This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

2011 

Vol. 77, No. 9 

Friday, January 13, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review 

8 CFR Parts 1003 and 1292 

[EOIR Docket No. 174; A.G. Order No 3317– 

2012] 

RIN 1125–AA66 

Reorganization of Regulations on the 

Adjudication of Department of 

Homeland Security Practitioner 

Disciplinary Cases 

AGENCY: Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is 

amending its regulations governing the 

discipline of immigration practitioners 

as follows. First, the Department is 

removing unnecessary regulations and 

adding appropriate references to 

applicable regulations of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). Second, the Department is 

making technical amendments to the 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review’s (EOIR) practitioner 

disciplinary regulations and clarifying 

the Department of Justice’s final rule on 

Professional Conduct for Practitioners— 

Rules and Procedures, and 

Representation and Appearances, which 

became effective on January 20, 2009. 

DATES: Effective date: This rule is 

effective January 13, 2012. 

Comment date: Comments on this 

rule must be received by February 13, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Robin M. Stutman, General Counsel, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, 

Falls Church, Virginia 22041. To ensure 

proper handling, please reference EOIR 

Docket No. 174 on your correspondence. 

You may submit comments 

electronically or view an electronic 

version of this interim rule at 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robin M. Stutman, General Counsel, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, 

Falls Church, Virginia 22041, telephone 

(703) 305–0470 (not a toll-free call). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Posting of Public Comments 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection online at 

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personal identifying 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

If you want to submit personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also locate 

all the personal identifying information 

you do not want posted online in the 

first paragraph of your comment and 

identify what information you want 

redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not want it to be posted 

online, you must include the phrase 

‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted on 

www.regulations.gov. 

Personal identifying information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file, but not posted online. 

Confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will not be placed in the public docket 

file. If you wish to inspect the agency’s 

public docket file in person, you must 

make an appointment with agency 

counsel. Please see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph above 

for agency counsel’s contact 

information. 

II. Regulatory Background 

The Attorney General created the 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review in 1983 to combine the 

functions performed by special inquiry 

officers (now immigration judges) and 

the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(Board) into a single administrative 

agency within the Department of Justice 

(Department), separate from the former 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS). 48 FR 8038 (Feb. 25, 1983). This 

administrative structure separated the 

adjudication functions from the 

enforcement and service functions of 

INS, both for efficiency and to foster 

independent judgment in adjudication. 

Because both INS and EOIR were 

agencies within the Department at that 

time, the regulations affecting these 

agencies were included in the same 

chapter (chapter I) of title 8 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations. Most of the 

immigration regulations were organized 

by subject, which often resulted in 

provisions relating to INS and EOIR 

being intermingled in the same parts 

and sections, including the authority of 

INS and EOIR to discipline private 

immigration practitioners who appeared 

before either or both of those agencies. 

Prior to the creation of EOIR in 1983, 

the Department promulgated regulations 

at 8 CFR 292.3 that created a unified 

disciplinary system for attorneys and 

representatives who practiced before the 

Board and INS. 23 FR 2670, 2672–73 

(April 23, 1958). Under the original 

system, INS officers investigated and 

prosecuted practitioners who allegedly 

committed misconduct before the Board 

or INS, and INS appointed special 

inquiry officers to hold disciplinary 

hearings. The Board reviewed special 

inquiry officer disciplinary decisions 

before they could become effective. 

After EOIR’s creation, INS continued to 

be responsible for all investigative and 

prosecutorial functions related to 

allegations of practitioner misconduct 

occurring before EOIR and INS; 

however, EOIR’s immigration judges, 

rather than INS officers, were tasked 

with holding disciplinary hearings. 52 

FR 24980 (July 2, 1987). 

In 2000, the Department promulgated 

regulations that retained INS’s authority 

to investigate and prosecute practitioner 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
2012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1The final rule also included technical changes 

to 8 CFR 1003.101–108, as well as an additional 

substantive change to 8 CFR 1003.102, that were not 

included in the proposed rule. 73 FR 76918, 76921– 

22, 76923–27. 

misconduct occurring before INS; 

however, EOIR became responsible for 

investigating and prosecuting 

practitioners who committed 

misconduct while practicing before 

EOIR. 65 FR 39513 (June 27, 2000). The 

newly revised and expanded 

practitioner disciplinary regulations for 

EOIR were established at 8 CFR 3.101 to 

3.109. At the same time, the Department 

amended 8 CFR 292.3 to make many of 

the new provisions in EOIR’s 

regulations applicable to INS’s 

disciplinary proceedings. Id. The two 

sets of rules established nearly identical 

grounds for discipline and a unified 

process for disciplinary proceedings. 

Finally, the two sets of rules provided 

for cross-discipline, allowing EOIR to 

request that any discipline imposed 

against a practitioner for misconduct 

before INS also be imposed with respect 

to that practitioner’s ability to represent 

clients before EOIR, and vice versa. See 

8 CFR 3.105(b) (EOIR) and 292.3(e)(2) 

(INS) (2001). 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

as amended (HSA), transferred the 

functions of the former INS to the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

Public Law 107–296, tit., IV, subtits., D, 

E, F, 116 Stat. 2135, 2192 (Nov. 25, 

2002), as amended. The HSA, however, 

retained the functions of EOIR within 

the Department, under the direction of 

the Attorney General. 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 

U.S.C. 1103(g); see generally Matter of 

D–J–, 23 I&N Dec. 572 (A.G. 2003). 

The enactment of the HSA and its 

transfer of functions of the former INS 

to DHS required the creation of a new 

chapter for the regulations pertaining to 

EOIR, separate from the DHS 

regulations. Accordingly, the Attorney 

General published a rule transferring 

certain provisions that related to the 

jurisdiction and procedures of EOIR to 

a new chapter V of 8 CFR. 68 FR 9824 

(Feb. 28, 2003). When the transfer of 

authority from the former INS to DHS 

took place on March 1, 2003, the time 

available before the transfer did not 

permit a thorough review of each of the 

provisions of the regulations where 

EOIR’s and the former INS’s 

responsibilities appeared in the same 

sections. As a result, the Department’s 

rule duplicated in chapter V certain 

parts and sections of the regulations that 

related to the responsibilities of both the 

former INS and EOIR, respectively. The 

rule also made a number of technical 

amendments to chapters I and V to 

ensure that the authorities existing in 

the former INS and EOIR regulations 

prior to the transfer of functions to DHS 

remained in effect. 

As discussed above, before this 

transfer of authority, the Department 

had created a unified immigration 

practitioner disciplinary system in 

which EOIR adjudicated all disciplinary 

cases involving immigration 

practitioners, regardless of whether 

EOIR or INS initiated proceedings. It 

was for this reason and out of an 

abundance of caution that, in 2003, the 

Attorney General duplicated § 292.3, 

found in chapter I of title 8, into a new 

§ 1292.3, located in chapter V. 68 FR at 

9845. At the same time, the EOIR 

disciplinary rules in 8 CFR part 3, 

subpart G, beginning with § 3.101, were 

transferred to part 1003, subpart G. Id. 

at 9830–31. The Department intended to 

address over time the regulatory 

overlaps resulting from the 2003 rule by 

eliminating or substantially reducing 

any duplicative parts and sections that 

intermingled EOIR’s and the former 

INS’s authority. Id. at 9825. 

III. Rationale for This Rule 

In 2008, the Department published 

proposed amendments to the 

regulations at 8 CFR parts 1001, 1003, 

and 1292. 73 FR 44178 (July 30, 2008). 

The proposed changes included adding 

or amending several grounds for 

discipline and creating a new procedure 

by which the Board could issue final 

orders in cases brought under the 

summary disciplinary procedures. Id. at 

44186–44188. However, this ‘‘rule [did] 

not make any changes to the DHS 

regulations governing representation 

and appearances or professional 

conduct.’’ Id. at 44179. Following 

receipt and review of public comments, 

the Department published an amended 

final rule that became effective on 

January 20, 2009. 73 FR 76914 (Dec. 18, 

2008).1

DHS has published an interim rule, 75 

FR 5225 (Feb. 2, 2010), that modifies 

§ 292.3, in part to conform with the 

Department’s revised disciplinary 

regulations at §§ 1003.101 to 1003.108. 

Therefore, § 1292.3 of the 

Department’s regulations, which is no 

longer identical to § 292.3 of the DHS 

regulations, should not remain in its 

current form because the Department’s 

regulations concerning DHS’s 

disciplinary cases should not be worded 

differently than DHS’s regulations on 

that subject. Based on a review of 

§ 1292.3 and EOIR’s experience 

acquired since the transfer of the former 

INS’s authority to DHS, it is apparent 

that most of the duplicative provisions 

in § 1292.3 pertain to matters that are 

the responsibility of DHS, and, to some 

extent, they overlap with the provisions 

relating to disciplinary proceedings 

already codified in 8 CFR 1003.103, 

1003.105 and 1003.106. Further, 

duplication of the majority of § 292.3 is 

not only unnecessary but potentially 

confusing. Accordingly, there is no 

reason for the Department to retain the 

current § 1292.3 or reproduce the 

modified version of § 292.3 in the 

Department’s regulations. 

For these reasons, the Department is 

removing § 1292.3, and is replacing it 

with cross references to the applicable 

disciplinary provisions in 8 CFR part 

1003, subpart G, and the corresponding 

DHS provision, 8 CFR 292.3. 

Although the Department is removing 

the existing text of § 1292.3, it is 

transferring certain aspects of § 1292.3 

by adding new text at 8 CFR 1003.103 

and 1003.105, as described below. One 

critical aspect of § 1292.3 that the 

Department will retain in part 1003 is 

the regulatory authority to adjudicate 

DHS disciplinary cases. 8 CFR 

1292.3(a). Indeed, DHS’s revised version 

of § 292.3 provides that DHS 

disciplinary cases will be adjudicated 

by EOIR under EOIR’s disciplinary 

regulations in 8 CFR part 1003. 75 FR 

at 5228–30. Further, the Department’s 

regulations must reflect that EOIR may 

issue suspension and expulsion orders 

in DHS cases that also similarly restrict 

those practitioners from practice before 

EOIR. 8 CFR 1292.3(a)(1)(i)–(ii); see also 

id. at 1292.3(c). Rather than retain these 

two aspects of § 1292.3 for two brief 

provisions concerning practitioner 

disciplinary cases, the Department is 

transferring the relevant text to EOIR’s 

disciplinary regulations in part 1003. 

The new language being added in part 

1003 is not an exact duplicate of any 

provision now existing in § 1292.3, but 

is based in part on language currently 

found in § 1292.3(c) and (e). The new 

language states that DHS may file with 

the Board petitions for immediate 

suspension before DHS, and Notices of 

Intent to Discipline. The new language 

also provides for the EOIR disciplinary 

counsel, who investigates alleged 

misconduct and initiates formal 

discipinary proceedings, to request that 

EOIR make any disciplinary order 

issued in a DHS-initiated disciplinary 

case applicable to the practitioner’s 

right to practice before EOIR. Finally, it 

also provides for DHS to request that 

EOIR make any disciplinary order in an 

EOIR-initiated disciplinary case 

applicable to the practitioner’s right to 

practice before DHS. 

In addition, this rule revises some of 

the existing language of § 1003.105(d)(2) 

to refer to ‘‘counsel for the government’’ 

rather than ‘‘EOIR disciplinary counsel’’ 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 2013 

so as to make clear that this language 

applies whether the disciplinary 

proceedings are initiated by EOIR or by 

DHS. In the recent amendments to 

EOIR’s practitioner disciplinary 

regulations, found at 73 FR 76914, the 

Department used the term ‘‘counsel for 

the government’’ to indicate either the 

EOIR or DHS attorney who is 

prosecuting a disciplinary case. This 

rule expands the use of the term 

‘‘counsel for the government’’ rather 

than ‘‘EOIR disciplinary counsel’’ in 

§ 1003.105(d)(2), in light of the removal 

of the text of section 1292.3. 

IV. Effect 

This rule does not result in a 

substantive change and does not alter 

the interpretation of any of the 

Department’s regulations or affect the 

legal rights of any person. The changes 

reflected here are to bring the 

Department’s regulations into 

conformity with DHS’s regulations and 

to remove most of an unnecessary, 

duplicative regulation. The removal of 

entirely duplicative provisions in 

§ 1292.3 does not alter the legal status 

quo. 

This rule does not affect 8 CFR 292.3, 

the corresponding rule for practice 

before DHS. The substantive and 

procedural regulations in § 292.3 are 

within DHS’s authority to promulgate 

and revise, whereas the regulatory 

provisions that go to the powers, 

procedures, and authority of EOIR’s 

adjudicators and the EOIR disciplinary 

counsel are within the Attorney 

General’s exclusive authority. 

V. Technical Amendments and 

Clarifications to the Regulations 

This rule also includes two technical 

amendments and a clarification of 

EOIR’s practitioner disciplinary 

regulations. 

In 8 CFR 1003.101(a)(1) and 

1003.107(b), the terms ‘‘expulsion’’ and 

‘‘expelled’’ are being changed to 

‘‘disbarment’’ and ‘‘disbarred,’’ 

respectively. The reason for this change 

is to conform the terminology in the 

regulations to section 240(b)(6)(C) of the 

INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(6)(C), which 

indicates that the Attorney General may 

impose appropriate sanctions on 

attorneys, including disbarment. The 

terms ‘‘disbarment’’ and ‘‘disbarred’’ 

will have the same meaning and effect 

that the terms ‘‘expulsion’’ and 

‘‘expelled’’ presently have, and any 

practitioner who is presently under an 

order of expulsion will have the same 

rights and obligations as he or she had 

before the terminology was changed in 

the regulations. 

The Department is also revising 8 CFR 

1003.106(a)(1). Section 1003.106(a)(1) 

currently provides the Board with 

narrow authority to retain jurisdiction 

and issue a final order for cases in 

summary disciplinary proceedings if a 

practitioner’s answer to a Notice of 

Intent to Discipline, see 8 CFR 1003.105, 

fails to make a prima facie showing that 

there is a material issue of fact in 

dispute. A practitioner is subject to 

summary disciplinary proceedings if, 

among other grounds, he or she is found 

guilty of or pleaded guilty or nolo 

contendre to a serious crime; is 

disbarred or suspended by the highest 

court of a state or a Federal court; or 

resigns from practicing before these 

tribunals pending a disciplinary 

investigation or proceeding. 8 CFR 

1003.103. Therefore, these practitioners 

have already received or had the 

opportunity to receive a trial or hearing 

in another forum, and a summary 

adjudication by the Board is 

appropriate. However, in a case 

involving an original charge of 

misconduct, i.e., misconduct arising 

from practice before the Department or 

DHS, the practitioner is not subject to 

summary disciplinary proceedings. A 

case involving an original charge of 

misconduct must be adjudicated by a 

finder of fact once the practitioner has 

filed a timely answer to the Notice of 

Intent to Discipline, regardless of 

whether the practitioner has made a 

prima facie showing that there is a 

material issue of fact in dispute. See 8 

CFR 1003.105(c) and 1003.106(a). 

This rule revises § 1003.106(a)(1) to 

clarify the procedures in summary 

disciplinary cases in two respects. First, 

this rule clarifies that a case in summary 

disciplinary proceedings is referred to 

an adjudicator if the practitioner, in a 

timely answer to the Notice of Intent to 

Discipline, makes a prima facie showing 

that there is a material issue of fact in 

dispute, regardless of whether the 

practitioner also requests a hearing. 

Second, this rule inserts additional 

sentences at the end of § 1003.106(a)(1) 

clarifying that the Board will refer to the 

Chief Immigration Judge cases not 

subject to the summary disciplinary 

proceeding provisions, whenever the 

practitioner files a timely answer. These 

revisions do not substantively change 

the legal rights of practitioners and are 

only intended to ensure that 

practitioners who have original charges 

of misconduct filed against them, and 

file an answer in response to those 

charges, receive the process provided 

under the procedures in § 1003.106 

before EOIR issues a final order. 

This rule also adds a new 

§ 1003.106(a)(2) making clear that the 

adjudication provisions of § 1003.106 do 

not apply if the Board chooses not to 

refer disciplinary proceedings to the 

Chief Immigration Judge pursuant to 

§ 1003.106(a)(1), or if a hearing is 

precluded as provided in § 1003.105(d). 

This rule also amends the first sentence 

of § 1003.106(a)(2)(ii) to delete an 

unnecessary reference to 8 CFR 

1003.105(c)(3). 

In 8 CFR 1003.107(a), the words ‘‘the 

Service’’ are being changed to ‘‘DHS.’’ In 

the recent amendments to EOIR’s 

disciplinary regulations, the Department 

sought to change all references to the 

former INS to DHS. 73 FR at 76921–22. 

The previous final rule failed to make 

this change to § 1003.107(a). 

Regulatory Requirements 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The Department of Justice finds that 

good cause exists for adopting this rule 

as an interim rule with provision for 

post-promulgation public comment 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(5 U.S.C. 553) because this rule only 

makes technical amendments to the 

organization, procedures, and practices 

of the Department of Justice to improve 

the organization of the Department’s 

regulations and to reflect the transfer of 

functions made by the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002. Similarly, because 

this interim rule merely makes changes 

in internal delegations and procedures, 

and is a recodification of existing 

regulations, this interim rule is not 

subject to the effective date limitation of 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under 

the Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. 553), the provisions of the 

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

et seq.) do not apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its 

implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 

1320, do not apply to this interim rule 

because there are no new or revised 

recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by state, local, and tribal 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
2014 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 251 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. 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. 

Congressional Review Act 

This action pertains to agency 

organization, procedures, and practices 

and does not substantially affect the 

rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties and, accordingly, is not a ‘‘rule’’ 

as that term is used by the 

Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting 

requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not 

apply. 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation. The Department has 

determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

accordingly this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 

Executive Order 13132 

This rule 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 section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, the Department of Justice 

has determined that this rule does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant a federalism summary impact 

statement. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. 

List of Subjects 

8 CFR Part 1003 

Administrative practice and 

procedures, Immigration, Legal services, 

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies), Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

8 CFR Part 1292 

Administrative practice and 

procedures, Immigration, Lawyers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, parts 1003 and 1292 of title 

8 of the Code of Federal Regulations are 

amended as follows: 

PART 1003—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR 

IMMIGRATION REVIEW 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1003 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 

U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1155, 1158, 1182, 

1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231, 

1254a, 1255, 1324d, 1330, 1361, 1362; 28 

U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2, Reorg. Plan No. 

2 of 1950, 3 CFR, 1949–1953 Comp., p. 1002; 

section 203 of Pub. L. 105–100, 111 Stat. 

1527–29, 1531–32; section 1505 of Pub. L. 

106–554, 114 Stat. 2763A–326 to –328. 

Subpart G—Professional Conduct for 

Practitioners—Rules And Procedures 

§ 1003.101 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 1003.101 by removing 

from paragraph (a)(1) the word 

‘‘Expulsion’’ and adding in its place the 

word ‘‘Disbarment’’. 

■ 3. Amend § 1003.103 by: 

■ a. Removing the second and third 

sentences in paragraph (a)(1); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as 

paragraph (a)(4); 

■ c. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2) and 

(3); 

■ d. Removing from the first sentence of 

newly redesignated paragraph (a)(4) the 

words ‘‘by the EOIR disciplinary 

counsel,’’ and adding in their place the 

words ‘‘pursuant to §§ 1003.103(a)(1) or 

1003.103(a)(2)’’; and by 

■ e. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (b). 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 1003.103 Immediate suspension and 

summary disciplinary proceedings; duty of 

practitioner to notify EOIR of conviction or 

discipline. 

(a) * * * 

(2) DHS petition. DHS may file a 

petition with the Board to suspend 

immediately from practice before DHS 

any practitioner described in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. See 8 CFR 292.3(c). 

(3) Copy of petition. A copy of a 

petition filed by the EOIR disciplinary 

counsel shall be forwarded to DHS, 

which may submit a written request to 

the Board that entry of any order 

immediately suspending a practitioner 

before the Board or the Immigration 

Courts also apply to the practitioner’s 

authority to practice before DHS. A copy 

of a petition filed by DHS shall be 

forwarded to the EOIR disciplinary 

counsel, who may submit a written 

request to the Board that entry of any 

order immediately suspending a 

practitioner before DHS also apply to 

the practitioner’s authority to practice 

before the Board and Immigration 

Courts. Proof of service on the 

practitioner of any request to broaden 

the scope of an immediate suspension 

or proposed discipline must be filed 

with the Board or the adjudicating 

official. 

* * * * * 

(b) Summary disciplinary 

proceedings. The EOIR disciplinary 

counsel (or DHS pursuant to 8 CFR 

292.3(c)(3)) shall promptly initiate 

summary disciplinary proceedings 

against any practitioner described in 

paragraph (a) of this section by the 

issuance of a Notice of Intent to 

Discipline, upon receipt of a certified 

copy of the order, judgment, or record 

evidencing the underlying criminal 

conviction, discipline, or resignation, 

and accompanied by a certified copy of 

such document. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 1003.105 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (a)(3); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b); and by 

■ c. Removing from paragraph (d)(2) the 

words ‘‘EOIR disciplinary counsel’’ 

from the last sentence and adding in 

their place ‘‘counsel for the 

government’’. 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 1003.105 Notice of Intent to Discipline. 

(a) * * * 

(3) DHS Issuance of Notice to 

practitioner. DHS may file a Notice of 

Intent to Discipline with the Board in 

accordance with 8 CFR 292.3(e). 

(b) Copy of notice; reciprocity of 

discipline. A copy of the Notice of Intent 

to Discipline filed by the EOIR 

disciplinary counsel shall be forwarded 

to DHS, which may submit a written 

request to the Board or the adjudicating 

official requesting that any discipline 

imposed upon a practitioner which 

restricts his or her authority to practice 

before the Board and the Immigration 

Courts also apply to the practitioner’s 

authority to practice before DHS. A copy 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 2015 

of the Notice of Intent to Discipline filed 

by DHS shall be forwarded to the EOIR 

disciplinary counsel, who may submit a 

written request to the Board or the 

adjudicating official requesting that any 

discipline imposed upon a practitioner 

that restricts his or her authority to 

practice before DHS also apply to the 

practitioner’s authority to practice 

before the Board and the Immigration 

Courts. Proof of service on the 

practitioner of any request to broaden 

the scope of the proposed discipline 

must be filed with the adjudicating 

official. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 1003.106 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(2) 

introductory text; and by 

■ c. Removing from the first sentence in 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) the words ‘‘Except as 

provided in §§ 1003.105(c)(3), upon’’ 

and adding in their place ‘‘Upon’’. 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 1003.106 Right to be heard and 

disposition. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Summary disciplinary 

proceedings. A practitioner who is 

subject to summary disciplinary 

proceedings pursuant to § 1003.103(b) 

must make a prima facie showing to the 

Board in his or her answer that there is 

a material issue of fact in dispute with 

regard to the basis for summary 

disciplinary proceedings, or with one or 

more of the exceptions set forth in 

§ 1003.103(b)(2)(i) through (iii). If the 

practitioner files a timely answer and 

the Board determines that there is a 

material issue of fact in dispute with 

regard to the basis for summary 

disciplinary proceedings, or with one or 

more of the exceptions set forth in 

§ 1003.103(b)(2)(i) through (iii), then the 

Board shall refer the case to the Chief 

Immigration Judge for the appointment 

of an adjudicating official. If the 

practitioner fails to make such a prima 

facie showing, the Board shall retain 

jurisdiction over the case and issue a 

final order. Notwithstanding the 

foregoing, the Board shall refer any case 

to the Chief Immigration Judge for the 

appointment of an adjudicating official 

in which the practitioner has filed a 

timely answer and the case involves a 

charge or charges that cannot be 

adjudicated under the summary 

disciplinary proceedings provisions in 

§ 1003.103(b). The Board shall refer 

such a case regardless of whether the 

practitioner has requested a hearing. 

(2) Procedure. The procedures of 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section apply to cases in which the 

practitioner files a timely answer to the 

Notice of Intent to Discipline, with the 

exception of cases in which the Board 

issues a final order pursuant to 

§ 1003.105(d)(2) or § 1003.106(a)(1). 

* * * * * 

§ 1003.107 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 1003.107 by: 

■ a. Removing from the section heading 

the word ‘‘expulsion’’ and adding in its 

place the word ‘‘disbarment’’. 

■ b. Removing from paragraph (a) the 

words ‘‘the Service’’ and adding in their 

place the term ‘‘DHS’’; 

■ c. Removing from the first sentence of 

paragraph (b) introductory text the word 

‘‘expelled’’ and adding in its place the 

word ‘‘disbarred’’; 

■ d. Removing from the third sentence 

of paragraph (b) introductory text the 

word ‘‘expelled’’ and adding in its place 

the word ‘‘disbarred’’; 

■ e. Removing from the second sentence 

of paragraph (b)(1) the word ‘‘expelled’’ 

and adding in its place the word 

‘‘disbarred’’; and by 

■ f. Removing from the second sentence 

of paragraph (b)(1) the word 

‘‘expulsion’’ and adding in its place the 

word ‘‘disbarment’’. 

PART 1292—REPRESENTATION AND 

APPEARANCES 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 1292 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1252b, 1362. 

■ 8. Section 1292.3 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 1292.3 Professional conduct for 

practitioners—Rules and procedures. 

Attorneys and representatives 

practicing before the Board, the 

Immigration Courts, or DHS are subject 

to the imposition of disciplinary 

sanctions as provided in 8 CFR part 

1003, subpart G, § 1003.101 et seq. See 

also 8 CFR 292.3 (pertaining to practice 

before DHS). 

Dated: January 3, 2012. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2012–602 Filed 1–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 33 

[Docket No. NE130; Special Conditions No. 

33–008–SC] 

Special Conditions: Pratt and Whitney 

Canada Model PW210S Turboshaft 

Engine 

Correction 

In rule document 2011–14113 

appearing on pages 33981–33982 in the 

issue of Friday, June 10, 2011, make the 

following correction: 

On page 33981, in the first column, in 

the heading, Special Conditions No. 

‘‘33–008–SCI’’ should read ‘‘33–008– 

SC’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2011–14113 Filed 1–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Part 4022 

Benefits Payable in Terminated SingleEmployer Plans; Interest Assumptions 

for Paying Benefits 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s 

regulation on Benefits Payable in 

Terminated Single-Employer Plans to 

prescribe interest assumptions under 

the regulation for valuation dates in 

February 2012. The interest 

assumptions are used for paying 

benefits under terminating singleemployer plans covered by the pension 

insurance system administered by 

PBGC. 

DATES: Effective February 1, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine B. Klion 

(Klion.Catherine@pbgc.gov), Manager, 

Regulatory and Policy Division, 

Legislative and Regulatory Department, 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 

1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 

20005, (202) 326–4024. (TTY/TDD users 

may call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–(800) 877–8339 and ask to be 

connected to (202) 326–4024.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PBGC’s 

regulation on Benefits Payable in 

Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 

CFR Part 4022) prescribes actuarial 

assumptions—including interest 

assumptions—for paying plan benefits 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES