10396 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

20 CFR Part 655 

RIN 1205–AB52 

Attestation Applications by Facilities 

Temporarily Employing H–1C 

Nonimmigrant Foreign Workers as 

Registered Nurses; Final Rule 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor, in collaboration 

with Wage and Hour Division, Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) and the 

Wage and Hour Division of the 

Department of Labor (the Department or 

DOL) are publishing a Final Rule to 

implement the Nursing Relief for 

Disadvantaged Areas Reauthorization 

Act of 2005 (NRDARA), which 

reauthorized the Nursing Relief for 

Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999 

(NRDAA), finalizing these rules for 

enforcement purposes. These Acts 

allowed certain health care facilities to 

file, and authorize the Department to 

review, approve and enforce, attestation 

applications to employ foreign workers 

as registered nurses in health 

professional shortage areas on a 

temporary basis under the H–1C visa. 

Facilities (hospitals meeting threshold 

criteria for the program) filed these 

forms with the Department as a 

condition for petitioning the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), for H–1C 

nurses. 

DATES: This Final Rule is effective April 

5, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information regarding 20 CFR 

655, Subpart L, contact William L. 

Carlson, PhD, Administrator, Office of 

Foreign Labor Certification, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room C–4312, Washington, DC 20210; 

Telephone (202) 693–3010 (this is not a 

toll-free number). Individuals with 

hearing or speech impairments may 

access the telephone numbers above via 

TTY by calling the toll-free Federal 

Information Relay Service at (800) 877– 

8339. 

For further information regarding the 

H–1C enforcement process in 20 CFR 

655, Subpart M of this part, contact 

Diane Koplewski, Immigration Branch 

Chief, Division of Enforcement Policy, 

Wage and Hour Division, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room S–3516, 

Washington, DC 20210; Telephone (202) 

693–0071 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Individuals with hearing or 

speech impairments may access the 

telephone numbers above via TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Information 

Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 22, 2000, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

Interim Final Rule (IFR) that was 

effective September 21, 2000 and 

implemented the NRDAA, Public Law 

106–95, 113 Stat. 1312 (1999). See 65 FR 

51138, Aug. 22, 2000. The NRDAA 

amended the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA) to create a new 

temporary visa program for 

nonimmigrant foreign workers to work 

as registered nurses (RNs or nurses) for 

up to 3 years, in certain facilities which 

serve Health Professional Shortage 

Areas (HPSAs). 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c) and 1182(m). That 

temporary visa program expired 4 years 

after the effective date of regulations 

promulgated by each agency 

implementing the NRDAA, which for 

the Department was September 21, 

2004. (For purposes of the 

nonimmigrant visa process at the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS), now USCIS, the statute expired 

on, and no more H–1C petitions were 

accepted after, June 13, 2005.) The 

number of H–1C visas that could be 

issued was limited to 500 per year. 

The NRDARA, Public Law 109–423, 

120 Stat. 2900 (2006) extended the 

provisions of the NRDAA for 3 years 

starting from December 20, 2006, the 

date the NRDARA was enacted. It made 

no substantive changes to the NRDAA’s 

provisions. Although the application 

period for H–1C visa petitions has now 

expired, H–1C visa holders are allowed 

to work in the United States (U.S.) until 

the expiration of their authorized stay, 

which may be as much as 3 years after 

the petition was authorized. This Final 

Rule is being promulgated to ensure 

worker protections are in place for 

nurses currently employed in H–1C 

status, whose stays may extend beyond 

December 20, 2009. 

The Congress modeled the NRDAA 

(and, by extension, the NRDARA) in 

large measure after the H–1A registered 

nurse temporary visa program created 

by the Immigration Nursing Relief Act 

of 1989 (INRA), Public Law 101–238, 

103 Stat. 2099 (1989), which itself 

expired on September 1, 1995. See, e.g., 

H.R. Rpt. 135, at 2 (May 12, 1999). INRA 

was enacted in response to a nationwide 

shortage of nurses in the late 1980s, but 

also sought to address concerns about 

the increased dependence of health care 

providers on foreign RNs. Id. Because 

there did not appear to be a national 

nursing shortage at the time the NRDAA 

was enacted (H.R. Rpt. 135, at 5 (May 

12, 1999)), the Congress enacted the 

NRDAA to respond to a very specific 

need for qualified nursing professionals 

in understaffed facilities serving mostly 

poor patients in certain inner cities and 

rural areas. See 145 Cong. Rec. H3476 

(daily ed. May 24, 1999) (Statement of 

Rep. Rogan). The NRDAA adopted many 

of the U.S. worker protection provisions 

of the H–1A program under INRA. 

Penalties that the government could 

impose on employers for violating 

NRDAA provisions were similar to 

those under INRA. 

The NRDAA also created some 

attestation obligations for employers 

that were not found in INRA. A more 

detailed discussion of the attestation 

requirements for facilities can be found 

in the preamble to the IFR at 65 FR 

51138, Aug. 22, 2000. 

The passage of the NRDARA in 

December 2006 acknowledged that the 

shortage of nurses in some places 

remained a significant problem and 

again sought to alleviate specific 

shortages in defined areas. See, e.g., 152 

Cong. Rec. S11175 (daily ed. Dec. 5, 

2006) (Statement of Sen. Cornyn). No 

significant policy changes were required 

by that reauthorizing statute. 

The definition of ‘‘facility’’ was not 

changed by the reauthorizing 

legislation. Only those hospitals that 

satisfied the criteria for a facility as of 

March 1997 continued to qualify as a 

facility eligible to file under the H–1C 

program for foreign registered nurses. 

The Department has consulted with and 

confirmed from the Health Resources 

and Services Administration of the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) that only those 14 

hospitals listed in the preamble to the 

IFR remain eligible to participate in the 

H–1C program. As explained in greater 

detail in the preamble to the IFR, the 

definition of facility requires the 

application of time-specific tests and 

does not afford any flexibility with 

regard to these criteria. 65 FR 51143, 

Aug. 22, 2000. 

The Consolidated Natural Resources 

Act of 2008 (CNRA), Title VII, Public 

Law 110–229, 122 Stat. 754, 853, which 

extended U.S. immigration law to the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands (CNMI), also exempted facilities 

in Guam, the CNMI, and the Virgin 

Islands from certain cost reporting 

criteria necessary for H–1C eligibility 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10397 

under sec. 212(m)(6)(B) of the INA (8 

U.S.C. 1182(m)(6)(B)). This Final Rule 

incorporates this exemption. However, 

the CNRA did not provide any 

exemption from the requirement that a 

facility be a hospital located in one of 

the 50 States or District of Columbia, as 

defined in 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B). 

See 8 U.S.C. 1182(m)(6). Accordingly, 

despite the exemption from certain cost 

reporting criteria, facilities in Guam, 

CNMI, and the Virgin Islands still 

would not be eligible to participate in 

the H–1C program. While no hospitals 

in these territories applied before the 

expiration of the filing period, the 

Department believes they would be 

ineligible because of their inability to 

meet the definition of a facility at 42 

U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B). 

Because the CNRA extended U.S. 

immigration law to the CNMI, we have 

included CNMI in the definition of State 

in this Final Rule to be consistent with 

the definition of ‘‘State’’ in the INA. The 

territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, 

and Puerto Rico are already included in 

the definition of ‘‘State’’ in § 655.1102. 

Several technical and clarifying 

amendments have been made to the IFR. 

These amendments are primarily a 

result of organizational changes within 

the Department and the transfer of the 

functions involving the processing of 

petitions from the former INS to USCIS. 

The responsibility of the Department of 

State has been amended in 

§ 655.1101(d) to clarify that that agency 

makes determinations of visa eligibility. 

Finally, the Department has clarified 

that the Administrator will recommend 

a particular period for debarment of an 

entity found to be in violation in 

§ 655.1255. 

As explained in the preamble to the 

IFR, the NRDAA required the 

Department to impose a filing fee, not to 

exceed $250, for every attestation 

application filed. Since the Department 

was certain the monies that would be 

expended to administer and enforce the 

H–1C program would exceed the monies 

it was likely to collect from charging a 

fee of $250, it set the fee at that amount 

in the IFR at 65 FR 51142, Aug. 22, 

2000. The filing fee under this Final 

Rule remains set at $250. 

II. Discussion of Comments 

The Department received comments 

on the IFR from four interested parties. 

In developing this Final Rule, the 

Department considered all their 

comments. All are addressed below. 

