[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24415-24427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11348]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 24415]]



DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Parts 103, 212, and 274a

[CIS No. 2572-15; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0006]
RIN 1615-AC04


Removal of International Entrepreneur Parole Program

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'' or 
``Department'') is proposing to remove its regulations pertaining to 
the international entreprepreneur program, which guided the 
adjudication of significant public benefit parole requests made by 
certain foreign entrepreneurs of start-up entities in the United 
States. After review of all DHS parole programs in accordance with an 
Executive Order (E.O.) titled, Border Security and Immigration 
Enforcement Improvements, issued on January 25, 2017, the DHS is 
proposing to end the IE parole program, and remove or revise the 
related regulations, because this program is not the appropriate 
vehicle for attracting and retaining international entrepreneurs and 
does not adequately protect U.S. investors and U.S. workers employed by 
or seeking employment with the start-up.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-
2015-0006, by any one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the website instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: You may submit comments directly to U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) by mail by sending correspondence to 
Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of 
Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20529. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS 
Docket No. USCIS-2015-0006 in your correspondence.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Viger, Adjudications Officer, 
Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, 
Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20529-2140; Telephone (202) 272-8377 (not a 
toll free call).
    Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the 
telephone numbers above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal 
Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation
II. Background
III. Proposed Removal of the IE Parole Program Regulations
    A. Description of the IE Final Rule
    B. Justification for Removing the IE Parole Program Regulations
    1. Parole Is Not the Proper Vehicle for Implementing and 
Administering an Entrepreneur Immigration Program
    2. Entrepreneurs Should Consider Using Existing Immigrant and 
Nonimmigrant Visas or Congress Could Amend an Existing or Establish 
an Additional Specialized Visa To Facilitate Investment and 
Innovation
    3. Limited Agency Resources & DHS's Current Priorities
    C. Transition From the IE Parole Program Regulations
IV. Statutory and Regulatory
    A. Administrative Procedure Act
    B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    H. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    I. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rulemaking by 
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the 
rule. Comments that will most assist DHS will focus on whether or not 
DHS should remove the IE parole program regulations and also explain 
the reasoning for each recommendation. Comments should include data, 
information, and the authority that supports each recommendation to the 
extent possible. Comments previously submitted to this docket do not 
need to be submitted again.
    Instructions for filing comments: All submissions received should 
include the agency name and DHS docket number USCIS-2015-0006. All 
comments received (including any personal information provided) will be 
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. See ADDRESSES, 
above, for methods to submit comments.

II. Background

    On January 17, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'' 
or ``Department'') published the IE Final Rule, with an effective date 
of July 17, 2017. See 82 FR 5238. The IE Final Rule followed the 
publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking on August 31, 2016. See 
81 FR 60130 (``IE NPRM''). The IE Final Rule amended DHS regulations to 
include criteria that would guide the Secretary's discretionary parole 
authority for international entrepreneurs who can demonstrate that 
their temporary parole into the United States under section 212(d)(5) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) would provide a 
significant public benefit to the United States. The IE Final Rule's 
criteria allows an entrepreneur to make such a demonstration by showing 
that, among other things, the start-up entity in which he or she is an 
entrepreneur received significant capital investment from U.S. 
investors with established records of successful investments or 
obtained significant awards or grants from certain Federal, State, or 
local government entities.
    In addition to defining criteria that could support a favorable 
exercise of the Secretary's discretionary parole authority, the final 
rule established a period of initial parole for up to 30 months (which 
could be extended by up to an additional 30 months) to facilitate the 
applicant's ability to oversee and grow his or her start-up entity in 
the United States. The final rule also

[[Page 24416]]

provided for employment authorization incident to parole, such that the 
entrepreneur parolee would be able to engage in employment at his or 
her start-up entity immediately upon being paroled into the United 
States. Under the IE Final Rule, the entrepreneur's dependent spouse 
and children would be able to apply for parole to accompany or follow-
to-join the principal entrepreneur. Dependent spouses would also be 
able to request employment authorization after being paroled into the 
United States, but not the entrepreneur's dependent children.
    On January 25, 2017, the President issued an executive order (E.O.) 
prescribing improvements to border security and immigration 
enforcement. See E.O. 13767, Border Security and Immigration 
Enforcement Improvements, 82 FR 8793 (Jan. 25, 2017). Section 11(d) of 
the order requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to ``take 
appropriate action to ensure that parole authority under section 
212(d)(5) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) is exercised only on a case-
by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of the statute, and 
in all circumstances only when an individual demonstrates urgent 
humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit derived from such 
parole.''
    On July 11, 2017, DHS published a final rule with request for 
comments to delay the effective date of the IE Final Rule to March 14, 
2018. See 82 FR 31887. On December 1, 2017 the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Columbia vacated the July 11, 2017 rule. See Nat'l 
Venture Capital Ass'n v. Duke, No. 17-1912, 2017 WL 5990122 (D.D.C. 
Dec. 1, 2017). In order to ensure compliance with the court order, on 
December 14, 2017, DHS began accepting applications for foreign 
entrepreneurs requesting parole under the IE Final Rule. In December 
2017, DHS included a proposed rule to remove the IE Final Rule in the 
fall 2017 Unified Agenda.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201710&RIN=1615-AC04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Removal of the IE Parole Program Regulations

    After review of the IE parole program regulations in accordance 
with E.O. Order 13767, DHS believes that the regulations comprising the 
IE parole program should be removed, and is soliciting public comments 
on its proposal to do so.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This proposed rule would not remove the unrelated revisions 
to 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(C)(2) promulgated as part of the IE Final 
Rule which added the Department of State Consular Report of Birth 
Abroad (Form FS-240) to the regulatory text and to the ``List C'' 
listing of acceptable documents for Form I-9 verification purposes. 
See 82 FR at 5241 n.3. This regulatory change and accompanying form 
instructions went into effect on July 17, 2017, as originally 
provided in the IE Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although DHS continues to support the policy objectives of 
promoting investment and innovation in the United States, the 
Department believes that the extraordinary use of the Secretary's 
discretionary parole authority for this purpose set forth in the IE 
Final Rule is unwarranted and inadvisable for several reasons. First, 
this sort of complex and highly-structured program contemplated in the 
IE Final Rule is best left to the legislative procees rather than an 
unorthodox use of the Secretary's authority to ``temporarily'' parole, 
in a categorical way, otherwise inadmissible aliens into the United 
States for ``significant public benefit.'' INA 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(d)(5)(A). Second, the IE Final Rule constitutes an extraordinary 
use of the Secretary's parole authority, prescribing specific, detailed 
eligibility criteria and requiring exceptionally complex adjudications. 
Third, the IE Final Rule does not provide durable immigration solutions 
and in turn inadequately promotes the entrepreneur's ability to sustain 
the required investment and the jobs that depend on them. The 
Department believes that the Final Rule focused too narrowly on the 
economic benefits that potential foreign entrepreneurs may bring, 
without giving sufficient attention to the existing statutory scheme 
and the absence of a durable immigration status for these individuals, 
which is not made available through the device of temporary parole. 
Fourth, while the Department may eventually recover the costs relating 
to administration of the International Entrepreneur Rule, through fees 
paid by applicants for parole under the policy, use of the agency's 
present resources must be prioritized in light of the current 
Administration's priorities. As such, the Secretary believes that 
limited agency resources should not continue to be expended on this 
program, especially given the sort of difficult, complex, resource-
intensive adjudications that the IE Final Rule requires, particularly 
in relation to other parole determinations. Finally, the Secretary is 
permitted to decide to exercise her discretionary parole authority 
under section 212(d)(5) more narrowly than her predecessor(s). The 
Secretary has elected to do so here for the reasons described herein 
and in the interest of the efficient, effective implementation of the 
current statutory scheme, which already prescribes conditions under 
which certain entrepreneurs and investors may obtain lawful immigration 
status (such as E-2 treaty investor nonimmigrant status), and in 
certain instances lawful permanent resident status in the United States 
(through investment of their own capital either under the employment-
based fifth preference (EB-5) immigrant classification or through 
receipt of a National Interest Waiver of the job offer requirement 
under the employment-based second preference immigrant classification).

