NPRM Publication

50786

Proposed Rules

Federal Register
Vol. 87, No. 159
Thursday, August 18, 2022

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 Part 274a
[DHS Docket No. ICEB 2021–0010]
RIN 1653–AA86

Optional Alternatives to the Physical
Document Examination Associated
With Employment Eligibility
Verification (Form I–9)
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:

DHS is proposing to allow for
alternative procedures for documents
required by the Form I–9, Employment
Eligibility Verification. This proposed
rule would create a framework under
which the Secretary of Homeland
Security (the Secretary) could authorize
alternative options for document
examination procedures with respect to
some or all employers. Such procedures
could be implemented as part of a pilot
program, or upon the Secretary’s
determination that such procedures
offer an equivalent level of security, or
as a temporary measure to address a
public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services
pursuant to Section 319 of the Public
Health Service Act, or a national
emergency declared by the President
pursuant to Sections 201 and 301 of the
National Emergencies Act. This
proposed rule would allow employers
(or agents acting on an employer’s
behalf) optional alternatives for
examining the documentation presented
by individuals seeking to establish
identity and employment authorization
for purposes of completing the Form
I–9, Employment Eligibility Verification.
DATES: Electronic comments must be
submitted on or before October 17,
2022.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

SUMMARY:

You may submit comments
on the entirety of this proposed rule,

ADDRESSES:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:01 Aug 17, 2022

Jkt 256001

identified by Docket No. ICEB–2021–
0010, through the following method:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
website instructions to submit
comments.
Comments submitted in a manner
other than the Federal eRulemaking
Portal, including emails or letters sent to
DHS, will not be considered comments,
and will not receive a response from
DHS. Please note that DHS cannot
accept any hand delivered or couriered
comments, nor any comments contained
on any form of digital media storage
devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB
drives. If you cannot submit your
material using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharon Hageman, Deputy Assistant
Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs
and Policy, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Department of
Homeland Security, 500 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20536. Telephone 202–
732–6960 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
DHS encourages all interested parties
to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting data, views, comments, and
arguments on all aspects of this
proposed rule. Comments providing the
most assistance to DHS will reference a
specific portion of the proposed rule,
explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include the
data, information, or authority that
supports the recommended change. See
the ADDRESSES section above for
information on where to submit
comments.
A. Submitting Comments
To submit your comments online, go
to https://www.regulations.gov and
insert ‘‘ICEB 2021–0010’’ in the
‘‘Search’’ box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’
box and type your comments in the text
box provided. When you are satisfied
with your comments, follow the
prompts, and then click ‘‘Submit
Comment.’’
DHS will post comments to the
federal e-Rulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you provide.

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Therefore, submitting this information
makes it public. You may wish to
consider limiting the amount of
personal information that you provide
in any voluntary public comment
submission you make to DHS. DHS may
withhold information provided in
comments from public viewing that it
determines is offensive. For more
information, please read the ‘‘Privacy &
Security Notice,’’ via the link in the
footer of https://www.regulations.gov.
DHS will consider all comments and
materials received during the comment
period and may change this rule based
on your comments.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov and insert
‘‘ICEB 2021–0010’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ box.
Next, click on ‘‘Dockets,’’ then on the
name of the rule, and finally on
‘‘Browse All Comments.’’ Individuals
without internet access can request
alternate arrangements for viewing
comments and documents related to this
rulemaking (see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document). You may also sign-up on the
online docket for email alerts whenever
comments are posted, or a final rule is
published.
II. Abbreviations
Abbreviation Amplification
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COVID 19 Coronavirus disease 2019
DHS Department of Homeland Security
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
INA Immigration and Nationality Act
IRCA Immigration Reform and Control Act
of 1986
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPM Office of Personnel Management
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services

III. Background and Purpose
A. Legal Authority
In 1986, Congress reformed U.S.
immigration laws by passing the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986 (IRCA), Public Law 99–603, to
amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA), which appears in Title 8 of
the U.S. Code. Among other reforms, the

E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM

18AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 159 / Thursday, August 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
IRCA amendments made it unlawful for
employers to knowingly hire
individuals who were not eligible to
work in the United States and
established a system for verifying the
identity and U.S. employment
authorization of all employees hired
after November 6, 1986. IRCA imposed
employer sanctions, codified in section
274A of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1324a,
including financial, criminal, and other
penalties for those who failed to verify
the identity and the employment
eligibility of all new employees, or those
who knowingly hired, recruited, or
referred for a fee, or continued to
employ ‘‘unauthorized aliens’’ after
November 6, 1986. Among other goals,
IRCA sought to ensure that only eligible
individuals were hired for employment
in the United States, and that employers
did not discriminate against any
employee on the basis of national origin
or citizenship status.1
IRCA prompted the creation of the
Form I–9, Employment Eligibility
Verification, which was designated as
the means of documenting that the
employer verified an employee’s
identity and U.S. employment
authorization. See 8 CFR 274a.2.
Employers must complete the Form I–9
to document verification of the identity
and employment authorization of each
employee (both citizen and noncitizen)
hired after November 6, 1986 to work in
the United States.2 If an employee’s
employment authorization expires, the
employer must reverify the employee’s
employment authorization to ensure the
employee continues to be employmentauthorized in the United States.3 If an
8 U.S.C. 1324a and 8 U.S.C. 1324b.
2 In the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, employers complete the Form I–9 for each
new employee (both citizen and noncitizen) hired
after November 27, 2011. Additional information
about completing the Form I–9 is available at
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central.
3 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii).

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

1 See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:01 Aug 17, 2022

Jkt 256001

employee is rehired, the employer must
also ensure that the employee is still
authorized to work in the United
States.4 The employer must retain the
Form I–9 in a paper, electronic, or
microfilm or microfiche format, or in an
acceptable combination of such formats,
for as long as the individual works for
the employer and for a specified period
after the individual’s employment has
ended.5
The Homeland Security Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–296 moved the
responsibility for overseeing the
examination of documentation
evidencing identity and employment
authorization from the former U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service,
which was a component of the U.S.
Department of Justice, to the newly
formed DHS, specifically to U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). USCIS issues most
employment authorization
documentation to noncitizens and
administers an electronic employment
eligibility verification program called EVerify,6 while ICE monitors and
enforces compliance with the
requirements of the Form I–9. The
Immigrant and Employee Rights Section
of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil
Rights Division enforces the investigates
and prosecutes employment antidiscrimination provision of the INA, 8
U.S.C. 1324b.
B. Background
Within three business days after the
first day of employment (i.e., the first
day of work in exchange for wages or
other remuneration), employers must
48

CFR 274a.2(c).
must retain and store Forms I–9 for
three years after the date of hire, or for one year
after employment is terminated, whichever is later.
Additional information for employers and
employees about the Form I–9 is available at
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9.
6 See Learn More About E-Verify, E-Verify,
https://www.e-verify.gov/ (last visited May 6, 2022).
5 Employers

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

50787

physically examine the documentation
presented by new employees from the
Lists of Acceptable Documents (i.e.,
‘‘Form I–9 documents’’),7 or an
acceptable receipt,8 to ensure that the
presented documentation appears to be
genuine and to relate to the individual
who presents them. See 8 CFR
274a.2(b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(1)(vi). Employers
must then complete Section 2,
‘‘Employer Review and Verification,’’ of
the Form I–9. See 8 CFR
274a.2(b)(1)(ii)(B). If reverification is
required, the employee or referred
individual must present a document
that shows continued employment
authorization or a new grant of
employment authorization. See 8 CFR
274a.2(b)(1)(vii). If the employer rehires
an individual for whom it had
previously completed the Form I–9 and
complied with the document
verification requirements, the employer
may inspect the original Form I–9. See
8 CFR 274a.2(c). If the rehired
employee’s employment authorization
on the original Form I–9 had expired
when the individual was rehired, the
employer must conduct reverification.
See 8 CFR 274a.2(c).
BILLING CODE 9111–28–P
7 The Lists of Acceptable Documents are included
with the Form I–9.
8 Occasionally, employees may present a
‘‘receipt’’ in place of a List A, B, or C document.
An acceptable receipt is valid for a short period of
time so an employer can complete Section 2 or
Section 3 (reverification) of Form I–9, Employment
Eligibility Verification. Employers cannot accept
receipts if employment will last less than 3 days.
An acceptable receipt may be a receipt for the
application to replace a List A, B, or C document
that was lost, stolen, or damaged; the arrival portion
of Form I–94 (Arrival/Departure Record) with a
temporary Form I–551 stamp and a photograph of
the individual; the departure portion of Form I–94
(Arrival/Departure Record) with an unexpired
refugee admission stamp; or an admission code of
‘‘RE.’’ See USCIS, Handbook for Employers, M–274,
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9resources/handbook-for-employers-m-274/40completing-section-2-of-form-i-9/43-acceptablereceipts (last visited June 21, 2022).

E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM

18AUP1

50788

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 159 / Thursday, August 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules

Table 1: Lists of Acceptable Form 1-9 Documents
Employees may present one setection from List A
or .a comblnalon of one selection fmm List B and one selectf0n tom Ust C.
LISTC
Ooeuments that EIJ,tabllsh

USTB

LISTA

Documen19 that Establish
Both ._.,.., and

Document'& that E • ~
~

Emptoyment Authortzdon
'I. U.S. Passport or U.S.. Passport Card

2. Pamlammt Rnldant Card m Allen
~ ~ cam (Farm 1-551)
$. FOl"eigin panportl'lat ClOIIUins a

temporary 1,.551 stamp o r ~
1-561 printed nohllloo on a macfhlne~ • lmmlgl"limt visa
4. Em~nt Aultlorlzdoo Document
that C!Dl'ltillrls a photot,aph (FOffll
1-700)

Em•,m•nt ~
AND

Dl'Mllfs ltc&l'IUI or ID card Issued by a
State or oolflllnig ~mn otfhl!I
Uni'ted StmBs. provklfld It oontaloo a
photot,aph or lnfoonatloo 1111.!dl n
name, datl!t of bll'lh, gen,cll!lr, h ~ ¥
oolar, and mldl'Rlli

ID card illlwl!ld by mdlmll, state or tocal
!lO'lfflrnmani ~ OIF enffli.H,
provided It 0Cll'l'lalns a ~ or
~ !Wch as name, dam of birth.,
911nd!w, hal9ftt,. ¥

oolor, and addrlns

U.S. Military card« dmft rtlOOl'd

a. Fcnlgn ~ and

MIiitary ~ 10 cam

b. Form MM or Form l•!WA lhat has
the followlng:
(1) nm same l'lillffllll as the passport:

mm

{'2) An ~ of the l!lltM"s

nonlmmignmt nm.s as long u
that period of &lldo!'Rfflllnt hn
not )i'llt expillld and the
p ~ employmentls not In
mnlllat with any mslr!etlcms or
llmitatioll'ls !denfflied 011 the form.

Panport from the Fedafl!ltf!:d states.
af M ~ (FSM).or the Republic
of lhe Marshall Island& (RMf} wttlh

BILLING CODE 9111–28–C

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Original or ~ copy of birth

Due to the physical proximity
precautions implemented by employers
related to combating the coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID–19) pandemic, on
March 20, 2020, ICE posted an
announcement on its website that stated
DHS would defer the physical
examination requirements associated
with the Form I–9.9 Under that
guidance, an employer, or an authorized
representative acting on the employer’s
behalf, could inspect Form I–9
documents remotely (e.g., over video
link, fax, or email) within three business
days of the employee’s first day of
employment. If inspecting Form I–9
documents remotely, the employer was
9 ICE, DHS announces flexibility in requirements
related to Form I–9 compliance (Effective Apr. 1,
2021), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/dhsannounces-flexibility-requirements-related-form-i-9compliance (last updated Mar. 31, 2021).

by a Slate,
oounty, municipal l'ltlttlcrlty, or
11imii1Dry of the United statu

bearing an official .seal

U.S. Coot Guard MBr!:t1ant Manner

4. Native American tribal dootlrmint

Cam

I. U.S. Citizen ID Card (Form 1-197)

__
N_atM!I
__
Am_._111r1can
__
tr11:1a1_~daoumlmt----..-...1 1. ldenlffleatkm Card for Use of
Driwr'II license issued by a (::;!mad!lan
Ruidlllnt Cittmn tn ht United
goverl'llml!ll'lt aulhoril.y
~ (Form 1-179}

For p(N"9ont undar age 13 who are
unable to Pf'9Nnt a document
DIC8d above:

7. Employment autilotlzMloo
doctlffllltnt lslllllld by ht
Oepanment of Hllir"nllhloo Security

ca,-.- or

l'lllllr.&ef>'

scl'loal !1lll!lOl'tf

required to obtain, inspect, and retain
copies of the documents within three
business days. Such employers were
further directed to enter COVID–19 as
the reason for the physical examination
delay in the Section 2 ‘‘Additional
Information’’ field, of the Form I–9.
Under the guidance, the employer
would be required, once normal
operations resumed, to physically
examine the documents and enter the
notation ‘‘documents physically
examined’’ along with the date of
inspection in the Section 2 ‘‘Additional
Information’’ field. DHS initially
allowed these provisions to be in place
for a period of 60 days from the date of
the notice (or within three business days
after the termination of the national
emergency, whichever came first).
This guidance applied only to
employers and workplaces that were
operating remotely. Specifically, the

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

guidance stated: ‘‘[i]f there are
employees physically present at a work
location, no exceptions are being
implemented at this time for in-person
verification of identity and employment
eligibility documentation for Form I–9,
Employment Eligibility Verification.
However, if newly hired employees or
existing employees are subject to
COVID–19 quarantine or lockdown
protocols, DHS will evaluate this on a
case-by-case basis.’’
ICE periodically extended this
announcement as the COVID–19
national emergency 10 continued. On
March 31, 2021, ICE updated the
announcement made on March 20,
2020, stating that, as of April 1, 2021,
only those employees who physically
reported to work at a company location
on any regular, consistent, or
10 See

E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM

85 FR 15337 (Mar. 18, 2020).

18AUP1

EP18AU22.000

noolmmlgl'all'lt admission under the
Compact of FrM A ~ BelwHn
Iha Unlbild Slates and !he FSM or RMI

Jkt 256001

(3) VALID FOR WORK ONLY Wmt
DHS~TION
2. C@rlii!calloo of Nporl of birth issued
by 1he Dl!iparlmlll'll of State (Forms
OS-1300, FS-{i45, FS-240)

Cllnlc, dm:ror, or hospill!II l1tOOlfd

Folm MM or Farm HMA lndk:a!lng

17:01 Aug 17, 2022

(2) VALID FOR WORK ONLYWtTH
INS AUTHORIZATtoN

~ iuued

·to ·work for a specffie empl0ye,r
beeau!III of his or her s.tatus:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

(1) NOT VALID FOR EMPLOYMENT

i.

Ii. For a noolmmigfant alien ~

e.

1. A Socia! Sllourity Aooount Number
card, unlfis ht card inelw:11111 lll'III of
lbll lblk!wlng rH1rldions:

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 159 / Thursday, August 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

predictable basis needed to undergo an
in-person examination of their Form I–
9 identity and employment eligibility
documentation.11 Further, the
announcement indicated that employees
who were hired on or after April 1,
2021, and who worked exclusively in a
remote setting due to COVID–19-related
precautions, were temporarily exempted
from the physical examination of their
Form I–9 documents until they
undertook non-remote employment on a
regular, consistent, or predictable basis,
or the extension of the flexibilities
related to such requirements was
terminated, whichever occurred
earlier.12 Subsequently, due to the
continuation of the COVID–19
pandemic, ICE extended these
flexibilities several times: the latest
announcement, issued on April 25,
2022, extended the temporary
flexibilities until October 31, 2022.13
On October 26, 2021, USCIS
published a notice in the Federal
Register seeking input from the public
regarding document examination
practices associated with the Form I–
9.14 Of the 315 public comments
received, the vast majority supported a
remote document examination option,
stating that such an option reduces
burdens on employers and employees.
Some commenters raised concerns
about document fraud, while others
recommended measures to mitigate
such risk. DHS thanks the public for its
comments and encourages commenters
to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting comments in response to the
specific proposal contained in this
proposed rule, as well as the
alternatives presented. As noted below,
this proposed rule would not directly
authorize remote document
examination, but it would create a
11 See ‘‘ICE announces extension, new employee
guidance to I–9 compliance flexibility,’’ U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Effective
Apr. 1, 2021), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/
ice-announces-extension-new-employee-guidance-i9-compliance-flexibility.
12 See USCIS, DHS Extends Form I–9 Flexibility
(Effective Mar. 31, 2021), https://www.uscis.gov/i-9central/covid-19-form-i-9-related-news/dhsextends-form-i-9-requirement-flexibility-effectivemar-31-2021 (last updated Mar. 31, 2021); ICE
announces extension, new employee guidance to I–
9 compliance flexibility, https://www.ice.gov/news/
releases/ice-announces-extension-new-employeeguidance-i-9-compliance-flexibility (last updated
Apr. 1, 2021).
13 See DHS Extends Form I–9 Requirement
Flexibility (Effective May 1, 2022), https://
www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/covid-19-form-i-9related-news/dhs-extends-form-i-9-requirementflexibility-effective-may-1-2022 (last updated Apr.
25, 2022); ICE announces extension to I–9
compliance flexibility, https://www.ice.gov/news/
releases/ice-announces-extension-i-9-complianceflexibility-3 (last updated Apr. 25, 2022).
14 86 FR 59183.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:01 Aug 17, 2022

Jkt 256001

framework under which DHS could
pilot various options, respond to
emergencies similar to the COVID–19
pandemic, or implement permanent
flexibilities upon a specific
determination as to level of security,
including, but not limited to, fraud risk.
C. Need for the Proposed Change
DHS recognizes that more employers
may have adopted telework and remote
work arrangements because of the
COVID–19 pandemic. For instance, the
Pew Research Center conducted a study
to better understand how the work
experiences of employed adults had
changed during the pandemic. That
survey found that, among workers who
said their job responsibilities could
mainly be done from home, most said
that they rarely or never teleworked
before the pandemic. However, in
October 2020, 71 percent of those
workers were working from home all or
most of the time.15 In addition, on
March 11, 2021, the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics reported that nearly 1 in
4 people (22.7 percent) employed in
February 2021 teleworked or worked at
home for pay because of the COVID–19
pandemic.16 This rapid shift to telework
and remote work was possible because
of advances in technology and
workplace modernization, such as
cloud-based solutions that allowed
employees to work despite not
physically reporting to a company
location on a regular basis. For instance,
the study conducted by the Pew
Research Center found that, of those
workers doing their jobs from home all
or most of the time, about three-quarters
or more said it was easy to have the
technology and equipment they needed
to do their job and more than half said
they wanted to keep working from home
after the pandemic subsided, if given a
choice to do so.17 Another study by the
Pew Research Center found that the
impetus for working from home has
shifted considerably since 2020, with
more workers saying they are working
15 See Pew Research Center, How the Coronavirus
Outbreak Has—and Hasn’t—Changed the Way
Americans Work (Dec. 9, 2020), https://
www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/12/09/
how-the-coronavirus-outbreak-has-and-hasntchanged-the-way-americans-work/ (last visited Feb.
14, 2022).
16 See U.S. Bureau of labor Statistics, Mar. 11,
2021, The Economics Daily, https://www.bls.gov/
opub/ted/2021/workers-ages-25-to-54-more-likelyto-telework-due-to-covid-19-in-february-2021.htm
(last visited Oct. 20, 2021).
17 See Pew Research Center, How the Coronavirus
Outbreak Has—and Hasn’t—Changed the Way
Americans Work (Dec. 9, 2020), https://
www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/12/09/
how-the-coronavirus-outbreak-has-and-hasntchanged-the-way-americans-work/ (last visited Apr.
1, 2022).

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

50789

from home today by choice rather than
necessity. For instance, among workers
with a workplace outside of their home,
61 percent now say they are choosing
not to go into their physical workplace,
while only 38 percent say they are
working from home because their
physical workplace is closed. Earlier in
the pandemic, 64 percent said they were
working from home because their office
was closed.18 For these reasons, DHS
anticipates that work patterns for many
employees may be permanently
affected.
In light of these advances in
technology and new work arrangements,
DHS is exploring alternative options,
including making permanent some of
the current COVID–19 pandemic-related
flexibilities to examine employees’
identity and employment authorization
documents for the Form I–9. This rule
would not create such alternatives but
would instead formalize the authority
for the Secretary to extend flexibilities,
provide alternative options, or conduct
a pilot program to further evaluate an
alternative procedure option (in
addition to the procedures set forth in
regulations) for some or all employers,
regardless of whether their employees
physically report to work at a company
location. DHS would introduce any
such alternative procedure in a future
Federal Register notice that would
include the parameters for the
alternative procedures, any applicable
conditions for participation, and for
how long the alternative procedures
would be available.
D. Proposed Changes
To allow DHS to evaluate and
implement options that provide
employers with more flexibilities, and
in recognition of many employees’
changing work environments and
advances in technology, DHS proposes
to revise the language currently in 8
CFR 274a.2(b) and (c). This proposed
revision includes additional language in
paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(1)(vii), and
(c)(1)(ii) stating that an alternative
procedure may be authorized by the
Secretary for examining the
documentation presented by individuals
to establish identity 19 and/or
employment authorization when
completing Form I–9 when they are
18 See Pew Research Center, COVID–19 Pandemic
Continues To Reshape Work in America, (Feb. 16,
2022), https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/
2022/02/16/covid-19-pandemic-continues-toreshape-work-in-america/ (last visited Apr. 6,
2022).
19 This proposed rule relates to the physical
presentation or inspection of documents for the
Form I–9 only, and not to other regulatory programs
or requirements that may require physical
presentation or inspection of documents.

E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM

18AUP1

50790

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 159 / Thursday, August 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

hired, reverified, or rehired. Moreover, a
new paragraph (b)(1)(ix) would be
added to state that, in lieu of the
physical examination procedure
described in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A),
(b)(1)(vii), and (c)(1)(ii), the Secretary
may authorize optional alternative
documentation examination procedures
with respect to some or all employers,
and that such procedures may be
adopted as part of a pilot program, upon
the Secretary’s determination that such
procedures offer an equivalent level of
security, or as a temporary measure to
address a public health emergency
declared by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services or a national
emergency declared by the President.
DHS plans to introduce any such
alternative procedure in a future
Federal Register notice.
E. Proposed Form I–9 Changes and
Potential Conditions for Alternative
Procedures
DHS expects that any future
alternative procedures that may be
authorized by the Secretary for
examining the documentation presented
by individuals to establish identity and/
or employment authorization for the
Form I–9 when they are hired, have
their employment authorization
reverified, or rehired, may require the
employer (or agents acting on the
employer’s behalf) to indicate on the
Form I–9 whether documentation was
examined consistent with such
alternative procedure(s). Therefore, DHS
is proposing changes to the Form I–9
and its accompanying instructions that
would allow employers to indicate that
alternative procedures were used
(should such alternative procedures be
authorized in the future). Specifically,
DHS is proposing adding a box to the
Form I–9 that, if an alternative
procedure were used for either Section
2 or Section 3, an employer (or an agent
acting on an employer’s behalf) would
select to indicate that the employee’s
documentation was examined
consistent with the alternative
procedure(s). DHS is also proposing to
update the instructions to the Form I–
9 to explain the new box. These Form
I–9 changes would allow ICE, when
conducting an audit, to know that the
employer (or an agent acting on an
employer’s behalf) has represented that
the employer examined (and, if required
by the procedure, retained)
documentation consistent with the
alternative procedure(s). These changes
would help ICE enforce and monitor
compliance with the provisions of the
alternative procedure(s) referenced
above. DHS has provided estimates of
the resulting potential paperwork

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:01 Aug 17, 2022

Jkt 256001

burden changes related to the Form I–
9 in Section F, Paperwork Reduction
Act—Collection of Information.
DHS is considering other
requirements that may impact this
collection of information for any
alternative procedure that may be
authorized by the Secretary for
examining the documentation presented
by individuals to establish identity and
employment authorization for the Form
I–9. DHS invites comment on a range of
potential changes to the collection of
information.
Specifically, DHS welcomes
comments on the effects of the below
potential changes with respect to
employers, employees, and DHS,
including comments on the associated
burdens or benefits, such as reducing
risks to the integrity of the alternative
procedure(s), avoiding discrimination in
the process, and protecting privacy
interests:
1. DHS is considering various
document retention requirements. For
instance, DHS could impose some or all
of the document retention requirements
applicable to the remote examination
process during the flexibilities period
discussed above, which required
employers to retain copies of the
documentation employees chose to
present. DHS is also considering
requiring employers to retain copies of
any documents presented remotely via
video, fax, or email. DHS requests
comments on any cost(s) or increased
burden(s) for employers to retain such
documentation, as well as comments on
the benefits, costs, or any burdens for
employees related to such document
retention.
2. DHS is considering adding a
fraudulent document detection and/or
an anti-discrimination training
requirement for employers. For
example, the employer or authorized
representative who uses the alternative
procedure may be required to take a 30–
60-minute online training on detecting
fraudulent documents remotely and
avoiding discrimination in the process.
DHS requests comments on any cost(s)
or increased burden(s) for employers to
complete such training, as well as
comments on the benefits, costs, or any
burdens for employees related to such
training.
3. DHS is considering a variety of
options with respect to the population
that will be eligible to utilize the
alternative procedure(s), and requests
comments on such options and on how
they may affect the collection of
information. (For example, one potential
option for consideration might be to
limit the eligible population to those
employers who have enrolled, and are

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

participants in good standing, in EVerify; another potential option for
consideration might be to place some
limits on employers who have been the
subject of a fine, settlement, or
conviction related to employment
eligibility verification practices.) DHS
requests comments on all relevant
options with respect to the population
that will be eligible to use the
alternative procedure(s).
IV. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements
DHS developed this proposed rule
after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
The below sections summarize the
analyses based on a number of these
statutes or Executive orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563:
Regulatory Review
Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’) and 13563
(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review’’) 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). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
designated this rule a significant
regulatory action, although not
economically significant, under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, this rule has been
reviewed by OMB.
This proposed rule would allow the
Secretary to authorize alternative
options for document examination
procedures with respect to some or all
employers when they are hired, have
their employment authorization
reverified, or rehired, as part of a pilot
program, upon the Secretary’s
determination that such procedures
offer an equivalent level of security, or
as a temporary measure to address a
public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services
or a national emergency declared by the
President. The proposed rule would not
itself implement an alternative
procedure to physical examination. If an
alternative procedure is authorized, this
would provide employers (or agents
acting on an employer’s behalf) an
alternative option for examining the
Form I–9 documentation presented by
individuals seeking to establish identity

E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM

18AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 159 / Thursday, August 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
and/or employment authorization. This
proposed rule would also allow the
Secretary the option of conducting a
pilot program before deciding whether
to use the option provided in this rule.
If DHS introduces an alternative
procedure, employers would still have
the option to physically examine
documents for the Form I–9 and would
not be required to use the alternative
method.
DHS has examined the potential
impacts of an alternative procedure to
physical examination. However, DHS is
currently unable to fully quantify these
potential impacts due to a lack of
information about the specifics of a
possible future alternative procedure.
DHS discusses some of the potential
impacts below. DHS also includes an
estimate of the cost to employers for the
Form I–9 revisions proposed in this
rule.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Impacts of Form I–9 Revisions
As discussed in Section III, DHS is
proposing to add boxes to Sections 2
and 3 of the Form I–9 that an employer
(or an agent acting on an employer’s
behalf) must select if using any available
alternative procedure(s) and to make
corresponding edits to the form’s
instructions. DHS estimates that it
would take an employer one minute to
read the revised instructions about the
box indicating if an employer used the
alternative procedure(s) and mark the
box, if needed, or 0.02 hours (1 minute/
60 minutes). Employer estimates and
wage rates are taken from the existing
Collection of Information, titled
‘‘Employment Eligibility Verification’’,
OMB Control Number 1615–0047. DHS
uses the same wage rates and employer
estimates to maintain consistency and to
capture the changes due to this
proposed rule. DHS estimates the total
number of employers who complete the
Form I–9 annually is 55,400,000.20
Assuming all employers would read the
revised instructions about the new
boxes, the total annual increase in time
burden for employers would be
1,108,000 hours (0.02 hours ×
55,400,000 employers). Using a fully
loaded wage rate of $35.78 per hour,
DHS estimates the total annual costs to
employers for the additional box would
be $39,644,240 (1,108,000 hours ×
$35.78 per hour).
Potential Impacts of an Alternative
Procedure
If the alternative procedure option
(not requiring the physical examination
20 Estimates can be found in the document titled
‘‘I–9 Supporting Statement’’ available at https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAView
Document?ref_nbr=201906-1615-001.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:01 Aug 17, 2022

Jkt 256001

of Form I–9 documentation) becomes
available to some or all employers, the
employers who decide to exercise this
option may face new costs. If, for
example, the alternative procedures
were to make permanent the COVID–19
flexibilities for remote examination (e.g.,
examination done over video, fax, or
email) or other similar remote
examination procedures, the new costs
could include the acquisition and set-up
costs for any new information
technology that may be needed for this
purpose. Employers may also incur the
related costs of training personnel to
operate any new equipment or to apply
the alternative procedures. If employers
choose to delegate this work to
contractors, they would also face
additional contracting costs.
Furthermore, if DHS authorizes
alternative procedures on the condition
that participating employers engage in
particular activities, such as enrolling in
E-Verify, collecting and retaining images
of Form I–9 documents presented by
employees, or completing related
fraudulent document detection and/or
anti-discrimination training, these
conditions may entail costs and benefits
as well. For example, if the alternative
procedure(s) require(s) E-Verify
enrollment, any unenrolled employers
who choose to enroll in E-Verify to use
the alternative procedure may incur
costs associated with enrollment (such
as the time it takes to enroll, complete
any required training, and remain
participants in good standing). DHS
expects employers will only opt to use
the alternative procedure(s) if they
believe it is in their best interests to do
so. Therefore, DHS expects that the
benefits to employers using the
alternative procedures option would
outweigh the costs. DHS requests
comments on the types of costs that
employers may face if the Secretary
were to authorize an alternative
procedure to the physical examination
of documentation presented by
individuals to establish identity and/or
employment authorization for the Form
I–9. DHS specifically calls commenters’
attention to the types of conditions
identified above.
As an example of potential benefits to
employers who exercise the alternative
procedure(s) option, we can consider
those employers who operate in more
than one location. These employers may
be able to allow their human resources
staff to perform the examination and
verification procedure for Form I–9
documents from a single location or
remotely, rather than having the
verification performed at each location
or be required to use an authorized

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

50791

representative to perform physical
document examination on the
employers’ behalf. By centralizing their
Form I–9 processing in this manner,
these employers may streamline the
completion of the Form I–9 and also be
able to reap the savings that would
result from these economies of scale. In
addition, contractors that perform the
same operations may be able to benefit
in the same way from such economies
of scale. With the existence of
competition among those contractors,
the costs to firms that hire these
contractors may be reduced as well if
those contractors can perform the work
at a lower cost.
The alternative procedures would
potentially offer benefits to new and
rehired employees as well as those
whose employment authorization needs
to be reverified, especially in cases
where they may not need to make an
extra trip to a company location to allow
for the physical examination of their
Form I–9 documentation. Recent
statistics on commuting times have
indicated that most workers (who do not
work from home) travel, on average,
about one hour, roundtrip, to commute
to work each day.21 By potentially
minimizing travel, the alternative
procedures would save time spent
commuting to a physical location and
other travel expenses (such as road tolls
and gasoline), as well as save employers
the expenses they incur receiving
employees at a company location, such
as preparing visitors badges.
Additional potential benefits to
employees and employers may arise
from the alternative procedures in the
area of remote work. Employers who are
seeking to hire new remote workers or
rehire former employees will have
greater flexibility to hire a new
employee who would otherwise have
difficulty making the trip to a company
location to physically present his or her
identity and employment authorization
documentation. Thus, in some cases, the
alternative procedures may enable some
employers to benefit from a larger pool
of candidates competing for the
employer’s available positions. By the
same token, individuals seeking
employment may be able to seek
positions from a larger field of potential
employers.
DHS requests comments about the
costs and benefits from the physical
examination of Form I–9 documentation
with respect to: (1) employers hiring
employees, or (2) employees seeking,
21 Average One-Way Commuting Time by
Metropolitan Area, U.S. Census Bureau, https://
www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/
travel-time.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2021).

E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM

18AUP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

50792

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 159 / Thursday, August 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules

obtaining, or re-obtaining employment.
DHS also requests comments on any
cost savings that employers or
employees may incur if the Secretary
were to authorize an alternative
procedure to the physical examination
of documentation presented by
individuals to establish identity and
employment authorization for the Form
I–9.

addresses actions that may result in the
expenditure by a State, local, or tribal
government, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted
for inflation) or more in any year. This
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, and for this reason, no
additional actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the
UMRA.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DHS has reviewed this proposed rule
in accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601–
612), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, Public Law 104–121, tit. II, 110
Stat. 847. This rule would allow the
Secretary to authorize alternative
options for document examination
procedures with respect to some or all
employers as part of a pilot program,
upon the Secretary’s determination that
such procedures offer an equivalent
level of security, or as a temporary
measure to address a public health
emergency declared by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services or a
national emergency declared by the
President. The proposed rule would not
itself implement an alternative
procedure to physical inspection. If
DHS introduces an alternative
procedure, employers would still have
the option to physically examine
documents for the Form I–9 and would
not be required to use the alternative
method(s). Accordingly, DHS certifies
that this rule will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act—Collection
of Information
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–12, DHS must
submit to OMB, for review and
approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule unless they are
exempt.
DHS invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to comment on
the impact of the proposed collection of
information. In accordance with the
PRA, the information collection notice
is published in the Federal Register to
obtain comments regarding the
proposed edits to the information
collection instrument. DHS calls
commenters’ attention to the proposal to
add boxes to Sections 2 and 3 of the
Form I–9 and to revise the form
instructions to refer to alternative
procedures. If you have questions
concerning this proposal, contact the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document. DHS
also welcomes comments on the
burden(s) associated with the potential
conditions for using alternative
procedures, as described earlier in this
preamble. Following this period of
public comment, DHS may seek OMB
approval to further revise the collection
of information to accommodate such
potential conditions following
publication of the final rule, pilot
program, or alternative procedures, if
and when appropriate.
Comments are encouraged and will be
accepted for 60 days from the
publication date of the proposed rule.
Comments on this information
collection should address one or more
of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who

C. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
Pursuant to Section 213(a) of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–
121, 110 Stat. 847, 858–59, DHS wants
to assist small entities in understanding
this proposed rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects and participate
in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please use the contact
information provided in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reforms Act of
1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538)
requires federal agencies to assess the
effects of their discretionary regulatory
actions. In particular, the UMRA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:01 Aug 17, 2022

Jkt 256001

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of 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; Business or other for-profit.
The Form I–9 was developed to
facilitate compliance with Section 274A
of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
as amended by the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986, making
employment of unauthorized aliens
unlawful and diminishing the flow of
illegal workers in the United States.
DHS is revising this form and its
accompanying instructions to
correspond with revisions related to any
alternative procedure(s) that may be
authorized by the Secretary for
examining the documentation presented
by individuals to establish identity and
employment authorization for the Form
I–9.
(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–9 for Employers is
55,400,000 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 0.35 hours. The
estimated total number of respondents
for the information collection I–9 for
Employees is 55,400,000 and the
estimated hour burden per response is
0.17 hours. The estimated total number
of respondents for the information
collection Record Keeping is 20,000,000
and the estimated hour burden per
response is 0.08 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 30,408,000 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.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under section 6 of Executive Order

E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM

18AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 159 / Thursday, August 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
13132, Federalism, if it has 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. DHS has analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and
has determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
DHS has analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. DHS has
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 but is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
I. National Environmental Policy Act
DHS Management Directive 023–01
Rev. 01 and Instruction Manual 023–01–
001–01 Rev. 01 establish the policy and
procedures that DHS and its
Components use to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321–4375, and
the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations for implementing NEPA, 40
CFR parts 1500 through 1508.
The CEQ regulations enable federal
agencies to establish categories of
actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment and, therefore,
do not require an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement. 40 CFR 1508.4. The DHS
Categorical Exclusions are listed in IM
023–01–001–01 Rev. 01, Appendix A,
Table 1.
For an action to be categorically
excluded, the action must satisfy each of
the following three conditions:
(1) The entire action clearly fits
within one or more of the Categorical
Exclusions;
(2) The action is not a piece of a larger
action; and
(3) No extraordinary circumstances
exist that create the potential for a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:01 Aug 17, 2022

Jkt 256001

significant environmental effect. IM
023–01–001–01 Rev. 01
section V(B)(2)(a)–(c).
If the action does not clearly meet all
three conditions, DHS or the
Component prepares an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement, according to CEQ
requirements, MD 023–01, and IM 023–
01–001–01 Rev. 01.
DHS has analyzed this action under
MD 023–01 Rev. 01 and IM 023–01–
001–01 Rev.01. DHS has made a
determination that this rulemaking
action is one of a category of actions
which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This action
clearly fits within the Categorical
Exclusions found in IM 023–01–001–01
Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1, numbers
A3(a) and (d): ‘‘Promulgation of rules,
issuance of rulings or interpretations,
and the development and publication of
policies, orders, directives, notices,
procedures, manuals, advisory
circulars, and other guidance
documents of the following nature: (a)
Those of a strictly administrative or
procedural nature [and] (d) Those that
interpret or amend an existing
regulation without changing its
environmental effect.’’ This rule is not
part of a larger action. This rule presents
no extraordinary circumstances creating
the potential for significant
environmental effects. Therefore, more
detailed NEPA review is not necessary.
DHS seeks any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of any significant
environmental effects from this rule.
J. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
K. Executive Order 12630:
Governmental Actions and Interference
With Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
This proposed rule would not cause a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

50793

L. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 requires
agencies to consider the impacts of
environmental health risk or safety risk
that may disproportionately affect
children. DHS has reviewed this
proposed rule and determined that this
proposed rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children. Therefore, DHS has not
prepared a statement under this
executive order.
M. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through OMB, with
an explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise
impracticable. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation, test methods,
sampling procedures, and related
management systems practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. This
proposed rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, DHS did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
N. Family Assessment
DHS has determined that this action
would not affect family well-being
within the meaning of section 654 of the
Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, enacted as part of
the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L.
105–277, 112 Stat. 2681).
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 274a
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange
program, Employment, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Students, Verification of
identity and employment.
Regulatory Amendments
Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend
part 274a of chapter I, subchapter B, of
title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM

18AUP1

50794

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 159 / Thursday, August 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules

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

■

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1105a,
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.

2. Section 274a.2 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) and
the second sentence in paragraph
(b)(1)(vii).
■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(ix).
■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii).
The addition and revisions read as
follows:
■
■

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

(ii) If upon inspection of the Form I–
9, the employer determines that the
individual’s employment authorization
has expired, the employer must reverify
such employment authorization on the
Form I–9 in accordance with paragraph
(b)(1)(vii) of this section, including
complying with the applicable
document presentation and examination
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A)
and (b)(1)(ix) of this section, and form
instructions; otherwise the individual
may no longer be employed.
*
*
*
*
*
Alejandro N. Mayorkas,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security.
[FR Doc. 2022–17737 Filed 8–17–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–28–P

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Physically examine (or otherwise
examine pursuant to an alternative
procedure authorized by the Secretary
under paragraph (b)(1)(ix) of this
section) the documentation presented
by the individual establishing identity
and employment authorization as set
forth in paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this
section and ensure that the documents
presented appear to be genuine and to
relate to the individual; and
*
*
*
*
*
(vii) *** Reverification on the Form I–
9 must occur not later than the date
work authorization expires and must
comply with the applicable document
presentation and examination
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A)
and (b)(1)(ix) of this section, and form
instructions. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(ix) As an optional alternative to the
physical examination procedure
described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of
this section, the Secretary may authorize
alternative documentation examination
procedures with respect to some or all
employers. The Secretary may adopt
such procedures:
(A) As part of a pilot program;
(B) Upon the Secretary’s
determination that such procedures
offer an equivalent level of security; or
(C) As a temporary measure to address
a public health emergency declared by
the Secretary of Health and Human
Services pursuant to Section 319 of the
Public Health Service Act, or a national
emergency declared by the President
pursuant to Sections 201 and 301 of the
National Emergencies Act.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:01 Aug 17, 2022

Jkt 256001

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY
12 CFR Part 1282
RIN 2590–AB21

2023–2024 Multifamily Enterprise
Housing Goals
Federal Housing Finance
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:

The Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA or the Agency) is issuing
a proposed rule with request for
comments on the multifamily housing
goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
(the Enterprises) for 2023 and 2024. The
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (the
Safety and Soundness Act) requires
FHFA to establish annual housing goals
for mortgages purchased by the
Enterprises. Under FHFA’s existing
housing goals regulation, the
multifamily housing goals for the
Enterprises include benchmark levels
through the end of 2022 based on the
total number of affordable units in
multifamily properties financed by
mortgage loans purchased by the
Enterprise each year. This proposed rule
would amend the regulation to establish
benchmark levels for the multifamily
housing goals for 2023 and 2024 based
on a new methodology—the percentage
of affordable units in multifamily
properties financed by mortgages
purchased by the Enterprise each year.
DATES: FHFA will accept written
comments on the proposed rule on or
before October 17, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments on the proposed rule,
identified by regulatory information
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

number (RIN) 2590–AB21, by any one of
the following methods:
• Agency Website: www.fhfa.gov/
open-for-comment-or-input.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. If
you submit your comment to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also
send it by email to FHFA at
[email protected] to ensure
timely receipt by FHFA. Include the
following information in the subject line
of your submission: Comments/RIN
2590–AB21.
• Hand Delivered/Courier: The hand
delivery address is: Clinton Jones,
General Counsel, Attention: Comments/
RIN 2590–AB21, Federal Housing
Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street
SW, Washington, DC 20219. Deliver the
package at the Seventh Street entrance
Guard Desk, First Floor, on business
days between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
• U.S. Mail, United Parcel Service,
Federal Express, or Other Mail Service:
The mailing address for comments is:
Clinton Jones, General Counsel,
Attention: Comments/RIN 2590–AB21,
Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400
Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC
20219. Please note that all mail sent to
FHFA via U.S. Mail is routed through a
national irradiation facility, a process
that may delay delivery by
approximately two weeks.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted
Wartell, Associate Director, Housing
and Community Investment, Division of
Housing Mission and Goals, (202) 649–
3157, [email protected]; Padmasini
Raman, Supervisory Policy Analyst,
Housing and Community Investment,
Division of Housing Mission and Goals,
(202) 649–3633, Padmasini.Raman@
fhfa.gov; Kevin Sheehan, Associate
General Counsel, Office of General
Counsel, (202) 649–3086,
[email protected]. These are not
toll-free numbers. The mailing address
is: Federal Housing Finance Agency,
400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC
20219. For TTY/TRS users with hearing
and speech disabilities, dial 711 and ask
to be connected to any of the contact
numbers above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Comments
FHFA invites comments on all aspects
of the proposed rule and will take all
comments germane to the proposed rule
into consideration before issuing a final
rule. Copies of all such comments will
be posted without change, including
any personal information you provide
such as your name, address, email
address, and telephone number, on

E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM

18AUP1