[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12915-12928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6686]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


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

[[Page 12915]]



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 disability-
based 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

[[Page 12916]]

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 Secs. 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 Sec. 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 in-depth 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 Secs. 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

[[Page 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 Sec. 312.1(b)(3)(i) 
and Sec. 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 Secs. 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

[[Page 12918]]

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

[[Page 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 Sec. 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. Thirty-eight 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

[[Page 12920]]

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 
Sec. 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-

[[Page 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 Sec. 312.1 and knowledge of United States civics at Sec. 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 Secs. 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

[[Page 12922]]

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 Sec. 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 foreign-
based companies in domestic and export markets.

[[Page 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:


Sec. 299.5  Display of control numbers.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Currently 
                                                               assigned 
       INS form No.                 INS form title           OMB control
                                                                 No.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                 *        *        *          *        *                
N-648....................  Medical Certification for           1115-0205
                            Disability Exceptions.                      
                                                                        
                  *        *        *        *        *                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec. 312.1 paragraph(b)(3) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 312.2   Knowledge of history and government of the United States.

    (a) * * * A person who is exempt from the literacy requirement 
under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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)

[[Page 12924]]

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:


Sec. 499.1  Prescribed forms.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Edition                                    
         Form No.              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

[[Page 12925]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19MR97.000



[[Page 12926]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19MR97.001



[[Page 12927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19MR97.002



[[Page 12928]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19MR97.003



[FR Doc. 97-6686 Filed 3-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-C