IER Recission NPRM

24415

Proposed Rules

Federal Register
Vol. 83, No. 103
Tuesday, May 29, 2018

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
8 CFR Parts 103, 212, and 274a
[CIS No. 2572–15; DHS Docket No. USCIS–
2015–0006]
RIN 1615–AC04

Removal of International Entrepreneur
Parole Program
U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:

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

SUMMARY:

Written comments must be
received on or before June 28, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS–
2015–0006, by any one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
website instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: You may submit comments
directly to U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) by mail
by sending correspondence to Samantha
Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

DATES:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

Coordination Division, Office of Policy
and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529. To
ensure proper handling, please
reference DHS Docket No. USCIS–2015–
0006 in your correspondence.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Viger, Adjudications Officer,
Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Department of Homeland Security, 20
Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 1100,
Washington, DC 20529–2140;
Telephone (202) 272–8377 (not a toll
free call).
Individuals with hearing or speech
impairments may access the telephone
numbers above via TTY by calling the
toll-free Federal Information Relay
Service at 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Public Participation
II. Background
III. Proposed Removal of the IE Parole
Program Regulations
A. Description of the IE Final Rule
B. Justification for Removing the IE Parole
Program Regulations
1. Parole Is Not the Proper Vehicle for
Implementing and Administering an
Entrepreneur Immigration Program
2. Entrepreneurs Should Consider Using
Existing Immigrant and Nonimmigrant
Visas or Congress Could Amend an
Existing or Establish an Additional
Specialized Visa To Facilitate
Investment and Innovation
3. Limited Agency Resources & DHS’s
Current Priorities
C. Transition From the IE Parole Program
Regulations
IV. Statutory and Regulatory
A. Administrative Procedure Act
B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
H. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
I. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to
comment on this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

arguments on all aspects of the rule.
Comments that will most assist DHS
will focus on whether or not DHS
should remove the IE parole program
regulations and also explain the
reasoning for each recommendation.
Comments should include data,
information, and the authority that
supports each recommendation to the
extent possible. Comments previously
submitted to this docket do not need to
be submitted again.
Instructions for filing comments: All
submissions received should include
the agency name and DHS docket
number USCIS–2015–0006. All
comments received (including any
personal information provided) will be
posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov. See ADDRESSES,
above, for methods to submit comments.
II. Background
On January 17, 2017, the Department
of Homeland Security (‘‘DHS’’ or
‘‘Department’’) published the IE Final
Rule, with an effective date of July 17,
2017. See 82 FR 5238. The IE Final Rule
followed the publication of a notice of
proposed rulemaking on August 31,
2016. See 81 FR 60130 (‘‘IE NPRM’’).
The IE Final Rule amended DHS
regulations to include criteria that
would guide the Secretary’s
discretionary parole authority for
international entrepreneurs who can
demonstrate that their temporary parole
into the United States under section
212(d)(5) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) would provide a
significant public benefit to the United
States. The IE Final Rule’s criteria
allows an entrepreneur to make such a
demonstration by showing that, among
other things, the start-up entity in which
he or she is an entrepreneur received
significant capital investment from U.S.
investors with established records of
successful investments or obtained
significant awards or grants from certain
Federal, State, or local government
entities.
In addition to defining criteria that
could support a favorable exercise of the
Secretary’s discretionary parole
authority, the final rule established a
period of initial parole for up to 30
months (which could be extended by up
to an additional 30 months) to facilitate
the applicant’s ability to oversee and
grow his or her start-up entity in the
United States. The final rule also

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1

24416

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

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

provided for employment authorization
incident to parole, such that the
entrepreneur parolee would be able to
engage in employment at his or her
start-up entity immediately upon being
paroled into the United States. Under
the IE Final Rule, the entrepreneur’s
dependent spouse and children would
be able to apply for parole to accompany
or follow-to-join the principal
entrepreneur. Dependent spouses would
also be able to request employment
authorization after being paroled into
the United States, but not the
entrepreneur’s dependent children.
On January 25, 2017, the President
issued an executive order (E.O.)
prescribing improvements to border
security and immigration enforcement.
See E.O. 13767, Border Security and
Immigration Enforcement
Improvements, 82 FR 8793 (Jan. 25,
2017). Section 11(d) of the order
requires the Secretary of Homeland
Security to ‘‘take appropriate action to
ensure that parole authority under
section 212(d)(5) of the INA (8 U.S.C.
1182(d)(5)) is exercised only on a caseby-case basis in accordance with the
plain language of the statute, and in all
circumstances only when an individual
demonstrates urgent humanitarian
reasons or a significant public benefit
derived from such parole.’’
On July 11, 2017, DHS published a
final rule with request for comments to
delay the effective date of the IE Final
Rule to March 14, 2018. See 82 FR
31887. On December 1, 2017 the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Columbia vacated the July 11, 2017 rule.
See Nat’l Venture Capital Ass’n v. Duke,
No. 17–1912, 2017 WL 5990122 (D.D.C.
Dec. 1, 2017). In order to ensure
compliance with the court order, on
December 14, 2017, DHS began
accepting applications for foreign
entrepreneurs requesting parole under
the IE Final Rule. In December 2017,
DHS included a proposed rule to
remove the IE Final Rule in the fall 2017
Unified Agenda.1
III. Proposed Removal of the IE Parole
Program Regulations
After review of the IE parole program
regulations in accordance with E.O.
Order 13767, DHS believes that the
regulations comprising the IE parole
program should be removed, and is
soliciting public comments on its
proposal to do so.2
1 https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201710&RIN=1615AC04.
2 This proposed rule would not remove the
unrelated revisions to 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(C)(2)
promulgated as part of the IE Final Rule which
added the Department of State Consular Report of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

Although DHS continues to support
the policy objectives of promoting
investment and innovation in the
United States, the Department believes
that the extraordinary use of the
Secretary’s discretionary parole
authority for this purpose set forth in
the IE Final Rule is unwarranted and
inadvisable for several reasons. First,
this sort of complex and highlystructured program contemplated in the
IE Final Rule is best left to the
legislative procees rather than an
unorthodox use of the Secretary’s
authority to ‘‘temporarily’’ parole, in a
categorical way, otherwise inadmissible
aliens into the United States for
‘‘significant public benefit.’’ INA
212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).
Second, the IE Final Rule constitutes an
extraordinary use of the Secretary’s
parole authority, prescribing specific,
detailed eligibility criteria and requiring
exceptionally complex adjudications.
Third, the IE Final Rule does not
provide durable immigration solutions
and in turn inadequately promotes the
entrepreneur’s ability to sustain the
required investment and the jobs that
depend on them. The Department
believes that the Final Rule focused too
narrowly on the economic benefits that
potential foreign entrepreneurs may
bring, without giving sufficient attention
to the existing statutory scheme and the
absence of a durable immigration status
for these individuals, which is not made
available through the device of
temporary parole. Fourth, while the
Department may eventually recover the
costs relating to administration of the
International Entrepreneur Rule,
through fees paid by applicants for
parole under the policy, use of the
agency’s present resources must be
prioritized in light of the current
Administration’s priorities. As such, the
Secretary believes that limited agency
resources should not continue to be
expended on this program, especially
given the sort of difficult, complex,
resource-intensive adjudications that
the IE Final Rule requires, particularly
in relation to other parole
determinations. Finally, the Secretary is
permitted to decide to exercise her
discretionary parole authority under
section 212(d)(5) more narrowly than
her predecessor(s). The Secretary has
elected to do so here for the reasons
described herein and in the interest of
the efficient, effective implementation
of the current statutory scheme, which
Birth Abroad (Form FS–240) to the regulatory text
and to the ‘‘List C’’ listing of acceptable documents
for Form I–9 verification purposes. See 82 FR at
5241 n.3. This regulatory change and accompanying
form instructions went into effect on July 17, 2017,
as originally provided in the IE Final Rule.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

