur person’s decision should be respected, populations they serve. substantial costs and require substantial there may be additional issues of Classifying a document as vital or resources. Nevertheless, well- competency, confidentiality, or conflict non-vital is sometimes difficult, substantiated claims of lack of resources of interest when the choice involves especially in the case of outreach to translate all vital documents into using children as interpreters. The materials like brochures or other dozens of languages do not necessarily recipient should take care to ensure that information on rights and services. relieve the recipient of the obligation to the LEP person’s choice is voluntary, Awareness of rights or services is an translate those documents into at least that the LEP person is aware of the important part of ‘‘meaningful access.’’ several of the more frequently- possible problems if the preferred Lack of awareness that a particular encountered languages and to set interpreter is a minor child, and that the program, right, or service exists may benchmarks for continued translations LEP person knows that a competent effectively deny LEP individuals into the remaining languages over time. interpreter could be provided by the meaningful access. Thus, where a As a result, the extent of the recipient’s recipient at no cost. recipient is engaged in community obligation to provide written outreach activities in furtherance of its translations of documents should be B. Written Language Services activities, it should regularly assess the determined by the recipient on a case- (Translation) needs of the populations frequently by-case basis, looking at the totality of Translation is the replacement of a encountered or affected by the program the circumstances in light of the four- written text from one language (source or activity to determine whether certain factor analysis. Because translation is a language) into an equivalent written text critical outreach materials should be one-time expense, consideration should in another language (target language). translated. Community organizations be given to whether the upfront cost of What Documents Should be may be helpful in determining what translating a document (as opposed to Translated? After applying the four- outreach materials may be most helpful oral interpretation) should be amortized factor analysis, a recipient may to translate. In addition, the recipient over the likely lifespan of the document determine that an effective LEP plan for should consider whether translations of when applying this four-factor analysis. its particular program or activity outreach material may be made more Safe Harbor. Many recipients would includes the translation of vital written effective when done in tandem with like to ensure with greater certainty that materials into the language of each other outreach methods, including they comply with their obligations to frequently-encountered LEP group utilizing the ethnic media, schools, provide written translations in eligible to be served and/or likely to be religious, and community organizations languages other than English. affected by the recipient’s program. to spread a message. Paragraphs (a) and (b) outline the Sometimes a document includes both circumstances that can provide a ‘‘safe Such written materials could include, vital and non-vital information. This harbor’’ for recipients regarding the for example: may be the case when the document is requirements for translation of written • Consent and complaint forms • very large. It may also be the case when materials. A ‘‘safe harbor’’ means that if Intake forms with the potential for the title and a phone number for a recipient provides written translations important consequences • obtaining more information on the under these circumstances, such action Written notices of rights, denial, loss, contents of the document in frequently- will be considered strong evidence of or decreases in benefits or services, encountered languages other than compliance with the recipient’s written- parole, and other hearings English is critical, but the document is • translation obligations. Notices of disciplinary action sent out to the general public and The failure to provide written • Notices advising LEP persons of free cannot reasonably be translated into translations under the circumstances language assistance many languages. Thus, vital information outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) does • Prison rule books may include, for instance, the provision not mean there is non-compliance. • Written tests that do not assess of information in appropriate languages Rather, they provide a common starting English language competency, but test other than English regarding where a point for recipients to consider whether competency for a particular license, LEP person might obtain an and at what point the importance of the job, or skill for which knowing interpretation or translation of the service, benefit, or activity involved; the English is not required document. nature of the information sought; and • Applications to participate in a Into What Languages Should the number or proportion of LEP recipient’s program or activity or to Documents be Translated? The persons served call for written receive recipient benefits or services. languages spoken by the LEP translations of commonly-used forms Whether or not a document (or the individuals with whom the recipient into frequently-encountered languages information it solicits) is ‘‘vital’’ may has contact determine the languages other than English. Thus, these depend upon the importance of the into which vital documents should be paragraphs merely provide a guide for program, information, encounter, or translated. A distinction should be recipients that would like greater service involved, and the consequence made, however, between languages that certainty of compliance than can be

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 41464 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices

provided by a fact-intensive, four-factor second, independent translator ‘‘check’’ The permanent nature of written analysis. the work of the primary translator. translations, however, imposes Example: Even if the safe harbors are Alternatively, one translator can additional responsibility on the not used, if written translation of a translate the document, and a second, recipient to ensure that the quality and certain document(s) would be so independent translator could translate it accuracy permit meaningful access by burdensome as to defeat the legitimate back into English to check that the LEP persons. objectives of its program, the translation appropriate meaning has been of the written materials is not necessary. VII. Elements of Effective Plan on conveyed. This is called ‘‘back Language Assistance for LEP Persons Other ways of providing meaningful translation.’’ access, such as effective oral Translators should understand the After completing the four-factor interpretation of certain vital expected reading level of the audience analysis and deciding what language documents, might be acceptable under and, where appropriate, have assistance services are appropriate, a such circumstances. fundamental knowledge about the target recipient should develop an Safe Harbor. The following actions language group’s vocabulary and implementation plan to address the will be considered strong evidence of phraseology. Sometimes direct identified needs of the LEP populations compliance with the recipient’s written- translation of materials results in a they serve. Recipients have considerable translation obligations: translation that is written at a much flexibility in developing this plan. The (a) The DOJ recipient provides written more difficult level than the English development and maintenance of a translations of vital documents for each language version or has no relevant periodically-updated written plan on eligible LEP language group that equivalent meaning.13 Community language assistance for LEP persons constitutes five percent or 1,000, organizations may be able to help (‘‘LEP plan’’) for use by recipient whichever is less, of the population of consider whether a document is written employees serving the public will likely persons eligible to be served or likely to at a good level for the audience. be the most appropriate and cost- be affected or encountered. Translation Likewise, consistency in the words and effective means of documenting of other documents, if needed, can be phrases used to translate terms of art, compliance and providing a framework provided orally; or legal, or other technical concepts helps for the provision of timely and (b) If there are fewer than 50 persons avoid confusion by LEP individuals and reasonable language assistance. in a language group that reaches the five may reduce costs. Creating or using Moreover, such written plans would percent trigger in (a), the recipient does already-created glossaries of commonly- likely provide additional benefits to a not translate vital written materials but used terms may be useful for LEP recipient’s managers in the areas of provides written notice in the primary persons and translators and cost training, administration, planning, and language of the LEP language group of effective for the recipient. Providing budgeting. These benefits should lead the right to receive competent oral translators with examples of previous most recipients to document in a interpretation of those written materials, accurate translations of similar material written LEP plan their language free of cost. assistance services, and how staff and These safe harbor provisions apply to by the recipient, other recipients, or Federal agencies may be helpful. LEP persons can access those services. the translation of written documents Despite these benefits, certain DOJ only. They do not affect the requirement While quality and accuracy of translation services is critical, the recipients, such as recipients serving to provide meaningful access to LEP very few LEP persons and recipients individuals through competent oral quality and accuracy of translation services is nonetheless part of the with very limited resources, may choose interpreters where oral language not to develop a written LEP plan. services are needed and are reasonable. appropriate mix of LEP services required. For instance, documents that However, the absence of a written LEP For example, correctional facilities plan does not obviate the underlying should, where appropriate, ensure that are simple and have no legal or other consequence for LEP persons who rely obligation to ensure meaningful access prison rules have been explained to LEP by LEP persons to a recipient’s program inmates, at orientation, for instance, on them may use translators that are less skilled than important documents with or activities. Accordingly, in the event prior to taking disciplinary action that a recipient elects not to develop a against them. legal or other information upon which reliance has important consequences written plan, it should consider Competence of Translators. As with alternative ways to articulate in some oral interpreters, translators of written (including, e.g., information or documents of DOJ recipients regarding other reasonable manner a plan for documents should be competent. Many providing meaningful access. Entities of the same considerations apply. certain law enforcement, health, and safety services and certain legal rights). having significant contact with LEP However, the skill of translating is very persons, such as schools, religious different from the skill of interpreting, organizations, community groups, and and a person who is a competent 13 For instance, there may be languages which do not have an appropriate direct translation of some groups working with new immigrants interpreter may or may not be courtroom or legal terms and the translator should can be very helpful in providing competent to translate. be able to provide an appropriate translation. The important input into this planning Particularly where legal or other vital translator should likely also make the recipient process from the beginning. documents are being translated, aware of this. Recipients can then work with translators to develop a consistent and appropriate The following five steps may be competence can often be achieved by set of descriptions of these terms in that language helpful in designing an LEP plan and use of certified translators. Certification that can be used again, when appropriate. are typically part of effective or accreditation may not always be Recipients will find it more effective and less costly implementation plans. possible or necessary.12 Competence if they try to maintain consistency in the words and phrases used to translate terms of art and legal or (1) Identifying LEP Individuals Who can often be ensured by having a other technical concepts. Creating or using already- created glossaries of commonly used terms may be Need Language Assistance 12 For those languages in which no formal useful for LEP persons and translators and cost The first two factors in the four-factor accreditation currently exists, a particular level of effective for the recipient. Providing translators membership in a professional translation with examples of previous translations of similar analysis require an assessment of the association can provide some indicator of material by the recipient, other recipients, or number or proportion of LEP professionalism. Federal agencies may be helpful. individuals eligible to be served or

