[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations]
[Department of Justice Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)
The Department of Justice is not a major regulatory agency, and carries 
out its vital investigative, prosecutorial, and other law enforcement 
activities principally through means other than the regulatory process. 
Even so, the Department does have significant responsibilities for 
implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act and other civil rights 
laws through regulations as well as immigration laws, including the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration Act of 
1990. The Department's key regulatory goals and initiatives are set 
forth in detail below.
The Department has worked actively to implement the general regulatory 
principles of Executive Order 12866. Relatively few of the Department's 
rules are ``significant regulatory actions'' requiring review by the 
Office of Management and Budget under the Executive Order. Accordingly, 
the reorientation of the OMB review process to focus on significant 
rules has required the Department to increase its own efforts to ensure 
that all of its regulations are carefully reviewed for consistency with 
the Administration's regulatory principles, including the large 
majority of rules that are not reviewed directly by OMB as 
``significant regulatory actions.''
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Pursuant to Section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, the Department of 
Justice provides the following statement of regulatory priorities, 
focusing in particular on eight regulatory initiatives in the three 
areas of civil rights, immigration, and asset forfeiture.
In addition to the specific initiatives set forth below, several other 
components of the Department carry out important responsibilities 
through the regulatory process. Although their regulatory efforts are 
not singled out for specific attention in this Regulatory Plan, those 
components carry out key roles in implementing the Department's law 
enforcement priorities. In particular, the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) is responsible for controlling abuse of narcotics 
and dangerous drugs by restricting the aggregate supply of those drugs. 
DEA accomplishes its objectives through coordination with State, local, 
and other Federal officials in drug enforcement activities; development 
and maintenance of drug intelligence systems; regulation of legitimate 
controlled substances; and enforcement coordination and intelligence-
gathering activities with foreign government agencies. DEA is presently 
developing regulations to implement the provisions of the Domestic 
Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993, which imposes registration 
requirements upon manufacturers, distributors, importers and exporters 
of List I chemicals (formerly known as precursor chemicals).
Civil Rights
The Department and its Civil Rights Division are deeply committed to a 
rigorous and revitalized approach to the enforcement of this nation's 
civil rights laws. In keeping with that commitment, the Division will 
be reviewing, updating, and improving its civil rights regulations, 
which are the Division's basic enforcement tools. As priorities for the 
coming year, the Division will be focusing on regulations implementing 
title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and title IX of the Education 
Amendments Act of 1972, which are intended to serve as models for other 
Federal agencies. The Division also is completing the initial ADA 
rulemaking cycle by amending its regulations under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) to incorporate revised standards applicable to 
new building and facilities used by State and local governments. The 
Department's Regulatory Plan has four civil rights initiatives.
All agencies, with the Department's encouragement and support, need to 
begin the process of updating their title VI regulations, which may now 
be two decades old. The Department's goal will be the creation of a 
model, state-of-the-art, title VI rule. This will actually involve two 
closely related initiatives, one to be used within the Department for 
programs and activities receiving financial assistance from the 
Department, and the other for use throughout the Federal Government 
pursuant to the Department's responsibility to promote coordination of 
title VI enforcement by all agencies. The Department's model rule is 
intended to include the most effective enforcement procedures from 
current regulations and will also contain language to implement the 
definition of ``program or activity'' added by the Civil Rights 
Restoration Act of 1987 (CRRA), Public Law No. 100-259.
The Division will also be publishing a revised proposed regulation, 
implementing title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which 
forbids discrimination on the basis of sex in educational activities 
receiving Federal financial assistance. The rule will incorporate 
statutory amendments to title IX (made by the Civil Rights Restoration 
Act of 1987) and controlling judicial precedents. The final title IX 
regulation is intended to serve also as a model for other Federal 
agencies to promote effective compliance.
The Department is also planning to make revisions in its regulations 
implementing title II of the ADA (and conforming changes to title III) 
