Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3613

No. 731–TA–652 (Review), may be closed to

the public to prevent the disclosure of BPI.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: January 8, 2001.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–1221 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–444]

In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor

Light Emitting Devices, Components

Thereof, and Products Containing

Same; Notice of Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Institution of investigation

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a

complaint was filed with the U.S.

International Trade Commission on

December 15, 2000, under section 337 of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19

U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Rohm, Inc., of

Japan. A supplement to the Complaint

was filed on January 4, 2001. The

complaint, as supplemented, alleges

violations of section 337 in the

importation into the United States, the

sale for importation, and the sale within

the United States after importation of

certain semiconductor light emitting

devices, components thereof, and

products containing same by reason of

infringement of claims 1, 2, 4 and 6–45

of U.S. Letters Patent 6,084,899 and

claims 1–5 and 9–23 of U.S. Letters

Patent 6,115,399. The complaint further

alleges that an industry in the United

States exists and/or is in the process of

being established as required by

subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

The complainant requests that the

Commission institute an investigation

and, after the investigation, issue a

permanent exclusion order and a

permanent cease and desist order.

ADDRESSES: The complaint and

supplement, except for any confidential

information contained therein, are

available for inspection during official

business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.)

in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC

20436, telephone 202–205–2000.

Hearing impaired individuals are

advised that information on this matter

can be obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility

impairments who will need special

assistance in gaining access to the

Commission should contact the Office

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000.

General information concerning the

Commission may be obtained by

accessing its Internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne M. Goalwin, Esq., Office of Unfair

Import Investigations, U.S. International

Trade Commission, telephone 202–205–

2574.

Authority: The authority for institution of

this investigation is contained in section 337

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and

in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR § 210.10

(2000).

Scope of Investigation: Having

considered the complaint, the U.S.

International Trade Commission, on

January 9, 2001, Ordered That—

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, an investigation be instituted

to determine whether there is a

violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of

section 337 in the importation into the

United States, the sale for importation,

or the sale within the United States after

importation of certain semiconductor

light emitting devices, components

thereof, or products containing same by

reason of infringement of claims 1, 2, 4,

6–44 or 45 of U.S. Letters Patent

6,084,899 or claims 1–5, 9–22 or 23 of

U.S. Letters Patent 6,115,399, and

whether an industry in the United

States exists and/or is in the process of

being established as required by

subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

(2) For the purpose of the

investigation so instituted, the following

are hereby named as parties upon which

this notice of investigation shall be

served:

(a) The complainant is—

Rohm Co., Ltd., 21, Saiin Mizosaki-cho,

Ukyo-ku, Kyoto, 615–8585, Japan

(b) The respondents are the following

companies alleged to be in violation of

section 337, and are the parties upon

which the complaint is to be served:

Nichia Corporation, 491 Oka, KaminakaCho, Anan, Tokushima, 774–8601,

Japan

Nichia America Corporation, 3775

Hempland Road, Mountville, PA

17554

(c) Anne M. Goalwin, Esq., Office of

Unfair Import Investigations, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street, S.W., Room 401–P, Washington,

DC 20436, who shall be the Commission

investigative attorney, party to this

investigation; and

(3) For the investigation so instituted,

the Honorable Sidney Harris is

designated as the presiding

administrative law judge.

Responses to the complaint and the

notice of investigation must be

submitted by the named respondents in

accordance with section 210.13 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 19 CFR § 210.13. Pursuant to

19 CFR §§ 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such

responses will be considered by the

Commission if received no later than 20

days after the date of service by the

Commission of the complaint and the

notice of investigation. Extensions of

time for submitting responses to the

complaint will not be granted unless

good cause therefor is shown.

Failure of a respondent to file a timely

response to each allegation in the

complaint and in this notice may be

deemed to constitute a waiver of the

right to appear and contest the

allegations of the complaint and to

authorize the administrative law judge

and the Commission, without further

notice to that respondent, to find the

facts to be as alleged in the complaint

and this notice and to enter both an

initial determination and a final

determination containing such findings,

and may result in the issuance of a

limited exclusion order or a cease and

desist order or both directed against that

respondent.

Issued: January 10, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–1222 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[A.G. Order No. 2353–2001]

Final Specification of Community

Programs Necessary for Protection of

Life or Safety Under Welfare Reform

Legislation

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of final order.

SUMMARY: This publication contains the

final version of the Attorney General’s

Order that is issued pursuant to sections

401 and 411 of the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996. The Order

specifies the types of community

programs, services, or assistance for

which all aliens remain eligible. This

publication also responds to comments

submitted regarding the Order.

DATES: This Notice is effective January

16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jessica Rosenbaum, Office of Policy

3614 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

Development, Department of Justice,

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20530, telephone (202)

514–3737 for general information. For

information regarding particular

programs, contact the federal agency

that administers the program.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

22, 1996, the President signed the

Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

(‘‘Welfare Reform Act’’ or ‘‘the Act’’).

The Act, among other things, vests in

the Attorney General the authority to

specify certain types of community

programs, services, or assistance for

which all aliens remain eligible.

Pursuant to the Act, the Attorney

General issued an Order (AG Order No.

2049–96) (‘‘the Order’’) implementing

that authority, and making a

‘‘provisional specification’’ of such

programs. The Order was published on

August 30, 1996, at 61 FR 45985.

Under §§ 401 and 411 of the Act,

aliens who are not ‘‘qualified aliens’’ (as

defined in § 431 of the Act) are generally

ineligible for federal, state, and local

public benefits. However, there are a

number of specified exceptions to those

restrictions. Included in the list of

statutory exceptions is a provision

authorizing the Attorney General to

identify programs, services, and

assistance to which the Act’s limitations

on alien eligibility do not apply.

Pursuant to §§ 401(b)(1)(D) and

411(b)(4), the Attorney General may

specify only those types of programs,

services, and assistance that meet all of

the following three criteria: (1) Deliver

in-kind services at the community level,

including through public or private nonprofit agencies; (2) do not condition the

provision of assistance, the amount of

assistance provided, or the cost of

assistance provided on the individual

recipient’s income or resources; and (3)

are necessary for the protection of life or

safety. Any programs that are exempted

under this provision of the Act must

meet all three of the foregoing

requirements. A program meeting only

one or two of the criteria does not

qualify for exemption under this section

of the Act.

Discussion of Comments

On September 15, 1997, the

Department published a notice

requesting public comments on the

Order (62 FR 48308). The comment

period ended on November 14, 1997.

The Department received 48 comments

from a variety of sources including

private, non-profit organizations, as well

as city, state, and federal agencies. The

Department also received four

comments on the Order in response to

the Attorney General’s notice of

proposed rule-making: ‘‘Verification of

Eligibility for Public Benefits,’’ which

was published on August 4, 1998 (63 FR

41662). In developing this final Order,

the Department of Justice also relied on

the input of other appropriate federal

agencies and departments. All

comments have been considered in

preparing this final Order. Any

significant changes are discussed below.

Many commenters seemed to believe

that unless the Attorney General

exempted their program, they would be

required to verify citizenship or

immigration status of all applicants.

While that is certainly true in some

cases, a service provider should not

assume that it must verify citizenship or

immigration status simply because its

program or service is not exempted by

this Order. Service providers and other

interested parties should refer to

benefit-granting agencies’

interpretations of the term ‘‘federal

public benefit’’ as used in the Act in

order to determine whether their

program is a federal public benefit and

therefore subject to the alienage

restrictions of the Act. See, for example,

the Department of Health and Human

Services notice of interpretation of

federal public benefit, 63 FR 41658

(Aug. 4, 1998) (identifying which of

their programs provide ‘‘federal public

benefits’’ subject to PRWORA’s

limitations on alien eligibility. HHS

advises that HHS programs not listed in

the notice, such as Community Health

Centers, and HHS programs under the

Ryan White CARE Act and the Older

Americans Act, do not meet the

statutory definition of ‘‘federal public

benefit’’ and therefore do not have to

verify the citizenship or immigration

status of applicants or recipients under

PRWORA.).

In the past, the Department of Justice

has deferred to other benefit-granting

agencies’ interpretations of whether

their programs fall within certain

definitions under the Welfare Reform

Act. See, e.g., Department of Justice,

Verification of Eligibility for Public

Benefits, 63 FR 41662, 41664 (1998) (to

be codified at 8 CFR pt. 104) (proposed

Aug. 4, 1998) (in establishing proposed

regulatory definition of ‘‘federal public

benefit,’’ Immigration and

Naturalization Service intends to give

‘‘all appropriate deference to benefit

granting agencies’ application of the

definition to the programs they

administer’’); Department of Justice,

Interim Guidance on Verification of

Citizenship, Qualified Alien Status and

Eligibility under Title IV of the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996, 62 FR

61344, 61361 (1997) (directing

interested parties with questions about

the applicability of the Act to a benefit

program to consult with the federal

agency overseeing the program).

Consistent with that practice, where

commenters have raised questions about

whether a particular program is a

federal public benefit under the Act, the

Department will grant all appropriate

deference to the determination, if one

has been made, by the benefit granting

agency as to whether the program is a

federal public benefit. Agencies and

service providers should also note that

section 432(d) of the Welfare Reform

Act, which provides that nonprofit

charitable organizations are not required

to verify the immigration status of

applicants for Federal, State, or local

public benefits, may be applicable to

their programs. For more information

about this exemption, see Department of

Justice, Verification of Eligibility for

Public Benefits, 63 FR 41662, 41664

(1998) (to be codified at 8 CFR pt. 104)

(proposed Aug. 4, 1998).

The majority of commenters

emphasized the need for the Attorney

General to exempt their particular

services because they believed them to

be necessary for the protection of life or

safety. Many of those commenters,

however, did not take account of the

legal requirement that a program or

service must satisfy all three prongs of

the test set forth by Congress. Any

service that is exempted by the Order

not only must be necessary to protect

life or safety and be delivered in-kind at

the community level, but also must not

condition the provision, amount, or cost

of services on a client’s income. With

respect to the last requirement, in other

words, if a state or community service

provider charges fees that vary with the

clients’ income level, or determines the

clients’ eligibility for services based

upon their income or ability to pay, the

program at issue does not satisfy prong

two of the test and therefore is not

covered by the Order regardless of how

necessary for life or safety the program,

service, or assistance may be.

Twenty comments were received from

community services providers, while

the rest were from concerned citizens,

members of Congress, and city, state,

and federal agencies. Many comments

addressed a variety of concerns, but

more than twenty-eight concerned

services provided to people with HIV/

AIDS. The majority of those comments

asked the Attorney General to exempt

categorically all programs funded under

the Ryan White CARE Act, Housing

Opportunities for People Living with

AIDS (HOPWA) and the McKinney

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3615

Homeless Assistance Act due to the

special nature of the AIDS epidemic. As

already indicated, many of those

programs may not be ‘‘federal public

benefits’’ as determined by relevant

benefit-granting agencies, and therefore

an exemption under this Order is

unnecessary. While the Act authorizes

exemptions for ‘‘programs, services, or

assistance’’ that meet the three-pronged

test, the Attorney General has no

authority to provide a blanket

exemption for all programs authorized

by a single statute. That is because one

or more of those programs may fail to

meet all of the requirements imposed by

the statute. Agencies and service

providers must assess each program

individually to determine whether it

meets the three-pronged test. While

many, if not all, HIV/AIDS-related

services are likely to meet the first and

third prongs, any state or federally

funded programs that are required as a

condition of their funding to employ

sliding scales, or that otherwise limit

the access to services or the amount of

such services according to a client’s

income or ability to pay would not

qualify for exemption under the

Attorney General’s Order.

Thirteen comments were received

concerning services for the elderly. The

majority of those comments also sought

categorical exemptions for services

provided under a variety of statutes.

Again, the Act does not give the

Attorney General the authority to

exempt groups of programs. For a

program to be covered by the Order, it

must meet all three prongs of the

statutory test.

Twenty-three comments addressed

the importance of shelter and safe

housing. Those community programs

cover a wide range of services from

emergency shelter to lead paint

abatement. While many shelter and

housing programs are important to the

protection of life or safety, each program

must meet the requirements of the threepronged test in order to be exempt

under the Order. With respect to the

specific issue of lead paint abatement

programs, we note that HUD has

determined that benefits under the Lead

Hazard Control program are not federal

public benefits within the meaning of

section 401(c) of the Welfare Reform

Act. In accordance with the

Department’s practice of deferring to the

determinations of benefit granting

agencies, we therefore note that there is

no need to conduct any verification

procedures with respect to the

immigration status of individuals whose

dwellings receive services under the

Lead Hazard Control program. We

therefore need not, at this time, consider

whether such benefits should be

exempted under section 401(b).

Nine comments emphasized the

importance of access to health care in

general. One commenter described

health centers that have a sliding scale

of costs for services. Such programs do

not qualify for coverage under the Order

as they fail to meet the prong of the

Order related to means testing.

However, another commenter explained

that their health centers have a

fundamental obligation to serve all

patients regardless of their ability to

pay. As stated above, where communitylevel health programs serve all eligible

clients regardless of their ability to pay

and do not administer any type of

sliding scale fee schedule or other

income or resource test, they are

covered by the Attorney General’s

Order.

Some commenters argued that the

administrative burden that would result

from having to verify immigration status

would outweigh any proposed savings

that could be derived from denying

benefits to unqualified aliens. It should

be understood, however, that the

decision to deny federal, state, and local

public benefits to aliens not qualified to

receive them was made by Congress.

Title IV of the Act does provide several

exceptions to this blanket denial,

including the programs covered by this

Order and an exception from

verification for all non-profit charitable

providers. See the Department of

Justice, Proposed Rule, Verification of

Eligibility for Public Benefits, 63 FR

41662, 41677 (Aug. 4, 1998). All

programs and services covered by the

Order are exempt from any requirement

that verification be conducted, unless

service providers are mandated to

conduct such verification pursuant to

federal, state, or local law other than the

Welfare Reform Act.

A number of commenters sought

clarification as to whether service

providers were obligated to verify a

benefit seeker’s immigration status prior

to providing services covered by the

Order. The services exempted by the

Order are one of several categories of

services that were designated by

Congress to remain available to all

aliens regardless of their status as

qualified or not qualified for welfare

benefits. Accordingly, service providers

are not obligated to verify immigration

status before providing those services

unless they are required to do so by a

law other than the Welfare Reform Act.

The remaining comments addressed

services to migrant farmers, the

disabled, victims of domestic violence,

child care, and mental health services.

While all of those concerns are

important to the protection of life or

safety, each program must meet the

requirements of the three-pronged test

described above in order to be exempt

under the Order.

Several providers of emergency

shelter have expressed the concern that

they may be barred from providing

temporary housing to aliens not

qualified for welfare benefits. The final

Order, like the original Order, specifies

that ‘‘short term shelter or housing

assistance for the homeless, for victims

of domestic violence, or for runaway,

abused or abandoned children’’ are

deemed to be necessary for the

protection of life or safety. Accordingly,

programs and services of that type that

deliver in-kind services at the

community level and do not condition

the provision of assistance, or the

amount or cost thereof, on the

individual recipient’s income or

resources are exempt from any

requirement that verification be

conducted, unless service providers are

mandated to conduct such verification

pursuant to federal, state, or local law

other than the Welfare Reform Act.

Final Specification of Community

Programs Necessary for the Protection

of Life or Safety Under the Welfare

Reform Act

Preamble

(1) The types of programs, services,

and assistance enumerated in this Order

are ones that Congress authorized the

Attorney General to except from

limitations on the ban on the

availability of federal, state, or local

public benefits imposed by Title IV of

the Act.

(2) The Attorney General has fully

exercised the power delegated to her

under §§ 401(b)(1)(D) and 411(b)(4) of

the Welfare Reform Act (codified at 8

U.S.C. 1611(b)(1)(D) and 1621(b)(4)).

(3) Neither states nor other service

providers may use the Act as a basis for

prohibiting access of aliens to any

programs, services, or assistance

covered by this Order. Unless an alien

fails to meet eligibility requirements

provided by applicable law other than

the Act, benefit providers may not

restrict the access of any alien to the

services covered by this Order,

including, but not limited to, emergency

shelters.

(4) Thus, unless required by some

legal authority other than the Act,

benefit providers who satisfy the

requirements of this Order are not

required to verify the citizenship,

nationality, or immigration status of

applicants seeking benefits.

3616 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

(5) If a benefit provider offers a

number of services, only some of which

are exempt from verification as a result

of this Order, the benefit provider may

conduct verification of the non-exempt

programs or services as specified in the

applicable portions of the ‘‘Interim

Guidance on Verification of Citizenship,

Qualified Alien Status and Eligibility

Under Title IV of the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996,’’ 62 FR

61,344 (1997) or may be required to

conduct verification as specified by any

subsequent or superseding regulations.

(6) To the extent that it can be

accomplished without undue

administrative hardship, benefit

providers should make every effort to

provide information to all prospective

benefit seekers about which benefits

they qualify for and which benefits

involve citizenship or immigration

verification requirements.

Specification

Therefore, by virtue of the authority

vested in me as Attorney General by

law, including Title IV of the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996, I hereby

specify that:

1. I do not construe the Act to

preclude aliens from receiving police,

fire, ambulance, transportation

(including paratransit), sanitation, and

other regular, widely available services

and, for that reason, I am not making

specifications of such programs,

services, or assistance. It is not the

purpose of this Order, however, to

define more specifically the scope of the

public benefits that Congress intended

to deny certain aliens either altogether

or absent my specification, and nothing

herein should be so construed.

2. The government-funded programs,

services, or assistance specified in this

Order are those that: deliver in-kind

(non-cash) services at the community

level, including through public or

private non-profit agencies or

organizations; do not condition the

provision, amount, or cost of the

assistance on the individual recipient’s

income or resources, as discussed in

paragraph 3, below; and serve purposes

of the type described in paragraph 4,

below, for the protection of life or

safety. Specified programs must satisfy

all three prongs of this test.

3. The community-based programs,

services, or assistance specified in

paragraphs 2 and 4 of this Order are

limited to those that provide in-kind

(non-cash) benefits and are open to

individuals needing or desiring to

participate without regard to income or

resources. Programs, services, or

assistance delivered at the community

level, even if they serve purposes of the

type described in paragraph 4 below, are

not within this specification if they

condition on the individual recipient’s

income or resources:

(a) the provision of assistance;

(b) the amount of assistance provided;

or

(c) the cost of the assistance provided

on the individual recipient’s income or

resources.

4. Included within the specified

programs, services, or assistance

determined to be necessary for the

protection of life or safety are:

(a) Crisis counseling and intervention

programs; services and assistance

relating to child protection, adult

protective services, violence and abuse

prevention, victims of domestic

violence or other criminal activity; or

treatment of mental illness or substance

abuse;

(b) Short-term shelter or housing

assistance for the homeless, for victims

of domestic violence, or for runaway,

abused, or abandoned children;

(c) Programs, services, or assistance to

help individuals during periods of heat,

cold, or other adverse weather

conditions;

(d) Soup kitchens, community food

banks, senior nutrition programs such as

meals on wheels, and other such

community nutritional services for

persons requiring special assistance;

(e) Medical and public health services

(including treatment and prevention of

diseases and injuries) and mental

health, disability, or substance abuse

assistance necessary to protect life or

safety;

(f) Activities designed to protect the

life or safety of workers, children and

youths, or community residents; and

(g) Any other programs, services, or

assistance necessary for the protection

of life or safety.

Dated: January 5, 2001.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 01–1158 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–19–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

[INS No. 2093–00]

Establishing an Immigration and

Naturalization Service Data

Management Improvement Act Task

Force

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Notice establishing a Task

Force.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

provisions of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, and Public Law 106–

215, the Attorney General is establishing

an Immigration and Naturalization

Service Data Management Improvement

Act Task Force. This notice advises

Federal, State, and local agencies, and

private sector representatives that the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(Service) is soliciting members from

interested groups, associations, or

individuals who may wish to serve on

the Task Force.

Purpose of Task Force

The Task Force will evaluate and

make recommendations on:

(1) How the Attorney General, in

consultation with the Secretaries of

State, Treasury, and Commerce can

efficiently and effectively implement an

integrated entry and exit data system;

(2) How the United States can

improve the flow of traffic at airports,

seaports, and land border ports-of-entry

through—

(a) Enhancing systems for data

collection and data sharing, including

the integrated entry and exit data

system, by better use of technology,

resources, and personnel;

(b) Increasing cooperation between

the public and private sectors;

(c) Increasing cooperation among

Federal agencies and among Federal and

State agencies; and

(d) Modifying information technology

systems while taking into account the

different data systems, infrastructure,

and processing procedures at airports,

seaports, and land border ports-of-entry;

and

(3) The cost of implementing each of

the Task Force’s recommendations.

Further, no later than December 31,

2002 and no later than December 31 of

each subsequent year the Task Force is

in existence, the Attorney General shall

submit a report to Congress containing

the findings, conclusions, and

recommendations of the Task Force.

Composition of Task Force

The Task Force shall be composed of

17 members, including the Attorney

General, private sector representatives

of affected industries and groups, and

representatives from Federal, State, and

local agencies, who have an interest in:

immigration and naturalization; travel

and tourism; transportation; trade; law

enforcement; national security; or the

environment. Participation on the Task

Force will not be remunerated, however,

travel and associated expenses may be

reimbursed or borne by the Government.