Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 71273

The introduction of commodities

derived from biotechnology may result

in new opportunities and challenges,

both for USDA, the Federal government

as a whole, and American agriculture.

Some consumers have expressed, for a

variety of reasons, a preference for foods

that are not bioengineered or do not

contain bioengineered foods as

ingredients. Further, some countries

have established or are considering

establishing labeling requirements for

bioengineered foods. These market

developments are prompting some food

companies to differentiate crops derived

from biotechnology from other crops in

the food production system.

Furthermore, as biotechnology offers the

possibility of accelerating the

development of value-added crops, such

as high oleic soybeans and betacarotene-rich rice, producers as well as

others in the marketing system may

have an interest in maintaining the

identity of value-added crops.

The cost and complexity of

differentiating crops derived from

biotechnology from other crops varies

by crop and the infrastructure

supporting the marketing of each crop.

Differentiation of crops derived from

biotechnology from other crops requires

analytical testing and information

systems that can effectively and

efficiently track and manage the

complex logistics involved with

preserving the identity of specific crops

through the marketing process. The

market’s ability to supply a specific crop

may hinge on a number of

considerations: The potential market

size and value, the cost of differentiating

the specific crop from other crops, and

the market’s ability to preserve the crop

identity at sufficient purity levels.

In the grain and oilseed markets, some

companies are using traditional

segregation practices to market valueadded commodities. Others are using

more costly and complicated identity

preservation (IP) processes. Food

companies are developing quality

assurance processes involving various

levels of testing and product tracking,

which differ by company, customer

needs, and crop, to source and deliver

specified crops from the farm to the

supermarket. In some instances,

independent organizations are

marketing services to review and verify

the performance of these quality

assurance processes.

USDA is issuing this advance notice

of proposed rulemaking to invite

comments from all interested persons

on how USDA can best facilitate the

marketing of grains, oilseeds, fruits,

vegetables, and nuts in today’s evolving

marketplace. USDA is seeking comment

on current market needs and practices,

and the feasibility and desirability of

USDA programs and services to

facilitate the marketing of these

products. All interested persons are

encouraged to comment on the

following issues related to this notice:

• In light of changes in the

marketplace brought about by

biotechnology, what specific programs

or processes are being used to market

grains, oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, and

nuts in the domestic, export, and import

markets? Please be specific, and include

information on obstacles encountered in

marketing these products.

• What additional costs and benefits

are generally associated with the

practices being used to market grains,

oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, or nuts?

Please provide details and quantifiable

cost and benefit estimates.

• Would a set of U.S. standards upon

which to base IP or other marketing

systems facilitate market development?

If so, are there any specific national or

international standards or guidelines

that should serve as the basis for the

U.S. standards? What role should USDA

have in establishing these standards?

• As more certifying companies and

organizations evolve to review and

verify the performance of food company

IP systems, should USDA have a role in

the accreditation of these certifying

companies and organizations? Would a

USDA accreditation of these certifying

companies and organizations serve to

facilitate marketing?

• USDA is in the process of

developing a program for accrediting

qualified commercial and public

laboratories for the analytical detection

of grains and oilseeds derived from

biotechnology. Should USDA expand

this program for other commercialized

crops? Should USDA include

laboratories outside the United States in

the accreditation program? If so, how

would this help facilitate the marketing

of U.S. crops?

• Should USDA provide, for a fee,

direct product certification for crops

derived from biotechnology based on an

audit-based quality assurance process?

Should the same be done for other

crops?

• Should USDA provide direct

analytical detection services and

certification for crops derived from

biotechnology? Should the same be

done for other crops?

• If USDA involvement (e.g.,

standards, certifying agent verification,

direct certification, testing, etc.) is

necessary, at what point of the

marketing system should such

involvement begin and end?

• How should a fee structure be

determined for such services?

• Should such involvement be

limited to U.S.-produced crops or

expanded to imported crops?

• Should USDA establish definitions

of crops derived from biotechnology or

for crops not derived from

biotechnology as part of the current U.S.

quality grades and standards? If so, what

technical capabilities, resources, data,

etc., would USDA require?

USDA welcomes your comments on

these and other relevant issues related

to the marketing of grains, oilseeds,

fruits, vegetables, and nuts in today’s

evolving marketplace.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71 et seq. and 7 U.S.C.

1621 et seq.

Dated: November 20, 2000.

James R. Baker,

Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration.

Michael D. Fernandez,

Associate Administrator, Agricultural

Marketing Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30140 Filed 11–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–U

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Parts 3 and 240

[INS No. 2083–00; AG Order No. 2337–2000]

RIN 1115–AF87

Delegation of Authority to the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

To Terminate Deportation Proceedings

and Initiate Removal Proceedings

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice, and Executive Office for

Immigration Review, Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Section 309(c)(3) of the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act of 1996 permits the

Attorney General to terminate certain

deportation proceedings and initiate

removal proceedings. This rule

delegates this authority to the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(Service).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before January 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Please submit written

comments, in triplicate, to the Director,

Policy Directives and Instructions

Branch, Immigration and Naturalization

Service, 425 I Street, NW., Room 5307,

Washington, DC 20536. To ensure

proper handling, please reference INS

number 2083–00 on your

71274 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

correspondence. Comments are

available for public inspection at the

above address by calling (202) 514–3048

to arrange for an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle

D. Latimer, Associate General Counsel,

Office of the General Counsel,

Immigration and Naturalization Service,

425 I Street, NW., Room 6100,

Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202)

616–2604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 24, 1996, the President

signed into law the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1214

(AEDPA). Prior to that date, under

section 212(c) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c)

(1994), certain lawful permanent

resident (LPR) aliens who were

returning from a voluntary, temporary

stay abroad to a lawful unrelinquished

domicile of seven consecutive years in

the United States could, in the Attorney

General’s discretion, be admitted to the

United States despite inadmissibility

under section 212(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.

1182(a). Section 440(d) of AEDPA

amended section 212(c) of the Act to bar

from applying for a section 212(c)

discretionary waiver of inadmissibility

all aliens deportable ‘‘by reason of

having committed any criminal offense

covered in section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii)

[aggravated felonies], (B) [controlled

substances], (C) [certain firearm

offenses], or (D) [miscellaneous crimes],

or any offense covered by section

241(a)(2)(A)(ii)[multiple criminal

convictions] for which both predicate

offenses are covered by section

241(a)(2)(A)(i).’’ 110 Stat. 1277. The

Attorney General subsequently

determined in Matter of Soriano, 21 I&N

Dec. 516 (BIA 1996, A.G. 1997), that the

section 212(c) bars in AEDPA applied to

all aliens in deportation proceedings

with applications pending on April 24,

1996. Hence, many lawful permanent

resident aliens in deportation

proceedings who were eligible for

section 212(c) relief were rendered

ineligible by AEDPA.

On September 30, 1996, Congress

enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform

and Immigrant Responsibility Act of

1996, Pub. L. No. 104–208, 110 Stat.

3009 (IIRIRA). Effective April 1, 1997,

IIRIRA eliminated section 212(c) of the

Act, replacing it with a similar form of

relief called cancellation of removal. See

110 Stat. 3009–597 (eliminating section

212(c); 110 Stat. 3009–594–3009–595

(adding section 240A(b) of the Act, 8

U.S.C. 1229(b)). A conviction for an

aggravated felony remained as a bar to

cancellation of removal. However,

convictions covered under the

remaining sections were no longer bars

to relief as they had been under AEDPA.

The result was that many of those LPR

aliens rendered ineligible by AEDPA for

section 212(c) relief after April 24, 1996,

would have been eligible for

cancellation of removal had their

removal proceedings commenced on or

after April 1, 1997.

IIRIRA also eliminated the

discretionary relief of suspension of

deportation under former section 244 of

the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254(a), and replaced

it with a similar, separate form of

cancellation of removal under the new

section 240A(b) of the Act. See 110 Stat.

3009–615 (eliminating former section

244); 110 Stat. 3009–594–3009–595

(adding section 240A(b) of the Act, 8

U.S.C. 1229(b)). Congress, moreover,

limited the availability of both types of

relief by, among other things, amending

the rules relating to the time counted

toward physical presence in the United

States. Section 240A(d)(1) of the Act, 8

U.S.C. 1229(b)(d)(1), as added by

IIRIRA, see 110 Stat. 3009–595, provides

that (for purposes of that section) any

period of continuous residence or

physical presence ends when an alien is

served with a Notice to Appear or when

the alien commits a crime rendering

him inadmissible under section 212 or

removable under section 237 of the Act

(the ‘‘stop-time’’ rule). Section

309(c)(5)(A) of IIRIRA, 110 Stat. 3009–

627, as amended by section 203(a)(1) of

the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central

American Relief Act, Pub. L. No. 105–

100, Title II, 111 Stat. 2193, 2196

(NACARA), applies the stop-time rule in

section 240A(d)(1) to Orders to Show

Cause as well. Under the stop-time rule,

many non-LPR aliens in deportation

proceedings who were eligible for

suspension of deportation were

rendered ineligible by IIRIRA and

NACARA because they had not accrued

seven years of continuous physical

presence prior to service of the Order to

Show Cause. Some of these same aliens,

however, may be eligible for relief in

removal proceedings under section

240A(b).

What Is ‘‘Repapering’’?

Section 309(c)(3) of IIRIRA grants the

Attorney General the discretion ‘‘to

terminate [deportation] proceedings in

which there has not been a final

administrative decision and to reinitiate

[removal] proceedings under [IIRIRA].’’

110 Stat. 3009–626 This procedure is

commonly referred to as repapering.

The Attorney General has decided to

exercise the discretion granted to her in

section 309(c)(3) of IIRIRA in individual

cases on behalf of certain lawful

permanent residents who are caught in

the window of disadvantage between

the enactments of AEDPA and IIRIRA

and certain non-LPR aliens negatively

affected by the stop-time rule in section

240A(d)(1) of the Act. This rule will

permit an alien rendered ineligible for

relief in deportation proceedings by the

statutory changes described above, but

who would be eligible for relief in

removal proceedings, to seek

termination of his or her deportation

proceeding and initiation of removal

proceedings in order to apply for relief

under the current legal standards.

Who Is Eligible for Repapering?

In order to qualify for repapering

under either category, a repapering

applicant must be in deportation

proceedings at the time of the

application. By the express terms of the

statute, repapering cannot occur when a

final administrative decision has been

made. Therefore, only aliens in

deportation proceedings currently

pending before the Immigration Court or

the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Board) are eligible for repapering.

Furthermore, a deportation proceeding

shall not be reopened for the purpose of

repapering. However, if a deportation

proceeding is reopened for an

independent reason, an eligible alien

may apply for repapering.

An LPR alien who seeks repapering

must meet the eligibility requirements

of former section 212(c) of the Act at the

time of application for repapering but

for the AEDPA bars to eligibility.

Likewise, a non-LPR repapering

applicant must meet the eligibility

requirements for suspension of

deportation under former section 244 of

the Act at the time of application for

repapering but for the application of the

stop-time rule in section 240A(d)(1) of

the Act. Repapering is intended to

benefit those aliens rendered ineligible

for relief by AEDPA or the stop-time

rule. If an alien was statutorily ineligible

for section 212(c) relief or suspension of

deportation on some other basis or was

denied relief as a matter of discretion,

he or she will not be given a second

opportunity for relief through

repapering.

Repapering applicants must also be

statutorily eligible for cancellation of

removal under section 240A(a) or (b) of

the Act at the time of application. If the

alien is not eligible for cancellation of

removal under current law in removal

proceedings, there is no purpose for the

alien to seek repapering. Although the

requirements for cancellation of removal

under section 240A(b) of the Act are

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 71275

more restrictive than the requirements

for suspension of deportation under

prior law, through repapering these nonLPR aliens will at least have an

opportunity to apply for relief under

current law.

The alien must still be able to

demonstrate the requisite existence of

hardship in order to obtain relief—

‘‘extreme’’ hardship under former

section 244(a)(1) of the Act or

‘‘exceptional and extremely unusual’’

hardship under former section 244(a)(2)

of the Act and current section 240A(b)

of the Act. This will be a matter to be

determined by the immigration judge.

Therefore, this rule does not require a

non-LPR alien to demonstrate hardship

at the time of applying for repapering.

However, in order to be eligible for

repapering, such an alien must have a

spouse, parent, or child who is a United

States citizen or lawful permanent

resident. After repapering has been

granted and removal proceedings have

begun, the alien will have the burden of

demonstrating the requisite hardship to

that family member at that time.

What Is the Relationship Between This

Rule and the Recently-Published Rule

on Section 212(c) Relief for Aliens in

Deportation Proceedings Before April

24, 1996?

As discussed above, the enactment of

AEDPA on April 24, 1996, substantially

limited the availability of discretionary

relief from deportation under former

section 212(c) of the Act for lawful

permanent resident aliens. However, in

light of judicial decisions interpreting

the language of AEDPA, certain lawful

permanent resident aliens may be able

to seek section 212(c) relief if they are

eligible, notwithstanding the enactment

of AEDPA. See Section 212(c) Relief for

Certain Aliens in Deportation

Proceedings Before April 24, 1996, 65

FR 44476 (July 18, 2000) (proposed

Department of Justice rule concerning

section 212(c) relief for lawful

permanent residents who were already

in deportation proceedings prior to the

enactment of AEDPA).

Aliens who are eligible for relief

under the more favorable standards of

former section 212(c) of the Act in effect

prior to the enactment of AEDPA are not

eligible for repapering under this rule.

Repapering only applies to aliens in

deportation proceedings who are subject

to the restrictions imposed by AEDPA

and IIRIRA, as it is the repapering

procedure that will allow them to apply

for cancellation of removal under

current law in removal proceedings.

How Does the Stop-Time Rule Apply to

Repapered Cases?

Section 309(c)(5)(B) of IIRIRA states

that, in a repapered proceeding, section

240A(d)(1) of the Act ‘‘shall not apply

to an order to show cause issued before

April 1, 1997.’’ 111 Stat. 2196. At first

glance, this phrase may appear to be

somewhat redundant, since all Orders to

Show Cause were issued before April 1,

1997. However, this provision does not

mean the stop-time rule is inapplicable

in repapered proceedings.

Rather, the Department interprets

section 309(c)(5)(B) of IIRIRA to mean

that, once a proceeding is repapered, the

fact that an Order to Show Cause had

been issued in the terminated

deportation proceeding is not relevant

in determining whether the alien

satisfies the time requirements for

cancellation of removal in the new

removal proceeding. However, the stoptime rule does apply with reference to

the service of a Notice to Appear for the

initiation of removal proceedings. A

lawful permanent resident must still

demonstrate 7 years of continuous

residence—and a non-LPR alien must

demonstrate 10 years of continuous

physical presence—prior to service of

the Notice to Appear or commission of

the crime.

How Does One Apply for Repapering?

The Service has sole discretion in

determining whether or not to repaper

in a particular case. An alien shall apply

for repapering by making a written

request with the district counsel’s office

responsible for the proceeding. Neither

the immigration judge nor the Board

may terminate a deportation proceeding

for the purpose of repapering absent a

written motion from Service counsel.

Upon motion by Service counsel to

terminate a deportation proceeding

pending before the Immigration Court or

the Board, for the purpose of repapering,

the immigration judge or the Board shall

terminate the proceeding. However, this

rule provides that the immigration judge

or the Board will not grant a Service

motion to terminate deportation

proceedings for repapering with respect

to an alien who is granted relief from

deportation.

In any case where a deportation

proceeding is terminated for the

purpose of repapering, the Service shall

then expeditiously commence removal

proceedings by preparing and serving a

Notice to Appear on the alien and filing

the Notice to Appear with the

Immigration Court.

The application period to apply for

repapering shall expire one year from

the date that the Service publishes this

rule as a final rule in the Federal

Register. This deadline is necessary to

ensure that deportation proceedings are

not delayed for the purpose of accruing

time in status, residence, or presence for

eligibility for relief.

What Is the Procedure for Those Cases

Previously Administratively Closed for

Repapering?

Pursuant to instructions from the

Service and the Executive Office for

Immigration Review, many deportation

proceedings involving aliens

determined to be eligible to apply for

repapering have already been

administratively closed. To apply for

repapering, once this rule is published

as final, an alien shall make a request in

writing with the district counsel’s office

responsible for his or her proceeding. If

upon review the Service determines that

the alien is eligible for repapering, the

Service shall prepare and serve a Notice

to Appear on the alien and file the

Notice to Appear with the Immigration

Court. The previous deportation

proceeding before the Immigration

Court or the Board shall be terminated

as a matter of law on the date the

Service files the Notice to Appear with

the Immigration Court. If upon review

the Service determines the alien is not

eligible for repapering, then the

deportation proceeding should be

recalendared and continue.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Attorney General, in accordance

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this

regulation and, by approving it, certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because of the following reason:

This rule allows the Service to terminate

deportation proceedings involving

certain aliens and reinitiate removal

proceedings, in order to allow these

aliens to apply for cancellation of

removal under current law. It will have

no effect on small entities, as that term

is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

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

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995.

71276 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 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.

Executive Order 12866

This rule is considered by the

Department of Justice to be a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Accordingly, this regulation has been

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget for review.

Executive Order 13132

The 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 responsibility

among the various levels of government.

Therefore, in accordance with section

six of Executive Order 13132, it is

determined that this rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of 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 3

Administrative practice and

procedure, Immigration, Organization

and functions (Government agencies).

8 CFR Part 240

Administrative practice and

procedure, Immigration.

Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 3—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR

IMMIGRATION REVIEW

1. The authority citation for part 3

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1101

note, 1103, 1252 note, 1324b, 1362; 28 U.S.C.

509, 510, 1746; sec. 2, Reorg. Plan No. 2 of

1950, 3 CFR, 1949–1953 Comp., p. 1002.

2. Section 3.2(c)(1) is amended by

adding a sentence at the end of the

paragraph, to read as follows:

§ 3.2 Reopening or reconsideration before

the Board of Immigration Appeals.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * * A motion to reopen for the

purpose of repapering under subpart I of

part 240 of this chapter shall not be

granted.

* * * * *

3. Section 3.23(b)(3) is amended by

adding a sentence at the end of the

paragraph, to read as follows:

§ 3.23 Reopening or reconsideration

before the Immigration Court.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * * A motion to reopen for the

purpose of repapering under subpart I of

part 240 of this chapter shall not be

granted.

* * * * *

PART 240—PROCEEDINGS TO

DETERMINE REMOVABILITY OF

ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES

4. The authority citation for part 240

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 1182, 1186a,

1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1251, 1252 note,

1252a, 1252b, 1362; secs. 202 and 203, Pub.

L. 105–100 (111 Stat. 2160, 2193); sec. 902,

Pub. L. 105–277 (112 Stat. 2681); 8 CFR part

2.