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices 41465

encountered and the frequency of with those in a recipient’s custody) are languages encountered. It should encounters. This requires recipients to properly trained. Recipients have provide information about available identify LEP persons with whom it has flexibility in deciding the manner in language assistance services and how to contact. which the training is provided. The get them. One way to determine the language of more frequent the contact with LEP • Including notices in local communication is to use language persons, the greater the need will be for newspapers in languages other than identification cards (or ‘‘I speak cards’’), in-depth training. Staff with little or no English. which invite LEP persons to identify contact with LEP persons may only have • Providing notices on non-English- their language needs to staff. Such to be aware of an LEP plan. However, language radio and television stations cards, for instance, might say ‘‘I speak management staff, even if they do not about the available language assistance Spanish’’ in both Spanish and English, interact regularly with LEP persons, services and how to get them. ‘‘I speak Vietnamese’’ in both English should be fully aware of and understand • Presentations and/or notices at and Vietnamese, etc. To reduce costs of the plan so they can reinforce its schools and religious organizations. compliance, the Federal government has importance and ensure its (5) Monitoring and Updating the LEP made a set of these cards available on implementation by staff. Plan the Internet. The Census Bureau ‘‘I (4) Providing Notice to LEP Persons speak card’’ can be found and Recipients should, where appropriate, downloaded at http://www.usdoj.gov/ Once an agency has decided, based on have a process for determining, on an crt/cor/13166.htm. When records are the four factors, that it will provide ongoing basis, whether new documents, normally kept of past interactions with language services, it is important for the programs, services, and activities need members of the public, the language of recipient to let LEP persons know that to be made accessible for LEP the LEP person can be included as part those services are available and that individuals, and they may want to of the record. In addition to helping they are free of charge. Recipients provide notice of any changes in employees identify the language of LEP should provide this notice in a language services to the LEP public and to persons they encounter, this process LEP persons will understand. Examples employees. In addition, recipients will help in future applications of the of notification that recipients should should consider whether changes in first two factors of the four-factor consider include: demographics, types of services, or analysis. In addition, posting notices in • Posting signs in intake areas and other needs require annual reevaluation commonly encountered languages other entry points. When language of their LEP plan. Less frequent notifying LEP persons of language assistance is needed to ensure reevaluation may be more appropriate assistance will encourage them to self- meaningful access to information and where demographics, services, and identify. services, it is important to provide needs are more static. One good way to notice in appropriate languages in evaluate the LEP plan is to seek (2) Language Assistance Measures intake areas or initial points of contact feedback from the community. An effective LEP plan would likely so that LEP persons can learn how to In their reviews, recipients may want include information about the ways in access those language services. This is to consider assessing changes in: • which language assistance will be particularly true in areas with high Current LEP populations in service provided. For instance, recipients may volumes of LEP persons seeking access area or population affected or want to include information on at least to certain health, safety, or law encountered. • the following: enforcement services or activities run by Frequency of encounters with LEP • Types of language services language groups. DOJ recipients. For instance, signs in • available. intake offices could state that free Nature and importance of activities • How staff can obtain those services. language assistance is available. The to LEP persons. • • How to respond to LEP callers. signs should be translated into the most Availability of resources, including • How to respond to written common languages encountered. They technological advances and sources of communications from LEP persons. should explain how to get the language additional resources, and the costs • How to respond to LEP individuals 14 imposed. help. • who have in-person contact with • Stating in outreach documents that Whether existing assistance is recipient staff. language services are available from the meeting the needs of LEP persons. • • Whether staff knows and How to ensure competency of agency. Announcements could be in, for understands the LEP plan and how to interpreters and translation services. instance, brochures, booklets, and in implement it. outreach and recruitment information. (3) Training Staff • Whether identified sources for These statements should be translated Staff should know their obligations to assistance are still available and viable. provide meaningful access to into the most common languages and In addition to these five elements, information and services for LEP could be ‘‘tagged’’ onto the front of effective plans set clear goals, common documents. persons. An effective LEP plan would • management accountability, and likely include training to ensure that: Working with community-based opportunities for community input and • Staff know about LEP policies and organizations and other stakeholders to planning throughout the process. procedures. inform LEP individuals of the • Staff having contact with the public recipients’ services, including the VIII. Voluntary Compliance Effort (or those in a recipient’s custody) are availability of language assistance The goal for Title VI and Title VI services. regulatory enforcement is to achieve trained to work effectively with in- • person and telephone interpreters. Using a telephone voice mail menu. voluntary compliance. The requirement Recipients may want to include this The menu could be in the most common to provide meaningful access to LEP training as part of the orientation for persons is enforced and implemented by 14 The Social Security Administration has made new employees. It is important to such signs available at http://www.ssa.gov/ DOJ through the procedures identified ensure that all employees in public multilanguage/langlist1.htm. These signs could, for in the Title VI regulations. These contact positions (or having contact example, be modified for recipient use. procedures include complaint