in order to incorporate the revised accessibility design guidelines 
developed by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board (the Access Board). Subtitle A of title II of the ADA protects 
qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the 
basis of disability in the services, programs, or activities of all 
State and local governments. Title III of the ADA protects qualified 
individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of 
disability by public accommodations and in commercial facilities. The 
Access Board's new guidelines for State and local buildings and 
facilities are the subject of a related, pending rulemaking proceeding, 
and have been subject to considerable scrutiny through the Board's 
regulatory process. The Department of Justice, which is required by 
statute to promulgate regulations that do not go below the Access 
Board's minimum guidelines, will incorporate them into the Department's 
title II rule.
These amendments to the ADA regulations are an important step forward 
in fulfilling the promise of the ADA in ushering in a new era of 
opportunity and dignity for the many millions of Americans with 
disabilities. These regulations, which will apply to new construction 
and to alterations of State and local buildings and facilities, will 
open doors that have shut out people with disabilities in the past.
Immigration
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is responsible for 
facilitating the entry of persons legally admissible as visitors or as 
immigrants to the United States, for preventing unlawful entry or 
receipt of immigration benefits by those who are not entitled to 
receive them, and for apprehending or removing those aliens who enter 
or remain illegally in the United States. Though many of the 
Administration's goals for more effective immigration process require 
either new statutory authority or increased resources, the regulatory 
process is a vital aspect of carrying out the goals of the immigration 
laws.
Certainly, one of the regulatory challenges facing the Department of 
Justice is to improve the effectiveness of those regulatory efforts. 
Commissioner Meissner established three fundamental goals at the time 
of her confirmation: to increase the professionalization of the 
Service, to provide immigration control with compassion, and to build 
the Service's role in immigration policy leadership and communication. 
The regulatory priorities for the Service follow those priorities, 
though other desired improvements will require legislative action. 
Three INS initiatives are included in this Regulatory Plan.
The principal policy and program delivery regulations which will be 
presented this year address areas of vulnerability in the immigration 
system. They are also structured to facilitate the proper use of the 
system by deserving persons. The principal regulation will provide 
much-needed reforms for the asylum system. After a thorough review of 
the delivery of asylum determinations, the Department this spring 
published proposed revisions to asylum regulations which will allow the 
timely adjudication of cases while instituting safeguards against abuse 
of the U.S. asylum system. The key priority is the adoption of these 
asylum reforms in final form. Another regulation will reduce the number 
of documents which are used to verify immigration status for purposes 
of employment in order to facilitate employer's compliance with the 
Act.
The Service has also proposed a number of enhancements to its 
organizational structure for management of the functions it performs. 
There is now an approved reorganization which will be implemented this 
year. Regulations establishing that structure and delegations of 
authority will be published.
Finally, the Service is presently implementing a number of changes to 
its fee schedules for various applications. (This rule is not included 
in the Regulatory Plan because it will be published in the very near 
future.) The Service is in a continuous improvement program for the 
delivery of those services it delivers to the public, and the fee 
structure for those services. Regulations will be promulgated in the 
future to increase the effectiveness of service delivery as we move to 
further automation of business functions in both the benefit and 
enforcement arenas. In particular, the Service will address service to 
States and localities, information exchange and facilitation of 
procedures for the public.
Asset Forfeiture
The Executive Office of Asset Forfeiture has one initiative listed in 
this Regulatory Plan, to revise and consolidate the Department's 
regulations on remission and mitigation of asset forfeiture. The rule 
is one part of the Department's set of administrative and legislative 
initiatives to improve the asset forfeiture program. Further, by 
replacing numerous sets of agency-specific regulations, this action 
will reduce the volume of petition regulations, enhance consistency in 
the petitions process, and facilitate understanding and use of the 
petitions process by the public.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--Civil Rights Division (CRT)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
87. NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED 
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES--IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION 
AMENDMENTS OF 1972
Legal Authority:


 20 USC 1682


CFR Citation:


 28 CFR 42 subpart J (New)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department's proposed regulation implements the requirements of 
title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of an individual's sex in 
federally assisted educational programs. On June 17, 1980, the 
Department published a proposed title IX regulation that was never 
issued in final form. As a result of interim legislation and judicial 
opinions, it is necessary to revise our prior proposed regulation 
before a final regulation can be issued.


Statement of Need:


There is an urgent need to issue this regulation. First, the Department 
is obligated to issue a title IX regulation since it funds many 
educational programs. Second, because the Department's regulation will 
incorporate legislative amendments and controlling precedents to date, 
it can be expected that other agencies will rely on it in revising 
their own, outdated, regulations.


Alternatives:


Because title IX requires an agency (such as the Department of Justice) 
that funds educational programs to issue implementing regulations, 
issuance of a title IX regulation is mandatory. With respect to the 
contents of the title IX regulation, the Department will consider all 
comments received during the public comment period before issuing a 
final regulation.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


In order to carry out this Administration's commitment to equal 
educational opportunity for women, it is essential that the Department 
of Justice issue its own regulation implementing title IX. The failure 
of previous administrations to direct that this regulation be issued 
means that the Department has no regulation in place to guide the 
Department in granting financial assistance to educational programs or 
in investigating complaints of sex discrimination in funded programs.


In providing Federal financial assistance to educational programs, the 
Department has been subject to the requirements of title IX since it 
was enacted in 1972. Therefore, promulgating this regulation should not 
impose any new costs upon recipients of Federal financial assistance.


Risks:


Without a regulation that incorporates legislative amendments and 
controlling judicial precedents in place, the Department risks 
violating title IX. Furthermore, if this regulatory activity is not 
undertaken, there are substantial risks: (1) that individuals who are 
granted protection from discrimination on the basis of sex will find 
that their rights are not protected to the extent intended by 
legislative amendments and controlling judicial decisions, and (2) that 
Federal program funds will be expended in a discriminatory manner.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        01/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Additional Information:


AGENCY CONTACT CONT: TTD (202) 514-0383.


Agency Contact:
Merrily A. Friedlander
Acting Chief
Coordination and Review Section
Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
P.O. Box 66118
Washington, DC 20035-6118
202 307-2222
RIN: 1190-AA28
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--CRT
88.  AMENDMENT TO NONDISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED 
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES--IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS 
ACT OF 1964
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 2000d to 2000d-4


CFR Citation:


 28 CFR 42.101 to 42.112


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Justice will be revising and updating its existing 
regulation implementing title VI for the Department's federally 
assisted programs and activities, 28 CFR 42.101 to 42.112 (which was 
issued in 1966).


Statement of Need:


Most of the agencies with title VI enforcement responsibilities issued 
implementing regulations more than 20 years ago, and those regulations 
have not been updated to incorporate current case law and statutory 
changes.


The Department is planning to follow a three-step process, beginning 
with the informal interagency circulation for comment of a new proposed 
model title VI regulation. The model regulation is intended to serve as 
a state-of-the-art guide for agencies as they develop their own amended 
title VI regulations through notice and comment rulemaking. The model 
regulation will include the most effective enforcement procedures, as 
well as language to implement the definition of ``program or activity'' 
added by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.


Following the informal circulation of the model regulation, the 
Department will publish this proposed amendment to its own title VI 
regulation. Finally, the Department plans to revise its title VI 
coordination regulation (titled: Amendment to Coordination of 
Enforcement of Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs; see 
RIN 1190-AA32) and to encourage agencies with outdated regulations to 
amend their own regulations. This process will result in more useful 
and effective title VI regulations throughout the Federal Government.


The enforcement procedures for title VI are used for enforcing the 
other statutes that prohibit discrimination in federally assisted 
programs and activities, including section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973, as amended, and title IX of the Education Amendments of 
1972, as amended. Under all of these statutes, the Federal agency that 
provides the Federal financial assistance to the program or activity is 
responsible for enforcing the nondiscrimination mandate. Thus, 
amendments to title VI regulations will indirectly result in an update 
to all other regulations that reference the enforcement procedures of 
title VI.


Alternatives:


Because amendments to the title VI are long overdue (see Statement of 
Need above), failing to update and revise existing regulations is not a 
reasonable alternative. Suggested alternatives will be solicited during 
the process of circulating the model regulation to affected agencies 
and will also be obtained during the mandatory public comment period 
under any proposed regulation. To the extent permitted by law, these 
comments will be considered in adopting any revisions to the existing 
regulations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Clinton Administration has made a firm commitment to the rigorous 
and effective enforcement of all Federal civil rights statutes, 
including title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This commitment 
stands in sharp contrast to the lack of enforcement that has 
characterized previous administrations. One result of this lack of 
enforcement activity is that the current regulations, under which all 
fund-granting Federal agencies operate, are badly outdated, making 
effective enforcement difficult. By updating agency title VI 
regulations through the process described above, Federal funding 
agencies will be able to more effectively use their resources to attack 
and eliminate discriminatory practices by recipients of Federal 
financial assistance.


