Attachment G: Executive Order 13166

Wednesday,
August 16, 2000

Part V

The President
Executive Order 13166—Improving Access
to Services for Persons With Limited
English Proficiency

Department of
Justice
Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964—National Origin
Discrimination Against Persons With
Limited English Proficiency; Notice

VerDate 112000

11:37 Aug 15, 2000

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\16AUE0.SGM

pfrm07

PsN: 16AUE0

50121

Presidential Documents

Federal Register
Vol. 65, No. 159
Wednesday, August 16, 2000

Title 3—

Executive Order 13166 of August 11, 2000

The President

Improving Access to Services for Persons With Limited
English Proficiency
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, and to improve access to federally
conducted and federally assisted programs and activities for persons who,
as a result of national origin, are limited in their English proficiency (LEP),
it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Goals.
The Federal Government provides and funds an array of services that
can be made accessible to otherwise eligible persons who are not proficient
in the English language. The Federal Government is committed to improving
the accessibility of these services to eligible LEP persons, a goal that reinforces
its equally important commitment to promoting programs and activities designed to help individuals learn English. To this end, each Federal agency
shall examine the services it provides and develop and implement a system
by which LEP persons can meaningfully access those services consistent
with, and without unduly burdening, the fundamental mission of the agency.
Each Federal agency shall also work to ensure that recipients of Federal
financial assistance (recipients) provide meaningful access to their LEP applicants and beneficiaries. To assist the agencies with this endeavor, the Department of Justice has today issued a general guidance document (LEP Guidance), which sets forth the compliance standards that recipients must follow
to ensure that the programs and activities they normally provide in English
are accessible to LEP persons and thus do not discriminate on the basis
of national origin in violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, and its implementing regulations. As described in the LEP
Guidance, recipients must take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access
to their programs and activities by LEP persons.
Sec. 2. Federally Conducted Programs and Activities.
Each Federal agency shall prepare a plan to improve access to its federally
conducted programs and activities by eligible LEP persons. Each plan shall
be consistent with the standards set forth in the LEP Guidance, and shall
include the steps the agency will take to ensure that eligible LEP persons
can meaningfully access the agency’s programs and activities. Agencies shall
develop and begin to implement these plans within 120 days of the date
of this order, and shall send copies of their plans to the Department of
Justice, which shall serve as the central repository of the agencies’ plans.
Sec. 3. Federally Assisted Programs and Activities.
Each agency providing Federal financial assistance shall draft title VI
guidance specifically tailored to its recipients that is consistent with the
LEP Guidance issued by the Department of Justice. This agency-specific
guidance shall detail how the general standards established in the LEP
Guidance will be applied to the agency’s recipients. The agency-specific
guidance shall take into account the types of services provided by the
recipients, the individuals served by the recipients, and other factors set
out in the LEP Guidance. Agencies that already have developed title VI
guidance that the Department of Justice determines is consistent with the
LEP Guidance shall examine their existing guidance, as well as their programs
and activities, to determine if additional guidance is necessary to comply
with this order. The Department of Justice shall consult with the agencies
in creating their guidance and, within 120 days of the date of this order,

VerDate 112000

11:37 Aug 15, 2000

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4705

Sfmt 4790

E:\FR\FM\16AUE0.SGM

pfrm07

PsN: 16AUE0

50122

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 16, 2000 / Presidential Documents
each agency shall submit its specific guidance to the Department of Justice
for review and approval. Following approval by the Department of Justice,
each agency shall publish its guidance document in the Federal Register
for public comment.
Sec. 4. Consultations.
In carrying out this order, agencies shall ensure that stakeholders, such
as LEP persons and their representative organizations, recipients, and other
appropriate individuals or entities, have an adequate opportunity to provide
input. Agencies will evaluate the particular needs of the LEP persons they
and their recipients serve and the burdens of compliance on the agency
and its recipients. This input from stakeholders will assist the agencies
in developing an approach to ensuring meaningful access by LEP persons
that is practical and effective, fiscally responsible, responsive to the particular
circumstances of each agency, and can be readily implemented.
Sec. 5. Judicial Review.
This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the
executive branch and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States,
its agencies, its officers or employees, or any person.