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 41466 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices

investigations, compliance reviews, language minority groups may • Domestic Violence Prevention/ efforts to secure voluntary compliance, reasonably require a series of Treatment Programs and technical assistance. implementing actions over a period of Appendix A—Application of LEP The Title VI regulations provide that time. However, in developing any Guidance for DOJ Recipients to Specific DOJ will investigate whenever it phased implementation schedule, DOJ Types of Recipients receives a complaint, report, or other recipients should ensure that the information that alleges or indicates provision of appropriate assistance for While a wide range of entities receive possible noncompliance with Title VI or significant LEP populations or with Federal financial assistance through DOJ, its regulations. If the investigation respect to activities having a significant most of DOJ’s assistance goes to law results in a finding of compliance, DOJ impact on the health, safety, legal rights, enforcement agencies, including state and will inform the recipient in writing of local police and sheriffs’ departments, and to or livelihood of beneficiaries is state departments of corrections. Sections A this determination, including the basis addressed first. Recipients are and B below provide examples of how these for the determination. DOJ uses encouraged to document their efforts to two major types of DOJ recipients might voluntary mediation to resolve most provide LEP persons with meaningful apply the four-factor analysis. Section C complaints. However, if a case is fully access to Federally assisted programs provides examples for other types of investigated and results in a finding of and activities. recipients. The examples in this Appendix noncompliance, DOJ must inform the are not meant to be exhaustive and may not recipient of the noncompliance through IX. Application to Specific Types of apply in many situations. a Letter of Findings that sets out the Recipients The requirements of the Title VI areas of noncompliance and the steps regulations, as clarified by this Guidance, Appendix A of this Guidance supplement, but do not supplant, that must be taken to correct the provides examples of how the constitutional and other statutory or noncompliance. It must attempt to meaningful access requirement of the regulatory provisions that may require LEP secure voluntary compliance through Title VI regulations applies to law services. Thus, a proper application of the informal means. If the matter cannot be enforcement, corrections, courts, and four-factor analysis and compliance with the resolved informally, DOJ must secure other recipients of DOJ assistance. Title VI regulations does not replace compliance through the termination of constitutional or other statutory protections Federal assistance after the DOJ A. State and Local Law Enforcement mandating warnings and notices in languages recipient has been given an opportunity Appendix A further explains how law other than English in the criminal justice for an administrative hearing and/or by context. Rather, this Guidance clarifies the enforcement recipients can apply the Title VI regulatory obligation to address, in referring the matter to a DOJ litigation four factors to a range of encounters appropriate circumstances and in a section to seek injunctive relief or with the public. The responsibility for reasonable manner, the language assistance pursue other enforcement proceedings. providing language services differs with needs of LEP individuals beyond those DOJ engages in voluntary compliance different types of encounters. required by the Constitution or statutes and efforts and provides technical assistance Appendix A helps recipients identify regulations other than the Title VI to recipients at all stages of an the population they should consider regulations. investigation. During these efforts, DOJ when considering the types of services A. State and Local Law Enforcement proposes reasonable timetables for to provide. It then provides guidance For the vast majority of the public, achieving compliance and consults with and examples of applying the four exposure to law enforcement begins and ends and assists recipients in exploring cost- factors. For instance, it gives examples with interactions with law enforcement effective ways of coming into on how to apply this guidance to: personnel discharging their duties while on compliance. In determining a recipient’s • Receiving and responding to requests patrol, responding to a request for services, compliance with the Title VI talking to witnesses, or conducting for help regulations, DOJ’s primary concern is to community outreach activities. For a much • Enforcement stops short of arrest and ensure that the recipient’s policies and smaller number, that exposure includes a field investigations procedures provide meaningful access visit to a station house. And for an important • Custodial interrogations for LEP persons to the recipient’s but even smaller number, that visit to the • Intake/detention Community outreach station house results in one’s exposure to the programs and activities. criminal justice, judicial, or juvenile justice While all recipients must work B. Departments of Corrections systems. toward building systems that will Appendix A also helps departments The common thread running through these ensure access for LEP individuals, DOJ of corrections understand how to apply and other interactions between the public acknowledges that the implementation and law enforcement is the exchange of the four factors. For instance, it gives of a comprehensive system to serve LEP information. Where police and sheriffs’ individuals is a process and that a examples of LEP access in: departments receive Federal financial • system will evolve over time as it is Intake assistance, these departments have an implemented and periodically • Disciplinary action obligation to provide LEP services to LEP reevaluated. As recipients take • Health and safety individuals to ensure that they have • Participation in classes or other meaningful access to the system, including, reasonable steps to provide meaningful for example, understanding rights and access to Federally assisted programs programs affecting length of sentence • accessing police assistance. Language barriers and activities for LEP persons, DOJ will English as a Second Language (ESL) can, for instance, prevent victims from look favorably on intermediate steps Classes effectively reporting crimes to the police and recipients take that are consistent with • Community corrections programs hinder police investigations of reported crimes. For example, failure to communicate this Guidance, and that, as part of a C. Other Types of Recipients broader implementation plan or effectively with a victim of domestic violence schedule, move their service delivery Appendix A also applies the four can result in reliance on the batterer or a system toward providing full access to factors and gives examples for other minor child and failure to identify and types of recipients. Those include, for protect against harm. LEP persons. This does not excuse Many police and sheriffs’ departments noncompliance but instead recognizes example: already provide language services in a wide that full compliance in all areas of a • Courts variety of circumstances to obtain recipient’s activities and for all potential • Juvenile Justice Programs information effectively, to build trust and