It is anticipated that, to the extent that this process results in 
greater consistency among the title VI regulations issued by various 
Federal agencies, the task of complying with title VI by recipients of 
Federal financial assistance will be simplified. Thus, these regulatory 
activities should not impose any additional costs on recipients of 
Federal financial assistance.


Risks:


If these regulatory activities are not undertaken, there are 
substantial risks: (1) that individuals who are granted protection from 
discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin will 
find that their rights are not protected to the extent intended by 
legislative amendments and controlling judicial decisions, and (2) that 
Federal program funds will be expended in a discriminatory manner.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        01/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


AGENCY CONTACT CONT: TTD: (202) 514-0383.


Agency Contact:
Merrily A. Friedlander
Acting Chief
Coordination and Review Section
Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
P.O. Box 66118
Washington, DC 20035-6118
202 307-2222
RIN: 1190-AA31
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--CRT
89.  AMENDMENT TO COORDINATION OF ENFORCEMENT OF 
NONDISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS--IMPLEMENTATION OF 
TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 2000d to 2000d-4; EO 12250


CFR Citation:


 28 CFR 42.401 to 42.415


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Justice will be revising and updating its title VI 
coordination regulation, 28 CFR 42.401 to 42.415, which was issued in 
1976 pursuant to the authority granted to the Department by E.O. 11764, 
to coordinate enforcement of title VI by the other Federal fund-
granting agencies. The purpose of the title VI coordination regulation 
is to guide other agencies as they develop their own, agency-specific 
title VI regulations. The coordination regulation remains in effect 
under E.O. 12250, the successor to E.O. 11764.


Statement of Need:


Most of the agencies with title VI enforcement responsibilities issued 
implementing regulations more than 20 years ago, and those regulations 
have not been updated to incorporate current case law and statutory 
changes.


In order to encourage these agencies to update their title VI 
regulations, the Department is planning to follow a three-step process, 
beginning with the informal interagency circulation for comment of a 
new proposed model title VI regulation. The model regulation is 
intended to serve as a state-of-the-art guide for agencies as they 
develop their own amended title VI regulations through notice and 
comment rulemaking. The model regulation will include the most 
effective enforcement procedures, as well as language to implement the 
definition of ``program or activity'' added by the Civil Rights 
Restoration Act of 1987.


Following the informal circulation of the model regulation, the 
Department will publish a proposed amendment to its own title VI 
regulation (titled: Amendment to Nondiscrimination in Federally 
Assisted Programs and Activities--Implementation of Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964; see Regulatory Plan entry 1190-AA31). 
Finally, the Department will publish this proposed amendment to its 
title VI coordination regulation and will encourage agencies with 
outdated regulations to amend their own regulations. This process will 
result in more useful and effective title VI regulations throughout the 
Federal Government.


Alternatives:





Because amendments to the title VI are long overdue (see Statement of 
Need above), failing to update and revise existing regulations is not a 
reasonable alternative. Suggested alternatives will be solicited during 
the process of circulating the model regulation to affected agencies 
and will also be obtained during the mandatory public comment period 
under any proposed regulation. To the extent permitted by law, these 
comments will be considered in adopting any revisions to the existing 
regulations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Clinton Administration has made a firm commitment to the rigorous 
and effective enforcement of all Federal civil rights statutes, 
including title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This commitment 
stands in sharp contrast to the lack of enforcement that has 
characterized previous administrations. One result of this lack of 
enforcement activity is that the current regulations, under which all 
fund-granting Federal agencies operate, are badly outdated, making 
effective enforcement difficult. By updating agency title VI 
regulations through the process described above, Federal funding 
agencies will be able to more effectively use their resources to attack 
and eliminate discriminatory practices by recipients of Federal 
financial assistance.


It is anticipated that, to the extent that this process results in 
greater consistency among the title VI regulations issued by various 
Federal agencies, the task of complying with title VI by recipients of 
Federal financial assistance will be simplified. Thus, these regulatory 
activities should not impose any additional costs on recipients of 
Federal financial assistance.


Risks:


If these regulatory activities are not undertaken, there are 
substantial risks: (1) that individuals who are granted protection from 
discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin will 
find that their rights are not protected to the extent intended by 
legislative amendments and controlling judicial decisions, and (2) that 
Federal program funds will be expended in a discriminatory manner.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        01/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


The model title VI regulation is currently being prepared for 
circulation to the applicable Federal agencies.


AGENCY CONTACT CONT: TTD (202)514-0383.


Agency Contact:
Merrily A. Friedlander
Acting Chief
Coordination and Review Section
Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
P.O. Box 66118
Washington, DC 20035-6118
202 307-2222
RIN: 1190-AA32
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--CRT
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
90. NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL 
GOVERNMENT SERVICES; PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES; 
ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 12134; 42 USC 12186; 5 USC 301; 28 USC 509; 28 USC 510; PL 101-
336


CFR Citation:


 28 CFR 35; 28 CFR 36; 28 CFR 37


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On July 26, 1991, the Department published its final rules implementing 
titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities 
(title II) and in places of public accommodation and commercial 
facilities (title III). Those regulations included accessibility 
guidelines required for facilities covered by title III--the ADA 
Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG)--but did 
not specifically include guidelines for facilities covered by title II, 
such as courthouses or prisons. Title II entities now have the option 
of using ADAAG (without certain exceptions applicable only to title III 
facilities) or another existing standard, the Uniform Federal 
Accessibility Standards.


The proposed rule will amend titles II and III to adopt a revised 
version of ADAAG, which incorporates new guidelines for facilities 
typically covered by title II. The new guidelines are being issued as 
an interim rule by the Access Board and will be published on the same 
day as the Department's proposed rule. The Department's proposed rule 
will also amend the compliance procedures set forth in subpart F of the 
title II regulation.


Statement of Need:


Section 504 of the ADA requires the Access Board to issue supplemental 
minimum guidelines and requirements for accessible design of buildings 
and facilities subject to the ADA, including titles II and III. 
Sections 204(c) and 306(c) of the ADA provide that the Attorney General 
shall promulgate regulations implementing titles II and III that are 
consistent with the Access Board's ADA guidelines. Because the 
Department of Justice is required by statute to promulgate regulations 
that do not go below the Access Board's minimum guidelines, and because 
this rule will adopt guidelines issued by the Access Board, as also 
required by statute, this rule is required by statute.


Alternatives:


The Department is required by the ADA to issue this regulation as 
described in the Statement of Need above. All comments (including those 
that suggest alternatives to the current proposed guidelines) received 
by the Department on the proposed rule and by the Access Board on its 
current interim rule and its guidelines published December 21, 1992, 
have been and will continue to be thoroughly analyzed and considered by 
the Department prior to the adoption of any final rule.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Clinton Administration is deeply committed to ensuring that the 
goals of the ADA are met. Promulgating this amendment to the 
Department's ADA regulations will ensure that entities subject to the 
ADA will have one comprehensive regulation to follow. Currently, 
entities subject to title II of the ADA (State and local governments) 
have a choice between following the Department's ADA standards for 
title III, which were adopted for places of public accommodation and 
commercial facilities and which do not contain standards for common 
State and local government buildings (such as courthouses and prisons), 
or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). By developing 
one comprehensive standard, the Department will eliminate the confusion 
that arises when governments try to mesh two different standards. As a 
result, the overarching goal of improving access to the built 
environment to persons with disabilities will be better served.


The Access Board has analyzed the impact of applying its proposed 
amendments to ADAAG to entities covered by titles II and III of the ADA 
and has determined that they are a significant regulatory action for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Access Board has prepared a 
Regulatory Assessment, which includes a cost impact analysis for 
certain accessibility elements and a discussion of the regulatory 
alternatives considered.


The Access Board has determined that this proposed rule will have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
and, therefore, has included the flexibility analysis required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act in its regulatory assessment. The Access 
Board has made every effort to lessen the economic impacts of its 
proposed rule on small entities, but recognizes that such impacts are 
the necessary result of the mandate of the ADA itself. The Access 
Board's analysis also applies to the Department's proposed adoption of 
the revised ADAAG. The Department's proposed procedural amendments will 
not have a significant economic impact on small entities.


The Access Board has made every effort to lessen the impact of its 
proposed guidelines on State and local governments, but recognizes that 
the guidelines will have some federalism impacts. These impacts are 
discussed in the Access Board's Regulatory Assessment which also 
applies to the Department's proposed rule.


Risks:


Without this amendment to the Department's ADA regulations, regulated 
entities will be subject to confusion and delay as they attempt to sort 
out the requirements of conflicting design standards. This amendment 
should eliminate the costs and risks associated with that process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 31808                                    06/20/94
NPRM Comment Per59 FR 31808                                    08/19/94
Final Action                                                   10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Merrily A. Friedlander
Acting Chief
Coordination and Review Section
Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
P.O. Box 66118
Washington, DC 20035-6118
202 307-2222
RIN: 1190-AA26
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
91. CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS
Legal Authority:


 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1255a; 8 USC 1255a note; 8 USC 1324a; 8 
USC 1160; 8 CFR 2


CFR Citation:


 8 CFR 210; 8 CFR 245a; 8 CFR 274a


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule reduces the number of INS-issued documents that are 
acceptable for purposes of completing the Employment Eligibility 
Verification Form (Form I-9). This rule will further simplify 
compliance with the employment eligibility verification requirements 
and address the concerns of employers who allege confusion created by 
the multiplicity of acceptable documents on the Form I-9.


A supplemental proposed rule will be issued which will create a 
requirement on the part of the employee to sign an attestation in 
Section 3 of Form I-9, during the reverification process indicating 
that they are still authorized to work in the United States. (INS No. 
1399s-94)


Statement of Need:


In a March 1990 report, the General Accounting Office (GAO) noted that 
the multiplicity of acceptable work eligibility documents can give rise 
to confusion and uncertainty in the minds of employers seeking to 
determine whether individuals are eligible to work. (Immigration 
Reform: Employer Sanctions and the Question of Discrimination 62 (GAO/
GGD-90-62, Mar. 1990)). A reduction in the number of acceptable 
documents should reduce confusion and uncertainty on the part of 
employers, and thereby reduce potential employment discrimination based 
upon misapplication of the employment eligibility verification 
requirements.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis of authority for this regulation is set forth above in 
Legal Authority. No aspect of this regulatory action is required by 
statute or court order.


Alternatives:


One often repeated criticism of employer sanctions is the number of 
documents that are acceptable for completing the Form I-9. The INS has 
taken steps to address this criticism. In July 1988, the INS committed 
to the establishment of procedures for a uniform employment 
authorization policy. First, the INS limited the number and types of 
paper documents on which employment could be authorized. Second, the 
INS introduced the standardized Employment Authorization Document (Form 
I-688B). Finally, a final rule published on September 20, 1993, and 
effective September 20, 1994, revises the INS regulations by 
terminating the validity of all prior versions of the Alien 
Registration Receipt Card and establishing the current Alien 
Registration Receipt Card, Form I-551, as the exclusive registration 
card for use by lawful permanent residents (LPRs). The INS has 
determined that further steps can be taken to streamline the employment 
eligibility verification system by reducing the number of documents 
acceptable for Form I-9 purposes.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Employment is often the magnet that attracts individuals to come to or 
stay in the United States illegally. The employer sanctions provisions 
help reduce the strength of this magnet by requiring employers to hire 
only those individuals who may legally work in the United States. This 
rule, by reducing the number of documents that are acceptable for 
employment eligibility verification purposes, will reduce confusion and 
uncertainty on the part of employers in the application of the 
employment eligibility verification requirements. This, in turn, will 
increase employer compliance and thereby result in more jobs being 
available for those who are authorized to work in the United States. In 
addition, by reducing confusion and uncertainty on the part of 
employers, this rule will reduce potential employment discrimination 
based upon misapplication of the employment eligibility verification 
requirements.


Risks:


An employment eligibility verification system that relies on a 
multiplicity of documents, and is difficult to understand, may result 
in employment discrimination based upon misapplication of the 
employment eligibility verification requirements. In addition, a 
complicated employment eligibility verification system may encourage 
fraud and result in individuals who are authorized to work in the 
United States being displaced by unauthorized individuals.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            58 FR 61846                                    11/23/93
NPRM Comment Per58 FR 61846                                    12/23/93
Supplemental Proposed Rule INS No. 1399s-94 Com. Due 30 days from pub. 
        of supp. rule                                          10/00/94
Final Action                                                   12/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


INS No. 1399-92


INS No. 1399s-94


Agency Contact:
Cristina Hamilton
Associate General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 I Street NW.
Room 6100
Washington, DC 20536
202 514-2895
RIN: 1115-AB73
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--INS
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
92. RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ADJUDICATION OF APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM OR 
WITHHOLDING OF DEPORTATION AND EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION
Legal Authority:


 5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1201; 8 USC 1252 
note; 8 USC 1252b; 8 USC 1304; 8 USC 1356; 31 USC 9701


CFR Citation:


 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 236; 8 CFR 242; 8 CFR 274a


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would amend existing regulations to streamline the 
adjudication of asylum applications submitted to the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. The rule would allow the INS to grant asylum to 
deserving applicants more promptly and to dispose of meritless and 
abusive applications through mandatory referral of applications to 
immigration judges for adjudication as part of exclusion of deportation 
proceedings. The rule would make asylum interviews discretionary. The 
rule also would restrict eligibility for employment authorization and 
would provide for imposition of a filing fee for asylum and work 
authorization applications.


Statement of Need:


The volume of asylum applications filed has increased from 56,000 in 
1991, to over 150,000 in fiscal year 1993. Approximately 398,000 asylum 
applications were pending as of August 1, 1994. To help process the 
increase in asylum claims, the Service is doubling the Asylum Officer 
Corps to a total of 331 officers in 1994. If asylum reform is not 
implemented, the asylum backlog will continue to grow.


This rule is necessary because the existing system for adjudicating 
asylum claims lacks the capacity to keep pace with the incoming 
applications and does not permit the expeditions removal from the 
United States of those persons whose claims fail. A significant and 
growing percentage of current asylum applications appear on their face 
to be nonmeritorious or abusive. Current regulations unduly lengthen 
and complicate the adjudications process without appreciable benefit to 
deserving asylum applicants.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis of authority for this regulation is set forth above in 
Legal Authority. No aspect of this regulatory action is required by 
statute or court order.


Alternatives:


INS reviewed the existing regulations to determine what streamlining 
measures could be undertaken without the need for regulatory change. 
This process was undertaken by INS in consultation with various 
representatives of nongovernmental organizations. It was determined 
that no significant changes could be made to the process under the 
existing regulations. As a result, a DOJ working group was convened to 
undertake the development of a comprehensive reform proposal. A 
consultant who is an expert in immigration law was hired to assist in 
this process.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This rule would institute a user fee for filing asylum applications so 
that the processing of these applications will be self-sustaining to 
the extent possible. These fees were set at a level which will allow 
INS to provide the service to asylum applicants without increasing the 
Service's budget. INS believes that it would impose a hardship on 
asylum applicants if they were required to pay the entire cost of the 
service rendered them. Therefore, part of the cost per asylum applicant 
is currently recovered though a surcharge to the fees for filing 
applications other than asylum.


Risks:


The risk of not proceeding with reform of the asylum process is that 
asylum applicants whose claims are not decided will continue to receive 
indefinite work authorization. This indefinite work authorization puts 
such applicants into an immigration limbo while their applications are 
delayed because of the backlog of claims. An additional risk of the 
current system is that persons without legitimate claims can file 
asylum applications as a way of remaining in the United States and 
working during the pendency of their claims. Nonmeritorious claims 
delay the processing of meritorious claims and the receipt of those 
benefits provided by law for asylees such as the accrual of residency 
for naturalization and family reunification visas.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 14779                                    03/30/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        05/31/94
Final Action                                                   10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


INS No. 1651-93


Agency Contact:
Christine Davidson
Senior Policy Analyst
Asylum Division
Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 I Street NW.
ULLICO 3RD Floor
Washington, DC 20536
202 633-4389
RIN: 1115-AD64
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--INS
93.  REORGANIZATION OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 
SERVICE
Legal Authority:


 5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1201; 8 USC 1252 
note; 8 USC 1252b; 8 USC 1304; 8 USC 1356; 31 USC 9701; 8 CFR 2


CFR Citation:


 8 CFR 100; 8 CFR 103


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule revises the existing organizational structure within the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service). On January 14, 1994, 
the Attorney General approved a reorganization plan for the Service. 
The changes effected by this rule are necessary to implement that plan.


Statement of Need:


This rule is necessary to establish a classic structure that empowers 
field managers and allows INS Headquarters to steer, not row. It 
positions INS to reinvent itself, to rethink the way its officers 
approach their tasks and missions, so that INS can meet the 
organizational challenges of a future where effectively administering 
the Nation's immigration system has become a key national priority.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis of authority for this regulation is set forth above in 
Legal Authority. No aspect of this regulatory action is required by 
statute or court order.


Alternatives:


INS reviewed previous reports analyzing INS management problems; held 
formal meetings with key INS personnel, including the National 
Immigration and Naturalization Service Council leadership, the District 
Directors Association and the Chief Patrol Agents Association; held 
telephone conferences with Regional Administrators and with Staff 
Assistants for Field Operations; conducted telephone interviews with 
mid-level field managers selected by random process; established a 
working group, representing major functions and offices; and sought 
views from external stakeholders with interest in INS. After 
consideration of all opinions and input, INS is adopting a new 
organizational structure with a back-to-basics philosophy where 
accountability at all levels, high standards of integrity, and quality 
performance will be required.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The plan is designed as much for the future as it is for today. Its 
premise is that the energy of the INS management team should be focused 
on the effectiveness of the Service's programs and operations. It is 
this improving of managerial effectiveness that is the primary 
anticipated benefit of this reorganization.


Some of the costs and benefits of this reorganization are intangible 
and cannot be measured until the new structure has been operational. 
However, cost savings are expected to follow naturally from increased 
managerial effectiveness.


The new structure provides clear lines of authority and vests 
responsibility and accountability at the most appropriate levels.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Action                                                   10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


INS No. 1501-94.


Agency Contact:
Walter J. Wondolowski
Program Analyst
Office of Policy and Planning
Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 I Street NW.
Room 6042
Washington, DC 20536
202 616-7771
RIN: 1115-AD72
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--Legal Activities (LA)
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
94. REVISION OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE REMISSION OR MITIGATION OF 
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL FORFEITURES
Legal Authority:


 28 USC 509; 28 USC 510; 28 USC 515 to 518; 28 USC 524; 8 USC 1324; 15 
USC 1177; 17 USC 509; 18 USC 512; 18 USC 981; 18 USC 982; 18 USC 1467; 
18 USC 1955; 18 USC 1963; 18 USC 2253; 18 USC 2254


CFR Citation:


 28 CFR 9


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This regulation amends and adopts rules that govern the processing of 
petitions for remission and mitigation of forfeitures by the Criminal 
Division, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the 
United States Marshals Service of the United States Department of 
Justice. It is intended to provide a basis for similar rules to be 
adopted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Internal 
Revenue Service, the United States Secret Service of the Department of 
the Treasury, and the United States Postal Service. The Department 
proposes this regulation in an effort to ameliorate the harsh results 
in individual forfeiture cases and to provide relief to innocent 
persons whose property is used by others for criminal purposes.


Statement of Need:


The current regulations need to be updated to simplify the petition 
process, to provide for consistent rulings on petitions, to remedy 
deficiencies in the current regulations, and to provide for petitions 
filed by or on behalf of certain victims in fraud cases. These 
regulations are necessary because forfeiture is now being increasingly 
sought in white collar crime cases involving thousands of victims.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis of authority for this regulation is set forth above in 
Legal Authority. No aspect of this regulatory action is required by 
statute or court order.


Alternatives:


Regulations governing the remission or mitigation of civil and criminal 
forfeitures provide essential procedures for the Attorney General to 
avoid the unfair forfeiture of innocent persons' property interests and 
to mitigate the sometimes unreasonable and harsh results of 
forfeitures. The alternative to issuance of this regulation would be to 
continue the current system of multiple regulations issued by the above 
described agencies.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


No additional cost is anticipated to result from the revised 
regulations because petitions for remission or mitigation are already 
an integral part of forfeiture program operations. The anticipated 
benefit of the revised regulations is the satisfaction of the needs 
stated in the above Statement of Need.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 33457                                    06/29/94
NPRM Comment Per59 FR 33457                                    07/29/94
Final Action                                                   10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


LEGAL AUTHORITY CONT: 18 USC 2513; 19 USC 1613; 19 USC 1618; 21 USC 
853; 21 USC 881; 22 USC 401.


Agency Contact:
Laurie J. Sartorio
Assistant Director for Policy and Operations
Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture
Department of Justice
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
901 E Street NW.
Washington, DC 20530
202 616-8000
RIN: 1105-AA23
BILLING CODE 4410-01-F