Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 6707

grading, marketing, and other technical

factors, and any other relevant

information, GIPSA will decide whether

the proposed actions should be

implemented.

(e) If GIPSA concludes that the

changes as proposed or with appropriate

modifications should be adopted,

GIPSA will publish the final changes in

the Federal Register as a final notice.

GIPSA will make the grade standards

and related information available in

printed form and electronic media.

(f) If GIPSA determines that proposed

changes are not warranted, or otherwise

are not in the public interest, GIPSA

will either publish in the Federal

Register a notice withdrawing the

proposal, or will revise the proposal and

again seek public input.

Dated: February 7, 1997.

David R. Shipman,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–3567 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Part 204

[INS No. 1602–92]

Classification of Certain Scientists of

the Commonwealth of Independent

States of the Former Soviet Union and

the Baltic States as EmploymentBased Immigrants

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule adopts,

without change, an interim rule

published in the Federal Register by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(‘‘the Service’’) on October 19, 1995,

that allows certain scientists and

engineers from the former Soviet Union

to apply for permanent residence under

the Soviet Scientist Act of 1992. This is

necessary to clearly identify those

scientists who qualify for permanent

resident status under the Soviet

Scientists Immigration Act of 1992.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael W. Straus, Adjudications

Officer, Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Room 3214, 425 I Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202)

514–5014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Soviet Scientists Immigration Act

of 1992 (SSIA), Public Law 102–509,

dated October 24, 1992, provides that

up to 750 immigrant visas may be

allotted under section 203(b)(2)(A) of

the Immigration and Nationality Act

(Act) to eligible scientists of the

independent states of the former Soviet

Union and the Baltic states, by virtue of

their expertise in nuclear, chemical,

biological, or other high-technology

fields or their current work on nuclear,

chemical, biological, or other hightechnology defense projects. The

provisions of the SSIA terminated on

October 24, 1996.

On October 19, 1995, at 60 FR 54027–

30, the Service published an interim

rule with request for comments in the

Federal Register. The October 19, 1995,

interim rule revised a previous interim

rule published on May 27, 1993, at 58

FR 30699–701, on the ground that

revisions in the previous interim rule

were necessary to improve the visa

petition process, and responded to

written comments submitted in

response to the May 27, 1993, interim

rule. Interested persons were invited to

submit written comments on or before

December 18, 1995 to the October 19,

1995, interim rule. The Service received

one comment.

Comments

The following discussion summarizes

the issues which have been raised

relating to the interim rule and provides

the Service’s position on the issues.

Termination

The interim rule provides that the

Service must approve an SSIA petition

on or before October 24, 1996, or when

the Service has approved a total of 750

petitions on behalf of eligible scientists,

whichever date is earlier. See 8 CFR

204.10(a). The commenter contended

that the Service’s requirement that a

visa petition filed under the SSIA be

approved on or before October 24, 1996,

would result in inequities due to the

difference in processing times among

the service centers. The SSIA, however,

states that the Attorney General’s

authority to designate a class of eligible

scientists from the former Soviet Union

for purposes of section 203(b)(2)(A) of

the Act terminates 4 years after the

enactment date of the SSIA. The

Service, therefore, has no authority to

approve an SSIA petition after October

24, 1996.

Jurisdiction

The 1995 interim rule states that SSIA

applicants must file the petition at a

service center. The commenter objected,

arguing that such a procedure could

delay the petitioner’s ability to obtain

employment authorization and

adjustment of status. The commenter

suggested that, after a combined filing of

an I–40 petition (for SSIA classification)

and an I–485 application for adjustment

of status at a local office, the I–140

petition could be forwarded to a service

center for adjudication. The commenter

contended that this would allow SSIA

applicants to apply immediately for

employment authorization and, thus,

attract more qualified scientists from the

former Soviet Union.

As noted in the interim rule, the

Service has determined that centralizing

the adjudication of SSIA petitions at

service centers would enhance

coordination with other government

agencies in adjudicating these petitions.

In addition, centralized adjudication

makes sense in light of the expertise

developed by the service centers in

adjudicating these types of petitions.

The Service believes that the SSIA has

already created a sufficiently powerful

inducement for qualified scientists to

immigrate to the United States by

waiving the job offer, labor certification,

and minimum eligibility requirements

under section 203(b)(2) of the Act. The

fact that, under the interim rule, SSIA

applicants who are present in the

United States must have an approved

SSIA petition before becoming eligible

to apply for adjustment of status, and

thus, for employment authorization

under 8 CFR 274.a.12(c)(9), has little, if

any, impact on the basic attractiveness

of the SSIA to qualified scientists.

Moreover, the provision requiring

adjudication of SSIA petitions at service

centers would have no effect on SSIA

petitioners who are not present in the

United States. Accordingly, no change

will be made in the final rule.

Definition of Eligible Scientist

The interim rule amended the

definition of eligible scientists and

engineers to include those scientists or

engineers who have expertise in a high

technology field which is clearly

applicable to the design, development,

and production of ballistic missiles,

nuclear, biological, chemical, or other

high-technology weapons of mass

destruction. See 8 CFR 204.10(d). The

previous rule defined eligible scientist

or engineers as those who have

expertise in nuclear, chemical,

biological, or other high technology

fields. The commenter argued that the
6708 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

insertion of the term ‘‘weapons of mass

destruction’’ in place of the term

‘‘defense projects’’ used in the statute

limits the SSIA applicant’s work

experience to a specific type of

weaponry not enumerated in the statute

and is, therefore, ultra vires. The

commenter further contended that the

statute states that either expertise or

experience with military-related

projects in the former Soviet Union

qualify a scientist or engineer for SSIA

benefits.

Section 2(3)(B) of the SSIA, in part,

defines eligible scientists as scientists or

engineers who have expertise in

nuclear, chemical, biological, or other

high technology fields or who are

working on nuclear, chemical,

biological, or other high-technology

defense projects, or are working on

nuclear, chemical, biological, or other

high-technology defense projects, as

defined by the Attorney General. In the

interim rule, the Service, employing the

Attorney General’s express authority to

define eligible scientists, modified the

definition to reflect that the expertise

need not be related to a specific defense

project if the expertise was in a field

which could be applied to the

development of weapons of mass

destruction. As discussed in the

preamble to the interim rule, this

modification was necessary to clarify

Congress’ intent to include in the SSIA

those scientists who ‘‘have specialized

in weapons of mass destruction.’’ See 60

FR 54028, citing 138 Cong. Rec. S1249

(daily ed. Feb. 6, 1992). Accordingly,

the Service will not change the

definition of eligible scientists.

The commenter also criticized the

Service from requiring any letters from

United States Government agencies be

from the head of the agency or a duly

appointed designee. See 8 CFR

204.10(e)(2)(ii). The commenter argued

that this provision narrows the pool of

experts available to an applicant and

makes it more difficult to obtain a letter

from a Government agency. As noted in

the interim rule, this provision was

necessary to enhance the reliability of

endorsements issued by Government

agencies. See 60 FR 54029. This

provision, however, still allows SSIA

petitioners, as an alternative to

obtaining a letter from a U.S.

Government agency, to submit two

letters from nationally or internationally

recognized experts to satisfy this

evidentiary requirement.

The interim rule requires a SSIA

petitioner to submit corroborative

evidence of claimed expertise including

the official labor book, any significant

awards or publications and other

comparable evidence or an explanation

of why such evidence cannot be

obtained. See 8 CFR 204.10(e)(2)(iii).

The commenter contended that the

requirement that the petitioner submit

proof of any significant awards or

publications is superfluous, since the

petitioner must submit his or her official

labor book or Trudavaya Knizhka,

which records most such awards. The

purpose of this regulatory provision is

merely to make it clear that, if an

applicant has awards noted in his or her

official labor book and wishes to have

the Service consider such awards as

evidence of the alien’s qualifications,

the applicant should provide separate

proof of receipt of such an award unless

it is unavailable. Accordingly, no

changes have been made in response to

this comment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Commissioner of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service certifies that

this rule will not, if promulgated, have

a significant adverse economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. This rule merely adopts interim

regulations concerning the immigration

of up to 750 scientists from the former

Soviet Union as final. It will not

significantly change the number of

persons who immigrate to the United

States. Any impact on small business

entities will be, at most, indirect and

attenuated.

Executive Order 12866

This rule is not considered by the

Department of Justice, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, 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).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as

defined in section 804 of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not

result in an annual effect on the

economy of $100,000,000 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 12612

This regulation 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. Therefore, 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.

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 8 CFR part 204, which was

published in the Federal Register at 60

FR 54027–54030 on October 19, 1995, is

adopted as a final rule without change.

Dated: February 4, 1997.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 97–3589 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–99–AD; Amendment

39–9928; AD 97–02–08 R1]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9, DC–9–80 and C–

9 (Military) Series Airplanes, and Model

MD–88 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects

information in an existing airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–

9, DC–9–80 and C–9 (military) series

airplanes, and Model MD–88 airplanes.

The AD currently requires either the

installation of external protective

doublers between the outboard flight

spoiler actuators and the aft spar webs

of the wings, or replacement of the

pistons of the outboard flight spoiler

actuators with improved pistons. This

action corrects a part number specified

for flight spoiler actuator assembly that

is acceptable for installation on these

airplanes. This action is necessary to

ensure that operators who previously

have installed assemblies with this part

number will be given proper credit for

that installation, and will not be

required to perform additional,

unnecessary work to comply with the

requirements of the AD.

DATES: Effective March 4, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the