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices 41467

relationships with the community, and to permanent population. Under the four-factor property, traditional law enforcement and contribute to the safety of law enforcement analysis, a sheriffs’ department could protective services rank high on the critical/ personnel. For example, many police reasonably conclude that the small number of non-critical continuum. However, this does departments already have available printed LEP persons makes the affirmative not mean that information about, or provided Miranda rights in languages other than translation of documents and/or employment by, each of the myriad services and activities English as well as interpreters available to of bilingual staff unnecessary. However, performed by law enforcement officials must inform LEP persons of their rights and to during the spring and summer planting and be equally available in languages other than interpret police interviews.1 In areas where harvest seasons, the local population swells English. While clearly important to the significant LEP populations reside, law to 40,000 due to the influx of seasonal ultimate success of law enforcement, certain enforcement officials already may have forms agricultural workers. Of this transitional community outreach activities do not have and notices in languages other than English number, about 75% are Hispanic and about the same direct impact on the provision of or they may employ bilingual law 50% of that number are LEP individuals. core law enforcement services as the enforcement officers, intake personnel, This information comes from the schools and activities of 911 lines or law enforcement counselors, and support staff. These a local migrant worker community group. officials’ ability to respond to requests for experiences can form a strong basis for Thus, during the harvest season, the assistance while on patrol, to communicate applying the four-factor analysis and jurisdiction’s LEP population increases to basic information to suspects, etc. complying with the Title VI regulations. over 10% of all residents. In this case, the Nevertheless, with the rising importance of department may want to consider whether it community partnerships and community- 1. General Principles is required to translate vital written based programming as a law enforcement The touchstone of the four-factor analysis documents into Spanish. In addition, this technique, the need for language services is reasonableness based upon the specific increase in LEP population during those with respect to these programs should be purposes, needs, and capabilities of the law seasons makes it important for the considered in applying the four-factor enforcement service under review and an jurisdiction to review its interpretation analysis. appreciation of the nature and particularized services to ensure meaningful access for LEP d. Interpreters needs of the LEP population served. individuals. Just as with other recipients, law Accordingly, the analysis cannot provide a b. Target Audiences single uniform answer on how service to LEP enforcement recipients have a variety of persons must be provided in all programs or For most law enforcement services, the options for providing language services. activities in all situations or whether such target audience is defined in geographic Under certain circumstances, when service need be provided at all. Knowledge rather than programmatic terms. However, interpreters are required and recipients of local conditions and community needs some services may be targeted to reach a should provide competent interpreter becomes critical in determining the type and particular audience (e.g., elementary school services free of cost to the LEP person, LEP level of language services needed. children, elderly, residents of high crime persons should be advised that they may Before giving specific examples, several areas, minority communities, small business choose either to secure the assistance of an general points should assist law enforcement owners/operators). Also, within the larger interpreter of their own choosing, at their in correctly applying the analysis to the wide geographic area covered by a police own expense, or a competent interpreter range of services employed in their particular department, certain precincts or portions of provided by the recipient. jurisdictions. precincts may have concentrations of LEP If the LEP person decides to provide his or persons. In these cases, even if the overall her own interpreter, the provision of this a. Permanent Versus Seasonal Populations number or proportion of LEP individuals in choice to the LEP person and the LEP In many communities, resident the district is low, the frequency of contact person’s election should be documented in populations change over time or season. For may be foreseeably higher for certain areas or any written record generated with respect to example, in some resort communities, programs. Thus, the second factor— the LEP person. While an LEP person may populations swell during peak vacation frequency of contact—should be considered sometimes look to bilingual family members periods, many times exceeding the number of in light of the specific program or the or friends or other persons with whom they permanent residents of the jurisdiction. In geographic area being served. are comfortable for language assistance, there other communities, primarily agricultural Example: A police department that are many situations where an LEP person areas, transient populations of workers will receives funds from the DOJ Office of Justice might want to rely upon recipient-supplied require increased law enforcement services Programs initiates a program to increase interpretative services. For example, such during the relevant harvest season. This awareness and understanding of police individuals may not be available when and dynamic demographic ebb and flow can also services among elementary school age where they are needed, or may not have the dramatically change the size and nature of children in high crime areas of the ability to interpret program-specific technical the LEP community likely to come into jurisdiction. This program involves ‘‘Officer information. Alternatively, an individual contact with law enforcement personnel. in the Classroom’’ presentations at may feel uncomfortable revealing or Thus, law enforcement officials may not elementary schools located in areas of high describing sensitive, confidential, or want to limit their analysis to numbers and poverty. The population of the jurisdiction is potentially embarrassing medical, law percentages of permanent residents. In estimated to include only 3% LEP enforcement (e.g., sexual or violent assaults), assessing factor one—the number or individuals. However, the LEP population at family, or financial information to a family proportion of LEP individuals—police the target schools is 35%, the vast majority member, friend, or member of the local departments should consider any significant of whom are Vietnamese speakers. In community. Similarly, there may be but temporary changes in a jurisdiction’s applying the four-factor analysis, the higher situations where a recipient’s own interests demographics. LEP language group populations of the target justify the provision of an interpreter Example: A rural jurisdiction has a schools and the frequency of contact within regardless of whether the LEP individual also permanent population of 30,000, 7% of the program with LEP students in those provides his or her own interpreter. For which is Hispanic. Based on demographic schools, not the LEP population generally, example, where precise, complete and data and on information from the contiguous should be used in determining the nature of accurate translations of information and/or school district, of that number, only 15% are the LEP needs of that particular program. testimony are critical for law enforcement, estimated to be LEP individuals. Thus, the Further, because the Vietnamese LEP adjudicatory or legal reasons, a recipient total estimated permanent LEP population is population is concentrated in one or two might decide to provide its own, 315 or approximately 1% of the total main areas of town, the police department independent interpreter, even if an LEP should consider whether to apply the four- person wants to use their own interpreter as well. 1 The Department’s Federal Bureau of factor analysis to other services provided by Investigation makes written versions of those rights the police department. In emergency situations that are not reasonably foreseeable, the recipient may available in several different languages. Of course, c. Importance of Service/Information where literacy is of concern, these are most useful have to temporarily rely on non-recipient- in assisting an interpreter in using consistent terms Given the critical role law enforcement provided language services. Reliance on when providing Miranda warnings orally. plays in maintaining quality of life and children is especially discouraged unless

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 41468 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices

there is an extreme emergency and no with significant LEP communities, the 911 crowd control services at community events preferable interpreters are available. line may have operators who are bilingual or demonstrations in those precincts. If it is While all language services need to be and capable of accurately interpreting in high otherwise consistent with the requirements competent, the greater the potential stress situations. Smaller cities or areas with of the four-factor analysis, the police consequences, the greater the need to small LEP populations should still have a department should assess how it will monitor interpretation services for quality. plan for serving callers who are LEP, but the discharge its crowd control duties in a For instance, it is important that interpreters LEP plan and implementation may involve a language-appropriate manner. Among the in custodial interrogations be highly telephonic interpretation service that is fast possible approaches are plans to assign competent to translate legal and other law enough and reliable enough to attend to the bilingual officers, basic language training of enforcement concepts, as well as be emergency situation, or include some other all officers in common law enforcement extremely accurate in their interpretation. It accommodation short of hiring bilingual commands, the use of devices that provide may be sufficient, however, for a desk clerk operators. audio commands in the predictable who is bilingual but not skilled at Example: A large city provides bilingual languages, or the distribution of translated interpreting to help an LEP person figure out operators for the most frequently written materials for use by officers. to whom he or she needs to talk about setting encountered languages, and uses a Field investigations include neighborhood up a neighborhood watch. commercial telephone interpretation service canvassing, witness identification and 2. Applying the Four-Factor Analysis Along when it receives calls from LEP persons who interviewing, investigative or Terry stops, the Law Enforcement Continuum speak other languages. Ten percent of the and similar activities designed to solicit and city’s population is LEP, and sixty percent of obtain information from the community or While all police activities are important, the LEP population speaks Spanish. In particular persons. Encounters with LEP the four-factor analysis requires some addition to 911 service, the city has a 311 individuals will often be less predictable in prioritizing so that language services are line for non-emergency police services. The field investigations. However, the targeted where most needed because of the 311 Center has Spanish speaking operators nature and importance of the particular law jurisdiction should still assess the potential available, and uses a language bank, staffed for contact with LEP individuals in the enforcement activity involved. In addition, by the city’s bilingual city employees who because of the ‘‘reasonableness’’ standard, course of field investigations and are competent translators, for other non- investigative stops, identify the LEP language and frequency of contact and resources/costs English-speaking callers. The city also has a factors, the obligation to provide language group(s) most likely to be encountered, and campaign to educate non-English speakers provide, if it is consistent with the four-factor services increases where the importance of when to use 311 instead of 911. These the activity is greater. analysis, its officers with sufficient actions constitute strong evidence of interpretation and/or translation resources to Under this framework, then, critical areas compliance. for language assistance could include 911 ensure that lack of English proficiency does calls, custodial interrogation, and health and b. Enforcement Stops Short of Arrest and not impede otherwise proper investigations safety issues for persons within the control Field Investigations or unduly burden LEP individuals. of the police. These activities should be Field enforcement includes, for example, Example: A police department in a considered the most important under the traffic stops, pedestrian stops, serving moderately large city includes a precinct that four-factor analysis. Systems for receiving warrants and restraining orders, Terry stops, serves an area which includes significant LEP and investigating complaints from the public activities in aid of other jurisdictions or populations whose native languages are are important. Often very important are Federal agencies (e.g., fugitive arrests or INS Spanish, Korean, and Tagalog. Law routine patrol activities, receiving non- detentions), and crowd/traffic control. enforcement officials could reasonably emergency information regarding potential Because of the diffuse nature of these consider the adoption of a plan assigning crimes, and ticketing. Community outreach activities, the reasonableness standard allows bilingual investigative officers to the precinct activities are hard to categorize, but generally for great flexibility in providing meaningful and/or creating a resource list of department they do not rise to the same level of access. Nevertheless, the ability of law employees competent to interpret and ready importance as the other activities listed. enforcement agencies to discharge fully and to assist officers by phone or radio. This However, with the importance of community effectively their enforcement and crime could be combined with developing partnerships and community-based interdiction mission requires the ability to language-appropriate written materials, such programming as a law enforcement communicate instructions, commands, and as consents to searches or statements of technique, the need for language services notices. For example, a routine traffic stop rights, for use by its officers where LEP with respect to these programs should be can become a difficult situation if an officer individuals are literate in their languages. In considered in applying the four-factor is unable to communicate effectively the certain circumstances, it may also be helpful analysis. Police departments have a great reason for the stop, the need for to have telephonic interpretation service deal of flexibility in determining how to best identification or other information, and the access where other options are not successful address their outreach to LEP populations. meaning of any written citation. Requests for and safety and availability of phone access a. Receiving and Responding to Requests for consent to search are meaningless if the permit. Assistance request is not understood. Similarly, crowd Example: A police department receives LEP persons must have meaningful access control commands will be wholly ineffective Federal financial assistance and serves a to police services when they are victims of where significant numbers of people in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood. It or witnesses to alleged criminal activity. crowd cannot understand the meaning of law routinely sends officers on domestic violence Effective reporting systems transform enforcement commands. calls. The police department is in a state in victims, witnesses, or bystanders into Given the wide range of possible situations which English has been declared the official assistants in law enforcement and in which law enforcement in the field can language. The police therefore determine that investigation processes. Given the critical take place, it is impossible to equip every they cannot provide language services to LEP role the public plays in reporting crimes or officer with the tools necessary to respond to persons. Thus, when the victim of domestic directing limited law enforcement resources every possible LEP scenario. Rather, in violence speaks only Spanish and the to time-sensitive emergency or public safety applying the four factors to field perpetrator speaks English, the officers have situations, efforts to address the language enforcement, the goal should be to no way to speak with the victim so they only assistance needs of LEP individuals could implement measures addressing the language get the perpetrator’s side of the story. The have a significant impact on improving needs of significant LEP populations in the failure to communicate effectively with the responsiveness, effectiveness, and safety. most likely, common, and important victim results in further abuse and failure to Emergency service lines for the public, or situations, as consistent with the recipients’ charge the batterer. The police department 911 lines, operated by agencies that receive resources and costs. should be aware that despite the state’s Federal financial assistance must be Example: A police department serves a official English law, the Title VI regulations accessible to persons who are LEP. This will jurisdiction with a significant number of LEP apply to it. Thus, the police department mean different things to different individuals residing in one or more should provide meaningful access for LEP jurisdictions. For instance, in large cities precincts, and it is routinely asked to provide persons.

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices 41469

c. Custodial Interrogations duties. Thus, an application of the four-factor 1. General Principles Custodial interrogations of unrepresented analysis to community outreach activities Departments of corrections also have a LEP individuals trigger constitutional rights can play an important role in ensuring that wide variety of options in providing that this Guidance is not designed to address. the purpose of these activities (to improve translation services appropriate to the Given the importance of being able to police/community relations and advance law particular situation. Bilingual staff competent communicate effectively under such enforcement objectives) is not thwarted due in interpreting, in person or by phone, pose circumstances, law enforcement recipients to the failure to address the language needs one option. Additionally, particular prisons should ensure competent and free language of LEP persons. may have agreements with local colleges and services for LEP individuals in such Example: A police department initiates a universities, interpreter services, and/or situations. Law enforcement agencies are program of domestic counseling in an effort community organizations to provide paid or strongly encouraged to create a written plan to reduce the number or intensity of domestic volunteer competent translators under on language assistance for LEP persons in violence interactions. A review of domestic agreements of confidentiality and this area. In addition, in formulating a plan violence records in the city reveals that 25% impartiality. Telephonic interpretation for effectively communicating with LEP of all domestic violence responses are to services may offer a prudent oral interpreting individuals, agencies should strongly minority areas and 30% of those responses option for prisons with very few and/or consider whether qualified independent involve interactions with one or more LEP infrequent prisoners in a particular language interpreters would be more appropriate persons, most of whom speak the same group. Reliance on fellow prisoners is during custodial interrogations than law language. After completing the four-factor generally not appropriate. Reliance on fellow enforcement personnel themselves.2 analysis, the department should take prisoners should only be an option in Example: A large city police department reasonable steps to make the counseling unforeseeable emergency circumstances; institutes an LEP plan that requires arresting accessible to LEP individuals. For instance, when the LEP inmate signs a waiver that is officers to procure a qualified interpreter for the department could seek bilingual in his/her language and in a form designed any custodial interrogation, notification of counselors (for whom they provided training for him/her to understand; or where the topic rights, or taking of a formal statement where in translation) for some of the counseling of communication is not sensitive, the suspect’s legal rights could be adversely positions. In addition, the department could confidential, important, or technical in impacted. When considering whether an have an agreement with a local university in nature and the prisoner is competent in the interpreter is qualified, the LEP plan which bilingual social work majors who are skill of interpreting. discourages use of police officers as competent in interpreting, as well as In addition, a department of corrections interpreters in interrogations except under language majors who are trained by the that receives Federal financial assistance circumstances in which the LEP individual is department in basic domestic violence would be ultimately responsible for ensuring informed of the officer’s dual role and the sensitivity and counseling, are used as that LEP inmates have meaningful access reliability of the interpretation is verified, interpreters when the in-house bilingual staff within a prison run by a private or other such as, for example, where the officer has cannot cover the need. Interpreters under entity with which the department has been trained and tested in interpreting and such circumstances should sign a entered into a contract. The department may tape recordings are made of the entire confidentiality agreement with the provide the staff and materials necessary to interview. In determining whether an department. These actions constitute strong provide required language services, or it may interpreter is qualified, the jurisdiction uses evidence of compliance. choose to require the entity with which it the analysis noted above. These actions Example: A large city has initiated an contracted to provide the services itself. would constitute strong evidence of outreach program designed to address a compliance. 2. Applying the Four Factors Along the problem of robberies of Vietnamese homes by Corrections Continuum d. Intake/Detention Vietnamese gangs. One strategy is to work As with law enforcement activities, critical State or local law enforcement agencies with community groups and banks and others to help allay traditional fears in the and predictable contact with LEP individuals that arrest LEP persons should consider the poses the greatest obligation for language inherent communication impediments to community of putting money and other valuables in banks. Because a large portion services. Corrections facilities have gathering information from the LEP arrestee somewhat greater abilities to assess the through an intake or booking process. Aside of the target audience is Vietnamese speaking and LEP, the department contracts with a language needs of those they encounter, from the basic information, such as the LEP although inmate populations may change arrestee’s name and address, law bilingual community liaison competent in the skill of translating to help with outreach rapidly in some areas. Contact affecting enforcement agencies should evaluate their health and safety, length of stay, and ability to communicate with the LEP arrestee activities. This action constitutes strong evidence of compliance. discipline likely present the most critical about his or her medical condition. Because situations under the four-factor analysis. medical screening questions are commonly B. Departments of Corrections/Jails/ a. Assessment used to elicit information on the arrestee’s Detention Centers medical needs, suicidal inclinations, Each department of corrections that presence of contagious diseases, potential Departments of corrections that receive receives Federal financial assistance should illness, resulting symptoms upon withdrawal Federal financial assistance from DOJ must assess the number of LEP prisoners who are 3 from certain medications, or the need to provide LEP prisoners with meaningful in the system, in which prisons they are segregate the arrestee from other prisoners, it access to benefits and services within the located, and the languages he or she speaks. is important for law enforcement agencies to program. In order to do so, corrections Each prisoner’s LEP status, and the language consider how to communicate effectively departments, like other recipients, must he or she speaks, should be placed in his or with an LEP arrestee at this stage. In apply the four-factor analysis. her file. Although this Guidance and Title VI jurisdictions with few bilingual officers or in are not meant to address literacy levels, situations where the LEP person speaks a 3 In this Guidance, the terms ‘‘prisoners’’ or agencies should be aware of literacy language not encountered very frequently, ‘‘inmates’’ include all of those individuals, problems so that LEP services are provided telephonic interpretation services may including Immigration and Naturalization Service in a way that is meaningful and useful (e.g., provide the most cost effective and efficient (INS) detainees and juveniles, who are held in a translated written materials are of little use method of communication. facility operated by a recipient. Certain statutory, to a nonliterate inmate). After the initial regulatory, or constitutional mandates/rights may assessment, new LEP prisoners should be e. Community Outreach apply only to juveniles, such as educational rights, including those for students will disabilities or identified at intake or orientation, and the Community outreach activities data should be updated accordingly. increasingly are recognized as important to limited English proficiency. Because a decision by a recipient or a federal, state, or local entity to make b. Intake/Orientation the ultimate success of more traditional an activity compulsory serves as strong evidence of the program’s importance, the obligation to provide Intake/Orientation plays a critical role not 2 Some state laws prohibit police officers from language services may differ depending upon merely in the system’s identification of LEP serving as interpreters during custodial whether the LEP person is a juvenile or an adult prisoners, but in providing those prisoners interrogation of suspects. inmate. with fundamental information about their

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 41470 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices

obligations to comply with system inmates should generally not serve as But recipients should not overlook the long- regulations, participate in education and interpreters in disciplinary hearings. term positive impacts of incorporating or training, receive appropriate medical d. Health and Safety offering ESL programs in parallel with treatment, and enjoy recreation. Even if only language assistance services as one possible one prisoner doesn’t understand English, that Prisons providing health services should strategy for ensuring meaningful access. ESL prisoner should likely be given the refer to the Department of Health and Human courses can serve as an important adjunct to 4 opportunity to be informed of the rules, Services’ guidance regarding health care a proper LEP plan in prisons because, as obligations, and opportunities in a manner providers’ Title VI and Title VI regulatory prisoners gain proficiency in English, fewer designed effectively to communicate these obligations, as well as with this Guidance. language services are needed. However, the matters. An appropriate analogy is the Health care services are obviously fact that ESL classes are made available does obligation to communicate effectively with extremely important. How access to those not obviate the need to provide meaningful deaf prisoners, which is most frequently services is provided depends upon the four- access for prisoners who are not yet English accomplished through sign language factor analysis. If, for instance, a prison proficient. serves a high proportion of LEP individuals interpreters or written materials. Not every g. Community Corrections prison will use the same method for who speak Spanish, then the prison health providing language assistance. Prisons with care provider should likely have available This guidance also applies to community large numbers of Spanish-speaking LEP qualified bilingual medical staff or corrections programs that receive, directly or prisoners, for example, may choose to interpreters versed in medical terms. If the indirectly, Federal financial assistance. For translate written rules, notices, and other population of LEP individuals is low, then them, the most frequent contact with LEP important orientation material into Spanish the prison may choose instead, for example, individuals will be with an offender, a with oral instructions, whereas prisons with to rely on a local community volunteer victim, or the family members of either, but program that provides qualified interpreters very few such inmates may choose to rely may also include witnesses and community through a university. Due to the private members in the area in which a crime was upon a telephonic interpretation service or nature of medical situations, only in committed. qualified community volunteers to assist. unpredictable emergency situations or in As with other recipient activities, Example: The department of corrections in non-emergency cases where the inmate has community corrections programs should a state with a 5% Haitian Creole-speaking waived rights to a non-inmate interpreter apply the four factors and determine areas LEP corrections population and an 8% would the use of other bilingual inmates be where language services are most needed and Spanish-speaking LEP population receives appropriate. reasonable. Important oral communications Federal financial assistance to expand one of e. Participation Affecting Length of Sentence include, for example: interviews; explaining its prisons. The department of corrections conditions of probations/release; developing has developed an intake video in Haitian If a prisoner’s LEP status makes him/her case plans; setting up referrals for services; Creole and another in Spanish for all of the unable to participate in a particular program, regular supervision contacts; outlining prisons within the department to use when such a failure to participate should not be violations of probations/parole and orienting new prisoners who are LEP and used to adversely impact the length of stay recommendations; and making adjustments speak one of those languages. In addition, the or significantly affect the conditions of to the case plan. Competent oral language department provides inmates with an imprisonment. Prisons have options in how services for LEP persons are important for opportunity to ask questions and discuss to apply this standard. For instance, prisons each of these types of communication. intake information through either bilingual could: (1) Make the program accessible to the Recipients have great flexibility in staff who are competent in interpreting and LEP inmate; (2) identify or develop substitute determining how to provide those services. who are present at the orientation or who are or alternative, language-accessible programs, Just as with all language services, it is patched in by phone to act as interpreters. or (3) waive the requirement. important that language services be The department also has an agreement Example: State law provides that otherwise competent. Some knowledge of the legal whereby some of its prisons house a small eligible prisoners may receive early release if system may be necessary in certain number of INS detainees. For those detainees they take and pass an alcohol counseling circumstances. For example, special attention or other inmates who are LEP and do not program. Given the importance of early should be given to the technical speak Haitian Creole or Spanish, the release, LEP prisoners should, where interpretation skills of interpreters used department has created a list of sources for appropriate, be provided access to this when obtaining information from an offender interpretation, including department staff, prerequisite in some fashion. How that access during pre-sentence and violation of contract interpreters, university resources, is provided depends on the three factors probation/parole investigations or in other and a telephonic interpretation service. Each other than importance. If, for example, there circumstances in which legal terms and the person receives at least an oral explanation are many LEP prisoners speaking a particular results of inaccuracies could impose an of the rights, rules, and opportunities. These language in the prison system, the class enormous burden on the LEP person. actions constitute strong evidence of could be provided in that language for those In addition, just as with other recipients, compliance. Example: inmates. If there were far fewer LEP prisoners corrections programs should identify vital A department of corrections that receives speaking a particular language, the prison written materials for probation and parole Federal financial assistance determines that, might still need to ensure access to this that should be translated when a significant even though the state in which it resides has prerequisite because of the importance of number or proportion of LEP individuals that a law declaring English the official language, early release opportunities. Options include, speak a particular language is encountered. it should still ensure that LEP prisoners for example, use of bilingual teachers, Vital documents in this context could understand the rules, rights, and contract interpreters, or community include, for instance: probation/parole opportunities and have meaningful access to volunteers to interpret during the class, department descriptions and grievance important information and services at the reliance on videos or written explanations in procedures, offender rights information, the state prisons. Despite the state’s official a language the inmate understands, and/or pre-sentence/release investigation report, English law, the Title VI regulations apply to modification of the requirements of the class notices of alleged violations, sentencing/ the department of corrections. to meet the LEP individual’s ability to release orders, including conditions of parole, and victim impact statement c. Disciplinary Action understand and communicate. questionnaires. When a prisoner who is LEP is the subject f. ESL Classes of disciplinary action, the prison, where States often mandate English-as-a-Second C. Other Types of Recipients appropriate, should provide language language (ESL) classes for LEP inmates. DOJ provides Federal financial assistance assistance. That assistance should ensure that Nothing in this Guidance indicates how to many other types of entities and programs, the LEP prisoner had adequate notice of the recipients should address such mandates. including, for example, courts, juvenile rule in question and is meaningfully able to justice programs, shelters for victims of understand and participate in the process 4 A copy of that guidance can be found on the domestic violence, and domestic violence afforded prisoners under those HHS Web site at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/lep. and at prevention programs. The Title VI circumstances. As noted previously, fellow http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor. regulations and this Guidance apply to those