already prescribes conditions under
which certain entrepreneurs and
investors may obtain lawful
immigration status (such as E–2 treaty
investor nonimmigrant status), and in
certain instances lawful permanent
resident status in the United States
(through investment of their own capital
either under the employment-based fifth
preference (EB–5) immigrant
classification or through receipt of a
National Interest Waiver of the job offer
requirement under the employmentbased second preference immigrant
classification).
A. IE Final Rule
In the IE NPRM, DHS recognized that
historically, DHS has exercised its
parole authority on an ad hoc basis and
with respect to individuals falling
within certain classes of aliens
identified by regulation or policy. 81 FR
at 60134. DHS noted that its statutory
parole authority is broad and that
Congress did not define ‘‘significant
public benefit.’’ Id. Based on various
studies, DHS determined that ‘‘allowing
certain qualified entrepreneurs to come
to the United States as parolees on a
case-by-case basis would produce a
significant public benefit through
substantial and positive contributions to
innovation, economic growth, and job
creation.’’ Id. at 60136. DHS reasoned in
the IE proposed rule that establishing a
regulation that would guide the process
and evaluation of requests for parole
being sought by entrepreneurs of startup entities was important given that
such adjudications could be complex.
Id. at 60131.
B. Justification for Removing the IE
Parole Program Regulations
DHS stands by its previous findings
that foreign entrepreneurs make
substantial and positive contributions to
innovation, economic growth, and job
creation in the United States. DHS,
however, has reevaluated the IE parole
program and believes that the governing
regulation should be removed as
inadvisable, impracticable, and an
unwarranted use of limited agency
resources. The Department believes that
parole, which allows for the
‘‘temporary’’ entry of inadmissible
aliens into the United States for ‘‘urgent
humanitarian reasons or significant
public benefit,’’ INA 212(d)(5)(A), is not
an appropriate legal mechanism to
establish and implement a complicated
program for entrepreneurs and business
startups that requires complex and timeconsuming adjudications, both for
initial parole and re-parole
determinations.

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
The IE Final Rule’s interpretation of
significant public benefit, with its
myriad and exceptionally detailed
eligibility requirements relating to
qualifying investments and start-up
entities, amounted to an unconventional
codification of significant public benefit
parole criteria. Multiple commenters
responding to the IE proposed rule
opposed the rule because it sought to
create an administrative program ‘‘for
highly trained and talented
entrepreneurs’’ without providing for
durable immigration status or a concrete
pathway to such a status, ‘‘when visa
and residency pathways already exist’’
for such individuals. 82 FR at 5267.
Upon further review and consideration
of the IE Final Rule, DHS agrees with
these commenters. The IE Final Rule
focused too narrowly on the potential
economic benefits that foreign
entrepreneurs may bring, without giving
sufficient attention to the existing
statutory scheme wherein Congress has
already provided pathways for certain
entrepreneurs to come to the United
States to start and grow their business,
or to the absence of a durable
immigration status for these individuals,
which is not made available through the
device of temporary parole.
In addition, agency resources are
limited, and their use must be
prioritized in light of the current
Administration’s priorities. As such, the
Secretary believes that limited agency
resources that are needed for other
adjudications programs should not
continue to be expended on this
program, especially given the sort of
difficult, complex, resource-intensive
adjudications that the IE Final Rule
requires, particularly in relation to other
parole determinations, and the
uncertain status that entrepreneurs
would obtain.
These serious concerns motivate the
reconsideration of this policy. The
Secretary is permitted to decide to
exercise her discretionary parole
authority under section 212(d)(5) more
narrowly than her predecessor(s). As
proposed in this rule, the Secretary
intends to apply more narrowly her
discretionary parole authority for the
reasons described herein and in the
interest of the efficient, effective
implementation of the current statutory
scheme, which already prescribes
conditions under which certain
entrepreneurs and investors may obtain
lawful immigration status, and
eventually lawful permanent resident
status, in the United States. DHS is
therefore proposing to remove the
regulations comprising the IE parole
program.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

1. Parole Is Not the Proper Vehicle for
Implementing and Administering an
Entrepreneur Immigration Program
DHS does not believe the framework
of the rule adequately promotes the
Administration’s policy goals of
attracting and retaining the best and
brightest individuals from around the
world, and encouraging investment and
innovation in the United States. The
approval of parole is inherently
uncertain because it is wholly
discretionary, whereas the approval of
certain other types of immigration
benefits (e.g. EB–5 immigrant investor
petitions under INA 203(b)(5)) are not
discretionary; if all applicable statutory
and regulatory eligibility requirements
are met, then the agency must approve
the petition). Consequently, parole
provides neither the entrepreneur nor
the qualifying source of capital (whether
private or public) with certainty or
predictability necessary to ensure that a
start-up entity is a success and
ultimately provides a significant public
benefit to the United States. Even if an
entrepreneur satisfies the IE Final Rule’s
criteria, there is no certainty that the
request for parole would be approved by
USCIS in the exercise of discretion (see,
e.g., final 8 CFR 212.19(d) 3) and, even
if the request were approved, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
may decline to authorize parole at the
port of entry.4 And unlike employmentbased immigrant and nonimmigrant
programs, parole does not allow for
derivative beneficiaries, such that each
spouse or child must demonstrate that
his or her entry itself would serve a
significant public benefit. Furthermore,
individuals who are granted parole
based on a finding of significant public
benefit—which can be terminated,
generally on notice, at any time in the
Secretary’s discretion based on a
determination that public benefit no
longer warrants the individual’s
continued presence—are not considered
to have been admitted to the United
States, and cannot change to a
nonimmigrant status. To acquire
nonimmigrant status, the parolee would
have to depart the United States and,
unless exempt, apply for a visa with the
Department of State. See INA sections
101(a)(13)(B), 212(d)(5)(A), 248(a); 8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B), 1182(d)(5)(A),
1258(a); see also 8 CFR 212.5(e), 248.1.
Moreover, parole does not by itself
confer lawful permanent resident status
or an avenue to obtain such status. To
adjust status to that of a lawful
permanent resident, individuals
3 82
4 Id.

PO 00000

FR at 5287.
at 5243.

Frm 00003

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

24417

generally must, among other things, be
admissible to the United States, have a
family-preference or employment-based
immigrant visa immediately available to
them, and not be subject to the various
bars to adjustment of status. See INA
section 245(a), (c), (k); 8 U.S.C. 1255(a),
(c), (k); 8 CFR 245.1.
To the extent indirect paths for
parolees to remain for longer periods
already exist, those paths are inherently
uncertain. Although parole under the IE
Final Rule may be granted for up to 30
months, with possible re-parole for an
additional 30 months, it is highly
uncertain whether paroled
entrepreneurs, including those who
successfully start or grow a business in
the United States, would qualify for an
existing employment-based
nonimmigrant or immigrant
classification after an approved period
of parole ends. The entrepreneur, if
unable to qualify for an employmentbased nonimmigrant or immigrant
classification, most likely would be
required to depart the United States and
possibly move their operations abroad,
eliminating possible further benefit to
this country, and possibly creating some
negative impacts to U.S. investors.
Thus, reliance upon parole adds an
additional degree of risk and
unpredictability for the U.S. investors
who may not be able to achieve the
anticipated return on their investment,
as well as any U.S. workers employed
by or seeking employment with the
start-up. This same degree of risk and
unpredictability would generally not
apply to entities started by U.S.
entrepreneurs or even foreign
entrepreneurs lawfully relying upon
existing nonimmigrant or immigrant
visa classifications. While DHS under
the former Administration considered
some of these risks, having re-evaluated
the IE Final Rule consistent with
President Trump’s Executive Order,
DHS now believes that they are
significant negative factors supporting
its decision to propose removing the IE
Final Rule.
2. Entrepreneurs Should Consider Using
Existing Immigrant and Nonimmigrant
Visas or Congress Could Amend an
Existing or Establish an Additional
Specialized Visa To Facilitate
Investment and Innovation
While DHS recognizes that some
foreign entrepreneurs may face
difficulty establishing eligibility under
existing nonimmigrant and immigrant
categories, options are still available for
some foreign entrepreneurs, and
removing the IE Final Rule would be
more congruent with the overall
statutory scheme.