5. In part 240, subpart I is added to

read as follows:

Subpart I—Termination of Deportation

Proceedings and Initiation of Removal

Proceedings (Repapering) Under

Section 309(c)(3) of Public Law 104–

208

Sec.

240.80 Authority.

240.81 Eligibility to request repapering.

240.82 Application for repapering.

§ 240.80 Authority.

The sole authority and discretion to

terminate pending deportation

proceedings and initiate removal

proceedings against an alien (known as

repapering), as granted to the Attorney

General under section 309(c)(3) of the

Illegal Immigration Reform and

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

(IIRIRA), Div. C, Public Law 104–208, is

delegated to the Service. Neither an

immigration judge nor the Board of

Immigration Appeals shall terminate a

deportation proceeding for the purpose

of repapering absent a written motion

from the Service counsel. No appeal

shall lie from the Service’s denial of an

application for repapering.

§ 240.81 Eligibility to request repapering.

(a) An alien may request repapering

under this subpart if an alien is barred

from obtaining relief from deportation

in his or her pending deportation

proceedings, but would be eligible to

seek relief from removal if the alien

were in removal proceedings. To be

eligible to request repapering under

section 309(c)(3) of IIRIRA, an alien

must meet the following standards:

(1) If the alien is a lawful permanent

resident, the alien must be:

(i) In deportation proceedings at the

time of application for repapering

without a final administrative order of

deportation;

(ii) Statutorily eligible for relief under

former section 212(c) of the Act at the

time of application for repapering but

for the eligibility bars imposed by the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Public

Law 104–132; and

(iii) Statutorily eligible for

cancellation of removal under section

240A(a) of the Act at the time of

application for repapering.

(2) If the alien is not a lawful

permanent resident, the alien must be:

(i) In deportation proceedings at the

time of application for repapering

without a final administrative order of

deportation;

(ii) Statutorily eligible for suspension

of deportation under former section 244

of the Act at the time of application for

repapering but for the application of the

stop-time rule in section 240A(d)(1) of

the Act; and

(iii) Statutorily eligible for

cancellation of removal under section

240A(b) of the Act at the time of

application for repapering.

(b) An applicant for repapering who is

a lawful permanent resident is not

required to have filed an application for

relief under former section 212(c) of the

Act. An applicant for repapering who is

not a lawful permanent resident is not

required to have filed an application for

suspension of deportation, or to

demonstrate the requisite hardship at

the time he or she applies for

repapering.

(c) The burden of proof is on the

applicant to establish by a

preponderance of the evidence that he

or she is eligible for repapering.

§ 240.82 Application for repapering.

(a) To apply for repapering, an alien

shall make a request in writing with the

district counsel’s office responsible for

his or her proceeding. The request must

include sufficient proof of eligibility for

repapering. A request for repapering

must be received by the district

counsel’s office no later than 1 year after

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 71277

the Service publishes this rule in final

form in the Federal Register.

(b) Should the district counsel’s office

determine that an alien requesting

repapering is statutorily eligible and

that his or her request warrants a

favorable exercise of discretion, the

Service will file a motion to terminate

the deportation proceeding with the

Immigration Court, or with the Board if

the proceeding is pending with the

Board. Upon the filing of such a motion,

the immigration judge or the Board shall

terminate the deportation proceeding,

except as provided in paragraph (c) of

this section.

(c) The immigration judge (or the

Board, if the proceeding is pending

before the Board) shall deny a motion to

terminate the deportation proceeding for

repapering if the alien is granted relief

from deportation.

(d) In any deportation proceeding that

was administratively closed because the

alien was determined to be eligible to

apply for repapering, the alien shall

apply for repapering in accordance with

paragraph (a) of this section. If upon

review the Service determines that the

alien is eligible for repapering, the

Service shall prepare and serve a Notice

to Appear on the alien and file the

Notice to Appear with the Immigration

Court. The previous deportation

proceeding before the Immigration

Court or the Board shall be terminated

as a matter of law on the date the

Service files the Notice to Appear with

the Immigration Court.

(e) Once a deportation proceeding is

terminated, the Service shall

expeditiously initiate removal

proceedings against the alien. No

determination or action in the

terminated deportation proceeding shall

be binding in the removal proceeding.

Dated: November 15, 2000.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 00–30051 Filed 11–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–107279–00]

RIN 1545–AY18

Rules Relating to General Definition of

Dependent

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document contains

proposed regulations that amend the

definition of ‘‘authorized placement

agency’’ for purposes of determining

whether a child placed for legal

adoption in a taxpayer’s home is a

dependent of the taxpayer. A taxpayer

who has a child placed for legal

adoption in his or her home by an

authorized placement agency will be

affected by these regulations.

DATES: Written or electronically

generated comments and requests for a

public hearing must be received by

February 28, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to:

CC:M&SP:RU (REG–107279–00), room

5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB

7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington,

DC 20044. Submissions may be hand

delivered Monday through Friday

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.

to: CC:M&SP:RU (REG–107279–00),

Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue.,

NW., Washington, DC. Taxpayers may

also submit comments electronically via

the internet by selecting the ‘‘Tax Regs’’

option on the IRS Home Page, or by

submitting comments directly to the IRS

internet site at http://

www.irs.ustreas.gov/tax_regs/

regslist.html. The IRS will publish the

time and date of any public hearing in

the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Concerning the regulations, Elizabeth

Kaye, (202) 622–4910; concerning

submissions of comments and requests

for a public hearing, Guy Traynor, (202)

622–7180 (not toll-free calls).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Explanation of

Provisions

This document contains proposed

amendments to § 1.152–2(c)(2) of the

Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1)

relating to the general definition of a

dependent.

On October 12, 1999, the IRS

published final regulations under

section 6109 regarding IRS adoption

taxpayer identification numbers (TD

8839, 64 FR 51241). Those regulations

provided, in part, that in order for an

adoption taxpayer identification number

(ATIN) to be assigned, a child must be

placed for adoption by an ‘‘authorized

placement agency’’, as defined in

§ 1.152–2(c)(2). Commentators

expressed concern that because of this

requirement, ATINs are not available in

the case of independent adoptions as

defined by state law. In general,

independent adoptions take two forms.

In one type, the biological parent(s) uses

an attorney or other intermediary to

place the child with the adoptive

parents. In other independent

adoptions, no intermediary is necessary

because the adoptive parents and the

biological parent(s) know one another.

The proposed regulations amend the

definition of authorized placement

agency to provide that an ‘‘authorized

placement agency’’ is not limited to

governmental and private organizations

authorized by state law to place

children for legal adoption, but also

includes biological parents and other

persons authorized by state law to place

children for legal adoption.

These regulations are proposed to

apply for taxable years beginning after

December 31, 2000. Taxpayers may rely

on these proposed regulations for

guidance pending the issuance of the

final regulations. If, and to the extent,

future guidance is more restrictive than

the guidance in the proposed

regulations, the future guidance will be

applied without retroactive effect.

Special Analyses

It has been determined that this notice

of proposed rulemaking is not a

significant regulatory action as defined

in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a

regulatory assessment is not required. It

has also been determined that section

553(b) of the Administrative Procedure

Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply

to these regulations, and because these

regulations do not impose on small

entities a collection of information

requirement, the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) does not apply.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the

Internal Revenue Code, this notice of

proposed rulemaking will be submitted

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration for

comment on its impact on small

business.

Comments and Requests for a Public

Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are

adopted as final regulations,

consideration will be given to any

written and electronic comments that

are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS

and Treasury specifically request

comments on the clarity of the proposed

regulations and how it can be made

easier to understand. All comments will

be available for public inspection and

copying. A public hearing will be

scheduled if requested by any person

who timely submits comments. If a

public hearing is scheduled, notice of

the date, time, and place for the public

hearing will be published in the Federal

Register.