A. IE Final Rule

    In the IE NPRM, DHS recognized that historically, DHS has exercised 
its parole authority on an ad hoc basis and with respect to individuals 
falling within certain classes of aliens identified by regulation or 
policy. 81 FR at 60134. DHS noted that its statutory parole authority 
is broad and that Congress did not define ``significant public 
benefit.'' Id. Based on various studies, DHS determined that ``allowing 
certain qualified entrepreneurs to come to the United States as 
parolees on a case-by-case basis would produce a significant public 
benefit through substantial and positive contributions to innovation, 
economic growth, and job creation.'' Id. at 60136. DHS reasoned in the 
IE proposed rule that establishing a regulation that would guide the 
process and evaluation of requests for parole being sought by 
entrepreneurs of start-up entities was important given that such 
adjudications could be complex. Id. at 60131.

B. Justification for Removing the IE Parole Program Regulations

    DHS stands by its previous findings that foreign entrepreneurs make 
substantial and positive contributions to innovation, economic growth, 
and job creation in the United States. DHS, however, has reevaluated 
the IE parole program and believes that the governing regulation should 
be removed as inadvisable, impracticable, and an unwarranted use of 
limited agency resources. The Department believes that parole, which 
allows for the ``temporary'' entry of inadmissible aliens into the 
United States for ``urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public 
benefit,'' INA 212(d)(5)(A), is not an appropriate legal mechanism to 
establish and implement a complicated program for entrepreneurs and 
business startups that requires complex and time-consuming 
adjudications, both for initial parole and re-parole determinations.

[[Page 24417]]

    The IE Final Rule's interpretation of significant public benefit, 
with its myriad and exceptionally detailed eligibility requirements 
relating to qualifying investments and start-up entities, amounted to 
an unconventional codification of significant public benefit parole 
criteria. Multiple commenters responding to the IE proposed rule 
opposed the rule because it sought to create an administrative program 
``for highly trained and talented entrepreneurs'' without providing for 
durable immigration status or a concrete pathway to such a status, 
``when visa and residency pathways already exist'' for such 
individuals. 82 FR at 5267. Upon further review and consideration of 
the IE Final Rule, DHS agrees with these commenters. The IE Final Rule 
focused too narrowly on the potential economic benefits that foreign 
entrepreneurs may bring, without giving sufficient attention to the 
existing statutory scheme wherein Congress has already provided 
pathways for certain entrepreneurs to come to the United States to 
start and grow their business, or to the absence of a durable 
immigration status for these individuals, which is not made available 
through the device of temporary parole.
    In addition, agency resources are limited, and their use must be 
prioritized in light of the current Administration's priorities. As 
such, the Secretary believes that limited agency resources that are 
needed for other adjudications programs should not continue to be 
expended on this program, especially given the sort of difficult, 
complex, resource-intensive adjudications that the IE Final Rule 
requires, particularly in relation to other parole determinations, and 
the uncertain status that entrepreneurs would obtain.
    These serious concerns motivate the reconsideration of this policy. 
The Secretary is permitted to decide to exercise her discretionary 
parole authority under section 212(d)(5) more narrowly than her 
predecessor(s). As proposed in this rule, the Secretary intends to 
apply more narrowly her discretionary parole authority for the reasons 
described herein and in the interest of the efficient, effective 
implementation of the current statutory scheme, which already 
prescribes conditions under which certain entrepreneurs and investors 
may obtain lawful immigration status, and eventually lawful permanent 
resident status, in the United States. DHS is therefore proposing to 
remove the regulations comprising the IE parole program.
1. Parole Is Not the Proper Vehicle for Implementing and Administering 
an Entrepreneur Immigration Program
    DHS does not believe the framework of the rule adequately promotes 
the Administration's policy goals of attracting and retaining the best 
and brightest individuals from around the world, and encouraging 
investment and innovation in the United States. The approval of parole 
is inherently uncertain because it is wholly discretionary, whereas the 
approval of certain other types of immigration benefits (e.g. EB-5 
immigrant investor petitions under INA 203(b)(5)) are not 
discretionary; if all applicable statutory and regulatory eligibility 
requirements are met, then the agency must approve the petition). 
Consequently, parole provides neither the entrepreneur nor the 
qualifying source of capital (whether private or public) with certainty 
or predictability necessary to ensure that a start-up entity is a 
success and ultimately provides a significant public benefit to the 
United States. Even if an entrepreneur satisfies the IE Final Rule's 
criteria, there is no certainty that the request for parole would be 
approved by USCIS in the exercise of discretion (see, e.g., final 8 CFR 
212.19(d) \3\) and, even if the request were approved, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) may decline to authorize parole at the port of 
entry.\4\ And unlike employment-based immigrant and nonimmigrant 
programs, parole does not allow for derivative beneficiaries, such that 
each spouse or child must demonstrate that his or her entry itself 
would serve a significant public benefit. Furthermore, individuals who 
are granted parole based on a finding of significant public benefit--
which can be terminated, generally on notice, at any time in the 
Secretary's discretion based on a determination that public benefit no 
longer warrants the individual's continued presence--are not considered 
to have been admitted to the United States, and cannot change to a 
nonimmigrant status. To acquire nonimmigrant status, the parolee would 
have to depart the United States and, unless exempt, apply for a visa 
with the Department of State. See INA sections 101(a)(13)(B), 
212(d)(5)(A), 248(a); 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B), 1182(d)(5)(A), 1258(a); 
see also 8 CFR 212.5(e), 248.1. Moreover, parole does not by itself 
confer lawful permanent resident status or an avenue to obtain such 
status. To adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident, 
individuals generally must, among other things, be admissible to the 
United States, have a family-preference or employment-based immigrant 
visa immediately available to them, and not be subject to the various 
bars to adjustment of status. See INA section 245(a), (c), (k); 8 
U.S.C. 1255(a), (c), (k); 8 CFR 245.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 82 FR at 5287.
    \4\ Id. at 5243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent indirect paths for parolees to remain for longer 
periods already exist, those paths are inherently uncertain. Although 
parole under the IE Final Rule may be granted for up to 30 months, with 
possible re-parole for an additional 30 months, it is highly uncertain 
whether paroled entrepreneurs, including those who successfully start 
or grow a business in the United States, would qualify for an existing 
employment-based nonimmigrant or immigrant classification after an 
approved period of parole ends. The entrepreneur, if unable to qualify 
for an employment-based nonimmigrant or immigrant classification, most 
likely would be required to depart the United States and possibly move 
their operations abroad, eliminating possible further benefit to this 
country, and possibly creating some negative impacts to U.S. investors. 
Thus, reliance upon parole adds an additional degree of risk and 
unpredictability for the U.S. investors who may not be able to achieve 
the anticipated return on their investment, as well as any U.S. workers 
employed by or seeking employment with the start-up. This same degree 
of risk and unpredictability would generally not apply to entities 
started by U.S. entrepreneurs or even foreign entrepreneurs lawfully 
relying upon existing nonimmigrant or immigrant visa classifications. 
While DHS under the former Administration considered some of these 
risks, having re-evaluated the IE Final Rule consistent with President 
Trump's Executive Order, DHS now believes that they are significant 
negative factors supporting its decision to propose removing the IE 
Final Rule.
2. Entrepreneurs Should Consider Using Existing Immigrant and 
Nonimmigrant Visas or Congress Could Amend an Existing or Establish an 
Additional Specialized Visa To Facilitate Investment and Innovation
    While DHS recognizes that some foreign entrepreneurs may face 
difficulty establishing eligibility under existing nonimmigrant and 
immigrant categories, options are still available for some foreign 
entrepreneurs, and removing the IE Final Rule would be more congruent 
with the overall statutory scheme.

[[Page 24418]]

    Facilitating investment and innovation in the United States is of 
great importance to our country's ability to lead and remain 
competitive in the global marketplace. As indicated above, the United 
States has visa classifications that can be used by certain 
entrepreneurs or investors coming to the United States, e.g., E-2 
treaty investor nonimmigrant classification, EB-5 immigrant 
classification, INA sections 101(a)(15)(E), 203(b)(5). While these 
classifications do not encompass the entire population of entrepreneurs 
addressed in the IE Final Rule, Congress could create a new visa 
classification to provide legal immigration status to foreign nationals 
seeking to remain and start businesses in the United States using 
venture capital or other U.S.-sourced funding.\5\ DHS believes this 
would be a more appropriate means for doing so because Congress is 
uniquely well-positioned to balance the many competing and complex 
policy priorities in attracting and retaining foreign entrepreneurs and 
promoting investment and innovation in the United States, including but 
not limited to incentivizing innovation and competitiveness of American 
entrepreneurs, job creation and protection of U.S. workers, United 
States trade objectives and foreign relations with many nations, and 
whether U.S. citizens and nationals who seek to pursue entrepreneurial 
endeavors abroad are treated on par with foreign nationals who seek to 
seed and promote their start-up entities in the United States. 
Therefore, in removing the IE Final Rule, DHS is proposing to defer to 
Congress on whether, and if so how to best create a specific 
immigration pathway that addresses the unique and varied 
characteristics of foreign entrepreneurs through the legislative 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., StartUp Visa Act of 2011, S. 565, 112th Cong., 
available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/565/text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Limited Agency Resources & DHS's Current Priorities
    In addition to the considerations discussed above, DHS believes 
that continuing to administer the IE Final Rule is out of sync with 
DHS' current policy priorities. The President has tasked DHS with 
improving existing employment-based immigrant and nonimmigrant visa 
programs to ensure program integrity and protect the interests of U.S. 
workers. Given that USCIS already has an established process for 
assessing a variety of individual parole requests, DHS does not believe 
that it would be appropriate to continue to expend limited agency 
resources to administer a parallel and complex regulatory parole 
framework. The assessments required for a parole determination under 
this program--including, among others, to resolve ``substantial 
ownership interest'' questions, whether the entity has a ``substantial 
potential for rapid growth and job creation,'' whether the applicant is 
``well-positioned . . . to substantially assist'' with the growth and 
success of the business, whether the start-up entity has received 
``lawfully derived capital,'' whether the entity has received either 
the requisite investment threshold or qualifying ``significant awards 
or grants for economic development'' or both, and whether an investor 
is ``qualified'' under the rule and has an established record of 
successful investments--would be highly challenging and extremely labor 
intensive. See 82 FR at 5286-89. Continuing to administer this parallel 
framework requires USCIS to expend significant resources to hire and 
train additional adjudicators with specific technical expertise, modify 
intake and case management information technology systems, revise 
application and fee intake contracts, develop guidance for the 
adjudicators, and communicate with the public about these changes. 
While the monetary costs associated with continuing to administer the 
framework to process these applications might be recovered over time, 
USCIS will not be able to offset the opportunity costs associated with 
diverting limited agency resources that are needed to meet the current 
Administration's priorities (for example, reviewing other existing 
immigration programs, developing new proposed regulatory changes, and 
carrying out initiatives to better deter and detect fraud and abuse). 
As such, DHS believes that removal of the IE Final Rule is appropriate 
to ensure that the agency's limited resources are used in an efficient 
and effective manner to implement the existing statutory scheme, and to 
limit the opportunity cost associated with diverting resources (e.g., 
personnel, training resources) away from other programs in order to 
continue to administer this parallel framework.
    DHS thus proposes, at least in this context, returning to the use 
of significant public benefit parole as it existed prior to issuance of 
the IE Final Rule, leaving to Congress whether to establish an 
entrepreneur immigration program and, in the meantime, encouraging 
individuals to pursue immigrant and nonimmigrant opportunities already 
provided in the immigration laws.
    Accordingly, DHS proposes to remove the IE parole regulations. DHS 
is not removing the unrelated revisions to 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(C)(2) 
promulgated as part of the IE Final Rule which added the Department of 
State Consular Report of Birth Abroad (Form FS-240) to the regulatory 
text and to the ``List C'' listing of acceptable documents for Form I-9 
verification purposes. See 82 FR at 5241 n.3. This regulatory change 
and accompanying form instructions went into effect on July 17, 2017, 
as originally provided in the IE Final Rule.

C. Transition From the IE Parole Program Regulations

    In proposing to end the IE parole program and remove the related 
regulations, DHS is actively considering the transition away from the 
program. To date, USCIS has received 13 IE parole applications. DHS has 
not yet granted parole under this program. Under the IE final rule, DHS 
has discretion to, on a case-by-case basis, approve periods of parole 
for up to 30 months, including shorter durations. In addition, DHS is 
considering a number of options for transitioning away from the IE 
parole program and is specifically soliciting public comments on these 
options. The options discussed below assume that the final rule 
removing the IE parole program regulations would go into effect 30 days 
after publication. The following discussion is organized into groupings 
by the stage of the parole process an individual may be in on the 
effective date of the rule finalizing the removal of IE parole program 
regulations.
1. Individuals Paroled Into the United States as International 
Entrepreneurs
    a. Automatic termination of IE parole on the effective date of the 
final rule. DHS believes that terminating IE parole and associated 
employment authorization on the effective date of the final rule 
removing the IE parole program regulations is most in line with its 
proposed policy objectives and reasons for terminating the IE parole 
program. See E.O. 13767, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement 
Improvements, 82 FR 8793 (Jan. 25, 2017). Therefore, this is DHS's 
preferred option for this rulemaking. DHS would amend its regulations 
to include a provision under which on the effective date of the final 
rule, parole granted under the IE final rule to both individual 
entrepreneurs, as well as any spouses and children of such 
entrepreneurs, would end. In addition, the employment authorization for

[[Page 24419]]

entrepreneurs and their spouses would be automatically terminated, even 
if the employment authorization documents for entrepreneur spouses have 
expiration dates after the effective date of the final rule. Depending 
on circumstances of the individual whose parole is terminated, 
including his or her age, the individual may also begin to accrue 
unlawful presence when IE parole is terminated.
    b. Termination of parole on notice. Under this option, DHS would 
amend its regulations governing termination of parole at 8 CFR 
212.19(k) to authorize the termination of all parole granted under the 
IE final rule after notice and an opportunity for the entrepreneur and 
any spouse and child of such entrepreneur to demonstrate that parole 
would otherwise be warranted under the existing non-IE final rule 
parole framework. The issuance of a notice of intent to terminate would 
create a presumption of termination that the entrepreneur could 
overcome by demonstrating that he or she has urgent humanitarian 
reasons or continues to provide a significant public benefit under 8 
CFR 212.5 and merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Depending on 
the evidence provided, DHS could terminate or amend the period of 
parole as necessary to align the appropriate timeframe to accomplish 
the purpose of the parole. Under this option, if DHS determines that 
parole is warranted under 8 CFR 212.5, the individual would be able to 
remain in the United States as a parolee as evidenced by Form I-94. 
However, such Form I-94 would no longer be considered concurrent 
evidence of employment authorization incident to parole for the 
entrepreneur. While parolees granted parole under 8 CFR 212.5 may 
receive employment authorization, under current regulations, they do 
not receive employment authorization incident to parole and, therefore, 
cannot use their Form I-94 as evidence of employment authorization. 
Instead, such parolees must file an Application for Employment 
Authorization (Form I-765) with the required fee with USCIS on the 
basis of 8 CFR 274.12(c)(11). If granted, employment authorization 
would be evidenced on Form I-766 (Employment Authorization Document, 
EAD), rather than Form I-94. Similarly, the EAD of a spouse of an 
entrepreneur parolee that is based on 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(34) would no 
longer be evidence of his or her employment authorization. The spouse 
of the entrepreneur would have to apply for work authorization under 8 
CFR 274a.12(c)(11). Given that DHS is proposing to end IE regulation-
based parole, DHS does not believe that the regulations should be 
amended to make an exception for the small group of parolees who may be 
affected by this rulemaking by providing for continued employment 
authorization incident to parole for the entrepreneurs or allowing the 
spouses to continue work on a facially invalid EAD. However, DHS 
welcomes public comment on this issue. To minimize a potential gap in 
employment authorization under this option, DHS is considering 
permitting individuals to submit Forms I-765 with their response to a 
Notice of Intent to Terminate.
    For those cases where DHS decides that termination of parole is 
warranted, the individual's employment authorization would be 
terminated on the date of the final notice of termination. There would 
be no opportunity to appeal a parole termination decision.
    c. Reopening of IE parole determination. Under this option, DHS 
would reopen all of the IE parole adjudications on its own motion, 
without fee to the applicant, consistent with 8 CFR 103.5(a)(5), and 
provide the entrepreneur and any spouse or child of the entrepreneur 
with the opportunity to present evidence that he or she is eligible for 
parole under the existing non-IE final rule parole framework, rather 
than IE parole program regulations. DHS would consider eligibility for 
parole de novo under 8 CFR 212.5, including evidence already in the 
record and any new evidence the entrepreneur may provide. If DHS 
determines that the individual warrants a favorable exercise of 
discretion, DHS would issue a final decision. However, to receive 
employment authorization, the individual would need to make a request 
by filing an Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) with 
USCIS on the basis of 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11). As discussed under the 
previous option involving Notices of Intent to Terminate, if DHS were 
to grant parole under 8 CFR 212.5, such parole would not include the 
benefit of employment authorization incident to parole. Therefore, 
employment authorization would have to be separately requested (with 
the required fee), granted, and evidenced through issuance of Form I-
766 (Employment Authorization Document, EAD). Under this option, DHS 
could change the original validity period of parole in line with its 
case-by-case determination and underlying purpose of the parole.
    d. Expiration of initial period of parole. Under this option, DHS 
would allow the parole approved under the IE parole program regulations 
to naturally expire, along with any associated employment 
authorization, unless otherwise terminated on other grounds. In this 
scenario, DHS would provide a later effective date for the removal of 
the Sec.  212.19(k) termination provisions in order to retain the 
specific termination grounds for any individuals who remain paroled 
under the IE parole program. This approach would apply to the 
entrepreneur and any dependent spouse or child of the entrepreneur.
2. Individuals With USCIS-Approved IE Parole Applications Who Have Not 
Yet Been Paroled Into the United States
    a. Automatic Termination. DHS believes that automatically 
terminating the approval of all I-941 parole applications is most in 
line with its proposed policy objectives and purpose for removing the 
IE parole program regulations and, therefore, is DHS's preferred 
option. DHS would amend its regulations at 8 CFR 212.19 to authorize, 
notwithstanding 8 CFR 212.5(e), automatic termination of approvals of 
Forms I-941 approved under the IE final rule. Such termination of the 
approval would prevent the individual from seeking parole pursuant to 
the approved Form I-941 at the port of entry or from obtaining 
automatic employment authorization (entrepreneurs) or applying for 
employment authorization on the basis of parole (spouses of 
entrepreneurs) unless the individual separately applies for and is 
granted parole under the existing non-IE final rule parole framework. 
If an individual is paroled into the United States, he or she would 
need to apply for employment authorization pursuant to 8 CFR 
274a.12(c)(11).
    b. Termination of advance parole document on notice. Under this 
option, DHS would amend its regulations governing termination of parole 
to authorize terminating USCIS-approved IE advance parole documents 
after notice and opportunity to respond is provided to the entrepreneur 
and any spouse and child of such entrepreneur--including demonstrating 
that parole would otherwise be warranted under the existing non-IE 
final rule parole framework. The issuance of a notice of intent to 
terminate would create a presumption of termination that the 
entrepreneur could overcome by demonstrating that he or she has urgent 
humanitarian reasons or continues to provide a significant public 
benefit under 8 CFR 212.5 and merits a favorable exercise of 
discretion. Depending on the evidence provided, DHS could terminate or 
amend the

[[Page 24420]]

period of parole as necessary to align the appropriate timeframe to 
accomplish the purpose of the parole. If the advance parole document 
remains approved, individuals could then seek to be paroled into the 
United States at a port of entry. Under this option, employment 
authorization for an entrepreneur would not be automatic for the 
entrepreneur; rather, each individual parolee would need to separately 
apply for employment authorization, with the required fee, pursuant to 
8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11) to the extent consistent with the purpose of 
parole.
    c. Re-opening of IE parole determination. Under this option, DHS 
would reopen all approved I-941 parole applications on its own motion, 
without fee to the applicant, consistent with 8 CFR 103.5(a)(5) and 
provide the entrepreneur and any spouse or child of the entrepreneur 
with the opportunity to present evidence that would allow DHS to 
reconsider the grant of parole under the existing non-IE final rule 
parole framework, rather than the IE parole program regulations. DHS 
would consider eligibility for parole de novo under 8 CFR 212.5, 
including evidence already in the record and any new evidence the 
entrepreneur may provide. If DHS determines that the individual 
warrants a favorable exercise of discretion, DHS would issue a final 
decision and the individual could then seek to be paroled into the 
United States. Under this option, and to the extent applicable, each 
parolee would need to apply for employment authorization, with the 
required fee, pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11) to the extent consistent 
with the purpose of parole.
3. Individuals Whose Parole Applications Are Pending With USCIS on the 
Effective Date of the Final Rule
    a. Rejection of pending parole applications. Under this option, DHS 
would amend its regulations to allow for the rejecting of all pending 
I-941 applications for IE parole, and the return or refund of 
associated fees. This approach would be most consistent with DHS's 
proposed policy objectives and purpose for withdrawing the IE parole 
program regulations and, therefore, is DHS's preferred option.
    b. Withdrawal of pending applications for parole or conversion to 
adjudication under the existing non-IE final rule parole framework. 
Under this option, DHS would amend its regulations to allow applicants 
to request to withdraw pending parole applications and request refund 
of all application fees or would issue a request for evidence (RFE) to 
allow applicants to demonstrate that they warrant the favorable 
exercise of discretion under the existing non-IE final rule parole 
framework. DHS is considering providing a period of 60 days after the 
effective date of the rule during which individuals may request 
withdrawal and full refund of application fees. If during that period 
an application is not withdrawn, DHS would proceed to adjudicate the 
application by issuing an RFE. Where the applicant does not respond to 
the RFE or is not able to demonstrate that he or she merits the 
favorable exercise of discretion under the existing non-IE final rule 
parole framework, DHS would deny the application and retain the 
application fee. Note that for those applicants whose applications are 
granted, and who are later paroled into the United States, the basis 
for their parole would be under 8 CFR 212.5 rather than 8 CFR 212.19. 
Therefore, employment would not be authorized incident to parole, and 
evidence of parole on Form I-94 could not also serve as evidence of 
employment authorization. Instead, those parolees seeking employment 
authorization in the United States would need to file an Application 
for Employment Authorization, with the required fee, with USCIS under 8 
CFR 274a.12(c)(11). Because spouses and children of the entrepreneur 
would be applying for parole separately under the 8 CFR 212.5 criteria, 
spouses and children (otherwise eligible to work based on their age) 
could also submit Applications for Employment Authorization under 8 CFR 
274a.12(c)(11).
    c. Adjudication of pending parole applications under the IE final 
rule criteria. Under this option, DHS would continue to adjudicate all 
pending applications that were received prior to the effective date of 
the rescission under the IE final rule criteria at 8 CFR 212.19 until 
all such applications are either approved or denied. Where an 
application is approved, the individual could seek to be paroled into 
the United States at a port of entry. Entrepreneurs approved under the 
IE final rule would also benefit from employment authorization incident 
to their parole and their spouses whose parole is approved could apply 
for employment authorization in line with IE final rule requirements. 
Under this option, children of entrepreneurs would continue to be 
ineligible for employment authorization as specified in the IE final 
rule. In addition, DHS would retain the discretion to approve parole 
for an initial period of up to 30 months, which may be less than 30 
months. In this scenario, DHS would provide a later effective date for 
the removal of the Sec.  212.19(k) termination provisions in order to 
retain the specific termination grounds for any individuals who remain 
paroled under the IE parole program. DHS is also considering a 
variation on this proposal, in which it would amend its regulations to 
truncate the initial period of parole to a shorter duration, e.g., 12 
months for all pending requests that are approved.
4. Individuals Seeking Re-Parole After the Effective Date of the Final 
Rule Removing IE Parole Program Regulations
    Upon the termination of the IE parole program, individuals would 
not be able to seek re-parole under 8 CFR 212.19.
    DHS is soliciting public comments on all of the options proposed 
for transitioning away from the IE parole program.

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews

A. Administrative Procedure Act

    DHS is publishing this proposed rule to remove the IE parole 
program regulations with a 30-day comment period in the Federal 
Register in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 
553. DHS separately published a final rule on July 11, 2017, with a 
request for comments to extend the effective date of the IE Final Rule 
to March 14, 2018. On December 1, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia vacated that rule. See Nat'l Venture Capital Ass'n 
v. Duke, No. 17-1912, 2017 WL 5990122 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2017).

B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, 
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 
This rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

[[Page 24421]]

    As was described fully in Part IV, Statutory and Regulatory 
Requirements of the IE Final Rule,\6\ the costs of that rule consisted 
of the filing costs of principal applicants applying for parole and 
from the associated filing costs of dependents of principal applicants. 
Therefore, this proposal to remove the IE parole program regulations 
would result in a loss of these filing costs for those entrepreneurs 
and their dependents who apply for parole that would later be 
terminated. DHS stands by its previous findings that foreign 
entrepreneurs have made substantial and positive contributions to 
innovation, economic growth, and job creation in the United States, and 
that therefore the removal of the rule could cause potential loss of 
some of these economic benefits. However, for reasons explained 
previously, DHS is proposing to remove the IE parole program 
regulations after determining that the program is not a good use of DHS 
resources. While the monetary costs associated with developing and 
implementing the framework to process and adjudicate the applications 
might be recovered by the fees USCIS charges for applications, USCIS 
would not be able to offset the opportunity costs associated with 
diverting limited agency resources that are needed to meet other 
current priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 82 FR at 5238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the IE Final Rule, DHS cited studies that provided general 
support for the positive effects of entrepreneurs, but did not attempt 
to estimate the total number of new jobs that might be produced or 
quantify any new economic activity that might take place. Here, DHS has 
not attempted to estimate the total number of jobs that might not be 
produced or to quantify any new economic activity that might not take 
place with the removal of this rule. This discussion regarding the net 
impact on economic activity, for which we specifically request comment, 
also depends critically on the extent to which entrepreneurs would 
avail themselves of other immigraton programs. The costs of this rule 
would also depend on the costs of the other programs to which 
entrepreneurs might avail themselves. However, DHS is not able to 
predict which other programs these entrepreneurs would be eligible for 
since it would be specific to the circumstances of the entrepreneur. 
Therefore, these costs are not quantified in this proposed rule and DHS 
requests any data or comments on such costs. DHS had previously 
estimated that 2,940 foreign nationals annually could be eligible to 
apply for parole under the IE Final Rule, but also stated ``DHS has no 
way of predicting with certainty the actual number of foreign nationals 
who will seek parole under [the IE rule] rule over time.'' 82 FR 5277. 
This remains true as of the publication of this proposal.
    The filing costs associated with the IE Final Rule involved the 
application fees as well as the opportunity costs of time associated 
with filing. Each principal applicant faces a filing cost of $1,200 for 
the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941), and additional 
costs of $405.32, which covered the costs of submitting biometric 
information and the time related opportunity costs of filing for 
parole. This additional monetized cost breakdown includes an $85 per 
applicant biometrics filing fee and $28.75 in costs incurred for travel 
to an application support center (ASC) to submit the information.\7\ 
The total time burden of filing, biometrics submission, and associated 
travel is estimated to be 8.37 hours. In order to anticipate the full 
opportunity cost of time to petitioners, DHS multiplied the average 
hourly U.S. wage rate by 1.46 to account for the full cost of employee 
benefits such as paid leave, insurance, and retirement,\8\ for a total 
of $34.84.\9\ Multiplying this benefits-burdened average hourly wage of 
$34.84 by 8.37 hours yields $291.57 in time-related opportunity costs. 
Adding this $291.57 opportunity costs, the $85 biometrics fee and the 
$28.75 travel cost yields $405.32. The total cost per principal 
applicant for entrepreneur parole was expected to be $1,605.32.\10\ If 
DHS receives as many as 2,940 applications from persons eligible to 
apply, such applications would result in annual costs of 
$4,719,641.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The cost of such travel will equal $28.75 per trip, based on 
the 50-mile roundtrip distance to an ASC and the General Services 
Administration's (GSA) travel rate of $0.575 per mile. Calculation: 
50 miles multiplied by $0.575 per mile equals $28.75. See 79 FR 
78437 (Dec. 30, 2014) for GSA mileage rate.
    \8\ The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as follows: 
(Total Employee Compensation per hour)/(Wages and Salaries per 
hour). See Economic News Release, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, Table 1. Employer costs per hour worked for 
employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: 
Civilian workers, by major occupational and industry group (June 
2017), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09082017.pdf.
    \9\ Calculation: $23.86 (average hourly wage across all 
occupations) * 1.46 (benefits multiplier) = $34.84.
    Opportunity costs reported for principal applicants are based on 
the 2016 average wage rate for all occupations, which were released 
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in the Occupational 
Employment Statistics (OES) survey data publicly on March 31, 2017. 
These figures were updated from the costs in the IE final rule 
notice that relied on earlier wage rates and are thus slightly 
higher than the previous cost estimates. The wage data are found at: 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes_nat.htm.
    \10\ Calculation: $1,200 (filing fee) + $405.32 = $1,605.32.
    \11\ Calculation: 2,940 (projected principals) + $1,605.32 
(total cost per application) = $4,719,640.80. The total annual cost 
of $4,719,641 is rounded from the actual $4,719,640.80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the spouse of each principal is able to file for 
employment authorization under the IE Final Rule via an Application for 
Employment Authorization (Form I-765) with a filing fee of $410. DHS 
estimates that the Form I-765 would take 3.42 hours to complete, 
generating time related opportunity costs of $36.20. The total costs 
per applicant would be $446.20, which for 2,940 spousal applicants 
would result in total costs of $1,311,830.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ DHS made the assumption that spouses would not be in the 
U.S. labor force and as a result, are not represented in national 
average wage calculations. DHS recognized even if the spouses were 
not in the labor force, they had an opportunity cost of time above 
zero. In order to provide a reasonable proxy of time valuation for 
spouses, DHS calculated the opportunity costs based on the benefits 
adjusted minimum wage of $10.59. The total costs are rounded from 
$1,311,830.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, DHS projected approximately 3,234 dependents could 
file an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131) and be required to 
submit biometrics. The fee for the Form I-131 is $575 and each 
applicant would face additional costs of $190.28, yielding a total cost 
per I-131 applicant of $765.28, which for the estimated 3,234 
applicants would amount to $2,474,914.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The additional $190 cost is based on the biometrics cost of 
$85, the expected costs of travel to an ASC of $28.75, and time 
related filing costs of 7.23 hours. Multiplying this time burden by 
the benefits-burdened minimum wage ($10.59) yields an opportunity 
cost of $76.53, which, when added to the other charges yields 
$190.28. The final cost figure is rounded from $2,474,914.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule would remove the IE parole program regulations 
and therefore, the filing costs described above would be sunk costs for 
those entrepreneurs who have applied for parole since the effective 
date, but would no longer maintain parole once this rule is finalized. 
Additionally, DHS assumes that there will be familiarization costs 
associated with this rule. DHS assumes that each entreprenuer who has 
applied or been approved for parole would need to review the rule. 
Similarly, DHS assumes that the start-up entity and its investors also 
would need to review the rule. Based on the 2,940 IEs referenced as a 
maximum number of entrepreneurs who may apply, DHS assumes a total of 
at least 2,940 entrepreneurs would likely need to review the rule. It 
is also likely that some investors, venture capitalists,

[[Page 24422]]