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1

24418

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

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Facilitating investment and
innovation in the United States is of
great importance to our country’s ability
to lead and remain competitive in the
global marketplace. As indicated above,
the United States has visa classifications
that can be used by certain
entrepreneurs or investors coming to the
United States, e.g., E–2 treaty investor
nonimmigrant classification, EB–5
immigrant classification, INA sections
101(a)(15)(E), 203(b)(5). While these
classifications do not encompass the
entire population of entrepreneurs
addressed in the IE Final Rule, Congress
could create a new visa classification to
provide legal immigration status to
foreign nationals seeking to remain and
start businesses in the United States
using venture capital or other U.S.sourced funding.5 DHS believes this
would be a more appropriate means for
doing so because Congress is uniquely
well-positioned to balance the many
competing and complex policy
priorities in attracting and retaining
foreign entrepreneurs and promoting
investment and innovation in the
United States, including but not limited
to incentivizing innovation and
competitiveness of American
entrepreneurs, job creation and
protection of U.S. workers, United
States trade objectives and foreign
relations with many nations, and
whether U.S. citizens and nationals who
seek to pursue entrepreneurial
endeavors abroad are treated on par
with foreign nationals who seek to seed
and promote their start-up entities in
the United States. Therefore, in
removing the IE Final Rule, DHS is
proposing to defer to Congress on
whether, and if so how to best create a
specific immigration pathway that
addresses the unique and varied
characteristics of foreign entrepreneurs
through the legislative process.
3. Limited Agency Resources & DHS’s
Current Priorities
In addition to the considerations
discussed above, DHS believes that
continuing to administer the IE Final
Rule is out of sync with DHS’ current
policy priorities. The President has
tasked DHS with improving existing
employment-based immigrant and
nonimmigrant visa programs to ensure
program integrity and protect the
interests of U.S. workers. Given that
USCIS already has an established
process for assessing a variety of
individual parole requests, DHS does
not believe that it would be appropriate
5 See, e.g., StartUp Visa Act of 2011, S. 565, 112th
Cong., available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/
112th-congress/senate-bill/565/text.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

to continue to expend limited agency
resources to administer a parallel and
complex regulatory parole framework.
The assessments required for a parole
determination under this program—
including, among others, to resolve
‘‘substantial ownership interest’’
questions, whether the entity has a
‘‘substantial potential for rapid growth
and job creation,’’ whether the applicant
is ‘‘well-positioned . . . to substantially
assist’’ with the growth and success of
the business, whether the start-up entity
has received ‘‘lawfully derived capital,’’
whether the entity has received either
the requisite investment threshold or
qualifying ‘‘significant awards or grants
for economic development’’ or both, and
whether an investor is ‘‘qualified’’
under the rule and has an established
record of successful investments—
would be highly challenging and
extremely labor intensive. See 82 FR at
5286–89. Continuing to administer this
parallel framework requires USCIS to
expend significant resources to hire and
train additional adjudicators with
specific technical expertise, modify
intake and case management
information technology systems, revise
application and fee intake contracts,
develop guidance for the adjudicators,
and communicate with the public about
these changes. While the monetary costs
associated with continuing to
administer the framework to process
these applications might be recovered
over time, USCIS will not be able to
offset the opportunity costs associated
with diverting limited agency resources
that are needed to meet the current
Administration’s priorities (for example,
reviewing other existing immigration
programs, developing new proposed
regulatory changes, and carrying out
initiatives to better deter and detect
fraud and abuse). As such, DHS believes
that removal of the IE Final Rule is
appropriate to ensure that the agency’s
limited resources are used in an
efficient and effective manner to
implement the existing statutory
scheme, and to limit the opportunity
cost associated with diverting resources
(e.g., personnel, training resources)
away from other programs in order to
continue to administer this parallel
framework.
DHS thus proposes, at least in this
context, returning to the use of
significant public benefit parole as it
existed prior to issuance of the IE Final
Rule, leaving to Congress whether to
establish an entrepreneur immigration
program and, in the meantime,
encouraging individuals to pursue
immigrant and nonimmigrant

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

opportunities already provided in the
immigration laws.
Accordingly, DHS proposes to remove
the IE parole regulations. DHS is not
removing the unrelated revisions to 8
CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(C)(2) promulgated
as part of the IE Final Rule which added
the Department of State Consular Report
of Birth Abroad (Form FS–240) to the
regulatory text and to the ‘‘List C’’
listing of acceptable documents for
Form I–9 verification purposes. See 82
FR at 5241 n.3. This regulatory change
and accompanying form instructions
went into effect on July 17, 2017, as
originally provided in the IE Final Rule.
C. Transition From the IE Parole
Program Regulations
In proposing to end the IE parole
program and remove the related
regulations, DHS is actively considering
the transition away from the program.
To date, USCIS has received 13 IE
parole applications. DHS has not yet
granted parole under this program.
Under the IE final rule, DHS has
discretion to, on a case-by-case basis,
approve periods of parole for up to 30
months, including shorter durations. In
addition, DHS is considering a number
of options for transitioning away from
the IE parole program and is specifically
soliciting public comments on these
options. The options discussed below
assume that the final rule removing the
IE parole program regulations would go
into effect 30 days after publication. The
following discussion is organized into
groupings by the stage of the parole
process an individual may be in on the
effective date of the rule finalizing the
removal of IE parole program
regulations.
1. Individuals Paroled Into the United
States as International Entrepreneurs
a. Automatic termination of IE parole
on the effective date of the final rule.
DHS believes that terminating IE parole
and associated employment
authorization on the effective date of the
final rule removing the IE parole
program regulations is most in line with
its proposed policy objectives and
reasons for terminating the IE parole
program. See E.O. 13767, Border
Security and Immigration Enforcement
Improvements, 82 FR 8793 (Jan. 25,
2017). Therefore, this is DHS’s preferred
option for this rulemaking. DHS would
amend its regulations to include a
provision under which on the effective
date of the final rule, parole granted
under the IE final rule to both
individual entrepreneurs, as well as any
spouses and children of such
entrepreneurs, would end. In addition,
the employment authorization for

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
entrepreneurs and their spouses would
be automatically terminated, even if the
employment authorization documents
for entrepreneur spouses have
expiration dates after the effective date
of the final rule. Depending on
circumstances of the individual whose
parole is terminated, including his or
her age, the individual may also begin
to accrue unlawful presence when IE
parole is terminated.
b. Termination of parole on notice.
Under this option, DHS would amend
its regulations governing termination of
parole at 8 CFR 212.19(k) to authorize
the termination of all parole granted
under the IE final rule after notice and
an opportunity for the entrepreneur and
any spouse and child of such
entrepreneur to demonstrate that parole
would otherwise be warranted under
the existing non-IE final rule parole
framework. The issuance of a notice of
intent to terminate would create a
presumption of termination that the
entrepreneur could overcome by
demonstrating that he or she has urgent
humanitarian reasons or continues to
provide a significant public benefit
under 8 CFR 212.5 and merits a
favorable exercise of discretion.
Depending on the evidence provided,
DHS could terminate or amend the
period of parole as necessary to align
the appropriate timeframe to
accomplish the purpose of the parole.
Under this option, if DHS determines
that parole is warranted under 8 CFR
212.5, the individual would be able to
remain in the United States as a parolee
as evidenced by Form I–94. However,
such Form I–94 would no longer be
considered concurrent evidence of
employment authorization incident to
parole for the entrepreneur. While
parolees granted parole under 8 CFR
212.5 may receive employment
authorization, under current
regulations, they do not receive
employment authorization incident to
parole and, therefore, cannot use their
Form I–94 as evidence of employment
authorization. Instead, such parolees
must file an Application for
Employment Authorization (Form I–
765) with the required fee with USCIS
on the basis of 8 CFR 274.12(c)(11). If
granted, employment authorization
would be evidenced on Form I–766
(Employment Authorization Document,
EAD), rather than Form I–94. Similarly,
the EAD of a spouse of an entrepreneur
parolee that is based on 8 CFR
274a.12(c)(34) would no longer be
evidence of his or her employment
authorization. The spouse of the
entrepreneur would have to apply for
work authorization under 8 CFR

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

274a.12(c)(11). Given that DHS is
proposing to end IE regulation-based
parole, DHS does not believe that the
regulations should be amended to make
an exception for the small group of
parolees who may be affected by this
rulemaking by providing for continued
employment authorization incident to
parole for the entrepreneurs or allowing
the spouses to continue work on a
facially invalid EAD. However, DHS
welcomes public comment on this issue.
To minimize a potential gap in
employment authorization under this
option, DHS is considering permitting
individuals to submit Forms I–765 with
their response to a Notice of Intent to
Terminate.
For those cases where DHS decides
that termination of parole is warranted,
the individual’s employment
authorization would be terminated on
the date of the final notice of
termination. There would be no
opportunity to appeal a parole
termination decision.
c. Reopening of IE parole
determination. Under this option, DHS
would reopen all of the IE parole
adjudications on its own motion,
without fee to the applicant, consistent
with 8 CFR 103.5(a)(5), and provide the
entrepreneur and any spouse or child of
the entrepreneur with the opportunity
to present evidence that he or she is
eligible for parole under the existing
non-IE final rule parole framework,
rather than IE parole program
regulations. DHS would consider
eligibility for parole de novo under 8
CFR 212.5, including evidence already
in the record and any new evidence the
entrepreneur may provide. If DHS
determines that the individual warrants
a favorable exercise of discretion, DHS
would issue a final decision. However,
to receive employment authorization,
the individual would need to make a
request by filing an Application for
Employment Authorization (Form I–
765) with USCIS on the basis of 8 CFR
274a.12(c)(11). As discussed under the
previous option involving Notices of
Intent to Terminate, if DHS were to
grant parole under 8 CFR 212.5, such
parole would not include the benefit of
employment authorization incident to
parole. Therefore, employment
authorization would have to be
separately requested (with the required
fee), granted, and evidenced through
issuance of Form I–766 (Employment
Authorization Document, EAD). Under
this option, DHS could change the
original validity period of parole in line
with its case-by-case determination and
underlying purpose of the parole.
d. Expiration of initial period of
parole. Under this option, DHS would

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

24419

allow the parole approved under the IE
parole program regulations to naturally
expire, along with any associated
employment authorization, unless
otherwise terminated on other grounds.
In this scenario, DHS would provide a
later effective date for the removal of the
§ 212.19(k) termination provisions in
order to retain the specific termination
grounds for any individuals who remain
paroled under the IE parole program.
This approach would apply to the
entrepreneur and any dependent spouse
or child of the entrepreneur.
2. Individuals With USCIS-Approved IE
Parole Applications Who Have Not Yet
Been Paroled Into the United States
a. Automatic Termination. DHS
believes that automatically terminating
the approval of all I–941 parole
applications is most in line with its
proposed policy objectives and purpose
for removing the IE parole program
regulations and, therefore, is DHS’s
preferred option. DHS would amend its
regulations at 8 CFR 212.19 to authorize,
notwithstanding 8 CFR 212.5(e),
automatic termination of approvals of
Forms I–941 approved under the IE final
rule. Such termination of the approval
would prevent the individual from
seeking parole pursuant to the approved
Form I–941 at the port of entry or from
obtaining automatic employment
authorization (entrepreneurs) or
applying for employment authorization
on the basis of parole (spouses of
entrepreneurs) unless the individual
separately applies for and is granted
parole under the existing non-IE final
rule parole framework. If an individual
is paroled into the United States, he or
she would need to apply for
employment authorization pursuant to 8
CFR 274a.12(c)(11).
b. Termination of advance parole
document on notice. Under this option,
DHS would amend its regulations
governing termination of parole to
authorize terminating USCIS-approved
IE advance parole documents after
notice and opportunity to respond is
provided to the entrepreneur and any
spouse and child of such entrepreneur—
including demonstrating that parole
would otherwise be warranted under
the existing non-IE final rule parole
framework. The issuance of a notice of
intent to terminate would create a
presumption of termination that the
entrepreneur could overcome by
demonstrating that he or she has urgent
humanitarian reasons or continues to
provide a significant public benefit
under 8 CFR 212.5 and merits a
favorable exercise of discretion.
Depending on the evidence provided,
DHS could terminate or amend the

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1

24420

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

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

period of parole as necessary to align
the appropriate timeframe to
accomplish the purpose of the parole. If
the advance parole document remains
approved, individuals could then seek
to be paroled into the United States at
a port of entry. Under this option,
employment authorization for an
entrepreneur would not be automatic for
the entrepreneur; rather, each
individual parolee would need to
separately apply for employment
authorization, with the required fee,
pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11) to the
extent consistent with the purpose of
parole.
c. Re-opening of IE parole
determination. Under this option, DHS
would reopen all approved I–941 parole
applications on its own motion, without
fee to the applicant, consistent with 8
CFR 103.5(a)(5) and provide the
entrepreneur and any spouse or child of
the entrepreneur with the opportunity
to present evidence that would allow
DHS to reconsider the grant of parole
under the existing non-IE final rule
parole framework, rather than the IE
parole program regulations. DHS would
consider eligibility for parole de novo
under 8 CFR 212.5, including evidence
already in the record and any new
evidence the entrepreneur may provide.
If DHS determines that the individual
warrants a favorable exercise of
discretion, DHS would issue a final
decision and the individual could then
seek to be paroled into the United
States. Under this option, and to the
extent applicable, each parolee would
need to apply for employment
authorization, with the required fee,
pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11) to the
extent consistent with the purpose of
parole.
3. Individuals Whose Parole
Applications Are Pending With USCIS
on the Effective Date of the Final Rule
a. Rejection of pending parole
applications. Under this option, DHS
would amend its regulations to allow for
the rejecting of all pending I–941
applications for IE parole, and the
return or refund of associated fees. This
approach would be most consistent with
DHS’s proposed policy objectives and
purpose for withdrawing the IE parole
program regulations and, therefore, is
DHS’s preferred option.
b. Withdrawal of pending
applications for parole or conversion to
adjudication under the existing non-IE
final rule parole framework. Under this
option, DHS would amend its
regulations to allow applicants to
request to withdraw pending parole
applications and request refund of all
application fees or would issue a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

request for evidence (RFE) to allow
applicants to demonstrate that they
warrant the favorable exercise of
discretion under the existing non-IE
final rule parole framework. DHS is
considering providing a period of 60
days after the effective date of the rule
during which individuals may request
withdrawal and full refund of
application fees. If during that period an
application is not withdrawn, DHS
would proceed to adjudicate the
application by issuing an RFE. Where
the applicant does not respond to the
RFE or is not able to demonstrate that
he or she merits the favorable exercise
of discretion under the existing non-IE
final rule parole framework, DHS would
deny the application and retain the
application fee. Note that for those
applicants whose applications are
granted, and who are later paroled into
the United States, the basis for their
parole would be under 8 CFR 212.5
rather than 8 CFR 212.19. Therefore,
employment would not be authorized
incident to parole, and evidence of
parole on Form I–94 could not also
serve as evidence of employment
authorization. Instead, those parolees
seeking employment authorization in
the United States would need to file an
Application for Employment
Authorization, with the required fee,
with USCIS under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11).
Because spouses and children of the
entrepreneur would be applying for
parole separately under the 8 CFR 212.5
criteria, spouses and children
(otherwise eligible to work based on
their age) could also submit
Applications for Employment
Authorization under 8 CFR
274a.12(c)(11).
c. Adjudication of pending parole
applications under the IE final rule
criteria. Under this option, DHS would
continue to adjudicate all pending
applications that were received prior to
the effective date of the rescission under
the IE final rule criteria at 8 CFR 212.19
until all such applications are either
approved or denied. Where an
application is approved, the individual
could seek to be paroled into the United
States at a port of entry. Entrepreneurs
approved under the IE final rule would
also benefit from employment
authorization incident to their parole
and their spouses whose parole is
approved could apply for employment
authorization in line with IE final rule
requirements. Under this option,
children of entrepreneurs would
continue to be ineligible for
employment authorization as specified
in the IE final rule. In addition, DHS
would retain the discretion to approve

