National Endowment for the Humanities; Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 47541-47545 [E6-13544]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE
ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
National Endowment for the
Humanities; Guidance to Federal
Financial Assistance Recipients
Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against
National Origin Discrimination
Affecting Limited English Proficient
Persons
National Endowment for the
Humanities, NFAH.
ACTION: Notice of proposed guidance.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Endowment for
the Humanities (NEH) publishes for
public comment proposed policy
guidance on Title VI’s prohibition
against national origin discrimination as
it affects limited English proficient
persons.
Comments must be submitted on
or before September 18, 2006. NEH will
review all comments and will determine
what modifications, if any, to this policy
guidance are necessary.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons should
submit written comments to Office of
the General Counsel, National
Endowment for the Humanities, 1100
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 529,
Washington, DC 20506. Comments may
also be submitted by facsimile at 202–
606–8600 or by e-mail at
gencounsel@neh.gov.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather Gottry at the above address or
by telephone at 202–606–8322; TDD:
202–606–8282. Arrangements to receive
the policy in an alternative format may
be made by contacting the named
individual.
Under
NEH regulations implementing Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
2000d, et seq. (Title VI), recipients of
Federal financial assistance from the
NEH (recipients) have a responsibility to
ensure meaningful access by persons
with limited English proficiency (LEP)
to their programs and activities. See 45
CFR Part 1170. Executive Order 13166,
reprinted at 65 FR 50121 (August 16,
2000), directs each Federal agency that
extends assistance subject to the
requirements of Title VI to publish, after
review and approval by the Department
of Justice, guidance for its recipients
clarifying that obligation. The Executive
Order also directs that all such guidance
be consistent with the compliance
standards and framework detailed in
DOJ Policy Guidance entitled
‘‘Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964—National Origin
Discrimination Against Persons with
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:36 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
Limited English Proficiency.’’ See 65 FR
50123 (August 16, 2000).
On March 14, 2002, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Report To Congress titled ‘‘Assessment
of the Total Benefits and Costs of
Implementing Executive Order No.
13166: Improving Access to Services for
Persons with Limited English
Proficiency.’’ Among other things, the
Report recommended the adoption of
uniform guidance across all Federal
agencies, with flexibility to permit
tailoring to each agency’s specific
recipients. Consistent with this OMB
recommendation, the Department of
Justice (DOJ) published LEP Guidance
for DOJ recipients which was drafted
and organized to also function as a
model for similar guidance by other
Federal grant agencies. See 67 FR 41455
(June 18, 2002). The proposed guidance
is based upon and incorporates the legal
analysis and compliance standards of
the model June 18, 2002, DOJ LEP
Guidance for Recipients.
It has been determined that the
guidance does not constitute a
regulation subject to the rulemaking
requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It has also
been determined that this guidance is
not subject to the requirements of
Executive Order 12866.
The text of the complete proposed
guidance document appears below.
Dated: August 11, 2006.
Heather C. Gottry,
Acting General Counsel, National Endowment
for the Humanities.
I. Introduction
Most individuals living in the United
States read, write, speak and understand
English. There are many individuals,
however, for whom English is not their
primary language. For instance, based
on the 2000 census, over 26 million
individuals speak Spanish and almost 7
million individuals speak an Asian or
Pacific Island language at home. If these
individuals have a limited ability to
read, write, speak, or understand
English, they are limited English
proficient, or ‘‘LEP.’’
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. and its
implementing regulations provide that
no person shall be subjected to
discrimination on the basis of race,
color, or national origin under any
program or activity that receives Federal
financial assistance. Language for LEP
individuals can be a barrier to accessing
important benefits or services,
understanding and exercising important
rights, complying with applicable
responsibilities, or understanding other
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47541
information provided by Federally
funded programs and activities.
In certain circumstances, failure to
ensure that LEP persons can effectively
participate in or benefit from Federally
assisted programs and activities may
violate the prohibition under Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
2000d and Title VI regulations against
national origin discrimination.
The purpose of this policy guidance is
to clarify the responsibilities of
recipients of Federal financial assistance
from the National Endowment for the
Humanities (NEH), and assist them in
fulfilling their responsibilities to limited
English proficient (LEP) persons
pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the NEH implementing
regulations. The policy guidance
reiterates NEH’s longstanding position
that, in order to avoid discrimination
against LEP persons on the grounds of
national origin, recipients must take
reasonable steps to ensure that such
persons have meaningful access to the
programs, services, and information
those recipients provide.
This policy guidance is modeled on
and incorporates the legal analysis and
compliance standards and framework
set out in Section I through Section VIII
of Department of Justice (DOJ) Policy
Guidance titled ‘‘Guidance to Federal
Financial Assistance Recipients
Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against
National Origin Discrimination
Affecting Limited English Proficient
Persons,’’ published at 67 FR 41455,
41457–41465 (June 18, 2002) (DOJ
Recipient LEP Guidance). To the extent
additional clarification is desired on the
obligation under Title VI to ensure
meaningful access by LEP persons and
how recipients can satisfy that
obligation, a recipient should consult
the more detailed discussion of the
applicable compliance standards and
relevant factors set out in DOJ Recipient
LEP Guidance. The DOJ Guidance may
be viewed and downloaded at https://
www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/lep/
DOJFinLEPFRJun182002.htm or at
https://www.lep.gov. In addition, NEH
recipients also receiving Federal
financial assistance from other Federal
agencies, such as the Department of
Education or the National Endowment
for the Arts, should review those
agencies’ guidance documents at
https://www.lep.gov for a more focused
explanation of how they can comply
with their Title VI and regulatory
obligations in the context of similar
Federally assisted programs or
activities.
Many commentators have noted that
some have interpreted the case of
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
47542
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices
(2001), as impliedly striking down the
regulations promulgated under Title VI
that form the basis for the part of
Executive Order 13166 that applies to
Federally assisted programs and
activities. The NEH and the Department
of Justice have taken the position that
this is not the case, and will continue
to do so. Accordingly, we will strive to
ensure that Federally assisted programs
and activities work in a way that is
effective for all eligible beneficiaries,
including those with limited English
proficiency.
II. Purpose and Application
This policy guidance provides a legal
framework to assist recipients in
developing appropriate and reasonable
language assistance measures designed
to address the needs of LEP individuals.