A. Definitions of Terms Used in These 

Regulations 

The definition of ‘‘nurse’’ in 

§ 655.1102 eliminated the special 

provision for foreign workers who have 

received nursing education in Canada in 

order to implement the changes in the 

INA that eliminated the previous 

accommodation. To qualify as an H–1C 

nurse, the foreign worker must: (1) Have 

a full and unrestricted license to 

practice nursing in the country where 

the foreign worker obtained nursing 

education, or have received nursing 

education in the U.S.; (2) have passed 

the examination given by the 

Commission on Graduates for Foreign 

Nursing Schools, or have obtained a full 

and unrestricted (permanent) license to 

practice as a registered nurse in the 

State of intended employment in the 

U.S., or have obtained a full and 

unrestricted (permanent) license in any 

(other) U.S. State or territory and 

received temporary authorization to 

practice as a registered nurse in the 

State of intended employment; and (3) 

be fully qualified and eligible under the 

laws governing the place of intended 

employment to practice as a registered 

nurse immediately upon admission to 

the U.S. and be authorized under such 

laws to be employed by the employer. 

A foreign nurse credentialing 

association expressed concurrence with 

the definition of ‘‘nurse’’ and stated the 

Department has correctly recognized 

that the procedures * * * should 

determine whether any foreign nursing 

degree is comparable to a U.S. nursing 

degree. No commenter opposed this 

definition. Accordingly, this Final Rule 

makes no changes to the definition from 

the IFR. 

B. Who May File an Attestation 

Application 

Section 655.1110 requires the 

employer’s Chief Executive Officer 

(CEO) to sign ETA Form 9081, 

Attestation for H–1C Nonimmigrant 

Nurses (ETA Form 9081). One 

commenter contended that this 

requirement is unduly burdensome to 

the process of securing an approved 

attestation and hiring foreign nurses 

under the H–1C program. However, the 

commenter provided no documentary 

evidence or rationale to support its 

allegation. The same commenter 

suggested the H–1C requirements for 

signing ETA Form 9081 should mirror 

the H–1B requirements for signing a 

Labor Condition Application (LCA), 

which allow for an agent’s or 

representative’s signature. 

The Department believes there is no 

statutory justification for the H–1C 

signatory requirements to mirror other 

program requirements for foreign labor 

certification programs administered by 

ETA. Nonetheless, it is worth noting the 

permanent labor certification program 

requires an application signed by the 

employer (specifically, an authorized 

representative, which is defined as an 

employee of the employer whose 

position or legal status authorizes the 

employee to act for the employer, see 20 

CFR 656.3), and the H–2A and H–2B 

programs require an application signed 

by the employer or an individual with 

hiring authority. Furthermore, H–1C 

attestations differ from H–1B LCA 

attestations because, while H–1B 

attestations relate to the job opportunity, 

H–1C attestations also cover the 

eligibility of the institution itself to 

participate in the H–1C program. The 

latter represents a much broader 

attestation relating to the entity as a 

whole and thus is more appropriately 

signed by an employee of the employer 

with the authority to bind that entity. 

Because an employer must file only 

one ETA Form 9081 each year it wishes 

to hire one or more H–1C nurses, the 

Department does not believe that 

requiring an employer’s CEO to sign the 

form will have a significant impact on 

the entity or on its ability to hire foreign 

or domestic nurses. An employer-signed 

application lends credibility to the 

assertions made on the form by ensuring 

that each attestation contained on the 

form is true and correct at the time of 

signing and that the employer will 

continue to adhere to each attestation 

during its validity period. Our 

experience suggests that chief 

executives are frequently called on to 

sign or obligate the entity under their 

charge as a basic responsibility of the 

position. As such, the Department does 

not believe it is unreasonable to require 

the employer’s CEO to sign the form. 

C. The Meaning of ‘‘No Adverse Effect 

on Wages and Working Conditions’’ 

The statute requires an attestation that 

the employment of the alien will not 

adversely affect the wages and working 

conditions of registered nurses similarly 

employed. To meet this requirement, 

§ 655.1112 requires the employer to pay 

each nurse employed by the facility at 

least the prevailing wage for the 

occupation in the geographic area. If the 

employer’s nurses are covered by 

collectively bargained wage rates, 

§ 655.1112(c)(1) stipulates such rates 

shall be considered prevailing for that 

employer. If the employer’s nurses are 

not covered by collectively bargained 

wage rates, the IFR stipulated that the 

State Workforce Agency (SWA) shall 

determine the prevailing wage for 

similarly employed nurses in the 

geographic area in accordance with 

administrative guidelines or regulations 

issued by ETA. Section 655.1112(c)(2). 

Three commenters disagreed with the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
10398 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Department also issued a Federal Register 

Notice on December 4, 2009, centralizing prevailing 

wage determination requests at the National 

Prevailing Wage and Help Center (NPWHC) as of 

January 1, 2010. See 74 FR 63795, Dec. 4, 2009. 

However, because the NPWHC did not commence 

its prevailing wage determination operations until 

after the period for filing H–1C petitions expired, 

this Final Rule retains all references to the NPC. 

requirements. These concerns are 

addressed in turn below. 

The Department notes that the 

comments on the IFR were made before 

the publication of the Final Rule for the 

H–2B nonagricultural temporary worker 

program on December 19, 2008 (the 

December 2008 Rule), which amended 

§ 655.1112(c)(2) to provide that the 

Office of Foreign Labor Certification’s 

(OFLC) National Processing Center 

(NPC) in Chicago will provide the 

prevailing wages for nurses under the 

H–1C program from January 18, 2009.1

See 73 FR 78020, Dec. 19, 2008. This 

federalization of prevailing wage 

determinations, discussed at length in 

the December 2008 Rule, was 

undertaken not because of a lack of 

ability on the part of the SWAs to 

engage in such determinations but to 

ensure consistency and uniformity in 

the process of prevailing wage 

determinations across all OFLCadministered programs. See 73 FR 

78020, Dec. 19, 2008. The arguments 

presented by commenters to the IFR 

with regard to the prevailing wage 

determinations by SWAs are equally 

applicable to such determinations by 

the NPCs, and are accordingly reviewed 

and responded to as such, with any 

differences in such determinations 

noted. 

1. Effect of the Prevailing Wage Request 

on the Speed of the Hiring Process 

Two commenters expressed concern 

that obtaining a prevailing wage 

determination will slow down the 

hiring process. A third commenter 

claimed that requiring a prevailing wage 

determination for RNs will result in 

long delays because State Employment 

Security Agencies (the former name for 

SWAs) generally lack wage surveys for 

nurses. The Department finds these 

concerns to be without merit, as 

explained below, and therefore has 

made no changes from the IFR, beyond 

the amendment to § 655.1112(c)(2) by 

the December 2008 Rule. 

The Department believes there is a 

benefit gained from the employer 

obtaining a prevailing wage 

determination; namely, a measurable 

assurance that the wage proposed to the 

foreign nurse is at least as high as, and 

therefore will not adversely affect, the 

wages of nurses similarly employed in 

the area of intended employment. This 

benefit significantly outweighs the 

additional time imposed by obtaining a 

prevailing wage determination. The 

NPC processes prevailing wage 

determination requests in an 

expeditious manner, and there is no 

information suggesting otherwise. The 

Department also notes that the relatively 

small numbers of hospitals able to 

participate in the program (at the most 

14), and the fact that many are already 

subject to collective bargaining 

agreements that take precedence over 

any wage determination from another 

source, will prevent any significant 

impact on the workload of the NPC’s 

prevailing wage experts. 

The third commenter provided no 

documentary or other evidence to 

support its suggestion that SWAs have 

no wage information for RNs. The 

allegation is factually incorrect. The 

SWAs would have used the same 

database that the NPC currently uses. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 

Occupational Employment Statistical 

Survey (OES) is the source for both the 

SWAs’ and, as of January 2009, the 

NPC’s prevailing wage determinations 

in the absence of a collective bargaining 

agreement. The OES produces readily 

available employment and wage 

estimates for nurses by geographic area, 

in some cases by county or counties, 

and in others by Metropolitan Statistical 

Area. 

2. Dissimilarity Between H–1C and 

H–1B Regulations 

Two commenters argued that the 

H–1C regulations should mirror the 

H–1B regulations with respect to the 

determination of the prevailing wage. 

The H–1B standard permits an employer 

to use a wage rate obtained from sources 

other than the SWA. 

The Department has considered these 

comments. However, given the statutory 

requirements and substantive 

distinctions between the programs, the 

Department has made no changes from 

the IFR. The statutes authorizing the 

H–1C and H–1B programs do not mirror 

each other in their respective 

requirements for the prevailing wage 

calculation or attestation. 