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

parole for an initial period of up to 30
months, which may be less than 30
months. In this scenario, DHS would
provide a later effective date for the
removal of the § 212.19(k) termination
provisions in order to retain the specific
termination grounds for any individuals
who remain paroled under the IE parole
program. DHS is also considering a
variation on this proposal, in which it
would amend its regulations to truncate
the initial period of parole to a shorter
duration, e.g., 12 months for all pending
requests that are approved.
4. Individuals Seeking Re-Parole After
the Effective Date of the Final Rule
Removing IE Parole Program
Regulations
Upon the termination of the IE parole
program, individuals would not be able
to seek re-parole under 8 CFR 212.19.
DHS is soliciting public comments on
all of the options proposed for
transitioning away from the IE parole
program.
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews
A. Administrative Procedure Act
DHS is publishing this proposed rule
to remove the IE parole program
regulations with a 30-day comment
period in the Federal Register in
accordance with the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. DHS
separately published a final rule on July
11, 2017, with a request for comments
to extend the effective date of the IE
Final Rule to March 14, 2018. On
December 1, 2017, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia
vacated that rule. See Nat’l Venture
Capital Ass’n v. Duke, No. 17–1912,
2017 WL 5990122 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2017).
B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review)
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has
been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
As was described fully in Part IV,
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
of the IE Final Rule,6 the costs of that
rule consisted of the filing costs of
principal applicants applying for parole
and from the associated filing costs of
dependents of principal applicants.
Therefore, this proposal to remove the
IE parole program regulations would
result in a loss of these filing costs for
those entrepreneurs and their
dependents who apply for parole that
would later be terminated. DHS stands
by its previous findings that foreign
entrepreneurs have made substantial
and positive contributions to
innovation, economic growth, and job
creation in the United States, and that
therefore the removal of the rule could
cause potential loss of some of these
economic benefits. However, for reasons
explained previously, DHS is proposing
to remove the IE parole program
regulations after determining that the
program is not a good use of DHS
resources. While the monetary costs
associated with developing and
implementing the framework to process
and adjudicate the applications might
be recovered by the fees USCIS charges
for applications, USCIS would not be
able to offset the opportunity costs
associated with diverting limited agency
resources that are needed to meet other
current priorities.
In the IE Final Rule, DHS cited
studies that provided general support
for the positive effects of entrepreneurs,
but did not attempt to estimate the total
number of new jobs that might be
produced or quantify any new economic
activity that might take place. Here,
DHS has not attempted to estimate the
total number of jobs that might not be
produced or to quantify any new
economic activity that might not take
place with the removal of this rule. This
discussion regarding the net impact on
economic activity, for which we
specifically request comment, also
depends critically on the extent to
which entrepreneurs would avail
themselves of other immigraton
programs. The costs of this rule would
also depend on the costs of the other
programs to which entrepreneurs might
avail themselves. However, DHS is not
able to predict which other programs
these entrepreneurs would be eligible
for since it would be specific to the
circumstances of the entrepreneur.
Therefore, these costs are not quantified
in this proposed rule and DHS requests
any data or comments on such costs.
DHS had previously estimated that
2,940 foreign nationals annually could
be eligible to apply for parole under the
6 See

82 FR at 5238.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

IE Final Rule, but also stated ‘‘DHS has
no way of predicting with certainty the
actual number of foreign nationals who
will seek parole under [the IE rule] rule
over time.’’ 82 FR 5277. This remains
true as of the publication of this
proposal.
The filing costs associated with the IE
Final Rule involved the application fees
as well as the opportunity costs of time
associated with filing. Each principal
applicant faces a filing cost of $1,200 for
the Application for Entrepreneur Parole
(Form I–941), and additional costs of
$405.32, which covered the costs of
submitting biometric information and
the time related opportunity costs of
filing for parole. This additional
monetized cost breakdown includes an
$85 per applicant biometrics filing fee
and $28.75 in costs incurred for travel
to an application support center (ASC)
to submit the information.7 The total
time burden of filing, biometrics
submission, and associated travel is
estimated to be 8.37 hours. In order to
anticipate the full opportunity cost of
time to petitioners, DHS multiplied the
average hourly U.S. wage rate by 1.46 to
account for the full cost of employee
benefits such as paid leave, insurance,
and retirement,8 for a total of $34.84.9
Multiplying this benefits-burdened
average hourly wage of $34.84 by 8.37
hours yields $291.57 in time-related
opportunity costs. Adding this $291.57
opportunity costs, the $85 biometrics
fee and the $28.75 travel cost yields
$405.32. The total cost per principal
applicant for entrepreneur parole was
expected to be $1,605.32.10 If DHS
7 The cost of such travel will equal $28.75 per
trip, based on the 50-mile roundtrip distance to an
ASC and the General Services Administration’s
(GSA) travel rate of $0.575 per mile. Calculation: 50
miles multiplied by $0.575 per mile equals $28.75.
See 79 FR 78437 (Dec. 30, 2014) for GSA mileage
rate.
8 The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as
follows: (Total Employee Compensation per hour)/
(Wages and Salaries per hour). See Economic News
Release, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Table 1. Employer costs per hour worked
for employee compensation and costs as a percent
of total compensation: Civilian workers, by major
occupational and industry group (June 2017),
available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/
archives/ecec_09082017.pdf.
9 Calculation: $23.86 (average hourly wage across
all occupations) * 1.46 (benefits multiplier) =
$34.84.
Opportunity costs reported for principal
applicants are based on the 2016 average wage rate
for all occupations, which were released by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in the Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) survey data publicly
on March 31, 2017. These figures were updated
from the costs in the IE final rule notice that relied
on earlier wage rates and are thus slightly higher
than the previous cost estimates. The wage data are
found at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes_
nat.htm.
10 Calculation: $1,200 (filing fee) + $405.32 =
$1,605.32.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

24421

receives as many as 2,940 applications
from persons eligible to apply, such
applications would result in annual
costs of $4,719,641.11
In addition, the spouse of each
principal is able to file for employment
authorization under the IE Final Rule
via an Application for Employment
Authorization (Form I–765) with a filing
fee of $410. DHS estimates that the
Form I–765 would take 3.42 hours to
complete, generating time related
opportunity costs of $36.20. The total
costs per applicant would be $446.20,
which for 2,940 spousal applicants
would result in total costs of
$1,311,830.12
In addition, DHS projected
approximately 3,234 dependents could
file an Application for Travel Document
(Form I–131) and be required to submit
biometrics. The fee for the Form I–131
is $575 and each applicant would face
additional costs of $190.28, yielding a
total cost per I–131 applicant of
$765.28, which for the estimated 3,234
applicants would amount to
$2,474,914.13
This proposed rule would remove the
IE parole program regulations and
therefore, the filing costs described
above would be sunk costs for those
entrepreneurs who have applied for
parole since the effective date, but
would no longer maintain parole once
this rule is finalized. Additionally, DHS
assumes that there will be
familiarization costs associated with
this rule. DHS assumes that each
entreprenuer who has applied or been
approved for parole would need to
review the rule. Similarly, DHS assumes
that the start-up entity and its investors
also would need to review the rule.
Based on the 2,940 IEs referenced as a
maximum number of entrepreneurs who
may apply, DHS assumes a total of at
least 2,940 entrepreneurs would likely
need to review the rule. It is also likely
that some investors, venture capitalists,
11 Calculation: 2,940 (projected principals) +
$1,605.32 (total cost per application) =
$4,719,640.80. The total annual cost of $4,719,641
is rounded from the actual $4,719,640.80.
12 DHS made the assumption that spouses would
not be in the U.S. labor force and as a result, are
not represented in national average wage
calculations. DHS recognized even if the spouses
were not in the labor force, they had an opportunity
cost of time above zero. In order to provide a
reasonable proxy of time valuation for spouses,
DHS calculated the opportunity costs based on the
benefits adjusted minimum wage of $10.59. The
total costs are rounded from $1,311,830.06.
13 The additional $190 cost is based on the
biometrics cost of $85, the expected costs of travel
to an ASC of $28.75, and time related filing costs
of 7.23 hours. Multiplying this time burden by the
benefits-burdened minimum wage ($10.59) yields
an opportunity cost of $76.53, which, when added
to the other charges yields $190.28. The final cost
figure is rounded from $2,474,914.06.

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1

24422

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

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

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

1. Individuals Paroled Into the United
States as International Entrepreneurs—
Alternatives
a. Automatic Termination
In addition to the filing costs and
familiarization of the final rule
withdrawing the International
Entrepreneur parole program, those
entrepreneurs and their dependents
who have approved parole and would
have already traveled to the United
States could incur some additional costs
by leaving the United States earlier than
expected. Such costs could be
associated with the early notice of
termination of housing or vehicle leases
or with removing dependent children
from school among other costs.
Additionally, these entrepreneurs
would have expended money, time,
and/or other resources in their start-up
entity. Under the original IE final rule,
entrepreneurs have to show ownership
in the start-up at the time they apply for
IE parole. Even if the IE has to leave the
country, they can still remain owners
and work for the start-up from outside
of the country. The rescission of the IE
parole program means that they cannot
work for the start-up from within the
United States on this basis. It is possible
that when the IE leaves, the start-up
could lose additional funding from both
current and future investors, but it is
also possible that current and future
investors could be undeterred by the
IE’s departure and could continue to
fund the start-up entity’s continued
operations and growth. DHS is not able
to predict the behavior of these
entrepreneurs or their investors at this
time. Additionally, DHS notes that it is
also possible that the start-up entity may
have one or more co-founders/owners,
and those co-founders/owners could be
U.S. citizens or otherwise authorized to
work in the United States. As such, the
14 Weighted mean hourly wage ($34.84) * hours
to review rule (2) * maximum number of
entrepreneurs (2,940) = $204,859 total
familiarization costs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

IE’s temporary or permanent departure
from the country would not
automatically mean that the start-up
would dissolve. Though there is a
possibility that the start-up entity could
move outside of the United States with
the entrepreneur as a result of this rule
as well. DHS welcomes any public
comments on the costs associated with
the automatic termination option.
DHS also recognizes that it may be
possible that once this rule is final and
becomes effective that some spouses
already paroled into the United States
would be involuntarily separated from
their employers. These employers
would then face labor turnover costs as
a result. While DHS estimates a total of
2,940 spouses of entrepreneurs who
may be eligible to apply for parole, DHS
cannot predict how many of these
spouses and entrepreneurs will apply
before this proposed rule would become
finalized or how many entrepreneurs
and spouses would qualify under other
parole provisions and remain in the
country. Therefore, DHS does not
estimate the number of spouses who
may involuntarily be separated or the
number of companies that might incur
labor turnover costs.
However, DHS can estimate the cost
of labor turnover per spouse to
employers. DHS has reviewed recent
research and literature concerning
turnover costs. While there is not an
abundance of recently published peerreviewed research to draw on, there are
several dozen studies available which
are cited repeatedly across various
reports. These studies focus on specific
locations and occupations, and measure
turnover costs in different ways. A 2012
report published by the Center for
American Progress surveyed several
dozen studies that considered both
direct and indirect costs and determined
that turnover costs per employee ranged
from 10 to 30 percent of the salary for
most salaried workers, and, on average,
an employer paid an average of about 20
percent of the worker’s salary in total
labor turnover costs.15 Consistent with
wages used for filing costs, if we assume
the spouse is making the weighted
minimum wage of $10.59 and assume
typical annual work hours of 2,080, the
annual salary would be $22,027 for a
spouse. If DHS uses 20 percent of the
spouse’s salary to estimate labor related
turnover costs, each employer that hired
15 See ‘‘There Are Significant Business Costs to
Replacing Employees,’’ By Heather Boushey and
Sarah Jane Glynn (2012), Center for American
Progress, at: https://www.americanprogress.org/
issues/economy/reports/2012/11/16/44464/thereare-significant-business-costs-to-replacingemployees/.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

a spouse would incur a labor related
turnover cost of $4,405 per worker.16
b. Termination on Notice
Entrepreneurs who have been
approved for parole and have already
traveled to the United States may be
considered under the non-IE final rule
parole framework. These entrepreneurs
would be sent a notice of intent to
terminate by USCIS. During this time,
entrepreneurs may present information
to be considered under the non-IE
related parole framework. IEs would
incur some additional time burden in
gathering and submitting information to
show they remain eligible for parole.
However, DHS anticipates this time
burden to be minimal. There may be
some additional costs to the government
in reconsidering these applications.
However, those costs are anticipated to
be minimal and covered by the original
filing fees. USCIS would incur some
costs associated with the creating and
mailing of these notices, though DHS
also anticipates these costs to be
minimal. DHS would not require the IE
or dependents to file an additional
parole application and therefore, no fees
would be charged. Under this option,
however, if IEs are approved under the
non-IE related parole framework, the IE
and their dependents would be required
to submit a Form I–765 with the notice
of intent to terminate to minimize gaps
in employment authorization. Form I–
765 includes a filing fee of $410 and a
total time burden of 3.42 hours to
complete and file the application. Using
the weighted mean hourly wage
previously established of $34.84, the
total cost for entrepreneurs to file Form
I–765 is $529 per application.17 As
previously discussed, the total cost for
dependents to file Form I–765 is $446
per application.18 DHS does not have an
estimate of the numbers of
entrepreneurs or dependents that may
qualify to apply for employment
authorization under another non-IE
related parole.
c. USCIS Motion To Reopen/Reconsider
Under the option to reopen all IE
parole adjudications for those IE with
approved parole and already in the
United States, DHS anticipates minimal
costs to IE associated with the burden of
providing evidence for parole under the
16 Calculation: Weighted minimum wage annual
salary ($22,027) * 20 percent = $4,405.44.
17 Calculation: Filing fee ($410) + (time burden
3.42 hours * weighted average hourly wage $34.84)
= $529 (rounded).
18 DHS refers to dependents to include the
spouses and those children of entrepreneurs who
may be eligible to apply for employment
authorization.

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
existing non-IE final rule parole
framework, rather than IE parole
program regulations. DHS does not plan
to charge any filing fees for reopening
adjudication in these cases because they
will be reopened on USCIS’s own
motion. DHS believes the benefits of
being considered under the non-IE final
rule parole framework outweighs the
minimal burdens added by presenting
additional evidence. As with the notice
of intent to terminate option,
entrepreneurs and dependents would be
required to submit a Form I–765 for
employment authorization if approved
for non-IE related parole. Entrepreneurs
and dependents would incur costs of
$529 and $446 per application,
respectively. Again, DHS is not able to
estimate the number of applicants who
might be eligible for non-IE related
parole.
d. Expiration of Initial Period of Parole
Finally, the option to allow parole
approved under the IE parole program
regulations to naturally expire, along
with any associated employment
authorization, unless otherwise
terminated on other grounds would
require no additional costs on behalf of
the applicant or the government.
2. Individuals With USCIS-Approved IE
Parole Applications Who Have Not Yet
Traveled to the United States

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

a. Automatic Termination
For those indviduals who have an
approved IE parole application, but
have not yet traveled to the United
States, automatic termination for these
individuals would result in the loss of
the costs associated with filing Form I–
941 totaling $1,605 per principal
application. If the entrepreneur’s
dependents filed for Form I–131,
additional losses of $765 per application
would be incurred for parole that could
never be realized. If these applications
are automatically terminated, these
individuals would lose any costs if they
attempt to seek parole pursuant to the
IE parole program at a port of entry after
the effectiveness of this termination.
DHS cannot predict how many IEs may
fall into this group at this time, but
welcomes comments from the public.
b. Termination on Notice
For the option of termination of the
advance parole document on notice,
those IEs who would receive notice and
the opportunity to respond would incur
some costs in terms of burden
associated with providing evidence to
demonstrate that parole would
otherwise be warranted under the
existing non-IE final rule parole
framework for the entrepreneur and any

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

dependents of such entrepreneur.
Depending on the evidence provided,
DHS may terminate or amend the
validity period of the advance parole as
necessary to align the appropriate
timeframe to accomplish the purpose of
the parole. If the advance parole
document remains approved,
individuals could then seek, during the
validity of the advance parole
document, to be paroled into the United
States at a port of entry. Under this
option, employment authorization for
an entrepreneur would not be
automatic; rather, each individual
parolee would need to separately apply
for employment authorization pursuant
to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11) to the extent
consistent with the purpose of parole.
DHS does not know how many
entrepreneurs would fall into this
category, however, requests comments
from the public on any such data or
estimate. As previously established, the
costs for entrepreneurs and dependents
to submit Form I–765 would be $529
and $446 per application, respectively.
c. USCIS Motion To Reopen/Reconsider
For the option of re-opening IE parole
determinations, DHS would reopen all
approved Form I–941 parole
applications without any additional fees
to the applicant. These applicants
would lose some of their initial $1,605
application costs associated with the
original Form I–941. Some of this loss
would be offset by not being required to
reapply under the non-IE final rule
parole framework which would have
costs associated with Form I–131.
Addtionally, there may be some time
burden to the entrepreneur and
dependents of the entrepreneur
associated with the opportunity to
present evidence that would allow DHS
to reconsider the grant of parole under
the the non-IE final rule parole
framework, rather than the IE parole
program regulations. There may be some
additional costs to the government in
reconsidering these applications.
However, those costs are anticipated to
be minimal and covered by the original
filing fees. Similar to the option to
terminate the advance parole document
on notice, this option would require
each parolee to apply for employment
authorization if approved for non-IE
final rule parole. DHS does not have
information to determine how many
individuals might fall into this option
and therefore cannot estimate the
numbers of IEs. However, the costs for
entrepreneurs and dependents to submit
Form I–765 would be $529 and $446 per
application, respectively. DHS
welcomes any public comment on any

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

24423

data or costs not considered under this
option.
Finally if an IE is denied under the
non-IE final rule parole framework, an
entrepreneur whose original application
was successfully adjudicated would
have spent additional time providing
evidence to be considered eligible under
the non-IE final rule parole framework.
This additional time would vary
amongst applicants so DHS does not
estimate the time or opportunity costs.
Additionally and as discussed earlier,
entrepreneurs have to show ownership
in the start-up at the time they apply for
IE parole. Therefore, even if the IE does
not come into the country, they can still
remain owners and work for the start-up
from outside of the country. It is
possible that the start-up could lose
additional funding if investors follow
the entrepreneur elsewhere or decide
not to continue to invest in the start-up
entity because of the proposed
rescission of parole, however DHS
cannot predict the behavior of a start-up
entity’s current or future investors. DHS
welcomes any public comments on the
costs associated with entrepreneurs who
have approved IE parole applications,
but have not yet traveled to the United
States.
3. Individuals Whose Parole
Applications Are Pending With USCIS
on the Effective Date of the Final Rule
a. Reject/Refund
For individuals with pending parole
applications on the effective data of the
final rule, under the first option DHS
would reject all pending Form I–941
applications for IE parole and return or
refund associated fees. These IEs would
incur only opportunity costs of time to
file applications which would include
$405 per application for Form I–941 per
entrepreneur, $36 per application for
Form I–765 per dependent, or $190 per
application for Form I–131 per
dependent. The filing fees for each
application would be returned or
refunded. There may be some
administrative costs associated with the
issuance of refunds to USCIS. USCIS
does not have cost estimates indicating
the number of hours required to process
and issue these refunds. DHS welcomes
any public comments on the impacts of
this option.
b. Withdraw or Convert Adjudication to
Non-IE Parole
Under the second option to withdraw
pending applications for parole and
request a refund for fees, the IE would
again incur only costs related to the
opportunity costs of time for completing
Form I–941, Form I–765, or Form I–131.

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1

24424

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

For those IE who choose to convert their
adjudication to existing non-IE parole,
they may incur some additional costs
associated with providing evidence to
demonstrate that they warrant the
favorable exercise of discretion under
existing non-IE final rule parole
frameworks. Applicants that do not
respond to RFEs or are not able to
favorably demonstrate that they merit
approval under the existing non-IE final
rule parole framework, would lose the
application filing fees in addition to the
opportunity costs of time to complete
the application (Form I–941—$1,605,
Form I–765—$446, or Form I–131—
$765). USCIS would keep Form I–941
fees for applicants that respond to RFEs
and are approved for non-IE related
parole. Therefore, the costs for the
original applications would be incurred
as described above. Additionally,
applicants would need to apply for
employment authorization upon arrival
to the United States. Applicants would
incur an additional $529 per
entrepreneur and $466 per dependent to
file a Form I–765 upon arrival.

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

c. Continue Adjudications Under IE
Parole Criteria
The third option is to adjudicate all
pending applications received prior to
the effective date of the rescission of the
IE final rule criteria until all
applications are approved or denied.
For approved applications, DHS would
provide a later effective date for
rescission of the final rule and DHS is
considering various timeframes for
length of parole. This option does not
impose any additional costs to
applicants other than the original filing
costs.
4. Individuals Seeking Re-Parole After
the Effective Date of the Final Rule
Removing IE Parole Program
Regulations
There would be no additional costs
for individuals who would no longer be
able to seek re-parole after the effective
date of this proposed IE parole program
rescission. The IE parole program was
originally limited to up to 30 months
with a possible extension of an
additional 30 months. By no longer
allowing re-parole, DHS would shorten
this timeframe.
Finally, DHS does not know whether
some of the startup entities of these
entrepreneurs could be considered
small entities and could indirectly be
impacted by this proposed rule or if
some employers who hire the
dependents of these entrepreneurs
could be small entites and impacted by
this proposed rule. Therefore, DHS has
prepared an initial regulatory flexibility

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

analysis (IRFA) under the Regaultory
Flexibility Act (RFA) requesting more
information on these impacts.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule would amend
DHS regulations to remove the IE parole
program promulgated through the IE
Final Rule, 82 FR 5238. In accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601(6), DHS examined
the impact of this rule on small entities.
A small entity may be a small business
(defined as any independently owned
and operated business not dominant in
its field that qualifies as a small
business per the Small Business Act, 15
U.S.C. 632), a small not-for-profit
organization, or a small governmental
jurisdiction (locality with fewer than
50,000 people).
In the IE Final Rule, DHS certified
that the rule would not impose a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This
certification was based on grounds that
individual entrepreneurs are not
considered small entities under the
purview of the RFA. In addition,
participation is strictly voluntary for the
estimated population of 2,940 annual
principal applicants. The IE Final Rule
did not require any individuals or
businesses, including those created by
foreign nationals, to seek parole—either
generally or as a specific condition for
establishing or operating a business in
the United States. While there are
numerous costs associated with starting
a new business, these various costs
would be driven by the business activity
that each applicant chooses to endeavor
in and not by the rule itself.
Based on public comment feedback to
the 2016 proposed rule (81 FR 60130),
DHS considered the possibility that a
business entity associated with the
applicant entrepreneur could pay the
parole application fees for these
entrepreneurs. However, as DHS
explained in the IE Final Rule and
reiterates here, while this rule proposes
to eliminate the entrepreneur-specific
criteria and parole process established
by the IE Final Rule, it does not
eliminate an individual’s ability to
apply for parole using the standard
Form I–131 process. DHS continues to
stand by the determinations made in the
final rule.
While DHS does not believe that there
would be a direct impact to
entrepreneurs who are individuals and
therefore would not be considered as
small entities under the RFA, DHS
recognizes that there may be some
indirect impacts imposed on small
entities that are tied to these
entrepreneurs. The RFA does not

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

require indirect impacts to small entities
to be considered, nevertheless, DHS has
prepared an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) and invites public
comment on potential impacts of this
proposed removal to small entities.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
DHS proposes to remove the IE parole
program regulations. As was discussed
in the IE Final Rule and in the above
sections of this notice, entreprenuers or
individuals would be directly impacted
by this proposed rule, however,
individuals are not small entities and
therefore, are not considered for RFA
purposes. DHS recognizes that there
could be some indirect impacts that this
proposed rule may have on small
entities that are tied to these
entrepreneurs. While DHS does not
have to consider indirect impacts for
RFA purposes, DHS is including this
analysis to determine if the proposed
removal would indirectly impact small
entities. Additionaly, DHS recognizes
that some of the options presented
could also impact the entities that hire
the spouse of entrepreneurs and
welcomes public comment on potential
impacts of the proposed changes on
small entities.
a. A description of the reasons why
the action by the agency is being
considered.
DHS is proposing to remove the IE
parole program regulations because the
policy it promulgated is not the
appropriate vehicle for attracting and
retaining international entrepreneurs
and does not adequately protect U.S.
investors and U.S. workers. Part III,
Section B of the preamble of this
proposed rule more fully describes the
reasons for why action is being taken by
the agency.
b. A succinct statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule.
DHS objectives and legal authority for
this proposed rule are discussed in the
preamble of this proposed rule.
c. A description and, where feasible,
an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the proposed changes
would apply.
In the Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 sections of this proposed rule and
the IE Final Rule, DHS estimated that
about 2,940 principal applicants, or
entrepreneurs, could be eligible to apply
each year. Again, this proposed rule
directly impacts individual
entrepreneurs, which are not required to
be analyzed under the RFA. However,
DHS recognizes that some small entities
that are tied to the entrepreneur may be
indirectly impacted by this proposed
rule and therefore provides this

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
discussion. Currently, DHS is not able to
estimate how many entities may be
associated with or started by this group
of potential applicants. However, DHS
assumes that since these entrepreneurs
are involved in startups and startups
generally tend to be small, most of the
entities tied to these entreprenuers
could be considered small.
Additionally, DHS could assume that
these small entities tied to these
entrepreneurs could face costs in terms
of lost application fees, jobs that might
not be produced, or other economic
activity that might not take place.
However, DHS does not currently have
conclusive information to determine
how many of these entities would be
small entities and what the impact
might be.
Additionally, DHS recognizes that the
options proposed in the preamble may
impact some entities that hire the
spouses of entrepreneurs, which could
be small entities. However, DHS does
not have enough information at this
time to estimate the number of small
entities that may employ the spouses of
these entrepreneurs. DHS welcomes
public comments or data on the number
of small entities that might be impacted
by this proposed rule and what the
impact might be to those small entities.
d. A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities that will be
subject to the requirement and the types
of professional skills.
The proposed rule does not directly
impose any new or additional
‘‘reporting’’ or ‘‘recordkeeping’’
requirements on filers. The proposed
rule does not require any new
professional skills for reporting.
e. An identification of all relevant
Federal rules, to the extent practical,
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule.
DHS is unaware of any duplicative,
overlapping, or conflicting Federal
rules, but invites any comment and
information regarding any such rules.
f. Description of any significant
alternatives to the proposed rule that
accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and that minimize
any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
The IE Final Rule requires that
applicants attain significant investor
capital from qualified U.S. investors. A
component of this requirement involves
a minmum investment threshold of
$250,000. DHS considered several
alternatives for this amount, based on
public input, in which commenters
proposed levels for this minimum