The NEH Title VI implementing
regulations prohibit both intentional
discrimination and policies and
practices that appear neutral but have a
discriminatory effect. Thus, a recipient
entity’s policies or practices regarding
the provision of benefits and services to
LEP persons need not be intentional to
be discriminatory, but may constitute a
violation of Title VI if they have an
adverse effect on the ability of national
origin minorities to meaningfully access
programs and services.
Recipient entities have considerable
flexibility in determining how to
comply with their legal obligation in the
LEP setting and are not required to use
the suggested methods and options that
follow. However, recipient entities must
establish and implement policies and
procedures for providing language
assistance sufficient to fulfill their Title
VI responsibilities and provide LEP
persons with meaningful access to
services.
III. Policy Guidance
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
1. Who Is Covered
All entities that receive Federal
financial assistance from NEH, either
directly or indirectly, through a grant,
cooperative agreement, contract or
subcontract, are covered by this policy
guidance. Title VI applies to all Federal
financial assistance, which includes but
is not limited to awards and loans of
Federal funds, awards or donations of
Federal property, details of Federal
personnel, or any agreement,
arrangement or other contract that has
as one of its purposes the provision of
assistance.
Title VI prohibits discrimination in
any program or activity that receives
Federal financial assistance. In most
cases, when a recipient receives Federal
financial assistance for a particular
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:36 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
program or activity, all operations of the
recipient are covered by Title VI, not
just the part of the program that uses the
Federal assistance. Thus, all parts of the
recipient’s operations would be covered
by Title VI, even if the Federal
assistance were used only by one part.
Finally, some recipients operate in
jurisdictions in which English has been
declared the official language.
Nonetheless, these recipients continue
to be subject to Federal nondiscrimination requirements, including
those applicable to the provision of
Federally assisted services to persons
with limited English proficiency.
2. Basic Requirement: All Recipients
Must Take Reasonable Steps To Provide
Meaningful Access to LEP Persons
Title VI and the NEH implementing
regulations require that recipients take
reasonable steps to ensure meaningful
access to the information, programs, and
services they provide. Recipients of
Federal assistance have considerable
flexibility in determining precisely how
to fulfill this obligation.
It is also important to emphasize that
academic institutions, nonprofit
organizations, museums and libraries
are in the business of maintaining,
sharing, and disseminating vast
amounts of information and items, most
of which are created or generated by
third parties. In large measure, the
common service provided by these
recipients is access to information,
whether maintained on-site or
elsewhere, not the generation of the
source information itself. This
distinction is critical in properly
applying Title VI to academic
institutions, nonprofit organizations,
museums, libraries, and similar
programs. For example, in the context of
library and museum services, recipients
initially should focus on their
procedures or services that directly
impact access in three areas. First,
applications for library or museum
membership cards, instructions on card
usage, exhibit brochures, building maps,
and dissemination of information on
where and how source material and
collections are maintained and indexed,
should be available in appropriate
languages other than English. Second,
recipients should, consistent with the
four factor analysis, determine what
reasonable steps could be taken to
enhance the value of their collections or
services to LEP persons, including, for
example, accessing languageappropriate books through inter-library
loans, direct acquisitions, and/or on-line
materials. Third, to the extent a
recipient provides services beyond
museum exhibitions or access to books,
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
art, or cultural collections to include the
generation of information about those
collections, research aids, or community
educational outreach such as reading or
discovery programs, these additional or
enhanced services should be separately
evaluated under the four-factor analysis.
A similar distinction can be employed
with respect to a museum’s exhibits
versus a museum’s procedures for
meaningful access to those exhibits.
What constitutes reasonable steps to
ensure meaningful access in the context
of Federally-assisted programs and
activities in the area of academic
institutions, nonprofit organizations,
museums and library services will be
contingent upon a balancing of four
factors: (1) The number and proportion
of eligible LEP constituents; (2) the
frequency of LEP individuals’ contact
with the program; (3) the nature and
importance of the program; and (4) the
resources available, including costs.
Each of these factors is summarized
below. In addition, recipients should
consult Section V of the June 18, 2002
DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients, 67 FR
at 41459–41460 or https://www.lep.gov,
for additional detail on the nature,
scope, and application of these factors.
(1) Number or Proportion of LEP
Individuals
The appropriateness of any action
will depend on the size and proportion
of the LEP population that the recipient
serves and the prevalence of particular
languages. Programs that serve a few or
even one LEP person are still subject to
the Title VI obligation to take reasonable
steps to provide meaningful
opportunities for access. The first factor
in determining the reasonableness of a
recipient’s efforts is the number or
proportion of people who will be
effectively excluded from meaningful
access to the benefits or services if
efforts are not made to remove language
barriers. The steps that are reasonable
for a recipient who serves one LEP
person a year may be different than
those expected from a recipient that
serves several LEP persons each day.
(2) Frequency of Contact With the
Program
Frequency of contact between the
program or activity and LEP individuals
is another factor to be weighed. If LEP
individuals must access the recipient’s
program or activity on a daily basis, a
recipient has greater duties than if such
contact is unpredictable and infrequent.
Recipients should take into account
local or regional conditions when
determining frequency of contact with
the program, and should have the
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices
flexibility to tailor their services to those
needs.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
(3) Nature and Importance of the
Program
The importance of the recipient’s
program to beneficiaries will affect the
determination of what reasonable steps
are required. More affirmative steps
must be taken in programs where the
denial or delay of access may have
serious, or even life or death
implications than in programs that are
not crucial to one’s day-to-day
existence, economic livelihood, safety,
or education. For example, the
obligations of a Federally assisted
school or hospital differ from those of a
Federally assisted nonprofit
organization, museum or library. This
factor implies that the obligation to
provide translation services will be
highest in programs providing
education, job training, medical/health
services, social welfare services, and
similar services. As a general matter, it
is less likely that nonprofit
organizations, museums and libraries
receiving assistance from the NEH will
provide services having a similar
immediate and direct impact on a
person’s life or livelihood.
Thus, in large measure, it is the first
factor (number or proportion of LEP
individuals) that will have the greatest
impact in determining the initial need
for language assistance services.
In assessing the effect on individuals
of failure to provide language services,
recipients must consider the importance
of the benefit to individuals both
immediately and in the long-term.
Another aspect of this factor is the
nature of the program itself. Some
museum content may be extremely
accessible regardless of language. In
these instances, little translation might
be required.
(4) Resources Available
NEH is aware that its recipients may
experience difficulties with resource
allocation. Many of the organizations’
overall budgets, and awards involved
are quite small. The resources available
to a recipient of Federal assistance may
have an impact on the nature of the
steps that recipient must take to ensure
meaningful access. For example, a small
recipient with limited resources may
not have to take the same steps as a
larger recipient to provide LEP
assistance in programs that have a
limited number of eligible LEP
individuals, where contact is infrequent,
where the total cost of providing
language services is relatively high, and/
or where the program is not providing
an important service or benefit from, for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:36 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
instance, a health, education, economic,
or safety perspective. Translation and
interpretation costs are appropriately
included in award budget requests.
This four-factor analysis necessarily
implicates the ‘‘mix’’ of LEP services
required. The correct mix should be
based on what is both necessary and
reasonable in light of the four-factor
analysis. Even those award recipients
who serve very few LEP persons on an
infrequent basis should use a balancing
analysis to determine whether the
importance of the service(s) provided
and minimal costs make language
assistance measures reasonable even in
the case of limited and infrequent
interactions with LEP persons.
Recipients have substantial flexibility in
determining the appropriate mix.
IV. Strategies for Ensuring Meaningful
Access
Academic institutions, nonprofit
organizations, museums and libraries
have a long history of interacting with
people with varying language
backgrounds and capabilities within the
communities where they are located.
The agency’s goal is to continue to
encourage these efforts and share
practices so that other academic
institutions, nonprofit organizations,
museums and libraries can benefit from
other institutions’ experiences.
The following are examples of
language assistance strategies that are
potentially useful for all recipients.
These strategies incorporate a variety of
options and methods for providing
meaningful access to LEP beneficiaries
and provide examples of how recipients
should take each of the four factors
discussed above into account when
developing an LEP strategy. Not every
option is necessary or appropriate for
every recipient with respect to all of its
programs and activities. Indeed, a
language assistance plan need not be
intricate; it may be as simple as being
prepared to use a commercially
available language line to obtain
immediate interpreting services and/or
having bilingual staff members available
who are fluent in the most common
non-English languages spoken in the
area. Recipients should exercise the
flexibility afforded under this Guidance
to select those language assistance
measures which have the greatest
potential to address, at appropriate
levels and in reasonable manners, the
specific language needs of the LEP
populations they serve.
Finally, the examples below are not
intended to suggest that if services to
LEP populations aren’t legally required
under Title VI and Title VI regulations,
they should not be undertaken. Part of
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47543
the way in which academic institutions,
nonprofit organizations, museums and
libraries build communities is by
cutting across barriers like language. A
small investment in outreach to a
linguistically diverse community may
well result in a rich cultural exchange
that benefits not only the LEP
population, but also the academic
institutions, nonprofit organizations,
museums and libraries and the
community as a whole.
Examples:
• Identification of the languages that are
likely to be encountered in, and the number
of LEP persons that are likely to be affected
by, the program. This information may be
gathered through review of census and
constituent data as well as data from school
systems and community agencies and
organizations;
• Posting signs in public areas in several
languages, informing the public of its right to
free interpreter services and inviting
members of the public to identify themselves
as persons needing language assistance;
• Use of ‘‘I speak’’ cards for public-contact
personnel so that the public can easily
identify staff language abilities;
• Employment of staff, bilingual in
appropriate languages, in public contact
positions;
• Contracts with interpreting services that
can provide competent interpreters in a wide
variety of languages in a timely manner;
• Formal arrangements with community
groups for competent and timely interpreter
services by community volunteers;
• An arrangement with a telephone
language interpreter line for on-demand
service;
• Translations of application forms,
instructional, informational and other key
documents into appropriate non-English
languages and provide oral interpreter
assistance with documents for those persons
whose language does not exist in written
form;
• Procedures for effective telephone
communication between staff and LEP
persons, including instructions for Englishspeaking employees to obtain assistance from
bilingual staff or interpreters when initiating
or receiving calls to or from LEP persons;
• Notice to and training of all staff,
particularly public contact staff, with respect
to the recipient’s Title VI obligation to
provide language assistance to LEP persons,
and on the language assistance policies and
the procedures to be followed in securing
such assistance in a timely manner;
• Insertion of notices, in appropriate
languages, about access to free interpreters
and other language assistance, in brochures,
pamphlets, manuals, and other materials
disseminated to the public and to staff; and
• Notice to and consultation with
community organizations that represent LEP
language groups, regarding problems and
solutions, including standards and
procedures for using their members as
interpreters.
In identifying language assistance
measures, recipients should avoid
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
47544
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices
relying on an LEP person’s family
members, friends, or other informal
interpreters to provide meaningful
access to important programs and
activities. However, where LEP persons
so desire, they should be permitted to
use, at their own expense, an interpreter
of their own choosing (whether a
professional interpreter, family member,
or friend) in place of or as a supplement
to the free language services expressly
offered by the recipient. But where a
balancing of the four factors indicate
that recipient-provided language
assistance is warranted, the recipient
should take care to ensure that the LEP
person’s choice is voluntary, that the
LEP person is aware of the possible
problems if the preferred interpreter is
a minor child, and that the LEP person
knows that a competent interpreter
could be provided by the recipient at no
cost.
The use of family and friends as
interpreters may be an appropriate
option where proper application of the
four factors would lead to a conclusion
that recipient-provided language
assistance is not necessary. An example
of this might be a bookstore or cafeteria
associated with a museum. There, the
importance and nature of the activity
may be relatively low and unlikely to
implicate issues of confidentiality,
conflict of interest, or the need for
technical accuracy. In addition, the
resources needed and costs of providing
language services may be high. In such
a setting, an LEP person’s use of family,
friends, or other informal ad hoc
interpreters may be appropriate.
As noted throughout this guidance,
NEH award recipients have a great deal
of flexibility in addressing the needs of
their constituents with limited English
skills. That flexibility does not
diminish, and should not be used to
minimize, the obligation that those
needs be addressed. NEH recipients
should apply the four factors outlined
above to the various kinds of contacts
that they have with the public to assess
language needs and decide what
reasonable steps they should take to
ensure meaningful access for LEP
persons. By balancing the number or
proportion of people with limited
English skills served, the frequency of
their contact with the program, the
importance and nature of the program,
and the resources available, NEH
awardees’ Title VI obligations in many
cases will be satisfied by making
available oral language assistance or
commissioning translations on an asrequested and as-needed basis. There
are many circumstances where, after an
application and balancing of the four
factors noted above, Title VI would not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:36 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
require translation. For example, Title
VI does not require a library to translate
its collections, but it does require the
implementation of appropriate language
assistance measures to permit an
otherwise eligible LEP person to apply
for a library card and potentially to
access appropriate-language materials
through inter-library loans or other
reasonable methods. The NEH views
this policy guidance as providing
sufficient flexibility to allow the NEH to
continue to fund language-dependent
programs in both English and other
languages without requiring translation
that would be inconsistent with the
nature of the program. Recipients
should consult Section VI of the June
18, 2002 DOJ LEP Guidance for
Recipients, 67 FR at 41461–41464 or
https://www.lep.gov, for additional
clarification on the standards applicable
to assessing interpreter and translator
competence, and for determining when
translations of documents vital to
accessing program benefits should be
undertaken.
The key to ensuring meaningful
access for people with limited English
skills is effective communication.
Academic institutions, nonprofit
organizations, museums and libraries
can ensure effective communication by
developing and implementing a
comprehensive language assistance
program that includes policies and
procedures for identifying and assessing
the language needs of its LEP
constituents. Such a program should
also provide for a range of oral language
assistance options, notice to LEP
persons of the right to language
assistance, periodic training of staff,
monitoring of the program and, in
certain circumstances, the translation of
written materials.
Each recipient should, based on its
own volume and frequency of contact
with LEP clients and its own available
resources, adopt a procedure for the
resolution of complaints regarding the
provision of language assistance and for
notifying the public of their right to and
how to file a complaint under Title VI.
State recipients, who will frequently
serve large numbers of LEP individuals,
may consider appointing a senior level
employee to coordinate the language
assistance program and to ensure that
there is regular monitoring of the
program.
V. Compliance and Enforcement
Executive Order 13166 requires that
each Federal department or agency
extending Federal financial assistance
subject to Title VI issue separate
guidance implementing uniform Title VI
compliance standards with respect to
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
LEP persons. Where recipients of
Federal financial assistance from NEH
also receive assistance from one or more
other Federal departments or agencies,
there is no obligation to conduct and
document separate but identical
analyses and language assistance plans
for NEH. NEH, in discharging its
compliance and enforcement obligations
under Title VI, looks to analyses
performed and plans developed in
response to similar detailed LEP
guidance issued by other Federal
agencies. Recipients may rely upon
guidance issued by those agencies.
NEH’s regulations implementing Title
VI contain compliance and enforcement
provisions to ensure that a recipient’s
policies and practices overcome barriers
resulting from language differences that
would deny LEP persons an equal
opportunity to participate in and access
to programs, services and benefits
offered by NEH. See 45 CFR Part 1110.
The agency will ensure that its recipient
entities fulfill their responsibilities to
LEP persons through the procedures
provided for in the Title VI regulations.
The Title VI regulations provide that
NEH will investigate (or contact its State
recipient of funds to investigate, if
appropriate) whenever it receives a
complaint, report or other information
that alleges or indicates possible
noncompliance with Title VI. If the
investigation results in a finding of
compliance, NEH will inform the
recipient in writing of this
determination, including the basis for
the determination. If the investigation
results in a finding of noncompliance,
NEH must inform the recipient of the
noncompliance through a Letter of
Findings that sets out the areas of
noncompliance and the steps that must
be taken to correct the noncompliance,
and must attempt to secure voluntary
compliance through informal means. If
the matter cannot be resolved
informally, the NEH will secure
compliance through (a) the suspension
or termination of Federal assistance
after the recipient has been given an
opportunity for an administrative
hearing, (b) referral to the Department of
Justice for injunctive relief or other
enforcement proceedings, or (c) any
other means authorized by Federal,
state, or local law.
Under the Title VI regulations, the
NEH has a legal obligation to seek
voluntary compliance in resolving cases
and cannot seek the termination of
funds until it has engaged in voluntary
compliance efforts and has determined
that compliance cannot be secured
voluntarily. NEH will engage in
voluntary compliance efforts and will
provide technical assistance to
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices
recipients at all stages of its
investigation. During these efforts to
secure voluntary compliance, NEH will
propose reasonable timetables for
achieving compliance and will consult
with and assist recipients in exploring
cost effective ways of coming into
compliance.
In determining a recipient’s
compliance with Title VI, the NEH’s
primary concern is to ensure that the
recipient’s policies and procedures
overcome barriers resulting from
language differences that would deny
LEP persons a meaningful opportunity
to participate in and access programs,
services, and benefits. A recipient’s
appropriate use of the methods and
options discussed in this policy
guidance will be viewed by the NEH as
evidence of a recipient’s willingness to
comply voluntarily with its Title VI
obligations. If implementation of one or
more of these options would be so
financially burdensome as to defeat the
legitimate objectives of a recipient/
covered entity’s program, or if there are
equally effective alternatives for
ensuring that LEP persons have
meaningful access to programs and
services (such as timely effective oral
interpretation of vital documents), NEH
will not find the recipient/covered
entity in noncompliance.
If you have any questions related to
this policy, please contact the NEH
Office of the General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E6–13544 Filed 8–16–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[ Docket Nos. Redacted; License Nos.
Redacted; EA–06–196]
In the Matter of Certain 10 CFR Part 50
Licensees Who Transport Spent
Nuclear Fuel Under the Provisions of
10 CFR Part 71
Order Modifying Licenses (Effective
Immediately)
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
I.
The licensees identified in
Attachment 1 (Redacted) to this Order
have been issued a specific license by
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission)
authorizing the possession of spent
nuclear fuel and a general license
authorizing the transportation of spent
nuclear fuel [in a transportation package
approved by the Commission] in
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR parts
50 and 71. Commission regulations for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:36 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
the shipment of spent nuclear fuel at 10
CFR 73.37(a) require these licensees to
maintain a physical protection system
that meets the requirements contained
in 10 CFR 73.37(b), (c), (d), and (e).
II.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists
simultaneously attacked targets in New
York, NY, and Washington, DC,
utilizing large commercial aircraft as
weapons. In response to the attacks and
intelligence information subsequently
obtained, the Commission issued a
number of Safeguards and Threat
Advisories to its licensees in order to
strengthen licensees’ capabilities and
readiness to respond to a potential
attack on a nuclear facility or regulated
activity. The Commission has also
communicated with other Federal, State
and local government agencies and
industry representatives to discuss and
evaluate the current threat environment
in order to assess the adequacy of
security measures at licensed facilities.
In addition, the Commission has been
conducting a comprehensive review of
its safeguards and security programs
and requirements.
As a result of its consideration of
current safeguards and security plan
requirements, as well as a review of
information provided by the intelligence
community, the Commission has
determined that certain additional
security measures are required to be
implemented by licensees as prudent,
interim measures, to address the current
threat environment in a consistent
manner. Therefore, the Commission is
imposing requirements, as set forth in
Attachment 2 of this Order, on all
licensees identified in Attachment 1 of
this Order.1 These additional security
requirements, which supplement
existing regulatory requirements, will
provide the Commission with
reasonable assurance that the common
defense and security continue to be
adequately protected in the current
threat environment. These requirements
will remain in effect until the
Commission determines otherwise.
The Commission recognizes that
licensees may have already initiated
many of the measures set forth in
Attachment 2 to this Order in response
to previously issued Safeguards and
Threat Advisories or on their own. It is
also recognized that some measures may
not be possible or necessary for all
shipments of spent nuclear fuel, or may
need to be tailored to accommodate the
licensees’ specific circumstances to
achieve the intended objectives and
1 Attachments 1 and 2 contain Safeguards
Information and will not be released to the public.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47545
avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe
transport of spent nuclear fuel.
Although the additional security
measures implemented by licensees in
response to the Safeguards and Threat
Advisories have been adequate to
provide reasonable assurance of
adequate protection of common defense
and security, in light of the current
threat environment, the Commission
concludes that the security measures
must be embodied in an Order
consistent with the established
regulatory framework. In order to
provide assurance that licensees are
implementing prudent measures to
achieve a consistent level of protection
to address the current threat
environment, all licenses identified in
Attachment 1 to this Order shall be
modified to include the requirements
identified in Attachment 2 to this Order.
In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202,
and in light of the common defense and
security matters identified above which
warrant the issuance of this Order, the
Commission finds that the public
health, safety, and interest require that
this Order be immediately effective.
III.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53,
104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, and the Commission’s
regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR
parts 50 and 71, It is hereby ordered,
effective immediately, that all licenses
identified in Attachment 1 to this Order
are modified as follows:
A. All licensees shall,
notwithstanding the provisions of any
Commission regulation or license to the
contrary, comply with the requirements
described in Attachment 2 to this Order
except to the extent that a more
stringent requirement is set forth in the
licensee’s security plan. The licensees
shall immediately start implementation
of the requirements in Attachment 2 to
the Order and shall complete
implementation by September 1, 2006,
unless otherwise specified in
Attachment 2, or before the first
shipment after August 11, 2006,
whichever is earlier.
B.1. All licensees shall, by September
1, 2006, unless otherwise specified in
Attachment 2, or before the first
shipment after August 11, 2006,
whichever is earlier, notify the
Commission, (1) if they are unable to
comply with any of the requirements
described in Attachment 2, (2) if
compliance with any of the
requirements is unnecessary in their
specific circumstances, or (3) if
implementation of any of the
requirements would cause the licensee
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 159 (Thursday, August 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47541-47545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-13544]
[[Page 47541]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
National Endowment for the Humanities; Guidance to Federal
Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against
National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient
Persons
AGENCY: National Endowment for the Humanities, NFAH.
ACTION: Notice of proposed guidance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) publishes for
public comment proposed policy guidance on Title VI's prohibition
against national origin discrimination as it affects limited English
proficient persons.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 18, 2006. NEH
will review all comments and will determine what modifications, if any,
to this policy guidance are necessary.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons should submit written comments to Office
of the General Counsel, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1100
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 529, Washington, DC 20506. Comments may
also be submitted by facsimile at 202-606-8600 or by e-mail at
gencounsel@neh.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Gottry at the above address or
by telephone at 202-606-8322; TDD: 202-606-8282. Arrangements to
receive the policy in an alternative format may be made by contacting
the named individual.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under NEH regulations implementing Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. (Title VI),
recipients of Federal financial assistance from the NEH (recipients)
have a responsibility to ensure meaningful access by persons with
limited English proficiency (LEP) to their programs and activities. See
45 CFR Part 1170. Executive Order 13166, reprinted at 65 FR 50121
(August 16, 2000), directs each Federal agency that extends assistance
subject to the requirements of Title VI to publish, after review and
approval by the Department of Justice, guidance for its recipients
clarifying that obligation. The Executive Order also directs that all
such guidance be consistent with the compliance standards and framework
detailed in DOJ Policy Guidance entitled ``Enforcement of Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964--National Origin Discrimination Against
Persons with Limited English Proficiency.'' See 65 FR 50123 (August 16,
2000).
On March 14, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Report To Congress titled ``Assessment of the Total Benefits and
Costs of Implementing Executive Order No. 13166: Improving Access to
Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.'' Among other
things, the Report recommended the adoption of uniform guidance across
all Federal agencies, with flexibility to permit tailoring to each
agency's specific recipients. Consistent with this OMB recommendation,
the Department of Justice (DOJ) published LEP Guidance for DOJ
recipients which was drafted and organized to also function as a model
for similar guidance by other Federal grant agencies. See 67 FR 41455
(June 18, 2002). The proposed guidance is based upon and incorporates
the legal analysis and compliance standards of the model June 18, 2002,
DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients.
It has been determined that the guidance does not constitute a
regulation subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It has also been determined that this
guidance is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
The text of the complete proposed guidance document appears below.
Dated: August 11, 2006.
Heather C. Gottry,
Acting General Counsel, National Endowment for the Humanities.
I. Introduction
Most individuals living in the United States read, write, speak and
understand English. There are many individuals, however, for whom
English is not their primary language. For instance, based on the 2000
census, over 26 million individuals speak Spanish and almost 7 million
individuals speak an Asian or Pacific Island language at home. If these
individuals have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand
English, they are limited English proficient, or ``LEP.''
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq.
and its implementing regulations provide that no person shall be
subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national
origin under any program or activity that receives Federal financial
assistance. Language for LEP individuals can be a barrier to accessing
important benefits or services, understanding and exercising important
rights, complying with applicable responsibilities, or understanding
other information provided by Federally funded programs and activities.
In certain circumstances, failure to ensure that LEP persons can
effectively participate in or benefit from Federally assisted programs
and activities may violate the prohibition under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d and Title VI regulations against
national origin discrimination.
The purpose of this policy guidance is to clarify the
responsibilities of recipients of Federal financial assistance from the
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and assist them in
fulfilling their responsibilities to limited English proficient (LEP)
persons pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
NEH implementing regulations. The policy guidance reiterates NEH's
longstanding position that, in order to avoid discrimination against
LEP persons on the grounds of national origin, recipients must take
reasonable steps to ensure that such persons have meaningful access to
the programs, services, and information those recipients provide.
This policy guidance is modeled on and incorporates the legal
analysis and compliance standards and framework set out in Section I
through Section VIII of Department of Justice (DOJ) Policy Guidance
titled ``Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding
Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting
Limited English Proficient Persons,'' published at 67 FR 41455, 41457-
41465 (June 18, 2002) (DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance). To the extent
additional clarification is desired on the obligation under Title VI to
ensure meaningful access by LEP persons and how recipients can satisfy
that obligation, a recipient should consult the more detailed
discussion of the applicable compliance standards and relevant factors
set out in DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance. The DOJ Guidance may be viewed
and downloaded at https://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/lep/
DOJFinLEPFRJun182002.htm or at https://www.lep.gov. In addition, NEH
recipients also receiving Federal financial assistance from other
Federal agencies, such as the Department of Education or the National
Endowment for the Arts, should review those agencies' guidance
documents at https://www.lep.gov for a more focused explanation of how
they can comply with their Title VI and regulatory obligations in the
context of similar Federally assisted programs or activities.
Many commentators have noted that some have interpreted the case of
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275
[[Page 47542]]
(2001), as impliedly striking down the regulations promulgated under
Title VI that form the basis for the part of Executive Order 13166 that
applies to Federally assisted programs and activities. The NEH and the
Department of Justice have taken the position that this is not the
case, and will continue to do so. Accordingly, we will strive to ensure
that Federally assisted programs and activities work in a way that is
effective for all eligible beneficiaries, including those with limited
English proficiency.
II. Purpose and Application
This policy guidance provides a legal framework to assist
recipients in developing appropriate and reasonable language assistance
measures designed to address the needs of LEP individuals. The NEH
Title VI implementing regulations prohibit both intentional
discrimination and policies and practices that appear neutral but have
a discriminatory effect. Thus, a recipient entity's policies or
practices regarding the provision of benefits and services to LEP
persons need not be intentional to be discriminatory, but may
constitute a violation of Title VI if they have an adverse effect on
the ability of national origin minorities to meaningfully access
programs and services.
Recipient entities have considerable flexibility in determining how
to comply with their legal obligation in the LEP setting and are not
required to use the suggested methods and options that follow. However,
recipient entities must establish and implement policies and procedures
for providing language assistance sufficient to fulfill their Title VI
responsibilities and provide LEP persons with meaningful access to
services.
III. Policy Guidance
1. Who Is Covered
All entities that receive Federal financial assistance from NEH,
either directly or indirectly, through a grant, cooperative agreement,
contract or subcontract, are covered by this policy guidance. Title VI
applies to all Federal financial assistance, which includes but is not
limited to awards and loans of Federal funds, awards or donations of
Federal property, details of Federal personnel, or any agreement,
arrangement or other contract that has as one of its purposes the
provision of assistance.
Title VI prohibits discrimination in any program or activity that
receives Federal financial assistance. In most cases, when a recipient
receives Federal financial assistance for a particular program or
activity, all operations of the recipient are covered by Title VI, not
just the part of the program that uses the Federal assistance. Thus,
all parts of the recipient's operations would be covered by Title VI,
even if the Federal assistance were used only by one part.
Finally, some recipients operate in jurisdictions in which English
has been declared the official language. Nonetheless, these recipients
continue to be subject to Federal non-discrimination requirements,
including those applicable to the provision of Federally assisted
services to persons with limited English proficiency.
2. Basic Requirement: All Recipients Must Take Reasonable Steps To
Provide Meaningful Access to LEP Persons
Title VI and the NEH implementing regulations require that
recipients take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to the
information, programs, and services they provide. Recipients of Federal
assistance have considerable flexibility in determining precisely how
to fulfill this obligation.
It is also important to emphasize that academic institutions,
nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries are in the business of
maintaining, sharing, and disseminating vast amounts of information and
items, most of which are created or generated by third parties. In
large measure, the common service provided by these recipients is
access to information, whether maintained on-site or elsewhere, not the
generation of the source information itself. This distinction is
critical in properly applying Title VI to academic institutions,
nonprofit organizations, museums, libraries, and similar programs. For
example, in the context of library and museum services, recipients
initially should focus on their procedures or services that directly
impact access in three areas. First, applications for library or museum
membership cards, instructions on card usage, exhibit brochures,
building maps, and dissemination of information on where and how source
material and collections are maintained and indexed, should be
available in appropriate languages other than English. Second,
recipients should, consistent with the four factor analysis, determine
what reasonable steps could be taken to enhance the value of their
collections or services to LEP persons, including, for example,
accessing language-appropriate books through inter-library loans,
direct acquisitions, and/or on-line materials. Third, to the extent a
recipient provides services beyond museum exhibitions or access to
books, art, or cultural collections to include the generation of
information about those collections, research aids, or community
educational outreach such as reading or discovery programs, these
additional or enhanced services should be separately evaluated under
the four-factor analysis. A similar distinction can be employed with
respect to a museum's exhibits versus a museum's procedures for
meaningful access to those exhibits.
What constitutes reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access in
the context of Federally-assisted programs and activities in the area
of academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and library
services will be contingent upon a balancing of four factors: (1) The
number and proportion of eligible LEP constituents; (2) the frequency
of LEP individuals' contact with the program; (3) the nature and
importance of the program; and (4) the resources available, including
costs. Each of these factors is summarized below. In addition,
recipients should consult Section V of the June 18, 2002 DOJ LEP
Guidance for Recipients, 67 FR at 41459-41460 or https://www.lep.gov,
for additional detail on the nature, scope, and application of these
factors.
(1) Number or Proportion of LEP Individuals
The appropriateness of any action will depend on the size and
proportion of the LEP population that the recipient serves and the
prevalence of particular languages. Programs that serve a few or even
one LEP person are still subject to the Title VI obligation to take
reasonable steps to provide meaningful opportunities for access. The
first factor in determining the reasonableness of a recipient's efforts
is the number or proportion of people who will be effectively excluded
from meaningful access to the benefits or services if efforts are not
made to remove language barriers. The steps that are reasonable for a
recipient who serves one LEP person a year may be different than those
expected from a recipient that serves several LEP persons each day.
(2) Frequency of Contact With the Program
Frequency of contact between the program or activity and LEP
individuals is another factor to be weighed. If LEP individuals must
access the recipient's program or activity on a daily basis, a
recipient has greater duties than if such contact is unpredictable and
infrequent. Recipients should take into account local or regional
conditions when determining frequency of contact with the program, and
should have the
[[Page 47543]]
flexibility to tailor their services to those needs.
(3) Nature and Importance of the Program
The importance of the recipient's program to beneficiaries will
affect the determination of what reasonable steps are required. More
affirmative steps must be taken in programs where the denial or delay
of access may have serious, or even life or death implications than in
programs that are not crucial to one's day-to-day existence, economic
livelihood, safety, or education. For example, the obligations of a
Federally assisted school or hospital differ from those of a Federally
assisted nonprofit organization, museum or library. This factor implies
that the obligation to provide translation services will be highest in
programs providing education, job training, medical/health services,
social welfare services, and similar services. As a general matter, it
is less likely that nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries
receiving assistance from the NEH will provide services having a
similar immediate and direct impact on a person's life or livelihood.
Thus, in large measure, it is the first factor (number or
proportion of LEP individuals) that will have the greatest impact in
determining the initial need for language assistance services.
In assessing the effect on individuals of failure to provide
language services, recipients must consider the importance of the
benefit to individuals both immediately and in the long-term. Another
aspect of this factor is the nature of the program itself. Some museum
content may be extremely accessible regardless of language. In these
instances, little translation might be required.
(4) Resources Available
NEH is aware that its recipients may experience difficulties with
resource allocation. Many of the organizations' overall budgets, and
awards involved are quite small. The resources available to a recipient
of Federal assistance may have an impact on the nature of the steps
that recipient must take to ensure meaningful access. For example, a
small recipient with limited resources may not have to take the same
steps as a larger recipient to provide LEP assistance in programs that
have a limited number of eligible LEP individuals, where contact is
infrequent, where the total cost of providing language services is
relatively high, and/or where the program is not providing an important
service or benefit from, for instance, a health, education, economic,
or safety perspective. Translation and interpretation costs are
appropriately included in award budget requests.
This four-factor analysis necessarily implicates the ``mix'' of LEP
services required. The correct mix should be based on what is both
necessary and reasonable in light of the four-factor analysis. Even
those award recipients who serve very few LEP persons on an infrequent
basis should use a balancing analysis to determine whether the
importance of the service(s) provided and minimal costs make language
assistance measures reasonable even in the case of limited and
infrequent interactions with LEP persons. Recipients have substantial
flexibility in determining the appropriate mix.
IV. Strategies for Ensuring Meaningful Access
Academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and
libraries have a long history of interacting with people with varying
language backgrounds and capabilities within the communities where they
are located. The agency's goal is to continue to encourage these
efforts and share practices so that other academic institutions,
nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries can benefit from other
institutions' experiences.
The following are examples of language assistance strategies that
are potentially useful for all recipients. These strategies incorporate
a variety of options and methods for providing meaningful access to LEP
beneficiaries and provide examples of how recipients should take each
of the four factors discussed above into account when developing an LEP
strategy. Not every option is necessary or appropriate for every
recipient with respect to all of its programs and activities. Indeed, a
language assistance plan need not be intricate; it may be as simple as
being prepared to use a commercially available language line to obtain
immediate interpreting services and/or having bilingual staff members
available who are fluent in the most common non-English languages
spoken in the area. Recipients should exercise the flexibility afforded
under this Guidance to select those language assistance measures which
have the greatest potential to address, at appropriate levels and in
reasonable manners, the specific language needs of the LEP populations
they serve.
Finally, the examples below are not intended to suggest that if
services to LEP populations aren't legally required under Title VI and
Title VI regulations, they should not be undertaken. Part of the way in
which academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and
libraries build communities is by cutting across barriers like
language. A small investment in outreach to a linguistically diverse
community may well result in a rich cultural exchange that benefits not
only the LEP population, but also the academic institutions, nonprofit
organizations, museums and libraries and the community as a whole.
Examples:
Identification of the languages that are likely to be
encountered in, and the number of LEP persons that are likely to be
affected by, the program. This information may be gathered through
review of census and constituent data as well as data from school
systems and community agencies and organizations;
Posting signs in public areas in several languages,
informing the public of its right to free interpreter services and
inviting members of the public to identify themselves as persons
needing language assistance;
Use of ``I speak'' cards for public-contact personnel
so that the public can easily identify staff language abilities;
Employment of staff, bilingual in appropriate
languages, in public contact positions;
Contracts with interpreting services that can provide
competent interpreters in a wide variety of languages in a timely
manner;
Formal arrangements with community groups for competent
and timely interpreter services by community volunteers;
An arrangement with a telephone language interpreter
line for on-demand service;
Translations of application forms, instructional,
informational and other key documents into appropriate non-English
languages and provide oral interpreter assistance with documents for
those persons whose language does not exist in written form;
Procedures for effective telephone communication
between staff and LEP persons, including instructions for English-
speaking employees to obtain assistance from bilingual staff or
interpreters when initiating or receiving calls to or from LEP
persons;
Notice to and training of all staff, particularly
public contact staff, with respect to the recipient's Title VI
obligation to provide language assistance to LEP persons, and on the
language assistance policies and the procedures to be followed in
securing such assistance in a timely manner;
Insertion of notices, in appropriate languages, about
access to free interpreters and other language assistance, in
brochures, pamphlets, manuals, and other materials disseminated to
the public and to staff; and
Notice to and consultation with community organizations
that represent LEP language groups, regarding problems and
solutions, including standards and procedures for using their
members as interpreters.
In identifying language assistance measures, recipients should
avoid
[[Page 47544]]
relying on an LEP person's family members, friends, or other informal
interpreters to provide meaningful access to important programs and
activities. However, where LEP persons so desire, they should be
permitted to use, at their own expense, an interpreter of their own
choosing (whether a professional interpreter, family member, or friend)
in place of or as a supplement to the free language services expressly
offered by the recipient. But where a balancing of the four factors
indicate that recipient-provided language assistance is warranted, the
recipient should take care to ensure that the LEP person's choice is
voluntary, that the LEP person is aware of the possible problems if the
preferred interpreter is a minor child, and that the LEP person knows
that a competent interpreter could be provided by the recipient at no
cost.
The use of family and friends as interpreters may be an appropriate
option where proper application of the four factors would lead to a
conclusion that recipient-provided language assistance is not
necessary. An example of this might be a bookstore or cafeteria
associated with a museum. There, the importance and nature of the
activity may be relatively low and unlikely to implicate issues of
confidentiality, conflict of interest, or the need for technical
accuracy. In addition, the resources needed and costs of providing
language services may be high. In such a setting, an LEP person's use
of family, friends, or other informal ad hoc interpreters may be
appropriate.
As noted throughout this guidance, NEH award recipients have a
great deal of flexibility in addressing the needs of their constituents
with limited English skills. That flexibility does not diminish, and
should not be used to minimize, the obligation that those needs be
addressed. NEH recipients should apply the four factors outlined above
to the various kinds of contacts that they have with the public to
assess language needs and decide what reasonable steps they should take
to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons. By balancing the number or
proportion of people with limited English skills served, the frequency
of their contact with the program, the importance and nature of the
program, and the resources available, NEH awardees' Title VI
obligations in many cases will be satisfied by making available oral
language assistance or commissioning translations on an as-requested
and as-needed basis. There are many circumstances where, after an
application and balancing of the four factors noted above, Title VI
would not require translation. For example, Title VI does not require a
library to translate its collections, but it does require the
implementation of appropriate language assistance measures to permit an
otherwise eligible LEP person to apply for a library card and
potentially to access appropriate-language materials through inter-
library loans or other reasonable methods. The NEH views this policy
guidance as providing sufficient flexibility to allow the NEH to
continue to fund language-dependent programs in both English and other
languages without requiring translation that would be inconsistent with
the nature of the program. Recipients should consult Section VI of the
June 18, 2002 DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients, 67 FR at 41461-41464 or
https://www.lep.gov, for additional clarification on the standards
applicable to assessing interpreter and translator competence, and for
determining when translations of documents vital to accessing program
benefits should be undertaken.
The key to ensuring meaningful access for people with limited
English skills is effective communication. Academic institutions,
nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries can ensure effective
communication by developing and implementing a comprehensive language
assistance program that includes policies and procedures for
identifying and assessing the language needs of its LEP constituents.
Such a program should also provide for a range of oral language
assistance options, notice to LEP persons of the right to language
assistance, periodic training of staff, monitoring of the program and,
in certain circumstances, the translation of written materials.
Each recipient should, based on its own volume and frequency of
contact with LEP clients and its own available resources, adopt a
procedure for the resolution of complaints regarding the provision of
language assistance and for notifying the public of their right to and
how to file a complaint under Title VI. State recipients, who will
frequently serve large numbers of LEP individuals, may consider
appointing a senior level employee to coordinate the language
assistance program and to ensure that there is regular monitoring of
the program.
V. Compliance and Enforcement
Executive Order 13166 requires that each Federal department or
agency extending Federal financial assistance subject to Title VI issue
separate guidance implementing uniform Title VI compliance standards
with respect to LEP persons. Where recipients of Federal financial
assistance from NEH also receive assistance from one or more other
Federal departments or agencies, there is no obligation to conduct and
document separate but identical analyses and language assistance plans
for NEH. NEH, in discharging its compliance and enforcement obligations
under Title VI, looks to analyses performed and plans developed in
response to similar detailed LEP guidance issued by other Federal
agencies. Recipients may rely upon guidance issued by those agencies.
NEH's regulations implementing Title VI contain compliance and
enforcement provisions to ensure that a recipient's policies and
practices overcome barriers resulting from language differences that
would deny LEP persons an equal opportunity to participate in and
access to programs, services and benefits offered by NEH. See 45 CFR
Part 1110. The agency will ensure that its recipient entities fulfill
their responsibilities to LEP persons through the procedures provided
for in the Title VI regulations.
The Title VI regulations provide that NEH will investigate (or
contact its State recipient of funds to investigate, if appropriate)
whenever it receives a complaint, report or other information that
alleges or indicates possible noncompliance with Title VI. If the
investigation results in a finding of compliance, NEH will inform the
recipient in writing of this determination, including the basis for the
determination. If the investigation results in a finding of
noncompliance, NEH must inform the recipient of the noncompliance
through a Letter of Findings that sets out the areas of noncompliance
and the steps that must be taken to correct the noncompliance, and must
attempt to secure voluntary compliance through informal means. If the
matter cannot be resolved informally, the NEH will secure compliance
through (a) the suspension or termination of Federal assistance after
the recipient has been given an opportunity for an administrative
hearing, (b) referral to the Department of Justice for injunctive
relief or other enforcement proceedings, or (c) any other means
authorized by Federal, state, or local law.
Under the Title VI regulations, the NEH has a legal obligation to
seek voluntary compliance in resolving cases and cannot seek the
termination of funds until it has engaged in voluntary compliance
efforts and has determined that compliance cannot be secured
voluntarily. NEH will engage in voluntary compliance efforts and will
provide technical assistance to
[[Page 47545]]
recipients at all stages of its investigation. During these efforts to
secure voluntary compliance, NEH will propose reasonable timetables for
achieving compliance and will consult with and assist recipients in
exploring cost effective ways of coming into compliance.
In determining a recipient's compliance with Title VI, the NEH's
primary concern is to ensure that the recipient's policies and
procedures overcome barriers resulting from language differences that
would deny LEP persons a meaningful opportunity to participate in and
access programs, services, and benefits. A recipient's appropriate use
of the methods and options discussed in this policy guidance will be
viewed by the NEH as evidence of a recipient's willingness to comply
voluntarily with its Title VI obligations. If implementation of one or
more of these options would be so financially burdensome as to defeat
the legitimate objectives of a recipient/covered entity's program, or
if there are equally effective alternatives for ensuring that LEP
persons have meaningful access to programs and services (such as timely
effective oral interpretation of vital documents), NEH will not find
the recipient/covered entity in noncompliance.
If you have any questions related to this policy, please contact
the NEH Office of the General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E6-13544 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
