[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