43466 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

eligible producers for that class of oil.

The Committee shall immediately notify

each producer who is to receive

additional allotment base by issuing that

producer an allotment base in the

appropriate amount.

* * * * *

Dated: August 8, 1997.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 97–21524 Filed 8–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Part 212

[INS No. 1748–96; AG Order No. 2104–97]

RIN 1115–AE27

Executive Office for Immigration

Review; Periods of Lawful Temporary

Resident Status and Lawful Permanent

Resident Status to Establish Seven

Years of Lawful Domicile

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service (INS), Executive Office for

Immigration Review (EOIR), Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule adopts without

change an interim rule published in the

Federal Register by the Immigration and

Naturalization Service and the

Executive Office for Immigration

Review on November 25, 1996, which

amended Department of Justice

regulations that limit discretion to grant

an application for relief under section

212(c) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (the Act) by expanding

the class of aliens eligible for section

212(c) relief. Although Congress

recently limited the availability of

section 212(c) relief, certain classes of

aliens remain eligible. This rule allows

a 212(c) eligible alien who has adjusted

to lawful permanent resident status,

pursuant to sections 245A or 210 of the

Act, to use the combined period of his

or her status as a lawful temporary

resident and lawful permanent resident

to establish seven (7) years of lawful

domicile in the United States for

purposes of eligibility for section 212(c)

relief. This rule will provide uniformity

between the regulation and case law.

DATES: This final rule is effective August

14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret M. Philbin, General Counsel,

Executive Office for Immigration

Review, Suite 2400, 5107 Leesburg Pike,

Falls Church, Virginia 22041, telephone

(703) 305–0470; David M. Dixon, Chief

Appellate Counsel, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, Suite 309, 5113

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia

22041, telephone (703) 756–6257.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Two

recent enactments affect the availability

of relief under section 212(c). The

Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) restricts

the classes of alien criminals eligible for

section 212(c) relief. The Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act of 1996 repeals and

replaces section 212(c), but only for

proceedings commenced on or after

April 1, 1997. This rule only affects the

cases not covered by these new

restrictions, i.e., those commenced

before April 1, 1997, and not barred by

AEDPA.

Under recent 212(c) case law, an alien

who has acquired lawful permanent

resident status under section 245A of

the Act may accrue the seven (7) years

of lawful domicile required for purposes

of section 212(c) relief from the date of

his or her application for temporary

resident status. See Robles v. INS, 58

F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1995); Avelar-Cruz v.

INS, 58 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 1995);

Castellon-Contreras v. INS, 45 F.3d 149

(7th Cir. 1995). The current regulation

allows an alien to apply for section

212(c) relief only if he or she has

established at least seven consecutive

years of lawful permanent resident

status immediately prior to filing the

application. See 8 CFR 212.3(f)(2). The

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has

determined that, in cases arising in the

Ninth Circuit, an alien may use the

period of temporary resident status to

establish the requisite seven years. See

In re Carlos Cazares-Alvarez, Interim

Decision 3262 (BIA 1996). However, in

cases arising in circuits without such a

temporary resident status rule, the BIA

has determined that the current

regulation requires seven years of lawful

permanent resident status. See In re

Hector Ponce de Leon-Ruiz, Interim

Decision 3261 (BIA 1996). The BIA has

referred these cases to the Attorney

General pursuant to 8 CFR 3.1(h)(1)(ii)

to resolve the issue. The issue raised in

White v. INS, 75 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 1996)

(whether 8 CFR 212.3(f)(2) is consistent

with 8 U.S.C. 1182(c) and therefore is

entitled to deference), has been

addressed and rendered moot by section

304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform

and Immigrant Responsibility Act of

1996, Public Law 104–208, 110 Stat.

3009 (September 30, 1996) (repealing

section 212(c) and substituting other

relief), effective April 1, 1997, codified

at section 240A of the Immigration and

Nationality Act as amended. The White

court computed the years of lawful

unrelinquished domicile (including the

years of lawful temporary resident

status) rather than lawful permanent

residence in determining eligibility for

relief.

The Service published an interim rule

with request for comments in the

Federal Register on November 25, 1996,

at 61 FR 59824. The interim rule

permitted an alien to demonstrate

lawful domicile for section 212(c) relief

purposes by combining his or her status

as a lawful temporary resident and as a

lawful permanent resident under

sections 245A or 210 of the Act. Since

no comments were received, the Service

and EOIR are adopting the interim rule

as final without changes.

Effective Date

Since there are no changes between

the interim rule and this final rule, the

Service believes that ‘‘good cause’’

exists to implement this rule effective

upon date of publication in the Federal

Register.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Attorney General, in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. 605(b) has reviewed this

regulation and, by approving it, certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

adverse economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The affected parties are individuals not

small entities, and the impact of the

regulation is not an economic one.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule will not result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribunal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year, and it will not

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Therefore, no actions were

deemed necessary under the provisions

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as

defined by section 804 of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of

1996. This rule will not result in an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more; a major increase in

costs or prices; or significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

on the ability of United States-based

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and

export markets.

Executive Order 12866

This rule is not considered by the

Department of Justice, Immigration and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43467

Naturalization Service and the

Executive Office for Immigration

Review, to be a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under Executive Order 12866,

section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and

Review, and the Office of Management

and Budget has waived its review

process under section 6(a)(3)(A).

Executive Order 12612

The regulation adopted herein will

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. In accordance

with Executive Order 12612, it is

determined that this rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Executive Order 12988

This final rule meets the applicable

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 212

Administrative practice and

procedure, Aliens, Immigration,

Passports and visas, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 8 CFR part 212 which was

published at 61 FR 59824 on November

25, 1996, is adopted as a final rule

without change.

Dated: August 7, 1997.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 97–21458 Filed 8–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 205

[Regulation E; Docket No. R–0959]

Electronic Fund Transfers

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Board is publishing

amendments to Regulation E (Electronic

Fund Transfers). The revisions

implement an amendment to the

Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA),

contained in the Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act of 1996, that exempts certain

electronic benefit transfer (EBT)

programs from the EFTA. Generally,

EBT programs involve the issuance of

access cards and personal identification

numbers to recipients of government

benefits so that they can obtain their

benefits through automated teller

machines and point-of-sale terminals.

The Board’s amendments to Regulation

E exempt needs-tested EBT programs

that are established or administered by

state or local government agencies.

Federally administered EBT programs

and state and local employment-related

EBT programs (such as state pension

programs) remain covered by Regulation

E subject to modified requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane

Jensen Gell, Senior Attorney, Division of

Consumer and Community Affairs, at

(202) 452–3667; for users of

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

(TDD) only, contact Diane Jenkins at

(202) 452–3544.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

EFT Act and Regulation E

Regulation E implements the

Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA).

The act and regulation cover any

consumer electronic fund transfer (EFT)

initiated through an automated teller

machine (ATM), point-of-sale (POS)

terminal, automated clearinghouse,

telephone bill-payment system, or home

banking program. The act and

Regulation E establish rules that govern

these and other EFTs. The rules restrict

the unsolicited issuance of ATM cards

and other access devices; require

disclosure of terms and conditions of an

EFT service; document EFTs by means

of terminal receipts and periodic

account statements; limit consumer

liability for unauthorized transfers; and

establish procedures for error

resolution.

The EFTA is not limited to traditional

financial institutions holding

consumers’ accounts. For EFT services

made available by entities other than an

account-holding financial institution,

the act directs the Board to assure, by

regulation, that the provisions of the act

are made applicable. The regulation also

applies to entities that issue access

devices and enter into agreements with

consumers to provide EFT services.

Electronic Benefit Transfer Programs

Electronic benefit transfer (EBT)

programs are designed to deliver

government benefits such as food

stamps, supplemental security income

(SSI), and social security. These systems

function much like commercial systems

for EFT. Eligible recipients receive

magnetic-stripe cards and personal

identification numbers and they access

benefits through electronic terminals. In

the case of cash benefits such as SSI, the

terminals may include ATMs that are

part of existing commercial networks;

for food stamp benefits, POS terminals

in grocery stores are typically used.

EBT offers numerous advantages over

paper-based delivery systems, both for

recipients and for program agencies. For

recipients, these advantages include

faster access to benefits, greater

convenience in terms of times and

locations for obtaining benefits,

improved security because funds may

be accessed as needed, lower costs

because recipients avoid check-cashing

fees, and greater privacy and dignity.

For agencies, EBT programs offer a

system that can more efficiently deliver

benefits for both state and federal

programs by reducing the cost of benefit

delivery, facilitating the management of

program funds, and helping to reduce

fraud.

In March 1994, the Board amended

Regulation E to bring EBT programs

expressly within its coverage. 59 FR

10678 (March 7, 1994). The special

provisions, contained in § 205.15, apply

most of the requirements of the

regulation—including those relating to

liability for unauthorized transactions

and to error resolution—with some

modifications. The major exception

related to providing periodic statements

of account activity: EBT programs need

not provide periodic statements as long

as (1) account balance information is

made available to benefit recipients via

telephone and electronic terminals and

(2) a written account history is given

upon request.

The basic premise underlying the

Board’s 1994 amendments to Regulation

E was that all consumers using EFT

services should receive substantially the

same protection under the EFTA and

Regulation E. To enable states to test

and implement their EBT programs, the

Board delayed the date of mandatory

compliance to March 1, 1997.

II. Revised Regulatory Provisions

On August 22, 1996, the Congress

enacted amendments to the EFTA as

part of the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of

1996, a comprehensive welfare reform

law (Pub. L. 104–193, 110 Stat. 2105).

These amendments exempt ‘‘needstested’’ EBT programs established or

administered under state or local law.

(‘‘Needs-tested’’ EBT programs generally

take a recipient’s income or other

resources into account to determine the

appropriate level of benefits.) The

exemption was enacted by the Congress

at the urging of state and local officials,

who expressed concern about the costs

of compliance with the EFTA and