œ–
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 11, 2000.
[FR Doc. 00–20938
Filed 8–15–00; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3195–01–P

VerDate 112000

11:37 Aug 15, 2000

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4705

Sfmt 4790

E:\FR\FM\16AUE0.SGM

pfrm07

PsN: 16AUE0

50123

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 16, 2000 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964—National Origin
Discrimination Against Persons With
Limited English Proficiency; Policy
Guidance
AGENCY: Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Policy guidance document.
SUMMARY: This Policy Guidance
Document entitled ‘‘Enforcement of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
‘‘ National Origin Discrimination
Against Persons with Limited English
Proficiency (LEP Guidance)’’ is being
issued pursuant to authority granted by
Executive Order 12250 and Department
of Justice Regulations. It addresses the
application of Title VI’s prohibition on
national origin discrimination when
information is provided only in English
to persons with limited English
proficiency. This policy guidance does
not create new obligations, but rather,
clarifies existing Title VI
responsibilities. The purpose of this
document is to set forth general
principles for agencies to apply in
developing guidelines for services to
individuals with limited English
proficiency. The Policy Guidance
Document appears below.
DATES: Effective August 11, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Coordination and Review
Section, Civil Rights Division, P.O. Box
66560, Washington, D.C. 20035–6560.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Merrily Friedlander, Chief,
Coordination and Review Section, Civil
Rights Division, (202) 307–2222.

Helen L. Norton,
Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Rights Division.

Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
August 11, 2000.

TO: Executive Agency Civil Rights
Officers
FROM: Bill Lann Lee, Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division
SUBJECT: Policy Guidance Document:
Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964—National Origin
Discrimination Against Persons With
Limited English Proficiency (‘‘LEP
Guidance’’)
This policy directive concerning the
enforcement of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d
et seq., as amended, is being issued
pursuant to the authority granted by

VerDate 112000

11:46 Aug 15, 2000

Executive Order No. 12250 1 and
Department of Justice regulations.2 It
addresses the application to recipients
of federal financial assistance of Title
VI’s prohibition on national origin
discrimination when information is
provided only in English to persons
who do not understand English. This
policy guidance does not create new
obligations but, rather, clarifies existing
Title VI responsibilities.
Department of Justice Regulations for
the Coordination of Enforcement of
Non-discrimination in Federally
Assisted Programs (Coordination
Regulations), 28 C.F.R. 42.401 et seq.,
direct agencies to ‘‘publish title VI
guidelines for each type of program to
which they extend financial assistance,
where such guidelines would be
appropriate to provide detailed
information on the requirements of Title
VI.’’ 28 CFR § 42.404(a). The purpose of
this document is to set forth general
principles for agencies to apply in
developing such guidelines for services
to individuals with limited English
proficiency (LEP). It is expected that, in
developing this guidance for their
federally assisted programs, agencies
will apply these general principles,
taking into account the unique nature of
the programs to which they provide
federal financial assistance.
A federal aid recipient’s failure to
assure that people who are not
proficient in English can effectively
participate in and benefit from programs
and activities may constitute national
origin discrimination prohibited by
Title VI. In order to assist agencies that
grant federal financial assistance in
ensuring that recipients of federal
financial assistance are complying with
their responsibilities, this policy
directive addresses the appropriate
compliance standards. Agencies should
utilize the standards set forth in this
Policy Guidance Document to develop
specific criteria applicable to review the
programs and activities for which they
offer financial assistance. The
Department of Education 3 already has
1 42

U.S.C. § 2000d–1 note.
C.F.R. § 0.51.
3 Department of Education policies regarding the
Title VI responsibilities of public school districts
with respect to LEP children and their parents are
reflected in three Office for Civil Rights policy
documents: (1) the May 1970 memorandum to
school districts, ‘‘Identification of Discrimination
and Denial of Services on the Basis of National
Origin,’’ (2) the December 3, 1985, guidance
document, ‘‘The Office for Civil Rights’ Title VI
Language Minority Compliance Procedures,’’ and
(3) the September 1991 memorandum, ‘‘Policy
Update on Schools Obligations Toward National
Origin Minority Students with Limited English
Proficiency.’’ These documents can be found at the
Department of Education website at www.ed.gov/
office/OCR.
2 28

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

established policies, and the
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) 4 has been developing
guidance in a manner consistent with
Title VI and this Document, that applies
to their specific programs receiving
federal financial assistance.
Background
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
prohibits recipients of federal financial
assistance from discriminating against
or otherwise excluding individuals on
the basis of race, color, or national
origin in any of their activities. Section
601 of Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,
provides:
No person in the United States 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.