There are distinct differences between 

H–1C nurses and H–1B workers in 

specialty occupations that argue in favor 

of the Department treating these 

programs differently. These include, but 

are not limited to, the differences in the 

average Specific Vocational Preparation 

(SVP) for occupations in the H–1B 

program and the typical SVP for the 

occupation in the H–1C program; the 

breadth and narrowness of the range of 

occupations covered by each program; 

and the disparity between the two 

programs with respect to collective 

bargaining agreements. 

These substantive differences 

demonstrate some significant 

distinctions between these two 

programs. The H–1B program was 

statutorily accorded flexibility to 

address prevailing wage rates across 

diverse professional occupations that 

are not typically subject to collective 

bargaining agreements. The H–1C 

program, by contrast, deals not only 

with a single occupation, but with job 

opportunities subject to stricter wage 

controls due to the specificity of 

locations and a greater presence of 

collective bargaining units. The 

narrowness of the H–1C program lends 

support to a stricter analysis of the 

wage, which in turn justifies controlling 

the source of prevailing wage 

information. Accordingly, the regulation 

will continue to make the distinction 

and not mirror the H–1B attestations. 

3. Intent of the Congress 

One commenter argued that the 

requirement to obtain a prevailing wage 

determination in the absence of 

collectively bargained wage rates 

conflicts with the intent of the Congress. 

This commenter asserted that the 

language for the second and third 

obligations assumed by the employer 

(no adverse effect; foreign worker will 

be paid the wage rate of registered 

nurses similarly employed by the 

facility) was taken verbatim from INRA. 

As such, this commenter believes that 

the legislative history for INRA is 

controlling for the regulations being 

promulgated for the NRDAA. 

The comment proposed that the 

deletion of the words ‘‘prevailing wage 

rate’’ by Congress from an early draft of 

the INRA prior to final passage should 

require the Department to eliminate the 

necessity of obtaining prevailing wage 

determinations for the nursing 

profession. This commenter’s solution 

to this issue is to allow employers to 

choose their own sources for the 

prevailing wage as others do in the 

H–1B program. 

The rationale for requiring the NPC to 

determine the prevailing wage is 

discussed above. Section 655.1112(c)(2) 

instructs the NPC to determine the 

prevailing wage for similarly employed 

nurses in the geographic area in 

accordance with administrative 

guidelines or regulations issued by ETA. 

These guidelines include the Prevailing 

Wage Determination Policy Guidance— 

Nonagricultural Immigration Programs, 

revised November 2009 and located on 

the Department’s Web site at: http:// 

www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/ 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10399 

Policy_Nonag_Progs.pdf. This guidance 

allows the NPC to consider other 

surveys in their prevailing wage 

determination process. 

The NPC can evaluate an employer’s 

private survey in order to consider its 

use in determining a prevailing wage, if 

the employer chooses to submit such 

evidence and if the survey submitted 

meets the criteria for eligibility. The 

point, however, is that the NPC, and not 

the employer, must make the 

determination of which is the most 

appropriate source of the prevailing 

wage. 

4. Effect on Small Hospitals 

One commenter alleged that smaller 

non-profit and religious hospitals with 

lower wage scales will be prohibited 

from participating in the program 

because they will not be able to pay the 

prevailing wage. 

There is no statutory exception for 

small non-profit or religious hospitals. 

The Congress duly considered this 

legislation not once, but twice, and 

chose not to make an exception for such 

hospitals, few of which meet the strict 

eligibility requirements for the H–1C 

program. As stated above, the second 

attestation element contained in the 

statute is that employment of the foreign 

worker will not adversely affect the 

wages and working conditions of nurses 

similarly employed. 

The Department interprets this 

language to require that the employer, 

regardless of its size or business model, 

pay foreign workers no less than the 

prevailing wage for the occupation in 

the geographic area of employment, i.e., 

no less than those who are similarly 

employed. Because DOL must use a 

consistent wage rate from which to 

ensure that similarly employed U.S. 

nurses in each geographic area (as well 

as in the employ of the same employer) 

in which H–1C nurses may be employed 

are not adversely affected, each 

employer must attest that it will pay 

each foreign nurse employed by the 

facility at least the prevailing wage for 

the occupation in the geographic area 

and not just in that organization’s 

employ. 

5. Expanded Definition of ‘‘Prevailing 

Wage Rate’’ 

One commenter suggested that, if the 

Department decides to interpret the 

phrase ‘‘not adversely affect’’ 

consistently across programs, then it 

should also define the term ‘‘prevailing 

wage rate’’ consistently by allowing a 5 

percent variance. In the alternative, the 

commenter suggested allowing 

independent published wage surveys or 

other legitimate wage data sources to be 

considered when issuing prevailing 

wages. 

The first recommendation can no 

longer be followed because of legislative 

restrictions. The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 

108–447, 118 Stat. 2809) amended sec. 

212(p)(3) of the INA to eliminate any 

variance from the actual and prevailing 

wage, which had in the past been 

customary to permit. See 69 FR 77326– 

27, 77366–67, Dec. 27, 2004. The 

prevailing wage required to be paid 

shall be 100 percent of the wage 

determined pursuant to those sections. 

In short, the Department is no longer 

permitted to allow a 5 percent variance 

for the permanent or temporary 

programs where it was previously 

allowed. Thus, imposing a 100 percent 

wage requirement, with no variance, 

within the H–1C program is consistent 

with that same requirement within the 

permanent and temporary programs. 

The NRDAA does not authorize a 5 

percent variance from the prevailing 

wage and the Department believes it 

appropriate to apply this 100 percent 

wage requirement to the H–1C program, 

especially in light of clear congressional 

direction after the NRDAA that 

prohibited the 5 percent variance from 

the prevailing wage in other visa 

programs administered by the 

Department. With regard to the second 

suggestion, see discussion above in 

§§ 655.1112(c)(2) and 655.1112(c)(3). 

D. Notification Facilities Must Provide 

to Nurses 

Section 655.1116(d) requires the 

employer to provide a copy of the 

attestation, within 30 days of the date of 

filing, to every registered nurse 

employed at the facility. * * * This 

notification includes not only the RNs 

employed by the facility, but also 

includes any RN who is providing 

service at the facility as an employee of 

another entity, such as a nursing 

contractor. 

Three commenters disagreed with the 

requirements and requested clarification 

on language used in this section. 

1. Individual Notice Requirement 

Two commenters expressed concern 

over the requirement that employers 

provide individual notice to RNs within 

30 days of filing an attestation, and 

suggested eliminating the individual 

notice requirement entirely. These 

entities contended, in summary, that the 

requirement does not take into account 

the shortage of nurses in the U.S.; that 

there is no reason why notice 

requirements similar to those in the 

H–1B program are insufficient to protect 

U.S. nurses; and that the combined 

pressure of the limited number of H–1C 

visas and prohibition of employing 

more than 33 percent of total RN 

workforce through the H–1C program 

would protect U.S. workers from any 

negative effect on wages or terms and 

conditions of employment. 

Two commenters also asserted that 

the regulation is vague and ambiguously 

worded with respect to the notice 

requirement. Both illustrated this 

purported ambiguity in situations in 

which a facility hires an RN between the 

date of individual notice and the date of 

filing, and asked whether the original 

notices would suffice or whether the 

facility would be required to provide 

notice to the newly hired nurse, which 

it alleged would constitute an 

administrative burden. 

Requiring employers to provide 

notification to all RNs is a statutory 

requirement, as the NRDAA clearly 

provides that a copy of the attestation 

shall be provided, within 30 days of the 

date of filing, to registered nurses 

employed at the facility on the date of 

filing. The requirement of notice to all 

nurses employed at the facility, 

regardless of the employer who pays 

them, is imposed by statute and must 

accordingly remain. Individual notice is 

the only way to avoid the very 

ambiguities pointed out by the 

commenters. Only with individual 

notice can an employer attest with any 

certainty that it can meet the 

requirement of notice to all nurses 

employed at the facility. 

With regard to the commenters’ 

requests for clarification for notice to 

those hired after the date of notice but 

prior to the date of filing, the statute 

again provides the standard; employers 

must provide notice to all nurses that 

are employed at the facility on the date 

of filing. Every RN employed at the 

facility on the date of filing must be 

provided notice, regardless of his or her 

date of hire. Under the statute, the 

employer may choose to provide notice 

prior to filing, on the day of filing, or 

during the 30 days after filing, or any 

combination thereof. The regulations 

have been modified to clarify which 

nurses must be provided with 

notification, specifically, those 

employed at the facility on the date of 

filing the attestation application. 

