This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

21225 

Vol. 76, No. 73 

Friday, April 15, 2011 

1Title 8 CFR 274a.2(a)(1) provides that ‘‘[f]or 

purposes of complying with section 274A(b) of the 

[INA] and this section, all references to recruiters 

and referrers for a fee are limited to a person or 

entity who is either an agricultural association, 

agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as 

defined in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal 

Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Pub. L. 97– 

470).’’ 

2Note that an expiration date on Form I–551 does 

not trigger the reverification requirement. See 

‘‘Handbook for Employers, Instructions for 

Completing Form I–9’’ (M–274) (Rev. 01/05/11), 

http://www.uscis.gov, (‘‘Handbook for Employers’’), 

pages 9 and 39. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

8 CFR Part 274a 

[CIS No. 2441–08; Docket No. USCIS–2008– 

0001] 

RIN 1615–AB69 

Documents Acceptable for 

Employment Eligibility Verification 

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule finalizes without 

change a 2008 interim final rule 

amending Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) regulations governing 

the types of acceptable identity and 

employment authorization documents 

(EADs) and receipts that employees may 

present to employers for completion of 

Form I–9, Employment Eligibility 

Verification. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 

16, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Letitia Coffin, Verification Division, 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, Department of Homeland 

Security, 131 M Street, NE., Suite 200, 

Washington, DC 20002, telephone (888) 

464–4218 or e-mail at Everify@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

supplementary section is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Interim Rule 

B. Final Rule 

II. Public Comments on the Interim Rule 

A. Summary of Comments 

B. Requiring Unexpired Documents 

C. Comprehensive Review of the Form I– 

9 Process 

D. The 1998 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

E. Mistake in Interim Rule 

F. Delay in Effective Date of Interim Rule 

G. Comments to the Form I–9 

H. Suggested Revisions to the Lists of 

Acceptable Documents 

I. Standardizing State and Federal 

Document Requirements 

J. Requests for Outreach and Guidance 

K. Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

I. Background 

All employers, agricultural recruiters 

and referrers for a fee 1 (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as ‘‘employer(s)’’) 

are required to verify the identity and 

employment authorization of each 

individual they hire for employment in 

the United States, regardless of the 

individual’s citizenship. See 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 

section 274A(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 

1324a(a)(1)(B). As part of the 

verification process, employers must 

complete Form I–9, ‘‘Employment 

Eligibility Verification,’’ retain the form 

for a statutorily established period of 

time, and make the form available for 

inspection by certain government 

officials. See INA sec. 274A(b), 8 U.S.C. 

1324a(b); 8 CFR 274a.2. On Form I–9, a 

newly hired employee must attest to 

being a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful 

permanent resident (LPR), or an alien 

authorized to work in the United States. 

The employee then must present to his 

or her employer a document or 

combination of documents designated 

by statute and regulation as acceptable 

for establishing identity and 

employment authorization. The 

employer must examine the document, 

record the document information on 

Form I–9, and attest that the document 

reasonably appears both to be genuine 

and to relate to the individual 

presenting it. 

The Form I–9 has three categories of 

documents that employers may accept, 

alone or in combination, for 

employment authorization verification: 

(1) List A—documents that establish 

both identity and employment 

authorization (e.g., U.S. passport; Form 

I–551, ‘‘Permanent Resident Card;’’ or 

Form I–766, ‘‘Employment 

Authorization Document’’); 

(2) List B—documents that establish 

only identity (e.g., State-issued driver’s 

license or identification card); and 

(3) List C—documents that establish 

only employment authorization (e.g., 

State-issued birth certificate or an 

unrestricted Social Security Account 

Number card). 

See INA section 274A(b)(1)(B), (C) and 

(D), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)(1)(B), (C), and (D); 

8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(A), (B) and (C). An 

individual must present to his or her 

employer either one document from List 

A or one document each from List B and 

List C. The employer may not specify a 

document or combination of documents 

that the employee must present. See 

INA section 274B(a)(6), 8 U.S.C. 

1324b(a)(6); 8 CFR 274a.1(l)(2). 

If the employee cannot present an 

acceptable document from one of the 

three lists, he or she may present an 

acceptable substitute document, referred 

to as a ‘‘receipt.’’ See 8 CFR 

274a.2(b)(1)(vi) (commonly referred to 

as ‘‘the receipt rule’’). The receipt 

satisfies the document presentation 

requirement for a short period of time, 

at the end of which the employee must 

present the actual document or other 

documents specified in the regulations 

as acceptable to present. An employer 

may accept a receipt, however, only 

under specific circumstances prescribed 

under 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vi). For 

example, if a document acceptable 

under Lists A, B, or C is stolen or lost, 

the new hire may provide a receipt for 

the application for the replacement 

document, in lieu of the actual 

document, as long as he or she provides 

the replacement document within 90 

days of hire. If the individual employee 

is an alien whose employment 

authorization or employment 

authorization documentation expires, 

the employer must reverify the 

employee’s continued employment 

authorization by the expiration date by 

reviewing any acceptable List A or List 

C document.2 See 8 CFR 

274a.2(b)(1)(vii). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
21226 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

3On February 3, 2009, DHS delayed the effective 

date of the December 17, 2008, interim rule to April 

3, 2009 to provide DHS with an opportunity for 

further consideration of the interim rule. The 

February 3, 2009 document also extended the 

public comment period until March 4, 2009. See 74 

FR 5899. 

4See supra footnote 3. 

A. Interim Rule 

On December 17, 2008, DHS 

published an interim rule amending 

DHS regulations governing the Form I– 

9 process. See 73 FR 76505. The interim 

rule became effective on April 3, 2009.3

DHS improved the integrity of the Form 

I–9 process by: 

• Prohibiting employers from 

accepting expired documents. Expired 

documents may not demonstrate the 

correct status of the bearer; are prone to 

tampering and fraudulent use; and may 

create confusion among employers. This 

change is intended to ensure that the 

documents accepted by employers as 

evidence of an employee’s identity and 

employment authorization are valid and 

reliable; 

• Removing Form I–688, ‘‘Temporary 

Resident Card,’’ and Forms I–688A and 

I–688B, ‘‘Employment Authorization 

Cards,’’ from the Lists of Acceptable 

Documents because USCIS no longer 

issues these documents and any such 

documents in possession of an 

employee would now have expired; 

• Adding to the List of Acceptable 

Documents on List A of Form I–9: (1) 

The new U.S. passport card and (2) the 

temporary Form I–551, ‘‘Permanent 

Resident Card,’’ with a printed notation 

on a machine-readable immigrant visa; 

• Adding documentation for certain 

citizens of the Federated States of 

Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of 

the Marshall Islands (RMI) to List A to 

more accurately reflect their status 

under the Compacts of Free Association. 

In addition to the amendments made 

by the 2008 interim rule, USCIS issued 

an amended Form I–9 which clarified 

changes, such as providing a separate 

box for noncitizen nationals to clearly 

delineate U.S. citizens from noncitizen 

nationals, and making minor format 

changes that make the form easier to 

use. 

On January 16, 2009, DHS published 

a correction to the interim rule to 

remove extraneous language from two 

paragraphs of the regulation that 

describe a type of receipt that can be 

presented by lawful permanent 

residents to their employers in lieu of 

the Form I–551, ‘‘Permanent Resident 

Card,’’ for completion of Form I–9. See 

74 FR 2838. 

On February 3, 2009, DHS extended 

the comment period for the interim rule 

to March 4, 2009. See 74 FR 5899.4

During the entire comment period, DHS 

received 75 comments. These comments 

came from a broad spectrum of 

individuals and organizations, 

including refugee and immigrant 

services advocacy organizations and 

public policy and advocacy groups. 

Many commenters addressed multiple 

issues and provided variations on the 

same substantive issues. 

In preparing this final rule, DHS 

considered the comments that were 

received during the comment period 

and were within the scope of this 

rulemaking as well as the other 

materials contained in the docket. The 

final rule does not address comments 

seeking changes in United States 

statutes, changes in regulations or 

petitions unrelated to or not addressed 

by the interim rule, changes in 

procedures of other components within 

DHS or other agencies, or the resolution 

of any other issues not within the scope 

of the rulemaking or the authority of 

DHS. 

All comments may be reviewed at the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov, 

docket number USCIS–2008–0001. 

B. Final Rule 

The final rule adopts, without change, 

all of the regulatory amendments set 

forth in the interim rule. The rationale 

for the interim rule and the reasoning 

provided in the preamble to the interim 

rule remain valid with respect to these 

regulatory amendments, and DHS 

adopts such reasoning in support of the 

promulgation of this final rule. 

II. Public Comments on the Interim 

Rule 

A. Summary of Comments 

Many commenters supported the 

improvements to the Form I–9 process 

made in the interim rule, such as: 

Prohibiting employers from accepting 

expired documents; removing certain 

documents no longer issued by USCIS; 

adding two new documents to List A; 

adding documentation for certain 

citizens of the FSM and RMI to List A; 

and making clarifying changes to Form 

I–9, such as providing a separate box for 

noncitizen nationals. Most commenters 

discussed the prohibition on employers 

from accepting expired documents and 

supported the change because they 

believe that this change would prevent 

unauthorized aliens from obtaining 

employment in the United States by 

using expired documents which are 

more susceptible to fraud and 

counterfeiting than unexpired 

documents. 

Although most commenters supported 

one or more changes to the Form I–9 

process, several commenters opposed 

the prohibition on the use of expired 

documents because they believe that 

many employment-authorized 

individuals such as asylees, refugees, 

and conditional residents should not be 

required to present an unexpired 

document as evidence of employment 

authorization. The commenters were 

concerned that such employees will be 

unable to work if processing or issuance 

of a new document is delayed. Several 

commenters also opposed the 

prohibition on the use of expired 

documents because they believe that 

these changes will create additional 

burdens and costs for employers and 

employees. Some of the commenters 

who opposed the prohibition on the use 

of expired documents requested a delay 

in implementation of the interim rule. 

In response to public comments 

requesting an extension of the effective 

date, DHS delayed the effective date of 

the interim rule from February 2, 2009, 

to April 3, 2009. See 74 FR 5899. 

Many commenters pointed out the 

need for comprehensive immigration 

reform including a thorough review of 

the Form I–9 process. Some commenters 

suggested improvements to the Form I– 

9 process such as: Biometrics; providing 

the public a truly electronic Form I–9; 

and detailed changes to the form. Other 

commenters discussed document 

reduction or suggested changes to the 

acceptability of specific document types 

such as: School IDs; U.S. Passports; 

State-issued drivers’ licenses including 

enhanced drivers’ licenses; voter 

registration cards; Native American 

tribal documents; and the Certificates of 

Citizenship and Naturalization. 

Comments that were received are 

addressed below and are organized by 

subject area. Comments related to the 

economic burdens of this rule are 

addressed in the Executive Order 12866 

and Regulatory Flexibility Act sections 

of part III of the Supplementary 

Information. 

B. Requiring Unexpired Documents 

DHS received 23 comments 

addressing the interim rule’s 

requirement that all documents 

presented for Form I–9 be unexpired. 

Fifteen commenters supported the 

requirement and eight commenters 

opposed it. Most of the commenters 

who supported the requirement wrote 

that allowing employers to accept 

expired documents would lead to the 

inadvertent acceptance of fraudulent 

documents and, therefore, the 

employment of unauthorized aliens. 

Some commenters who supported the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 21227 

5See Memorandum by Michael Aytes, Former 

Acting Director, USCIS, Response to 

Recommendation 35, Recommendations on USCIS 

Processing Delays for Employment Authorization 

Documents, (Jan. 2, 2009) (available at http:// 

www.dhs.gov (Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman page)). 

requirement wrote that this change 

eliminates confusion in the Form I–9 

process and that requiring unexpired 

documents provides benefits to law 

enforcement. 

1. Continued Acceptance of Expired 

Documents 

Eight commenters opposed the 

requirement that documents must be 

unexpired for Form I–9 and stated that 

employers should be able to continue to 

accept expired documents as permitted 

before the interim rule went into effect. 

