Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, Chief Administrative Law Judge, 63204-63208 [2020-20046]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63204
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
petitions can be submitted, and
instructions that petitions shall:
(i) Be in writing (which may include
using electronic means) and, if the
petition is not in English, be
accompanied by an English translation;
(ii) Be directed to the component that
issued or maintains the guidance
document;
(iii) Be titled as a petition for
withdrawal or a petition for
modification of a guidance document;
(iv) Identify the guidance document at
issue; and
(v) Contain a statement of the reasons
for the petition.
(4) The component that issued or
maintains the guidance document shall
respond to a petition in writing (which
may include using electronic means) no
later than 90 days after it receives the
petition. The response shall state
whether the petition is granted, granted
in part and denied in part, denied, or
provisionally denied for lack of
adequate information. If the petition is
provisionally denied for lack of
adequate information, the response shall
indicate what additional information is
necessary to adjudicate the petition.
Upon receipt of the necessary additional
information, the receiving component
shall forward the information to the
Department’s Office of Legal Policy, and
the component that issued or maintains
the guidance document shall respond to
the petition in writing no later than 90
days after it receives the necessary
additional information. The response
shall state whether the petition is
granted, granted in part and denied in
part, or denied.
(5) The Department or a component
may consider in a coordinated manner,
or provide a coordinated response to,
similar petitions for withdrawal or
modification.
(g) Exclusions. (1) Notwithstanding
any other provision in this section,
except for the provisions of paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, nothing in this rule
shall apply:
(i) To any action that pertains to
foreign or military affairs, or to a
national security or homeland security
function of the United States (other than
guidance documents involving
procurement or the import or export of
non-defense articles and services);
(ii) To any action related to a criminal
investigation or prosecution, including
undercover operations, or any civil
enforcement action or related
investigation by the Department,
including any action related to a civil
investigative demand under 18 U.S.C.
1968;
(iii) To any investigation of
misconduct by an agency employee or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
any disciplinary, corrective, or
employment action taken against an
agency employee;
(iv) To any document or information
that is exempt from disclosure under
section 552(b) of title 5, United States
Code (commonly known as the Freedom
of Information Act); or
(v) In any other circumstance or
proceeding to which application of this
rule, or any part of this rule, would, in
the judgment of the Attorney General or
his designee, undermine the national
security.
(2) Notwithstanding any other
provision in this regulation, except for
the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, nothing in this regulation shall
apply to categories of guidance
documents made exempt from
Executive Order 13891 by the
Administrator of OIRA through
memoranda issued pursuant to section
4(b) of Executive Order 13891.
Dated: August 21, 2020.
William P. Barr,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2020–19030 Filed 10–6–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–BB–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
I. Public Participation
28 CFR Part 68
[EOIR Docket No. 19–0312; A.G. Order No.
4840–2020]
RIN 1125–AB06
Office of the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer, Chief Administrative
Law Judge
Executive Office for
Immigration Review, Department of
Justice.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for
comment.
AGENCY:
The Department of Justice
(‘‘Department’’) is amending the
regulations governing the Office of the
Chief Administrative Hearing Officer to
reflect the creation of the position of
Chief Administrative Law Judge and
make technical corrections.
DATES: Effective date: October 7, 2020.
Comments: Electronic comments must
be submitted and written comments
must be postmarked or otherwise
indicate a shipping date on or before
November 6, 2020. The electronic
Federal Docket Management System at
www.regulations.gov will accept
electronic comments until 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on that date.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to provide
comment regarding this rulemaking, you
must submit comments, identified by
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the agency name and reference RIN
1125–AB06 or EOIR Docket No. 19–
0312, by one of the two methods below:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
website instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Paper comments that
duplicate an electronic submission are
unnecessary. If you wish to submit a
paper comment in lieu of electronic
submission, please direct the mail/
shipment to: Lauren Alder Reid,
Assistant Director, Office of Policy,
Executive Office for Immigration
Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800,
Falls Church, VA 22041. To ensure
proper handling, please reference the
agency name and RIN 1125–AB06 or
EOIR Docket No. 19–0312 on your
correspondence. Mailed items must be
postmarked or otherwise indicate a
shipping date on or before the
submission deadline.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director,
Office of Policy, Executive Office for
Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone
(703) 305–0289 (not a toll-free call).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Interested persons are invited to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or
arguments on all aspects of this rule via
one of the methods and by the deadline
stated above. All comments must be
submitted in English, or accompanied
by an English translation. The
Department also invites comments that
relate to the economic, environmental,
or federalism effects that might result
from this rule. Comments that will
provide the most assistance to the
Department in developing these
procedures will reference a specific
portion of the rule, explain the reason
for any recommended change, and
include data, information, or authority
that support such recommended change.
Please note that all comments
received are considered part of the
public record and made available for
public inspection at
www.regulations.gov. Such information
includes personally identifying
information (such as your name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter.
If you want to submit personally
identifying information (such as your
name, address, etc.) as part of your
comment, but do not want it to be
posted online, you must include the
phrase ‘‘PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
of your comment and identify the
information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential
business information as part of your
comment, but do not want it to be
posted online, you must include the
phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph
of your comment. You must also
prominently identify confidential
business information to be redacted
within the comment. If a comment has
so much confidential business
information that it cannot be effectively
redacted, all or part of that comment
may not be posted on
www.regulations.gov.
Personally identifying information
located as set forth above will be placed
in the agency’s public docket file, but
not posted online. Confidential business
information identified and located as set
forth above will not be placed in the
public docket file. The Departments
may withhold from public viewing
information provided in comments that
they determine may impact the privacy
of an individual or is offensive. For
additional information, please read the
Privacy Act notice that is available via
the link in the footer of https://
www.regulations.gov. To inspect the
agency’s public docket file in person,
you must make an appointment with the
agency. Please see the ‘‘For Further
Information Contact’’ paragraph above
for the agency contact information.
II. Purpose of This Rule
A. Chief Administrative Law Judge
The Office of the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer (‘‘OCAHO’’) is a
component of the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (‘‘EOIR’’), which is
also an office of the Department of
Justice. See 8 CFR 1003.0(a). An
Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in
OCAHO has jurisdiction to, among other
matters, decide cases arising under
sections 274A, 274B, and 274C of the
Immigration and Nationality Act
(‘‘INA’’) (8 U.S.C. 1324a, 1324b, and
1324c).1 See generally 28 CFR part 68.
These cases seek the imposition of civil
penalties and other remedies against
persons or entities alleged to have
violated the provisions of these sections.
The Department is amending the
regulations that govern OCAHO to
recognize the creation of a Chief
Administrative Law Judge (‘‘CALJ’’)
position and to delineate the
responsibilities and authorities of the
CALJ and the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer (‘‘CAHO’’). In addition
1 OCAHO ALJs may serve other functions,
including the adjudication of cases in immigration
proceedings under other provisions of the INA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
to serving as an ALJ, the CALJ will serve
as the direct supervisor of the OCAHO
ALJs and related ALJ support staff.2 See
Interim Final Rule at 68.2. In turn, the
CAHO will supervise the CALJ.
Although the CAHO will continue to
designate the presiding ALJ in each case
as an initial matter, the CALJ may
reassign ALJs as necessary to promote
administrative efficiency (e.g., if the
previously assigned ALJ becomes
unavailable or is disqualified). See
Interim Final Rule at 28 CFR 68.26,
68.29, 68.30(c). This interim final rule
(‘‘interim final rule’’ or ‘‘rule’’) makes
additional technical edits to 28 CFR part
68 to amend various references to the
‘‘Chief Administrative Hearing Officer’’
to read ‘‘Chief Administrative Law
Judge.’’
OCAHO is expanding its reach
nationwide to account for an expected
increase in volume of new case filings,
particularly under sections 274A and
274B of the INA. See, e.g., Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, ICE Worksite
Enforcement Investigations in FY18
Surge (Dec. 11, 2018), https://
www.ice.gov/news/releases/iceworksite-enforcement-investigationsfy18-surge (indicating a threefold
increase in investigations under section
274A in FY 2018); Department of
Justice, Departments of Justice and State
Partner to Protect U.S. Workers from
Discrimination and Combat Fraud (Oct.
11, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/
pr/departments-justice-andstatepartner-protect-us-workersdiscrimination-and-combat-fraud
(outlining a ‘‘Protecting U.S. Workers
Initiative’’ that includes cases brought
under section 274B). The expansion of
OCAHO’s ALJ corps nationwide
necessitates a CALJ position to ensure
coordination and appropriate
management oversight of the corps. The
CALJ also further buffers the CAHO’s
management and administrative
functions for OCAHO from the
supervisory responsibilities for the ALJs
and ensure that the CAHO does not
inadvertently create a conflict during
the adjudication of a case that would
later require the CAHO’s recusal from
conducting any administrative review of
that adjudication. 28 CFR 68.53, 68.5.
To further avoid potential recusal
issues based on OCAHO’s size, the
2 Because the CALJ may serve as an ALJ in a
proceeding before OCAHO, references to ‘‘ALJ’’ in
28 CFR part 68 include the CALJ, whenever the
CALJ is acting in that capacity. Accordingly, the
Department believes that the current regulations
appropriately provide for the CALJ when they
reference ‘‘ALJ,’’ and, therefore, this rulemaking
need not amend the regulations in part 68 to
expressly include ‘‘CALJ’’ whenever the regulations
provide for the authority or role of an ALJ in a
proceeding.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63205
interim final rule also clarifies that (1)
if an ALJ is disqualified from
adjudicating a case, the CALJ will
reassign the case to another ALJ; (2) if
the CALJ is disqualified from
adjudicating a case, the CAHO will
reassign the case to another ALJ; and (3)
if the CAHO is disqualified from
reviewing an interlocutory order under
28 CFR 68.53 or a final order under 28
CFR 68.54, the review will be reassigned
to the EOIR Director. The interim final
rule also clarifies that the
disqualification procedures for ALJs in
28 CFR 68.30 also apply to the CAHO
conducting an administrative review
under 28 CFR 68.53 or 68.54.
Most Federal administrative agencies
that utilize ALJs—including the other
Department component that has ALJs,
the Drug Enforcement Administration,
see Drug Enforcement Administration,
Administrative Law Judges (last visited
Aug. 14, 2020), https://www.dea.gov/
administrative-law-judges—have a CALJ
position with similar management and
oversight functions as those assigned to
the OCAHO CALJ. See, e.g., 5 CFR
2421.10 (Federal Labor Relations
Authority); 7 CFR 2.27(b) (Department
of Agriculture); 14 CFR 385.10
(Department of Transportation); 20 CFR
404.937 and 416.1437 (Social Security
Administration); 20 CFR 801.2
(Department of Labor); 30 CFR 44.15
(Mine Safety and Health
Administration); 40 CFR 305.4
(Environmental Protection Agency); 47
CFR 0.351 (Federal Communications
Commission). The CALJ position is
similar to the supervisory immigration
judge positions in the Office of the Chief
Immigration Judge, 8 CFR 1003.9(a),
which assist the Chief Immigration
Judge with the management and
supervision of the immigration judges
nationally.
B. Technical Changes
This rule makes technical changes at
28 CFR 68.15, 68.23, 68.33, 68.55, and
68.57. These provisions contain
outdated references to the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service
(‘‘INS’’). The Homeland Security Act of
2002, Public Law 207–296, 116 Stat.
2135, as amended, transferred the
responsibilities of the INS to the newly
created Department of Homeland
Security (‘‘DHS’’). Accordingly, the
Department is updating these references
to reflect the current agency
organization.
This rule also italicizes defined terms
in 28 CFR 68.2 to improve clarity,
makes stylistic changes in 28 CFR 68.2
to improve clarity, and amends a
typographical error in the crossreference at 28 CFR 68.33(d)(iv).
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
63206
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
III. Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
The Department has determined that
this rule is not subject to the general
requirements of notice and comment
and a 30-day delay in the effective date.
The requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not
apply to these regulatory changes
creating the CALJ position because it is
a rule of ‘‘agency organization,
procedure, or practice.’’ 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). The Department also finds
good cause to issue the technical
changes without notice and comment,
as those procedures are unnecessary. 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). These
changes are non-substantive. They
simply reflect the current government
organization as determined by Congress
in 2002 and follow other similar
amendments by the Department to the
regulations governing EOIR. See, e.g., 77
FR 59567, 59569 (Sep. 28, 2012)
(describing similar updated references
to DHS in chapter V of 8 CFR).
The Department is nonetheless
promulgating this rule as an interim
rule, providing the public with
opportunity for post-promulgation
comment before the Department issues
a final rule on these matters.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department has reviewed this
regulation in accordance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), and has determined that this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule will not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions were
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
D. Congressional Review Act
This rule is not a major rule as
defined by section 804 of the
Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 804.
This action pertains to agency
management or personnel and is a rule
of agency organization that does not
substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.
Accordingly, it is not a ‘‘rule’’ as that
term is used in 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Further,
this rule will not result in an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more; a major increase in costs or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
prices; or significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and
export markets. Therefore, the reports to
Congress and the Government
Accountability Office specified by 5
U.S.C. 801 are not required.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Executive Order 12866, Executive
Order 13563, and Executive Order
13771 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health, and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563 also
emphasizes the importance of using the
best available methods to quantify costs
and benefits, and of reducing costs,
harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility. Executive Order 13771
directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and, for all
qualifying regulations, to identify at
least two existing regulations for
elimination. Notably, the requirements
in Executive Order 13771 do not apply
to regulations involving agency
organization, management, or
personnel.
Because this rule is limited to agency
organization, management, or personnel
matters, it is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget
pursuant to section 3(d)(3) of Executive
Order 12866. Further, because this rule
is one of internal organization,
management, or personnel, it is not
subject to the requirements of Executive
Orders 13563 and 13771.
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens, Citizenship and
naturalization, Civil Rights,
Discrimination in employment,
Employment, Equal employment
opportunity, Immigration, Nationality,
Non-discrimination.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
in the preamble, part 68 of chapter I of
title 28 is amended as follows:
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order 13132, it is determined that this
rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation
of a federalism summary impact
statement.
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This rule meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
This rule does not propose new or
revisions to existing ‘‘collection[s] of
information’’ as that term is defined
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Pubic Law 104–13, 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, and its implementing
regulations, 5 CFR part 1320.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 68
PART 68—RULES OF PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGES IN CASES INVOLVING
ALLEGATIONS OF UNLAWFUL
EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS, UNFAIR
IMMIGRATION-RELATED
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES, AND
DOCUMENT FRAUD
1. The authority citation for part 68
continues to read as fol1ows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 554; 8 U.S.C.
1103, 1324a, 1324b, and 1324c; Pub. L. 101–
410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L.
104–134, 110 Stat. 1321.
2. Amend § 68.2 by:
a. Revising the definition of ‘‘Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer,’’
■ b. Adding a definition for ‘‘Chief
Administrative Law Judge’’ in
alphabetical order; and
■ c. Revising the definitions of
‘‘complainant’’ and ‘‘pleading’’.
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
■
§ 68.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
is the official who, under the Director,
Executive Office for Immigration
Review, exercises administrative
supervision over the Chief
Administrative Law Judge and others
assigned to the Office of the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer
(OCAHO). Subject to the supervision of
the Director, the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer shall be responsible for
the management and direction of
hearings and duties within the
jurisdiction of OCAHO. The Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer shall
have no authority to direct the result of
an adjudication assigned to an
administrative law judge unless done so
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
in accordance with the review process
in this part, provided, however, that
nothing in this part otherwise shall be
construed to limit the authority of the
Chief Administrative Hearing Officer to
carry out his or her duties. In
coordination with the Director, and
following consultation with the Chief
Administrative Law Judge, the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer is
authorized to:
(1) Advise the Office of Policy on the
issuance of operational instructions and
policy, including procedural
instructions regarding the
implementation of new statutory or
regulatory authorities;
(2) Advise the Office of Policy on the
provision of appropriate training of the
administrative law judges and other
OCAHO staff on the conduct of their
authorities and duties;
(3) Direct the conduct of employees
assigned to OCAHO to ensure the
efficient disposition of all pending
cases, including the authority to
regulate the initial assignment of
administrative law judges to cases and
to set priorities or time frames for the
resolution of cases;
(4) Evaluate the activities performed
by OCAHO by making appropriate
reports and inspections, and taking
corrective action where needed,
provided that nothing in this part shall
be construed as providing for the
performance evaluation of an
administrative law judge;
(5) Adjudicate cases on administrative
review, as provided in this part; and
(6) Exercise such other authorities as
the Director may provide;
Chief Administrative Law Judge
means an Administrative Law Judge
who, in addition to performing the
general duties of an Administrative Law
Judge, serves as the immediate
supervisor of all other Administrative
Law Judges in the Office of the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer and
performs other regulatory duties as
identified in this part and elsewhere.
Subject to the supervision of the
Director and the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer, the Chief
Administrative Law Judge shall be
responsible for the supervision,
direction, and scheduling of the
administrative law judges in the
conduct of the hearings and duties
assigned to them. The Chief
Administrative Law Judge shall have no
authority to direct the result of an
adjudication assigned to another
Administrative Law Judge, provided,
however, that nothing in this part shall
otherwise be construed to limit the
authority of the Chief Administrative
Law Judge to carry out his or her duties.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
In coordination with the Director and
the Chief Administrative Hearing
Officer, the Chief Administrative Law
Judge is authorized to:
(1) Advise the Office of Policy on the
issuance of operational instructions and
policy, including procedural
instructions regarding the
implementation of new statutory or
regulatory authorities;
(2) Advise the Office of Policy on the
provision of appropriate training of the
administrative law judges and other
OCAHO staff on the conduct of their
authorities and duties;
(3) Direct the conduct of employees
assigned to an administrative law judge
team in OCAHO to ensure the efficient
disposition of all pending cases,
including the authority to regulate the
assignment of administrative law judges
to cases to promote administrative
efficiency and the authority to set
priorities or time frames for the
resolution of cases;
(4) Evaluate the activities performed
by administrative law judge teams by
making appropriate reports and
inspections, and take corrective action
where needed, provided that nothing in
this part shall be construed as providing
for the performance evaluation of an
administrative law judge;
(5) Adjudicate cases as an
administrative law judge; and
(6) Exercise such other authorities as
the Director or Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer may provide;
Complainant means the Department
of Homeland Security in cases arising
under sections 274A and 274C of the
INA. In cases arising under section 274B
of the INA, ‘‘complainant’’ means the
Special Counsel (as defined in this
section), and also includes the person or
entity who has filed a charge with the
Special Counsel, or, in private actions,
an individual or private organization;
*
*
*
*
*
Pleading means the complaint, the
answer thereto, any motions, any
supplements or amendments to any
motions or amendments, and any reply
that may be permitted to any answer,
supplement, or amendment submitted
to the Administrative Law Judge or,
when no judge is assigned, the Chief
Administrative Law Judge;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 68.3 by revising
paragraphs (a) introductory text and (c)
to read as follows:
§ 68.3 Service of complaint, notice of
hearing, written orders, and decisions.
(a) Service of complaint, notice of
hearing, written orders, and decisions
shall be made by the Office of the Chief
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63207
Administrative Hearing Officer, the
Chief Administrative Law Judge, or the
Administrative Law Judge to whom the
case is assigned either:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) In circumstances where the Office
of the Chief Administrative Hearing
Officer, the Chief Administrative Law
Judge, or the Administrative Law Judge
encounters difficulty with perfecting
service, the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer, the Chief
Administrative Law Judge, or the
Administrative Law Judge may direct
that a party execute service of process.
■ 4. Amend § 68.8 by revising
paragraphs (b) and (c)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 68.8
Time computations.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Computation of time for filing by
mail. Pleadings are not deemed filed
until received by the Office of the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer, the
Chief Administrative Law Judge, or the
Administrative Law Judge assigned to
the case.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Whenever a party has the right or
is required to take some action within
a prescribed period after the service
upon such party of a pleading, notice,
or other document (other than a
complaint or a subpoena) and the
pleading, notice, or document is served
by ordinary mail, five (5) days shall be
added to the prescribed period unless
the compliance date is otherwise
specified by the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer, the Chief
Administrative Law Judge, or the
Administrative Law Judge.
§ 68.15
[Amended]
5. Amend § 68.15 by removing the
words ‘‘Immigration and Naturalization
Service’’ and adding in their place the
words ‘‘Department of Homeland
Security’’.
■ 6. Revise § 68.26 to read as follows:
■
§ 68.26
Judge.
Designation of Administrative Law
Hearings shall be held before an
Administrative Law Judge appointed
under 5 U.S.C. 3105 and assigned to the
Department of Justice. The presiding
judge in any case shall be initially
designated by the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer. The Chief
Administrative Law Judge may reassign
a case previously assigned to an
Administrative Law Judge to promote
administrative efficiency. In unfairimmigration-related employment
practice cases, only Administrative Law
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
63208
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Judges specially designated by the
Attorney General as having special
training respecting employment
discrimination may be chosen by the
Chief Administrative Hearing Officer or
Chief Administrative Law Judge to
preside.
§ 68.29
c. Removing the words
‘‘Commissioner’s’’ and adding in their
place the words ‘‘Secretary of Homeland
Security’s’’ once in paragraph (b)(3) and
twice in paragraph (d)(2).
■
§ 68.57
[Amended]
11. Amend § 68.57 by removing the
words ‘‘the Immigration and
Naturalization Service’’ and adding in
their place the words ‘‘a Department of
Homeland Security’’.
■
[Amended]
7. Amend § 68.29 by removing the
words ‘‘Hearing Officer’’ and adding in
their place the words ‘‘Law Judge’’.
■ 8. Amend § 68.30 by:
■ a. Removing the words ‘‘Hearing
Officer’’ and adding in their place the
words ‘‘Law Judge’’ in paragraphs (a)
and (c); and
■ b. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
The additions read as follows:
Dated: September 2, 2020.
William P. Barr,
Attorney General.
§ 68.30
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
■
Disqualification.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) In the event of disqualification or
recusal of the Chief Administrative Law
Judge as provided in this section, the
Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
shall refer the matter to another
Administrative Law Judge for further
proceedings.
(e) The disqualification procedures in
this section apply to reviews by the
Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
conducted under § 68.53 or § 68.54. In
the event of disqualification or recusal
of the Chief Administrative Hearing
Officer as provided in this section, the
review shall be referred to the Director
for further proceedings. For a case
referred to the Director under this
paragraph (e), the Director shall exercise
delegated authority from the Attorney
General identical to that of the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer as
described in § 68.53 or 68.54.
§ 68.33
[Amended]
9. Amend § 68.33 by:
a. Removing in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) the
words ‘‘paragraph (e)’’ and adding in
their place ‘‘paragraph (f)’’; and
■ b. Removing in paragraph (f) the
words ‘‘Immigration and Naturalization
Service’’ and adding in their place the
words ‘‘Department of Homeland
Security’’.
■
■
§ 68.55
[Amended]
10. Amend § 68.55 by:
a. Removing the words ‘‘Immigration
and Naturalization Service’’ and adding
in their place the words ‘‘Department of
Homeland Security’’ in paragraph (b)(1);
■ b. Removing the words
‘‘Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization’’ and adding in their
place the words ‘‘Secretary of Homeland
Security’’ in four places in paragraph
(b); and
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
[FR Doc. 2020–20046 Filed 10–6–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–30–P
38 CFR Part 9
RIN 2900–AQ98
Extension of Veterans’ Group Life
Insurance (VGLI) Application Periods
in Response to the COVID–19 Public
Health Emergency
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This document adopts
without change a Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) interim final rule
that extends by 90 days the deadlines
for former members insured under
Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance
(SGLI) to apply for Veterans’ Group Life
Insurance (VGLI) coverage following
separation from service in order to
address the inability of former members
directly or indirectly affected by the
2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID–19)
public health emergency to purchase
VGLI. The final rule is in effect for one
year from the date that the interim final
rule was published in the Federal
Register.
SUMMARY:
Effective date: October 7, 2020.
Applicability date: VA will apply the
final rule to applications or initial
premiums for VGLI coverage received
on or after June 11, 2020, the effective
date of the interim final rule, until June
11, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Weaver, Department of Veterans Affairs
Insurance Service (310/290B), 5000
Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA
19144, (215) 842–2000, ext. 4263. (This
is not a toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
11, 2020, VA published an interim final
rule in the Federal Register (85 FR
35562) to extend by 90 days the time
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
periods under 38 CFR 9.2(c) during
which former members may apply for
VGLI. The 90-day extensions for former
members to apply for VGLI will be in
effect from June 11, 2020, through June
11, 2021.
VA received one comment. The
comment stated that extension of the
deadlines to apply for VGLI should not
sunset one year following publication of
the interim final rule but should instead
sunset one year after the termination of
the public health emergency declared in
response to the COVID–19 outbreak. See
Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020,
85 FR 15337 (Mar. 18, 2020).
Section 9.2(f)(2) states that the 90-day
extensions for former members to apply
for VGLI ‘‘shall not apply to an
application or initial premium received
after June 11, 2021.’’ VA’s rationale for
applying the rule for one year is that VA
is obligated to manage VGLI according
to sound and accepted actuarial
principles. See 38 U.S.C. 1977(c), (f), (g).
VA will utilize the one-year time period
to gather and analyze data on VGLI
claims experience to determine if it is
actuarially sound to further extend the
applicability date. VA therefore makes
no change based on this comment.
For the reasons stated above and in
the interim final rule notice, VA will
adopt the interim final rule as final,
without change.
Administrative Procedure Act
In the June 11, 2020, Federal Register
notice, VA determined that there was a
basis under the Administrative
Procedure Act for issuing the interim
final rule with immediate effect. We
invited and received public comment on
the interim final rule. This document
adopts the interim final rule as a final
rule without change.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no provisions
constituting a collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501–3521).
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
13771
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review)
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 7, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63204-63208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20046]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 68
[EOIR Docket No. 19-0312; A.G. Order No. 4840-2020]
RIN 1125-AB06
Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
AGENCY: Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (``Department'') is amending the
regulations governing the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing
Officer to reflect the creation of the position of Chief Administrative
Law Judge and make technical corrections.
DATES: Effective date: October 7, 2020.
Comments: Electronic comments must be submitted and written
comments must be postmarked or otherwise indicate a shipping date on or
before November 6, 2020. The electronic Federal Docket Management
System at www.regulations.gov will accept electronic comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on that date.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to provide comment regarding this rulemaking,
you must submit comments, identified by the agency name and reference
RIN 1125-AB06 or EOIR Docket No. 19-0312, by one of the two methods
below:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the website instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Paper comments that duplicate an electronic
submission are unnecessary. If you wish to submit a paper comment in
lieu of electronic submission, please direct the mail/shipment to:
Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive
Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800, Falls
Church, VA 22041. To ensure proper handling, please reference the
agency name and RIN 1125-AB06 or EOIR Docket No. 19-0312 on your
correspondence. Mailed items must be postmarked or otherwise indicate a
shipping date on or before the submission deadline.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director,
Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone (703) 305-0289 (not a
toll-free call).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this
rule via one of the methods and by the deadline stated above. All
comments must be submitted in English, or accompanied by an English
translation. The Department also invites comments that relate to the
economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from
this rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to the
Department in developing these procedures will reference a specific
portion of the rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include data, information, or authority that support such recommended
change.
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the
public record and made available for public inspection at
www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personally identifying
information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter.
If you want to submit personally identifying information (such as
your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it
to be posted online, you must include the phrase ``PERSONALLY
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph
[[Page 63205]]
of your comment and identify the information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of
your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include
the phrase ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph
of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential
business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment
has so much confidential business information that it cannot be
effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
www.regulations.gov.
Personally identifying information located as set forth above will
be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online.
Confidential business information identified and located as set forth
above will not be placed in the public docket file. The Departments may
withhold from public viewing information provided in comments that they
determine may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For
additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is
available via the link in the footer of https://www.regulations.gov. To
inspect the agency's public docket file in person, you must make an
appointment with the agency. Please see the ``For Further Information
Contact'' paragraph above for the agency contact information.
II. Purpose of This Rule
A. Chief Administrative Law Judge
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (``OCAHO'')
is a component of the Executive Office for Immigration Review
(``EOIR''), which is also an office of the Department of Justice. See 8
CFR 1003.0(a). An Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ'') in OCAHO has
jurisdiction to, among other matters, decide cases arising under
sections 274A, 274B, and 274C of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(``INA'') (8 U.S.C. 1324a, 1324b, and 1324c).\1\ See generally 28 CFR
part 68. These cases seek the imposition of civil penalties and other
remedies against persons or entities alleged to have violated the
provisions of these sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OCAHO ALJs may serve other functions, including the
adjudication of cases in immigration proceedings under other
provisions of the INA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is amending the regulations that govern OCAHO to
recognize the creation of a Chief Administrative Law Judge (``CALJ'')
position and to delineate the responsibilities and authorities of the
CALJ and the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (``CAHO''). In
addition to serving as an ALJ, the CALJ will serve as the direct
supervisor of the OCAHO ALJs and related ALJ support staff.\2\ See
Interim Final Rule at 68.2. In turn, the CAHO will supervise the CALJ.
Although the CAHO will continue to designate the presiding ALJ in each
case as an initial matter, the CALJ may reassign ALJs as necessary to
promote administrative efficiency (e.g., if the previously assigned ALJ
becomes unavailable or is disqualified). See Interim Final Rule at 28
CFR 68.26, 68.29, 68.30(c). This interim final rule (``interim final
rule'' or ``rule'') makes additional technical edits to 28 CFR part 68
to amend various references to the ``Chief Administrative Hearing
Officer'' to read ``Chief Administrative Law Judge.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Because the CALJ may serve as an ALJ in a proceeding before
OCAHO, references to ``ALJ'' in 28 CFR part 68 include the CALJ,
whenever the CALJ is acting in that capacity. Accordingly, the
Department believes that the current regulations appropriately
provide for the CALJ when they reference ``ALJ,'' and, therefore,
this rulemaking need not amend the regulations in part 68 to
expressly include ``CALJ'' whenever the regulations provide for the
authority or role of an ALJ in a proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCAHO is expanding its reach nationwide to account for an expected
increase in volume of new case filings, particularly under sections
274A and 274B of the INA. See, e.g., Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, ICE Worksite Enforcement Investigations in FY18 Surge
(Dec. 11, 2018), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-worksite-enforcement-investigations-fy18-surge (indicating a threefold increase
in investigations under section 274A in FY 2018); Department of
Justice, Departments of Justice and State Partner to Protect U.S.
Workers from Discrimination and Combat Fraud (Oct. 11, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/departments-justice-and-statepartner-protect-us-workers-discrimination-and-combat-fraud (outlining a ``Protecting U.S.
Workers Initiative'' that includes cases brought under section 274B).
The expansion of OCAHO's ALJ corps nationwide necessitates a CALJ
position to ensure coordination and appropriate management oversight of
the corps. The CALJ also further buffers the CAHO's management and
administrative functions for OCAHO from the supervisory
responsibilities for the ALJs and ensure that the CAHO does not
inadvertently create a conflict during the adjudication of a case that
would later require the CAHO's recusal from conducting any
administrative review of that adjudication. 28 CFR 68.53, 68.5.
To further avoid potential recusal issues based on OCAHO's size,
the interim final rule also clarifies that (1) if an ALJ is
disqualified from adjudicating a case, the CALJ will reassign the case
to another ALJ; (2) if the CALJ is disqualified from adjudicating a
case, the CAHO will reassign the case to another ALJ; and (3) if the
CAHO is disqualified from reviewing an interlocutory order under 28 CFR
68.53 or a final order under 28 CFR 68.54, the review will be
reassigned to the EOIR Director. The interim final rule also clarifies
that the disqualification procedures for ALJs in 28 CFR 68.30 also
apply to the CAHO conducting an administrative review under 28 CFR
68.53 or 68.54.
Most Federal administrative agencies that utilize ALJs--including
the other Department component that has ALJs, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, see Drug Enforcement Administration, Administrative Law
Judges (last visited Aug. 14, 2020), https://www.dea.gov/administrative-law-judges--have a CALJ position with similar management
and oversight functions as those assigned to the OCAHO CALJ. See, e.g.,
5 CFR 2421.10 (Federal Labor Relations Authority); 7 CFR 2.27(b)
(Department of Agriculture); 14 CFR 385.10 (Department of
Transportation); 20 CFR 404.937 and 416.1437 (Social Security
Administration); 20 CFR 801.2 (Department of Labor); 30 CFR 44.15 (Mine
Safety and Health Administration); 40 CFR 305.4 (Environmental
Protection Agency); 47 CFR 0.351 (Federal Communications Commission).
The CALJ position is similar to the supervisory immigration judge
positions in the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, 8 CFR
1003.9(a), which assist the Chief Immigration Judge with the management
and supervision of the immigration judges nationally.
B. Technical Changes
This rule makes technical changes at 28 CFR 68.15, 68.23, 68.33,
68.55, and 68.57. These provisions contain outdated references to the
former Immigration and Naturalization Service (``INS''). The Homeland
Security Act of 2002, Public Law 207-296, 116 Stat. 2135, as amended,
transferred the responsibilities of the INS to the newly created
Department of Homeland Security (``DHS''). Accordingly, the Department
is updating these references to reflect the current agency
organization.
This rule also italicizes defined terms in 28 CFR 68.2 to improve
clarity, makes stylistic changes in 28 CFR 68.2 to improve clarity, and
amends a typographical error in the cross-reference at 28 CFR
68.33(d)(iv).
[[Page 63206]]
III. Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
The Department has determined that this rule is not subject to the
general requirements of notice and comment and a 30-day delay in the
effective date. The requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply to these
regulatory changes creating the CALJ position because it is a rule of
``agency organization, procedure, or practice.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
The Department also finds good cause to issue the technical changes
without notice and comment, as those procedures are unnecessary. 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). These changes are non-substantive. They
simply reflect the current government organization as determined by
Congress in 2002 and follow other similar amendments by the Department
to the regulations governing EOIR. See, e.g., 77 FR 59567, 59569 (Sep.
28, 2012) (describing similar updated references to DHS in chapter V of
8 CFR).
The Department is nonetheless promulgating this rule as an interim
rule, providing the public with opportunity for post-promulgation
comment before the Department issues a final rule on these matters.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department has reviewed this regulation in accordance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), and has determined that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
D. Congressional Review Act
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the
Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 804. This action pertains to agency
management or personnel and is a rule of agency organization that does
not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties. Accordingly, it is not a ``rule'' as that term is used in 5
U.S.C. 804(3). Further, this rule will not result in an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or
prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United
States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in
domestic and export markets. Therefore, the reports to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office specified by 5 U.S.C. 801 are not
required.
E. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and Executive Order
13771 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 also emphasizes the importance of using the best
available methods to quantify costs and benefits, and of reducing
costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order
13771 directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory
costs and, for all qualifying regulations, to identify at least two
existing regulations for elimination. Notably, the requirements in
Executive Order 13771 do not apply to regulations involving agency
organization, management, or personnel.
Because this rule is limited to agency organization, management, or
personnel matters, it is not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget pursuant to section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order
12866. Further, because this rule is one of internal organization,
management, or personnel, it is not subject to the requirements of
Executive Orders 13563 and 13771.
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of
Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement.
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not propose new or revisions to existing
``collection[s] of information'' as that term is defined under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pubic Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 68
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Citizenship and
naturalization, Civil Rights, Discrimination in employment, Employment,
Equal employment opportunity, Immigration, Nationality, Non-
discrimination.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 68 of
chapter I of title 28 is amended as follows:
PART 68--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES IN CASES INVOLVING
ALLEGATIONS OF UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS, UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-
RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES, AND DOCUMENT FRAUD
0
1. The authority citation for part 68 continues to read as fol1ows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 554; 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1324a, 1324b, and
1324c; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 104-
134, 110 Stat. 1321.
0
2. Amend Sec. 68.2 by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Chief Administrative Hearing Officer,''
0
b. Adding a definition for ``Chief Administrative Law Judge'' in
alphabetical order; and
0
c. Revising the definitions of ``complainant'' and ``pleading''.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 68.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Chief Administrative Hearing Officer is the official who, under the
Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, exercises
administrative supervision over the Chief Administrative Law Judge and
others assigned to the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing
Officer (OCAHO). Subject to the supervision of the Director, the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer shall be responsible for the management
and direction of hearings and duties within the jurisdiction of OCAHO.
The Chief Administrative Hearing Officer shall have no authority to
direct the result of an adjudication assigned to an administrative law
judge unless done so
[[Page 63207]]
in accordance with the review process in this part, provided, however,
that nothing in this part otherwise shall be construed to limit the
authority of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer to carry out his
or her duties. In coordination with the Director, and following
consultation with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer is authorized to:
(1) Advise the Office of Policy on the issuance of operational
instructions and policy, including procedural instructions regarding
the implementation of new statutory or regulatory authorities;
(2) Advise the Office of Policy on the provision of appropriate
training of the administrative law judges and other OCAHO staff on the
conduct of their authorities and duties;
(3) Direct the conduct of employees assigned to OCAHO to ensure the
efficient disposition of all pending cases, including the authority to
regulate the initial assignment of administrative law judges to cases
and to set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases;
(4) Evaluate the activities performed by OCAHO by making
appropriate reports and inspections, and taking corrective action where
needed, provided that nothing in this part shall be construed as
providing for the performance evaluation of an administrative law
judge;
(5) Adjudicate cases on administrative review, as provided in this
part; and
(6) Exercise such other authorities as the Director may provide;
Chief Administrative Law Judge means an Administrative Law Judge
who, in addition to performing the general duties of an Administrative
Law Judge, serves as the immediate supervisor of all other
Administrative Law Judges in the Office of the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer and performs other regulatory duties as identified in
this part and elsewhere. Subject to the supervision of the Director and
the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, the Chief Administrative Law
Judge shall be responsible for the supervision, direction, and
scheduling of the administrative law judges in the conduct of the
hearings and duties assigned to them. The Chief Administrative Law
Judge shall have no authority to direct the result of an adjudication
assigned to another Administrative Law Judge, provided, however, that
nothing in this part shall otherwise be construed to limit the
authority of the Chief Administrative Law Judge to carry out his or her
duties. In coordination with the Director and the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer, the Chief Administrative Law Judge is authorized to:
(1) Advise the Office of Policy on the issuance of operational
instructions and policy, including procedural instructions regarding
the implementation of new statutory or regulatory authorities;
(2) Advise the Office of Policy on the provision of appropriate
training of the administrative law judges and other OCAHO staff on the
conduct of their authorities and duties;
(3) Direct the conduct of employees assigned to an administrative
law judge team in OCAHO to ensure the efficient disposition of all
pending cases, including the authority to regulate the assignment of
administrative law judges to cases to promote administrative efficiency
and the authority to set priorities or time frames for the resolution
of cases;
(4) Evaluate the activities performed by administrative law judge
teams by making appropriate reports and inspections, and take
corrective action where needed, provided that nothing in this part
shall be construed as providing for the performance evaluation of an
administrative law judge;
(5) Adjudicate cases as an administrative law judge; and
(6) Exercise such other authorities as the Director or Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer may provide;
Complainant means the Department of Homeland Security in cases
arising under sections 274A and 274C of the INA. In cases arising under
section 274B of the INA, ``complainant'' means the Special Counsel (as
defined in this section), and also includes the person or entity who
has filed a charge with the Special Counsel, or, in private actions, an
individual or private organization;
* * * * *
Pleading means the complaint, the answer thereto, any motions, any
supplements or amendments to any motions or amendments, and any reply
that may be permitted to any answer, supplement, or amendment submitted
to the Administrative Law Judge or, when no judge is assigned, the
Chief Administrative Law Judge;
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 68.3 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 68.3 Service of complaint, notice of hearing, written orders,
and decisions.
(a) Service of complaint, notice of hearing, written orders, and
decisions shall be made by the Office of the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, or the
Administrative Law Judge to whom the case is assigned either:
* * * * *
(c) In circumstances where the Office of the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, or the
Administrative Law Judge encounters difficulty with perfecting service,
the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, the Chief Administrative Law
Judge, or the Administrative Law Judge may direct that a party execute
service of process.
0
4. Amend Sec. 68.8 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 68.8 Time computations.
* * * * *
(b) Computation of time for filing by mail. Pleadings are not
deemed filed until received by the Office of the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, or the
Administrative Law Judge assigned to the case.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Whenever a party has the right or is required to take some
action within a prescribed period after the service upon such party of
a pleading, notice, or other document (other than a complaint or a
subpoena) and the pleading, notice, or document is served by ordinary
mail, five (5) days shall be added to the prescribed period unless the
compliance date is otherwise specified by the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, or the
Administrative Law Judge.
Sec. 68.15 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 68.15 by removing the words ``Immigration and
Naturalization Service'' and adding in their place the words
``Department of Homeland Security''.
0
6. Revise Sec. 68.26 to read as follows:
Sec. 68.26 Designation of Administrative Law Judge.
Hearings shall be held before an Administrative Law Judge appointed
under 5 U.S.C. 3105 and assigned to the Department of Justice. The
presiding judge in any case shall be initially designated by the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer. The Chief Administrative Law Judge may
reassign a case previously assigned to an Administrative Law Judge to
promote administrative efficiency. In unfair-immigration-related
employment practice cases, only Administrative Law
[[Page 63208]]
Judges specially designated by the Attorney General as having special
training respecting employment discrimination may be chosen by the
Chief Administrative Hearing Officer or Chief Administrative Law Judge
to preside.
Sec. 68.29 [Amended]
0
7. Amend Sec. 68.29 by removing the words ``Hearing Officer'' and
adding in their place the words ``Law Judge''.
0
8. Amend Sec. 68.30 by:
0
a. Removing the words ``Hearing Officer'' and adding in their place the
words ``Law Judge'' in paragraphs (a) and (c); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 68.30 Disqualification.
* * * * *
(d) In the event of disqualification or recusal of the Chief
Administrative Law Judge as provided in this section, the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer shall refer the matter to another
Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings.
(e) The disqualification procedures in this section apply to
reviews by the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer conducted under
Sec. 68.53 or Sec. 68.54. In the event of disqualification or recusal
of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer as provided in this
section, the review shall be referred to the Director for further
proceedings. For a case referred to the Director under this paragraph
(e), the Director shall exercise delegated authority from the Attorney
General identical to that of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
as described in Sec. 68.53 or 68.54.
Sec. 68.33 [Amended]
0
9. Amend Sec. 68.33 by:
0
a. Removing in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) the words ``paragraph (e)'' and
adding in their place ``paragraph (f)''; and
0
b. Removing in paragraph (f) the words ``Immigration and Naturalization
Service'' and adding in their place the words ``Department of Homeland
Security''.
Sec. 68.55 [Amended]
0
10. Amend Sec. 68.55 by:
0
a. Removing the words ``Immigration and Naturalization Service'' and
adding in their place the words ``Department of Homeland Security'' in
paragraph (b)(1);
0
b. Removing the words ``Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization'' and adding in their place the words ``Secretary of
Homeland Security'' in four places in paragraph (b); and
0
c. Removing the words ``Commissioner's'' and adding in their place the
words ``Secretary of Homeland Security's'' once in paragraph (b)(3) and
twice in paragraph (d)(2).
Sec. 68.57 [Amended]
0
11. Amend Sec. 68.57 by removing the words ``the Immigration and
Naturalization Service'' and adding in their place the words ``a
Department of Homeland Security''.
Dated: September 2, 2020.
William P. Barr,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2020-20046 Filed 10-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-30-P
