[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 162 (Monday, August 23, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51619-51623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20856]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 51619]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Office of the Secretary
6 CFR Part 5
[Docket No. DHS-2010-0054]
Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of
Homeland Security/United States Citizenship and Immigration Services--
009 Compliance Tracking and Management System of Records
AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security is issuing a final rule to
amend its regulations to exempt portions of a Department of Homeland
Security/United States Citizenship and Immigration system of records
entitled the ``United States Citizenship and Immigration Services--009
Compliance Tracking and Management System of Records'' from certain
provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the Department proposes to
exempt portions of the Department of Homeland Security/United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services--009 Compliance Tracking and
Management System of Records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act
because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement
requirements.
DATES: This final rule is effective August 23, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions please contact
Monitoring and Compliance Branch Chief (202-358-7777), Verification
Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security, 470 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW., Suite 8204,
Washington, DC 20529. For privacy issues please contact: Mary Ellen
Callahan (703-235-0780), Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office,
Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register, 74 FR 23957, May
22, 2009, proposing to exempt portions of the DHS/United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)--009 Compliance Tracking
and Management System (CTMS) of Records from certain provisions of the
Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement
requirements. The DHS/USCIS--009 Compliance Tracking and Management
system of records notice (SORN) was published concurrently in the
Federal Register, 74 FR 24022, May 22, 2009 and comments were invited
on both the NPRM and SORN. Comments were received on both the NPRM and
SORN.
Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (74 FR 23957, May 27,
2009)
DHS/USCIS received seven comments on the NPRM (74 FR 23957, May 22,
2009) and twelve on the SORN (74 FR 24022, May 22, 2009). One set of
comments relates to a potential operational concern with the SAVE
program that pertains to the DHS/USCIS--004 Verification Information
System (VIS). While CTMS does deal with SAVE data, the comments in
question did not relate to compliance and monitoring issues. These
comments are being addressed by the SAVE program. Another set of
comments concerned corporate hiring practices and did not relate to
CTMS or compliance and monitoring issues generally.
Below is an analysis of each comment that specifically relate to
this NPRM that is not addressed directly above. Comments were received
from the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) regarding several
elements of the CTMS SORN and corresponding Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM)
Comment: NILC stated that law enforcement exemptions were overbroad
and unwarranted.
Response: The Department notes that Congress has stated its
understanding that the USCIS employment verification system may be used
for law enforcement purposes when necessary to prevent violations of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and in cases of document
fraud, counterfeiting and perjury (8 U.S.C. 1324a(d)(2)(F)). E-Verify
was originally established for the purpose of serving as a
``confirmation system through which [DHS]--
(1) Responds to inquiries made by electing persons and other
entities [* * *] at any time through a toll-free telephone line or
other toll-free electronic media concerning an individual's identity
and whether the individual is authorized to be employed, and
(2) Maintains records of the inquiries that were made, of
confirmations provided (or not provided), and of the codes provided to
inquirers as evidence of their compliance with their obligations under
the pilot programs.''. (8 U.S.C. 1324a note (at Sec. 404(a)) ``The
confirmation system shall be designed and operated--
(1) To maximize its reliability and ease of use by persons and
other entities making elections under section 402(a) of this division
consistent with insulating and protecting the privacy and security of
the underlying information;
(2) To respond to all inquiries made by such persons and entities
on whether individuals are authorized to be employed and to register
all times when such inquiries are not received;
(3) With appropriate administrative, technical, and physical
safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of personal information;
and
(4) To have reasonable safeguards against the system's resulting in
unlawful discriminatory practices based on national origin or
citizenship status, including--
(A) The selective or unauthorized use of the system to verify
eligibility;
(B) The use of the system prior to an offer of employment; or
(C) The exclusion of certain individuals from consideration for
employment as a result of a perceived likelihood that additional
verification will be required, beyond what is required for most job
applicants.''. (8 U.S.C. 1324a note (at Sec. 404(d))
CTMS serves as a vehicle by which USCIS can comply with its
statutory mandate to ensure the integrity of the verification system as
outlined above. Information in CTMS may provide
[[Page 51620]]
evidence of the improper use of the E-Verify system which directly
supports the statutory mandate to prevent the misuse, discriminatory or
fraudulent use of the system. Furthermore, every request for access to
information in CTMS will be evaluated with the predisposition to
releasing the information. USCIS will only claim the exemption if it
determines that releasing the information would be contrary to a law
enforcement purpose.
Comments were received from the American Immigration Lawyer
Association (AILA) regarding several points.
Comment: AILA objected to the 30-day comment period.
Response: The Department notes that the Administrative Procedure
Act (``APA''), 5 U.S.C. 553(c), provides that ``each agency that
maintains a system of records shall at least 30 days prior to
publication of information under paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection,
publish in the notice in the Federal Register any new use or intended
use of the information in the system, and provide an opportunity for
interested persons to submit written data, views, or arguments to the
agency.'' In the absence of a demonstration of a compelling need to
extend this period, such as numerous requests for additional time or
when the subject of the proposed governmental action is complex or
exceedingly controversial, the 30 days provided for under the APA
provides an opportunity for thorough, well-informed rulemaking. While
AILA's comments were the only comments submitted past the 30-day time
period, USCIS did consider their comments. Based on the public comments
received thus far, there is nothing to suggest that there was a need
for additional time.
Comment: AILA commented that the use of CTMS for law enforcement
support is contrary to Congressional intent.
Response: Congress has stated its understanding that the USCIS
employment verification system may be used for law enforcement purposes
when necessary to prevent violations of the INA, and in cases of
document fraud, counterfeiting, and perjury in the INA 8 U.S.C.
1324a(d)(2)(F). 8 U.S.C. 1324a note (at Sec. 404(d)) requires that E-
Verify have ``reasonable safeguards against the system resulting in
unlawful discriminatory practices based on national origin or
citizenship status, including--(A) The selective or unauthorized use of
the system to verify eligibility; (B) the use of the system prior to an
offer of employment; or (C) the exclusion of certain individuals from
consideration for employment as a result of a perceived likelihood.''
CTMS serves as a vehicle by which USCIS can comply with its
statutory mandate to ensure the integrity of the verification system by
preventing the fraudulent use of E-Verify and SAVE and violation of the
INA, as well as any misuse or discriminatory use of the system (8
U.S.C. 1324a note (at Sec. 404(d))).
Comment: AILA expressed concern that because E-Verify is only a
pilot, any results from the system should be used only for education
and outreach, not law enforcement purposes.
Response: The Department acknowledges that as long as E-Verify is
operational, there is the potential that it will be misused or abused.
The monitoring and compliance functionality has been established to
identify and resolve noncompliance. This is particularly important,
regardless of the programs' status as a pilot, where misuse of the
system has an immediate effect on a person's ability to work. CTMS is
an integral component of these monitoring and compliance activities, as
it allows for compliance activity management and storage of the
information supporting the compliance determinations surrounding use of
the program.
Comment: AILA expressed concern that CTMS is not an effective way
to reduce identity theft, and recommends that all multiple uses of A-
Number or SSN should result in a Tentative Non-Confirmation (TNC)
rather than additional further research into the employer.
Response: The Department is aware of the potential for fraudulently
used identity documents to be verified through the system. The USCIS
Verification Division, the component of DHS responsible for the E-
Verify Program and CTMS, meets with AILA annually. During a meeting
held May 7, 2009, AILA and representatives from the Verification
Division discussed the monitoring of multiple SSNs. USCIS is
researching solutions to this potential problem. However, multiple uses
of A-Number or SSN identifications do not warrant automatic TNCs since
it is feasible for one individual to be accurately verified in the
system multiple times, where they may hold multiple jobs or change jobs
frequently. Hence, multiple uses of an A-Number or SSN are not
necessarily fraudulent and should not result in a TNC in all cases. In
fact, the inconvenience that would be caused to individuals who are
rightly verified multiple times would outweigh the benefit of automatic
TNCs. CTMS would be used to determine under which circumstances such
incidents of multiple uses would indicate a need for further compliance
research and would be the tool to manage any resulting compliance
activity.
Comment: AILA expressed concern that an employer might try to
protect itself from law enforcement activities by only selecting
employees the employer perceives to be without any potential for
immigration-related violations, thereby increasing immigration-related
discrimination.
Response: The Department agrees that E-Verify users may try to
insulate themselves from law enforcement activities by discriminatory
use of these systems. As the Department has already developed a
relationship for forwarding potential violations to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) Office of Special Counsel (OSC) as required by law, it is
vital that the monitoring and compliance activities be well developed
and managed to ensure that E-Verify is looking carefully at these
issues.
Comment: AILA suggested that there are better methods for reducing
discrimination and misuse of E-Verify including: (1) Improving posters
and providing alternative means of notification; (2) involving OSC more
directly in E-Verify education and outreach efforts; (3) modifying E-
Verify case resolution functionality; (4) enhancing E-Verify user
reports; and (5) providing better training and reporting tools to
corporate and program administrators.
Response: The Department agrees that there should be an ongoing
process of evaluating and improving the methods that are used to
prevent and detect misuse. In fact, AILA's suggestion regarding
improving posters is supported by the compliance activity of
determining whether the posters are actually being used by employers.
The development of the USCIS Verification Division Monitoring and
Compliance Branch and the appropriate use of the CTMS tracking and
managing tool are central to this ongoing initiative, and will be used
in conjunction with other program enhancements to involve employers in
the compliance assistance elements of E-Verify. In addition, E-Verify
continuously evaluates and improves the means of educating users about
the correct way to use E-Verify, and of informing the individuals being
verified of their rights. E-Verify works closely with OSC, as
appropriate, using the CTMS to guide referrals to the appropriate
enforcement agency. Recent changes have included significant
enhancements to the training processes and additional means of
notification, including adding privacy information
[[Page 51621]]
on the E-Verify Web site. The Department is currently evaluating the E-
Verify case resolution functionality, determining additional ways to
involve the users in the integrity of the programs and is investigating
enhancements to the program's reporting capabilities, to address user's
ability to evaluate and train individual users, and to use other means
to assist users in the E-Verify processes. Further, USCIS signed a
Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Justice's Office of
Special Counsel (OSC) for Unfair Immigration-Related Employment
practices on March 17, 2010 that formally establishes the relationship
and process for referrals between the agencies, and continued
collaboration efforts, including E-Verify education and outreach.
Comments on the System of Records Notice (74 FR 24022, May 22, 2009)
Comment: NILC expressed concern that the CTMS SORN does not
adequately address how monitoring and compliance will be conducted
given the expanded use of SAVE by States and localities.
Response: The Department acknowledges that the expanded use of
SAVE, as required by section 642(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act (Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009),
will increase the number and types of SAVE users. These users will pose
different monitoring and compliance challenges. However, all SAVE user
agencies are subject to the policies and procedures governing use of
the system. The Department is aligning the SAVE monitoring and
compliance activities with the various agencies, whether federal,
state, or local, in order to identify non-compliant behaviors
regardless of the specific purpose of the SAVE query. In fact, in the
vast majority of cases, the same type of SAVE query is conducted using
the same information and documentation regardless of the purpose of the
query. CTMS will be used to track and manage these monitoring and
compliance activities and provide support for SAVE monitoring and
compliance deliberative processes.
Comment: NILC expressed concern that E-Verify focusing on an
employer's election not to use E-Verify after registering for the
program would be a waste of resources as it does not actually indicate
misuse of the system.
Response: The Department appreciates NILC concern that E-Verify not
waste resources on a behavior that does not indicate a misuse of the
system. However, once enrolled in E-Verify, employers are required to
either verify all new hires through the system, or withdraw from E-
Verify. This is required in order to minimize the potential of an
employer using the system in a potentially discriminatory manner by
verifying some employees but not others. The Department also notes that
this is a good example of a misuse that would be resolved in almost all
cases by E-Verify providing compliance assistance to employers to help
them understand what their responsibilities are. Although CTMS is used
for identifying potentially illegal activities, compliance activities
are primarily focused on education, training, and awareness to assist
employers to better understand the purpose of E-Verify and their role
in the process.
Comment: NILC expressed concerns that, despite DHS' stated
intentions, CTMS is designed to investigate immigration offenses by
employees rather than misuse by employers.
Response: The Department understands the NILC's concern, but in
both the SAVE and E-Verify programs the Department is mandated to focus
on the relationship with the agency or employer in its operational
activities not on the applicant or employee being verified. Employers
are the direct users of E-Verify as are SAVE agencies the direct users
of SAVE, and it is with E-Verify employers and SAVE agencies that the
E-Verify or SAVE Memoranda of Understandings (MOUs) are signed. The
subject of E-Verify or SAVE verification would only be contacted if the
compliance activity is based on a specific lead or tip first provided
voluntarily to DHS by that subject. However, if in the course of
research USCIS discovers evidence of fraud by an individual verified by
SAVE or E-Verify, USCIS will evaluate those matters and may refer them
to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
Comment: NILC expressed concern that if CTMS is used for
immigration enforcement and Privacy Act exemptions are granted,
employees, those most likely to be able to witness and report on
misuse, will be unwilling to make such reports.
Response: Employee information is vital to compliance analysts for
interpreting various user behaviors and the monitoring and compliance
effort is essential to protecting the rights of the employee from abuse
by employers and other employees, as well as determining if employer or
agency users are in compliance with the program terms of use.
Currently, as required by law, E-Verify forwards information that
suggests illegal activities to appropriate law enforcement
organizations. The Department acknowledges the risk that some employees
may be unwilling to report cases of misuse of E-Verify or SAVE because
of their concerns regarding CTMS's immigration enforcement capability
and its Privacy Act exemptions. This risk however, is one that must be
accepted in order to effectively and adequately protect the integrity
of any law enforcement investigations that result from monitoring and
compliance activities within CTMS.
Comments were received from the American Council on International
Personnel (ACIP) regarding two points.
Comment: ACIP requested that E-Verify should work directly with
employers before any effort is made to refer potential issues to law
enforcement organizations.
Response: The Department agrees with ACIP and E-Verify has
developed an escalating approach to compliance in which noncompliance
is resolved by contacting and working with the employer directly when
possible. The purpose of collecting information in the CTMS is to allow
compliance analysts to determine the correct approach to involving the
employer or agency in the compliance process. E-Verify begins from a
position of ``compliance assistance,'' which is to educate employers
and ensure proper policies and procedures are followed. If, after the
employer has been contacted, noncompliance is ongoing or more
egregious, E-Verify may escalate to compliance activities that involve
more direct interaction with employers, which may include collecting
additional information from the employer for analysis. For those
situations where USCIS believes there is more egregious noncompliance,
E-Verify may make a referral to a law enforcement agency for the
appropriate enforcement action. CTMS tracks and manages this process.
Comment: ACIP suggested the use of additional advanced technologies
to prevent fraud and misuse.
Response: The Department appreciates ACIP's comment and is
continuing to investigate a number of technologies and processes that
would increase the integrity of the SAVE and E-Verify program, but
believes that as no technology will be able to stop all cases of
misuse, DHS must develop a system and process for researching,
tracking, and managing potential cases of misuse, abuse, fraud, or
discrimination.
Comment: AILA expressed concern that CTMS is beyond the scope of
authority for E-Verify established by IIRIRA, but that if CTMS is to be
used it should be used as a tool to focus
[[Page 51622]]
attention on employees who might be misusing documentation.
Response: The Department is aware of the need to ensure that that
E-Verify and SAVE are not misused. However, because these programs work
directly with the employers and SAVE agencies, and do not have a direct
relationship with the individuals being verified, it is necessary to
focus on the users of the programs. Thus, the employers and SAVE agency
users create a contractual relationship with DHS through their
registration and signing of the program Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) which establish the parameters of their use. In light of this
relationship, the Department can work to train users on the correct use
of the programs. Until Congress directs otherwise, these programs must
focus on the E-Verify and SAVE users.
Comment: AILA expressed concern that DHS failed to consult with
employer representatives in the development and implementation of E-
Verify as required by IIRIRA, Section 402(d)(1).
Response: E-Verify works with the user population on changes to
continuously improve the program, through outreach and interaction with
employers and agencies by conducting training sessions, Webinars, and
outreach events throughout the United States. These outreach
initiatives have resulted in changes to E-Verify, for example changes
have been made to simplify E-Verify language and to change data
handling procedures to make it more convenient for employers and
employees using E-Verify. E-Verify also evaluates and implements, where
possible, the suggestions of employer advocacy organizations, for
example the program is currently evaluating changes to the program that
would increase enhanced program authentication methods. The Westat
Reports, the statutorily mandated third party review of E-Verify, are
published to the Web to inform employers of recommendations for
improving the integrity of the program. These efforts meet the
requirements of IIRIRA Sec. 402 (d)(1) which provide that DHS ``shall
closely consult with representatives of employers (and recruiters and
referrers) in the development and implementation of the pilot programs,
including the education of employers (and recruiters and referrers)
about such programs.''
Comment: AILA recommended that DHS not devote resources to the CTMS
system until release of the pending Westat Report.
Response: The Westat Reports of 2002 and 2007 recommended that
USCIS develop monitoring and compliance capability. The USCIS
Verification Division Monitoring and Compliance Branch has developed
CTMS as a support tool for its operations. Recommendations from the
next Westat Report, along with experience from monitoring and
compliance activities, will be an input to this continuous improvement
function.
USCIS Verification Division Monitoring and Compliance Branch
operations have been developed based on best practices, as well as
knowledge of the E-Verify system and the ways in which it could
potentially be misused or abused. The previous Westat Reports served as
a reference while the USCIS Verification Division Monitoring and
Compliance Branch was being formulated; future Westat Reports will
likewise be leveraged. However, the absence of a ``perfect'' E-Verify
system should not preclude the establishment of a monitoring and
compliance component, along with the associated tools, such as CTMS. As
long as the system is being used, USCIS has a responsibility to ensure
that the system is being used appropriately and in accordance with
program rules and regulations. The USCIS Verification Division
Monitoring and Compliance Branch, and associated management tools,
fulfill that function.
Having taken into consideration and addressed public comments
resulting from this NPRM and SORN, as well as the Department's position
on these public comments, DHS will implement the rulemaking as
proposed.
List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5
Freedom of information; Privacy.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends Chapter I of Title
6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 5--DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION
0
1. The authority citation for Part 5 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et
seq.; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.
0
2. Add at the end of Appendix C to Part 5, the following new paragraph
``49'':
Appendix C to Part 5--DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy
Act
* * * * *
49. The DHS/USCIS--009 Compliance Tracking and Management System
of Records consists of electronic and paper files that will be used
by DHS and its components. This system of records will be used to
perform a range of information management and analytic functions
involving minimizing misuse, abuse, discrimination, breach of
privacy, and fraudulent use of SAVE and E-Verify. The Secretary of
Homeland Security has exempted this system from the following
provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the limitation set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H),
(e)(4)(I), and (f) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Exemptions from
these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis
to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following
reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because
release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of
an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or
regulatory violation to the existence of the investigation, and
reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the
recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore
present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or
efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting
would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to
impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and
to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire
investigative process.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to
the records contained in this system of records could inform the
subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal,
civil, or regulatory violation, to the existence of the
investigation, and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS
or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual
who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to
tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or
apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing
investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an
impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be
continuously reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and
amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive
information that could be detrimental to homeland security.
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of
Information) because in the course of investigations into potential
violations of Federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or
introduced occasionally may be unclear or the information may not be
strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the
interest of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain
all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful
activity.
(d) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) (Agency
Requirements), and (f) (Agency Rules) because portions of this
system are exempt from the individual access provisions of
subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not
required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with
respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect
to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records
or otherwise setting up procedures
[[Page 51623]]
pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining
to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts
and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and
confidential informants.
Mary Ellen Callahan,
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-20856 Filed 8-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-97-P