2. Notice to Contract Nurses 

Two commenters expressed concern 

over the requirement that employers 

provide individual notice to contract 

RNs. Both contended that employers 

should not be required to provide 

individual notice to contract nurses 

because the elements of the attestation 

are not applicable to contract nurses. In 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
10400 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

addition, both claimed that it is 

potentially impossible to locate every 

contract nurse to whom an employer 

would be required to provide notice. 

The statute instructs employers to 

provide notice to all registered nurses 

employed at the facility. The statute 

does not limit the recipients of such 

notification to nurses employed by any 

one employer at the facility. Any such 

qualification would contravene the 

intent of the statute or the 

reauthorization, namely, to provide 

notice to the nurses at the facility of the 

hiring of H–1C nurses into the facility, 

regardless of who pays the U.S. nurses. 

By using the word ‘‘at’’ instead of ‘‘by’’ 

the Department believes that Congress 

specifically included a larger group than 

just those RNs that the facility itself 

directly employs. Accordingly, notice 

must be given to all RNs employed at 

the facility, including employees of 

staffing companies or other employers. 

This requirement is accomplished by 

the provision of notice outlined in the 

regulation. 

3. Documentation Employers Must 

Provide to RNs 

One commenter contended that the 

regulation is unclear in that it does not 

state what documentation employers 

must provide to nurses. The commenter 

advised that it interprets the regulations 

to mean that each nurse must be 

provided only with a copy of the 

attestation and asked for confirmation 

that this interpretation comported with 

the regulation. 

The Department agrees with the 

commenter’s interpretation. The statute 

requires a copy of the attestation be 

provided to RNs employed at the 

facility. No other documentation is 

required. As stated in the preamble to 

the IFR at 65 FR 51140, Aug. 22, 2000, 

this requirement may be satisfied by 

electronic means if an individual e-mail 

message, with the attestation as an 

attachment, is sent to every RN at the 

facility. 

E. Criteria To Determine Whether To 

Certify an Application 

Section 655.1130 requires the 

Department to conduct a simple 

verification that the attestation 

application is complete and not 

obviously inaccurate, and limits 

substantive review by the Department to 

only three attestations: (1) The 

employer’s eligibility to participate in 

the program; (2) instances where the 

employer attests it is taking or will take 

a timely and significant step other than 

those listed in the regulations to recruit 

and retain U.S. nurses; and (3) instances 

where the employer asserts that taking 

a second timely and significant step is 

unreasonable. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the law does not authorize ETA to 

adjudicate attestations, merely to act as 

a repository for filed attestations. The 

commenter suggested that, in order for 

ETA to determine whether a hospital 

qualifies as a facility, it would have to 

conduct a substantive review of every 

submission, which the commenter 

argues conflicts with the original intent 

of the law. 

The review process described in 

§ 655.1130 is a streamlined version of 

the one used under the H–1A program, 

upon which the Congress modeled the 

H–1C legislation and in which the 

Department conducted full substantive 

review of all submissions. Unlike H–1B, 

the statute governing H–1C does not 

discuss nor limit the Secretary of 

Labor’s (Secretary) review of the 

attestation. Thus, by limiting its review 

to only three of the attestation elements, 

the regulation provides for a lesser 

scope of review than is available under 

the statute. 

Further, the statute instructs the 

Secretary to make available for public 

examination * * * for each such facility 

[that has filed a nonimmigrant petition], 

a copy of the facility’s attestation (and 

accompanying documentation). This 

language implies the employer will 

submit documentation with an 

application. As such, it is within the 

Department’s authority to request 

specific documents and, upon their 

receipt, to review that evidence. 

For example, the statute specifically 

requires the employer to demonstrate 

that taking a second step is not 

reasonable if it chooses to take only one 

significant step as described in 

§ 655.1114. Similarly, since the statute 

does not establish what a significant 

step means, it is within the 

Department’s authority to define the 

standard and determine whether it has 

been met. The Department’s 

requirement that the employer submit 

an explanation and appropriate 

documentation of any alternate 

significant step it chooses to take is, 

therefore, a reasonable exercise of its 

authority to interpret the statute. 

The Department believes it is 

appropriate to review the application to 

ensure it is complete and lacking 

obvious inaccuracies. It is, moreover, 

incumbent on the Department to review 

an employer’s eligibility to participate 

in the program, since program 

participation has been strictly 

circumscribed by Congress. The 

Department’s past experience with the 

H–1C program supports continuing this 

practice, as several ineligible employers 

have filed attestations in an attempt to 

qualify. Based on the information from 

the Health Resources and Services 

Administration of HHS, the Department 

now believes that only those hospitals 

listed in the Federal Register at 65 FR 

51143, Aug. 22, 2000, satisfy the 

eligibility criteria for a facility eligible to 

participate in the H–1C program. 

However, as the certification is 

limited to the status of the facility as of 

March 31, 1997, the Department only 

need certify an employer once as a 

qualifying facility. Therefore, although 

the employer must continue to submit, 

and the Department must continue to 

review, the applications because 

attestation applications are only valid 

for either 1 year or the end of the period 

of admission for the last H–1C nurse 

entering under that application, 

whichever is later, there is no 

requirement that the employer support 

subsequent submissions with the same 

documentary evidence that it qualifies 

as a facility. Once an employer has 

qualified as a facility, its eligibility as a 

facility is thereafter established. 

F. Enforcement Authority 

Section 655.1200 provides that the 

Administrator shall conduct 

investigations as may be appropriate, 

either pursuant to a complaint or 

otherwise. This language is identical to 

that used in the predecessor H–1A 

program. Per the INA, these 

investigations are conducted only if the 

Secretary determines there is reasonable 

cause to believe the facility failed to 

meet the conditions attested to. 

Two commenters asserted that the 

inclusion of the phrase or otherwise 

goes beyond the clear language of the 

law, which in their view limits the 

Department’s authority to only 

conducting investigations in response to 

a complaint. One of these commenters 

also noted that § 655.1102(4) defines an 

aggrieved party to include a government 

agency which has a program that is 

impacted by the facility’s alleged 

misrepresentation of material fact(s) or 

non-compliance with the attestation and 

believed that this definition would 

allow DOL to initiate investigations on 

its own initiative as an aggrieved party. 

The Department believes that it has 

authority to investigate NRDAA 

compliance in the absence of a 

complaint. Although investigations in 

response to complaints are clearly 

provided for under 8 U.S.C. 

1182(m)(2)(E), the provision also 

broadly states that the Secretary shall 

conduct an investigation under this 

clause if there is reasonable cause to 

believe that a facility fails to meet 

conditions attested to. The NDRAA 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10401 

contains no statutory language 

prohibiting investigations in the absence 

of a complaint. Similarly, the legislative 

history of the NRDAA contains no 

language indicating Congress intended 

to prohibit directed investigations but 

instead reflects a broad grant of 

investigative authority. 145 Cong. Rec. 

H3478 (May 24, 1999) (statement of Rep. 

Rush) (The Secretary of Labor will 

oversee this [H–1C] process and provide 

penalties for non-compliance.); Id. at 

H3476 (statement of Rep. Rogan) (The 

H–1C program created by this bill 

would adopt those protections for 

American nurses contained in the 

expired H–1A program * * * additional 

protections have also been added). 

Moreover, the NRDAA, 8 U.S.C. 

1182(m)(2)(E), uses the same statutory 

language as was found in the H–1A 

temporary nurse program and the 

legislative history of the NRDAA 

indicates that the H–1C program was 

modeled after the H–1A program, e.g., 

H.R. Rpt. 106–135, 1999. (The new 

program would be modeled after the 

expired ‘H–1A’ program.); 145 Cong. 

Rec. H3476 (daily ed. May 24, 1999) 

(statement of Rep. Rogan). The 

legislative history of the H–1A program 

clearly indicates that Congress intended 

for the Department to be authorized to 

conduct directed investigations, see, 

e.g., H.R. Rpt. 288, 1989 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 

1990 (Investigations may be initiated in 

two instances: (1) Through the Secretary 

of Labor when there is a reasonable 

cause to believe a facility fails to meet 

conditions of the attestation, and (2) 

upon the filing of a complaint by an 

aggrieved party). This position has been 

upheld by the Administrative Review 

Board (ARB) and the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Seventh 

Circuit. Administrator v. Beverly 

Enterprises, Inc. ARB Case No. 99–050 

(July 31, 2002); Administrator v. Alden 

Management Services, Inc. ARB Case 

No. 00–020 & 00–021 (Aug. 30, 2002), 

affirmed, Alden Management Services, 

Inc. v. Chao, 532 F. 3d 578 (7th Cir. 

2008). The Department concludes that 

the text and legislative history of the 

NRDAA, and that of the Nursing Relief 

Act establishing the H–1A program, 

support an interpretation that the 

Department has the authority to conduct 

investigations where there is reasonable 

cause to believe, even absent a 

complaint, that a facility has failed to 

meet conditions attested to. This 

position also furthers the purpose of the 

statute, especially because the 

Department has found that temporary 

nonimmigrant workers, such as H–1C 

nurses, are vulnerable to abuse and 

often reluctant to complain of violations 

of the law. For these reasons, the 

Department has not adopted the 

suggestions of the two commenters and 

retains the or otherwise language in 

§ 655.1200. 

One commenter believed that the IFR 

made it exceedingly simple to file a 

complaint and, despite the potential for 

abuse, provides no protection for 

facilities from those who would file 

complaints for reasons that are either 

frivolous or malicious. The commenter 

believed the IFR provided a golden 

opportunity for unscrupulous 

individuals and organizations to shake 

down hospitals for money and 

recommended that, at a minimum, 

copies of complaints should be 

provided to the hospital. 

The Department believes these 

concerns do not require changes to the 

regulations, for the following reasons. 

First, the Department did not receive a 

single actionable complaint during the 

initial 4-year life of the NRDAA 

program, and thus has no reason to 

believe the potential abuses suggested 

occurred previously under the program 

or will occur in the future. Second, 

similar to the H–1B program, 

complaints are not investigated unless 

there is a reasonable cause to believe a 

violation has occurred. See 

§ 655.1205(c). This mandatory 

reasonable cause determination serves 

as a check against frivolous complaints. 

Finally, with respect to the comment 

that copies of the complaint should be 

provided to the hospital, the 

Department continues to believe, as 

explained in the preamble to the IFR, 

that in order to assure effective 

enforcement it must maintain 

confidentiality for complainants. See 65 

FR 51147, Aug. 22, 2000. 

One commenter indicated that the IFR 

denies hospitals due process of law, 

violates generally accepted concepts of 

fairness and provides the Department 

with sweeping authority to conduct 

surprise raids of hospitals without 

notice. Furthermore, the commenter 

believed any surprise raid or search of 

a hospital’s files would allow a 

Department investigator to threaten 

hospital administrators with summary 

arrest. The commenter recommended 

that the regulation require a reasonable 

notice of a DOL investigation that 

specifies what documents are sought. 

The Department disagrees with this 

portrayal of its authority, and thus offers 

no regulatory changes, for the following 

reasons. First, the Department has no 

authority to arrest any party nor does it 

seek any such authority. Department 

investigations conducted to determine 

compliance with civil laws, not criminal 

laws, are normally limited to the review 

of appropriate records, interviews, and 

meetings with selected personnel. 

Further, the Department typically 

schedules investigations well in 

advance with employers, providing 

notice of the documents that are sought. 

The Department reserves its authority to 

carry out unannounced investigation 

visits, but normally does so only in the 

rare case where key records or 

personnel may not otherwise be 

available. In addition, while the 

Department conducted no investigations 

in the initial 4 years of the limited 

NRDAA program, Department 

enforcement of the similar H–1B 

program during this period provided no 

evidence of denial of due process or 

violation of the concepts of fairness. 

Finally, the INA and the implementing 

regulations provide explicit employer 

protections to ensure due process and 

fairness. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 

1182(m)(2)(E)(iii) and §§ 655.1215 and 

655.1220. 

G. Issuance of Findings 

Section 655.1215 describes how the 

Administrator’s investigation findings 

are issued. One commenter indicated 

that this section gives a party who wants 

to appeal a DOL determination an 

unreasonably short time (10 days) to 

submit a request for an Administrative 

Law Judge hearing, and recommended 

that a more appropriate time would be 

30 days. 

The short appeal time is necessitated 

by the statutory requirement to provide 

an opportunity for a hearing within 60 

days of the date of the determination of 

a violation. See 8 U.S.C. 

1182(m)(2)(E)(iii). The Department 

appreciates the concern expressed by 

the commenter and has extended the 

appeal period in the final regulation to 

15 days. This timing will parallel the 

similar H–1B process, which also 

provides for a hearing within 60 days 

and sets a 15-day deadline for appeals. 

H. Updates of Internal References and 

References to DHS Agencies 

Several sections of the IFR reference 

the coordination between the 

Department and INS or the Department 

of Justice, which housed the nowdefunct agency. Under the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002, most of the 

responsibilities assigned under the INA 

to the Attorney General were transferred 

to the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

effective March 2003. See 6 U.S.C. 

271(b). Consequently, the references in 

the IFR to the Attorney General are 

replaced with the DHS or USCIS as 

appropriate. 

In addition, this Final Rule updates 

references to the several Department 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
10402 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2The Department estimates that this work would 

be performed by a human resources manager at a 

hospital at an hourly rate of $42.15 (the wage as 

published by the Department’s OES Survey, O*Net 

Online), which we multiplied by a factor of 1.43 to 

account for employee benefits (source: Bureau of 

Labor Statistics) to obtain a total hourly wage rate 

of $60.27. The Department multiplies this hourly 

wage rate by 1 hour, the time calculated to complete 

the information collection represented by the ETA 

9081 and by the total number of H–1C Attestation 

(8) received in 2009. The Department then allotted 

an additional 30 minutes to account for paperwork 

follow-up by that professional, such as filing the 

retained paperwork to obtain a total cost for this 

requirement of $813.65 in 2009. 

offices and activities. These include the 

elimination of the Employment 

Standards Administration, and updates 

to other internal technical references for 

the Department, such as the name of 

OFLC. 

I. Miscellaneous Matters 

One commenter made two additional 

miscellaneous suggestions regarding the 

DOL Web site. 

1. List of HPSAs on DOL Web Site 

One commenter suggested that ETA 

post a list of HPSAs on the DOL Web 

site. The Department assumes, for 

purposes of this analysis, the 

commenter intended that DOL post the 

qualifying HPSAs on its Web site. 

The first of four criteria for a 

qualifying facility is location in an 

HPSA as of March 31, 1997. Any person 

can obtain the March 31, 1997, list of 

HPSAs from the Federal Register at 62 

FR 29395, May 30, 1997. The 

Department has effectively met the 

commenter’s request by providing a link 

to this particular Federal Register notice 

on the Department’s Web site at 

http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/ 

docs/hpsa.html. 

2. List ETA Form 9081 on DOL Web Site 

One commenter suggested that ETA 

post Form 9081 on the DOL Web site. 

We agree with this comment, and have 

posted a current version of ETA Form 

9081 on the OFLC Web site at http:// 

www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h1c.cfm. 

III. Administrative Information 

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 

the Department must determine whether 

a regulatory action is significant and 

therefore subject to the requirements of 

the E.O. and subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Section 3(f) of the E.O. defines 

a significant regulatory action as an 

action that is likely to result in a rule 

(1) having an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely and materially affecting a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local or 

tribal governments or communities (also 

referred to as economically significant); 

(2) creating serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfering with an action 

taken or planned by another agency; (3) 

materially altering the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 

raising novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the E.O. 

The Department has determined that 

this Final Rule is not an economically 

significant regulatory action under sec. 

3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. As noted above, 

the Department has been advised by the 

Health Resources and Services 

Administration of HHS that only those 

14 hospitals listed in the preamble to 

the IFR at 65 FR 51143, Aug. 22, 2000, 

are known to be eligible to participate 

in this program. The statute giving rise 

to the H–1C program, moreover, 

mandates the introduction of no more 

than 500 nurses per year (for 3 years, 

ending in December 2009) through the 

program. Collectively, the changes made 

by this Final Rule will not have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in 

any material way the economy, a sector 

of the economy, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities. Therefore, the Department 

has concluded that this Final Rule is not 

economically significant. 

The Department anticipates that the 

changes in this Final Rule would have 

little to no net direct impact on 

employers, above and beyond the 

baseline of the current costs required by 

the program as it is currently 

implemented. Further, the Department 

does not anticipate that this Final Rule 

would result in significant processing 

delays on its part. 

This Final Rule is being treated as a 

significant regulatory action within the 

meaning of E.O. 12866, because it 

requires inter-agency coordination. 

Accordingly, OMB has reviewed the 

rule. The interim Final Rule was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 22, 2000 and the Department 

received comments on the IFR from four 

interested parties. Only one comment 

related to inter-agency coordination. 

The commenter suggested that ETA post 

a list of HPSAs on the DOL Web site. 

HPSAs are determined by HHS. DOL 

has provided a link to the Federal 

Register notice on the Department’s 

Web site at http:// 

www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/docs/ 

hpsa.html. 

The Department considered 

alternatives to this Final Rule as 

discussed in responding to comments, 

above. The Department has operated the 

H–1C program under the IFR since 

2000. The minor changes made from the 

IFR to this Final Rule are made to reflect 

changes in the processing of 

applications in other areas. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department certifies that this 

Final Rule, if promulgated, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Therefore, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 603(a)). The Act defines a small 

entity to include small organizations, 

which are not-for-profit enterprises 

independently owned and operated and 

not dominant in their field. The Final 

Rule applies to no more than 14 

hospitals in the U.S. out of 6,541 

hospitals nationwide (Census Bureau 

statistics for 2002 at http:// 

www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ 

ec0262i02.pdf). The Department does 

not know how many of the 14 hospitals 

that use this program or the 6,541 

hospitals nationwide would be 

considered a small entity under the 

RFA. However, the cost to each of these 

14 entities using these programs is not 

significant. The NRDARA requires 

payment of a filing fee of up to $250 per 

application by a facility, limits the 

number of H–1C visas issued to 500 per 

year, and limits the number of visas 

issued for each State in each fiscal year. 

The reauthorized H–1C program expired 

3 years after enactment of the Act. Even 

taking into account the processing costs 

for actually filing the application (such 

as the time of a human resources 

professional to complete the form, make 

the necessary documentary records, 

etc.), these costs are accordingly not 

significant.2

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Department was not required to 

produce a RFA. Therefore, it is also not 

required to produce any Compliance 

Guides for Small Entities as mandated 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). 

The Department has similarly 

concluded that this Final Rule is not a 

major rule requiring review by the 

Congress under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10403 

1996 (5 U.S.C. 801) because it will not 

likely result in: (1) An annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more; 

(2) a major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises 

in domestic or export markets. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 and 1532) directs 

agencies to assess the effects of Federal 

regulatory actions on State, local, and 

tribal governments, and the private 

sector if the action includes any Federal 

Mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

single year. The Department certifies 

that this Final Rule contains no Federal 

Mandate. 

This Final Rule, promulgated in order 

to provide guidance to those affected by 

the NRDARA, relieves the SWAs of the 

States in which the eligible hospitals are 

located of a mandate to inform the 

hospitals of the prevailing wage, but 

leaves in place a recent amendment to 

the regulations requiring the NPC to 

inform the hospitals of the prevailing 

wage that they are required to pay the 

nurses who will receive the visas under 

the H–1C program. 

E. Executive Order 13132 

The Department has reviewed this 

Final Rule in accordance with E.O. 

13132 regarding federalism, and has 

determined that it does not have 

federalism implications. The Final Rule 

does not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. 

F. Assessment of Federal Regulations 

and Policies on Families 

This Final Rule does not affect family 

well being. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act and 

Privacy Act of 1974 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department conducts a 

preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and continuing 

collections of information in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). 

This helps to ensure that requested data 

can be provided in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized, collection 

instruments are clearly understood, and 

the impact of collection requirements on 

respondents can be properly assessed. 

In accordance with the PRA, the 

Department submitted an information 

collection request to OMB to reinstate, 

without change, ETA Form 9081 used in 

administering the IFR. OMB approved 

the reinstatement under control number 

1205–0415. The form expires on 

November 30, 2010. This Final Rule 

introduces no substantive or material 

changes to ETA Form 9081 as approved 

by OMB; therefore, the Department is 

not resubmitting the form to OMB for 

review and approval under the PRA. An 

electronic fillable and printable version 

can be found at http:// 

www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/ 

eta9081.pdf. 

H. Executive Order 12630 

The Department certifies that this 

Final Rule does not have property 

taking implications, i.e., eminent 

domain. 

I. Executive Order 12988 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with E.O. 

12988, Civil Justice Reform, and will not 

unduly burden the Federal court 

system. The regulation has been written 

so as to minimize litigation and provide 

clear legal standards for affected 

conduct, and has been reviewed 

carefully to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguities. 

J. Plain Language 

The Department has drafted this Final 

Rule in plain language. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Number: This program is not 

listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance because the program does 

not provide financial assistance as 

defined in OMB Circular No. A–89. 

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 655 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Foreign workers, 

Employment, Health professions, 

Immigration, Labor, Penalties, 

Registered nurse, Reporting 

requirements, Students, Wages. 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble, 20 CFR part 655, is 

amended as follows: 

PART 655—TEMPORARY 

EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN 

WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES 

■ 1. Revise the authority section for part 

655 to read as follows: 

Authority: Section 655.0 issued under 8 

U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i) and (ii), 1182(m), (n), 

and (t), 1184, 1188, and 1288(c) and (d); 29 

U.S.C. 49 et seq.; sec. 3(c)(1), Pub. L. 101– 

238, 103 Stat. 2099, 2102 (8 U.S.C. 1182 

note); sec. 221(a), Pub. L. 101–649, 104 Stat. 

4978, 5027 (8 U.S.C. 1184 note); sec. 323, 

Pub. L. 103–206, 107 Stat. 2149; Title IV, 

Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 106– 

95, 113 Stat. 1312 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); and 

8 CFR 213.2(h)(4)(i). 

Section 655.00 issued under 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(H)(ii), 1184, and 1188; 29 U.S.C. 

49 et seq.; and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i). 

Subparts A and C issued under 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and 1184; 29 U.S.C. 49 et 

seq.; and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i). 

Subpart B issued under 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 1184, and 1188; and 29 

U.S.C. 49 et seq. 

Subparts D and E issued under 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(a), 1182(m), and 1184; 29 

U.S.C. 49 et seq.; and sec. 3(c)(1), Pub. L. 

101–238, 103 Stat. 2099, 2103 (8 U.S.C. 1182 

note). 

Subparts F and G issued under 8 U.S.C. 

1184 and 1288(c); and 29 U.S.C. 49 et seq. 

Subparts H and I issued under 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and (b1), 1182(n), 1182(t), 

and 1184; 29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.; sec 303(a)(8), 

Pub. L. 102–232, 105 Stat. 1733, 1748 (8 

U.S.C. 1182 note); and Title IV, Pub. L. 105– 

277, 112 Stat. 2681. 

Subparts J and K issued under 29 U.S.C. 49 

et seq.; and sec. 221(a), Pub. L. 101–649, 104 

Stat. 4978, 5027 (8 U.S.C. 1184 note). 

Subparts L and M issued under 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c), 1182(m), and 1184; 29 

U.S.C. 49 et seq., and Pub. L. 109–423, 120 

Stat. 2900. 

Subparts L and M [Amended] 

■ 2. In Subparts L (§§ 655.1100 through 

655.1150) and M (§§ 655.1200 through 

655.1260): 

■ A. Remove the word ‘‘INS’’ and add in 

its place the word ‘‘USCIS’’ wherever it 

may occur; and 

■ B. Remove the word ‘‘SESA’’ and add 

in its place the word ‘‘NPC’’ wherever it 

may occur. 

■ 3. Revise § 655.1101 to read as 

follows: 

§ 655.1101 What are the responsibilities of 

the government agencies and the facilities 

that participate in the H–1C program? 

(a) Federal agencies’ responsibilities. 

The Department of Labor (DOL), 

Department of Homeland Security, and 

Department of State are involved in the 

H–1C visa process. Within DOL, the 

Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA) and the Wage and 

Hour Division have responsibility for 

different aspects of the process. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
10404 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Facility’s attestation 

responsibilities. Each facility seeking 

one or more H–1C nurse(s) must, as the 

first step, submit an attestation on Form 

ETA 9081, as described in § 655.1110 of 

this part, to the U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of Foreign Labor 

Certification, Chicago National 

Processing Center, 536 South Clark 

Street, Chicago, IL 60605–1509. If the 

attestation satisfies the criteria stated in 

§ 655.1130 and includes the supporting 

information required by § 655.1110 and 

by § 655.1114, ETA shall accept the 

attestation form for filing, and return the 

accepted attestation to the facility. 

(c) H–1C petitions. Upon ETA’s 

acceptance of the attestation, the facility 

may then file petitions with U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) for the admission of, change to, 

or extension of status of H–1C nurses. 

The facility must attach a copy of the 

accepted attestation (Form ETA 9081) to 

the petition or the request for 

adjustment or extension of status, filed 

with USCIS. At the same time that the 

facility files an H–1C petition with 

USCIS, it must also send a copy of the 

petition to the Employment and 

Training Administration, Administrator, 

Office of Foreign Labor Certification, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

C–4312, Washington, DC 20210. The 

facility must also send to this same ETA 

address a copy of the USCIS petition 

approval notice within 5 days after it is 

received from USCIS. 

(d) Visa issuance. USCIS makes 

determinations, in adjudicating an H–1C 

petition, whether the foreign worker 

possesses the required qualifications 

and credentials to be employed as an H– 

1C nurse. The Department of State is 

subsequently responsible for 

determining visa eligibility. 

(e) Board of Alien Labor Certification 

Appeals (BALCA) review of Attestations 

accepted and not accepted for filing. 

Any interested party may seek review 

by the BALCA of an Attestation 

accepted or not accepted for filing by 

ETA. However, such appeals are limited 

to ETA actions on the three Attestation 

matters on which ETA conducts a 

substantive review (i.e., the employer’s 

eligibility as a facility; the facility’s 

attestation to alternative timely and 

significant steps; and the facility’s 

assertion that taking a second timely 

and significant step would not be 

reasonable). 

(f) Complaints. Complaints 

concerning misrepresentation of 

material fact(s) in the Attestation or 

failure of the facility to carry out the 

terms of the Attestation may be filed 

with the Wage and Hour Division of 

DOL, according to the procedures set 

forth in subpart M of this part. The 

Wage and Hour Administrator shall 

investigate and, where appropriate, after 

an opportunity for a hearing, assess 

remedies and penalties. Subpart M of 

this part also provides that interested 

parties may obtain an administrative 

law judge hearing and may seek review 

of the administrative law judge’s 

decision at the Department’s 

Administrative Review Board. 

■ 4. Amend § 655.1102 as follows: 

■ A. Remove the definitions of 

‘‘Administrator, OWS’’, ‘‘Employment 

Standards Administration (ESA),’’ 

‘‘Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS)’’, ‘‘Office of Workforce Security 

(OWS)’’ and ‘‘State Employment 

Security Agency (SESA)’’. 

■ B. Add, in alphabetical order, the 

definitions of ‘‘Administrator, Office of 

Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC)’’, 

‘‘Office of Foreign Labor Certification 

(OFLC)’’, and ‘‘U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS).’’ 

■ C. Revise the definitions of 

‘‘Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA)’’, ‘‘Facility’’, 

‘‘United States’’, and ‘‘United States 

(U.S.) nurse.’’ 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 655.1102 What are the definitions of 

terms that are used in these regulations? 

* * * * * 

Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor 

Certification (OFLC) means the primary 

official of the Office of Foreign Labor 

Certification (OFLC Administrator), or 

the OFLC Administrator’s designee. 

* * * * * 

Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA) means the agency 

within the Department of Labor (DOL) 

which includes the Office of Foreign 

Labor Certification (OFLC). 

Facility means a ‘‘subsection (d) 

hospital’’ (as defined in section 

1886(d)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B)) that meets 

the following requirements: 

(1) As of March 31, 1997, the hospital 

was located in a health professional 

shortage area (as defined in section 332 

of the Public Health Service Act (42 

U.S.C. 245e)); and 

(2) Based on its settled cost report 

filed under Title XVIII of the Social 

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) for 

its cost reporting period beginning 

during fiscal year 1994— 

(i) The hospital has not less than 190 

licensed acute care beds; 

(ii) The number of the hospital’s 

inpatient days for such period which 

were made up of patients who (for such 

days) were entitled to benefits under 

part A of such title is not less than 35 

percent of the total number of such 

hospital’s acute care inpatient days for 

such period; and 

(iii) The number of the hospital’s 

inpatient days for such period which 

were made up of patients who (for such 

days) were eligible for medical 

assistance under a State plan approved 

under Title XIX of the Social Security 

Act, is not less than 28 percent of the 

total number of such hospital’s acute 

care inpatient days for such period. 

(3) The requirements of paragraph (2) 

of this definition shall not apply to a 

facility in Guam, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, or the 

Virgin Islands. 

* * * * * 

Office of Foreign Labor Certification 

(OFLC) means the organizational 

component within the ETA that 

provides national leadership and policy 

guidance and develops regulations and 

procedures to carry out the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of Labor 

under the INA concerning foreign 

workers seeking admission to the 

United States. 

* * * * * 

United States (U.S.) means the 

continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 

territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, 

and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) means the bureau 

within the Department of Homeland 

Security that makes determinations 

under the INA on whether to approve 

petitions seeking classification and/or 

admission of nonimmigrant nurses 

under the H–1C program. 

United States (U.S.) nurse means any 

nurse who: is a U.S. citizen; is a U.S. 

national; is lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence; is admitted as a 

refugee under 8 U.S.C. 1157; or is 

granted asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1158. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Revise § 655.1110 to read as 

follows: 

§ 655.1110 What requirements are 

imposed in the filing of an attestation? 

(a) Who may file Attestations? 

(1) Any hospital which meets the 

definition of facility in §§ 655.1102 and 

655.1111 may file an Attestation. 

(2) ETA shall determine the hospital’s 

eligibility as a facility through a review 

of this attestation element on the first 

Attestation filed by the hospital. ETA’s 

determination on this point is subject to 

a hearing before the BALCA upon the 

request of any interested party. The 

BALCA proceeding shall be limited to 

the point. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10405 

(3) Upon the hospital’s filing of a 

second or subsequent Attestation, its 

eligibility as a facility shall be 

controlled by the determination made 

on this point in the ETA review (and 

BALCA proceeding, if any) of the 

hospital’s first Attestation. 

(b) Where and when should 

attestations be submitted? 

(1) Attestations shall be submitted, by 

U.S. mail or private carrier, to ETA at 

the following address: U.S. Department 

of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of Foreign Labor 

Certification, Chicago National 

Processing Center, 536 South Clark 

Street, Chicago, IL 60605–1509. 

(2) Attestations shall be reviewed and 

accepted for filing or rejected by ETA 

within 30 calendar days of the date they 

are received by ETA. Therefore, it is 

recommended that attestations be 

submitted to ETA at least 35 calendar 

days prior to the planned date for filing 

an H–1C visa petition with USCIS. 

(c) What shall be submitted? 

(1) Form ETA 9081 and required 

supporting documentation, as described 

in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of 

this section. 

(i) A completed and dated original 

Form ETA 9081, containing the required 

attestation elements and the original 

signature of the chief executive officer 

of the facility, shall be submitted, along 

with one copy of the completed, signed, 

and dated Form ETA 9081. Copies of the 

form and instructions are available at 

the address listed in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(ii) If the Attestation is the first filed 

by the hospital, it shall be accompanied 

by copies of pages from the hospital’s 

Form HCFA 2552 filed with the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (pursuant to title XVIII of the 

Social Security Act) for its 1994 cost 

reporting period, showing the number of 

its acute care beds and the percentages 

of Medicaid and Medicare reimbursed 

acute care inpatient days (i.e., Form 

HCFA–2552–92, Worksheet S–3, Part I; 

Worksheet S, Parts I and II). 

(iii) If the facility attests that it will 

take one or more timely and significant 

steps other than the steps identified on 

Form ETA 9081, then the facility must 

submit (in duplicate) an explanation of 

the proposed step(s) and an explanation 

of how the proposed step(s) is/are of 

comparable significance to those set 

forth on the Form and in § 655.1114. 

(See § 655.1114(b)(2)(v).) 

(iv) If the facility attests that taking 

more than one timely and significant 

step is unreasonable, then the facility 

must submit (in duplicate) an 

explanation of this attestation. (See 

§ 655.1114(c).) 

(2) Filing fee of $250 per Attestation. 

Payment must be in the form of a check 

or money order, payable to the ‘‘U.S. 

Department of Labor.’’ Remittances must 

be drawn on a bank or other financial 

institution located in the U.S. and be 

payable in U.S. currency. 

(3) Copies of H–1C petitions and 

USCIS approval notices. After ETA has 

approved the attestation used by the 

facility to support any H–1C petition, 

the facility must send copies of each H– 

1C petition and USCIS approval notice 

on such petition to Employment and 

Training Administration, Administrator, 

Office of Foreign Labor Certification, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

C–4312, Washington, DC 20210. 

(d) Attestation elements. The 

attestation elements referenced in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section are 

mandated by section 212(m)(2)(A) of the 

INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(m)(2)(A)). Section 

212(m)(2)(A) requires a prospective 

employer of H–1C nurses to attest to the 

following: 

(1) That it qualifies as a facility (See 

§ 655.1111); 

(2) That employment of H–1C nurses 

will not adversely affect the wages or 

working conditions of similarly 

employed nurses (See § 655.1112); 

(3) That the facility will pay the H– 

1C nurse the facility wage rate (See 

§ 655.1113); 

(4) That the facility has taken, and is 

taking, timely and significant steps to 

recruit and retain U.S. nurses (See 

§ 655.1114); 

(5) That there is not a strike or lockout 

at the facility, that the employment of 

H–1C nurses is not intended or designed 

to influence an election for a bargaining 

representative for RNs at the facility, 

and that the facility did not lay off and 

will not lay off a registered nurse 

employed by the facility 90 days before 

and after the date of filing a visa petition 

(See § 655.1115); 

(6) That the facility will notify its 

workers and give a copy of the 

Attestation to every nurse employed at 

the facility (See § 655.1116); 

(7) That no more than 33 percent of 

nurses employed by the facility will be 

H–1C nonimmigrants (See § 655.1117); 

and 

(8) That the facility will not authorize 

H–1C nonimmigrants to work at a 

worksite not under its control, and will 

not transfer an H–1C nonimmigrant 

from one worksite to another (See 

§ 655.1118). 

■ 6. Amend § 655.1115 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 655.1115 Element V—What does ‘‘no 

strike/lockout or layoff’’ mean? 

* * * * * 

(b) Notice of strike or lockout. In order 

to remain in compliance with the no 

strike or lockout portion of this 

attestation element, the facility must 

notify ETA if a strike or lockout of 

nurses at the facility occurs during the 

1 year validity period of the attestation. 

Within 3 days of the occurrence of such 

strike or lockout, the facility must 

submit to the Administrator, Office of 

Foreign Labor Certification, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, Department of Labor, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

C–4312, Washington, DC 20210, by U.S. 

mail or private carrier, written notice of 

the strike or lockout. Upon receiving a 

notice described in this section from a 

facility, ETA will examine the 

documentation, and may consult with 

the union at the facility or other 

appropriate entities. If ETA determines 

that the strike or lockout is covered 

under USCIS regulation 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(17), Effect of a strike, for ‘‘H’’ 

nonimmigrants, ETA must certify to 

USCIS, in the manner set forth in that 

regulation, that a strike or other labor 

dispute involving a work stoppage of 

nurses is in progress at the facility. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 655.1116 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 655.1116 Element VI—What notification 

must facilities provide to registered 

nurses? 

* * * * * 

(b) Notification of bargaining 

representative. 

(1) At a time no later than the date the 

attestation is transmitted to ETA, on 

ETA Form 9081, Attestation for H–1C 

Nonimmigrant Nurses, the facility must 

notify the bargaining representative (if 

any) for nurses at the facility that the 

attestation is being submitted. This 

notice may be either a copy of the 

attestation (ETA Form 9081) or a 

document stating that the attestations 

are available for review by interested 

parties at the facility (explaining how 

they can be inspected or obtained) and 

at the Office of Foreign Labor 

Certification, Employment and Training 

Administration, Department of Labor, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

C–4312, Washington, DC 20210. The 

notice must include the following 

statement: ‘‘Complaints alleging 

misrepresentation of material facts in 

the attestation or failure to comply with 

the terms of the attestation may be filed 

with any office of the Wage and Hour 

Division, United States Department of 

Labor.’’ 

(2) No later than the date the facility 

transmits a petition for H–1C nurses to 

USCIS, the facility must notify the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
10406 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

bargaining representative (if any) for 

nurses at the facility that the H–1C 

petition is being submitted. This notice 

may be either a copy of petition, or a 

document stating that the attestations 

and H–1C petition are available for 

review by interested parties at the 

facility (explaining how they can be 

inspected or obtained) and at the Office 

of Foreign Labor Certification, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, Department of Labor, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

C–4312, Washington, DC 20210. The 

notice must include the following 

statement: ‘‘Complaints alleging 

misrepresentation of material facts in 

the attestation or failure to comply with 

the terms of the attestation may be filed 

with any office of the Wage and Hour 

Division, United States Department of 

Labor.’’ 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 655.1130 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 655.1130 What criteria does the 

Department use to determine whether or 

not to certify an Attestation? 

* * * * * 

(c) When the facility submits the 

attestation to ETA and provides the 

notice required by § 655.1116, the 

attestation must be made available for 

public examination at the facility. When 

ETA accepts the attestation for filing, 

the attestation will be made available, 

upon request, for public examination in 

the Office of Foreign Labor Certification, 

Employment Training Administration, 

U.S. Department of Labor, Room C– 

4312, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 655.1135 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 655.1135 What appeals procedures are 

available concerning ETA’s actions on a 

facility’s Attestation? 

* * * * * 

(d) Where to file appeals. Appeals 

made under this section must be in 

writing and must be mailed by certified 

mail to: U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of Foreign Labor 

Certification, Chicago National 

Processing Center, 536 South Clark 

Street, Chicago, IL 60605–1509. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 655.1150 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 655.1150 What materials must be 

available to the public? 

(a) Public examination at ETA. ETA 

will make available, upon request, for 

public examination at the Office of 

Foreign Labor Certification, 

Employment Training Administration, 

U.S. Department of Labor, Room C– 

4312, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210, a list of facilities 

which have filed attestations; a copy of 

the facility’s attestation(s) and any 

supporting documentation; and a copy 

of each of the facility’s H–1C petitions 

(if any) to USCIS along with the USCIS 

approval notices (if any). 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Revise § 655.1215 to read as 

follows: 

§ 655.1215 How are the Administrator’s 

investigation findings issued? 

(a) The Administrator’s 

determination, issued under 

§ 655.1205(d), shall be served on the 

complainant, the facility, and other 

interested parties by personal service or 

by certified mail at the parties’ last 

known addresses. Where service by 

certified mail is not accepted by the 

party, the Administrator may exercise 

discretion to serve the determination by 

regular mail. Where the complainant 

has requested confidentiality, the 

Administrator shall serve the 

determination in a manner which will 

not breach that confidentiality. 

(b) The Administrator’s written 

determination required by § 655.1205(c) 

shall: 

(1) Set forth the determination of the 

Administrator and the reason or reasons 

therefore; prescribe any remedies or 

penalties including the amount of any 

unpaid wages due, the actions required 

for compliance with the facility 

Attestation, and the amount of any civil 

money penalty assessment and the 

reason or reasons therefore. 

(2) Inform the interested parties that 

they may request a hearing under 

§ 655.1220. 

(3) Inform the interested parties that 

if a request for a hearing is not received 

by the Chief Administrative Law Judge 

within 15 days of the date of the 

determination, the determination of the 

Administrator shall become final and 

not appealable. 

(4) Set forth the procedure for 

requesting a hearing, and give the 

address of the Chief Administrative Law 

Judge. 

(5) Inform the parties that, under 

§ 655.1255, the Administrator shall 

notify the Department of Homeland 

Security and ETA of the occurrence of 

a violation by the employer. 

■ 12. Revise § 655.1255 to read as 

follows: 

§ 655.1255 What are the procedures for 

debarment of a facility based on a finding 

of violation? 

(a) The Administrator shall notify the 

Department of Homeland Security and 

ETA of the final determination of a 

violation by a facility upon the earliest 

of the following events: 

(1) Where the Administrator 

determines that there is a basis for a 

finding of violation by a facility, and no 

timely request for hearing is made under 

§ 655.1220; or 

(2) Where, after a hearing, the 

administrative law judge issues a 

decision and order finding a violation 

by a facility, and no timely petition for 

review to the Board is made under 

§ 655.1245; or 

(3) Where a petition for review is 

taken from an administrative law 

judge’s decision and the Board either 

declines within 30 days to entertain the 

appeal, under § 655.1245(c), or the 

Board affirms the administrative law 

judge’s determination; or 

(4) Where the administrative law 

judge finds that there was no violation 

by a facility, and the Board, upon 

review, issues a decision under 

§ 655.1245(h), holding that a violation 

was committed by a facility. 

(b) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, upon receipt of the 

Administrator’s notice under paragraph 

(a) of this section, shall not approve 

petitions filed with respect to that 

employer under section 212(m) of the 

INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(m)) during a period 

of at least 12 months from the date of 

receipt of the Administrator’s 

notification. The Administrator must 

provide USCIS with a recommendation 

as to the length of the debarment. 

(c) ETA, upon receipt of the 

Administrator’s notice under paragraph 

(a) of this section, shall suspend the 

employer’s attestation(s) under subparts 

L and M of this part, and shall not 

accept for filing any attestation 

submitted by the employer under 

subparts L and M of this part, for a 

period of 12 months from the date of 

receipt of the Administrator’s 

notification or for a longer period if one 

is specified by the Department of 

Homeland Security for visa petitions 

filed by that employer under section 

212(m) of the INA. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10407 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

February 2010. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

Nancy Leppink, 

Deputy Administrator, Wage and Hour 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4475 Filed 3–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FP–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2