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices 41471

entities. Examples involving some of those communicate effectively in the stressful role helps identify qualified interpreters even recipients follow: 5 of a witness or party and in situations where when certified interpreters are not available knowledge of language subtleties and/or to meet a particular language need. Thus, the 1. Courts technical terms and concepts are involved or court administrators create a pool from Application of the four-factor analysis where key determinations are made based on which judges and attorneys can choose. A requires recipient courts to ensure that LEP credibility. team of court personnel, judges, interpreters, parties and witnesses receive competent Example: Judges in a county court and others have developed a recommended language services, consistent with the four- receiving Federal financial assistance have interpreter oath and a set of frequently asked factor analysis. At a minimum, every effort adopted a voir dire for determining a witness’ questions and answers regarding court should be taken to ensure competent need for an interpreter. The voir dire avoids interpreting that have been provided to interpretation for LEP individuals during all questions that could be answered with ‘‘yes’’ judges and clerks. The frequently asked hearings, trials, and motions during which or ‘‘no.’’ It includes questions about comfort questions include information regarding the the LEP individual must and/or may be level in English, and questions that require use of team interpreters, breaks, the types of present. When a recipient court appoints an active responses, such as: ‘‘How did you interpreting (consecutive, simultaneous, attorney to represent an LEP defendant, the come to court today?’’ etc. The judges also summary, and sight translations) and the court should ensure that either the attorney ask the witness more complicated conceptual professional standards for use of each one, is proficient in the LEP person’s language or questions to determine the extent of the and suggested questions for determining that a competent interpreter is provided person’s proficiency in English. These whether an LEP witness is effectively able to during consultations between the attorney actions constitute strong evidence of communicate through the interpreter. and the LEP person. compliance. Information sessions on the use of Many states have created or adopted Example: A court encounters a domestic interpreters are provided for judges and certification procedures for court violence victim who is LEP. Even though the clerks. These actions constitute strong interpreters. This is one way for recipients to court is located in a state where English has evidence of compliance. ensure competency of interpreters. Where been declared the official language, it Another key to successful use of certification is available, courts should employs a competent interpreter to ensure interpreters in the courtroom is to ensure that consider carefully the qualifications of meaningful access. Despite the state’s official everyone in the process understands the role interpreters who are not certified. Courts will English law, the Title VI regulations apply to of the interpreter. not, however, always be able to find a the court. Example: Judges in a recipient court certified interpreter, particularly for less When courts experience low numbers or frequently encountered languages. In a administer a standard oath to each interpreter proportions of LEP individuals from a and make a statement to the jury that the role courtroom or administrative hearing setting, particular language group and infrequent of the interpreter is to interpret, verbatim, the the use of informal interpreters, such as contact with that language group, creation of questions posed to the witness and the family members, friends, and caretakers, a new certification test for interpreters may witness’ response. The jury should focus on would not be appropriate. be overly burdensome. In such cases, other the words, not the non-verbals, of the methods should be used to determine the Example: A state court receiving DOJ interpreter. The judges also clarify the role of competency of interpreters for the court’s Federal financial assistance has frequent the interpreter to the witness and the purposes. contact with LEP individuals as parties and attorneys. These actions constitute strong Example: A witness in a county court in a witnesses, but has experienced a shortage in evidence of compliance. large city speaks Urdu and not English. The certified interpreters in the range of Just as corrections recipients should take jurisdiction has no court interpreter languages encountered. State court officials care to ensure that eligible LEP individuals work with training and testing consultants to certification testing for Urdu language interpreters because very few LEP have the opportunity to reduce the term of broaden the number of certified interpreters their sentence to the same extent that non- available in the top several languages spoken individuals encountered speak Urdu and there is no such test available through other LEP individuals do, courts should ensure by LEP individuals in the state. Because that LEP persons have access to programs resources are scarce and the development of states or organizations. However, a non- certified interpreter is available and has been that would give them the equal opportunity tests expensive, state court officials decide to to avoid serving a sentence at all. partner with other states that have already given the standard English-language test on established agreements to share proficiency court processes and interpreter ethics. The Example: An LEP defendant should be tests and to develop new ones together. The judge brings in a second, independent, given the same access to alternatives to state court officials also look to other existing bilingual Urdu-speaking person from a local sentencing, such as anger management, state plans for examples of: codes of university, and asks the prospective batterers’ treatment and intervention, and professional conduct for interpreters; interpreter to interpret the judge’s alcohol abuse counseling, as is given to non- mandatory orientation and basic training for conversation with the second individual. The LEP persons in the same circumstances. interpreters; interpreter proficiency tests in judge then asks the second Urdu speaker a Courts have significant contact with the Spanish and Vietnamese language series of questions designed to determine public outside of the courtroom. Providing interpretation; a written test in English for whether the interpreter accurately meaningful access to the legal process for interpreters in all languages covering interpreted their conversation. Given the LEP individuals might require more than just professional responsibility, basic legal term infrequent contact, the low number and providing interpreters in the courtroom. definitions, court procedures, etc. They are proportion of Urdu LEP individuals in the Recipient courts should assess the need for considering working with other states to area, and the high cost of providing language services all along the process, expand testing certification programs in certification tests for Urdu interpreters, this particularly in areas with high numbers of coming years to include several other most ‘‘second check’’ solution may be one unrepresented individuals, such as family, frequently encountered languages. These appropriate way of ensuring meaningful landlord-tenant, traffic, and small claims actions constitute strong evidence of access to the LEP individual. courts. compliance. Example: In order to minimize the Example: Only twenty thousand people Many individuals, while able to necessity of the type of intense judicial live in a rural county. The county superior communicate in English to some extent, are intervention on the issue of quality noted in court receives DOJ funds but does not have still LEP insofar as ability to understand the the previous example, the court a budget comparable to that of a more- terms and precise language of the courtroom. administrators in a jurisdiction, working populous urbanized county in the state. Over Courts should consider carefully whether a closely with interpreter and translator 1000 LEP Hispanic immigrants have settled person will be able to understand and associations, the bar, judges, and community in the rural county. The urbanized county groups, have developed and disseminated a also has more than 1000 LEP Hispanic 5 As used in this appendix, the word ‘‘court’’ or stringent set of qualifications for court immigrants. Both counties have ‘‘how to’’ ‘‘courts’’ includes administrative adjudicatory interpreters. The state has adopted a materials in English helping unrepresented systems or administrative hearings administered or certification test in several languages. A individuals negotiate the family court conducted by a recipient. questionnaire and qualifications process processes and providing information for

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1 41472 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Notices

victims of domestic violence. The urban recipients are strongly discouraged from its language capabilities despite its tiny county has taken the lead in developing using children as interpreters for LEP budget. These actions constitute strong Spanish-language translations of materials parents. evidence of compliance. that would explain the process. The rural Example: A county coordinator for an anti- [FR Doc. 02–15207 Filed 6–17–02; 8:45 am] county modifies these slightly with the gang program operated by a DOJ recipient has assistance of family law and domestic noticed that increasing numbers of gangs BILLING CODE 4410–13–P violence advocates serving the Hispanic have formed comprised primarily of LEP community, and thereby benefits from the individuals speaking a particular foreign work of the urban county. Creative solutions, language. The coordinator may choose to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE such as sharing resources across jurisdictions assess the number of LEP youths at risk of and working with local bar associations and involvement in these gangs, so that she can Antitrust Division community groups, can help overcome determine whether the program should hire serious financial concerns in areas with few a counselor who is bilingual in the particular United States v. Computer Associates resources. language and English, or provide other types International, Inc.; Proposed Final There may be some instances in which the of language services to the LEP youths. Judgment and Competitive Impact four-factor analysis of a particular portion of When applying the four factors, recipients Statement a recipient’s program leads to the conclusion encountering juveniles should take into that language services are not currently account that certain programs or activities Notice is hereby given pursuant to the required. For instance, the four-factor may be even more critical and difficult to Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, analysis may not necessarily require that a access for juveniles than they would be for 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed purely voluntary tour of a ceremonial adults. For instance, although an adult courtroom be given in languages other than Final Judgment and Competitive Impact detainee may need some language services to Statement have been filed with the English by courtroom personnel, because the access family members, a juvenile being relative importance may not warrant such detained on immigration-related charges who United States District Court for the services given an application of the other is held by a recipient may need more District of Columbia in United States of factors. However, a court may decide to language services in order to have access to America v. Computer Associates provide such tours in languages other than his or her parents. International, Inc. and Platinum English given the demographics and the 3. Domestic Violence Prevention/Treatment technology International, inc., Civil interest in the court. Because the analysis is Action No. 1:01CV02062 (GK). On fact-dependent, the same conclusion may not Programs September 28, 2001, the United States be appropriate with respect to all tours. Several domestic violence prevention and filed a Complaint alleging that the Just as with police departments, courts treatment programs receive DOJ financial and/or particular divisions within courts may assistance and thus must apply this Guidance Defendants’ conduct surrounding the have more contact with LEP individuals than to their programs and activities. As with all acquisition of Platinum technology an assessment of the general population other recipients, the mix of services needed International, inc. by Computer would indicate. Recipients should consider should be determined after conducting the Associates International, Inc. (CA) that higher contact level when determining four-factor analysis. For instance, a shelter violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act the number or proportion of LEP individuals for victims of domestic violence serving a (15 U.S.C. 1) and section 7a of the in the contact population and the frequency largely Hispanic area in which many people Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18(a)), commonly are LEP should strongly consider accessing of such contact. known as the Hart-Scott-Rodino Example: A county has very few residents qualified bilingual counselors, staff, and volunteers, whereas a shelter that has (‘‘HSR’’) Act. The Complaint alleges that who are LEP. However, many Vietnamese- the Defendants violated Section 1 of the speaking LEP motorists go through a major experienced almost no encounters with LEP freeway running through the county that persons and serves an area with very few LEP Sherman Act by entering into an connects two areas with high populations of persons may only reasonably need access to agreement that restricted Platinum’s Vietnamese speaking LEP individuals. As a a telephonic interpretation service. ability to offer price discounts to result, the Traffic Division of the county Experience, program modifications, and customers during the time period before court processes a large number of LEP demographic changes may require they consummated their merger. The persons, but it has taken no steps to train modifications to the mix over time. proposed Final Judgment enjoins CA staff or provide forms or other language Example: A shelter for victims of domestic and future merger partners from violence is operated by a recipient of DOJ access in that Division because of the small engaging in similar conduct. The number of LEP individuals in the county. funds and located in an area where 15 The Division should assess the number and percent of the women in the service area proposed Final Judgment also requires proportion of LEP individuals processed by speak Spanish and are LEP. Seven percent of that the Defendants pay a civil penalty the Division and the frequency of such the women in the service area speak various to resolve the HSR Act violation. The contact. With those numbers high, the Traffic Chinese dialects and are LEP. The shelter civil penalty component of the proposed Division may find that it needs to provide uses competent community volunteers to Final Judgment is not open to public key forms or instructions in Vietnamese. It help translate vital outreach materials into comment. Copies of the Complaint, may also find, from talking with community Chinese (which is one written language proposed Final Judgment and groups, that many older Vietnamese LEP despite many dialects) and Spanish. The Competitive Impact Statement are shelter hotline has a menu providing key individuals do not read Vietnamese well, and available for inspection at the that it should provide oral language services information, such as location, in English, as well. The court may already have Spanish, and two of the most common Department of Justice in Washington, Vietnamese-speaking staff competent in Chinese dialects. Calls for immediate DC, in Room 200, 325 Seventh Street, interpreting in a different section of the assistance are handled by the bilingual staff. NW., on the Department of Justice Web court; it may decide to hire a Vietnamese- The shelter has one counselor and several site at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at speaking employee who is competent in the volunteers fluent in Spanish and English. the Office of the Clerk of the United skill of interpreting; or it may decide that a Some volunteers are fluent in different States District Court for the District of telephonic interpretation service suffices. Chinese dialects and in English. The shelter Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, works with community groups to access NW., Washington, DC 20001. 2. Juvenile Justice Programs interpreters in the several Chinese dialects DOJ provides funds to many juvenile that they encounter. Shelter staff train the Public comment is invited within 60 justice programs to which this Guidance community volunteers in the sensitivities of days of the date of this notice. Such applies. Recipients should consider LEP domestic violence intake and counseling. comments, and responses thereto, will parents when minor children encounter the Volunteers sign confidentiality agreements. be published in the Federal Register legal system. Absent an emergency, The shelter is looking for a grant to increase and filed with the Court. Comments

VerDate May<23>2002 12:43 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNN1