[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7127-7133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3205]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 24
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-98-3379]
RIN 2125-AE34
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule implements several amendments to the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
(Uniform Act), 42 U.S.C. 4601-4655, that were made by Public Law 105-
117, enacted on November 21, 1997. Those amendments provide that an
alien not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible
to receive relocation payments or any other assistance provided under
the Uniform Act unless such ineligibility would result in exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child
and such spouse, parent, or child is a citizen or an alien admitted for
permanent residence. A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) concerning
these amendments was published for comment on June 12, 1998.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective March 15, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marshall Schy, Office of Real Estate
Services, HRE-10, (202) 366-2035; or Reid Alsop, Office of the Chief
Counsel, HCC-31, (202) 366-1371, Federal Highway Administration, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45
a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
[[Page 7128]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Internet users can access all comments received by the U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and
help.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a
modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet
users may reach the Federal Register's home page at: http://
www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's database at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
This regulation implements the amendments to the Uniform Act
enacted on November 21, 1997, concerning the ineligibility of an alien
not lawfully present in the United States for relocation payments and
assistance under the Uniform Act. Background relating to the passage of
these amendments and the FHWA's role as lead agency for the Uniform Act
is discussed in some detail in the preamble to the NPRM published in
the Federal Register on June 12, 1998 (63 FR 32175), and is not
repeated here.
The Uniform Act is one of the Federal government's ``cross-
cutting'' requirements, providing protections and benefits to persons
whose real property is acquired or who are forced to move by Federal or
federally-assisted programs or projects. Seventeen other Federal
departments and agencies (including one, the Pennsylvania Avenue
Development Corporation, which now is defunct) have adopted by
reference the DOT governmentwide regulation implementing the Uniform
Act found at 49 CFR 24. Title II of the Uniform Act deals with
relocation assistance. The major purposes of Title II are to assure the
fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced by Federal or
federally-assisted programs or projects, and to ensure that such
displaced persons ``shall not suffer disproportionate injuries as the
result of programs and projects designed for the benefit of the public
as a whole, and to minimize the hardship of displacement on such
persons.'' Title II accomplishes this by providing for relocation
advisory assistance and relocation payments to eligible displaced
persons. Public Law 105-117 provides that aliens not lawfully present
in the United States are not eligible to receive these benefits, except
as discussed below.
In response to the NPRM, we received a total of 36 comments from
eight separate commenters--four State highway agencies, three local
agencies and one Federal agency. We thoroughly considered all these
comments and made a number of changes to our original proposal before
issuing the final rule.
This final rule seeks to implement Public Law 105-117 in a manner
that minimizes the administrative and procedural burden on the
thousands of persons displaced each year by Federal and federally-
assisted programs or projects, as well as on the many Federal, State,
and local agencies and private persons who implement the Uniform Act.
Discussion of Comments
In the NPRM, we noted but did not propose the option of
establishing more detailed requirements mandating such things as the
documentation to be provided by each person to be displaced, the review
procedures to be followed and the findings to be made by affected
Federal, State, or local agencies. Several comments recommended that we
require, or at least provide examples of, appropriate documentation or
procedures in the final rule. Still other comments raised concerns
about the administrative burden and potential discrimination
consequences of requiring documentation and requested sample
certification language. As we noted in the NPRM, one of our fundamental
principles in developing this rule has been to avoid imposing
significant administrative burdens in implementing the 1997 amendments
to the Uniform Act. This is why the rule itself does not have specific
documentation requirements, but allows the displacing agency to
determine the need for documentation.
On the other hand, we have made it an equal, if not higher,
priority that any such documentation requirements must be implemented
in a nondiscriminatory manner. The final rule continues to allow
displacing agencies to prescribe additional nondiscriminatory
requirements concerning the certification. We continue to believe that
the approach set forth in the final rule is adequate to prevent payment
of relocation benefits in cases such as the one that gave rise to
Public Law 105-117 (in which a person was considered by the displacing
agency to be an illegal alien) without imposing substantial
administrative burdens and costs on displaced persons or displacing
agencies.
The rule requires that persons seeking relocation payments or
assistance under the Uniform Act certify, as a condition of
eligibility, that they are citizens or are otherwise lawfully present
in the United States. The preamble to the NPRM indicated that
displacing agencies could meet the certification requirement simply by
making it part of a person's claim for relocation benefits (described
in 49 CFR 24.207) and we have carried forward this approach in the
final rule. We believe that requiring displacing agencies to obtain
some type of certification from all persons who are to be displaced as
the result of a Federal or federally-assisted program or project is
necessary in order to comply with Public Law 105-117 and, at the same
time, to avoid discrimination. It is our view that this rule provides a
framework for so doing with a minimum of burden on displacing agencies
and the affected public.
One commenter suggested that the issue of eligibility and residency
status should be raised earlier in the relocation process to prevent
surprises at a later, less correctable stage. We agree that the
displacing agency should provide relevant information to potential
displaced persons early in the relocation process, as part of the
general [relocation] information notice (described in 49 CFR
24.203(a)), and we have inserted a new paragraph at 24.203(a)(4) to
accomplish this purpose.
Other commenters asked what form the certification may take, what
documentation should be required in support of it, what the nature of a
displacing agency's review process should be, what findings an agency
must make, what might constitute ``reason to believe'' a certification
may be invalid, whether certain circumstances would require
documentation for a certification, and who may sign it.
In keeping with our objective of minimizing prescriptive Federal
requirements, we have not provided a particular form for the
certification. As noted in the NPRM, we believe it would be acceptable
for an agency to incorporate the certification into its existing claim
forms (for example, by adding a group of boxes to be checked), if the
agency determines that this approach is appropriate to its process. In
regard to documentation standards, the nature of a displacing agency's
review process, and the question of required findings we believe these
are matters best left to the displacing agency to determine, except
that all processes and criteria related to this rule must be
nondiscriminatory.
[[Page 7129]]
Similarly, the determination of what constitutes ``reason to
believe'' a certification may be invalid should be based on the
judgment of the displacing agency, relying on the agency staff's
contacts with the displaced person, their knowledge of the affected
geographic area, contacts with neighbors and neighborhood institutions,
and various other factors specific to each situation.
One commenter also raised the question of whether there are certain
circumstances which would trigger a request for documentation. The
commenter who raised this issue did not provide any examples of such
circumstances and we have been unable to identify any. In particular,
we question whether a policy which determined that a particular
situation(s) always required documentation could be implemented in a
truly nondiscriminatory manner. We continue to think that each case
must be handled on an individual basis.
One commenter questioned who may sign the certification in the case
of a family that is to be displaced. We believe that a head of
household may sign the certification, just as a head of household may
sign the claim form for a relocation payment, and have so provided in
new section 24.208(a)(2). However, unlike an individual's
certification, a head of household's certification also would certify
as to the status of other family members. Agencies should design their
certification materials to be sure they ask for a response appropriate
to the displaced person's situation.
A parallel concern arises in dealing with nonresidential
displacees. Several commenters asked if the prohibition on benefits in
Public Law 105-117 applies to businesses. It seems clear that it does
since the term ``person'' used in Public Law 105-117 is defined broadly
in the Uniform Act so as to include businesses (as well as farms and
nonprofit organizations). We believe the Congress intended to prevent
the receipt of Uniform Act benefits by any alien not legally present in
the U.S. and not meeting the exception requirements discussed below. We
also believe that the prohibition on benefits must be applied
differently to the differing ``ownership'' situations found in, for
example, a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or a corporation. As in
the case of residential displacees, we think the answer lies in looking
at the nature of the entity to be displaced. Since a sole
proprietorship involves only one person, the eligibility of the
business is synonymous with the residency status of its proprietor. At
the other end of the spectrum, it is our view that a corporation, as a
legal person established pursuant to State law, need only certify that
it is authorized to conduct business in the United States.
For partnerships or other associations that have more than one
owner but which are not incorporated, we believe that the certification
must be designed to elicit a response reflective of the status of all
of the owners. Second, if any of the owners are not eligible, no
relocation payments may be made to such persons. Last, any payments for
which the business would otherwise be eligible should be reduced by a
percentage based on the prorated shares of the ownership between
eligible and ineligible owners. We have adopted a similar approach to
mixed eligibility in residential situations and have added clarifying
language in Sec. 24.208(c) of the final rule.
Under this rule, a displacing agency may deny eligibility only if:
(1) A person fails to provide the required certification; or (2) the
agency determines that a person's certification is invalid, based on a
fair and nondiscriminatory review of an alien's documentation or other
information that the agency considers reliable and appropriate; and (3)
the agency concludes that denial would not result in ``exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship.'' [See following paragraph.]. Any person
who is denied eligibility may utilize the existing appeals procedure,
described in 49 CFR 24.10.
As we proposed in the NPRM, this rule requires that if the
displacing agency, based on its review or on other credible evidence,
believes that a displaced person's certification is invalid, it shall
obtain further information before making a final determination to deny
eligibility. If the displacing agency believes that a certification
that an alien is lawfully present in the United States is invalid, it
must obtain verification from the local office of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) before making the determination final. [A
Federal Register citation to a list of local INS offices is included in
the final rule. However, if an agency is unable to obtain the address
or telephone number of its local INS office, it may contact the FHWA in
Washington, DC (Marshall Schy, Office of Real Estate Services, or Reid
Alsop, Office of Chief Counsel) at 202-366-2035 or 202-366-1371,
respectively.].
If the displacing agency believes that a certification that a
person is a citizen of the United States is invalid, it must request
further evidence of citizenship and verify such evidence, as
appropriate.
One commenter asked if a failure to certify should result in a
denial of Uniform Act benefits, without INS verification. If the
displacing agency is satisfied that the failure to certify constitutes
a refusal or inability to certify and is not merely an oversight,
misunderstanding, or other mistake, it may deny benefits without INS
verification.
Another commenter asked if the INS verification involved the SAVE
(Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) system. The INS would
determine the appropriate method of verification, which could include
the use of the SAVE system.
Another commenter recommended that only the INS or the FHWA verify
residency status. Only the INS has the authority to verify the status
of aliens. We believe that the approach we proposed in the NPRM and
have carried over to the final rule, where verification is provided by
the INS when requested by the displacing agency, is the most efficient
and effective way to meet the intent of the amendments while minimizing
disruption to ongoing relocation programs. We anticipate that such
verification should prove necessary in only a very limited number of
cases.
As noted, Public Law 105-117 provides that relocation eligibility
could be allowed, even if a person is not lawfully present in the
United States, if the agency concludes that denial would result in
``exceptional and extremely unusual hardship'' to such person's spouse,
parent, or child who is a citizen or is lawfully admitted for permanent
residence in the United States.
The rule includes a definition of the phrase ``exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship'' which focuses on significant and
demonstrable impacts on health, safety, or family cohesion. Several
commenters requested that we define this term more precisely, or
provide further discussion concerning its application. We have retained
the NPRM's definition in the final rule. This phrase is intended to
allow judgment on the part of the displacing agency and does not lend
itself to an absolute standard applicable in all situations. Commenters
had several questions relating to this hardship exception, including to
whom does it extend, what documentation is required to support a claim
of hardship, what is a spouse, and a request for a definition of the
term ``clear and convincing evidence [of hardship],'' as well as a
recommendation that income level be a
[[Page 7130]]
factor in the consideration of ``hardship.''
We believe the amendments contemplate a standard of hardship
involving more than the loss of relocation payments and/or assistance
alone which, after all, is the basic result of the amendments. Thus, we
do not agree that income alone (for example, measured as a percentage
of income spent on housing, as suggested by one commenter) would make
the denial of benefits a ``hardship'' exemption. [We recognize that
identical hardship language is used in general immigration law, as one
of the criteria for halting the removal of certain aliens (8 U.S.C.
1229b(b)(1)(D)). However, it appears that to date the INS has not
provided guidance or standards for implementing this provision.].
We believe the amendments and the rule clearly indicate to whom the
``hardship exemption'' extends. When considering whether such an
exemption is appropriate, a displacing agency may examine only the
impact on an alien's spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or
lawful resident alien. In determining who is a spouse, we expect
displacing agencies to use the definition of that term under State or
other applicable law. In keeping with the principle of allowing
displacing agencies maximum reasonable discretion, we believe the
question of what documentation is required to support a claim of
hardship is one best left to the displacing agency, as long as it is
handled in a nondiscriminatory manner. The same principle applies to
the term ``clear and convincing evidence [of hardship]'' found in the
amendments.
Another commenter requested that we define the term ``citizen or
national'' which we proposed as one of the residency statuses to which
an applicant for Uniform Act benefits could certify. The word
``national'' was included in the NPRM to avoid excluding persons from
certain U.S. possessions (American Samoa, for example) whose status is
U.S. national, rather than U.S. citizen. To clarify this matter in the
final rule, we have substituted the word ``citizen'' for the phrase
``citizen or national'' and have added a definition of ``citizen'' that
includes nationals.
In the NPRM, we requested comments as to whether additional
information or guidance should be included in the final rule concerning
situations in which some, but not all, occupants of a dwelling are not
lawfully present in the United States. Several commenters spoke to this
issue requesting guidance or clarification. We believe that only
eligible occupants should be considered in selecting comparable
dwellings and computing replacement housing payments, and have so
provided in new section 24.208(c). Thus, if several household members
were not legally present in the U.S., a household which otherwise would
require a comparable replacement dwelling with four bedrooms instead
might be entitled to one with three bedrooms, with the replacement
housing payment computed using the price/rent of the three bedroom
comparable.
As noted in the preamble to the NPRM, most States have their own
relocation statutes which enable State agencies to comply with the
Uniform Act on programs or projects that receive Federal financial
assistance. Those States should consider whether any changes to State
law or regulations are necessary to comply with Public Law 105-117.
One commenter requested that we provide standards for the potential
loss of Federal funding which might occur as a result of failure to
comply with the requirements of Public Law 105-117 on projects
receiving Federal financial assistance. As noted in the NPRM, while we
do not believe that Public Law 105-117 preempts the provisions of State
relocation statutes, it is our position that, on federally-assisted
programs or projects, Federal funds could no longer participate in the
costs of any relocation payments or assistance that are not consistent
with the provisions of Public Law 105-117 and this rule.
Finally, this rule makes two technical changes to 49 CFR 24.2
unrelated to Public Law 105-117. First, it eliminates the paragraph
designations in the alphabetized list of definitions contained therein,
to reflect current drafting policies of the Office of the Federal
Register. Second, it modifies the definition of ``State'' to delete the
outdated reference to the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands.
Cross References
Title 49, part 24, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
constitutes the governmentwide regulation implementing the Uniform Act.
The regulations and directives of many other Federal departments and
agencies contain a cross reference to this part in their regulations,
and the change in this rulemaking is directly applicable to the
relocation assistance activities of these departments and agencies. The
changes also apply to other agencies within DOT that are covered by the
Uniform Act. The parts of the CFR which contain a cross reference to
this part, are listed below:
Department of Agriculture, 7 CFR part 21
Department of Commerce, 15 CFR part 11
Department of Defense, 32 CFR part 259
Department of Education, 34 CFR part 15
Department of Energy, 10 CFR part 1039
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR part 4
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 44 CFR part 25
General Services Administration, 41CFR part 105-51
Department of Health and Human Services, 45 CFR part 15
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 24 CFR part 42
Department of the Interior, 41 CFR part 114-50
Department of Justice, 41 CFR part 128-18
Department of Labor, 29 CFR part 12
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 14 CFR part 1208
Tennessee Valley Authority, 18 CFR part 1306
Veterans Administration, 38 CFR part 25
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, nor is
it a significant regulatory action within the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated
that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal; therefore,
a full regulatory evaluation is not required. The FHWA does not
consider this action to be a significant regulatory action because the
amendments would merely update existing regulations so that they are
consistent with Public Law 105-117. By this rulemaking, the agency
merely implements several amendments to the Uniform Act to ensure that
aliens not lawfully present in the United States are ineligible for
relocation benefits or assistance. In an effort to protect other
occupants of a dwelling, however, this rule allows the displacing
agency to grant relocation eligibility if the agency concludes that
denial would result in ``exceptional and extremely unusual hardship''
to such person's spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or is
lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States. Neither
the individual nor cumulative impact of this action are significant
because this rule does not alter the funding levels available in
Federal or federally assisted programs covered by the Uniform Act. The
rule merely prevents payment of
[[Page 7131]]
relocation benefits in cases where the displacing agency determines a
person to be in this country unlawfully.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the agency has evaluated the effects of this rule on
small entities and hereby certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This action merely updates and clarifies existing procedures used by
displacing agencies so as to prevent the payment of relocation benefits
to aliens who are in this country unlawfully, in accordance with Public
Law 105-117.
Environmental Impacts
The FHWA has also analyzed this action for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and has
determined that this action does not have any effect on the quality of
the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. Pub. L. 105-117
discourages State and local governments from providing relocation
benefits under the Uniform Act to persons who are not lawfully present
in the United States (unless certain hardships would result) by denying
the participation of Federal funds in any such benefits. The FHWA
expects this to affect only a relatively small percentage of all
persons covered by the Uniform Act. Further, this rule implements the
requirements of Pub. L. 105-117 in a way that will keep administrative
burdens to a minimum.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. (2
U.S.C. 1532).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains new collection of information requirements for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
The new collection of information is mandated by section 1 of Public
Law 105-117, 111 Stat. 2384, and this rule seeks to minimize such
collection requirements.
This rule adds additional information collection requirements to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved information
collection budget for OMB control number 2105-0508. Displacing agencies
will require each person who is to be displaced by a Federal or
federally-assisted project, as a condition of eligibility for
relocation payments or advisory assistance, to certify that he or she
is lawfully present in the United States. This certification could
normally be provided as a part of the existing relocation claim
documentation used by displacing agencies.
The FHWA estimates that during 1997 there were approximately 6,500
persons displaced as a result of DOT programs or projects. Since the
FHWA believes that each displaced person should know whether he/she is
a citizen or is lawfully present in the United States, the FHWA
estimates that the certification would take no more than 10 seconds per
person.
Accordingly, the FHWA estimates the public recordkeeping burden
[required as a result] of this collection of information to be 17 hours
for each year of implementation.
The U.S. DOT has determined that the increase in the FHWA's public
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is minimal.
Thus, the Department will submit to the OMB updated numbers for this
increase in our collection of information budget under the current
control number 2105-0508.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 24
Real property acquisition, Relocation assistance, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
In accordance with the foregoing, the FHWA amends part 24 of title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.
PART 24--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 24 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 49 CFR 1.48(cc).
2. Section 24.2 is amended by removing the alphabetical paragraph
designations from all definitions; by adding two new terms Alien not
lawfully present in the United States and Citizen; by revising
paragraph (1) introductory text of the definition of Displaced person
and adding paragraph (2)(xii); by revising the definition of State; and
by placing all definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 24.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Alien not lawfully present in the United States. The phrase ``alien
not lawfully present in the United States'' means an alien who is not
``lawfully present'' in the United States as defined in 8 CFR 103.12
and includes:
(1) An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted
or paroled into the United States pursuant to the Immigration and
Nationality Act and whose stay in the United States has not been
authorized by the United States Attorney General, and
(2) An alien who is present in the United States after the
expiration of the period of stay authorized by the United States
Attorney General or who otherwise violates the terms and conditions of
admission, parole or authorization to stay in the United States.
* * * * *
Citizen. The term ``citizen,'' for purposes of this part, includes
both citizens of the United States and noncitizen nationals.
* * * * *
Displaced person.
(1) General. The term ``displaced person'' means, except as
provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, any person who moves from
the real property or moves his or her personal property from the real
property: (This includes a person who occupies the real property prior
to its acquisition, but who does not meet the length of occupancy
requirements of the Uniform Act as described at Secs. 24.401(a) and
24.402(a)):
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(xii) A person who is not lawfully present in the United States and
who has been determined to be ineligible for relocation benefits in
accordance with Sec. 24.208.
* * * * *
State. Any of the several States of the United States or the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or
possession of the
[[Page 7132]]
United States, or a political subdivision of any of these
jurisdictions.
* * * * *
3. In part 24, in the list below, for each section indicated in the
left column, remove the word or words indicated in the middle column
wherever they appear in the section, and add the word or words
indicated in the right column:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Remove Add
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24.102(k)................................ 24.2(w)................................. 24.2
24.103(c)................................ 24.2(s)................................. 24.2
24.105(c)................................ 24.2(s)................................. 24.2
24.202................................... 24.2(g)................................. 24.2
24.203(b)................................ 24.2(k)................................. 24.2
24.204(a)................................ 24.2(d)................................. 24.2
24.205(c)(2)(ii)(B)...................... 24.2(d) and (f)......................... 24.2
24.301 intro paragraph................... 24.2(g)................................. 24.2
24.303(a)................................ 24.2(g)................................. 24.2
24.304 intro paragraph................... 24.2(t)................................. 24.2
24.306(a)(6)............................. 24.2(e)................................. 24.2
24.306(c)................................ 24.2(i)................................. 24.2
24.307(a)................................ 24.2(aa) and (bb)....................... 24.2
24.401(c)(4)(ii)......................... 24.2(f)................................. 24.2
24.403(a)................................ 24.2(d)................................. 24.2
24.403(b)................................ 24.2(f)................................. 24.2
24.404(c)(2)............................. 24.2(d)(2).............................. 24.2
Appendix A under the heading of Section
24.2 Definitions:
First Parag.............................. Section 24.2(d)(2)...................... Removed.
Sec. 24.2(d)(2)........................ 24.2
Fourth Para.............................. Section 24.2(d)(7)...................... Paragraph (7) in the
definition of comparable
replacement dwelling.
Seventh Para............................. Section 24.2(g)(2)...................... Removed.
Seventh Para............................. Section 24.2(g)(2)(iv).................. Paragraph (2)(iv) under
this definition.
Ninth Para............................... Section 24.2(k)......................... Removed.
Appendix A under the heading of Section
24.404 Replacement Housing of Last
Resort:
First Para............................... 24.2(p)................................. 24.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Part 24 is amended by redesignating Sec. 24.203(a)(4) as
Sec. 24.203(a)(5) and by adding a new Sec. 24.203(a)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 24.203 Relocation notices.
(a) * * *
(4) Informs the person that any person who is an alien not lawfully
present in the United States is ineligible for relocation advisory
services and relocation payments, unless such ineligibility would
result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying
spouse, parent, or child, as defined in Sec. 24.208(i).
* * * * *
5. Part 24 is amended by redesignating Sec. 24.208 as Sec. 24.209
and by adding a new Sec. 24.208 to read as follows:
Sec. 24.208 Aliens not lawfully present in the United States.
(a) Each person seeking relocation payments or relocation advisory
assistance shall, as a condition of eligibility, certify:
(1) In the case of an individual, that he or she is either a
citizen or national of the United States, or an alien who is lawfully
present in the United States.
(2) In the case of a family, that each family member is either a
citizen or national of the United States, or an alien who is lawfully
present in the United States. The certification may be made by the head
of the household on behalf of other family members.