Five of these commenters proposed the 

continued acceptance of expired 

documents for varying periods between 

30 days and five years after expiration 

of the document. Two of these 

commenters wrote that the cost of 

obtaining replacement documents was 

too high. One commenter wrote that 

refugees and asylees should be excused 

from this requirement because these 

individuals are authorized for 

employment incident to their status. 

DHS is retaining the requirement that 

documents be unexpired and is not 

adopting the commenters’ suggestions to 

continue accepting expired documents. 

Concerns about document fraud were 

among the most important reasons for 

this rulemaking. Unexpired documents 

are more likely to contain up-to-date 

security features that make them less 

vulnerable to counterfeiting and fraud. 

Because expired documents may lack 

security features or may have outdated 

security features, these documents can 

more easily be counterfeited. 

DHS disagrees with the commenters 

who wrote that expired documents 

should be allowed within specified 

parameters (e.g., 30 days after 

expiration). Establishing a requirement 

that all documents be unexpired sets a 

clear standard that is easy for U.S. 

employers to apply. Such a requirement 

honors the time limits of validity placed 

on documents by their issuing 

authorities. In addition, precluding 

employers from accepting expired 

documents alleviates confusion when 

determining whether documents are 

valid for Form I–9 and helps to ensure 

that the documents relate to the person 

presenting them. Moreover, disallowing 

the acceptance of expired documents 

reduces document fraud and may 

prevent unauthorized aliens, criminals 

and even terrorists from evading 

detection. 

2. Refugees and Asylees 

One commenter requested that DHS 

allow employers to accept Employment 

Authorization Documents (EADs) 

presented by refugees and asylees that 

have been expired no longer than 90 

days. The commenter wrote that neither 

group requires an EAD because both are 

authorized to work incident to their 

lawful immigration status. 

DHS has not adopted the commenter’s 

request in this final rule. DHS is aware 

of the many difficulties that refugees 

and asylees face in adapting to a new 

life in the United States and has 

carefully considered those difficulties as 

they relate to employment 

authorization. However, permitting the 

use of expired documents for Form I–9, 

even for the limited period of 90 days 

as suggested by the commenter, 

introduces vulnerabilities into the 

verification process that undermine the 

purpose of the process as a whole. The 

EAD is not the only acceptable 

document that refugees and asylees may 

present for Form I–9 purposes. They 

may satisfy Form I–9 requirements by 

presenting a combination of a List B and 

a List C document, such as a Stateissued driver’s license and an 

unrestricted Social Security Account 

Number card. Many refugees and 

asylees instead choose to present an 

EAD because of the simplicity of having 

a List A document that meets identity 

and employment authorization 

requirements. DHS acknowledges the 

desire for simplicity on the part of both 

groups; however, permitting the use of 

expired EADs for only refugees and 

asylees and for only a 90-day period 

after a particular document’s expiration 

conflicts with DHS’ desire to provide a 

consistent rule prohibiting the use of 

expired documents. 

3. Alleged Delays in the Issuance of 

Documents by USCIS 

Five commenters wrote that expired 

documents should be acceptable 

because USCIS is unable to timely 

process applications for new documents 

demonstrating employment 

authorization. 

DHS is not adopting the commenters’ 

recommendations. DHS processes 

applications for renewal of immigrationrelated documents in a timely manner 

for applicants who apply to renew their 

immigration documents with sufficient 

planning in advance of expiration dates. 

In the event of a processing delay or 

unforeseen emergency, or for 

applications filed too close to the 

documents’ expiration dates, applicants 

may request expedited processing. The 

regulations at 8 CFR 274a.13(d) impose 

a 90-day processing time for DHS to 

adjudicate applications for Form I–765, 

‘‘Application for Employment 

Authorization Document,’’ and to issue 

an EAD. DHS records indicate that the 

current average cycle time for Form I– 

765 processing was 1.9 months as of 

November 2008.5 Aliens whose 

applications for employment 

authorization have been pending for 

more than 90 days may call USCIS to 

request expedited processing of their 

applications. Lawful permanent 

residents (LPRs) seeking to replace a 

Form I–551, ‘‘Permanent Resident Card,’’ 

that has expired or has been lost, stolen, 

or mutilated can present other nonUSCIS documents to meet Form I–9 

requirements, such as a State-issued 

driver’s license and an unrestricted 

Social Security Account Number card, 

until a new card can be issued. In the 

alternative, LPRs may request a 

temporary Form I–551 stamp in their 

passports or on Form I–94, ‘‘ArrivalDeparture Record,’’ that is evidence of 

LPR status while their renewal or 

replacement application is pending. 

Consequently, DHS does not adopt the 

commenters’ recommendations. 

Two of the five commenters also 

wrote that if USCIS precludes the use of 

expired documents, then USCIS should 

adopt a rule that permits employers to 

accept, in lieu of an acceptable Form 

I–9 document, a receipt for the 

application of replacement of an expired 

document, for a 240-day period. These 

two commenters also stated that the 

current 90-day period provides 

insufficient time to present proper 

documentation due to USCIS’s 

processing delays. 

DHS is not adopting the suggestion by 

the commenter to expand the period of 

time that a receipt for the application for 

a replacement document may be used in 

lieu of a document listed as acceptable 

for Form I–9. The commenter is 

referring to the ‘‘receipt rule’’ which 

allows employers to accept a document 

specified in the regulations as a 

‘‘receipt’’ in lieu of a List A, B, or C 

document for a temporary period. Under 

the receipt rule, an employer may 

accept a receipt for the application for 

a replacement document for a 90-day 

period for Form I–9 if the List A, B, or 

C document that is being replaced has 

been lost, stolen, or damaged. See 8 CFR 

274a.2(b)(1)(vi)(A). Because the receipt 

rule only applies if the List A, B, or C 

document has been lost, stolen, or 

damaged, and not when the document 

has expired, it is not relevant to DHS’s 

preclusion of the use of expired 

documents. 

Another commenter wrote that 

refugees should be permitted a grace 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
21228 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

6Part Three, ‘‘Photocopying and Retaining Form 

I–9’’ ‘‘Handbook for Employers, Instructions for 

Completing Form I–9’’ (M–274) (Rev. 01/05/11), 

http://www.uscis.gov, pages 23–26. 

period of 90 days from the requirement 

that they present an unexpired 

document because refugees are 

employment-authorized incident to 

their status and may not receive an 

initial EAD from USCIS in a timely 

manner. The commenter also wrote that 

refugees may not be aware that expired 

documents are no longer acceptable. 