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

ranging from about $100,000 to $1
million. The minimum investment is
not itself a size standard to determine
whether entities are small. Furthermore,
since the rule will involve startups,
most would be small by definition,
which is a feature of the business
startup environment and not
specifically the rule itself. Hence, the
raising or lowering the minimum from
the level established in the IE Final Rule
would affect the number of potential
applicants that would be eligible at a
specific point in time, but DHS does not
believe the alternatives would generate
a considerable impact to small entities.
First, DHS is not aware of evidence that
establishes a significant relation
between the size of firms over their
lifetime and the amount of capital they
receive in their seed or startup stage of
development. Second, the amount of
investment that firms receive at early
stages of development reflect
perceptions concerning their future
success to investors and not their size.
Third, DHS does not have evidence to
suggest a higher or lower threshold
would impact capital costs. DHS
determined that changing the level of
the threshold still would not address
underlying issues over an appropriate
vehicle to use in attracting and retaining
international entrepreneurs. Therefore,
this alternative was not considered any
further.

24425

E. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This proposed rule is not a major rule
as defined by section 804 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of
1996, Public Law 104–121, 804, 110
Stat. 847, 872 (1996), 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This proposed rule has not been found
to result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, a
major increase in costs or prices; or
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic or export
markets.
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This rule does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order No. 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4,
1999), this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995

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

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

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

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1

24426

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

by one or more categorical exclusions
from further analysis, its removal again
would have no significant effects.
Therefore, we conclude that this
proposed removal does not significantly
affect the quality of the human
environment. The IE parole program
regulations, which this proposed rule
seeks to remove, provide criteria and
procedures for applying the Secretary’s
existing statutory parole authority to
entrepreneurs in a manner to ensure
consistency in case-by-case
adjudications.
Furthermore, unlike the rescission of
policy letters or other actions which do
not involve rulemaking, public
involvement, an important value of
NEPA, is fully protected by the
rulemaking process.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104–13, all agencies
are required to submit any reporting
requirements inherent in a rule to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This
rule calls for no new collection of
information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520).
DHS is withdrawing all changes to the
Form I–131 and Form I–765 approved
with the IE Final Rule published at 82
FR 5238 on January 17, 2017. DHS will
continue to use the version of Form I–
765 approved by OMB on April 13,
2017, and will continue to use the
version of Form I–131 approved on
December 21, 2016. DHS also is
proposing to discontinue the new
information collection Form I–941
originally approved as a result of the
Final Rule published at 82 FR 5238 on
January 17, 2017. Finally, DHS is
withdrawing all changes to the Form I–
9 that were approved in connection
with the IE Final Rule.
USCIS Forms

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

1. USCIS Form I–9
Overview of This Information Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Revision of a Currently Approved
Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Employment Eligibility Verification.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the DHS
sponsoring the collection: I–9; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Individuals or
households. This form was developed to
facilitate compliance with section 274A
of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
which prohibits the knowing

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

employment of unauthorized aliens.
This information collection is necessary
for employers, agricultural recruiters
and referrers for a fee, and state
employment agencies to verify the
identity and employment authorization
of individuals hired (or recruited or
referred for a fee, if applicable) for
employment in the United States.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: The estimated total number of
employer and recruiter respondents for
the information collection I–9 is
55,400,000 and the estimated hour
burden per response is .33 hours. The
estimated total number of employee
respondents for the information
collection I–9 is 55,400,000 and the
estimated hour burden per response is
.17 hours. The estimated total number of
recordkeeping respondents for the
information collection I–9 is 20,000,000
and the estimated hour burden per
response is .08 hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The total estimated annual
hour burden associated with this
collection is 29,300,000 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public
burden (in cost) associated with the
collection: The estimated total annual
cost burden associated with this
collection of information is $0.
2. USCIS Form I–131
Overview of This Information Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Revision of a Currently Approved
Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Application for Travel Document.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the DHS
sponsoring the collection: I–131; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Individuals or
households. Certain aliens, principally
permanent or conditional residents,
refugees or asylees, applicants for
adjustment of status, aliens in
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and
aliens abroad seeking humanitarian
parole, in need to apply for a travel
document to lawfully enter or reenter
the United States. Lawful permanent
residents may now file requests for
travel permits (transportation letter or
boarding foil).
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: The estimated total number of
respondents for the information
collection I–131 is 594,324 and the

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

estimated hour burden per response is
1.9 hours. The estimated total number of
respondents for the biometrics
collection is 71,665 and the estimated
hour burden per response is 1.17 hours.
The estimated total number of
respondents for the passport style
photographs is 319,727 and the
estimated hour burden per response is
.5 hours
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The total estimated annual
hour burden associated with this
collection is 1,372,928 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public
burden (in cost) associated with the
collection: The estimated total annual
cost burden associated with this
collection of information is 177,928,330.
3. USCIS Form I–765
Overview of This Information Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Revision of a Currently Approved
Collection.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the DHS
sponsoring the collection: I–765; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Individuals or
households. The information collected
on this form is used by the USCIS to
determine eligibility for the issuance of
the employment document.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: The estimated total number of
respondents for the information
collection I–765 is 2,139,523 and the
estimated hour burden per response is
3.42 hours. The estimated total number
of respondents for the biometrics
collection is 405,067 and the estimated
hour burden per response is 1.17 hours.
The estimated total number of
respondents for the information
collection I–765WS (Work Sheet) is
250,000 and the estimated hour burden
per response is .5 hours. The estimated
total number of respondents for the
Passport-style Photographs is 2,136,583
and the estimated hour burden per
response is .5 hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The total estimated annual
hour burden associated with this
collection is 8,985,859 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public
burden (in cost) associated with the
collection: The estimated total annual
cost burden associated with this
collection of information is 650,414,992.

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
4. USCIS Form I–941
DHS is discontinuing the new USCIS
Form I–941 (OMB Control Number
1615–0136).

■

List of Subjects

*

8 CFR Part 103
Administrative practice and
procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Freedom of
information, Immigration, Privacy,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
8 CFR Part 212
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens, Immigration,
Passports and visas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
8 CFR Part 274a
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens, Employment,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, DHS is proposing to
amend chapter I of title 8 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 103—IMMIGRATION BENEFITS;
BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS;
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS
1. The authority citation for part 103
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C.
1101, 1103, 1304, 1356, 1365b; 31 U.S.C.
9701; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6
U.S.C. 1 et seq.); E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874,
15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p.166; 8 CFR part
2; Pub. L. 112–54.
§ 103.7

[Amended]

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

■

PART 212—DOCUMENTARY
REQUIREMENTS: NONIMMIGRANTS;
WAIVERS; ADMISSION OF CERTAIN
INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE
3. The authority citation for part 212
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202(4) and 271, 8
U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and
note, 1184, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227,
1255, 1359; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209
of Pub. L. 108–458); 8 CFR part 2.
§ 212.19

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

■

[Removed]

4. Remove § 212.19.

PART 274a—CONTROL OF
EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS
5. The authority citation for part 274a
continues to read as follows:

■

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 May 25, 2018

Jkt 244001

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

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

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

*

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

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2018–0454; Product
Identifier 2017–NM–056–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:

We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A330–200 Freighter series
airplanes, Airbus Model A330–200 and
–300 series airplanes, and Airbus Model
A340–200 and –300 series airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by
reports of cracked slat tracks at the
location of the front stop attachment to
the track. This proposed AD would
require a detailed inspection, repetitive
special detailed inspections, and
corrective actions if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by July 13, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS,
Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond
Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93
36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email:
[email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com. You
may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
SUMMARY:

Examining the AD Docket

[FR Doc. 2018–11348 Filed 5–25–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–97–P

24427

You may examine the AD docket on
the internet at http://

E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM

29MYP1