angel investors, and others who may be involved in the startup would 
also review the rule. DHS does not have data on the number of startups 
or investors who would need to review this rule at this time, and 
hence, will use 2,940 as a reasonable estimate. DHS assumes that it 
would take about 2 hours to review and inform any additional parties of 
the changes in this proposed rule. As mentioned previously, the 
weighted 2016 mean hourly wage across all occupations is $34.84. 
Therefore, the total cost of familiarization would be $204,859 based on 
the maximum number of potential IEs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Weighted mean hourly wage ($34.84) * hours to review rule 
(2) * maximum number of entrepreneurs (2,940) = $204,859 total 
familiarization costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Individuals Paroled Into the United States as International 
Entrepreneurs--Alternatives
a. Automatic Termination
    In addition to the filing costs and familiarization of the final 
rule withdrawing the International Entrepreneur parole program, those 
entrepreneurs and their dependents who have approved parole and would 
have already traveled to the United States could incur some additional 
costs by leaving the United States earlier than expected. Such costs 
could be associated with the early notice of termination of housing or 
vehicle leases or with removing dependent children from school among 
other costs. Additionally, these entrepreneurs would have expended 
money, time, and/or other resources in their start-up entity. Under the 
original IE final rule, entrepreneurs have to show ownership in the 
start-up at the time they apply for IE parole. Even if the IE has to 
leave the country, they can still remain owners and work for the start-
up from outside of the country. The rescission of the IE parole program 
means that they cannot work for the start-up from within the United 
States on this basis. It is possible that when the IE leaves, the 
start-up could lose additional funding from both current and future 
investors, but it is also possible that current and future investors 
could be undeterred by the IE's departure and could continue to fund 
the start-up entity's continued operations and growth. DHS is not able 
to predict the behavior of these entrepreneurs or their investors at 
this time. Additionally, DHS notes that it is also possible that the 
start-up entity may have one or more co-founders/owners, and those co-
founders/owners could be U.S. citizens or otherwise authorized to work 
in the United States. As such, the IE's temporary or permanent 
departure from the country would not automatically mean that the start-
up would dissolve. Though there is a possibility that the start-up 
entity could move outside of the United States with the entrepreneur as 
a result of this rule as well. DHS welcomes any public comments on the 
costs associated with the automatic termination option.
    DHS also recognizes that it may be possible that once this rule is 
final and becomes effective that some spouses already paroled into the 
United States would be involuntarily separated from their employers. 
These employers would then face labor turnover costs as a result. While 
DHS estimates a total of 2,940 spouses of entrepreneurs who may be 
eligible to apply for parole, DHS cannot predict how many of these 
spouses and entrepreneurs will apply before this proposed rule would 
become finalized or how many entrepreneurs and spouses would qualify 
under other parole provisions and remain in the country. Therefore, DHS 
does not estimate the number of spouses who may involuntarily be 
separated or the number of companies that might incur labor turnover 
costs.
    However, DHS can estimate the cost of labor turnover per spouse to 
employers. DHS has reviewed recent research and literature concerning 
turnover costs. While there is not an abundance of recently published 
peer-reviewed research to draw on, there are several dozen studies 
available which are cited repeatedly across various reports. These 
studies focus on specific locations and occupations, and measure 
turnover costs in different ways. A 2012 report published by the Center 
for American Progress surveyed several dozen studies that considered 
both direct and indirect costs and determined that turnover costs per 
employee ranged from 10 to 30 percent of the salary for most salaried 
workers, and, on average, an employer paid an average of about 20 
percent of the worker's salary in total labor turnover costs.\15\ 
Consistent with wages used for filing costs, if we assume the spouse is 
making the weighted minimum wage of $10.59 and assume typical annual 
work hours of 2,080, the annual salary would be $22,027 for a spouse. 
If DHS uses 20 percent of the spouse's salary to estimate labor related 
turnover costs, each employer that hired a spouse would incur a labor 
related turnover cost of $4,405 per worker.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ``There Are Significant Business Costs to Replacing 
Employees,'' By Heather Boushey and Sarah Jane Glynn (2012), Center 
for American Progress, at: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012/11/16/44464/there-are-significant-business-costs-to-replacing-employees/.
    \16\ Calculation: Weighted minimum wage annual salary ($22,027) 
* 20 percent = $4,405.44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Termination on Notice
    Entrepreneurs who have been approved for parole and have already 
traveled to the United States may be considered under the non-IE final 
rule parole framework. These entrepreneurs would be sent a notice of 
intent to terminate by USCIS. During this time, entrepreneurs may 
present information to be considered under the non-IE related parole 
framework. IEs would incur some additional time burden in gathering and 
submitting information to show they remain eligible for parole. 
However, DHS anticipates this time burden to be minimal. There may be 
some additional costs to the government in reconsidering these 
applications. However, those costs are anticipated to be minimal and 
covered by the original filing fees. USCIS would incur some costs 
associated with the creating and mailing of these notices, though DHS 
also anticipates these costs to be minimal. DHS would not require the 
IE or dependents to file an additional parole application and 
therefore, no fees would be charged. Under this option, however, if IEs 
are approved under the non-IE related parole framework, the IE and 
their dependents would be required to submit a Form I-765 with the 
notice of intent to terminate to minimize gaps in employment 
authorization. Form I-765 includes a filing fee of $410 and a total 
time burden of 3.42 hours to complete and file the application. Using 
the weighted mean hourly wage previously established of $34.84, the 
total cost for entrepreneurs to file Form I-765 is $529 per 
application.\17\ As previously discussed, the total cost for dependents 
to file Form I-765 is $446 per application.\18\ DHS does not have an 
estimate of the numbers of entrepreneurs or dependents that may qualify 
to apply for employment authorization under another non-IE related 
parole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Calculation: Filing fee ($410) + (time burden 3.42 hours * 
weighted average hourly wage $34.84) = $529 (rounded).
    \18\ DHS refers to dependents to include the spouses and those 
children of entrepreneurs who may be eligible to apply for 
employment authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. USCIS Motion To Reopen/Reconsider
    Under the option to reopen all IE parole adjudications for those IE 
with approved parole and already in the United States, DHS anticipates 
minimal costs to IE associated with the burden of providing evidence 
for parole under the

[[Page 24423]]

existing non-IE final rule parole framework, rather than IE parole 
program regulations. DHS does not plan to charge any filing fees for 
reopening adjudication in these cases because they will be reopened on 
USCIS's own motion. DHS believes the benefits of being considered under 
the non-IE final rule parole framework outweighs the minimal burdens 
added by presenting additional evidence. As with the notice of intent 
to terminate option, entrepreneurs and dependents would be required to 
submit a Form I-765 for employment authorization if approved for non-IE 
related parole. Entrepreneurs and dependents would incur costs of $529 
and $446 per application, respectively. Again, DHS is not able to 
estimate the number of applicants who might be eligible for non-IE 
related parole.
d. Expiration of Initial Period of Parole
    Finally, the option to allow parole approved under the IE parole 
program regulations to naturally expire, along with any associated 
employment authorization, unless otherwise terminated on other grounds 
would require no additional costs on behalf of the applicant or the 
government.
2. Individuals With USCIS-Approved IE Parole Applications Who Have Not 
Yet Traveled to the United States
a. Automatic Termination
    For those indviduals who have an approved IE parole application, 
but have not yet traveled to the United States, automatic termination 
for these individuals would result in the loss of the costs associated 
with filing Form I-941 totaling $1,605 per principal application. If 
the entrepreneur's dependents filed for Form I-131, additional losses 
of $765 per application would be incurred for parole that could never 
be realized. If these applications are automatically terminated, these 
individuals would lose any costs if they attempt to seek parole 
pursuant to the IE parole program at a port of entry after the 
effectiveness of this termination. DHS cannot predict how many IEs may 
fall into this group at this time, but welcomes comments from the 
public.
b. Termination on Notice
    For the option of termination of the advance parole document on 
notice, those IEs who would receive notice and the opportunity to 
respond would incur some costs in terms of burden associated with 
providing evidence to demonstrate that parole would otherwise be 
warranted under the existing non-IE final rule parole framework for the 
entrepreneur and any dependents of such entrepreneur. Depending on the 
evidence provided, DHS may terminate or amend the validity period of 
the advance parole as necessary to align the appropriate timeframe to 
accomplish the purpose of the parole. If the advance parole document 
remains approved, individuals could then seek, during the validity of 
the advance parole document, to be paroled into the United States at a 
port of entry. Under this option, employment authorization for an 
entrepreneur would not be automatic; rather, each individual parolee 
would need to separately apply for employment authorization pursuant to 
8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11) to the extent consistent with the purpose of 
parole. DHS does not know how many entrepreneurs would fall into this 
category, however, requests comments from the public on any such data 
or estimate. As previously established, the costs for entrepreneurs and 
dependents to submit Form I-765 would be $529 and $446 per application, 
respectively.
c. USCIS Motion To Reopen/Reconsider
    For the option of re-opening IE parole determinations, DHS would 
reopen all approved Form I-941 parole applications without any 
additional fees to the applicant. These applicants would lose some of 
their initial $1,605 application costs associated with the original 
Form I-941. Some of this loss would be offset by not being required to 
reapply under the non-IE final rule parole framework which would have 
costs associated with Form I-131. Addtionally, there may be some time 
burden to the entrepreneur and dependents of the entrepreneur 
associated with the opportunity to present evidence that would allow 
DHS to reconsider the grant of parole under the the non-IE final rule 
parole framework, rather than the IE parole program regulations. There 
may be some additional costs to the government in reconsidering these 
applications. However, those costs are anticipated to be minimal and 
covered by the original filing fees. Similar to the option to terminate 
the advance parole document on notice, this option would require each 
parolee to apply for employment authorization if approved for non-IE 
final rule parole. DHS does not have information to determine how many 
individuals might fall into this option and therefore cannot estimate 
the numbers of IEs. However, the costs for entrepreneurs and dependents 
to submit Form I-765 would be $529 and $446 per application, 
respectively. DHS welcomes any public comment on any data or costs not 
considered under this option.
    Finally if an IE is denied under the non-IE final rule parole 
framework, an entrepreneur whose original application was successfully 
adjudicated would have spent additional time providing evidence to be 
considered eligible under the non-IE final rule parole framework. This 
additional time would vary amongst applicants so DHS does not estimate 
the time or opportunity costs. Additionally and as discussed earlier, 
entrepreneurs have to show ownership in the start-up at the time they 
apply for IE parole. Therefore, even if the IE does not come into the 
country, they can still remain owners and work for the start-up from 
outside of the country. It is possible that the start-up could lose 
additional funding if investors follow the entrepreneur elsewhere or 
decide not to continue to invest in the start-up entity because of the 
proposed rescission of parole, however DHS cannot predict the behavior 
of a start-up entity's current or future investors. DHS welcomes any 
public comments on the costs associated with entrepreneurs who have 
approved IE parole applications, but have not yet traveled to the 
United States.
3. Individuals Whose Parole Applications Are Pending With USCIS on the 
Effective Date of the Final Rule
a. Reject/Refund
    For individuals with pending parole applications on the effective 
data of the final rule, under the first option DHS would reject all 
pending Form I-941 applications for IE parole and return or refund 
associated fees. These IEs would incur only opportunity costs of time 
to file applications which would include $405 per application for Form 
I-941 per entrepreneur, $36 per application for Form I-765 per 
dependent, or $190 per application for Form I-131 per dependent. The 
filing fees for each application would be returned or refunded. There 
may be some administrative costs associated with the issuance of 
refunds to USCIS. USCIS does not have cost estimates indicating the 
number of hours required to process and issue these refunds. DHS 
welcomes any public comments on the impacts of this option.
b. Withdraw or Convert Adjudication to Non-IE Parole
    Under the second option to withdraw pending applications for parole 
and request a refund for fees, the IE would again incur only costs 
related to the opportunity costs of time for completing Form I-941, 
Form I-765, or Form I-131.

[[Page 24424]]

For those IE who choose to convert their adjudication to existing non-
IE parole, they may incur some additional costs associated with 
providing evidence to demonstrate that they warrant the favorable 
exercise of discretion under existing non-IE final rule parole 
frameworks. Applicants that do not respond to RFEs or are not able to 
favorably demonstrate that they merit approval under the existing non-
IE final rule parole framework, would lose the application filing fees 
in addition to the opportunity costs of time to complete the 
application (Form I-941--$1,605, Form I-765--$446, or Form I-131--
$765). USCIS would keep Form I-941 fees for applicants that respond to 
RFEs and are approved for non-IE related parole. Therefore, the costs 
for the original applications would be incurred as described above. 
Additionally, applicants would need to apply for employment 
authorization upon arrival to the United States. Applicants would incur 
an additional $529 per entrepreneur and $466 per dependent to file a 
Form I-765 upon arrival.
c. Continue Adjudications Under IE Parole Criteria
    The third option is to adjudicate all pending applications received 
prior to the effective date of the rescission of the IE final rule 
criteria until all applications are approved or denied. For approved 
applications, DHS would provide a later effective date for rescission 
of the final rule and DHS is considering various timeframes for length 
of parole. This option does not impose any additional costs to 
applicants other than the original filing costs.
4. Individuals Seeking Re-Parole After the Effective Date of the Final 
Rule Removing IE Parole Program Regulations
    There would be no additional costs for individuals who would no 
longer be able to seek re-parole after the effective date of this 
proposed IE parole program rescission. The IE parole program was 
originally limited to up to 30 months with a possible extension of an 
additional 30 months. By no longer allowing re-parole, DHS would 
shorten this timeframe.
    Finally, DHS does not know whether some of the startup entities of 
these entrepreneurs could be considered small entities and could 
indirectly be impacted by this proposed rule or if some employers who 
hire the dependents of these entrepreneurs could be small entites and 
impacted by this proposed rule. Therefore, DHS has prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) under the Regaultory Flexibility 
Act (RFA) requesting more information on these impacts.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule would amend DHS regulations to remove the IE 
parole program promulgated through the IE Final Rule, 82 FR 5238. In 
accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601(6), 
DHS examined the impact of this rule on small entities. A small entity 
may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and 
operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small 
business per the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632), a small not-for-
profit organization, or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality 
with fewer than 50,000 people).
    In the IE Final Rule, DHS certified that the rule would not impose 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
certification was based on grounds that individual entrepreneurs are 
not considered small entities under the purview of the RFA. In 
addition, participation is strictly voluntary for the estimated 
population of 2,940 annual principal applicants. The IE Final Rule did 
not require any individuals or businesses, including those created by 
foreign nationals, to seek parole--either generally or as a specific 
condition for establishing or operating a business in the United 
States. While there are numerous costs associated with starting a new 
business, these various costs would be driven by the business activity 
that each applicant chooses to endeavor in and not by the rule itself.
    Based on public comment feedback to the 2016 proposed rule (81 FR 
60130), DHS considered the possibility that a business entity 
associated with the applicant entrepreneur could pay the parole 
application fees for these entrepreneurs. However, as DHS explained in 
the IE Final Rule and reiterates here, while this rule proposes to 
eliminate the entrepreneur-specific criteria and parole process 
established by the IE Final Rule, it does not eliminate an individual's 
ability to apply for parole using the standard Form I-131 process. DHS 
continues to stand by the determinations made in the final rule.
    While DHS does not believe that there would be a direct impact to 
entrepreneurs who are individuals and therefore would not be considered 
as small entities under the RFA, DHS recognizes that there may be some 
indirect impacts imposed on small entities that are tied to these 
entrepreneurs. The RFA does not require indirect impacts to small 
entities to be considered, nevertheless, DHS has prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and invites public comment on 
potential impacts of this proposed removal to small entities.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    DHS proposes to remove the IE parole program regulations. As was 
discussed in the IE Final Rule and in the above sections of this 
notice, entreprenuers or individuals would be directly impacted by this 
proposed rule, however, individuals are not small entities and 
therefore, are not considered for RFA purposes. DHS recognizes that 
there could be some indirect impacts that this proposed rule may have 
on small entities that are tied to these entrepreneurs. While DHS does 
not have to consider indirect impacts for RFA purposes, DHS is 
including this analysis to determine if the proposed removal would 
indirectly impact small entities. Additionaly, DHS recognizes that some 
of the options presented could also impact the entities that hire the 
spouse of entrepreneurs and welcomes public comment on potential 
impacts of the proposed changes on small entities.
    a. A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is 
being considered.
    DHS is proposing to remove the IE parole program regulations 
because the policy it promulgated is not the appropriate vehicle for 
attracting and retaining international entrepreneurs and does not 
adequately protect U.S. investors and U.S. workers. Part III, Section B 
of the preamble of this proposed rule more fully describes the reasons 
for why action is being taken by the agency.
    b. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule.
    DHS objectives and legal authority for this proposed rule are 
discussed in the preamble of this proposed rule.
    c. A description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of 
small entities to which the proposed changes would apply.
    In the Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 sections of this proposed 
rule and the IE Final Rule, DHS estimated that about 2,940 principal 
applicants, or entrepreneurs, could be eligible to apply each year. 
Again, this proposed rule directly impacts individual entrepreneurs, 
which are not required to be analyzed under the RFA. However, DHS 
recognizes that some small entities that are tied to the entrepreneur 
may be indirectly impacted by this proposed rule and therefore provides 
this

[[Page 24425]]

discussion. Currently, DHS is not able to estimate how many entities 
may be associated with or started by this group of potential 
applicants. However, DHS assumes that since these entrepreneurs are 
involved in startups and startups generally tend to be small, most of 
the entities tied to these entreprenuers could be considered small. 
Additionally, DHS could assume that these small entities tied to these 
entrepreneurs could face costs in terms of lost application fees, jobs 
that might not be produced, or other economic activity that might not 
take place. However, DHS does not currently have conclusive information 
to determine how many of these entities would be small entities and 
what the impact might be.
    Additionally, DHS recognizes that the options proposed in the 
preamble may impact some entities that hire the spouses of 
entrepreneurs, which could be small entities. However, DHS does not 
have enough information at this time to estimate the number of small 
entities that may employ the spouses of these entrepreneurs. DHS 
welcomes public comments or data on the number of small entities that 
might be impacted by this proposed rule and what the impact might be to 
those small entities.
    d. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the 
requirement and the types of professional skills.
    The proposed rule does not directly impose any new or additional 
``reporting'' or ``recordkeeping'' requirements on filers. The proposed 
rule does not require any new professional skills for reporting.
    e. An identification of all relevant Federal rules, to the extent 
practical, that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed 
rule.
    DHS is unaware of any duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting 
Federal rules, but invites any comment and information regarding any 
such rules.
    f. Description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule 
that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that 
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities.
    The IE Final Rule requires that applicants attain significant 
investor capital from qualified U.S. investors. A component of this 
requirement involves a minmum investment threshold of $250,000. DHS 
considered several alternatives for this amount, based on public input, 
in which commenters proposed levels for this minimum ranging from about 
$100,000 to $1 million. The minimum investment is not itself a size 
standard to determine whether entities are small. Furthermore, since 
the rule will involve startups, most would be small by definition, 
which is a feature of the business startup environment and not 
specifically the rule itself. Hence, the raising or lowering the 
minimum from the level established in the IE Final Rule would affect 
the number of potential applicants that would be eligible at a specific 
point in time, but DHS does not believe the alternatives would generate 
a considerable impact to small entities. First, DHS is not aware of 
evidence that establishes a significant relation between the size of 
firms over their lifetime and the amount of capital they receive in 
their seed or startup stage of development. Second, the amount of 
investment that firms receive at early stages of development reflect 
perceptions concerning their future success to investors and not their 
size. Third, DHS does not have evidence to suggest a higher or lower 
threshold would impact capital costs. DHS determined that changing the 
level of the threshold still would not address underlying issues over 
an appropriate vehicle to use in attracting and retaining international 
entrepreneurs. Therefore, this alternative was not considered any 
further.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among 
other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act 
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing 
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule 
that may result in $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually 
for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The value equivalent of 
$100 million in 1995 adjusted for inflation to 2016 levels by the 
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumer (CPI-U) is $157 million.
    This rule does not exceed the $100 million expenditure in any one 
year when adjusted for inflation ($157 million in 2016 dollars), and 
this rulemaking does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of 
Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply, and DHS has not prepared 
a statement under the Act.

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
121, 804, 110 Stat. 847, 872 (1996), 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This proposed 
rule has not been found to result in an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices; or 
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based 
companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic or export 
markets.

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of 
Executive Order No. 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), this rule does 
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement.

G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No.12988, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996).

H. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    DHS Directive (Dir) 023-01 Rev. 01 establishes the procedures that 
DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA and the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA. 40 CFR 
parts 1500 through 1508.
    DHS analyzed this action and concludes that it is not a NEPA-
triggering action. Removing a rule that was determined not to 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment accordingly has no impact on the human environment. If the 
rule was believed to have a significant impact an Environmental Impact 
Statement would have been prepared. If the rule was believed to have 
significant effects that were to be mitigated to insignificance, an 
Environmental Assessment would have been conducted and a Finding of No 
Significant Impact with mitigating measures would have been issued. If 
the rule had been found to have no significant effects because it is 
covered

[[Page 24426]]

by one or more categorical exclusions from further analysis, its 
removal again would have no significant effects. Therefore, we conclude 
that this proposed removal does not significantly affect the quality of 
the human environment. The IE parole program regulations, which this 
proposed rule seeks to remove, provide criteria and procedures for 
applying the Secretary's existing statutory parole authority to 
entrepreneurs in a manner to ensure consistency in case-by-case 
adjudications.
    Furthermore, unlike the rescission of policy letters or other 
actions which do not involve rulemaking, public involvement, an 
important value of NEPA, is fully protected by the rulemaking process.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
agencies are required to submit any reporting requirements inherent in 
a rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and 
approval. This rule calls for no new collection of information under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
    DHS is withdrawing all changes to the Form I-131 and Form I-765 
approved with the IE Final Rule published at 82 FR 5238 on January 17, 
2017. DHS will continue to use the version of Form I-765 approved by 
OMB on April 13, 2017, and will continue to use the version of Form I-
131 approved on December 21, 2016. DHS also is proposing to discontinue 
the new information collection Form I-941 originally approved as a 
result of the Final Rule published at 82 FR 5238 on January 17, 2017. 
Finally, DHS is withdrawing all changes to the Form I-9 that were 
approved in connection with the IE Final Rule.
USCIS Forms
1. USCIS Form I-9
Overview of This Information Collection
    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Employment Eligibility 
Verification.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-9; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form 
was developed to facilitate compliance with section 274A of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits the knowing employment 
of unauthorized aliens. This information collection is necessary for 
employers, agricultural recruiters and referrers for a fee, and state 
employment agencies to verify the identity and employment authorization 
of individuals hired (or recruited or referred for a fee, if 
applicable) for employment in the United States.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of employer and recruiter respondents for the information 
collection I-9 is 55,400,000 and the estimated hour burden per response 
is .33 hours. The estimated total number of employee respondents for 
the information collection I-9 is 55,400,000 and the estimated hour 
burden per response is .17 hours. The estimated total number of 
recordkeeping respondents for the information collection I-9 is 
20,000,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is .08 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 29,300,000 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $0.
2. USCIS Form I-131
Overview of This Information Collection
    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Travel Document.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-131; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Certain 
aliens, principally permanent or conditional residents, refugees or 
asylees, applicants for adjustment of status, aliens in Temporary 
Protected Status (TPS) and aliens abroad seeking humanitarian parole, 
in need to apply for a travel document to lawfully enter or reenter the 
United States. Lawful permanent residents may now file requests for 
travel permits (transportation letter or boarding foil).
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection I-131 is 
594,324 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.9 hours. The 
estimated total number of respondents for the biometrics collection is 
71,665 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours. The 
estimated total number of respondents for the passport style 
photographs is 319,727 and the estimated hour burden per response is .5 
hours
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 1,372,928 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is 177,928,330.
3. USCIS Form I-765
Overview of This Information Collection
    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-765; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The 
information collected on this form is used by the USCIS to determine 
eligibility for the issuance of the employment document.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection I-765 is 
2,139,523 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.42 hours. The 
estimated total number of respondents for the biometrics collection is 
405,067 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours. The 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-
765WS (Work Sheet) is 250,000 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is .5 hours. The estimated total number of respondents for the 
Passport-style Photographs is 2,136,583 and the estimated hour burden 
per response is .5 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 8,985,859 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is 650,414,992.

[[Page 24427]]

4. USCIS Form I-941
    DHS is discontinuing the new USCIS Form I-941 (OMB Control Number 
1615-0136).

List of Subjects

8 CFR Part 103

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations 
(Government agencies), Freedom of information, Immigration, Privacy, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 212

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, 
Passports and visas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 274a

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, DHS is proposing to amend chapter I of title 8 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 103--IMMIGRATION BENEFITS; BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS; 
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 
1356, 1365b; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 
U.S.C. 1 et seq.); E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874, 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 
Comp., p.166; 8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 112-54.


Sec.  103.7  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  103.7 by removing paragraph (b)(1)(i)(KKK).

PART 212--DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS: NONIMMIGRANTS; WAIVERS; 
ADMISSION OF CERTAIN INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE

0
3. The authority citation for part 212 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202(4) and 271, 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 
1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1255, 
1359; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458); 8 CFR 
part 2.


Sec.  212.19  [Removed]

0
4. Remove Sec.  212.19.

PART 274a--CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS

0
5. The authority citation for part 274a continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1324a; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR 
part 2; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 114-
74, 129 Stat. 599.

0
6. Revise Sec.  274a.2(b)(1)(v)(A)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  274a.2  Verification of identity and employment authorization.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (5) In the case of an individual who is authorized to work for a 
specific employer incident to status, a foreign passport with an 
Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94 (as defined in 8 CFR 1.4) or Form 
I-94A, bearing the same name as the passport and containing an 
endorsement of the alien's nonimmigrant status, as long as the period 
of endorsement has not yet expired and the employment is not in 
conflict with the individual's employment-authorized status and any 
restrictions or limitations identified on the Form;
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  274a.12 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Removing paragraph (b)(37);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(11); and
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(34).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  274a.12  Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.

* * * * *
    (b) Aliens authorized for employment with a specific employer 
incident to status. The following classes of nonimmigrant aliens are 
authorized to be employed in the United States by the specific employer 
and subject to the restrictions described in the section(s) of this 
chapter indicated as a condition of their admission in, or subsequent 
change to, such classification. An alien in one of these classes is not 
issued an employment authorization document by DHS:
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (11) An alien paroled into the United States temporarily for urgent 
humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit pursuant to section 
212(d)(5) of the Act.
* * * * *

Kirstjen M. Nielsen,
Secretary of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2018-11348 Filed 5-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-97-P