DHS has not adopted the commenter’s 

suggestions in this final rule. USCIS 

expedites applications for those refugees 

who choose to apply for an EAD. DHS 

records show that, in most instances, 

USCIS issues EADs to refugees within 

two weeks of their admission to the 

United States. In addition, current 

regulations already contain a ‘‘90-day 

grace period’’ for refugees. Until refugees 

receive their EADs, they may present 

Form I–94, ‘‘Arrival-Departure Record,’’ 

with an unexpired refugee admission 

stamp as temporary proof of 

employment authorization. See 8 CFR 

274a.2(b)(1)(vi)(C)(1). Refugees have 90 

days from receipt of the admission 

stamp to present either an EAD or a 

combination of a List B and List C 

document. See 8 CFR 

274a.2(b)(1)(vi)(C)(2). 

4. Definition of an Unexpired Document 

One commenter requested that DHS 

provide a definition of the term 

‘‘unexpired.’’ In general, DHS considers 

a document to be unexpired when the 

expiration date on the face of the 

document, if any, has not passed. DHS 

is not, however, including a formal 

definition of ‘‘unexpired’’ in this final 

rule. DHS has determined that, given 

the wide variety of documents 

acceptable for Form I–9 purposes, and 

the fact that the term has been present 

in the regulations for many years, it 

would not be appropriate or necessary 

to provide an all-encompassing 

definition of the term in this 

rulemaking. DHS will provide guidance 

to the public in response to specific 

questions concerning particular 

documents as appropriate. 

C. Comprehensive Review of the Form 

I–9 Process 

Six commenters expressed concerns 

about the entire Form I–9 employment 

verification process. Three of the six 

commenters requested that DHS 

conduct a comprehensive review of the 

entire Form I–9 process that carefully 

considers the Illegal Immigration 

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 

Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). 

DHS has not adopted these comments 

as they are outside the scope of the 

interim rule. The interim rule did not 

make changes to the verification process 

as a whole. Instead, the rule made 

limited changes to the types of 

documents that are acceptable for 

employment verification, such as 

eliminating outdated List A documents 

and precluding the presentation of 

expired documents. See, e.g., 73 FR 

76506–07. DHS regularly reviews and 

analyzes its programs for improvement 

and greater effectiveness and may 

consider changes to the employment 

verification process in a future 

rulemaking. 

One of the commenters wrote that 

DHS has not removed enough 

documents from the Lists of Acceptable 

Documents on Form I–9 to fulfill its 

mandate under the authorizing statute. 

DHS assumes that the commenter is 

referring to the document reduction 

provision of IIRIRA. IIRIRA amended 

section 274A(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1324a(b)(1), by removing several 

documents from List A (e.g., certificate 

of naturalization) and List C (e.g., birth 

certificate). However, IIRIRA retained 

the authority of the Attorney General 

(now the Secretary of Homeland 

Security) to designate additional 

documents within certain boundaries, 

including the requirement that the 

designated documents contain security 

features that make them resistant to 

tampering, counterfeiting, and 

fraudulent use. The former Immigration 

and Naturalization Service (INS) 

implemented the document reduction 

mandate of IIRIRA in its interim 

rulemaking at 62 FR 51001 (Sept. 30, 

1997). DHS believes that the 1997 

interim rulemaking met its statutory 

mandate to ensure that the documents 

remaining on List A and C contain 

certain minimum security features. 

Through this final rule, DHS is making 

additional changes to further secure the 

Form I–9 process. 

One commenter suggested that Form 

I–9 is not an effective tool to discourage 

unauthorized employment because an 

employer can easily discard a Form 

I–9 after three years under certain 

circumstances. The same commenter 

also noted that an employee’s departure 

from the United States is not confirmed 

after his or her employment 

authorization has expired. 

DHS has not addressed Form I–9’s 

effectiveness as a means of providing 

employment verification or reporting 

the departure of aliens previously 

authorized to work in this rulemaking. 

The Form I–9 retention requirement is 

statutory, and, therefore, is not within 

DHS’s authority to change. The statute 

requires that employers retain 

completed Forms I–9 for all employees 

for three years after the date an 

employee is hired, or one year after the 

date employment is terminated, 

whichever is later. See INA section 

274(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)(3); 8 CFR 

274a.2(b)(2)(i)(B). For more information 

on retention requirements, please refer 

to the Handbook.6

With respect to the commenter’s 

suggestion that an employee’s departure 

from the United States be noted on 

Form I–9, current rules only require 

reverification of employment 

authorization once the employment 

authorization noted on Form I–9 

expires. See 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii). The 

interim rule did not modify the 

reverification provision. Note that an 

individual whose employment 

authorization has expired may not 

necessarily be required to depart the 

United States if he or she remains 

lawfully present in the United States 

(e.g., asylees) or has received a renewal 

of employment authorization. 

Another commenter requested that 

the 2008 interim rule be withdrawn 

because of DHS’s failure to perform a 

comprehensive review of the Form I–9 

process, noting that time and resources 

could be better spent on a 

comprehensive review. 

DHS is not withdrawing the 2008 

interim rule for purposes of conducting 

a comprehensive review. The changes 

made in the interim rule will lead to 

significant administrative benefits by 

reducing employer confusion and 

increasing compliance. Moreover, to 

withdraw the rule and revert to the 

preceding Form I–9 also would result in 

considerable confusion among 

employers. DHS continually reviews 

and analyzes the employment eligibility 

verification process and considers 

changes to the process as appropriate. 

DHS may propose additional changes in 

the Form I–9 verification process in the 

future as needed. 

D. The 1998 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Two commenters discussed the 1998 

notice of proposed rulemaking found at 

63 FR 5287. One commenter wrote that 

prior to the 2008 interim rule, the 

former INS last requested public 

comments in 1998 and has not 

published responses to those comments. 