The term ‘‘program or activity’’ is
broadly defined. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d–4a.
Consistent with the model Title VI
regulations drafted by a Presidential
task force in 1964, virtually every
executive agency that grants federal
financial assistance has promulgated
regulations to implement Title VI. These
regulations prohibit 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’’ and
‘‘utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of
administration which have the effect of
subjecting individuals to
discrimination’’ 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.’’
In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974),
the Supreme Court interpreted these
provisions as requiring that a federal
financial recipient take steps to ensure
that language barriers did not exclude
LEP persons from effective participation
in its benefits and services. Lau
involved a group of students of Chinese
origin who did not speak English to
whom the recipient provided the same
services—an education provided solely
in English—that it provided students
who did speak English. The Court held
that, under these circumstances, the
school’s practice violated the Title VI
prohibition against discrimination on
4 The Department of Health and Human Services
is issuing policy guidance titled: ‘‘Title VI
Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination
As It Affects Persons With Limited English
Proficiency.’’ This policy addresses the Title VI
responsibilities of HHS recipients to individuals
with limited English proficiency.

E:\FR\FM\16AUN2.SGM

pfrm07

PsN: 16AUN2

50124

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 16, 2000 / Notices

the basis of national origin. The Court
observed that ‘‘[i]t seems obvious that
the Chinese-speaking minority receive
fewer benefits than the English-speaking
majority from respondents’ school
system which denies them a meaningful
opportunity to participate in the
educational program—all earmarks of
the discrimination banned by’’ the Title
VI regulations.5 Courts have applied the
doctrine enunciated in Lau both inside
and outside the education context. It has
been considered in contexts as varied as
what languages drivers’ license tests
must be given in or whether material
relating to unemployment benefits must
be given in a language other than
English.6
Link Between National Origin And
Language
For the majority of people living in
the United States, English is their native
language or they have acquired
proficiency in English. They are able to
participate fully in federally assisted
programs and activities even if written
and oral communications are
exclusively in the English language.
The same cannot be said for the
remaining minority who have limited
English proficiency. This group
includes persons born in other
countries, some children of immigrants
born in the United States, and other
non-English or limited English
proficient persons born in the United
States, including some Native
Americans. Despite efforts to learn and
master English, their English language
proficiency may be limited for some
time.7 Unless grant recipients take steps
to respond to this difficulty, recipients
effectively may deny those who do not
5 414 U.S. at 568. Congress manifested its
approval of the Lau decision requirements
concerning the provision of meaningful education
services by enacting provisions in the Education
Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93–380, §§ 105,
204, 88 Stat. 503–512, 515 codified at 20 U.S.C.
1703(f), and the Bilingual Education Act, 20 U.S.C.
7401 et seq., which provided federal financial
assistance to school districts in providing language
services.
6 For cases outside the educational context, see,
e.g., Sandoval v. Hagan, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (M.D.
Ala. 1998), affirmed, 197 F.3d 484, (11th Cir. 1999),
rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc
denied, 211 F.3d 133 (11th Cir. Feb. 29, 2000)
(Table, No. 98–6598–II), petition for certiorari filed
May 30, 2000 (No. 99–1908) (giving drivers’ license
tests only in English violates Title VI); and Pabon
v. Levine, 70 F.R.D. 674 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (summary
judgment for defendants denied in case alleging
failure to provide unemployment insurance
information in Spanish violated Title VI).
7 Certainly it is important to achieve English
language proficiency in order to fully participate at
every level in American society. As we understand
the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Title VI’s
prohibition of national origin discrimination, it
does not in any way disparage use of the English
language.

VerDate 112000

16:45 Aug 15, 2000

speak, read, or understand English
access to the benefits and services for
which they qualify.
Many recipients of federal financial
assistance recognize that the failure to
provide language assistance to such
persons may deny them vital access to
services and benefits. In some instances,
a recipient’s failure to remove language
barriers is attributable to ignorance of
the fact that some members of the
community are unable to communicate
in English, to a general resistance to
change, or to a lack of awareness of the
obligation to address this obstacle.
In some cases, however, the failure to
address language barriers may not be
simply an oversight, but rather may be
attributable, at least in part, to invidious
discrimination on the basis of national
origin and race. While there is not
always a direct relationship between an
individual’s language and national
origin, often language does serve as an
identifier of national origin.8 The same
sort of prejudice and xenophobia that
may be at the root of discrimination
against persons from other nations may
be triggered when a person speaks a
language other than English.
Language elicits a response from others,
ranging from admiration and respect, to
distance and alienation, to ridicule and
scorn. Reactions of the latter type all too
often result from or initiate racial hostility
* * *. It may well be, for certain ethnic
groups and in some communities, that
proficiency in a particular language, like skin
color, should be treated as a surrogate for
race under an equal protection analysis.9

While Title VI itself prohibits only
intentional discrimination on the basis
of national origin,10 the Supreme Court
has consistently upheld agency
regulations prohibiting unjustified
discriminatory effects.11 The
Department of Justice has consistently
adhered to the view that the significant
8 As the Supreme Court observed, ‘‘[l]anguage
permits an individual to express both a personal
identity and membership in a community, and
those who share a common language may interact
in ways more intimate than those without this
bond.’’ Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 370
(1991) (plurality opinion).
9 Id. at 371 (plurality opinion).
10 Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 293 (1985).
11 Id. at 293–294; Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Serv.
Comm’n, 463 U.S. 582, 584 n.2 (1983) (White, J.),
623 n.15 (Marshall, J.), 642–645 (Stevens, Brennan,
Blackmun, JJ.); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. at 568; id.
at 571 (Stewart, J., concurring in result). In a July
24, 1994, memorandum to Heads of Departments
and Agencies that Provide Federal Financial
Assistance concerning ‘‘Use of the Disparate Impact
Standard in Administrative Regulations Under Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,’’ the Attorney
General stated that each agency ‘‘should ensure that
the disparate impact provisions of your regulations
are fully utilized so that all persons may enjoy
equally the benefits of federally financed
programs.’’

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

discriminatory effects that the failure to
provide language assistance has on the
basis of national origin, places the
treatment of LEP individuals
comfortably within the ambit of Title VI
and agencies’ implementing
regulations.12 Also, existing language
barriers potentially may be rooted in
invidious discrimination. The Supreme
Court in Lau concluded that a
recipient’s failure to take affirmative
steps to provide ‘‘meaningful
opportunity’’ for LEP individuals to
participate in its programs and activities
violates the recipient’s obligations
under Title VI and its regulations.
All Recipients Must Take Reasonable
Steps To Provide Meaningful Access
Recipients who fail to provide
services to LEP applicants and
beneficiaries in their federally assisted
programs and activities may be
discriminating on the basis of national
origin in violation of Title VI and its
implementing regulations. Title VI and
its regulations require recipients to take
reasonable steps to ensure ‘‘meaningful’’
access to the information and services
they provide. What constitutes
reasonable steps to ensure meaningful
access will be contingent on a number
of factors. Among the factors to be
considered are the number or
proportion of LEP persons in the eligible
service population, the frequency with
which LEP individuals come in contact
with the program, the importance of the
service provided by the program, and
the resources available to the recipient.
(1) Number or Proportion of LEP
Individuals
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. However, a factor in determining
the reasonableness of a recipient’s
efforts is the number or proportion of
people who will be excluded from the
benefits or services absent efforts 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. But even those who serve very few
LEP persons on an infrequent basis
should utilize this balancing analysis to
determine whether reasonable steps are
12 The Department’s position with regard to
written language assistance is articulated in 28 CFR
§ 42.405(d)(1), which is contained in the
Coordination Regulations, 28 CFR Subpt. F, issued
in 1976. These Regulations ‘‘govern the respective
obligations of Federal agencies regarding
enforcement of title VI.’’ 28 CFR § 42.405. Section
42.405(d)(1) addresses the prohibitions cited by the
Supreme Court in Lau.

E:\FR\FM\16AUN2.SGM

pfrm03

PsN: 16AUN2

50125

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 16, 2000 / Notices
possible and if so, have a plan of what
to do if a LEP individual seeks service
under the program in question. This
plan need not be intricate; it may be as
simple as being prepared to use one of
the commercially available language
lines to obtain immediate interpreter
services.
(2) Frequency of Contact with the
Program
Frequency of contacts between the
program or activity and LEP individuals
is another factor to be weighed. For
example, if LEP individuals must access
the recipient’s program or activity on a
daily basis, e.g., as they must in
attending elementary or secondary
school, a recipient has greater duties
than if such contact is unpredictable or
infrequent. Recipients should take into
account local or regional conditions
when determining frequency of contact
with the program, and should have the
flexibility to tailor their services to those
needs.
(3) Nature and Importance of the
Program
The importance of the recipient’s
program to beneficiaries will affect the
determination of what reasonable steps
are required. More affirmative steps
must be taken in programs where the
denial or delay of access may have life
or death implications than in programs
that are not as crucial to one’s day-today existence. For example, the
obligations of a federally assisted school
or hospital differ from those of a
federally assisted zoo or theater. 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. A
decision by a federal, state, or local
entity to make an activity compulsory,
such as elementary and secondary
school attendance or medical
inoculations, serves as strong evidence
of the program’s importance.
(4) Resources Available
The resources available to a recipient
of federal assistance may have an
impact on the nature of the steps that
recipients must take. For example, a
small recipient with limited resources
may not have to take the same steps as
a larger recipient to provide LEP

VerDate 112000

11:46 Aug 15, 2000

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 crucial to
an individual’s day-to-day existence.
Claims of limited resources from large
entities will need to be wellsubstantiated.13
Written vs. Oral Language Services
In balancing the factors discussed
above to determine what reasonable
steps must be taken by recipients to
provide meaningful access to each LEP
individual, agencies should particularly
address the appropriate mix of written
and oral language assistance. Which
documents must be translated, when
oral translation is necessary, and
whether such services must be
immediately available will depend upon
the factors previously mentioned.14
Recipients often communicate with the
public in writing, either on paper or
over the Internet, and written
translations are a highly effective way of
communicating with large numbers of
13 Title VI does not require recipients to remove
language barriers when English is an essential
aspect of the program (such as providing civil
service examinations in English when the job
requires person to communicate in English, see
Frontera v. Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir. 1975)),
or there is another ‘‘substantial legitimate
justification for the challenged practice.’’ Elston v.
Talladega County Bd. of Educ., 997 F.2d 1394, 1407
(11th Cir. 1993). Similar balancing tests are used in
other nondiscrimination provisions that are
concerned with effects of an entity’s actions. For
example, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, employers need not cease practices that have
a discriminatory effect if they are ‘‘consistent with
business necessity’’ and there is no ‘‘alternative
employment practice’’ that is equally effective. 42
U.S.C. § 2000e–2(k). Under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, recipients do
not need to provide access to persons with
disabilities if such steps impose an undue burden
on the recipient. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. at
300. Thus, in situations where all of the factors
identified in the text are at their nadir, it may be
‘‘reasonable’’ to take no affirmative steps to provide
further access.
14 Under the four-part analysis, for instance, Title
VI would not require recipients to translate
documents requested under a state equivalent of the
Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act, or to
translate all state statutes or notices of rulemaking
made generally available to the public. The focus
of the analysis is the nature of the information being
communicated, the intended or expected audience,
and the cost of providing translations. In virtually
all instances, one or more of these criteria would
lead to the conclusion that recipients need not
translate these types of documents.

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

people who do not speak, read or
understand English. While the
Department of Justice’s Coordination
Regulation, 28 CFR § 42.405(d)(1),
expressly addresses requirements for
provision of written language assistance,
a recipient’s obligation to provide
meaningful opportunity is not limited to
written translations. Oral
communication between recipients and
beneficiaries often is a necessary part of
the exchange of information. Thus, a
recipient that limits its language
assistance to the provision of written
materials may not be allowing LEP
persons ‘‘effectively to be informed of or
to participate in the program’’ in the
same manner as persons who speak
English.
In some cases, ‘‘meaningful
opportunity’’ to benefit from the
program requires the recipient to take
steps to assure that translation services
are promptly available. In some
circumstances, instead of translating all
of its written materials, a recipient may
meet its obligation by making available
oral assistance, or by commissioning
written translations on reasonable
request. It is the responsibility of federal
assistance-granting agencies, in
conducting their Title VI compliance
activities, to make more specific
judgments by applying their program
expertise to concrete cases.
Conclusion
This document provides a general
framework by which agencies can
determine when LEP assistance is
required in their federally assisted
programs and activities and what the
nature of that assistance should be. We
expect agencies to implement this
document by issuing guidance
documents specific to their own
recipients as contemplated by the
Department of Justice Coordination
Regulations and as HHS and the
Department of Education already have
done. The Coordination and Review
Section is available to assist you in
preparing your agency-specific
guidance. In addition, agencies should
provide technical assistance to their
recipients concerning the provision of
appropriate LEP services.
[FR Doc. 00–20867 Filed 8–15–00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–13–P

E:\FR\FM\16AUN2.SGM

pfrm07

PsN: 16AUN2