Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs

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