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

12915

Vol. 62, No. 53

Wednesday, March 19, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Parts 229, 312, and 499

[INS No. 1702–96]

RIN 1115–AE02

Exceptions to the Educational

Requirements for Naturalization for

Certain Applicants

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(the Service) regulations relating to the

educational requirements for

naturalization of eligible applicants

under section 312 of the Immigration

and nationality Act (the Act), as

amended by the Technical Corrections

Act of 1994. This amendment provides

an exception from the requirements of

demonstrating an understanding of the

English language, including an ability to

read, write, and speak words in ordinary

usage, and of demonstrating a

knowledge and understanding of the

fundamentals of the history, and of the

principles and form of government of

the United States, for certain applicants

who are unable to comply with both

requirements because they possess a

‘‘physical or developmental disability’’

or a ‘‘mental impairment.’’ The final

rule establishes an administrative

process whereby the Service will

adjudicate requests for these exceptions

while providing the public with an

opportunity to comment on portions of

the adjudicative process which the

Service is altering in response to public

comments from the previously

published proposed rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective March

19, 1997. Written comments must be

submitted on or before May 19, 1997.

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 1702–96 on your

correspondence. Comments are

available for public inspection at the

above address by calling (202) 514–3048

to arrange an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig S. Howie or Jody Marten,

Adjudications and Nationality Division,

Immigration and Naturalization Service,

425 I Street NW., Room 3214,

Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202)

514–5014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 25, 1994, Congress

enacted the Immigration and Nationality

Technical Corrections Act of 1994.

Section 108(a)(4) of the Technical

Corrections Act amended section 312 of

the Act to provide an exemption to the

United States history and government

(‘‘civics’’) requirements for persons with

‘‘physical or developmental disabilities’’

or ‘‘mental impairments’’ applying to

become naturalized United States

citizens. This exception complemented

an existing exception for persons with

disabilities with regard to the English

language requirements for

naturalization. Enactment of this

amendment marked the first time

Congress authorized an exception from

the civics requirements for any

individual applying to naturalize.

The Technical Corrections Act did not

specifically define the terms

developmental disability, mental

impairment, or physical disability.

Congress did, however, provide limited

guidance for defining these terms in the

Report of the House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary, H. Rep.

103–387, dated November 20, 1993.

Based in part on the language of this

report, the Service provided preliminary

guidance to field offices on November

21, 1995, defining the three categories of

disabilities and requiring disabled

persons seeking an exception from the

section 312 requirements to obtain an

attestation verifying the existence of the

disability from a designated civil

surgeon.

On August 28, 1996, the Service

published a proposed rule at 61 FR

44227–44230 proposing to amend 8 CFR

part 312 to provide for exceptions from

the section 312 requirements for persons

with physical or developmental

disabilities or mental impairments. In

the preamble to the proposed rule, the

Service noted that these exceptions

were not blanket waivers or exemptions

for persons with disabilities. Creation of

blanket waivers would be contrary to

the requirements of section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act, which provides for

equal (with modifications/

accommodations) but not special

treatment for disabled persons in the

administration of Justice Department

programs. The proposed rule provided

that an exception would only be granted

to those individuals with disabilities

who, because of the nature of their

disability, could not demonstrate the

required understanding of the English

language and knowledge of United

States civics, even with reasonable

modifications or accommodations.

The Service proposed that all

disability eligibility determinations be

based on medical evidence in the form

of individual, one-page assessments by

civil surgeons or qualified individuals

or entities designated by the Attorney

General, attesting to the existence of the

applicant’s disability. As is the case

with virtually all Service adjudications

for benefits, it was noted that it is the

responsibility of the disabled person

applying for naturalization to provide

the documentation necessary to

substantiate the claim for a disabilitybased exception.

The Service noted that it would

comply with section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by providing

reasonable modifications and/or

accommodations to its testing

procedures for applicants with

disabilities. In addition, the Service

noted that an applicant would be

deemed unable to participate in the

testing procedures only in those

situations where there are no reasonable

modifications that would enable the

applicant to participate.

After the Service completed digesting

the comments received from the public

and after meeting with other federal

benefit-granting agencies with extensive

experience in administering disability
12916 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

related programs, it became clear that

considerable changes would be made to

the proposed rule. As such, the Service

is implementing the policies contained

in this rule while also seeking

additional comments from the public

addressing our changes.

Discussion of Comments

The Service received 228 comments

from a variety of sources, including

federal and state governmental agencies,

disability rights and advocacy

organizations, and private individuals.

While the Service has identified 11

specific comment areas that warrant

discussion, the majority of comments

address three specific areas relating to

the proposed rule, in particular, the

definitions of the disabilities proposed

by the Service at §§ 312.1(b)(3)(i) and

312.2(b)(1)(i), the use of the civil

surgeons as the medical professionals

making the disability determinations at

§312.2(b)(2), and the other statutory

requirements for naturalization. The

Service also notes that of the 228

comments, 46 were in the form of two

separate ‘‘form memoranda’’ which the

Service speculates were circulated

among commenters. Some commenters

attached these memoranda to a cover

letter, while others placed the form

memorandum onto their own letterhead.

An additional 12 form letters, all from

the same social services agency yet

signed by various staff, were also

received.

The Service appreciates the overall indepth comments that were received,

especially from other federal agencies

and various disability advocacy

organizations. All these comments have

assisted the Service in understanding

matters of concern to the disabled

community, a constituent group that

until now the Service has only

interacted with on a limited basis. The

following is a summarized discussion of

the comments, opening with an issue

statement, followed by a summary of the

public comments, and concluding with

the Service response. The discussions

are listed in order according to the

volume of comments received for each

topic.

Definitions of the Disabilities

Issue. Should the Service change the

definitions noted in the proposed rule to

comport with existing federal statutes

and regulations? The Service proposed

to amend §§ 312.1(b)(3)(i) and

312.2(b)(1)(i) of 8 CFR with definitions

of physical disability, developmental

disability, and mental impairment based

upon the language of the legislative

history as noted in H.R. No. 103–387.

These definitions included provisions

which excluded disabilities that were

temporary in nature, that were not the

result of a physical or organic disorder,

or that had resulted from an individual’s

illegal use of drugs. H.R. No. 103–387

did not clarify whether the Congress

was referring to the abuse of illegal

drugs or legal drugs. Each definition

included language which specified that

the disability must render the

individual unable to fulfill either the

requirements for English proficiency or

to participate in the civics testing

procedures even with reasonable

modifications.

Summary of public comments. The

disability definitions received 138

comments, the largest number of

specifically referenced comments. The

majority of commenters noted that

while it was appreciated that the

Service was attempting to follow the

intent of Congress, as based on the

limited legislative history, it was the

obligation of the Service to use

definitions already in existence and that

comport with existing federal statutes.

In particular, 62 comments directly

referenced the position that the Service

is required to use existing definitions

that comport with other federal statutes,

such as definitions found in the

Americans With Disabilities Act and the

Developmental Disability, Services, and

Bill of Rights Act of 1978. These

commenters also expressed particular

concern over the proposed definition of

developmental disability. They noted

how there is disagreement within the

medical community as to whether

certain disabilities, such as mental

retardation, are indeed developmental

in nature as opposed to being a mental

impairment.

As noted previously, the Service, in

following the legislative history,

excluded disabilities in the proposed

definitions that were acquired (to

exclude persons whose disability was

the result of the illegal use of drugs) or

disabilities non-organic or temporary in

nature. Of the comments addressing the

definitions, 39 specifically admonished

the Service to revisit this decision.

According to these commenters, by

adopting the definitions as listed in the

proposed rule, the Service would be

excluding a large number of disabled

naturalization applicants. For example,

individuals suffering from Post

Traumatic Stress Disorder or

individuals whose disability resulted

from an accident would not be covered

by the definitions as proposed by the

Service, in that both these disabilities

are acquired. An additional 18

commenters noted that the definitions

proposed by the Service were too

narrowly drawn. They repeated the

argument that by enacting such

narrowly drawn definitions the Service

would potentially exclude large

numbers of disabled individuals who

might qualify for these Congressionally

mandated exceptions.

Eight commenters noted that the

Service had not included specific

references to particular disabilities in

the proposed rule. It was therefore

suggested that the Service modify its

definitions to include particular

disabilities such as mental retardation

and deafness and particular diseases

such as Alzheimers to the language of

the final rule. One commentator noted

that the seriously ill should be

considered physically disabled for the

purposes of gaining an exception to the

section 312 requirements.

Ten separate commenters noted that

the proposed language of the disability

definitions would not take into

consideration persons with combination

disabilities. It was cited that while an

individual with combination disabilities

might not meet the criteria for an

exception in a single category, the

individual’s combination of disabilities

might prevent them from being able to

meet the requirements of section 312,

even with reasonable modifications. An

example given noted that an individual

with mild dementia who also suffers

from hearing loss or blindness may not

be able to learn the required English and

civics information. Taken singularly,

these disabilities might not

automatically warrant an exception for

the individual. However when

combined, the commenters agreed on

the likelihood of the individual being

unable to satisfy the requirements of

section 312 increase, and thus may

warrant the granting of an exception.

Response. The Service has devoted

considerable time in evaluating the

comments addressing the disability

definitions, and has consulted with

other federal agencies whose experience

in developing and implementing

disability-related benefit programs is

much more extensive than that of the

Service (notably the Department of

Health and Human Services and the

Social Security Administration). The

Service has also revisited the exact

language of the Act at section 312 as

well as the legislative history.

As noted, the Service has consulted

with the Social Security Administration

(SSA) since the publication of the

proposed rule in order to gain a better

understanding of disability-related

programs in general. While the criteria

upon which the SSA renders an

individual disabled for an SSA financial

benefit (the focus on an individual’s

inability to support themselves
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12917

financially) is wholly different from the

Service adjudication process for an

Immigration and Nationality Act

benefit, the Service finds no compelling

reason why the definitions upon which

these adjudications are based should not

be standard between the two agencies.

Therefore, the Service is modifying

the proposed rule with regard to the

definitions of the disabilities as found at

§ 312.1(b)(3)(i) and § 312.2(b)(1)(i). The

Service is electing to use language that

for the most part comports with the

regulatory language utilized by the SSA.

In the revised language, the three

categories of disabilities as noted in the

Act are not specifically mentioned but

are referenced as medically

determinable physical or mental

impairment(s), thereby using accepted

medical and regulatory language already

enacted and found within the SSA

regulations. Modifications have been

made to SSA’s suggested language in

order to maintain the Congressional

intent that individuals whose

disabilities are the result of the illegal

use of drugs not be eligible for an

exception to the section 312

requirements.

Also included in the regulatory

language are provisions to recognize

combination impairments, as suggested

by commenters and in keeping with the

standards used by the SSA. However,

the Service has elected not to include

specific references to particular

disabilities within the regulatory text

found in §§ 312.1(b)(3) and 312.2(b)(1).

The Service believes that inclusion of

particular named disabilities could have

the possible effect of limiting the scope

of the proposed exceptions. In other

words, some disabled applicants, not

seeing their particular disability noted

in the text of 8 CFR part 312 might not

believe they are covered by the potential

exception and thus might not attempt to

gain an exception even though they

might be fully eligible.

By adopting these changes, the

Service is addressing the public’s

concern regarding the proposed

regulation’s consistency with existing

federal regulations and statutes. We are

also ensuring that the particular

concerns that Congress elected to

include in the legislative record are

observed, while acknowledging that

adopting a broad definition of disability

is mandated by the Act. However, the

burden will still be on the applicant, via

the medical certification, to demonstrate

to the satisfaction of the Service how the

disability prevents the applicant from

learning the information required by

section 312 of the Act. The Service

believes that it is possible to create a

humane process without creating a

blanket exception policy within the

regulatory language and within the

administration of this program. As

previously noted, creation of a blanket

exception would have the tacit effect of

perpetuating the stereotype that persons

with disabilities are unable to

participate fully in mainstream

activities and would thus be contrary to

the provisions of section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Disability Determinations: Use of the

Civil Surgeons and Creation of a From

Issue. Should disabled applicants be

required to be examined by a civil

surgeon in order to obtain a disability

certification? In the proposed rule a 8

CFR 312.2(b)(2), the Service noted that

disabled applicants desiring a disability

exception to the requirements of English

proficiency and civics must submit

medical certification attesting to the

presence of the disability, executed by

a designated civil surgeon or qualified

individuals or entities designated by the

Attorney General. The Service did not

define the terms qualified individuals or

entities, but did specifically request

public comments on the requirements of

the medical certification process and in

particular on the circumstances under

which the Service should consider the

use of qualified individuals or entities

other than civil surgeons.

Summary of public comments. The

public responded with 125 comments

directly addressing this aspect of the

proposed rule. The majority of

commenters had concerns over the use

of civil surgeons. It was noted by 101

commenters, including HHS (the

controlling federal agency for civil

surgeons), that the majority of civil

surgeons are in general family practice

and thus not experienced in making

complex disability determinations. In

addition, it was noted that civil

surgeons currently base the majority of

their examinations for the Service on

matters relating to the admissibility of

immigrating aliens and communicable

diseases. This diagnosis of

communicable diseases does not relate

to the disability determination process,

according to these commenters.

Many commenters, acknowledging

the Service’s need to maintain integrity

in the medical determination process,

noted that it would be imposing a great

burden on the disabled applicant to

limit the attestation process to only civil

surgeons and the unknown ‘‘qualified

individuals or entities.’’ Forty-seven

commenters therefore directly requested

the Service to allow disabled applicants

to use the medical services of the

person’s attending physician medical

specialist or clinical case worker rather

than mandating an examination by a

civil surgeon. Several of these

commenters also noted that the Service

must consider the stress potentially

placed on persons with mental

impairments if forced to undergo an

examination by someone other than

their own physician.

In addition to the above noted reasons

offered for not limiting the medical

certification process to the civil

surgeons, 25 commenters stated that the

pool of civil surgeons was too small to

adequately serve all disabled applicants

who might attempt to avail themselves

of the disability exceptions. The small

pool of civil surgeons could potentially

result in disabled applicants having to

wait months for appointments.

It was noted by 10 commenters that

the cost of going to a civil surgeon could

be prohibitive for many persons with

disabilities on fixed incomes or public

assistance, especially if the civil surgeon

is required to consult with medical

professionals who specialize in

disabilities prior to issuing a

certification. Commenters noted that the

Service should take this factor into

consideration prior to finalizing any

policy that would require the

predominant use of civil surgeons in the

disability determination process. Six

commenters noted that the Service

should be obliged to provide disabled

applicants with lists of bilingual

physicians qualified to render the

necessary disability certification, and

one commenter requested that the

Service compose lists of specialists,

such as psychiatrists and clinical case

workers, that disabled applicants could

use in locating a medical professional

qualified to make the disability

certification.

Three commenters requested the

Service to abandon the proposed

certification process altogether and

adopt a procedure similar to that

currently utilized by the SSA in making

disability determinations. Another

commenter stated that the certification

process should be changed, and

suggested that disability determination

authority be given to the district director

in every local Service office. According

to this writer, this policy would

dissuade a large number of individuals

who view the section 312 disability

exceptions as a means of avoiding the

English language statutory requirement.

Response. In determining a final

policy for the disability determination

process, the Service acknowledges that

it must be responsive to the needs of the

applicant base, especially the needs of

persons with disabilities. However, it is

also the obligation of the Service to

balance these needs with the necessity
12918 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

of maintaining integrity in the disability

determination process. Only one

commenter addressed the fact that the

Service will be faced with instances of

fraud in the administration of this

program and that the Service must be

ever-vigilant when non-disabled

applicants attempt to present

themselves to the Service as disabled

and therefore eligible for a disability

exception. Having a structured process

for the determination of a disability is

critical to the Service’s obligation to

maintain an adjudicative process with

integrity.

The Service has concluded that the

public is justified in its concern over the

near exclusive dependence on the civil

surgeons in the disability determination

process. Therefore, the Service is

proposing to eliminate all references to

the use of the civil surgeons in the

determination process. (However, any

civil surgeon meeting the criteria

outlined below will be able to make a

disability determination, but based on

the surgeon’s expertise with a particular

disability, not on the fact that he or she

is a civil surgeon.)

The Service is proposing that only

medical doctors licensed to practice

medicine in the United States

(including the United States territories

of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands), which includes medical

doctors with specialities such as board

certified psychiatrists, and clinical

psychologists licensed to practice

psychology in the United States

(including the United States territories

of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands) who are experienced in

diagnosing disabilities, make the

determinations that will be used by the

Service. This policy will address the

concerns of the public regarding the use

of civil surgeons, the perception that the

available pool of civil surgeons is too

small to meet the needs of the disabled

community, and the possible high cost

of medical visits to several doctors in

order to verify the existence of a

disability. This determination process

will be effective upon publication of

this rule while the Service also

investigates other possible methods for

having disabled applicants gain a

disability certification from

professionals within the medical

community.

The selective list of licensed health

care providers eligible to render a

disability determination is critical to the

Service obligation that fraud not corrupt

this program or the adjudicative

process. Further safeguards can be

found in the proposal of the Service to

require the medical professional making

the disability determination to (1) sign

a statement that he or she has answered

all the questions in a complete and

truthfulmanner and agrees, with the

applicant, to the release of all medical

records relating to the applicant that

may be requested by the Service, and (2)

an attestation stating that any knowingly

false or misleading statements may

subject the medical professional to

possible criminal penalties under Title

18, United States Code, Section 1546.

Title 18, United States Code, Section

1546 provides in part:

* * * Whoever knowingly makes under

oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury

under Section 1746 of Title 28, United States

Code, knowingly subscribes as true, any false

statement with respect to a material

application, affidavit, or other document

required by the immigration laws or

regulations prescribed thereunder, or

knowingly presents any such application,

affidavit, or other document containing any

such false statement—shall be fined in

accordance with this title or imprisoned not

more than ten years, or both.

In addition to the criminal penalties

of Title 18 noted above, the applicant

and licensed medical professional are

subject to the civil penalties under

section 274C of the Act, Penalties for

Document Fraud, 8 U.S.C. 1324c.

The Service has many concerns over

the preservation of integrity but cannot

expect the public to wait for the

implementation of a possible alternative

determination process. Other federal

agencies have advised the Service that

their experience with accepting

documentation from attending

physicians has in some instances been

negative. For this reason, the Service

has elected to reserve the right to

request additional medical records

relating to the applicant’s disability if

the Service has reason to question the

disability determination or certification.

The Service is also reserving the right

to refer the applicant to another

authorized licensed health care provider

for a supplemental disability

determination. This option will be

invoked when the Service has credible

doubts about the veracity of a medical

certification that has been presented by

an applicant. The Service will likely be

faced with cases where non-disabled

individuals, fully capable of meeting the

functional English and United States

civics requirements of section 312, will

attempt to gain a disability exception.

Therefore, the Service must be free to

use reasonable means to prevent fraud

in the disability determination process

and to ensure that the integrity of

United States citizenship is preserved.

The Service notes that it is not the

responsibility of this agency to provide

disabled applicants with lists of

bilingual medical professional, nor is it

the responsibility of the Service to

provide lists of licensed health care

providers qualified to perform the

disability determinations. The burden is

on the applicant to provide the

documentation deemed necessary for

the Service to make a determination as

to the qualification of the applicant for

any benefit requested under the Act.

The public must also note that the

naturalization program is financed

entirely by the fees paid by the

naturalization applicant. No

congressionally appropriated funds are

dedicated to the naturalization

adjudicative process. The creation or

any alternative determination process

would need to be financed either by the

user fees paid by applicants or by other

as yet unidentified non-fee sources of

funding. The Service desires to learn the

public viewpoint on various alternative

disability determination processes.

In its proposed rule, the Service

specifically requested public comments

on the requirements for the medical

certification. Only two commenters

made specific suggestions that the

Service would better serve the public as

well as its own interests by creating a

new public use form. Initially, the

Service proposed that the medical

professional making the certification

issue a one-page document, attesting to

the origin, nature, and extent of the

applicant’s condition as it relates to the

disability exception. The certification

was specified to be only one page in an

attempt to keep applicants from

submitting entire medical histories that

the Service has no experience with or

capacity to achieve.

The Service has determined that the

creation of a new public use form will

be a benefit to both the Service and the

public. In particular, creation of a form

will take the burden off both the

applicant and the licensed medical

professionals with regard to information

dissemination. The form’s instructions

will include complete explanations of

the disability categories and define

which licensed medical professionals

can execute the certification. A new

form will allow the licensed medical

professionals to state simply, via

reference to the instructional guidelines,

how the applicant’s disability prevents

the applicant from learning the

information needed to fulfill the

requirements of section 312 of the Act.

The form will also allow the licensed

medical professional an opportunity to

comment on how their particular

medical experience qualifies them to

render complex disability assessments.

As previously noted, the Service also

believes that a form will ensure the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12919

integrity of the disability determination

process (a vital concern of the Service)

by requiring the licensed medical

professionals to sign and declare that

the examination and certification is

accurate under penalty of perjury. The

new form will also allow for the

submission of additional background

medical documentation, upon request of

the Service, which may reduce the

likelihood of fraud. Lastly, Service

offices will be advised, and the public

should note, that the Service will accept

photocopies of the new Form N–648,

Medical Certification for Disability

Exceptions, until the form becomes fully

available to the public.

Other Naturalization Requirements

Issue. Must disabled naturalization

applicants meet the other requirements

for naturalization, including the ability

to take an oath of renunciation and

allegiance? In order for an applicant for

naturalization to be approved, the

Service must be satisfied that the

applicant has met the requirements as

stipulated in the Act. The 1994

Technical Corrections Act amended the

Act regarding the requirements found in

section 312, but did not amend the

requirements found in section 316

(Requirements as to Residence, Good

Moral Character, Attachment to the

Principles of the Constitution, and

Favorable Disposition to the United

States). Neither did it amend section

337 (Oath of Renunciation and

Allegiance). Therefore, the Service did

not address any of the other

requirements for naturalization in the

proposed rule.

Summary of Public Comments. While

the Service did not address the other

requirements for naturalization, 92

commenters did make direct references

to these requirements. The vast majority

of these writers (89 of the 92) stated that

it was incumbent upon the Service to

waive the other naturalization

requirements for applicants with

disabilities, in particular the oath of

allegiance. Commenters stated that the

intent of Congress was to relieve the

disabled from requirements they could

not be expected to meet, to remove

barriers in the naturalization process for

the disabled applicant, and not to create

an additional test whereby disabled

applicants would in effect be tested on

their ability or capacity to take the oath.

Writers stated that while Congress did

not directly address the issue of the

other requirements for naturalization, it

was the obligation of the Service to

comply with Congressional intent and

waive the oath requirement. These

commenters stated that by not waiving

the oath, the Service would place the

disabled applicant in a situation of

being exempt from the civics

requirements of section 312, but

required to have a working knowledge

of civics in order to take and understand

the oath of allegiance. Writers further

stated that this situation of exempting

certain requirements but holding the

disabled applicant to other requirements

would be a violation of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the

Department of Justice regulations. These

regulations prohibit the government

from utilizing ‘‘criteria or methods of

administration the purpose or effect of

which would * * * (ii) Defeat or

substantially impair accomplishment of

the objectives of a program or activity

with respect to handicapped persons.’’

(28 CFR 39.130(b)(3))

These writers noted it was not only

the obligation of the Service to follow

Congressional intent, but that the

Service has the authority to waive the

oath requirement for any applicant

under the Service authority to naturalize

applicants via the administrative

naturalization process. This

administrative naturalization authority

was given to the Service by Congress as

part of the Immigration Act of 1990.

Twenty of these writers also suggested

that the Service consider the alternative

idea of allowing a family member, legal

guardian, or court appointed trustee to

stand in for the disabled applicant

during the administration of the oath.

This would in effect create an oath by

proxy procedure, available to the

disabled applicant when the disability

prevents the applicant from

understanding the language of the oath.

Two writers stated that the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and

companion disability-related statutes

were enacted to ensure fairness to

disabled persons with regard to

employment and physical accessibility.

Therefore, they do not relate to the

naturalization process. These

commenters stated that the other

naturalization requirements, in

particular the oath, are mandatory and

should not be waived for any applicant,

disabled or not. One additional writer

suggested that the Service seek

clarification from congress on the issue

of disabled applicants unable to meet all

the requirements for naturalization.

Response. The Service did not

address the issue of the oath in the

proposed rule since Congress did not

amend section 337 of the Act in the

1994 Technical Amendment Act.

However, the Service realizes the

concern that exists within the disability

community as to this naturalization

requirement.

The Service already makes reasonable

accommodations in cases where

individuals are unable, by reason of a

disability, to take the oath of allegiance

in the customary way. For example, it

is the common practice of all Service

offices to conduct naturalization

interviews and to administer the oath of

allegiance outside of the local Service

office in instances where the applicant

is either home-bound or confined to a

medical facility. Such accommodations

remain available for disabled

individuals who signal their willingness

to become United States citizens and to

give up citizenship in other countries.

Acceptance of Disability Certifications

From Other Government Agencies

Issue. Should the Service accept

disability certifications issued by other

government agencies? In the proposed

rule at § 312.2(b)(2), the Service noted

that it may consult with other federal

agencies in determining whether an

individual previously determined to be

disabled by another federal agency has

a disability as defined in the proposed

rule language. This consultation could

be used in lieu of the Service-required

medical certification.

Summary of public comments. Thirtyeight commenters stated that the Service

should be obligated to accept a

certification of a disability from a

federal or state governmental agency in

lieu of having the disabled

naturalization applicant seek an

additional medical certification.

Response.The Service has consulted

with other federal agencies regarding

this matter. It was pointed out to the

Service that with most agencies, the

determination of a disability leads to

either a financial or medical benefit.

The SSA noted that the criteria they

review prior to granting an individual a

disability benefit (in particular, can the

person work and thus support

themselves financially) is entirely

different than the requirements that all

applicants applying for naturalization

must meet. In addition, a disability

which might render an individual

eligible for a financial or medical benefit

from another federal or state agency may

not in all cases render the same

individual unable to learn the

information required by section 312 of

the Act.

After careful review, the Service has

determined that it will not accept

certifications form other government or

state agencies as absolute evidence of a

disability warranting an exception to the

requirements of section 312. However,

and as noted in the proposed rule, the

Service reserves the right to consult

with other federal agencies on cases
12920 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

where an applicant has been declared

disabled. The Service notes that the

unquestioned acceptance of another

agency’s disability determination would

equate to a blanket waiver of the section

312 requirements for anyone with a

disability that has been so recognized by

another agency. Such a blanket waiver,

based on stereotypical speculation that

persons with disabilities are unable to

participate in mainstream activities, is

contrary to the provisions of section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Appeal Language

Issue. Should a special appeal

procedure be created for disabled

naturalization applicants?

Summary of public comments.

Twenty-six commenters noted that in

the proposed rule, the Service failed to

include any references to an appeal

procedure for a disabled naturalization

applicant who is denied naturalization

based on the Service not accepting a

medical certificate attesting to a

disability. Six of these commenters

stated that since Service officers were

not medical professionals, they should

be obliged to accept a medical

certificate. These same commenters

additionally stated that any applicant’s

certificate that might be denied be

afforded an immediate appeal to the

local Service district director. Three

commenters suggested that the Service

be required to obtain independent

medical evidence prior to denying any

naturalization case, based on questions

about the disability certification. Twelve

commenters stated that the Service

should be obligated to establish a

separate appeal process for disabled

applicants, also repeating the request

that the appeal be forwarded

immediately to the local Service district

director.

Response. Many separate decisions

comprise the overall adjudication of an

individual’s application for

naturalization. One part of the overall

adjudication will be acceptance or

rejection of the applicant’s N–648. This

will not be a separate adjudication,

entitled to its own set of appeal rights

and procedures, but a part of the entire

N–400 approval or denial process.

All applicants seeking to naturalize,

including disabled applicants, may avail

themselves of the hearing procedure

already in place in the event the

naturalization application is denied.

Applicants may request a hearing on a

denial under the provision of section

336 of the Act. The regulations

governing these hearings are found at

§ 336.2. The review hearing will be with

other than the officer who conducted

the original examination and who is

classified at a grade level equal to or

higher than the grade of the original

examining officer. Applicants may

submit additional independent evidence

as may be deemed relevant to the

applicant’s eligibility for naturalization.

If the denial is sustained, the applicant

may seek de novo reconsideraiton in

federal court. With the additional

training Service adjudication officers

will receive regarding disabilities and

the disability-based exception to the

requirements of section 312, the Service

is of the opinion that in the interim, the

current hearing procedure for a denied

naturalization application is sufficient.

In the interest of making an

accommodation, the Service is

considering a modification to the

current hearing procedure. The

procedure under consideration

contemplates using the current hearing

process augmented with an independent

medical opinion on the disability

finding. This opinion could be issued by

a medical professional that the

applicant has been referred to by the

Service, especially in instances where

the Service officer questions the medical

certification. An augmented hearing

process would need to be financed

through the user fees paid by the

applicant or by other as yet unidentified

non-fee sources of funding. As noted

previously, the naturalization program

is entirely funded by user fees, with no

additional funding appropriated by the

Congress. The Service welcomes

additional public comments on this

idea. However, such a procedure would

necessitate a separate regulatory

amendment to 8 CFR 336.2

Reasonable Modifications/

Accommodations, Special Training,

and Quality Control

Issue. Should examples of reasonable

modifications and accommodations to

the naturalization testing procedure be

included in the language of the

regulation? Noted in the preamble to the

proposed rule were statements that

pursuant to section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Service

would make reasonable modifications

and accommodations to its testing

procedures to enable naturalization

applicants with disabilities

participation in the process.

Summary of public comments.

Twenty-two commenters raised specific

references to the modifications and

accommodations. In particular,

commenters felt that the Service should

include in the text of the final rule

examples of the modifications or

accommodations which might be

afforded the disabled applicant during

the testing and interview process.

Writers stressed that appropriate

modifications depend upon the

applicant’s individual needs. One

commenter stated that it would be more

efficient for the Service to interview

persons with disabilities off-site rather

than modifying each officer’s work

station in each Service office for

complete disability access.

Response. The Service is in full

compliance with its obligations under

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

and provides accommodations and

modifications to the testing procedures

when required. The Service currently

makes regular accommodations and

modifications for disabled applicants for

the full range of its services.

However, the Service has reservations

about including language within the text

of the regulation detailing specific

accommodations or modifications. It is

the opinion of the Service that the

appropriate place for such language is in

the accompanying field policy guidance

and instructions that will be distributed

to all Service offices upon publication of

this final rule. Service offices are

routinely reminded of the obligations

section 504 places on all governmental

agencies regarding accommodating

persons with disabilities. The Service

notes that it is current Service policy to

conduct off-site testing, interviews, and

where authorized, off-site swearing-in

ceremonies in appropriate situations.

Four commenters suggests that the

Service create special training directed

at Service officers in all local Service

offices. This training would remind

officer staff on their responsibilities

under section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act and offer staff examples of exact

modifications and accommodation to

the testing procedures. An example

might be in the officer taking into

account the special testing needs of

naturalization applicants with learning

impairments. The Service agree with

this suggestion and will initiate special

training for local district office

adjudication officers. Program staff at

Service Headquarters are currently

working on the creation of this training

module and plan to provide this special

training as close to the publication of

the final rule as possible. The Service

asks the public for suggested training

methods which may be of value to the

adjudication officers responsible for

hearing those cases where the applicant

is requesting a disability-based

exception to the requirements of section

312.

In addition to the special training

efforts that will be undertaken, the

Service is committed to ensuring that

substantial quality control mechanisms

are followed regarding these disability-
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12921

related naturalization adjudications.

Currently, all Service offices responsible

for processing naturalization cases must

comply with mandatory quality control

procedures. These procedures include

regular supervisory review of every

stage of the naturalization process, from

clerical data entry and final decision, to

regular Form N–400 random samplings.

These quality control procedures are not

optional instructions that Service offices

are encouraged to follow. These

procedures are mandatory for every

office. The Service is committed to

ensuring that all naturalization cases are

handled properly, administratively

processed correctly, and adjudicated

fairly.

The Service will supplement these

current quality control procedures with

additional procedures particularly

directed at cased where applicants have

requested an exception from the

requirements of section 312. These

procedures will include the previously

referenced special training efforts for

local Service adjudicators as well as

supplemental random samplings of

cases where the applicant has a

disability and has requested an

exception. The Service is currently

investigating the possibility of entering

into a contract with a private entity to

perform these random samplings. Such

an arrangement would ensure an

unprecedented level of objectivity in

reviewing disability-related cases. It

would also allow the Service to gain

independent medical viewpoints on

these disability adjudications as well as

opinions on medical certifications

which may have been questioned by the

local Service officer. The Service

requests public comments on additional

quality control methods which may

assist the Service in ensuring that its

disability related adjudications are fair

and accurate.

Exemption of All Section 312

Requirements for the Elderly

Issue. Should the Service grant a total

exemption to the elderly for the

requirements of section 312 of the Act?

Summary of public comments. While

the proposed rule did not address the

issue of applicants over the age of 65

being exempted from all requirements of

section 312, 16 commenters urged the

Service to adopt such a policy. Writers

based their requests on the assumption

that applicants over the age of 65 are

inherently unable to learn a new

language or information on United

States civics due to their advanced age.

Therefore, commenters suggested a new

policy whereby elderly applicants

would have the naturalization

requirements found under section 312

waived. One additional writer asked

that the Service waive the English

requirements for any legal immigrant

attempting to naturalize.

Response. Section 312 of the Act

offers no blanket exemption to

applicants over the age of 65 with

respect to the English proficiency

requirements. Congress has afforded

naturalization applicants over the age of

50 with 20 years of permanent residence

and applicants over the age of 55 with

15 years of permanent residence an

exemption from the English language

requirements. Congress has not,

however, expanded these exemptions to

other groups. Congress has also granted

‘‘special consideration’’ to applicants

over the age of 65 with 20 years of

permanent residence regarding the

civics knowledge requirements. (The

Service will address the section 312

‘‘special consideration’’ provisions in

the overall regulatory revision of 8 CFR

part 312).

The Service cannot create a new

exemption category to the Act. Only the

Congress has the authority to amend the

Act. As such, the Service cannot act on

this particular suggestion.

Treating Applicants With Disabilities

With Compassion and Discretion

Issue and summary of public

comments. The need for compassion

and discretion in adjudicating disability

naturalization cases. In the Service’s

preliminary guidance to field offices

regarding section 312 disability

naturalization cases, dated November

21, 1995, offices were reminded to use

compassion and discretion in their

dealings with disabled applicants.

Fifteen commenters noted that this

language was missing from the proposed

rule and requested the Service to

include said language in the text of the

final rule.

Response. The Service understands

the desire of the disabled advocacy

community to have this language

included in the final rule. However, the

Service feels that such language is more

appropriate for inclusion in the

supplemental policy guidance that will

be distributed to field offices upon

publication of this rule. The special

training previously mentioned that the

Service will require for adjudication

officers will also stress the need for

compassion and discretion in dealings

with all applicants for benefits under

the Act.

A Single Test and Single Determination

Issue and summary of public

comments. Should the Service use a

single test and single determination

process? Seven commenters noted that

the proposed rule implies that there are

two separate tests, due to the structure

of the regulation which addresses

English proficiency at § 312.1 and

knowledge of United States civics at

§ 312.2. The Service was therefore urged

to adopt a single test format. These

commenters also suggest that the

Service only require one determination

for the medical certification process.

Response. The Service notes that

while the current structure of the

regulation features two distinct parts

regarding English proficiency and

knowledge of United States civics,

current procedures do, in effect, offer

applicants a single test. During the

mandatory naturalization interview, the

applicant’s verbal English proficiency is

determined by the spoken interaction

between the adjudication officer and the

applicant. Most civics testing is also

done orally, which provides the

adjudication officer with additional

evidence of the applicant’s English

proficiency. The public should also note

that in the Request for Comments

contained in the proposed rule, the

Service emphasized that the entire

regulatory structure of 8 CFR part 312

was under review. Commenters’

suggestions about combining the

requirements of §§ 312.1 and 312.2 into

one consolidated section shall be

considered during the redrafting of 8

CFR part 312.

With regard to the request for a single

determination of the disability, the

Service will require each applicant

requesting an exception to the

requirements found at section 312 to

submit a single medical certification.

The certification should note the

existence of the disability, and the

recommendation of the medical

professional that the applicant be

exempted from the requirements of

section 312. This certification must

address, however, both the English

proficiency and United States civics

knowledge requirement and the

applicant’s inability to meet either one

or both of the requirements. This is

necessary since both requirements must

be met in order for the individual to be

naturalized, absent a waiver.

Expedited Processing for Applicants

With Disabilities

Issue and summary of public

comments. Should persons with

disabilities be afforded expedited

processing of their naturalization

applications? Four commenters

addressed the issue of expedited

processing of naturalization

applications for persons with

disabilities. Three writers stated it was

the obligation of the Service to expedite
12922 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

these naturalization cases, in that the

applicant’s status with other

government agencies regarding

eligibility for social service benefits

could be affected by the applicant’s not

being a United States citizen. One of

these commenters suggested that the

Service institute a 30-day processing

window for disabled applicants, to

ensure that the Service could grant the

applicant any reasonable modification

necessary to possibly take part in the

normal testing procedure. One writer

noted that the disabled should not be

granted expedited processing in that

such an accommodation would be

inconsistent with current Service

policy.

Response. The policy of the Service,

found in the Operating Instructions at

§ 103.2(q), is to process all applications

in chronological order by date of

receipt. This procedure ensures fairness

and equity for all applicants. The

Service shall continue to observe this

procedure with regard to naturalization

applications from persons with

disabilities. The public should note,

however, that any applicant able to

show evidence of an emergent

circumstance may request an exception

to this policy from the local district

director. It is within the discretion of

the district director to either grant or

deny a request for expedited processing

of any Service adjudication.

Miscellaneous Comments

Ten commenters implored the Service

to take into consideration their

particular personal circumstances

surrounding disability naturalization

cases currently or about to be submitted

to the Service. While the Service has

empathy for these writers, the proposed

rule for which comments were solicited

addressed procedural issues, not

particular cases. The Service is

confident that each of these individual

cases will be adjudicated equitably

when presented to an adjudications

officer for review.

One writer expressed dismay that the

Service was considering an exception to

the section 312 requirements for certain

disabled aliens attempting to naturalize.

This writer stated that disabled aliens

should be required to return to their

native countries and that the United

States should focus its attention on

assisting native-born disabled citizens.

The Service would note that the 1994

Technical Corrections Act mandates this

change to the Services’ regulations. The

Service is obligated to follow the

direction of the Congress when Congress

so amends the Act.

One commenter suggested that the

Service embark upon a media campaign

in order to notify disabled persons about

the provisions of this legislative change.

The writer speculated that there is no

method in existence by which the

Service can notify the disabled

community of this possible exception.

Based on the number of comments

received from various disabled rights

advocacy groups, the Service is of the

opinion that the vast majority of

individuals who might benefit from this

exception will have a means of being

informed about the provisions of the

exceptions. The Service would also note

that it is working with the SSA on

informational materials for all alien SSA

beneficiaries who may wish to apply for

naturalization.

One writer noted that the current

application for naturalization, Form N–

400, should be amended to include

references to the disability related

exceptions. The Service recognizes this

problem and notes that the N–400 is

currently under revision. Any revision

will include information regarding the

disability exceptions to the section 312

requirements and will be submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

Another commenter requested that

the Service be flexible in adjudicating

naturalization applicants from disabled

persons. The Service has every intention

of being flexible in these adjudications

to the extent allowable under the law.

The special training effort that will be

instituted should assist the Service in

meeting the goals of being flexible and

fair in the adjudication of these

naturalization applications.

Request for Comments

The Service is seeking public

comments regarding the final rule. In

particular, the Service is seeking

comments regarding the modifications

made to the proposed rule, published at

61 FR 44227. It should again be noted

that the Service is engaged in an

additional revision of 8 CFR part 312.

That additional revision will be issued

as a proposed rule, also with a request

for public comments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Commissioner of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service, in

accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has

reviewed this regulation and, by

approving it, certifies that the rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. This rule has been drafted in a

way to minimize the economic impact

that it has on small business while

meeting its intended objectives.

Executive Order 12866

This rule is 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. Under

Executive Order 12866, section

6(a)(3)(B)–(D), this proposed rule has

been submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget for review.

This rule is mandated by the 1994

Technical Corrections Act in order to

afford certain disabled naturalization

applicants an exemption from the

educational requirements outlined in

section 312 of the Immigration and

Nationality Act.

Executive Order 12612

The 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.

Executive Order 12988

This interim rule meets the applicable

standards set forth in section 3(a) and

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

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 $100,000,000 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 as defined by

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12923

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirement contained in this rule have

been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the provision of the Paperwork

Reduction Act. The OMB control

number for this collection is contained

in 8 CFR 229.5, Display of control

numbers.

List of Subjects

8 CFR Part 299

Immigration, reporting, and record

keeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 312

Citizenship and naturalization,

Education.

8 CFR Part 499

Citizenship and naturalization.

Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the

Code of Federal Regulation is amended

as follows:

PART 299—IMMIGRATION FORMS

1. The authority citation for part 299

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103; 8 CFR part

2.

2. Section 299.5 is amended by

adding the entry for Form ‘‘N–648’’, to

the listing of forms, in proper numerical

sequence, to read as follows:

§ 299.5 Display of control numbers.

* * * * *

INS

form

No.

INS form title

Currently

assigned

OMB control No.

* * * * *

N–648 Medical Certification

for Disability Exceptions.

1115–0205

* * * * *

PART 312—EDUCATIONAL

REQUIREMENTS FOR

NATURALIZATION

3. The authority citation for part 312

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1423, 1443, 1447,

1448.

4. In § 312.1 paragraph(b)(3) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 312.1 Literacy requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) The requirements of paragraph(a)

of this section shall not apply to any

person who is unable, because of a

medically determinable physical or

mental impairment or combination of

impairments which has lasted or is

expected to last at least 12 months, to

demonstrate an understanding of the

English language as noted in paragraph

(a) of this section. The loss of any

cognitive abilities based on the direct

effects of the illegal use of drugs will not

be considered in determining whether a

person is unable to demonstrate an

understanding of the English language.

For purposes of this paragraph, the term

medically determinable means an

impairment that results form

anatomical, physiological, or

psychological abnormalities which can

be shown by medically acceptable

clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques to have resulted in

functioning so impaired as to render an

individual unable to demonstrate an

understanding of the English language

as required by this section, or that

renders the individual unable to fulfill

the requirements of English proficiency,

even with reasonable modifications to

the methods of determining English

proficiency, even with reasonable

modifications to the methods of

determining English proficiency as

outlined in paragraph(c) of this section.

* * * * *

5. Section 312.2 is amended by:

a. Revising the last sentence of

paragraph(a);

b. Redesignating paragraph(b) as

paragraph(c) and by

c. Adding a new paragraph(b), to read

as follows:

§ 312.2 Knowledge of history and

government of the United States.

(a) * * * A person who is exempt

from the literacy requirement under

§ 312.1(b) (1) and (2) must still satisfy

this requirement.

(b) Exceptions. (1) The requirements

of paragraph(a) of this section shall not

apply to any person who is unable to

demonstrate a knowledge and

understanding of the fundamentals of

the history, and of the principles and

form of government of the Untied stated

because of a medically determinable

physical or mental impairment, that

already has or is expected to last at least

12 months. The loss of any cognitive

skills based on the direct effects of the

illegal use of drugs will not be

considered in determining whether an

individual may be exempted. For the

purposes of this paragraph the term

medically determinable means an

impairment that results form

anatomical, physiological, or

psychological abnormalities which can

be shown by medically acceptable

clinical and laboratory diagnosis

techniques to have resulted in

functioning so impaired as to render an

individual to be unable to demonstrate

the knowledge required by this section

or that renders the individuals unable to

participate in the testing procedures for

naturalization, even with reasonable

modifications.

(2) Medical certification. All persons

applying for naturalization and seeking

an exception from the requirements of

§ 312.1(a) and paragraph(a) of this

section based on the disability

exceptions must submit Form N–648,

Medical Certification for Disability

Exceptions, to be completed by a

medical doctor licensed to practice

medicine in the United States or a

clinical psychologist licensed to

practice psychology in the Untied states

(including the United States territories

of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands). Form N–648 must be submitted

as an attachment to the applicant’s Form

N–400, Application for Neutralization.

These medical professionals shall be

experienced in diagnosing those with

physical or mental medically

determinable impairments and shall be

able to attest to the origin, nature, and

extent of the medical condition as it

relates to the disability exceptions noted

under § 312.1(b)(3) and paragraph(b)(1)

of this section. In addition, the medical

professionals making the disability

determination must sign a statement on

the Form N–648 that they have

answered all the questions in a

complete and truthful manner, that they

(and the applicant) agree to the release

of all medical records relating to the

applicant that may be requested by the

Service and that they attest that any

knowingly false or misleading

statements may subject the medical

professional to the penalties for perjury

pursuant to title 18, United Stated Code,

Section 1546 and to civil penalties

under section 274C of the Act. The

Service also reserves the right to refer

the applicant to another authorized

medical source for a supplemental

disability determination. This option

shall be invoked when the Service has

credible doubts about the veracity of a

medical certification that has been

presented by the applicant. An affidavit

or attestation by the applicant, his or her

relatives, or guardian on his or her

medical condition is not a a sufficient

medical attestation for purpose of

satisfying this requirement.

* * * * *

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 1115–0208)
12924 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

PART 499—NATIONALITY FORMS

6. The authority citation for part 499

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 CFR part 2.

7. Section 499.1 is amended by

adding the entry for the Form ‘‘N–648’’,

in proper numerical sequence, to the

listing of forms, to read as follows:

§ 499.1 Prescribed forms.

* * * * *

Form

No.

Edition

date Title and description

* * * * *

N–648 1/23/97 Medical Certification for

Disability Exceptions.

Dated: March 2, 1997.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

Note: The attached Medical Certification

for Disability Exceptions, Form N–648, will

not appear in the Code of Federal

Regulations.

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12925
12926 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12927
12928 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

[FR Doc. 97–6686 Filed 3–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–C