The commenter added that DHS has not 

promulgated a rule in the Federal 

Register on one issue mentioned in the 

preamble to the 1998 proposed rule: The 

good faith defense against technical 

Form I–9 paper violations. The 

commenter also wrote that the failure to 

promulgate rules has denied employers 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 21229 

7Part Four, ‘‘Unlawful Discrimination and 

Penalties for Prohibited Practices,’’ ‘‘Handbook for 

Employers, Instructions for Completing Form I–9’’ 

(M–274) (Rev. 01/05/11), http://www.uscis.gov, 

page 30. See also Part Four, ‘‘Unlawful 

Discrimination and Penalties for Prohibited 

Practices,’’ ‘‘Handbook for Employers, Instructions 

for Completing Form I–9’’ (M–274) (Rev. 07/31/09) 

(no longer available online), p. 22. Part Four, 

‘‘Unlawful Discrimination and Penalties for 

Prohibited Practices,’’ ‘‘Handbook for Employers, 

Instructions for Completing Form I–9’’ (M–274) 

(Rev. 04/03/09) (no longer available online), p. 19; 

Part Four, ‘‘Unlawful Discrimination and Penalties 

for Prohibited Practices,’’ ‘‘Handbook for Employers, 

Instructions for Completing Form I–9’’ (M–274) 

(Rev. 11/1/2007) (no longer available online), p. 17; 

and Part 5, ‘‘Penalties for Prohibited Practices,’’ 

‘‘Handbook for Employers, Instructions for 

Completing Form I–9’’ (M–274) (11/1991) (no longer 

available online), p. 10. 

8 Id. 

9Part Eight, ‘‘Acceptable Documents for Verifying 

Employment Authorization and Identity,’’ in the 

‘‘Handbook for Employers, Instructions for 

Completing Form I–9’’ (M–274) (Rev. 01/05/11), 

http://www.uscis.gov, pages 51–63. 

10Part Two, ‘‘Completing Form I–9,’’ ‘‘Handbook 

for Employers, Instructions for Completing Form I– 

9’’ (M–274) (Rev. 01/05/11), http://www.uscis.gov, 

pages 3–19. 

a compliance standard and led to 

confusion. 

DHS agrees with the commenter that 

the INS did not publish responses to the 

public comments received with respect 

to the 1998 proposed rule, and neither 

has DHS published responses to the 

comments. As stated in the 

Supplementary Information to the 

interim rule, however, the interim rule 

superseded the 1998 proposed rule, and 

the comments received as part of that 

rulemaking informed the development 

of the interim rule. DHS does not intend 

to publish responses to the public 

comments, given the time that has 

passed since the 1998 proposed rule. 

INS published a proposed rule in 1998 

regarding the good faith defense against 

technical Form I–9 paper violations. See 

63 FR 16909 (Apr. 7, 1998). DHS 

disagrees that employers have been 

operating without a compliance 

standard. The Handbook for Employers 

provides guidance for employers on 

Form I–9 compliance.7

E. Mistake in Interim Rule 

One commenter alerted DHS that the 

interim rule erroneously added the 

language ‘‘with an unexpired passport’’ 

to the regulation found at 8 CFR 

274a.2(b)(1)(vi)(B)(1). The commenter 

pointed out that the regulation in 

question describes a receipt for Form 

I–551, ‘‘Permanent Resident Card,’’ (the 

arrival portion of Form I–94 with an 

unexpired temporary Form I–551 stamp 

and photograph of the individual) and 

that the interim rule had placed 

language in the wrong section. 

DHS published a correction to 8 CFR 

274a.2(b)(1)(vi)(B)(1) in the Federal 

Register on January 16, 2009 at 74 FR 

2838 and deleted the erroneous 

language. 

F. Delay in Effective Date of Interim 

Rule 

Ten commenters requested a delay in 

implementation of the interim rule. DHS 

did delay the initial effective date, 

extending the date from February 2, 

2009, to April 3, 2009. DHS determined 

that there was no basis for any further 

delay in the effective date for this rule. 

G. Comments to the Form I–9 

DHS received several comments 

regarding Form I–9 in response to the 

information collection published with 

the interim rule. These comments are 

addressed below. 

1. Expiration Date of Form I–9 

Eight commenters discussed the 

expiration date indicated on Form I–9. 

Six commenters were concerned that 

the revised Form I–9 (Rev. 02/02/09) 

might expire on June 30, 2009, as 

indicated on the form. Four commenters 

suggested that because the current Form 

I–9 bears an expiration date of June 30, 

2009, employers should be allowed to 

continue using the preceding Form I–9 

until that time, with its allowance for 

accepting expired documents. Three 

commenters noted that the gap between 

the implementation date of the new 

form and the expiration of the old form 

is confusing. One commenter argued 

that DHS should allow the use of either 

Form I–9 until June 30, 2009. 

Employers may use either Form I–9 

with the new revision date of 08/07/09 

or Form I–9 with the 02/02/09 revision 

date. On April 28, 2009, DHS published 

a 30-day notice in the Federal Register 

at 74 FR 19233, extending the expiration 

date of Form I–9 (Rev. 02/02/09) beyond 

June 30, 2009. The expiration date is 

now August 31, 2012. Therefore, the 

commenters’ concerns about whether to 

use Form I–9 (Rev. 02/02/09) are moot. 

DHS recognizes that the expiration date 

on Form I–9 may be confusing to some 

employers. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) expiration date 

found on the front page of Form I–9 

refers only to the control number 

assigned for the information collection 

requirements of the form, which must 

be updated and renewed periodically. 

2. Adding Miscellaneous Instructions 

and Reorganizing Form I–9 

Seven commenters recommended 

specific changes to Form I–9. Two 

commenters recommended that all 

acceptable documents and receipts be 

included on Lists A, B, and C. Another 

commenter requested that Part 8 of the 

Handbook be updated to include the 

current Lists of Acceptable Documents. 

One commenter requested that DHS 

provide guidance about List A, Item 5, 

the foreign passport with Form I–94 

indicating: 

• Nonimmigrant status, 

• Work is authorized incident to 

status, and that 

• Work is restricted for a specific 

employer. 

