Final Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 2732-2754 [07-217]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 13 (Monday, January 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2732-2754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-217]



[[Page 2731]]

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

Part II





Department of Housing and Urban Development





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



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

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / 
Notices

[[Page 2732]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4878-N-02]


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

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 
Opportunity, HUD.

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is 
publishing the final ``Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance 
Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin 
Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons'' 
(Guidance) as required by Executive Order (EO) 13166. EO 13166 directs 
federal agencies that extend assistance, subject to the requirements of 
Title VI, to publish Guidance to clarify recipients' obligations to LEP 
persons. This final Guidance follows publication of the proposed 
Guidance on December 19, 2003.

DATES: Effective Date: February 21, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela D. Walsh, Director, Program 
Standards and Compliance Division, Office of Fair Housing and Equal 
Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh 
Street SW., Room 5226, Washington, DC 20410, telephone: (202) 708-2904 
(this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech 
impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free 
Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background--December 19, 2003, Proposed Guidance

    On December 19, 2003 (68 FR 70968), HUD published proposed Guidance 
to help recipients of federal financial assistance take reasonable 
steps to meet their regulatory and statutory obligations to ensure that 
LEP persons have meaningful access to HUD programs and activities. 
Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and its 
implementing regulations, recipients of federal financial assistance 
have a responsibility to ensure meaningful access to programs and 
activities by LEP persons. Specifically, EO 13166, issued on August 11, 
2000, and reprinted at 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 2000), directs each 
federal agency that extends assistance subject to the requirements of 
Title VI to publish guidance for its respective recipients clarifying 
this obligation.
    This Guidance must adhere to the federal-wide compliance standards 
and framework detailed in the Department of Justice (DOJ) model LEP 
Guidance, published at 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 2002). HUD's proposed 
Guidance followed the established format used in the DOJ model, and 
solicited comments on the Guidance's nature, scope, and 
appropriateness. Specific examples set out in HUD's Guidance explain 
and/or highlight how federal-wide compliance standards are applicable 
to recipients of HUD's federal financial assistance.

II. Significant Differences Between the December 19, 2003, Proposed 
Guidance and This Final Guidance

    This final Guidance takes into consideration the public comments 
received on the December 19, 2003, proposed Guidance. There are no 
significant changes between the proposed Guidance and this final 
Guidance. However, for purposes of clarification, several minor changes 
were made in Appendix A, and a new Appendix B has been added to the 
Guidance. Appendix B, ``Questions and Answers (Q&A),'' responds to 
frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to providing meaningful 
access to LEP persons.

III. Discussion of Public Comments Received on the December 19, 2003, 
Proposed Guidance

    The public comment period on the December 19, 2003, proposed 
Guidance closed on January 20, 2004. On January 20, 2004, the comment 
period was extended to February 5, 2004. HUD received 21 comments. 
Comments were received from public housing agencies, state housing 
agencies, private sector housing providers, organizations serving LEP 
populations, organizations advocating that English be the official U.S. 
language, and trade associations representing public housing agencies. 
HUD also received more than 7,000 postcards from concerned citizens who 
opposed the Guidance as an ``onerous burden'' on small and underfunded 
organizations and groups that advocated adoption of English as the 
official language of the United States.
    The comments expressed a wide range of viewpoints. Many of the 
comments identified areas of the Guidance for improvement and/or 
revision. Other comments objected to sections of the Guidance or to the 
Guidance in its entirety. The most frequent dissenting comments 
involved: (1) Opposition to the Alexander v. Sandoval Supreme Court 
decision [53 U.S. 275 (2001)]; (2) enforcement and compliance efforts 
(including legal enforceability, validity of housing-related legal 
documents, and vulnerability of recipients); (3) applicability of the 
Guidance (including HUD's provision of clearer standards regarding when 
the provision of language services are needed); (4) cost 
considerations; (5) competency of interpreters (including use of 
informal interpreters) and translators; (6) vulnerability of recipients 
as a result of this Guidance (including ``safe harbors''); and (7) 
consistency of translations (including standardized translations of 
documents).
    In addition, four commenters stated that HUD did not solicit the 
input of stakeholders for the proposed Guidance, despite the mandate of 
EO 13166. These and other comments are discussed in greater depth 
below. This preamble presents a more detailed review of the most 
significant concerns raised by the public in response to the December 
19, 2003, proposed Guidance and HUD's response to each concern. The 
preamble's sections are:
     Section IV, which discusses comments regarding the 
Sandoval Supreme Court decision (including enforcement under Title VI);
     Section V, which discusses comments regarding enforcement 
and compliance efforts (including legal enforceability, validity of 
housing-related legal documents, and vulnerability of recipients);
     Section VI, which discusses comments regarding 
applicability of the Guidance (i.e., clearer standards regarding when 
language services can reasonably be expected to be provided);
     Section VII, which discusses comments regarding cost 
considerations;
     Section VIII, which discusses comments regarding 
competency of interpreters (including use of informal interpreters) and 
translators;
     Section IX, which discusses comments regarding 
vulnerability of recipients as a result of this Guidance (including 
``safe harbors'');
     Section X, which discusses comments regarding consistency 
of translations (including standardized translations of documents); and
     Section XI, which discusses other comments.

IV. Comments Regarding the Sandoval Supreme Court Decision (Including 
Enforcement Under Title VI)

    Comment: Several commenters wrote that the proposed Guidance was

[[Page 2733]]

unsupported by law and, therefore, urged its withdrawal. The commenters 
expressed disagreement with the HUD and DOJ positions on the holding in 
Alexander v. Sandoval. Sandoval precludes individuals from bringing 
judicial actions to enforce those agency regulations based on Title VI. 
The commenters wrote that federal agencies have no power to enforce 
such regulations through this Guidance because it would violate the 
Sandoval decision to use the Guidance to determine compliance with 
Title VI and Title VI's regulations.
    HUD Response. HUD reiterates here, as it did in the proposed 
Guidance published on December 19, 2003, that its commitment to 
implement Title VI through regulations reaching language barriers is 
longstanding and is unaffected by the Sandoval decision. In its 
proposed Guidance, HUD stated that DOJ had disagreed with the 
interpretation voiced by the commenters, and in its final Guidance, HUD 
continues to take this position. The Guidance and the response to 
Appendix B, Q&As XV, XXIV, and XXV, state that the Supreme Court, in 
the Sandoval decision, did not strike down Title VI itself or Title 
VI's disparate impact regulations (at HUD, that would be its civil 
rights-related program requirements or ``CRRPRs''), but only ruled that 
individuals could not enforce these Title VI regulations through the 
courts and could only bring such court action under the statute itself. 
The Guidance further states that because the Supreme Court did not 
address the validity of the regulations or EO 13166, that both remain 
in effect. Individuals may still file administrative complaints with 
HUD alleging Title VI and Title VI regulatory violations for failing to 
take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to LEP persons.
    Appendix B, Q&As II, III, and IV further clarify the requirements 
of both the EO and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These 
responses describe the obligations of federal agencies under the EO and 
how Title VI applies to situations involving discrimination against LEP 
persons. These Q&As explain that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 is the federal law that protects individuals from discrimination 
on the basis of their race, color, or national origin in programs that 
receive federal financial assistance. Federally conducted programs and 
activities are required to meet the standards for taking reasonable 
steps to provide meaningful access to LEP persons under EO 13166. In 
addition, all programs and operations of entities that receive 
financial assistance from the federal government, including, but not 
limited to, state agencies, local agencies, and for-profit and 
nonprofit entities, and all sub-recipients (those that receive funding 
passed through a recipient) must comply with the Title VI obligations 
(including those in the regulations). Programs that do not receive 
federal funding, such as those that receive Federal Housing 
Administration (FHA) insurance, are not required to comply with Title 
VI's obligations. (If the recipient received FHA insurance along with 
Rental Assistance, construction subsidy, or other federal assistance, 
it would be required to comply with Title VI requirements.) In certain 
situations, failure to ensure that LEP persons can effectively 
participate in, or benefit from, federally assisted programs may 
violate Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination. 
EO 13166, signed on August 11, 2000, directs all federal agencies, 
including HUD, to work to ensure that programs receiving federal 
financial assistance provide meaningful access to LEP persons. Section 
3 of the EO requires all federal agencies to issue LEP guidance to help 
federally assisted recipients in providing such meaningful access to 
their programs. This guidance must be consistent with DOJ Guidance, but 
tailored to the specific federal agency's federally assisted 
recipients. HUD has written its general Guidance and Appendices to meet 
these requirements.

V. Comments Regarding Enforcement and Compliance Efforts (Including 
Legal Enforceability and Validity of Housing-Related Legal Documents 
and Vulnerability of Recipients)

    Comment: Two commenters who supported adoption of the proposed 
Guidance recommended that HUD provide more detailed Guidance to its 
staff on enforcement and compliance and encouraged collaboration with 
nonprofit organizations, such as fair housing groups funded by the Fair 
Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP). A number of commenters, while 
supportive of the Guidance and HUD's leadership in this area, suggested 
modifications that would, in their view, provide a more definitive 
statement of the minimal compliance standards or better describe how 
HUD would evaluate activities under a more flexible compliance 
standard. There were also comments that claimed the Guidance was 
actually a set of regulatory requirements masquerading as ``Guidance''; 
one commenter stated that the Guidance would be used to determine 
compliance with Title VI and its regulations, rather than as 
discretionary advice.
    HUD Response. HUD's rule at 24 CFR 1.7(c) requires HUD to undertake 
``a prompt investigation whenever a compliance review, report, 
complaint, or any other information indicates a possible failure to 
comply with this part 1.'' As explained further in Appendix B, Q&As 
XVI, XVIII, and XIX, FHEO will investigate or review complaints or 
other information that suggests a recipient is not in compliance with 
its Title VI obligations. HUD will determine whether the recipient has 
made reasonable efforts to ensure participation of LEP persons in 
programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance from HUD. 
Review of the evidence will include, but may not be limited to, 
application of the four-factor analysis identified in the LEP Guidance, 
which provides a framework for reviewing the totality of the 
circumstances and objectively balances the need to ensure meaningful 
access by LEP persons and without imposing undue burdens on recipients. 
HUD will also collect and evaluate evidence about whether the recipient 
has adopted a Language Access Plan (LAP) that reflects LEP needs (or 
addressed LEP needs in another official plan, such as the PHA or 
Consolidated Plan), implemented the Plan, and maintained Title VI 
compliance records that demonstrate services provided to LEP persons. 
HUD will inform the recipient of any findings of compliance or non-
compliance in writing. If the investigation or review results in 
findings that the recipient has failed to comply with HUD's rules at 24 
CFR part 1, HUD will inform the recipient and attempt to resolve the 
findings by informal means [24 CFR 1.7(d)]. HUD may use other means of 
voluntary cooperation, such as negotiation and execution of a voluntary 
compliance agreement. If HUD determines that compliance cannot be 
secured by voluntary means, HUD may use other means to enforce its 
rules under Title VI, such as the suspension or termination of approved 
funding or refusal to grant future funding [24 CFR 1.8(a), (c), and 
(d)]. HUD also may refer the matter to DOJ for enforcement action.
    Appendix B, Q&A VII, provides additional guidance on the four-
factor analysis by explaining that recipients are required to take 
reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to LEP persons. This 
standard is intended to be both flexible and fact-dependent and also to 
balance the need to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to critical 
services while not imposing

[[Page 2734]]

undue financial burdens on small businesses, small local governments, 
or small nonprofit organizations. The recipient may conduct an 
individualized assessment that balances the following four factors: (1) 
Number or proportion of LEP persons served or encountered in the 
eligible service population (``served or encountered'' includes those 
persons who would be served or encountered by the recipient if the 
persons were afforded adequate education and outreach); (2) frequency 
with which LEP persons come into contact with the program; (3) nature 
and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the 
program; and (4) resources available to the recipient and costs to the 
recipient. It further refers recipients to examples of applying the 
four-factor analysis to HUD-specific programs in Appendix A of HUD LEP 
Guidance.
    Appendix B, Q&A IX, explains that after completing the four-factor 
analysis and deciding what language assistance services are 
appropriate, a recipient may develop a LAP or Implementation Plan to 
address identified needs of the LEP populations it serves. Some 
elements that may be helpful in designing an LAP include: (1) 
Identifying LEP persons who need language assistance and the specific 
language assistance that is needed; (2) identifying ways in which 
language assistance will be provided; (3) providing effective outreach 
to the LEP community; (4) training staff; (5) translating informational 
materials in identified language(s) that detail services and activities 
provided to beneficiaries (e.g., model leases, tenants' rights and 
responsibilities brochures, fair housing materials, first-time 
homebuyer guide); (6) providing appropriately translated notices to LEP 
persons (e.g., eviction notices, security information, emergency 
plans); (7) providing interpreters for large, medium, small, and one-
on-one meetings; (8) developing community resources, partnerships, and 
other relationships to help with the provision of LEP services; and (9) 
making provisions for monitoring and updating the LAP.
    However, HUD did not make changes to the Guidance itself. At this 
time, HUD does not feel that a specific separate statement of 
compliance standards is needed. HUD will continue to apply current 
Title VI investigative standards when conducting LEP investigations or 
compliance reviews. (See Appendix B, Q&A VI, for further discussion.)
    Comment: Several commenters stated that housing documents of a 
legal nature, such as leases, sales contracts, etc., that are 
translated into foreign languages might not be upheld in court as 
legally enforceable.
    HUD Response. HUD appreciates this concern that the documents 
required by the Guidance would complicate possible eviction actions. 
State and local law govern contractual agreements between residents and 
landlords.
    Comment: Commenters stated that questions could be raised about the 
accuracy of the translation and whether, for example, a tenant's 
signature on both English language and foreign language versions of a 
housing-related legal document would be upheld as valid in a judicial 
proceeding.
    HUD Response. HUD recommends that when leases are translated into 
other languages than English, the recipient only ask the tenant to sign 
the English lease. The translated document would be provided to the 
tenant but marked ``For information only.'' However, this 
recommendation in no way minimizes the need to ensure meaningful 
access, and therefore to take reasonable measures, such as second 
checks by professional translators, to ensure that the translation is 
accurate.

VI. Comments Regarding Applicability of the Guidance (i.e., HUD Should 
Provide Clearer Standards Regarding the Provision of Language Services)

    Comment: Several commenters wrote that the statement ``coverage 
extends to a recipient's entire program or activity * * * even if only 
one part of the recipient receives the federal assistance,'' places an 
unwarranted burden on an entire program. One commenter gave the example 
of a PHA that contracts with a Residents' Council that provides some 
level of LEP services. The commenter recommended that the PHA should 
not be required to enforce LEP requirements against the Residents' 
Council unless there is clear evidence of discriminatory intent.
    HUD Response. With regard to the specific example of a Residents' 
Council that provides some level of LEP services, given the context, we 
assume that this comment intended to characterize the Council as a 
subrecipient of federal financial assistance. The proposed Guidance 
issued on December 19, 2003, states that ``subrecipients likewise are 
covered when federal funds are passed through from one recipient to a 
subrecipient.'' Recipients such as Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG) Entitlement jurisdictions, CDBG state programs, and PHAs are 
required to monitor their subrecipients who receive federal financial 
assistance for a variety of purposes. Among these purposes are that 
such entities are also subject to the requirements of Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration 
Act of 1987. This final Guidance does not change the position taken on 
this issue as cited in the proposed Guidance. Therefore, the Resident 
Counsel in the above comment would be subject to Title VI if it 
received any funding from the PHA, although its analysis may indicate 
that it must provide little, if any, LEP services. The Guidance and 
Appendix B, Q&A IV, restate that Title VI's LEP obligations apply to 
(1) all programs and activities of entities that receive federal 
financial assistance, and (2) all subrecipients that receive federal 
funds that are passed through a recipient. Entities that are not 
recipients or subrecipients of federal financial assistance are not, 
themselves, subject to Title VI requirements (see 24 CFR 1.2), although 
recipients using contractors to carry out recipient activities remain 
obligated to ensure civil rights compliance in those activities. With 
regard to the comment that LEP requirements should only apply to 
subrecipients in the case of clear evidence of discriminatory intent, 
refer to Appendix B, Q&A IV, for a more in-depth response. Finally, 
this Guidance in no way expands the scope of coverage mandated by Title 
VI, as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which 
defined the terms ``program'' and ``program or activity.''

VII. Comments Regarding Cost Considerations

    Comments: A number of comments focused on the cost considerations 
as an element of HUD's flexible four-factor analysis for identifying 
and addressing the language assistance needs of LEP persons. For 
example, several commenters said that implementing this Guidance would 
constitute an unfunded mandate and that the total costs nationally 
would exceed the $100 million limit stipulated in the Unfunded Mandates 
Control Act. Commenters also stated that document translation is not a 
``one-time'' cost, since laws, regulations, and Guidance all change 
over time. In addition, several commenters noted that private housing 
providers and PHAs would not be able to recover the costs of 
implementing LEP services through rent increases, since LEP services 
are not included in HUD formulae used to calculate and approve rent 
increases. A few comments suggested that the flexible fact-dependent 
compliance standard incorporated by the Guidance, when combined with 
the desire of most recipients to avoid the risk of noncompliance, could 
lead some large,

[[Page 2735]]

statewide recipients to incur unnecessary or inappropriate financial 
burdens in conjunction with already strained program budgets.
    While no comments urged that costs be excluded from the analysis, 
some commenters wrote that a recipient could use cost as an 
inappropriate justification for avoiding otherwise reasonable and 
necessary language assistance to LEP persons.
    HUD Response. HUD believes that costs are a material consideration 
in identifying the reasonableness of particular language assistance 
measures, and that the Guidance identifies an appropriate framework by 
which costs are to be considered. The Department recognizes that some 
projects' budgets and resources are constrained by contracts and 
agreements with the Department. These constraints may impose a material 
burden upon the projects. Where a recipient of HUD funds can 
demonstrate such a material burden, HUD views this as a critical item 
in the consideration of costs in the four-factor analysis. However, 
where documents share common text, costs can be significantly decreased 
through pooling resources. For instance, many HUD recipients of HUD 
funds belong to national organizations that represent their interests. 
HUD recommends that these national groups set aside some funds from 
membership fees to offset the written translations. In addition, the 
same national groups may contract with a telephone interpreter service 
to provide oral interpretation on an as-needed basis. Appendix A 
discusses this issue in greater depth. Appendix B, Q&A VII, integrates 
the issue of cost as part of the discussion of the four-factor analysis 
described in the Guidance by advising the recipient to take into 
account both the costs and resources available to the recipient.
    In addition, Appendix B, Q&A XII, explains how a recipient may 
supplement its limited resources to provide necessary language services 
without sacrificing quality and accuracy. The federal government's LEP 
Web site, https://www.lep.gov/recip.html (scroll to translator and 
interpreter organizations), lists some examples of associations and 
organizations whose members may provide translation and interpretation 
services. In addition, the General Services Administration maintains a 
language services database for both written translations and oral 
interpretation that can be accessed at: https://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/
ElibMain/
SinDetails?executeQuery=YES&scheduleNumber=738+II&flag 
&filter=&specialItemNumber=382+1. Site visitors may choose an 
interpreter or translator from among a list of language service 
providers. Language service providers are available through other 
means, as well, and the above list is in no way meant to be an 
exclusive list or recommendations, but rather is shared for information 
purposes only.

VIII. Comments Regarding Competency of Interpreters (Including Use of 
Informal Interpreters) and Translators

    Comment: Several commenters wrote that written LAPs should include 
language strongly discouraging or severely limiting the use of informal 
interpreters, such as family members, guardians, or friends. Some 
recommended that the Guidance prohibit the use of informal interpreters 
except in limited or emergency situations. Commenters expressed concern 
that the technical and ethical competency of interpreters could 
jeopardize meaningful and appropriate access at the level and type 
contemplated under the Guidance.
    HUD Response. HUD believes that the Guidance is sufficient to allow 
recipients to achieve the proper balance between the many situations 
where the use of informal interpreters is inappropriate, and the few 
where the transitory and/or limited use of informal interpreters is 
necessary and appropriate in light of the nature of the service or 
benefit being provided and the factual context in which that service or 
benefit is being provided. Appendix B, Q&A XIII, states that a 
recipient should generally discourage the use of family members or 
other informal interpreters, but should permit the use of interpreters 
of the LEP person's choosing when that LEP person rejects the 
recipient's free language assistance services. This Guidance further 
explains and clarifies all aspects of how a recipient can provide 
different types of interpretation services, including informal 
interpreters for different situations. To ensure the quality of written 
translations and oral interpretations, HUD encourages recipients to use 
professional interpreters and translators.
    Comment: A number of commenters objected to requiring recipients to 
determine the competency of interpreters or translators, and strongly 
stated that such a requirement was too burdensome for the small- to 
medium-sized housing providers. A few commenters urged HUD to provide 
details on particular interpretation standards or approaches that would 
apply on a national basis.
    HUD Response. HUD declines to set such professional or technical 
standards. General guidelines for translator and interpreter competency 
are set forth in the Guidance. Recipients, beneficiaries, and 
associations of professional interpreters and translators could 
collaborate in identifying the applicable professional and technical 
interpretation standards that are appropriate for particular 
situations. For example, local, state, or national chapters of 
businesses or housing trade organizations can set up and enforce a set 
of rules and standards that will qualify interpreters and translators 
to participate in housing-related legal and other program-related 
transactions. Alternatively, PHAs may be able to find qualified 
interpreters and translators through associations representing that 
industry (e.g., American Translators Association, National Association 
of Judicial Interpreters and Translators, Translators and Interpreters 
Guild, and others) or even from for-profit organizations. Housing 
provider groups and/or individual housing providers can, as part of 
their LAPs, communicate with the state Attorney General's Office or the 
State Administrative Offices of the Courts regarding the regulations 
that govern the use of interpreters in most legal proceedings in state 
courts. Sections VI.A.1 and VI.B.4 of the general Guidance provide 
information on how to determine the competency of interpreters and 
translators. In addition, Appendix B, Q&A XII, re-emphasizes that the 
recipient should try to ensure the quality and accuracy of any 
interpretation or translation services provided.

IX. Comments Regarding Vulnerability of Recipients as a Result of This 
Guidance (Including ``Safe Harbors'')

    Comments: Some comments focused on providing ``safe harbors'' for 
oral translations and provision of written translation for vital 
documents. The commenters stated that there should be a level below 
which there would be no need to provide language services where the 
numbers and proportions of the population that are LEP are 
insignificant. Another commenter recommended that the ``safe harbor'' 
standards be less stringent and that compliance be determined based on 
the total circumstances.
    Comment: While not clearly stated in any of the comments, there 
appeared to be a misunderstanding about how the safe harbor 
requirements applied to the eligible population of the market area as 
opposed to current beneficiaries of the recipient.
    HUD Response. This final Guidance makes no changes to the ``safe 
harbor''

[[Page 2736]]

provisions found at Paragraph VI.B.3 or the Guidance in Appendix A.
    Oral Interpretation v. Written Translation: The ``safe harbor'' 
provided in this Guidance is for written translations only. There is no 
``safe harbor'' for oral interpretation. In fact, Q&As XXII and XXIII 
clarify that no matter how few LEP persons the recipient is serving, 
oral interpretation services should be made available in some form. 
Recipients should apply the four-factor analysis to determine whether 
they should provide reasonable and timely, oral interpretation 
assistance, free of charge, in all cases, to any beneficiary that is 
LEP. Depending on the circumstances, reasonable oral interpretation 
assistance might be an in-person or telephone service line interpreter.
    Safe Harbor for Written Translations: Q&A XX explains how the four-
factor analysis and the recipient's subsequent actions may be used to 
provide a ``safe harbor'' for written translations. HUD LEP Guidelines 
in Paragraph VI(B)(3) explains how certain recipient activities would 
constitute a ``safe harbor'' against a HUD finding that the recipient 
had not made reasonable efforts to provide written language assistance. 
As has already been noted, this Guidance is not intended to provide a 
definitive answer governing the translation of written documents for 
all recipients, nor one that is applicable in all cases and for all 
situations. Rather, in drafting the ``safe harbor'' and vital documents 
provisions of the Guidance, HUD sought to provide one, but not 
necessarily the only point of reference for when a recipient should 
consider translations of documents (or the implementation of 
alternatives to translating such documents). The recipient should 
consider its particular program or activity, the document or 
information in question, and the potential LEP populations served.
    Specific Safe Harbor Guidance: Appendix B, Q&A XXI, provides a 
helpful table that further clarifies the ``safe harbors'' for written 
translations based on the number and percentages of the market area-
eligible population or current beneficiaries and applicants that speak 
a specific language. According to the table, HUD would expect 
translations of vital documents to be provided when the eligible LEP 
population in the market area or the current beneficiaries exceeds 
1,000 persons or if it exceeds 5 percent of the eligible population or 
beneficiaries along with more than 50 persons. In cases where more than 
5 percent of the eligible population speaks a specific language, but 
fewer than 50 persons are affected, there should be a translated 
written notice of the person's right to an oral interpretation. An oral 
interpretation should be made available in all cases.
    Vital Documents: Q&A XX defines a ``safe harbor'' for written 
translations for purposes of this Guidance as one where the recipient 
has undertaken efforts to prevent a finding of non-compliance with 
respect to the needed translation of vital written materials. HUD's 
Guidance follows DOJ's Guidance that define a ``safe harbor'' only for 
the translation of vital documents. Q&A X describes how to determine if 
a document is a ``vital document.'' Vital documents are those that are 
critical for ensuring meaningful access by beneficiaries or potential 
beneficiaries generally and LEP persons specifically. If a recipient 
(1) undertakes the four-factor analysis, (2) determines a need for 
translated materials, and (3) translates vital documents to accommodate 
the primary languages of its LEP applicants, beneficiaries, and 
potential beneficiaries, then HUD will consider this strong evidence of 
compliance with respect to translation of vital documents.
    The decision as to what program-related documents should be 
translated into languages other than English is a complex one. While 
documents generated by a recipient may be helpful in understanding a 
program or activity, not all are critical or vital to ensuring 
meaningful access by beneficiaries generally and LEP persons 
specifically. Some documents may create or define legally enforceable 
rights or responsibilities on the part of individual beneficiaries 
(e.g., leases, rules of conduct, notices of benefit denials, etc.). 
Others, such as applications or certification forms, solicit important 
information required to establish or maintain eligibility to 
participate in a federally assisted program or activity. For some 
programs or activities, written documents may be the core benefit or 
service provided. Moreover, some programs or activities may be 
specifically focused on providing benefits or services to significant 
LEP populations. Finally, a recipient may elect to solicit vital 
information orally as a substitute for written documents. Certain 
languages are oral rather than written, and thus a high percentage of 
such LEP speakers will likely be unable to read translated documents or 
written instructions. Each of these factors should play a role in 
deciding: (1) What documents should be translated; (2) what target 
languages other than English are appropriate; and (3) whether more 
effective alternatives exist, rather than continued reliance on written 
documents to obtain or process vital information.
    Eligible population in the housing market area vs. current 
beneficiaries and applicants: While the final Guidance makes no changes 
to the safe harbor provisions found in Section VI.B.3. of the Guidance 
or to that found in Appendix A, the latter has been changed to 
differentiate between how the results of the ``safe harbor'' will 
affect a recipient's outreach efforts to eligible LEP populations as 
opposed to its LEP services for current beneficiaries and applicants of 
its programs. We have clarified in the ``Housing'' portion of Appendix 
A, as well as in Appendix B, Q&A XXI, that the ``safe harbor'' 
evaluation will differ depending on the population the recipient is 
considering. When conducting outreach to the eligible population in the 
housing market area, the number and percentage of the eligible LEP 
population in that housing market area should be evaluated. When 
working with a recipient's own beneficiaries (e.g., residents of a 
specific housing development or applicants to the housing development), 
the number and percentage of LEP persons living in the housing and on 
the waiting list should be evaluated.
    Guidance v. Requirements: Regarding written translations, the 
general HUD Guidance does identify actions that will be considered 
strong evidence of compliance with Title VI LEP obligations. However, 
the failure to provide written translations under these cited 
circumstances does not necessarily mean that the recipient is in non-
compliance. Rather, the ``safe harbors'' provide a starting point for 
recipients to consider whether the following justify written 
translations of commonly used forms into frequently encountered 
languages other than English: (1) The importance of the service, 
benefit, or activity and the nature of the information sought; (2) the 
number or proportion of LEP persons served; (3) the frequency with 
which LEP persons need this particular information and the frequency of 
encounters with the particular language being considered for 
translation; and (4) resources available, including costs.
    Comment: One comment pointed out that current demographic 
information based on the 2000 Census or other data was not readily 
available to assist recipients in identifying the number or proportion 
of LEP persons and the significant language groups among their 
otherwise eligible beneficiaries.
    HUD Response. This information is now available at: https://

[[Page 2737]]

www.census.gov/main/www/com2000.html.

X. Comments Regarding Consistency of Translations (Including 
Standardized Translations of Documents)

    Comment: One commenter stated that the concept of ``safe harbors'' 
should reflect an agreed-upon split of responsibilities between HUD and 
its private and public sector partners. Several commenters proposed 
that HUD provide standardized translations of basic programmatic and 
legal documents associated with HUD housing programs (e.g., public 
housing lease, housing discrimination complaint form, etc). They also 
recommended that HUD assume the cost of such translations as a means of 
reducing the costs of LEP services.
    HUD Response. On an ad hoc basis, HUD's individual program offices 
have translated ``as needed'' important documents that affect that 
particular office's programs. This approach has been effective and will 
be continued.

XI. Other Comments

    Comment: Several national organizations representing assisted 
housing providers said HUD should place a ``disclaimer'' on its 
translated documents that stipulates they are: (1) HUD translations, 
(2) provided as supplementary information, (3) not replacement for the 
official English document, and (4) not word-for-word translations of 
the housing providers documents.
    HUD Response. After undertaking reasonable quality control measures 
to ensure the accuracy of the translation, HUD will use the following 
language as a disclaimer in its translated lease or other documents: 
``This document is a translation of a HUD-issued legal document. HUD 
provides this translation to you merely as a convenience to assist in 
your understanding of your rights and obligations. The English language 
version of this document is the official, legal, controlling document. 
This translated document is not an official document.''
    Comment: Recipients of HUD funds have commented on potential 
complications that may arise during legal proceedings on the eviction 
of non-compliant residents. Recipients noted that failure on the part 
of the housing providers to provide all vital documents in the 
resident's native language would create a defense against eviction.
    HUD Response. HUD appreciates this concern that the documents 
required by the Guidance would complicate possible eviction actions. As 
stated in Appendix B, Q&A XIV, state and local laws control contractual 
agreements between residents and landlords. Notwithstanding, HUD is 
unaware of any state or local case law that would encumber the eviction 
process.
    Comment: National organizations representing assisted housing 
providers commented that the definition of ``Who is LEP?'' is 
misleading. They pointed out that since all members of the family over 
18 years of age must sign the lease and related documents, they, 
therefore, are all legally responsible for the terms and conditions of 
the lease. If a member of the family who signs the lease is English 
proficient, then this family should not be counted as LEP, and the 
standards for providing alternate language services to that family 
should not apply.
    HUD response. HUD and its recipients do not determine who is LEP. 
The beneficiaries of the services and activities identify themselves as 
LEP.
    Comment: HUD received more than 7,000 postcards from individual 
citizens who opposed the Guidance as an ``onerous burden'' on small and 
underfunded organizations and who advocated adoption of English as the 
official language of the United States.
    HUD Response. As stated in Appendix B, Q&As II and III, the 
Guidance is based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which 
prohibits discrimination based on national origin in programs and 
activities receiving federal financial assistance, and is, therefore, 
not a new requirement. The Guidance requires that meaningful access to 
programs, activities, and services that receive such assistance are 
expected to be provided to LEP persons. As explained in Appendix B, Q&A 
XXVI, recipients operating in jurisdictions in which English has been 
declared the official language continue to be subject to Title VI 
federal nondiscrimination requirements, including those applicable to 
the provisions of federally assisted services to LEP persons.
    Comment: Four commenters stated that HUD did not solicit the input 
of housing industry stakeholders in drafting the Guidance, despite the 
mandate of EO 13166. They recommended that HUD convene a stakeholder 
meeting to discuss issues relating to the final version of this 
Guidance.
    HUD Response. HUD contends that the process of publishing the 
December 19, 2003, proposed Guidance, providing the public comment 
period, reviewing the issues raised by the comments, and issuing this 
final version of the Guidance (with Appendices A and B) provided 
adequate opportunity for all housing industry stakeholders to review, 
discuss, and comment on the Guidance. HUD has determined that no 
separate housing industry stakeholder meetings are necessary.
    Since publication of the proposed Guidance, HUD has provided 
several training sessions to industry groups. After this final Guidance 
is published, HUD plans to hold a series of public forums where PHAs, 
housing and service providers, and other HUD program recipients and 
beneficiaries may exchange ideas on how to implement this Guidance and 
discuss and identify ``promising practices'' in serving LEP persons.
    In addition, the following clarifying comments have been added in 
Appendix B: (1) Q&A I defines LEP persons as ``persons who, as a result 
of national origin, do not speak English as their primary language and 
who have a limited ability to speak, read, write or understand 
English;'' (2) Q&A V describes the applicability of these requirements 
to immigration and citizenship by explaining that U.S. citizenship and 
LEP should not be used interchangeably. It is possible for a person to 
be a citizen and LEP, or for a person to be fluent in English but not a 
U.S. citizen. Some, but not all, HUD programs do require recipients to 
document the citizenship or eligible immigrant status of program 
beneficiaries. Title VI applies equally to citizens, documented non-
citizens and undocumented non-citizens, based on the LEP status of 
those who meet program requirements; (3) Q&A VIII specifies the types 
of language assistance that may be used. These include, but are not 
limited to, oral interpretation services, bilingual staff, telephone 
service lines interpreters, written translation services, notices to 
staff and recipients of the availability of LEP services, and referrals 
to community liaisons proficient in the language of LEP persons; (4) 
Q&A XI helps to determine the language needs of a beneficiary. 
Recipients may ask about language service needs from all prospective 
beneficiaries (regardless of the prospective beneficiary's race or 
national origin) and use language identification (or ``I speak'') cards 
that invite LEP persons to identify their own language needs. To reduce 
costs of compliance, the Bureau of the Census has made a set of these 
cards available on the Internet at https://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/
13166.htm; (5) Q&A XIII tells beneficiaries how to file a complaint; 
and (6) Q&A XXVII provides the address for the Web site to obtain 
further

[[Page 2738]]

information. The Web site also contains a link to another set of ``I 
speak'' cards in a different format. A recipient of DOJ funds and 
translator and interpreter organizations jointly created these. They 
are available at https://www.lep.gov/ocjs_languagecard.pdf. Other 
promising practices can also be found in the General Chapter (Chapter 
1) of DOJ's Tips and Tools document, found at https://www.lep.gov/tips_
tools_92104.pdf and at https://www.lep.gov/tips_tools_92104.htm.
    In addition to addressing the concerns noted above, HUD has 
substituted, where appropriate, technical or stylistic changes that 
more clearly articulate, in HUD's view, the underlying principles, 
guidelines, or recommendations detailed in the final Guidance. Language 
has been added that clarifies the Guidance's application to activities 
undertaken by a recipient either voluntarily or under contract in 
support of a federal agency's functions. After appropriate revision 
based on an in-depth review and analysis of the comments, with 
particular focus on the common concerns summarized above, HUD adopts 
its final ``Notice of Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance 
Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin 
Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficiency Persons.'' The 
text of this final Guidance, along with Appendices A and B, are below. 
Title VI regulations that deal with discrimination based on national 
origin have not changed, and violations of the prohibition on national 
origin discrimination will continue to be enforced as in the past. 
Therefore, no substantive changes have been made to the general 
Guidance, although some editorial changes were made. A few substantive 
changes were made to the HUD-specific Guidance in Appendix A, from that 
which was published as proposed Guidance at 68 FR 70968 on December 19, 
2003. The changes were made to provide clarity. Some editorial changes 
were also made.

Final Guidance

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.'' In the 2000 
census, 28 percent of all Spanish and Chinese speakers and 32 percent 
of all Vietnamese-speakers reported that they spoke English ``not 
well'' or ``not at all.''
    Language for LEP persons can be a barrier to accessing important 
benefits or services, understanding and exercising important rights, 
complying with applicable responsibilities, or understanding other 
information provided by federally funded programs and activities. The 
federal government funds an array of programs, services, and activities 
that can be made accessible to otherwise-eligible LEP persons. The 
federal government is committed to improving the accessibility of these 
programs and activities to eligible LEP persons, a goal that reinforces 
its equally important commitment to promoting programs and activities 
designed to help individuals learn English. Recipients should not 
overlook the long-term positive impacts of incorporating or offering 
English as a Second Language (ESL) programs in parallel with language 
assistance services. ESL courses can serve as an important adjunct to a 
proper LEP plan or Language Access Plan (LAP). However, the fact that 
ESL classes are made available does not obviate the statutory and 
regulatory requirement to provide meaningful access for those who are 
not yet English proficient. Recipients of federal financial assistance 
have an obligation to reduce language barriers that can preclude 
meaningful access by LEP persons to important government programs, 
services, and activities. HUD recognizes that many recipients had 
language assistance programs in place prior to the issuance of 
Executive Order 13166. This policy guidance provides a uniform 
framework for a recipient to integrate, formalize, and assess the 
continued vitality of these existing and possibly additional reasonable 
efforts based on the nature of its program or activity, the current 
needs of the LEP populations it encounters, and its prior experience in 
providing language services in the community it serves.
    In certain circumstances, failure to ensure that LEP persons can 
effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs 
and activities may violate the prohibition under Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, and Title VI regulations against 
national origin discrimination. The purpose of this policy guidance is 
to assist recipients in fulfilling their responsibilities to provide 
meaningful access to LEP persons under existing law. This policy 
guidance clarifies existing legal requirements for LEP persons by 
describing the factors recipients should consider in fulfilling their 
responsibilities to LEP persons. The policy guidance is not a 
regulation, but rather a guide. Title VI and its implementing 
regulations require that recipients take responsible steps to ensure 
meaningful access by LEP persons. This guidance provides an analytical 
framework that recipients may use to determine how best to comply with 
statutory and regulatory obligations to provide meaningful access to 
the benefits, services, information, and other important portions of 
their programs and activities for individuals who are limited English 
proficient. These are the same criteria HUD will use in evaluating 
whether recipients are in compliance with Title VI and Title VI 
regulations.
    As with most government initiatives, guidance on LEP requires 
balancing several principles. While this Guidance discusses that 
balance in some detail, it is important to note the basic principles 
behind that balance. First, HUD must ensure that federally assisted 
programs aimed at the American public do not leave some behind simply 
because they face challenges communicating in English. This is of 
particular importance because, in many cases, LEP individuals form a 
substantial portion of those encountered in federally assisted 
programs. Second, HUD must achieve this goal while finding constructive 
methods to reduce the costs of LEP requirements on small businesses, 
small local governments, or small non-profit entities that receive 
federal financial assistance.
    There are many productive steps that the federal government, either 
collectively or as individual grant agencies, can take to help 
recipients reduce the costs of language services, without sacrificing 
meaningful access for LEP persons. Without these steps, certain smaller 
grantees may well choose not to participate in federally assisted 
programs, threatening the critical functions that the programs strive 
to provide. To that end, HUD plans to continue to provide assistance 
and guidance in this important area. In addition, HUD plans to work 
with representatives of state and local governments, public housing 
agencies, assisted housing providers, fair housing assistance programs 
and other HUD recipients, and LEP persons to identify and share model 
plans, examples of best practices, and cost-saving approaches. 
Moreover, HUD intends to explore how language assistance measures, 
resources, and cost-containment approaches developed with respect to 
its own federally conducted programs and

[[Page 2739]]

activities can be effectively shared or otherwise made available to 
recipients, particularly small businesses, small local governments, and 
small non-profit entities. An interagency working group on LEP has 
developed a Web site, https://www.lep.gov, to assist in disseminating 
this information to recipients, federal agencies, and the communities 
being served.
    Many persons who commented on the Department of Justice's (DOJ) 
proposed LEP guidance, published January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3834), later 
published for additional public comment on January 18, 2002 (67 FR 
2671), and published as final on June 18, 2002 (67 FR 41455), have 
noted that some have interpreted the case of Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 
U.S. 275 (2001), as implicitly striking down the regulations 
promulgated under Title VI that form the basis for the part of 
Executive Order 13166 that applies to federally assisted programs and 
activities. DOJ and HUD have taken the position that this is not the 
case, for reasons explained below. Accordingly, HUD will strive to 
ensure that federally assisted programs and activities work in a way 
that is effective for all eligible beneficiaries, including those with 
limited English proficiency.

II. Legal Authority

    Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 
2000d, provides that no person shall ``on the ground of race, color, or 
national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the 
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or 
activity receiving federal financial assistance.'' Section 602 
authorizes and directs federal agencies that are empowered to extend 
federal financial assistance to any program or activity ``to effectuate 
the provisions of [section 601] * * * by issuing rules, regulations, or 
orders of general applicability'' (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1).
    HUD regulations promulgated pursuant to section 602 forbid 
recipients from ``utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration 
which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination 
because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of 
defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives 
of the program as respects individuals of a particular race, color, or 
national origin'' (24 CFR 1.4).
    The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), 
interpreted regulations promulgated by the former Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare, including a regulation similar to that of HUD, 
24 CFR 1.4, to hold that Title VI prohibits conduct that has a 
disproportionate effect on LEP persons because such conduct constitutes 
national-origin discrimination. In Lau, a San Francisco school district 
that had a significant number of non-English speaking students of 
Chinese origin was required to take reasonable steps to provide them 
with a meaningful opportunity to participate in federally funded 
educational programs.
    On August 11, 2000, Executive Order 13166, ``Improving Access to 
Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,'' was issued and 
published on August 16, 2000 (65 FR 50121). Under that order, every 
federal agency that provides financial assistance to non-federal 
entities must publish guidance on how their recipients can provide 
meaningful access to LEP persons and thus comply with Title VI 
regulations forbidding funding recipients from ``restrict[ing] an 
individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege 
enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other 
benefit under the program'' or from ``utiliz[ing] criteria or methods 
of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to 
discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or 
have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment 
of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a 
particular race, color, or national origin.''
    On that same day, DOJ issued a general guidance document addressed 
to ``Executive Agency Civil Rights Officers'' setting forth general 
principles for agencies to apply in developing guidance documents for 
recipients pursuant to the Executive Order. The DOJ document is titled, 
``Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 National 
Origin Discrimination Against Persons With Limited English 
Proficiency,'' published on August 16, 2000 (65 FR 50123) (``DOJ LEP 
Guidance'').
    Subsequently, federal agencies raised questions regarding the 
requirements of the Executive Order, especially in light of the Supreme 
Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). On 
October 26, 2001, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights 
Division issued a memorandum for ``Heads of Departments and Agencies, 
General Counsels and Civil Rights Directors.'' This memorandum 
clarified and reaffirmed the DOJ LEP Guidance in light of Sandoval. 
This Guidance noted that some have interpreted Sandoval as implicitly 
striking down the disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title 
VI that form the basis for the part of Executive Order 13166 that 
applies to federally assisted programs and activities. See, e.g., 
Sandoval,, 532 U.S. at 286, 286 n.6 (``[W]e assume for purposes of this 
decision that section 602 confers the authority to promulgate 
disparate-impact regulations; We cannot help observing, however, how 
strange it is to say that disparate-impact regulations are `inspired 
by, at the service of, and inseparably intertwined with' Sec. 601 * * * 
when Sec. 601 permits the very behavior that the regulations 
forbid.''). This guidance, however, makes clear that the DOJ disagreed 
with this interpretation. Sandoval holds principally that there is no 
private right of action to enforce Title VI disparate-impact 
regulations. The case did not address the validity of those regulations 
or Executive Order 13166, or otherwise limit the authority and 
responsibility of federal grant agencies to enforce their own 
implementing regulations. The Assistant Attorney General stated that 
because Sandoval did not invalidate any Title VI regulations that 
proscribe conduct that has a disparate impact on covered groups--the 
types of regulations that form the legal basis for the part of 
Executive Order 13166 that applies to federally assisted programs and 
activities--the Executive Order remains in force.
    This HUD policy is thus published pursuant to Title VI, Title VI 
regulations, and Executive Order 13166. It is consistent with the final 
DOJ ``Guidance to Federal Financial Recipients Regarding Title VI 
Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited 
English Proficient Persons,'' published on June 18, 2002 (67 FR 41455).

III. Who Is Covered?

    HUD's regulation, 24 CFR Part 1, ``Nondiscrimination in Federally 
Assisted Programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development--
Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,'' requires 
all recipients of federal financial assistance from HUD to provide 
meaningful access to LEP persons. Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, 
the meaningful access requirement of the Title VI regulations and the 
four-factor analysis set forth in this LEP Guidance are to additionally 
apply to the programs and activities of federal agencies, including 
HUD. Federal financial assistance includes grants, training, use of 
equipment, donations of surplus property, and other assistance. 
Recipients of HUD assistance include, for example:
     State and local governments;
     Public housing agencies;
     Assisted housing providers;

[[Page 2740]]

     The Fair Housing Initiative Program and the Fair Housing 
Assistance Program; and
     Other entities receiving funds directly or indirectly from 
HUD.
    Subrecipients and state grant recipients are likewise covered when 
federal funds are passed to them through the grantee. For example, 
Entitlement Community Development Block Grant, State Community 
Development Block Grant, and HOME Investment Partnership Program 
recipients' subrecipients are covered. Coverage extends to a 
recipient's entire program or activity, i.e., to all parts of a 
recipient's operations. This is true even if only one part of the 
recipient receives federal assistance.
    For example, HUD provides assistance to a state government's 
Department of Community Development, which provides funds to a local 
government to improve a particular public facility. All of the 
operations of the entire state Department of Community Development--not 
just the particular community and/or facility--are covered. However, if 
a federal agency were to decide to terminate federal funds based on 
noncompliance with Title VI or its regulations, only funds directed to 
the particular program or activity that is out of compliance would be 
terminated (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1). Finally, some recipients operate in 
jurisdictions in which English has been declared the official language. 
Nonetheless, these recipients continue to be subject to federal 
nondiscrimination requirements, including those applicable to the 
provision of federally assisted services to persons with limited 
English proficiency.

IV. Who Is a Limited English Proficient Individual?

    Persons who do not speak English as their primary language and who 
have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English can 
be limited English proficient, or ``LEP,'' and may be entitled to 
language assistance with respect to a particular type of service, 
benefit, or encounter. Examples of populations likely to include LEP 
persons who are encountered and/or served by HUD recipients and should 
be considered when planning language services include, but are not 
limited to:
     Persons who are seeking housing assistance from a public 
housing agency or assisted housing provider or are current tenants in 
such housing;
     Persons seeking assistance from a state or local 
government for home rehabilitation;
     Persons who are attempting to file housing discrimination 
complaints with a local Fair Housing Assistance Program grantee;
     Persons who are seeking supportive services to become 
first-time homebuyers;
     Persons seeking housing-related social services, training, 
or any other assistance from HUD recipients; and
     Parents and family members of the above.

V. How Does a Recipient Determine the Extent of Its Obligation to 
Provide LEP Services?

    Recipients are required to take reasonable steps to ensure 
meaningful access to their programs and activities by LEP persons. 
While designed to be a flexible and fact-dependent standard, the 
starting point is an individualized assessment that balances the 
following four factors: (1) The number or proportion of LEP persons 
eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or 
grantee; (2) the frequency with which LEP persons come in contact with 
the program; (3) the nature and importance of the program, activity, or 
service provided by the program to people's lives; and (4) the 
resources available to the grantee/recipient and costs. As indicated 
above, the intent of this Guidance is to suggest a balance that ensures 
meaningful access by LEP persons to critical services while not 
imposing undue burdens on small business, small local governments, or 
small nonprofit entities.
    After applying the four-factor analysis, a recipient may conclude 
that diffe