(3) In the case of an unincorporated business, farm, or nonprofit
organization, that each owner is either a citizen or national of the
United States, or an alien who is lawfully present in the United
States. The certification may be made by the principal owner, manager,
or operating officer on behalf of other persons with an ownership
interest.
(4) In the case of an incorporated business, farm, or nonprofit
organization, that the corporation is authorized to conduct business
within the United States.
(b) The certification provided pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1),
(a)(2), and (a)(3) of this section shall indicate whether such person
is either a citizen or national of the United States, or an alien who
is lawfully present in the United States. Requirements concerning the
certification in addition to those contained in this rule shall be
within the discretion of the Federal funding agency and, within those
parameters, that of the displacing agency.
(c) In computing relocation payments under the Uniform Act, if any
member(s) of a household or owner(s) of an unincorporated business,
farm, or nonprofit organization is (are) determined to be ineligible
because of a failure to be legally present in the United States, no
relocation payments may be made to him or her. Any payment(s) for which
such household, unincorporated business, farm, or nonprofit
organization would otherwise be eligible shall be computed for the
household, based on the number of eligible household members and for
the unincorporated business, farm, or nonprofit organization, based on
the ratio of ownership between eligible and ineligible owners.
(d) The displacing agency shall consider the certification provided
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section to be valid, unless the
displacing agency determines in accordance with paragraph (f) of this
section that it is invalid based on a review of an alien's
documentation or other information that the agency considers reliable
and appropriate.
(e) Any review by the displacing agency of the certifications
provided pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall be conducted
in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Each displacing agency will apply the
same standard of review to all such certifications it receives, except
that
[[Page 7133]]
such standard may be revised periodically.
(f) If, based on a review of an alien's documentation or other
credible evidence, a displacing agency has reason to believe that a
person's certification is invalid (for example a document reviewed does
not on its face reasonably appear to be genuine), and that, as a
result, such person may be an alien not lawfully present in the United
States, it shall obtain the following information before making a final
determination.
(1) If the agency has reason to believe that the certification of a
person who has certified that he or she is an alien lawfully present in
the United States is invalid, the displacing agency shall obtain
verification of the alien's status from the local Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) Office. A list of local INS offices was
published in the Federal Register in November 17, 1997 at 62 FR 61350.
Any request for INS verification shall include the alien's full name,
date of birth and alien number, and a copy of the alien's
documentation. [If an agency is unable to contact the INS, it may
contact the FHWA in Washington, DC at 202-366-2035 (Marshall Schy,
Office of Real Estate Services) or 202-366-1371 (Reid Alsop, Office of
Chief Counsel), for a referral to the INS.]
(2) If the agency has reason to believe that the certification of a
person who has certified that he or she is a citizen or national is
invalid, the displacing agency shall request evidence of United States
citizenship or nationality from such person and, if considered
necessary, verify the accuracy of such evidence with the issuer.
(g) No relocation payments or relocation advisory assistance shall
be provided to a person who has not provided the certification
described in this section or who has been determined to be not lawfully
present in the United States, unless such person can demonstrate to the
displacing agency's satisfaction that the denial of relocation benefits
will result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to such
person's spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen of the United
States, or is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the
United States.
(h) For purposes of paragraph (g) of this section, ``exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship'' to such spouse, parent, or child of
the person not lawfully present in the United States means that the
denial of relocation payments and advisory assistance to such person
will directly result in:
(1) A significant and demonstrable adverse impact on the health or
safety of such spouse, parent, or child;
(2) A significant and demonstrable adverse impact on the continued
existence of the family unit of which such spouse, parent, or child is
a member; or
(3) Any other impact that the displacing agency determines will
have a significant and demonstrable adverse impact on such spouse,
parent, or child.
(i) The certification referred to in paragraph (a) of this section
may be included as part of the claim for relocation payments described
in Sec. 24.207 of this part.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2105-0508)
Issued on: February 3, 1999.
Gloria J. Jeff,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-3205 Filed 2-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