While DHS appreciates the 

commenters’ recommendations, DHS is 

not making further changes to Form 

I–9 beyond those made based on the 

interim rule. DHS may consider these 

recommendations when undertaking 

future revisions to Form I–9 and the 

Handbook.8 Note that the Handbook 

contains a listing of all documents, 

including receipts, that are acceptable 

for Form I–9. DHS has also included a 

section in the Handbook that provides 

images of common documents 

acceptable as permanent or temporary 

proof of employment authorization.9

The Handbook provides guidance on 

nonimmigrant aliens with temporary 

employment authorization who present 

List A, Item 5 documents.10 DHS 

released a revised Handbook on January 

5, 2011. 

One commenter requested that 

instructions to Form I–9 be written in 

plain language. DHS promotes and 

supports the use of plain language and 

regrets that the commenter found the 

instructions difficult to understand. 

DHS will continue carefully to examine 

future changes to Form I–9 for plain 

language. 

Another commenter recommended 

that the boxes to attest to U.S. 

citizenship and noncitizen national 

status should be separated on Form 

I–9. In the Form I–9 accompanying the 

interim rule, DHS added a separate 

check box for U.S. citizens and 

noncitizen nationals in the immigration/ 

citizenship status attestation of Section 

1 of Form I–9. DHS is retaining this 

change in Form I–9. 

3. Public Access to New Forms I–9 Prior 

to Issuance 

Two commenters requested that any 

future version of Form I–9 be made 

available at http://www.uscis.gov further 

in advance to allow the public time to 

prepare for changes. 

DHS recognizes the need for 

employers and human resource 

professionals to have sufficient time to 

prepare for any changes to Form I–9. For 

this rulemaking, DHS made Form I–9 

available to the public for informational 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
21230 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

purposes on December 17, 2008. DHS 

will make every effort to make any 

future version of Form I–9 available on 

USCIS’s Web site at the earliest possible 

time. 

4. Discretion in Use of Incorrect Form 

I–9 Due to Employer Confusion 

Following Implementation of the 

Interim Rule 

One commenter requested that DHS 

exercise favorable discretion for 

employers who unintentionally used the 

wrong Form I–9 after the interim rule 

went into effect. 

Beginning April 3, 2009, employers 

were required to use the Form I–9 (Rev. 

02/02/09) containing the revisions based 

on the interim rule. A subsequent Form 

I–9 was made available on August 7, 

2009 (Rev. 8/7/09). Employers may use 

either form. DHS may exercise favorable 

discretion if an employer 

unintentionally used the wrong Form 

I–9 due to confusion regarding which 

form to use between February 2009 and 

April 2009. Employers who used the 

wrong form during this time period are 

still expected to comply with all other 

Form I–9 regulations applicable to the 

preceding form. 

5. Creating an Electronic Employment 

Eligibility Verification Process 

Three commenters requested that 

DHS make an electronic Form I–9 

available that could be used with 

human resources software. Another 

commenter requested specific technical 

improvements to create a solely 

electronic employment authorization 

verification process. Four commenters 

noted that the Form I–9 provided on the 

USCIS Web site was password-protected 

or had security settings that prohibited 

them from completing and saving the 

form electronically. These commenters 

also requested that DHS provide an 

electronic Form I–9 that can be 

completed, signed electronically and 

saved on their computer systems. 

DHS appreciates the commenters’ 

recommendations regarding requested 

enhancements in electronic completion 

and storage of the electronic Form I–9. 

These comments are technical in nature 

and outside the scope of the changes 

that DHS is making to Form I–9 through 

this rulemaking. Changes to Form I–9 

are limited to amending the Lists of 

Acceptable Documents and making 

minor clarifications to the data elements 

on the form. 

The revised Form I–9 that DHS posted 

on the USCIS Web site as of January 16, 

2009, can be completed online but 

cannot be signed and stored 

electronically. As such, DHS must 

password-protect the form to prevent 

the public from making any changes to 

it. DHS recognizes the public’s desire 

for an electronic Form I–9. DHS is 

continually evaluating possible 

improvements to the Form I–9 process 

so that it is more user-friendly. 

H. Suggested Revisions to the Lists of 

Acceptable Documents 

DHS received several suggested 

changes to the lists of documents 

acceptable for Form I–9. Suggested 

changes to List A documents include 

one commenter’s proposal for DHS to 

rename the Native American tribal 

document and add it to List A because 

it is already acceptable as both a List B 

and List C document. Two commenters 

requested that Form I–797, ‘‘Notice of 

Action,’’ be made an acceptable 

document for permanent residents who 

possess an expired Form I–551 and 

whose conditions on status have been 

removed. One commenter requested that 

Form I–797 serve as an acceptable 

receipt for a List A document until the 

initial Form I–551 is received in the 

mail. Four commenters requested that 

Certificates of Naturalization or 

Citizenship be added to List A of Form 

I–9. One commenter wrote that it is 

discriminatory to allow U.S. citizens to 

use certified copies of birth certificates 

but not allow Certificates of 

Naturalization or Citizenship for those 

born outside of the United States. Two 

commenters requested that enhanced 

State-issued drivers’ licenses be added 

to the list of documents that establish 

both identity and employment 

authorization (List A). 

Suggested changes to acceptable 

documents on List B of Form I–9 

included one commenter’s suggestion 

that Native American tribal documents 

meet the same minimum requirements 

as State-issued driver’s licenses if they 

are included on List B. Two commenters 

wrote that school ID cards should meet 

the same minimum requirements as 

State-issued driver’s licenses. 

With respect to changes to acceptable 

documents on List C of Form 

I–9, one commenter proposed that voter 

registration cards, currently under List 

B, be made acceptable documents on 

List C because such documents 

evidence that the bearer is 18 or older 

and a U.S. citizen. Concerning all 

documents acceptable for Form I–9, two 

commenters suggested the addition of 

biometrics to Form I–9 documents. One 

of the two commenters suggested that 

the addition of biometrics would 

prevent identity fraud. 

DHS appreciates these commenters’ 

concerns and suggestions. However, 

these comments do not address the 

changes made in the interim rule to the 

Lists of Acceptable Documents for Form 

I–9 and, therefore, are outside the scope 

of this rulemaking. In considering any 

future changes to the Lists of Acceptable 

Documents, DHS may consider 

commenters’ suggestions. 

I. Standardizing State and Federal 

Document Requirements 

One commenter suggested that all 

State and Federal agencies should 

accept the documents on Lists A, B, and 

C of Form I–9 as proof of entitlement to 

a benefit. 

This suggestion is outside the scope of 

the interim rule, which is limited to 

documents used for the Form I–9 

employment eligibility verification 

process. Moreover, DHS does not have 

the authority to mandate that State and 

Federal agencies accept Form I–9 

documents as proof of entitlement to 

benefits. 

J. Requests for Outreach and Guidance 

DHS received several requests for 

additional outreach to the public and 

additional guidance on the Form I–9 

process. Two commenters requested 

that DHS perform greater outreach to 

inform the public about their 

responsibilities concerning Form I–9. 

One of the two commenters indicated 

that special efforts should be made to 

reach refugees and asylees. 

One commenter asked whether Forms 

I–9 that were completed a few days 

before the effective date of the revised 

Form I–9 still have to meet the 

requirements of the final rule. 

Two commenters wrote that there is 

insufficient guidance for the many 

categories of aliens with temporary 

employment authorization. One 

commenter wrote that many of these 

aliens are at risk of losing or being 

denied employment because they are 

unable to meet the requirements of the 

interim rule. The first commenter wrote 

that since the notice of proposed 

rulemaking at 63 FR 5287 was 

published in 1998, Congress and USCIS 

have created a number of new categories 

of employment authorization, for which 

it provided only sporadic or no 

guidance. The first commenter also 

wrote that the 1997 interim rule that 

precedes this interim rule (see 62 FR 

51001) provides no guidance for these 

categories. Both commenters, however, 

requested DHS guidance for the special 

categories of temporary employment 

authorization with varying validity 

periods, such as those with automatic 

extensions. 

With respect to acceptable documents 

for Form I–9, one commenter requested 

that DHS provide examples of school ID 

cards acceptable as List B documents. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 21231 

11Robert Pastor, et al., Voter IDs Are Not the 

Problem: A Survey of Three States (Center for 

Democracy and Election Management, American 

University, Washington, DC, Jan. 9, 2008). 

http://www.american.edu/ia/cdem/pdfs/

VoterIDFinalReport1-9-08.pdf. 

One commenter asked whether an 

employer can accept documents other 

than those the employee originally 

presented under the receipt rule and 

would like this clarification to be 

included in the Handbook. 

With respect to completion of Form I– 

9, one commenter wanted to know 

whether a notary public can act on 

behalf of an employer. 

Several commenters requested that 

DHS provide additional guidance for 

employers about reverification of an 

employee’s continued employment 

authorization. Six commenters 

requested clarification on reverifying 

documents that have expired after the 

time of hire and after Form I–9 is 

completed. Four commenters asked if 

U.S. passports or State-issued drivers’ 

licenses had to be reverified. One 

commenter requested that refugees and 

asylees not be required to be reverified 

once their EADs expire because both are 

authorized to work incident to status. 

One commenter wanted to know how to 

complete Form I–9 for employees who 

are rehired by the same employer and 

whose documents that were used to 

complete the original Form I–9 have 

expired. The commenter also 

questioned whether Section 3 of Form 

I–9 has sufficient room to reverify two 

documents. Two commenters asked if 

they were required to reverify expired 

passports from FSM or RMI that were 

not expired at the time Form I–9 was 

initially completed. 

DHS appreciates the commenters’ 

requests for outreach and further 

guidance on the Form I–9 process. In 

addition to multiple written resources, 

including the Handbook, USCIS 

continually provides individualized 

outreach to employers. USCIS regularly 

provides Web-based seminars on Form 

I–9 and E–Verify and conducts live 

presentations in several states. 

Employers may request these seminars 

and live presentations at the DHS Web 

site. USCIS also collaborates with U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) to provide additional outreach to 

employers regarding employment 

authorization requirements. Employers 

with specific questions related to the 

Form I–9 process are encouraged to call 

the USCIS Verification Division at 1– 

888–464–4218. 

K. Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Nineteen commenters requested that 

DHS conduct a comprehensive reform of 

current immigration policies. Thirteen 

of the 19 commenters expressed 

opposition to the displacement of U.S 

citizens and/or employment-authorized 

persons in the workforce by 

undocumented workers. Two of the 19 

commenters supported the legalization 

of undocumented workers. Three of the 

19 commenters opposed continued legal 

immigration to the United States. Six of 

the 19 commenters specifically 

supported the use of E-Verify, and five 

commenters specifically opposed it. 

These comments are outside the scope 

of the interim rule which was limited to 

making discrete changes to the Lists of 

Acceptable Documents for Form I–9. 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

The interim rule published by DHS on 

December 17, 2008, contains a complete 

regulatory analysis for the changes 

implemented under that rule. See 73 FR 

76505, 76507–10. 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This rule is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, 

section 3(f)(1), Regulatory Planning and 

Review. Accordingly, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

reviewed this rule. 

DHS received three comments on the 

interim rule’s estimated cost of 

renewing an expired document to 

comply with the rule. One commenter 

suggested that the costs may be too high 

for many individuals or may force an 

employee to get a new type of 

document. The commenter also wrote 

that the basis for the decision to remove 

expired documents is not supported by 

any study or statistic. 

DHS appreciates the concerns of the 

commenters regarding the added costs 

that some individuals may bear to 

obtain unexpired documents to meet the 

new Form I–9 requirement. However, 

DHS has determined that any such costs 

are outweighed by the benefits of 

retaining the requirement that all 

documents be unexpired. Continuing to 

permit use of expired documents for 

Form I–9 would undermine the 

reliability of the verification process. 

Expired documents are subject to fraud. 

DHS experience indicates that: 

• Older, invalid, expired documents 

are too easily converted to uses other 

than the purpose intended by their 

issuing authorities, 

• Requiring documents to be 

unexpired establishes a clear standard 

for U.S. employers, 

• Since an expired document is no 

longer useful for its original purpose as 

intended by the issuer, DHS should not 

impute validity to an expired document 

for purposes of Form I–9, 

• As stated in the interim rule, once 

the transition to the new Form I–9 is 

complete, DHS anticipates that the costs 

incurred by employers will decrease 

because the updated Lists of Acceptable 

Documents, simplified design of the 

Form I–9, and more comprehensive 

instructions provided with the form, 

will make the verification process for 

employers easier than it is now. 

DHS is not adopting the commenters’ 

suggestions in this final rule. 

Another commenter objected to the 

use of leisure time to calculate the cost 

of the time spent obtaining unexpired 

documents, noting that the time spent 

retrieving documents could be spent 

working. DHS agrees that it is possible 

that some of the opportunity costs 

associated with obtaining replacements 

for expired documents could be based 

on the value of time spent working and 

not solely the value of leisure time as 

the interim rule estimated. In the 

example that the commenter refers to, 

the interim rule stated that if 1.2 percent 

of the estimated 58 million annual new 

hires in the United States must obtain 

a new document, 696,000 people are 

affected. See 73 FR 76510. The example 

said that costs for an identification card 

was $14.40, and that each affected 

person would spend about 4 hours of 

personal time to obtain a new card at a 

cost per hour of $14.06. Id. If the interim 

rule had used the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics employer compensation costs 

for all civilian occupations of $28.11 per 

hour worked, instead of the value of 

leisure, the example would have 

estimated that a person could expend 

up to $14.40 in cash and $112.44 in 

opportunity costs, or total costs of 

$126.84, to obtain a State-issued 

identification card. Thus, using, as 

suggested by the commenter, the value 

of time spent working instead of the 

value of leisure, along with the 1.2 

percent figure from the American 

University study cited in the interim 

rule,11 the rule would have shown that 

the aggregate employee expense for 

obtaining an acceptable document could 

be as high as $88,280,640, instead of the 

$49,137,600 that was cited in the 

interim rule’s example. It is likely that 

the time spent obtaining unexpired 

documents would be a mix of foregone 

leisure time and foregone work time and 

the actual cost would be within the 

range of the $49,137,000 cited in the 

interim rule and the $88,280,640 

calculated above. DHS continues to 

believe these costs are outweighed by 

the benefits of retaining the requirement 

that all documents be unexpired. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
21232 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

As discussed in the interim rule, DHS 

determined that this regulatory action is 

exempt from notice and comment 

rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B). Therefore, the interim rule 

was exempt from the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq. Accordingly, USCIS has not 

prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis 

of this action. 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

In the December 17, 2008, interim 

rule DHS requested and received OMB 

approval to use the revised Form I–9 

when the interim rule became effective 

until June 30, 2009. The interim rule 

also allowed the public to submit 

comments on the revised Form I–9 for 

60 days. The comments to the revised 

Form I–9 have been addressed in the 

supplementary portion of this final rule, 

and DHS determined it would not make 

additional changes to Form I–9 at this 

time. On April 28, 2009, DHS published 

a 30-day notice in the Federal Register 

at 74 FR 19233 to extend the use of the 

revised Form I–9 past the June 30, 2009, 

expiration date. OMB approved the 

extension request on August 7, 2009. 

Form I–9 does not expire until August 

31, 2012. 

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 274a 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Employment, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 8 CFR part 274a, which was 

published in the Federal Register at 73 

FR 76505 on December 17, 2008, 

including the corrections to the interim 

rule which were published in the 

Federal Register on January 16, 2009, at 

74 FR 2838 and March 11, 2009, at 74 

FR 10455 are adopted as a final rule 

without change. 

Janet Napolitano, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9152 Filed 4–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 97 

[Docket No. 30776; Amdt. No. 3420] 

Standard Instrument Approach 

Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums 

and Obstacle Departure Procedures; 

Miscellaneous Amendments 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This establishes, amends, 

suspends, or revokes Standard 

Instrument Approach Procedures 

(SIAPs) and associated Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle Departure 

Procedures for operations at certain 

airports. These regulatory actions are 

needed because of the adoption of new 

or revised criteria, or because of changes 

occurring in the National Airspace 

System, such as the commissioning of 

new navigational facilities, adding new 

obstacles, or changing air traffic 

requirements. These changes are 

designed to provide safe and efficient 

use of the navigable airspace and to 

promote safe flight operations under 

instrument flight rules at the affected 

airports. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 15, 

2011. The compliance date for each 

SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, 

and ODP is specified in the amendatory 

provisions. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of April 15, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters 

incorporated by reference in the 

amendment is as follows: 

For Examination 

1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA 

Headquarters Building, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; 

2. The FAA Regional Office of the 

region in which the affected airport is 

located; 

3. The National Flight Procedures 

Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or 

4. The National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

Availability—All SIAPs and Takeoff 

Minimums and ODPs are available 

online free of charge. Visit http:// 

www.nfdc.faa.gov to register. 

Additionally, individual SIAP and 

Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may 

be obtained from: 

1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA– 

200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; or 

2. The FAA Regional Office of the 

region in which the affected airport is 

located. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure 

Standards Branch (AFS–420), Flight 

Technologies and Programs Divisions, 

Flight Standards Service, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Mike 

Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 

South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, 

OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 

25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) 

Telephone: (405) 954–4164. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by 

establishing, amending, suspending, or 

revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums 

and/or ODPS. The complete regulators 

description of each SIAP and its 

associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP 

for an identified airport is listed on FAA 

form documents which are incorporated 

by reference in this amendment under 5 

U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 

CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA 

Forms are FAA Forms 8260–3, 8260–4, 

8260–5, 8260–15A, and 8260–15B when 

required by an entry on 8260–15A. 

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff 

Minimums and ODPs, in addition to 

their complex nature and the need for 

a special format make publication in the 

Federal Register expensive and 

impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not 

use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, 

Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead 

refer to their depiction on charts printed 

by publishers of aeronautical materials. 

The advantages of incorporation by 

reference are realized and publication of 

the complete description of each SIAP, 

Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on 

FAA forms is unnecessary. This 

amendment provides the affected CFR 

sections and specifies the types of SIAPs 

and the effective dates of the, associated 

Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This 

amendment also identifies the airport 

and its location, the procedure, and the 

amendment number. 

The Rule 

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is 

effective upon publication of each 

separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and 

ODP as contained in the transmittal. 

Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES