[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 233 (Monday, December 7, 2009)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 64213-64245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X09-101207]
[[Page 64213]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in 2003 pursuant
to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. DHS has a vital
mission: to secure the nation from the many threats we face. This
requires the dedication of more than 225,000 employees in jobs that
range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from
cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are
wide-ranging, but our goal is clear -- keeping America safe.
Our mission gives us five main areas of responsibility:
1. Guarding against Terrorism,
2. Securing our Borders,
3. Enforcing our Immigration Laws,
4. Improving our Readiness for, Response to and Recovery from
Disasters, and
5. Maturing and Unifying the Department.
In achieving these goals, we are continually strengthening our
partnerships with communities, first responders, law enforcement, and
government agencies -- at the State, local, tribal, Federal and
international levels. We are accelerating the deployment of science,
technology, and innovation in order to make America more secure. And we
are becoming leaner, smarter, and more efficient, ensuring that every
security resource is used as effectively as possible. For a further
discussion of our five main areas of responsibility, see the DHS
website at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/responsibilities.shtm.
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's Fall 2009
Regulatory Plan and in the Unified Agenda support the Department's five
responsibility areas listed above. These regulations will improve the
Department's ability to accomplish its mission.
The regulations we have identified in the this year's Fall Regulatory
Plan continue to address recent legislative initiatives including, but
not limited to, the following acts: the Implementing Recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act), Pub. L. 110-53 (Aug. 3,
2007); the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
(PKEMRA), Pub. L. 109-295 (Oct. 4, 2006); the Consolidated Natural
Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Pub. L. No. 110-220 (May 7, 2008); the
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act),
Pub. L. 109-347 (Oct. 13, 2006); and the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L.
110-329 (Sept. 30, 2008).
DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized and
unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Office of
the General Counsel manages the Department's regulatory program,
including the Unified Regulatory Agenda and Regulatory Plan. In
addition, DHS senior leadership reviews each significant regulatory
project to ensure that the project fosters and supports the
Department's mission.
DHS is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory initiatives are
aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil rights and civil
liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and partnerships,
develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to the American
public. DHS is also committed to the principles described in Executive
Order 12,866, as amended, such as promulgating regulations that are
cost-effective and maximizing the net benefits of regulations. The
Department values public involvement in the development of its
Regulatory Plan, Unified Agenda, and regulations, and takes particular
concern with the impact its rules have on small businesses. DHS and
each of its components continue to emphasize the use of plain language
in our notices and rulemaking documents to promote a better
understanding of regulations and increased public participation in the
Department's rulemakings.
The Fall 2009 Regulatory Plan for DHS includes regulations from the
Department's major offices and directorates such as the National
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). In addition, it includes
regulations from DHS components -- including U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) -- that have active
regulatory programs. Below is a discussion of the Fall 2009 Regulatory
Plan for DHS offices and directorates as well as DHS regulatory
components.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administers
immigration services and benefits through the rule of law while
ensuring that no one is admitted to the United States who is a threat
to public safety or national security. As a nation of immigrants, the
United States has a strong commitment to welcoming those individuals
who seek legal entry through our immigration system, and to also assist
those in need of humanitarian protection against harm. USCIS seeks to
welcome lawful immigrants while preventing exploitation of the
immigration system and to create and maintain a high-performing,
integrated, public service organization.
Based on a comprehensive review of the USCIS planned regulatory agenda,
USCIS will promulgate several rulemakings to directly support these
commitments and goals.
Regulations Related to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
During 2009, USCIS issued a series of regulations to implement the
transition of U.S. immigration law to the Commonwealth of Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI) as required under title VII of the Consolidated
Natural Resources Act of 2008. USCIS will be issuing the following CNMI
final rules during Fiscal Year 2010: ``CNMI Transitional Worker
Classification,'' E-2 Nonimmigrant Status for Aliens of the CNMI with
Long-Term Investor Status, and the joint USCIS/Department of Justice
regulation ``Application of Immigration Regulations to the CNMI.''
Improvements to the Immigration System
USCIS strives to provide efficient, courteous, accurate, and responsive
services to those who seek and qualify to come to our country, as well
as to provide seamless, transparent, and dedicated customer support
services. To improve our customer service goals, USCIS is pursuing a
regulatory initiative that will provide for visa number lottery
selection of H-1B petitions based on electronic registration.
Registration Requirements for Employment-Based Categories Subject to
Numerical Limitations. USCIS is considering proposing a revised
registration process for cap-subject H-1B petitioners. The rule would
propose to create a process by which USCIS would randomly select a
sufficient number of
[[Page 64214]]
timely filed registrations to meet the applicable cap. Only those
petitioners whose registrations are randomly selected would be eligible
to file an H-1B petition for a cap-subject prospective worker.
Enhancing customer service, the rule would eliminate the need for
petitioning employers to prepare and file complete H-1B petitions
before knowing whether a prospective worker has ``won'' the H-1B
lottery. The rule would also reduce the burden on USCIS of entering
data and subsequently returning non-selected petitions to employers
once the cap is reached.
Regulatory Changes Involving Humanitarian Benefits
USCIS offers protection to individuals who face persecution by
adjudicating applications for refugees and asylees. Other humanitarian
benefits are available to individuals who have been victims of severe
forms of trafficking or criminal activity.
Asylum and Withholding Definitions. USCIS plans a regulatory effort to
amend the regulations that govern asylum eligibility. The amendments
are expected to focus on portions of the regulations that deal with
determinations of whether persecution is inflicted on account of a
protected ground, the requirements for establishing the failure of
State protection, and the parameters for defining membership in a
particular social group. This effort should provide greater stability
and clarity in this important area of the law.
``T'' and ``U'' Nonimmigrants. USCIS plans additional regulatory
initiatives related to T nonimmigrants (victims of trafficking), U
nonimmigrants (victims of criminal activity), and Adjustment of Status
for T and U status holders. By promulgating additional regulations
related to these victims of specified crimes or severe forms of
trafficking in persons, USCIS hopes to provide greater stability for
these vulnerable groups, their advocates, and the community. These
rulemakings will contain provisions that seek to ease documentary
requirements for this vulnerable population and provisions that provide
clarification to the law enforcement community. As well, publication of
these rules will inform the community on how their petitions are
adjudicated.
United States Coast Guard
The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is a military, multi-mission,
maritime service of the United States and the only military
organization within DHS. It is the principal federal agency responsible
for maritime safety, security, and stewardship and delivers daily value
to the Nation through multi-mission resources, authorities, and
capabilities.
Effective governance in the maritime domain hinges upon an integrated
approach to safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast Guard's
policies and capabilities are integrated and interdependent, delivering
results through a network of enduring partnerships. The Coast Guard's
ability to field versatile capabilities and highly-trained personnel is
the U.S. Government's most significant and important strength in the
maritime environment.
America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and
economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety,
efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are
essential to our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised
to meet the demands of the new millennium. The Coast Guard creates
value for the public through solid prevention and response efforts.
Activities involving oversight and regulation, enforcement, maritime
presence, and public and private partnership foster increased maritime
safety, security, and stewardship.
The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard include ensuring
marine safety and security, preserving maritime mobility, protecting
the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and international treaties,
and performing search and rescue. The Coast Guard supports the
Department's overarching goals of mobilizing and organizing our Nation
to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and
other emergencies. In performing its duties, the Coast Guard fulfills
its three broad roles and responsibilities - maritime safety, maritime
security, and maritime stewardship.
The rulemaking projects identified for the Coast Guard in the Unified
Agenda, and the two rules appearing in the Fall 2009 Regulatory Plan
below, contribute to the fulfillment of those responsibilities and
reflect our regulatory policies. The Coast Guard has issued many rules
supporting maritime safety, security and environmental protection as
indicated by the wide range of topics covered in its rulemaking
projects in this Unified Agenda.
Inspection of Towing Vessels. In 2004, Congress amended U.S. law by
adding towing vessels to the types of commercial vessels that must be
inspected by the Coast Guard. Congress also provided guidance relevant
to the use of a safety management system as part of the inspection
regime. The intent of the proposed rule is to promote safer work
practices and reduce casualties on towing vessels by ensuring that
towing vessels adhere to prescribed safety standards and safety
management systems. The proposed rule was developed in cooperation with
the Towing Vessel Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). It would establish
a new subchapter dedicated to towing vessels and covering vessel
equipment, systems, operational standards, and inspection requirements.
To implement this change, the Coast Guard is developing regulations to
prescribe standards, procedures, tests, and inspections for towing
vessels. This rulemaking supports maritime safety and maritime
stewardship.
Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in
U.S. Waters. This rule would set performance standards for the quality
of ballast water discharged in U.S. waters and require that all vessels
that operate in U.S. waters, are bound for ports or places in the U.S.,
and are equipped with ballast tanks, install and operate a Coast Guard
approved Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) before discharging
ballast water into U.S. waters. This would include vessels bound for
offshore ports or places. As the effectiveness of ballast water
exchange varies from vessel to vessel, the Coast Guard believes that
setting performance standards would be the most effective way for
approving BWMS that are environmentally protective and scientifically
sound. Ultimately, the approval of BWMS would require procedures
similar to those located in title 46, subchapter Q, of the Code of
Federal Regulations, to ensure that the BWMS works not only in the
laboratory but under shipboard conditions. These would include: pre-
approval requirements, application requirements, land-based/shipboard
testing requirements, design and construction requirements, electrical
requirements, engineering requirements, and piping requirements. This
requirement is intended to meet the directive from the National
Invasive Species Act (NISA) requiring the Coast Guard to ensure to the
maximum extent practicable that nonindigenous species (NIS) are not
discharged into U.S. waters. This rulemaking supports maritime
stewardship. As well, this rulemaking provides additional benefits.
Ballast water discharged from ships is a
[[Page 64215]]
significant pathway for the introduction and spread of non-indigenous
aquatic nuisance species. These organisms, which may be plants,
animals, bacteria or pathogens, have the potential to displace native
species, degrade native habitats, spread disease and disrupt human
economic and social activities that depend on water resources.
The Coast Guard has supported the e-rulemaking initiative and, starting
on the day of the first Federal Register publication in a rulemaking
project, the public can submit comments electronically and view agency
documents and public comments on the Federal Register's Document
Management System, which is available online at http://
www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.htmlhome. The Coast Guard
endeavors to reduce the paperwork burden it places on the public and
strives to issue only necessary regulations that are tailored to impose
the least burden on society.
United States Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the federal agency
principally responsible for the security of our Nation's borders, both
at and between the ports of entry and at official crossings into the
United States. CBP must accomplish its border security and enforcement
mission without stifling the flow of legitimate trade and travel. The
primary mission of CBP is its homeland security mission, that is, to
prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United
States. An important aspect of this priority mission involves improving
security at our borders and ports of entry, but it also means extending
our zone of security beyond our physical borders.
CBP also is responsible for administering laws concerning the
importation into the United States of goods, and enforcing the laws
concerning the entry of persons into the United States. This includes
regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import
duties; enforcing U.S. trade, immigration and other laws of the United
States at our borders; inspecting imports, overseeing the activities of
persons and businesses engaged in importing; enforcing the laws
concerning smuggling and trafficking in contraband; apprehending
individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; protecting
our agriculture and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases;
servicing all people, vehicles and cargo entering the U.S.; maintaining
export controls; and protecting American businesses from theft of their
intellectual property.
In carrying out its priority mission, CBP's goal is to facilitate the
processing of legitimate trade and people efficiently without
compromising security. Consistent with its primary mission of homeland
security, CBP published several final and proposed rules during the
last fiscal year and intends to propose and finalize others during the
next fiscal year that are intended to improve security at our borders
and ports of entry. We have highlighted some of these rules below.
Electronic System for Travel Authorization. On June 9, 2008, CBP
published an interim final rule amending DHS regulations to implement
the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for aliens who
wish to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at
air or sea ports of entry. This rule is intended to fulfill the
requirements of section 711 of the Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). The rule establishes ESTA and
delineates the data fields DHS has determined will be collected by the
system. The rule requires that each alien traveling to the United
States under the VWP must obtain electronic travel authorization via
the ESTA System in advance of such travel. VWP travelers may obtain the
required ESTA authorization by electronically submitting to CBP
biographic and other information as currently required by the I-94W
Nonimmigrant Alien Arrival/Departure Form (I-94W). By Federal Register
notice dated November 13, 2008, the Secretary of Homeland Security
informed the public that ESTA would become mandatory beginning January
12, 2009. This means that all VWP travelers must either obtain travel
authorization in advance of travel under ESTA or obtain a visa prior to
traveling to the United States.
By shifting from a paper to an electronic form and requiring the data
in advance of travel, CBP will be able to determine before the alien
departs for the U.S., the eligibility of nationals from VWP countries
to travel to the United States and to determine whether such travel
poses a law enforcement or security risk. By modernizing the VWP, the
ESTA is intended to increase national security and provide for greater
efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by allowing
for vetting of subjects of potential interest well before boarding,
thereby reducing traveler delays based on lengthy processes at ports of
entry. CBP intends to issue a final rule during the next fiscal year.
Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements. The
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act),
calls for CBP to promulgate regulations to require the electronic
transmission of additional data elements for improved high-risk
targeting. See Pub. L. No. 109-347, Sec. 203 (Oct. 13, 2006). This
includes appropriate security elements of entry data for cargo destined
for the United States by vessel prior to loading of such cargo on
vessels at foreign seaports. Id. The SAFE Port Act requires that the
information collected reasonably improve CBP's ability to identify
high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and
security. Id.
On November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule ``Importer
Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements,'' amending CBP
Regulations to require carriers and importers to provide to CBP, via a
CBP approved electronic data interchange system, information necessary
to enable CBP to identify high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and
ensure cargo safety and security. This rule, which became effective on
January 26, 2009, improves CBP's risk assessment and targeting
capabilities, facilitates the prompt release of legitimate cargo
following its arrival in the United States, and assists CBP in
increasing the security of the global trading system. The comment
period for the interim final rule concluded on June 1, 2009. CBP is
analyzing comments and conducting a structured review of certain
flexibilities provided in the interim final rule. CBP intends to
publish a final rule during the next fiscal year.
Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. CBP published an
interim final rule in November 2008 amending the DHS Regulations to
replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a new Guam-CNMI Visa
Waiver program. This rule implements portions of the Natural Resources
Act of 2008 (CNRA), which extends the immigration laws of the United
States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and
among other things, provides for a visa waiver program for travel to
Guam and the CNMI. The amended regulations set forth the requirements
for nonimmigrant visitors who seek admission for business or pleasure
and solely for entry into and stay on Guam or the CNMI
[[Page 64216]]
without a visa. The rule also establishes six ports of entry in the
CNMI for purposes of administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa
Waiver program.
Global Entry Program. Pursuant to section 7208(k) of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as amended, in the fall of
2009, CBP issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), proposing to
establish an international trusted traveler program, called Global
Entry. This voluntary program would allow CBP to expedite clearance of
pre-approved, low-risk air travelers into the United States. CBP has
been operating the Global Entry program as a pilot at several airports
since June 6, 2008. Based on the successful operation of the pilot, CBP
now proposes to establish Global Entry as a permanent voluntary
regulatory program. CBP will evaluate the public comments received in
response to the NPRM, in order to develop a final rule.
The rules discussed above foster DHS's mission. Under section 403(1) of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the former-U.S. Customs Service,
including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto,
transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. As part of the
initial organization of DHS, the Customs Service inspection and trade
functions were combined with the immigration and agricultural
inspection functions and the Border Patrol and transferred into CBP. It
is noted that certain regulatory authority of the United States Customs
Service relating to customs revenue functions was retained by the
Department of the Treasury (see the Department of the Treasury
Regulatory Plan). In addition to its plans to continue issuing
regulations to enhance border security, CBP, during fiscal year 2010,
expects to continue to issue regulatory documents that will facilitate
legitimate trade and implement trade benefit programs. CBP regulations
regarding the customs revenue function are discussed in the Regulatory
Plan of the Department of the Treasury.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to
ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve
our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover
from, and mitigate all hazards. In fiscal year 2010, FEMA will continue
to serve that mission and promote the Department of Homeland Security's
goals. In furtherance of the Department and agency's goals, in the
upcoming fiscal year, FEMA will be working on regulations to implement
provisions of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
(PKEMRA) (Public Law 109-295, Oct. 4, 2006), the U.S. Troop Readiness,
Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28, May 25, 2007), and to
implement lessons learned from past events.
Disaster Assistance; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households.
FEMA intends to update the current interim rule titled ``Disaster
Assistance; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households.'' This
rulemaking would implement section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) (42
U.S.C. 5121-5207). It would also make further revisions to 44 CFR part
206, subparts D (the Individuals and Households Program (IHP)) and
remove subpart E (Individual and Family Grant Programs). Among other
things, it would implement section 686 of PKEMRA to remove the IHP
subcaps; implement section 685 regarding semi-permanent and permanent
housing construction eligibility; revise FEMA's regulations related to
individuals with disabilities pursuant to PKEMRA section 689; and
revise FEMA's regulations to allow for the payment of security deposits
and the costs of utilities, excluding telephone service, in accordance
with section 689d of PKEMRA. This regulation also would propose to
implement section 689f of PKEMRA by authorizing assistance to relocate
individuals displaced from their predisaster primary residence, to and
from alternate locations for short-or long-term accommodations.
Public Assistance Program regulations. FEMA will also work to revise
the Public Assistance Program regulations in 44 CFR part 206 to reflect
changes made to the Stafford Act by PKEMRA, the Pets Evacuation and
Transportation Standards Act of 2006 (PETS Act) (Public Law 109-308,
Oct., 2006), the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-
218, Apr. 20, 2006), and the Security and Accountability for Every Port
Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) (Public Law 109-347, Oct. 13, 2006), and to
make other substantive and nonsubstantive clarifications and
corrections to the Public Assistance regulations. The proposed changes
would expand eligibility to include performing arts facilities and
community arts centers pursuant to section 688 of PKEMRA; include
education in the list of critical services pursuant to section 689h of
PKEMRA, thus allowing private nonprofit educational facilities to be
eligible for restoration funding; add accelerated Federal assistance to
available assistance and precautionary evacuations to activities
eligible for reimbursement pursuant to section 681 of PKEMRA; include
household pets and service animals in essential assistance pursuant to
section 689 of PKEMRA and section 4 of the PETS Act; provide for
expedited payments of grant assistance for the removal of debris
pursuant to section 610 of the SAFE Port Act; and allow for a contract
to be set aside for award based on a specific geographic area pursuant
to section 2 of the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006. Other changes
would include adding or changing requirements to improve and streamline
the Public Assistance grant application process.
Special Community Disaster Loans. In addition, FEMA intends to address
public comments and publish a final rule that would implement loan
cancellation provisions for Special Community Disaster Loans (SCDLs).
FEMA provided SCDLs to local governments in the Gulf region following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This rule would not result in the
automatic cancellation of all SCDLs. It would finalize the procedures
and requirements for governments who received SCDLs to apply for
cancellation of loan obligations as authorized by section 4502 of the
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. The final rule would establish
the procedures by which loan holders would provide FEMA with
information that would then be used to determine when cancelation of a
SCDL, in whole or in part, is warranted. The final rule would not apply
to any loans made under FEMA's traditional Community Disaster Loans
Program which is governed under separate regulations.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have any
significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2010.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
The mission of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is to
protect national security by enforcing our nation's customs and
immigration laws. During fiscal year 2010, ICE will
[[Page 64217]]
pursue rulemaking actions that improve three critical subject areas:
the processes for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP); the
detention of aliens who are subject to final orders of removal; and the
electronic signature and storage of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility
Verification.
Processes for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. ICE will
improve SEVP processes by publishing the Optional Practical Training
(OPT) final rule, which will respond to comments on the OPT interim
final rule (IFR). The IFR increased the maximum period of OPT from 12
months to 29 months for nonimmigrant students who have completed a
science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree and who
accept employment with employers who participate in the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services E-Verify employment verification
program.
In addition, ICE will publish proposed revisions of 8 CFR 214.1-4 in a
regulation that will clarify the criteria for F, M and J nonimmigrant
status and for schools certified by SEVP, update policy and procedure
for SEVP, remove obsolete provisions, and support the implementation of
a major reprogramming of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information
System (SEVIS), known as ``SEVIS II.''
Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal. ICE will also
improve the post order custody review process in the final rule related
to the Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal
in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533
U.S. 678 (2001), Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005). ICE will also
make conforming changes as required by the Homeland Security Act of
2002.
Electronic Signature and Storage of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility
Verification. A final rule on the Electronic Signature and Storage of
Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification will respond to comments
and make minor changes to the IFR that was published in 2006.
National Protection and Programs Directorate
The goal of the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) is
to advance the Department's risk-reduction mission. Reducing risk
requires an integrated approach that encompasses both physical and
virtual threats and their associated human elements.
Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program
The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act, section 563 of the Fiscal
Year 2008 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-
161, amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide DHS with the
authority to ``regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an
ammonium nitrate facility . . . to prevent the misappropriation or use
of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.''
The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act directs DHS to promulgate
regulations requiring potential buyers and sellers of ammonium nitrate
to register with DHS. As part of the registration process, the statute
directs DHS to screen registration applicants against the Federal
Government's Terrorist Screening Database. The statute also requires
sellers of ammonium nitrate to verify the identities of those seeking
to purchase it; to record certain information about each sale or
transfer of ammonium nitrate; and to report thefts and losses of
ammonium nitrate to DHS.
The rule would aid the Federal Government in its efforts to prevent the
misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use in acts of terrorism. By
preventing such misappropriation, this rule will limit terrorists'
abilities to threaten the public and to threaten the Nation's critical
infrastructure and key resources. By securing the nation's supply of
ammonium nitrate, it will be more difficult for terrorists to obtain
ammonium nitrate materials for use in terrorist acts.
DHS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for the
Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program on October 29, 2008, and
has received a number of public comments on that ANPRM. DHS is
presently reviewing those comments and is in the process of developing
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which the Department hopes to
issue in Spring 2010.
US-VISIT
The U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT)
is an integrated, automated entry-exit system that records the arrival
and departure of aliens, verifies aliens' identities, and verifies
aliens' travel documents by comparison of biometric identifiers. The
goals of US-VISIT are to enhance the security of U.S. citizens and
visitors to the United States, facilitate legitimate travel and trade,
ensure the integrity of the U.S. immigration system, and protect the
privacy of visitors to the United States.
The US-VISIT program, through CBP officers or Department of State (DOS)
consular offices, collects biometrics (digital fingerprints and
photographs) from aliens seeking to enter the United States. DHS checks
that information against government databases to identify suspected
terrorists, known criminals, or individuals who have previously
violated U.S. immigration laws. This system assists DHS and DOS in
determining whether an alien seeking to enter the United States is, in
fact, admissible to the United States under existing law. No biometric
exit system currently exists, however, to assist DHS or DOS in
determining whether an alien has overstayed the terms of his or her
visa or other authorization to be present in the United States.
NPPD published an NPRM on April 24, 2008, proposing to establish an
exit program at all air and sea ports of departure in the United
States. Congress subsequently enacted the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, Public
Law 110-329, 122 Stat. 3574, 3669 - 70 (Sept. 30, 2008), requiring DHS
to delay issuance of a final rule until the conclusion of pilot tests
to analyze the collection of biometrics from at least two air exit
scenarios. DHS currently is reviewing the results of those tests. DHS
continues to work to ensure that the final air/sea exit rule will be
issued during fiscal year 2010.
Transportation Security Administration
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the Nation's
transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and
commerce. TSA is committed to continuously setting the standard for
excellence in transportation security through its people, processes,
and technology as we work to meet the immediate and long-term needs of
the transportation sector.
In fiscal year 2010, TSA will promote the DHS mission by emphasizing
regulatory efforts that allow TSA to better identify, detect, and
protect against threats against various modes of the transportation
system, while facilitating the efficient movement of the traveling
public, transportation workers, and cargo.
Screening of Air Cargo. TSA will finalize an interim final rule that
codifies a statutory requirement of Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act)
[[Page 64218]]
that TSA establish a system to screen 100 percent of cargo transported
on passenger aircraft by August 3, 2010. TSA is working to finalize the
interim rule by November 2010. To assist in carrying out this mandate,
TSA is establishing a voluntary program under which it will certify
cargo screening facilities to screen cargo according to TSA standards
prior to its being tendered to aircraft operators for carriage on
passenger aircraft.
Large Aircraft Security Program (General Aviation). TSA plans to issue
a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to propose
amendments to current aviation transportation security regulations to
enhance the security of general aviation by expanding the scope of
current requirements and by adding new requirements for certain General
Aviation (GA) aircraft operators. To date, the government's focus with
regard to aviation security generally has been on air carriers and
commercial operators. As vulnerabilities and risks associated with air
carriers and commercial operators have been reduced or mitigated,
terrorists may perceive that GA aircraft are more vulnerable and may
view them as attractive targets. This rule would yield benefits in the
areas of security and quality governance by expanding the mandatory use
of security measures to certain operators of large aircraft that are
not currently required to have a security plan. TSA published a notice
of proposed rulemaking on October 30, 2008, and received over 7,000
public comments, generally urging significant changes to the proposal.
The SNPRM will respond to the comments and contain proposals on
addressing security in the GA sector.
Security Training for Non-Aviation Modes. TSA will propose regulations
to enhance the security of several non-aviation modes of
transportation, in accordance with the requirements of the 9/11 Act. In
particular, TSA will propose regulations requiring freight railroads,
passenger railroads, public transportation system operators, over-the-
road bus operators, and motor carriers transporting certain hazardous
materials to conduct security training for certain of their employees.
Requiring security training programs of these employees is important,
because it will prepare these employees, including frontline employees,
for potential security threats and conditions.
Aircraft Repair Station Security. TSA will propose regulations to
require repair stations that are certificated by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) under 14 CFR part 145 to adopt and implement
standard security programs and to comply with security directives
issued by TSA. The rule will also propose to codify the scope of TSA's
existing inspection program and to require regulated parties to allow
DHS officials to enter, inspect, and test property, facilities, and
records relevant to repair stations. This rulemaking action implements
section 1616 of the 9/11 Act.
Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Process and Fees. TSA is developing
a proposed rule to revise and standardize the procedures, adjudication
criteria, and fees for most of the security threat assessments (STA) of
individuals for which TSA is responsible. The scope of the rulemaking
will include transportation workers from all modes of transportation
who are required to undergo an STA in other regulatory programs. In
addition, TSA will propose fees to cover the cost of the STAs, and
credentials for some personnel. TSA plans to improve efficiencies in
processing STAs and streamline existing regulations by simplifying
language and removing redundancies. Standardized procedures and
adjudication criteria will allow TSA to reduce the need for certain
individuals to undergo multiple STAs; streamlined processes are
intended to reduce the time needed for TSA to complete the adjudication
of STAs.
United States Secret Service
The United States Secret Service does not have any significant
regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2010.
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2010
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise
DHS's Fall 2009 Regulatory Plan follows.
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--Office of the Secretary (OS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
56. SECURE HANDLING OF AMMONIUM NITRATE PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
Sec 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Subtitle J--Secure
Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, PL 110-161
CFR Citation:
6 CFR 31
Legal Deadline:
NPRM, Statutory, May 26, 2008, Publication of Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
Abstract:
This rulemaking will implement the December 2007 amendment to the
Homeland Security Act entitled the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate.
The amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to
``regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an ammonium
nitrate facility . . .to prevent the misappropriation or use of
ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.''
Statement of Need:
Pursuant to section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act, P.L. 110-161, the
Department of Homeland Security is required to promulgate a rulemaking
to create a registration regime for certain buyers and sellers of
ammonium nitrate. The rule, as proposed by this NPRM, would create that
regime, and will aid the Federal Government in its efforts to prevent
the misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use in acts of terrorism.
By preventing such misappropriation, this rule will limit terrorists'
abilities to threaten the public and to threaten the Nation's critical
infrastructure and key resources. By securing the nation's supply of
ammonium nitrate, it will be much more difficult for terrorists to
obtain ammonium nitrate materials for use in improvised explosive
devices (IEDs). As a result, there is a direct value in the deterrence
of a catastrophic terrorist attack using ammonium nitrate such as the
Oklahoma City attack that killed over 160, injured 853 people, and is
estimated to have caused $652 million in damages ($921 million in
$2009).
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Subtitle J --
Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, PL 110-161, authorizes and
requires this rulemaking.
Alternatives:
The Department of Homeland Security is required by statute to publish
regulations implementing the Secure
[[Page 64219]]
Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act. As part of its notice of proposed
rulemaking, the Department will seek public comment on the numerous
alternative ways in which the final Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate
Program could carry out the requirements of the Secure Handling of
Ammonium Nitrate Act.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
There will be costs to ammonium nitrate (AN) purchasers, including
farms, fertilizer mixers, farm supply wholesalers and coops, golf
courses, landscaping services, explosives distributors, mines, retail
garden centers, and lab supply wholesalers. There will also be costs to
AN sellers, such as ammonium nitrate fertilizer and explosive
manufacturers, fertilizer mixers, farm supply wholesalers and coops,
retail garden center, explosives distributors, fertilizer applicator
services, and lab supply wholesalers. Costs will relate to the point of
sale requirements, registration activities, recordkeeping, inspections/
audits, and reporting of theft or loss. DHS plans to provide an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis, which covers the populations and cost
impacts on small business.
Because the value of the benefits of reducing risk of a terrorist
attack is a function of both the probability of an attack and the value
of the consequence, it is difficult to identify the particular risk
reduction associated with the implementation of this rule. When the
proposed rule is published, DHS will provide a break even analysis. The
program elements that would help achieve the risk reductions will be
discussed in the break even analysis. These elements and related
qualitative benefits include point of sale identification requirements
and requiring individuals to be screened against the TSDB resulting in
known bad actors being denied the ability to purchase ammonium nitrate.
Risks:
Explosives containing ammonium nitrate are commonly used in terrorist
attacks. Such attacks have been carried out both domestically and
internationally. The 1995 Murrah Federal Building attack in Oklahoma
City claimed the lives of 167 individuals and demonstrated firsthand to
America how ammonium nitrate could be misused by terrorists. In
addition to the Murrah Building attack, the Provisional Irish
Republican Army used ammonium nitrate as part of its London, England
bombing campaign in the early 1980s. More recently, ammonium nitrate
was used in the 1998 East African Embassy bombings and in November 2003
bombings in Istanbul, Turkey. Additionally, since the events of 9/11,
stores of ammonium nitrate have been confiscated during raids on
terrorist sites around the world, including sites in Canada, England,
India, and the Philippines.
The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks
within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of the United
States to terrorism. By preventing the misappropriation or use of
ammonium nitrate in acts of terrorism, this rulemaking will support the
Department's efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce the
Nation's vulnerability to terrorist attacks. This rulemaking is
complementary to other Department programs seeking to reduce the risks
posed by terrorism, including the Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism
Standards program (which seeks in part to prevent terrorists from
gaining access to dangerous chemicals) and the Transportation Worker
Identification Credential program (which seeks in part to prevent
terrorists from gaining access to certain critical infrastructure),
among other programs.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 10/29/08 73 FR 64280
Correction 11/05/08 73 FR 65783
ANPRM Comment Period End 12/29/08
NPRM 04/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Dennis Deziel
Infrastructure Security Compliance Division
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Phone: 703 235-5263
Email: dennis.deziel@dhs.gov
RIN: 1601-AA52
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--OS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
57. COLLECTION OF ALIEN BIOMETRIC DATA UPON EXIT FROM THE UNITED STATES
AT AIR AND SEA PORTS OF DEPARTURE; UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT
STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM (US-VISIT)
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1101 to 1104; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184 to 1185 (pursuant to EO
13323); 8 USC 1221; 8 USC 1365a, 1365b; 8 USC 1379; 8 USC 1731 to 1732
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 215.1; 8 CFR 231.4
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
DHS established the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT) in accordance with a series of
legislative mandates requiring that DHS create an integrated automated
entry-exit system that records the arrival and departure of aliens;
verifies aliens' identities; and authenticates travel documents. This
rule requires aliens to provide biometric identifiers at entry and upon
departure at any air and sea port of entry at which facilities exist to
collect such information.
Statement of Need:
This rule establishes an exit system at all air and sea ports of
departure in the United States. This rule requires aliens subject to
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program
biometric requirements upon entering the United States to also provide
biometric identifiers prior to departing the United States from air or
sea ports of departure.
Alternatives:
The proposed rule would require aliens who are subject to US-VISIT
biometric requirements upon entering the United
[[Page 64220]]
States to provide biometric information before departing from the
United States at air and sea ports of entry. The rule proposed a
performance standard for commercial air and vessel carriers to collect
the biometric information and to submit this information to DHS no
later than 24 hours after air carrier staff secure the aircraft doors
on an international departure, or for sea travel, no later than 24
hours after the vessel's departure from a U.S. port. DHS is considering
numerous alternatives based upon public comment on the alternatives in
the NPRM. Alternatives included various points in the process, kiosks,
and varying levels of responsibility for the carriers and government.
DHS may select another variation between the outer bounds of the
alternatives presented or another alternative if subsequent analysis
warrants.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The proposed rule expenditure and delay costs for a ten-year period are
estimated at $3.5 billion. Alternative costs range from $3.1 billion to
$6.4 billion. US-VISIT assessed seven categories of economic impacts
other than direct expenditures. Of these two are economic costs: social
costs resulting from increased traveler queue and processing time; and
social costs resulting from increased flight delays. Ten-year benefits
are estimated at $1.1 billion. US-VISIT assessed seven categories of
economic impacts other than direct expenditures. Of these five are
benefits, which include costs that could be avoided, for each
alternative: cost avoidance resulting from improved detection of aliens
overstaying visas; cost avoidance resulting from improved U.S.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efficiency attempting
apprehension of overstays; cost avoidance resulting from improved
efficiency processing Exit/Entry data; improved compliance with NSEERS
requirements due to the improvement in ease of compliance; and improved
National Security Environment. These benefits are measured
quantitatively or qualitatively.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/24/08 73 FR 22065
NPRM Comment Period End 06/23/08
Final Rule 07/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Helen DeThomas
Management and Program Analyst
Department of Homeland Security
1616 N. Fort Myer Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 202 298-5173
Email: helen.dethomas@dhs.gov
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1650-AA04
RIN: 1601-AA34
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
58. ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING DEFINITIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1158; 8 USC 1226; 8 USC 1252; 8 USC 1282; 8 CFR 2
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 208
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule proposes to amend Department of Homeland Security regulations
that govern asylum eligibility. The amendments focus on portions of the
regulations that deal with the definitions of membership in a
particular social group, the requirements for failure of State
protection, and determinations about whether persecution is inflicted
on account of a protected ground. This rule codifies long-standing
concepts of the definitions. It clarifies that gender can be a basis
for membership in a particular social group. It also clarifies that a
person who has suffered or fears domestic violence may under certain
circumstances be eligible for asylum on that basis. After the Board of
Immigration Appeals published a decision on this issue in 1999, Matter
of R-A-, Int. Dec. 3403 (BIA 1999), it became clear that the governing
regulatory standards required clarification. The Department of Justice
began this regulatory initiative by publishing a proposed rule
addressing these issues in 2000.
Statement of Need:
This rule provides guidance on a number of key interpretive issues of
the refugee definition used by adjudicators deciding asylum and
withholding of removal (withholding) claims. The interpretive issues
include whether persecution is inflicted on account of a protected
ground, the requirements for establishing the failure of State
protection, and the parameters for defining membership in a particular
social group. This rule will aid in the adjudication of claims made by
applicants whose claims fall outside of the rubric of the protected
grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. One
example of such claims which often fall within the particular social
group ground concerns people who have suffered or fear domestic
violence. This rule is expected to consolidate issues raised in a
proposed rule in 2000 and to address issues that have developed since
the publication of the proposed rule. This should provide greater
stability and clarity in this important area of the law.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The purpose of this rule is to provide guidance on certain issues that
have arisen in the context of asylum and withholding adjudications. The
1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951
Convention) contains the internationally accepted definition of a
refugee. United States immigration law incorporates an almost identical
definition of a refugee as a person outside his or her country of
origin ``who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or
unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that
country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.'' Section 101(a)(42) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
Alternatives:
A sizable body of interpretive case law has developed around the
meaning of the refugee definition. Historically, much of this case law
has addressed
[[Page 64221]]
more traditional asylum and withholding claims based on the protected
grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. In recent
years, however, the United States increasingly has encountered asylum
and withholding applications with more varied bases, related, for
example, to an applicant's gender or sexual orientation. Many of these
new types of claims are based on the ground of ``membership in a
particular social group,'' which is the least well-defined of the five
protected grounds within the refugee definition.
On December 7, 2000, a proposed rule was published in the Federal
Register providing guidance on the definitions of ``persecution'' and
``membership in a particular social group.'' Prior to publishing a
final rule, the Department will be considering how the nexus between
persecution and a protected ground might be further conceptualized; how
membership in a particular social group might be defined and evaluated;
and what constitutes a State's inability or unwillingness to protect
the applicant where the persecution arises from a non-State actor. This
rule will provide guidance to the following adjudicators: USCIS asylum
officers, Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review
(EOIR) immigration judges, and members of the EOIR Board of Immigration
Appeals. The alternative to publishing this rule would be to allow the
standards governing this area of law to continue to develop piecemeal
through administrative and judicial precedent. This approach has
resulted in inconsistent and confusing standards and the Department has
therefore determined that promulgation of the final rule is necessary.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
By providing a clear framework for key asylum and withholding issues,
we anticipate that adjudicators will have clear guidance, increasing
administrative efficiency and consistency in adjudicating these cases.
The rule will also promote a more consistent and predictable body of
administrative and judicial precedent governing these types of cases.
We anticipate that this will enable applicants to better assess their
potential eligibility for asylum and to present their claims more
efficiently when they believe that they may qualify, thus reducing the
resources spent on adjudicating claims that do not qualify. In
addition, a more consistent and predictable body of law on these issues
will likely result in fewer appeals, both administrative and judicial,
and reduce the associated litigation costs. The Department has no way
of accurately predicting how this rule will impact the number of asylum
applications filed in the US. Based on anecdotal evidence and on the
reported experience of other nations that have adopted standards under
which the results are similar to those we anticipate from this rule, we
do not believe this rule will cause a large change in the number of
asylum applications filed.
Risks:
The failure to promulgate a final rule in this area presents
significant risks of further inconsistency and confusion in the law.
The government's interests in fair, efficient and consistent
adjudications would be compromised.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/07/00 65 FR 76588
NPRM 09/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End 11/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
CIS No. 2092-00
Transferred from RIN 1115-AF92
Agency Contact:
Jedidah Hussey
Deputy Chief, Asylum Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Suite 3300
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1663
Email: jedidah.m.hussey@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AA41
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
59. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED CATEGORIES SUBJECT
TO NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1184(g)
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 299
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Department of Homeland Security is proposing to amend its
regulations governing petitions filed on behalf of alien workers
subject to annual numerical limitations. This rule proposes an
electronic registration program for petitions subject to numerical
limitations contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act).
Initially, the program would be for the H-1B nonimmigrant
classification; however, other nonimmigrant classifications will be
added as needed. This action is necessary because the demand for H-1B
specialty occupation workers by U.S. companies generally exceeds the
numerical limitation. This rule is intended to allow USCIS to more
efficiently manage the intake and lottery process for these H-1B
petitions.
Statement of Need:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) proposes to establish
a mandatory Internet-based electronic registration process for U.S.
employers seeking to file H-1B petitions for alien workers subject to
either the 65,000 or 20,000 caps. This registration process would allow
U.S. employers to electronically register for consideration of
available H-1B cap numbers. The mandatory proposed registration process
will alleviate administrative burdens on USCIS service centers and
eliminate the need for U.S. employers to needlessly prepare and file H-
1B petitions without any certainty that an H-1B cap number will
ultimately be allocated to the beneficiary named on that petition.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides limits
on the number of alien temporary workers who may be granted H-1B
nonimmigrant status each fiscal year (commonly known as the ``cap'').
USCIS has responsibility for monitoring the requests for H-1B workers
and administers the distribution of available H-1B cap numbers in light
of these limits.
[[Page 64222]]
Alternatives:
To ensure a fair and orderly distribution of H-1B cap numbers, USCIS
evaluated its current random selection process, and has found that when
it receives a significant number of H-1B petitions within the first few
days of the H-1B filing period, it is extremely difficult to handle the
volume of petitions received in advance of the H-1B random selection
process. Further, the current petition process of preparing and mailing
H-1B petitions, with the required filing fee, can be burdensome and
costly for employers, if the petition is returned because the cap was
reached and the petition was not selected in the random selection
process.
Accordingly, this rule proposes to implement a new process to allow
U.S. employers to electronically register for consideration of
available H-1B cap numbers without having to first prepare and submit
the petition.
Risks:
There is a risk that a petitioner will submit multiple petitions for
the same H-1B beneficiary so that the U.S. employer will have a better
chance of his or her petition being selected. Accordingly, should USCIS
receive multiple petitions for the same H-1B beneficiary by the same
petitioner, the system will only accept the first petition and reject
the duplicate petitions.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End 05/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
2443-08
Agency Contact:
Greg Richardson
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8465
Email: gregory.richardson@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AB71
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
60. NEW CLASSIFICATION FOR VICTIMS OF SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR THE T NONIMMIGRANT STATUS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101 to 1104; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8
USC 1187; 8 USC 1201; 8 USC 1224 to 1227; 8 USC 1252 to 1252a; 22 USC
7101; 22 USC 7105; . . .
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a; 8 CFR 299
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
T classification was created by 107(e) of the Victims of Trafficking
and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Public Law 106-386. The T
nonimmigrant classification was designed for eligible victims of severe
forms of trafficking in persons who aid the Government with their case
against the traffickers and who can establish that they would suffer
extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm if they were removed
from the United States after having completed their assistance to law
enforcement. The rule establishes application procedures and
responsibilities for the Department of Homeland Security and provides
guidance to the public on how to meet certain requirements to obtain T
nonimmigrant status. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457, made amendments to the T nonimmigrant
status provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The
Department will issue another interim final rule to make the changes
required by recent legislation and to provide the opportunity for
notice and comment.
Statement of Need:
T nonimmigrant status is available to eligible victims of severe forms
of trafficking in persons who have complied with any reasonable request
for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of
trafficking in persons, and who can demonstrate that they would suffer
extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm if removed from the
United States. This rule addresses the essential elements that must be
demonstrated for classification as a T nonimmigrant alien; the
procedures to be followed by applicants to apply for T nonimmigrant
status; and evidentiary guidance to assist in the application process.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 107(e) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), Public
Law 106-386, established the T classification to create a safe haven
for certain eligible victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons,
who assist law enforcement authorities in investigating and prosecuting
the perpetrators of these crimes.
Alternatives:
To develop a comprehensive Federal approach to identifying victims of
severe forms of trafficking in persons, to provide them with benefits
and services, and to enhance the Department of Justice's ability to
prosecute traffickers and prevent trafficking in persons in the first
place, a series of meetings with stakeholders were conducted with
representatives from key Federal agencies; national, state, and local
law enforcement associations; non-profit, community-based victim rights
organizations; and other groups. Suggestions from these stakeholders
were used in the drafting of this regulation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
There is no cost associated with this regulation. Applicants for T
nonimmigrant status do not pay application or biometric fees.
The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Assistance to
trafficked victims and their families, prosecution of traffickers in
persons, and the elimination of abuses caused by trafficking
activities.
Benefits which may be attributed to the implementation of this rule are
expected to be:
[[Page 64223]]
1. An increase in the number of cases brought forward for investigation
and/or prosecution;
2. Heightened awareness by the law enforcement community of trafficking
in persons;
3. Enhanced ability to develop and work cases in trafficking in persons
cross-organizationally and multi-jurisdictionally, which may begin to
influence changes in trafficking patterns.
Risks:
There is a 5,000-person limit to the number of individuals who can be
granted T-1 status per fiscal year. Eligible applicants who are not
granted T-1 status due solely to the numerical limit will be placed on
a waiting list to be maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS).
To protect T-1 applicants and their families, USCIS will use various
means to prevent the removal of T-1 applicants on the waiting list, and
their family members who are eligible for derivative T status,
including its existing authority to grant deferred action, parole, and
stays of removal.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 01/31/02 67 FR 4784
Interim Final Rule
Effective 03/04/02
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 04/01/02
Interim Final Rule 09/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Additional Information:
CIS No. 2132-01; AG Order No. 2554-2002
There is a related rulemaking, CIS No. 2170-01, the new U nonimmigrant
status (RIN 1615-AA67).
Transferred from RIN 1115-AG19
Agency Contact:
Laura M. Dawkins
Chief, Family Immigration and Victim Protection Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Suite 2304
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8398
Email: laura.dawkins@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AA59
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
61. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT FOR ALIENS IN T
AND U NONIMMIGRANT STATUS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101 to 1104; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8
USC 1187; 8 USC 1201; 8 USC 1224 to 1227; 8 USC 1252 to 1252a; 8 USC
1255; 22 USC 7101; 22 USC 7105
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 245
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule sets forth measures by which certain victims of severe forms
of trafficking who have been granted T nonimmigrant status and victims
of certain criminal activity who have been granted U nonimmigrant
status may apply for adjustment to permanent resident status in
accordance with Public Law 106-386, Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000, and Public Law 109-162, Violence Against Women
and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. The Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457,
made amendments to the T nonimmigrant status provisions of the
Immigration and Naturalization Act. The Department will issue another
interim final rule to make the changes required by recent legislation
and to provide the opportunity for notice and comment.
Statement of Need:
This regulation is necessary to permit aliens in lawful T or U
nonimmigrant status to apply for adjustment of status to that of lawful
permanent residents. T nonimmigrant status is available to aliens who
are victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons and who are
assisting law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of the
acts of trafficking. U nonimmigrant status is available to aliens who
are victims of certain crimes and are being helpful to the
investigation or prosecution of those crimes.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This rule implements the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection
Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Public Law 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464 (Oct. 28,
2000), as amended, to permit aliens in lawful T or U nonimmigrant
status to apply for adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent
residents.
Alternatives:
USCIS did not consider alternatives to managing T and U applications
for adjustment of status. Ease of administration dictates that
adjustment of status applications from T and U nonimmigrants would be
best handled on a first in, first out basis, because that is the way
applications for T and U status are currently handled.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
USCIS uses fees to fund the cost of processing applications and
associated support benefits. The fees to be collected resulting from
this rule will be approximately $3 million dollars in the first year,
$1.9 million dollars in the second year, and an average about $32
million dollars in the third and subsequent years. To estimate the new
fee collections to be generated by this rule, USCIS estimated the fees
to be collected for new applications for adjustment of status from T
and U nonimmigrants and their eligible family members. After that,
USCIS estimated fees from associated applications that are required
such as biometrics, and others that are likely to occur in direct
connection with applications for adjustment, such as employment
authorization or travel authorization.
The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Continued
assistance to trafficked victims and their families, increased
investigation and prosecution of traffickers in persons, and the
elimination of abuses caused by trafficking activities.
Benefits that may be attributed to the implementation of this rule are
expected to be:
1. An increase in the number of cases brought forward for investigation
and/or prosecution;
[[Page 64224]]
2. Heightened awareness of trafficking-in-persons issues by the law
enforcement community; and
3. Enhanced ability to develop and work cases in trafficking in persons
cross-organizationally and multi-jurisdictionally, which may begin to
influence changes in trafficking patterns.
Risks:
Congress created the U nonimmigrant status (``U visa'') to provide
immigration protection to crime victims who assist in the investigation
and prosecution of those crimes. Although there are no specific data on
alien crime victims, statistics maintained by the Department of Justice
have shown that aliens, especially those aliens without legal status,
are often reluctant to help in the investigation or prosecution of
crimes. U visas are intended to help overcome this reluctance and aid
law enforcement accordingly.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 12/12/08 73 FR 75540
Interim Final Rule
Effective 01/12/09
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 02/10/09
Interim Final Rule 09/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
CIS No. 2134-01
Transferred from RIN 1115-AG21
Agency Contact:
Laura M. Dawkins
Chief, Family Immigration and Victim Protection Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Suite 2304
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8398
Email: laura.dawkins@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AA60
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
62. NEW CLASSIFICATION FOR VICTIMS OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY;
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE U NONIMMIGRANT STATUS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1101 note; 8 USC 1102; . . .
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 299
Legal Deadline:
Other, Statutory, January 5, 2006, Regulations need to be promulgated
by July 5, 2006.
Public Law 109-162, Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005.
Abstract:
This rule sets forth application requirements for a new nonimmigrant
status. The U classification is for non-U.S. Citizen/Lawful Permanent
Resident victims of certain crimes who cooperate with an investigation
or prosecution of those crimes. There is a limit of 10,000 principals
per year.
This rule establishes the procedures to be followed in order to
petition for the U nonimmigrant classifications. Specifically, the rule
addresses the essential elements that must be demonstrated to receive
the nonimmigrant classification; procedures that must be followed to
make an application and evidentiary guidance to assist in the
petitioning process. Eligible victims will be allowed to remain in the
United States.The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of
2008, Public Law 110-457, made amendments to the T nonimmigrant status
provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The Department
will issue another interim final rule to make the changes required by
recent legislation and to provide the opportunity for notice and
comment.
Statement of Need:
This rule provides requirements and procedures for aliens seeking U
nonimmigrant status. U nonimmigrant classification is available to
alien victims of certain criminal activity who assist government
officials in the investigation or prosecution of that criminal
activity. The purpose of the U nonimmigrant classification is to
strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and
prosecute such crimes as domestic violence, sexual assault, and
trafficking in persons, while offering protection to alien crime
victims in keeping with the humanitarian interests of the United States
Summary of Legal Basis:
Congress created the U nonimmigrant classification in the Battered
Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000 (BIWPA). Congress intended to
strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and
prosecute cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking of
aliens, and other crimes, while offering protection to victims of such
crimes. Congress also sought to encourage law enforcement officials to
better serve immigrant crime victims.
Alternatives:
USCIS has identified four alternatives, the first being chosen for the
rule:
1. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis.
Petitions received after the limit has been reached would be reviewed
to determine whether or not they are approvable but for the numerical
cap. Approvable petitions that are reviewed after the numerical cap has
been reached would be placed on a waiting list and written notice sent
to the petitioner. Priority on the waiting list would be based upon the
date on which the petition is filed. USCIS would provide petitioners on
the waiting list with interim relief until the start of the next fiscal
year in the form of deferred action, parole, or a stays of removal.
2. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis,
establishing a waiting list for petitions that are pending or received
after the numerical cap has been reached. Priority on the waiting list
would be based upon the date on which the petition was filed. USCIS
would not provide interim relief to petitioners whose petitions are
placed on the waiting list.
3. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis.
However, new filings would be reviewed to identify particularly
compelling cases for adjudication. New filings would be rejected once
the numerical cap is reached. No official waiting list would be
established; however, interim relief until the start of the next fiscal
year would be provided for some compelling cases. If a case was not
particularly
[[Page 64225]]
compelling, the filing would be denied or rejected.
4. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis.
However, new filings would be rejected once the numerical cap is
reached. No waiting list would be established, nor would interim relief
be granted.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
USCIS estimates the total annual cost of this interim rule to be $6.2
million. This cost includes the biometric services fee that petitioners
must pay to USCIS, the opportunity cost of time needed to submit the
required forms, the opportunity cost of time required for a visit to an
Application Support Center, and the cost of traveling to an Application
Support Center.
This rule will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to
investigate and prosecute such crimes as domestic violence, sexual
assault, and trafficking in persons, while offering protection to alien
crime victims in keeping with the humanitarian interests of the United
States.
Risks:
In the case of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, or perjury,
the interpretive challenge for USCIS was to determine whom the BIWPA
was meant to protect, given that these criminal activities are not
targeted against a person. Accordingly it was determined that a victim
of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, or perjury is an alien
who has been directly and proximately harmed by the perpetrator of one
of these three crimes, where there are reasonable grounds to conclude
that the perpetrator principally committed the offense as a means: (1)
to avoid or frustrate efforts to investigate, arrest, prosecute, or
otherwise bring him or her to justice for other criminal activity; or
(2) to further his or her abuse or exploitation of, or undue control
over, the alien through manipulation of the legal system.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 09/17/07 72 FR 53013
Interim Final Rule
Effective 10/17/07
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 11/17/07
Interim Final Rule 09/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
Additional Information:
Transferred from RIN 1115-AG39
Agency Contact:
Laura M. Dawkins
Chief, Family Immigration and Victim Protection Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Suite 2304
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8398
Email: laura.dawkins@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AA67
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
63. COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS TRANSITIONAL
NONIMMIGRANT INVESTOR CLASSIFICATION
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1101 to 1103; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8 USC 1186a
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 214
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
On May 8, 2008, Public Law 110-229, Commonwealth Natural Resources Act,
established a transitional period for the application of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Although the CNMI is subject to most
U.S. laws, the CNMI has administered its own immigration system under
the terms of its 1976 covenant with the United States. The Department
of Homeland Security is proposing to amend its regulations by creating
a new E2 CNMI Investor classification for the duration of the
transition period. These temporary provisions are necessary to reduce
the potential harm to the CNMI economy before these foreign workers and
investors are required to convert into U.S. immigrant or nonimmigrant
visa classifications.
Statement of Need:
This final rule responds to a Congressional mandate that requires the
Federal Government to assume responsibility for visas for entry to CNMI
by foreign investors.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Public Costs: This rule reduces the employer's annual cost by $200 per
year ($500 - $300), plus any further reduction caused by eliminating
the paperwork burden associated with the CNMI's process. In 2006 -
2007, there were 464 long-term business entry permit holders and 20
perpetual foreign investor entry permit holders and retiree investor
permit holders, totaling 484, or approximately 500 foreign registered
investors. The total savings to employers from this rule is thus
expected to be $100,000 per year ($500 x $200). Cost to the Federal
Government: The yearly Federal Government cost is estimated at $42,310.
Benefits: The potential abuse of the visa system by those seeking to
illegally emigrate from the CNMI to Guam or elsewhere in the United
States reduces the integrity of the United States immigration system by
increasing the ease by which aliens may unlawfully enter the United
States through the CNMI. Federal oversight and regulations of CNMI
foreign investors should help reduce abuse by foreign employees in the
CNMI, and should help reduce the opportunity for aliens to use the CNMI
as an entry point into the United States.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/14/09 74 FR 46938
NPRM Comment Period End 10/14/09
Final Action 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Additional Information:
CIS No. 2458-08
[[Page 64226]]
Agency Contact:
Steven Viger
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1470
Email: steven.w.viger@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AB75
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
64. COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS TRANSITIONAL WORKERS
CLASSIFICATION
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-229
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 214.2
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is creating a new, temporary,
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)-only transitional
worker classification (CW classification) in accordance with title VII
of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA). The
transitional worker program is intended to provide for an orderly
transition from the CNMI permit system to the U.S. federal immigration
system under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). A CW
transitional worker is an alien worker who is ineligible for another
classification under the INA and who performs services or labor for an
employer in the CNMI. The CNRA imposes a five-year transition period
before the INA requirements become fully applicable in the CNMI. The
new CW classification will be in effect for the duration of that
transition period, unless extended by the Secretary of Labor. The rule
also establishes employment authorization incident to CW status.
Statement of Need:
Title VII of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA)
created a new, temporary, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI)-only transitional worker classification. The transitional worker
program is intended to provide for an orderly transition from the CNMI
permit system to the U.S. federal immigration system under the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Each of the estimated 22,000 CNMI transitional workers will be required
to pay a $320 fee per year, for an annualized cost to the affected
public of $7 million. However, since these workers will not have to pay
CNMI fees, the total present value costs of this rule are a net cost
savings ranging from $9.8 million to $13.4 million depending on the
validity period of CW status (1 or 2 years), whether out-of-status
aliens present in the CNMI are eligible for CW status, and the discount
rate applied. The intended benefits of the rule include improvements in
national and homeland security and protection of human rights.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 10/27/09 74 FR 55094
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 11/27/09
Final Action 05/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
State
Agency Contact:
Greg Richardson
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8465
Email: gregory.richardson@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AB76
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCIS
65. REVISIONS TO FEDERAL IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH
OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS; CONFORMING REGULATIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-229
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 208 and 209; 8 CFR 214 and 215; 8 CFR 217; 8 CFR 235; 8 CFR 248;
8 CFR 264; 8 CFR 274a
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, November 28, 2009, Consolidated Natural Resources Act
(CNRA) of 2008.
Abstract:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice
(DOJ) are implementing conforming amendments to their respective
regulations to comply with the Consolidated Natural Resources Act
(CNRA) of 2008. The CNRA extends the immigration laws of the United
States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). This
rule amends the regulations governing asylum and credible fear of
persecution determinations; references to the geographical ``United
States'' and its territories and possessions; alien classifications
authorized for employment; documentation acceptable for Form I-9,
Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9); employment of
unauthorized aliens; and adjustment of status of immediate relatives
admitted under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. Additionally, this
rule makes a technical change to correct a citation error in the
regulations governing the Visa Waiver Program and the regulations
governing asylum and withholding of removal. The purpose of this rule
is to ensure that the regulations apply to persons and entities
arriving in or physically present in the CNMI to the extent authorized
by the CNRA.
Statement of Need:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice
(DOJ) are implementing conforming amendments to their respective
regulations to comply with the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of
2008 (CNRA). The CNRA extends the immigration laws of the United States
to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). This rule
amends the regulations governing: asylum and credible fear of
persecution determinations; references to the geographical ``United
States'' and its territories and possessions; alien classifications
authorized for employment; documentation acceptable for Employment
Eligibility Verification; employment of unauthorized aliens; and
adjustment of status of immediate relatives admitted under the Guam-
CNMI Visa Waiver Program.
[[Page 64227]]
Additionally, this rule makes a technical change to correct a citation
error in the regulations governing the Visa Waiver Program and the
regulations governing asylum and withholding of removal.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The stated goals of the CNRA are to ensure effective border control
procedures, to properly address national security and homeland security
concerns by extending U.S. immigration law to the CNMI, and to maximize
the CNMI's potential for future economic and business growth. While
those goals are expected to be partly facilitated by the changes made
in this rule, they are general and qualitative in nature. There are no
specific changes made by this rule with sufficiently identifiable
direct or indirect economic impacts so as to be quantified.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 10/28/09 74 FR 55725
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 11/27/09
Final Action 10/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
CIS 2460-08
Agency Contact:
Evelyn Sahli
Chief, Policy and Regulation Management Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1722
RIN: 1615-AB77
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
66. STANDARDS FOR LIVING ORGANISMS IN SHIPS' BALLAST WATER DISCHARGED
IN U.S. WATERS (USCG-2001-10486)
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
16 USC 4711
CFR Citation:
33 CFR 151
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would propose to add performance standards to 33 CFR
part 151, subparts C and D, for all discharges of ballast water. It
supports the Coast Guard's broad roles and responsibilities of maritime
safety and maritime stewardship. This project is significant due to
high interest from Congress and several Federal and State agencies, as
well as costs imposed on industry.
Statement of Need:
The unintentional introductions of nonindigenous species into U.S.
waters via the discharge of vessels' ballast water has had significant
impacts to the nation's aquatic resources, biological diversity, and
coastal infrastructures. This rulemaking would amend the ballast water
management requirements (33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D) and
establish standards that specify the level of biological treatment that
must be achieved by a ballast water treatment system before ballast
water can be discharged into U.S. waters. This would increase the Coast
Guard's ability to protect U.S. waters against the introduction of
nonindigenous species via ballast water discharges.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Congress has directed the Coast Guard to develop ballast water
regulations to prevent the introduction of nonindigenous species into
U.S. waters under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act of 1990 and reauthorized and amended it with the National
Invasive Species Act of 1996. This rulemaking does not have a statutory
deadline.
Alternatives:
We would use the standard rulemaking process to develop regulations for
ballast water discharge standards. Nonregulatory alternatives such as
navigation and vessel inspection circulars and the Marine Safety Manual
have been considered and may be used for the development of policy and
directives to provide the maritime industry and our field offices
guidelines for implementation of the regulations. Nonregulatory
alternatives cannot be substituted for the standards we would develop
with this rule. Congress has directed the Coast Guard to review and
revise its BWM regulations not less than every three years based on the
best scientific information available to the Coast Guard at the time of
that review.
This proposed rule includes a phase-in schedule (Phase-one and Phase-
two) for the implementation of ballast water discharge standards based
on vessel's ballast water capacity and build date. The proposed phase-
one standard is the same standard adopted by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) for concentration of living organisms in ballast
water discharges. For phase-two, we propose incorporating a
practicability review to determine whether technology to achieve a more
stringent standard than the IMO can practicably be implemented.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
This proposed rule would affect vessels operating in U.S. waters that
are equipped with ballast tanks. Owners and operators of these vessels
would be required to install and operate Coast Guard approved ballast
water management systems before discharging ballast water into U.S.
waters. Cost estimates for individual vessels vary due to the vessel
class, type and size, and the particular technology of the ballast
water management system installed. We expect the highest annual costs
of this rulemaking during the periods of installation as the bulk of
the existing fleet of vessels must meet the standards according to
proposed phase-in schedules. The primary cost driver of this rulemaking
is the installation costs for all existing vessels. Operating and
maintenance costs are substantially less than the installation costs.
[[Page 64228]]
We evaluated the benefits of this rulemaking by researching the impact
of aquatic nonindigenous species (NIS) invasions in the U.S. waters,
since ballast water discharge is one of the main vectors of NIS
introductions in the marine environment. The primary benefit of this
rulemaking would be the economic and environmental damages avoided from
the reduction in the number of new invasions as a result of the
reduction in concentration of organisms in discharged ballast water. We
expect that the benefits of this rulemaking would increase as the
technology is developed to achieve more stringent ballast water
discharge standards.
At this time, we estimate that this rulemaking would have annual
impacts that exceed $100 million and result in an economically
significant regulatory action.
Risks:
Ballast water discharged from ships is a significant pathway for the
introduction and spread of non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species.
These organisms, which may be plants, animals, bacteria or pathogens,
have the potential to displace native species, degrade native habitats,
spread disease and disrupt human economic and social activities that
depend on water resources. It is estimated that for areas such as the
Great Lakes, San Francisco Bay, and Chesapeake Bay, one nonindigenous
species becomes established per year. At this time, it is difficult to
estimate the reduction of risk that would be accomplished by
promulgating this rulemaking; however, it is expected a major reduction
will occur. We are currently requesting information on costs and
benefits of more stringent ballast water discharge standards.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 03/04/02 67 FR 9632
ANPRM Comment Period End 06/03/02
NPRM 08/28/09 74 FR 44632
Public Meeting 09/14/09 74 FR 46964
Public Meeting 09/22/09 74 FR 48190
Public Meeting 09/28/09 74 FR 49355
Notice--Extension of
Comment Period 10/15/09 74 FR 52941
Public Meeting 10/22/09 74 FR 54533
Public Meeting Correction 10/26/09 74 FR 54944
NPRM Comment Period End 12/04/09 74 FR 52941
Final Rule 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Mr. John C Morris
Project Manager
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 2nd Street, SW, STOP 7126
Washington, DC 20593-7126
Phone: 202 372-1433
Email: john.c.morris@uscg.mil
RIN: 1625-AA32
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCG
67. INSPECTION OF TOWING VESSELS (USCG-2006-24412)
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
46 USC 3301, 46 USC 3305, 46 USC 3306, and 46 USC 3103; 46 USC 3703
[DHS Delegation No 0170.1]
CFR Citation:
33 CFR 156 and 157; 33 CFR 163 and 164; 46 CFR 135 to 146
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would implement a program of inspection for
certification of towing vessels, which were previously uninspected. It
would prescribe standards for safety management systems and third-party
entities along with standards for construction, operation, vessel
systems, safety equipment, and recordkeeping. Due to the costs imposed
on an entire uninspected segment of the marine industry, the Coast
Guard projects that this will be a significant rulemaking, especially
for small entities.
Statement of Need:
This rulemaking would implement sections 409 and 415 of the Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. The intent of the proposed
rule is to promote safer work practices and reduce casualties on towing
vessels by ensuring that towing vessels adhere to prescribed safety
standards and safety management systems. This proposed rule was
developed in cooperation with the Towing Vessel Safety Advisory
Committee. It would establish a new subchapter dedicated to towing
vessels and covering vessel equipment, systems, operational standards
and inspection requirements.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Proposed new Subchapter Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3103, 3301, 3306, 3308,
3316, 8104, 8904; 33 CFR 1.05; DHS Delegation 0170.1.
The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (CGMTA 2004),
Pub. L. 108-293, 118 Stat. 1028, (Aug. 9, 2004), established new
authorities for towing vessels as follows:
Section 415 added towing vessels, as defined in section 2101 of title
46, United States Code (U.S.C.), as a class of vessels that are subject
to safety inspections under chapter 33 of that title (Id. at 1047).
Section 415 also added new section 3306(j) of title 46, authorizing the
Secretary of Homeland Security to establish, by regulation, a safety
management system appropriate for the characteristics, methods of
operation, and nature of service of towing vessels (Id.).
Section 409 added new section 8904(c)of title 46, U.S.C., authorizing
the Secretary to establish, by regulation, ``maximum hours of service
(including recording and recordkeeping of that service) of individuals
engaged on a towing vessel that is at least 26 feet in length measured
from end to end over the deck (excluding the sheer).'' (Id. at 1044-
45).
Alternatives:
We considered the following alternatives for the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM):
One regulatory alternative would be the addition of towing vessels to
one or more existing subchapters that deal with other inspected
vessels, such as cargo and miscellaneous vessels (subchapter I),
offshore supply vessels (subchapter L), or small passenger vessels
(subchapter T). This option would involve very minimal regulatory work.
We do not believe, however, that this approach would recognize the
[[Page 64229]]
often ``unique'' nature and characteristics of the towing industry in
general and towing vessels in particular.
In addition to inclusion in a particular existing subchapter (or
subchapters) for equipment-related concerns, the same approach could be
adopted for use of a safety management system by merely requiring
compliance with Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, part 96 (Rules
for the Safe Operation of Vessels and Safety Management Systems).
Adoption of these requirements, without an alternative safety
management system, would also not be``appropriate for the
characteristics, methods of operation, and nature of service of towing
vessels.''
The Coast Guard has had extensive public involvement (four public
meetings, over 100 separate comments submitted to the docket, as well
as extensive ongoing dialogue with members of the Towing Safety
Advisory Committee (TSAC)) regarding development of these regulations.
Adoption of one of the alternatives discussed above would likely
receive little public or industry support, especially considering the
TSAC efforts toward development of standards to be incorporated into a
separate subchapter dealing specifically with the inspection of towing
vessels.
An approach that would seem to be more in keeping with the intent of
Congress would be the adoption of certain existing standards from those
applied to other inspected vessels. In some cases, these existing
standards would be appropriately modified and tailored to the nature
and operation of certain categories of towing vessels. The adopted
standards would come from inspected vessels that have demonstrated
``good marine practice'' within the maritime community. These
regulations would be incorporated into a subchapter specifically
addressing the inspection for certification of towing vessels. The law
requiring the inspection for certification of towing vessels is a
statutory mandate, compelling the Coast Guard to develop regulations
appropriate for the nature of towing vessels and their specific
industry.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
We estimate that 1,059 owners and operators (companies) would incur
additional costs from this rulemaking. The rulemaking would affect a
total of 5,208 vessels owned and operated by these companies. We
estimate that 232 of the companies, operating 2,941 vessels, already
use some type of safety management system. We estimate that 827 of the
companies, operating 2,267 vessels, do not currently use a safety
management system. Our cost assessment includes existing and new
vessels. We are currently developing cost estimates for the proposed
rule.
The Coast Guard developed the requirements in the proposed rule by
researching both the human factors and equipment failures that caused
towing vessel accidents. We believe that the proposed rule would
address a wide range of causes of towing vessel accidents and supports
the main goal of improving safety in the towing industry. The primary
benefit of the proposed rule is an increase in vessel safety and a
resulting decrease in the risk of towing vessel accidents and their
consequences.
Risks:
This regulatory action would reduce the risk of towing vessel accidents
and their consequences. Towing vessels accidents result in fatalities,
injuries, property damage, pollution, and delays.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
State
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Dave Dolloff
Program Manager, CG-5222
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW. STOP 7126
Washington, DC 20593-7126
Phone: 202 372-1415
RIN: 1625-AB06
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
68. ESTABLISHMENT OF GLOBAL ENTRY PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1365b(k)(1); 8 USC 1365b(k)(3); 8 USC 1225; 8 USC 1185(b)
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 235; 8 CFR 103
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
CBP already operates several regulatory and non-regulatory
international registered traveler programs, also known as trusted
traveler programs. In order to comply with the Intelligence Reform
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRPTA), CBP is proposing to amend its
regulations to establish another international registered traveler
program called Global Entry. The Global Entry program would expedite
the movement of low-risk, frequent international air travelers by
providing an expedited inspection process for pre-approved, pre-
screened travelers. These travelers would proceed directly to automated
Global Entry kiosks upon their arrival in the United States. This
Global Entry Program, along with the other programs that have already
been established, are consistent with CBP's strategic goal of
facilitating legitimate trade and travel while securing the homeland. A
pilot of Global Entry has been operating since June 6, 2008.
Statement of Need:
CBP has been operating the Global Entry program as a pilot at several
airports since June 6, 2008, and the pilot has been very successful. As
a result, there is a desire on the part of the public that the program
be established as a permanent program, and expanded, if possible. By
establishing this program, CBP will make great strides toward
facilitating the movement of people in a more efficient manner, thereby
accomplishing our strategic goal of balancing legitimate travel with
security. Through the use of biometric and record-keeping technologies,
the risk of terrorists entering the United
[[Page 64230]]
States would be reduced. Improving security and facilitating travel at
the border, both of which are accomplished by Global Entry, are primary
concerns within CBP jurisdiction.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Global Entry is a voluntary program that provides a benefit to the
public by speeding the CBP processing time for participating travelers.
Travelers who are otherwise admissible to the United States will be
able to enter or exit the country regardless of whether they
participate in Global Entry. CBP estimates that over a five year
period, 250,000 enrollees will be processed (an annual average of
50,000 individuals). CBP will charge a fee of $100 per applicant and
estimates that each application will require 40 minutes (0.67 hours) of
the enrollee's time to search existing data resources, gather the data
needed, and complete and review the application form. Additionally, an
enrollee will experience an ``opportunity cost of time'' to travel to
an Enrollment Center upon acceptance of the initial application. We
assume that one hour will be required for this time spent at the
Enrollment Center and travel to and from the Center, though we note
that during the pilot program, many applicants coordinated their trip
to an Enrollment Center with their travel at the airport. We have used
one hour of travel time so as not to underestimate potential
opportunity costs for enrolling in the program. We use a value of
$28.60 for the opportunity cost for this time, which is taken from the
Federal Aviation Administration's ``Economic Values for FAA Investment
and Regulatory Decisions, A Guide.'' (July 3, 2007). This value is the
weighted average for U.S. business and leisure travelers. For this
evaluation, we assume that all enrollees will be U.S. citizens, U.S.
nationals, or Lawful Permanent Residents.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 11/19/09 74 FR 59932
NPRM Comment Period End 01/19/10
Final Rule 11/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For More Information:
www.globalentry.gov
Agency Contact:
John P. Wagner
Director, Trusted Traveler Programs
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of Field Operations
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-2118
RIN: 1651-AA73
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCBP
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
69. IMPORTER SECURITY FILING AND ADDITIONAL CARRIER REQUIREMENTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
PL 109-347, sec 203; 5 USC 301; 19 USC 66; 19 USC 1431; 19 USC 1433 to
1434; 19 USC 1624; 19 USC 2071 note; 46 USC 60105
CFR Citation:
19 CFR 4; 19 CFR 12.3; 19 CFR 18.5; 19 CFR 103.31a; 19 CFR 113; 19 CFR
123.92; 19 CFR 141.113; 19 CFR 146.32; 19 CFR 149; 19 CFR 192.14
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This interim final rule implements the provisions of section 203 of the
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006. It amends CBP
Regulations to require carriers and importers to provide to CBP, via a
CBP approved electronic data interchange system, information necessary
to enable CBP to identify high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and
insure cargo safety and security. Under the rule, importers and
carriers must submit specified information to CBP before the cargo is
brought into the United States by vessel. This advance information will
improve CBP's risk assessment and targeting capabilities, assist CBP in
increasing the security of the global trading system, and facilitate
the prompt release of legitimate cargo following its arrival in the
United States.
Statement of Need:
Vessel carriers are currently required to transmit certain manifest
information by way of the CBP Vessel Automated Manifest System (AMS) 24
hours prior to lading of containerized and non-exempt break bulk cargo
at a foreign port. For the most part, this is the ocean carrier's or
non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC)'s cargo declaration. CBP
analyzes this information to generate its risk assessment for targeting
purposes.
Internal and external government reviews have concluded that more
complete advance shipment data would produce even more effective and
more vigorous cargo risk assessments. In addition, pursuant to section
203 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub.
L. 109-347, 6 U.S.C. 943) (SAFE Port Act), the Secretary of Homeland
Security, acting through the Commissioner of CBP, must promulgate
regulations to require the electronic transmission of additional data
elements for improved high-risk targeting, including appropriate
security elements of entry data for cargo destined to the United States
by vessel prior to loading of such cargo on vessels at foreign
seaports.
Based upon its analysis, as well as the requirements under the SAFE
Port Act, CBP is requiring the electronic transmission of additional
data for improved high-risk targeting. Some of these data elements are
being required from carriers (Container Status Messages and Vessel Stow
Plan) and others are being required from ``importers,'' as that term is
defined for purposes of the regulations.
This rule improves CBP's risk assessment and targeting capabilities and
enables the agency to facilitate the prompt release of legitimate cargo
following its arrival in the United States. The information will assist
CBP in increasing the security of the global trading system and,
thereby, reducing the threat to the United States and world economy.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Pursuant to section 203 of the Security and Accountability for Every
Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 6 U.S.C. 943) (SAFE Port Act), the
Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commissioner of CBP,
must promulgate regulations to require the electronic transmission of
additional data
[[Page 64231]]
elements for improved high-risk targeting, including appropriate
security elements of entry data for cargo destined to the United States
by vessel prior to loading of such cargo on vessels at foreign
seaports.
Alternatives:
CBP considered and evaluated the following four alternatives:
Alternative 1 (the chosen alternative): Importer Security Filings and
Additional Carrier Requirements are required. Bulk cargo is exempt from
the Importer Security Filing requirements;
Alternative 2: Importer Security Filings and Additional Carrier
Requirements are required. Bulk cargo is not exempt from the Importer
Security Filing requirements;
Alternative 3: Only Importer Security Filings are required. Bulk cargo
is exempt from the Importer Security Filing requirements; and
Alternative 4: Only the Additional Carrier Requirements are required.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
When the NPRM was published, CBP estimated that approximately 11
million import shipments conveyed by 1,000 different carrier companies
operating 37,000 unique voyages or vessel-trips to the United States
will be subject to the rule. Annualized costs range from $890 million
to $7.0 billion (7 percent discount rate over 10 years).
The annualized cost range results from varying assumptions about the
estimated security filing transaction costs or fees charged to the
importers by the filing parties, the potential for supply chain delays,
and the estimated costs to carriers for transmitting additional data to
CBP.
Ideally, the quantification and monetization of the benefits of this
regulation would involve estimating the current level of risk of a
successful terrorist attack, absent this regulation, and the
incremental reduction in risk resulting from implementation of the
regulation. CBP would then multiply the change by an estimate of the
value individuals place on such a risk reduction to produce a monetary
estimate of direct benefits. However, existing data limitations and a
lack of complete understanding of the true risks posed by terrorists
prevent us from establishing the incremental risk reduction
attributable to this rule. As a result, CBP has undertaken a ``break-
even'' analysis to inform decision-makers of the necessary incremental
change in the probability of such an event occurring that would result
in direct benefits equal to the costs of the proposed rule. CBP's
analysis finds that the incremental costs of this regulation are
relatively small compared to the median value of a shipment of goods
despite the rather large absolute estimate of present value cost.
The regulation may increase the time shipments are in transit,
particularly for shipments consolidated in containers. For such
shipments, the supply chain is generally more complex and the importer
has less control of the flow of goods and associated security filing
information. Foreign cargo consolidators may be consolidating multiple
shipments from one or more shippers in a container destined for one or
more buyers or consignees. In order to ensure that the security filing
data is provided by the shippers to the importers (or their designated
agents) and is then transmitted to and accepted by CBP in advance of
the 24-hour deadline, consolidators may advance their cut-off times for
receipt of shipments and associated security filing data.
These advanced cut-off times would help prevent a consolidator or
carrier from having to unpack or unload a container in the event the
security filing for one of the shipments contained in the container is
inadequate or not accepted by CBP. For example, consolidators may
require shippers to submit, transmit, or obtain CBP approval of their
security filing data before their shipments are stuffed in the
container, before the container is sealed, or before the container is
delivered to the port for lading. In such cases, importers would likely
have to increase the times they hold their goods as inventory and thus
incur additional inventory carrying costs to sufficiently meet these
advanced cut-off times imposed by their foreign consolidators. The high
end of the cost ranges presented assumes an initial supply chain delay
of 2 days for the first year of implementation (2008) and a delay of 1
day for years 2 through 10 (2009 to 2017).
The benefit of this rule is the improvement of CBP's risk assessment
and targeting capabilities, while at the same time, enabling CBP to
facilitate the prompt release of legitimate cargo following its arrival
in the United States. The information will assist CBP in increasing the
security of the global trading system, and thereby reducing the threat
to the United States and the world economy.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/02/08 73 FR 90
NPRM Comment Period End 03/03/08
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 02/01/08 73 FR 6061
NPRM Comment Period End 03/18/08
Interim Final Rule 11/25/08 73 FR 71730
Interim Final Rule
Effective 01/26/09
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 06/01/09
Final Action 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
International Impacts:
This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Richard DiNucci
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of Field Operations
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-2513
Email: richard.dinucci@dhs.gov
RIN: 1651-AA70
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCBP
70. CHANGES TO THE VISA WAIVER PROGRAM TO IMPLEMENT THE ELECTRONIC
SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION (ESTA) PROGRAM
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1187; 8 CFR 2
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 217.5
Legal Deadline:
None
[[Page 64232]]
Abstract:
This rule implements the Electronic System for Travel Authorization
(ESTA) for aliens who travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver
Program (VWP) at air or sea ports of entry. Under the rule, VWP
travelers are required to provide certain biographical information to
CBP electronically before departing for the United States. This allows
CBP to determine before their departure, whether these travelers are
eligible to travel to the United States under the VWP and whether such
travel poses a security risk. The rule is intended to fulfill the
requirements of section 711 of the Implementing recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). In addition to fulfilling a
statutory mandate, the rule serves the twin goals of promoting border
security and legitimate travel to the United States. By modernizing the
VWP, the ESTA is intended to increase national security and to provide
for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by
allowing for vetting of subjects of potential interest well before
boarding, thereby reducing traveler delays at the ports of entry.
Statement of Need:
Section 711 of the 9/11 Act requires the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop and
implement a fully automated electronic travel authorization system that
will collect biographical and other information in advance of travel to
determine the eligibility of the alien to travel to the United States
and to determine whether such travel poses a law enforcement or
security risk. ESTA is intended to fulfill these statutory
requirements.
Under this rule, VWP travelers provide certain information to CBP
electronically before departing for the United States. VWP travelers
who receive travel authorization under ESTA are not required to
complete the paper Form I-94W when arriving on a carrier that is
capable of receiving and validating messages pertaining to the
traveler's ESTA status as part of the traveler's boarding status. By
automating the I-94W process and establishing a system to provide VWP
traveler data in advance of travel, CBP is able to determine the
eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from VWP countries to
travel to the United States and to determine whether such travel poses
a law enforcement or security risk, before such individuals begin
travel to the United States. ESTA provides for greater efficiencies in
the screening of international travelers by allowing CBP to identify
subjects of potential interest before they depart for the United
States, thereby increasing security and reducing traveler delays upon
arrival at U.S. ports of entry.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The ESTA program is based on congressional authority provided under
section 711 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Act of 2007 and section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA).
Alternatives:
CBP considered three alternatives to this rule:
1. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with a $1.50 fee per each
travel authorization (more costly)
2. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with only the name of the
passenger and the admissibility questions on the I-94W form (less
burdensome)
3. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but only for the countries
entering the VWP after 2009 (no new requirements for VWP, reduced
burden for newly entering countries)
CBP determined that the rule provides the greatest level of enhanced
security and efficiency at an acceptable cost to traveling public and
potentially affected air carriers.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The purpose of ESTA is to allow DHS and CBP to establish the
eligibility of certain foreign travelers to travel to the United States
under the VWP, and whether the alien's proposed travel to the United
States poses a law enforcement or security risk. Upon review of such
information, DHS will determine whether the alien is eligible to travel
to the United States under the VWP.
Impacts to Air & Sea Carriers
CBP estimated that eight U.S.-based air carriers and eleven sea
carriers will be affected by the rule. An additional 35 foreign-based
air carriers and five sea carriers will be affected. CBP concluded that
costs to air and sea carriers to support the requirements of the ESTA
program could cost $137 million to $1.1 billion over the next 10 years
depending on the level of effort required to integrate their systems
with ESTA, how many passengers they need to assist in applying for
travel authorizations, and the discount rate applied to annual costs.
Impacts to Travelers
ESTA will present new costs and burdens to travelers in VWP countries
who were not previously required to submit any information to the U.S.
Government in advance of travel to the United States. Travelers from
Roadmap countries who become VWP countries will also incur costs and
burdens, though these are much less than obtaining a nonimmigrant visa
(category B1/B2), which is currently required for short-term pleasure
or business to travel to the United States. CBP estimated that the
total quantified costs to travelers will range from $1.1 billion to
$3.5 billion depending on the number of travelers, the value of time,
and the discount rate. Annualized costs are estimated to range from
$133 million to $366 million.
Benefits
As set forth in section 711 of the 9/11 Act, it was the intent of
Congress to modernize and strengthen the security of the Visa Waiver
Program under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA,
8 USC 1187) by simultaneously enhancing program security requirements
and extending visa-free travel privileges to citizens and eligible
nationals of eligible foreign countries that are partners in the war on
terrorism.
By requiring passenger data in advance of travel, CBP may be able to
determine, before the alien departs for the United States, the
eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from VWP countries to
travel to the United States under the VWP, and whether such travel
poses a law enforcement or security risk. In addition to fulfilling a
statutory mandate, the rule serves the twin goals of promoting border
security and legitimate travel to the United States. By modernizing the
VWP, ESTA is intended to both increase national security and provide
for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by
allowing for the screening of subjects of potential interest well
before boarding, thereby reducing traveler delays based on potentially
lengthy processes at U.S. ports of entry.
CBP concluded that the total benefits to travelers could total $1.1
billion to $3.3 billion over the period of analysis. Annualized
benefits could range from $134 million to $345 million.
In addition to these benefits to travelers, CBP and the carriers should
[[Page 64233]]
also experience the benefit of not having to administer the I-94W
except in limited situations. While CBP has not conducted an analysis
of the potential savings, it should accrue benefits from not having to
produce, ship, and store blank forms. CBP should also be able to accrue
savings related to data entry and archiving. Carriers should realize
some savings as well, though carriers will still have to administer the
I-94 for those passengers not traveling under the VWP and the Customs
Declaration forms for all passengers aboard the aircraft and vessel.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Action 06/09/08 73 FR 32440
Interim Final Rule
Effective 08/08/08
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 08/08/08
Notice - Announcing Date
Rule Becomes
Mandatory 11/13/08 73 FR 67354
Final Action 01/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id--visa/esta/
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Suzanne Shepherd
Director, Electronic System for Travel Authorization
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-2073
Email: cbp.esta@dhs.gov
RIN: 1651-AA72
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USCBP
71. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUAM-CNMI VISA WAIVER PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
PL 110-229, sec 702
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 100.4; 8 CFR 212.1; 8 CFR 233.5; 8 CFR 235.5; 19 CFR 4.7b; 19 CFR
122.49a
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, November 4, 2008, Public Law 110-229.
Abstract:
This rule amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations to
implement section 702 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
(CNRA). This law extends the immigration laws of the United States to
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and provides
for a joint visa waiver program for travel to Guam and the CNMI. This
rule implements section 702 of the CNRA by amending the regulations to
replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a new Guam-CNMI Visa
Waiver Program. The amended regulations set forth the requirements for
nonimmigrant visitors who seek admission for business or pleasure and
solely for entry into and stay on Guam or the CNMI without a visa. This
rule also establishes six ports of entry in the CNMI for purposes of
administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program.
Statement of Need:
Currently, aliens who are citizens of eligible countries may apply for
admission to Guam at a Guam port of entry as nonimmigrant visitors for
a period of fifteen (15) days or less, for business or pleasure,
without first obtaining a nonimmigrant visa, provided that they are
otherwise eligible for admission. Section 702(b) of the Consolidated
Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), supersedes the Guam visa waiver
program by providing for a visa waiver program for Guam and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver
Program). Section 702(b) requires DHS to promulgate regulations within
180 days of enactment of the CNRA to allow nonimmigrant visitors from
eligible countries to apply for admission into Guam and the CNMI, for
business or pleasure, without a visa, for a period of authorized stay
of no longer than forty-five (45) days.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program is based on congressional authority
provided under 702(b) of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
(CNRA).
Alternatives:
None
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The most significant change for admission to the CNMI as a result of
the rule will be for visitors from those countries who are not included
in either the existing U.S. Visa Waiver Program or the Guam-CNMI Visa
Waiver Program established by the rule. These visitors must apply for
U.S. visas, which require in-person interviews at U.S. embassies or
consulates and higher fees than the CNMI currently assesses for its
visitor entry permits. CBP anticipates that the annual cost to the CNMI
will be $6 million. These are losses associated with the reduced visits
from foreign travelers who may no longer visit the CNMI upon
implementation of this rule.
The anticipated benefits of the rule are enhanced security that will
result from the federalization of the immigration functions in the
CNMI.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 01/16/09 74 FR 2824
Interim Final Rule
Effective 01/16/09
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 03/17/09
Final Action 06/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
International Impacts:
This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Agency Contact:
Cheryl C. Peters
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20229
Phone: 202 344-1707
Email: cheryl.c.peters@dhs.gov
RIN: 1651-AA77
[[Page 64234]]
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
72. AIRCRAFT REPAIR STATION SECURITY
Priority:
Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
49 USC 114; 49 USC 44924
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 1554
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, August 8, 2004, Rule within 240 days of the date of
enactment of Vision 100.
Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule within 1 year after the date of
enactment of 9/11 Commission Act.
Section 611(b)(1) of Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization
Act (Pub. L. 108-176; Dec. 12, 2003; 117 Stat. 2490), codified at 49
U.S.C. 44924, requires TSA issue ``final regulations to ensure the
security of foreign and domestic aircraft repair stations.'' Section
1616 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007 (Pub. L. 110--531; Aug. 3, 2007; 21 Stat. 266) requires TSA issue
a final rule on foreign repair station security.
Abstract:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose to add a
new regulation to improve the security of domestic and foreign aircraft
repair stations, as required by the section 611 of Vision 100--Century
of Aviation Reauthorization Act and section 1616 of the 9/11 Commission
Act of 2007. The regulation will propose general requirements for
security programs to be adopted and implemented by repair stations
certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Regulations
originally were to be promulgated by August 8, 2004. A Report to
Congress was sent August 24, 2004, explaining the delay. The delay in
publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking has been due to TSA
scoping out the project, including making site visits to repair
stations in different locations around the world.
Statement of Need:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is proposing
regulations to improve the security of domestic and foreign aircraft
repair stations. The proposed regulations will require repair stations
that are certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration to adopt
and carry out a security program. The proposal will codify the scope of
TSA's existing inspection program. The proposal also will provide
procedures for repair stations to seek review of any TSA determination
that security measures are deficient.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 611(b)(1) of Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization
Act (Pub. L. 108-176; 12/12/2003; 117 Stat. 2490), codified at 49
U.S.C. 44924, requires TSA to issue ``final regulations to ensure the
security of foreign and domestic aircraft repair stations'' within 240
days from date of enactment of Vision 100. Section 1616 of Public Law
110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007
(Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266) requires that the FAA may not certify any
foreign repair stations if the regulations are not issued within one
year after the date of enactment of the 9/11 Commission Act unless the
repair station was previously certificated or is in the process of
certification.
Alternatives:
TSA is required by statute to publish regulations requiring security
programs for aircraft repair stations. As part of its notice of
proposed rulemaking, TSA will seek public comment on the numerous
alternative ways in which the final rule could carry out the
requirements of the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
TSA anticipates costs to aircraft repair stations mainly related to the
establishment of security programs, which may include adding such
measures as access controls, a personnel identification system,
security awareness training, the designation of a security coordinator,
employee background verification, and a contingency plan.
It is difficult to identify the particular risk reduction associated
with the implementation of this rule because the nature of value of the
benefits of reducing risk of a terrorist attack is a function of both
the probability of an attack and the value of the consequence. When the
proposed rule is published, DHS will provide a break even analysis
discussing the program elements that would help achieve risk
reductions. These elements and related qualitative benefits include a
reduction in the risk of an aircraft being sabotaged, resulting in
potential injury or loss of life for the passengers and crew, or
reduction in the risk of being hijacked, resulting in the additional
potential for the aircraft being used as a weapon of mass destruction.
Risks:
The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks
within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of the United
States to terrorism. By requiring security programs for aircraft repair
stations, TSA will focus on preventing unauthorized access to repair
work and to aircraft to prevent sabotage or hijacking.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice--Public Meeting;
Request for Comments 02/24/04 69 FR 8357
Report to Congress 08/24/04
NPRM 11/18/09 74 FR 59873
NPRM Comment Period End 01/19/10
Final Rule 11/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
[[Page 64235]]
Agency Contact:
Celio Young
Program Manager, Repair Stations
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management, General Aviation
Division
TSA-28, HQ, E5
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-3580
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: celio.young@dhs.gov
Thomas (Tom) Philson
Manager, Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-411N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-3236
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: thomas.philson@dhs.gov
Linda L. Kent
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-126S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-2675
Fax: 571 227-1381
Email: linda.kent@dhs.gov
RIN: 1652-AA38
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
73. LARGE AIRCRAFT SECURITY PROGRAM, OTHER AIRCRAFT OPERATOR SECURITY
PROGRAM, AND AIRPORT OPERATOR SECURITY PROGRAM
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
6 USC 469; 18 USC 842; 18 USC 845; 46 USC 70102 to 70106; 46 USC 70117;
49 USC 114; 49 USC114(f)(3); 49 USC 5103; 49 USC 5103a; 49 USC 40113;
49 USC 44901 to 44907; 49 USC 44913 to 44914; 49 USC 44916 to 44918; 49
USC 44932; 49 USC 44935 to 44936; 49 USC 44942; 49 USC 46105
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 1515; 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1522; 49 CFR 1540; 49 CFR 1542; 49 CFR
1544; 49 CFR 1550
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
On October 30, 2008, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing to amend current
aviation transportation security regulations to enhance the security of
general aviation by expanding the scope of current requirements, and by
adding new requirements for certain large aircraft operators and
airports serving those aircraft. TSA also proposed that all aircraft
operations, including corporate and private charter operations, with
aircraft having a maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW) above
12,500 pounds (``large aircraft'') be required to adopt a large
aircraft security program. TSA also proposed to require certain
airports that serve large aircraft to adopt security programs. TSA is
preparing a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM), which will include a comment
period for public comments.
After considering comments received on the NPRM and meeting with
stakeholders, TSA decided to revise the original proposal to tailor
security requirements to the general aviation industry. TSA is
considering alternatives to the following proposed provisions in the
SNPRM: (1) the weight threshold for aircraft subject to TSA regulation;
(2) compliance oversight; (3) watch list matching of passengers; (4)
prohibited items; (5) scope of the background check requirements and
the procedures used to implement the requirement; and (6) other issues.
Statement of Need:
This rule would enhance current security measures, and would apply
security measures currently in place for operators of certain types of
aircraft, to operators of other aircraft. While the focus of TSA's
existing aviation security programs has been on air carriers and
commercial operators, TSA is aware that general aviation aircraft of
sufficient size and weight may inflict significant damage and loss of
lives if they are hijacked and used as missiles. TSA has current
regulations that apply to large aircraft operated by air carriers and
commercial operators, including the twelve five program, the partial
program, and the private charter program. However, the current
regulations do not cover all general aviation operations, such as those
operated by corporations and individuals, and such operations do not
have the features that are necessary to enhance security.
Alternatives:
DHS considered continuing to use voluntary guidance to secure general
aviation, but determined that to ensure that each aircraft operator
maintains an appropriate level of security, these security measures
would need to be mandatory requirements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
This proposed rule would yield benefits in the areas of security and
quality governance. The rule would enhance security by expanding the
mandatory use of security measures to certain operators of large
aircraft that are not currently required to have a security plan. These
measures would deter malicious individuals from perpetrating acts that
might compromise transportation or national security by using large
aircraft for these purposes.
In the NPRM, TSA estimated the total 10-year cost of the program would
be $1.3 billion, discounted at 7 percent. Aircraft operators, airport
operators, and TSA would incur costs to comply with the requirements of
the proposed Large Aircraft Security Program rule. Aircraft operator
costs comprise 85 percent of all estimated expenses. TSA estimated
approximately 9,000 general aviation aircraft operators use aircraft
with a maximum takeoff weight exceeding 12,500 pounds, and would be
newly subjected to the proposed rule.
Risks:
This rulemaking addresses the national security risk of general
aviation aircraft being used as a weapon or as a means to transport
persons or weapons that could pose a threat to the United States.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 10/30/08 73 FR 64790
NPRM Comment Period End 12/29/08
Notice--NPRM Comment
Period Extended 11/25/08 73 FR 71590
NPRM Extended Comment
Period End 02/27/09
[[Page 64236]]
Notice--Public Meetings;
Requests for Comments 12/28/08 73 FR 77045
Supplemental NPRM 10/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Local
Additional Information:
Public Meetings held on: Jan. 6, 2009 at White Plains, NY; Jan. 8,
2009, at Atlanta, GA; Jan 16, 2009, at Chicago, IL; Jan. 23, 2009, at
Burbank, CA; and Jan. 28, 2009, at Houston, TX.
Additional Comment Sessions held in Arlington, VA, on April 16, 2009,
May 6, 2009, and June 15, 2009.
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Erik Jensen
Assistant General Manager, General Aviation Security
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-132S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-2154
Fax: 571 227-1923
Email: erik.jensen@dhs.gov
Holly Merwin
Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-343N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-4656
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: holly.merwin@dhs.gov
Mai Dinh
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-309N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-2725
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: mai.dinh@dhs.gov
Kiersten Ols
Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-316N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-2403
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: kiersten.ols@dhs.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA03, Related to 1652-AA04
RIN: 1652-AA53
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
74. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND PASSENGER RAILROADS--SECURITY TRAINING OF
EMPLOYEES
Priority:
Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
49 USC 114; PL 110-53, secs 1408 and 1517
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, November 1, 2007, Interim Rule for public
transportation agencies is due 90 days after date of enactment.
Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule for railroads is due 6 months
after date of enactment.
Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for public transportation
agencies is due 1 year after date of enactment.
According to section 1408 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121
Stat. 266), interim final regulations for public transportation
agencies are due 90 days after the date of enactment (Nov. 1, 2007),
and final regulations are due 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act.According to section 1517 of the same Act, final regulations
for railroads are due no later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Abstract:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose a new
regulation to improve the security of public transportation and
passenger railroads in accordance with the Implementing Recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. This rulemaking will propose
general requirements for a public transportation security training
program and a passenger railroad training program to prepare public
transportation and passenger railroad employees, including frontline
employees, for potential security threats and conditions.
Statement of Need:
A security training program for public transportation agencies and for
passenger railroads is proposed to prepare public transportation and
passenger railroad employees, including frontline employees, for
potential security threats and conditions.
Summary of Legal Basis:
49 U.S.C. 114; sections 1408 and 1517 of Public Law 110-53,
Implementing
[[Page 64237]]
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121
Stat. 266).
Alternatives:
TSA is required by statute to publish regulations requiring security
programs for these operators. As part of its notice of proposed
rulemaking, TSA will seek public comment on the numerous ways in which
the final rule could carry out the requirements of the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Economic analysis under development.
Risks:
The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks
within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of the United
States to terrorism. By providing for security training for personnel,
TSA intends in this rulemaking to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack
on this transportation sector.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Thomas L. Farmer
Deputy General Manager-Mass Transit
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, E10-219S
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-3552
Email: tom.farmer@dhs.gov
Shaina Pereira
Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-339N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-5138
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: shaina.pereira@dhs.gov
David Kasminoff
Sr. Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA57, Related to 1652-AA59
RIN: 1652-AA55
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
75. FREIGHT RAILROADS--SECURITY TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1517
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule is due 6 months after date of
enactment.
According to section 1517 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121
Stat. 266), TSA must issue a regulation no later than 6 months after
the date of enactment of this Act.
Abstract:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose new
regulations to improve the security of freight railroads in accordance
with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007. The rulemaking will propose general requirements for a security
training program to prepare freight railroad employees, including
frontline employees, for potential security threats and conditions. The
regulations will take into consideration any current security training
requirements or best practices.
Statement of Need:
The rulemaking will propose general requirements for a security
training program to prepare freight railroad employees, including
frontline employees, for potential security threats and conditions.
Summary of Legal Basis:
49 U.S.C. 114; section 1517 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121
Stat. 266).
Alternatives:
TSA is required by statute to publish regulations requiring security
programs for these operators. As part of its notice of proposed
rulemaking, TSA will seek public comment on the numerous ways in which
the final rule could carry out the requirements of the statute.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Economic analysis under development.
Risks:
The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks
within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of the United
States to terrorism. By providing for security training for personnel,
TSA intends in this rulemaking to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack
on this transportation sector.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
[[Page 64238]]
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Scott Gorton
Policy and Plans Branch Chief for Freight Rail
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-423N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-1251
Fax: 571 227-2930
Email: scott.gorton@dhs.gov
Shaina Pereira
Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-339N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-5138
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: shaina.pereira@dhs.gov
David Kasminoff
Sr. Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-3583
Fax: 571 227-1378
Email: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA55, Related to 1652-AA59
RIN: 1652-AA57
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
76. OVER-THE-ROAD BUSES--SECURITY TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1534
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule due 6 months after date of
enactment.
According to section 1534 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007); 121
Stat. 266), TSA must issue a regulation no later than 6 months after
date of enactment of this Act.
Abstract:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose new
regulations to improve the security of over-the-road buses in
accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Act of 2007. The rulemaking will propose an over-the-road bus security
training program to prepare over-the-road bus frontline employees for
potential security threats and conditions. The regulations will take
into consideration any current security training requirements or best
practices.
Statement of Need:
The rulemaking will propose an over-the-road bus security training
program to prepare over-the-road bus frontline employees for potential
security threats and conditions.
Summary of Legal Basis:
49 U.S.C. 114; section 1534 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121
Stat. 266).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Economic analysis under development.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Paul Pitzer
Policy and Planning Branch Chief; Highway and Motor Carrier Programs
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-1233
Email: paul.pitzer@dhs.gov
Shaina Pereira
Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-339N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-5138
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: shaina.pereira@dhs.gov
Denise Starr
Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, E12-419N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-5130
Email: denise.starr@dhs.gov
Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA55, Related to 1652-AA57
RIN: 1652-AA59
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
77. VETTING, ADJUDICATION, AND REDRESS PROCESS AND FEES
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
49 USC 114; PL 110-53, secs 1411, 1414, 1520, 1522, 1602
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose new
[[Page 64239]]
regulations to revise and standardize the procedures, adjudication
criteria, and fees for most of the security threat assessments (STA) of
individuals for which TSA is responsible. In accordance with the
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, the
scope of the rulemaking will include transportation workers from all
modes of transportation who are required to undergo an STA in other
regulatory programs, including certain aviation workers and frontline
employees for public transportation agencies, railroads, and over-the-
road buses.
In addition, TSA will propose fees to cover the cost of the STAs, and
credentials for some personnel. TSA plans to improve efficiencies in
processing STAs and streamline existing regulations by simplifying
language and removing redundancies.
Statement of Need:
Sections of the Implementing Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Act
of 2007 require TSA to complete security threat assessments and provide
a redress process for all frontline employees for public transportation
agencies, railroads, and over-the-road buses. There could be a further
need for threat assessments on transportation personnel that could be
addressed under this rule.
Summary of Legal Basis:
49 U.S.C. 114; sections 1411, 1414, 1520, 1522, and 1602 of Public Law
110-53, Implementing Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Economic analysis under development.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Hao-y Tran Froemling
Program Manager, Maritime and Surface Credentialing
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
TSA-19, HQ, E3-401N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6019
Phone: 571 227-2782
Email: hao-y.froemling@dhs.gov
Adam Sicking
Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-345N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-2304
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: adam.sicking@dhs.gov
Christine Beyer
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-336N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-2657
Email: christine.beyer@dhs.gov
RIN: 1652-AA61
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--TSA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
78. AIR CARGO SCREENING
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
PL 110-53, sec 1602; 49 USC 114; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44901 to 44905;
49 USC 44913 to 44914; 49 USC 44916; 49 USC 44935 to 44936; 49 USC
46105
CFR Citation:
49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1522; 49 CFR 1540; 49 CFR 1544; 49 CFR 1548; 49 CFR
1549
Legal Deadline:
Other, Statutory, February 3, 2009, Screen 50 percent of cargo on
passenger aircraft.
Final, Statutory, August 3, 2010, Screen 100 percent of cargo on
passenger aircraft.
Section 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 478, Aug. 3, 2007) requires
that the Secretary of Homeland Security establish a system to screen 50
percent of cargo on passenger aircraft not later than 18 months after
the date of enactment and 100 percent of such cargo not later than 3
years after the date of enactment.
Abstract:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is establishing the
Certified Cargo Screening Program that will certify shippers,
manufacturers, and other entities to screen air cargo intended for
transport on a passenger aircraft. This will be the primary means
through which TSA will meet the requirements of section 1602 of the
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 that
mandates that 100 percent of air cargo transported on passenger
aircraft, operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air
transportation or intrastate air transportation, must be screened by
August 2010, to ensure the security of all such passenger aircraft
carrying cargo.
Under this rulemaking, each certified cargo screening facility (CCSF)
and their employees and authorized representatives that will be
screening cargo must successfully complete a security threat
assessment. The CCSF must also submit to an audit of their security
measures by TSA-approved auditors, screen cargo using TSA-approved
methods, and initiate strict chain of custody measures to ensure the
security of the cargo throughout the supply chain prior to tendering it
for transport on passenger aircraft.
Statement of Need:
TSA is establishing a system to screen 100 percent of cargo transported
on passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier
in air transportation or intrastate air transportation to ensure the
security of all such passenger aircraft carrying cargo.
The system shall require, at a minimum, that equipment, technology,
procedures, personnel, or other
[[Page 64240]]
methods approved by the Administrator of TSA, used to screen cargo
carried on passenger aircraft, provide a level of security commensurate
with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked
baggage.
Summary of Legal Basis:
49 U.S.C. 114; section 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 478, 10/3/
2007), codified at 49 U.S.C. 44901(g).
Alternatives:
The Interim Final Rule (IFR) states that as an alternative to
establishing the CCSP, TSA considered meeting the statutory
requirements by having aircraft operators screen cargo intended for
transportation on passenger aircraft--that is, continuing the current
cargo screening program but expanding it to 85 percent of air cargo on
passenger aircraft. Under this alternative, the cost drivers for this
alternative are screening equipment, personnel for screening, training
of personnel, and delays. Delays are the largest cost component,
totaling $7.0 billion over 10 years, undiscounted. In summary, the
undiscounted 10 year cost of the alternative is $11.1 billion, and
discounted at 7 percent, the cost is 7.7 billion.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
TSA estimates the cost of the rule will be $1.9 billion (discounted at
7 percent) over 10 years. TSA analyzed the alternative of not
establishing the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) and, instead,
having aircraft operators and air carriers perform screening of all
cargo transported on passenger aircraft. Absent the CCSP, the estimated
cost to aircraft operators and air carriers is $7.7 billion (discounted
at seven percent) over ten years. The bulk of the costs for both the
CCSP and the alternative are attributed to personnel and the impact of
cargo delays resulting from the addition of a new operational process.
The benefits of the IFR are four fold. First, passenger air carriers
will be more firmly protected against an act of terrorism or other
malicious behaviors by the screening of 100 percent of cargo shipped on
passenger aircraft. Second, allowing the screening process to occur
throughout the supply chain via the Certified Cargo Screening Program
will reduce potential bottlenecks and delays at the airports. Third,
the IFR will allow market forces to identify the most efficient venue
for screening along the supply chain, as entities upstream from the
aircraft operator may apply to become CCSFs and screen cargo. Finally,
validation firms will perform assessments of the entities that become
CCSFs, allowing TSA to set priorities for compliance inspections.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 09/16/09 74 FR 47672
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 11/16/09
Interim Final Rule
Effective 11/16/09
Final Rule 11/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
Agency Contact:
Robert S. Hyde
Branch Chief, Air Cargo Policy & Plans
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E4-417N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-3943
Fax: 571 227-1923
Email: rsh@dhs.gov
Adam Sicking
Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Transportation Sector Network Management
TSA-28, HQ, E10-345N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6028
Phone: 571 227-2304
Fax: 571 227-1362
Email: adam.sicking@dhs.gov
Alice Crowe
Sr. Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
TSA-2, HQ, E12-320N
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6002
Phone: 571 227-2652
Fax: 571 227-1379
Email: alice.crowe@dhs.gov
RIN: 1652-AA64
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
79. CLARIFICATION OF CRITERIA FOR CERTIFICATION, OVERSIGHT, AND
RECERTIFICATION OF SCHOOLS BY THE STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM
(SEVP) TO ENROLL F OR M NONIMMIGRANT STUDENTS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1356(m); PL 107-56; PL 107-173
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 214.3; 8 CFR 214.4
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This proposed rule would clarify the criteria for nonimmigrant academic
(F visa) and vocational (M visa) students and exchange aliens (J visa)
to maintain visa status, and for the schools certified by the Student
and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to enroll F or M nonimmigrant
students to fulfill their recordkeeping, retention, and reporting
requirements to SEVP. The proposed rule would incorporate significant
refinements in policy and procedures that have evolved since the last
major regulatory update in 2002 and since the establishment of SEVP
nearly 6 years ago. The proposed rule would remove obsolete provisions
in the regulations used prior to and during implementation of the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information Program (SEVIS). In
anticipation of the implementation of a major reprogramming of SEVIS,
referred to as SEVIS II, that will begin in late 2009, the proposed
rule would incorporate language to support that transition.
Statement of Need:
ICE will publish this proposed rule that will incorporate significant
refinements in policy and procedures that have evolved since the last
major regulatory update in 2002, and since the establishment of SEVP
nearly six years ago. These revisions of 8 CFR 214.1-4 will clarify the
criteria for F, M and J nonimmigrant status and for schools certified
by SEVP, update policy and procedure for SEVP, remove obsolete
provisions and support the
[[Page 64241]]
implementation of a major reprogramming of the Student and Exchange
Visitor Information System (SEVIS), known as ``SEVIS II.''
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Under development. It is difficult to quantify monetarily the benefits
of the Clarification of Criteria for Certification, Oversight and
Recertification of Schools by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program
(SEVP) To Enroll F or M Nonimmigrant Students regulation using standard
economic accounting techniques. Nonimmigrant students, the schools that
serve them, and the communities in which they live will benefit from
the improvements and clarifications to the rules governing the
certification, oversight, and recertification of schools certified by
SEVP.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Sharon Snyder
Acting Branch Chief, SEVP Policy, Student and Exchange Visitor Program
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Potomac Center North
500 12th Street SW.
Washington, DC 20024-6121
Phone: 703 603-3415
Related RIN: Related to 1653-AA42
RIN: 1653-AA44
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USICE
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
80. CONTINUED DETENTION OF ALIENS SUBJECT TO FINAL ORDERS OF REMOVAL
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1223; 8 USC 1227; 8 USC 1231; 8 USC 1253; . . .
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 241
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is finalizing, with
amendments, the interim rule that was published on November 14, 2001,
by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service). The
interim rule included procedures for conducting custody determinations
in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533
U.S. 678 (2001), which held that the detention period of certain aliens
who are subject to a final administrative order of removal is limited
under section 241(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) to
the period reasonably necessary to effect their removal. The interim
rule amended section 241.4 of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), in addition to creating two new sections: 8 CFR 241.13
(establishing custody review procedures based on the significant
likelihood of the alien's removal in the reasonably foreseeable future)
and 241.14 (establishing custody review procedures for special
circumstances cases). Subsequently, in the case of Clark v. Martinez,
543 U.S. 371 (2005), the Supreme Court clarified a question left open
in Zadvydas, and held that section 241(a)(6) of the Act applies equally
to all aliens described in that section. This rule amends the interim
rule to conform to the requirements of Martinez. Further, the
procedures for custody determinations for post-removal period aliens
who are subject to an administratively final order of removal, and who
have not been released from detention or repatriated, have been revised
in response to comments received and experience gained from
administration of the interim rule published in 2001. This final rule
also makes conforming changes as required by the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA). Additonally, certain portions of
the Final Rule were determined to require public comment and, for this
reason, have been developed into a separate/companion Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking; RIN 1653-AA60.
Statement of Need:
This rule will improve the post order custody review process in the
Final Rule related to the Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders
of Removal in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Zadvydas
v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005)
and conforming changes as required by the enactment of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (HSA). A companion Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) will amend 8 CFR 241.1(g) to provide for a new 90-day removal
period once an alien comes into compliance with his or her obligation
to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents
and not conspire or act to prevent removal. The NPRM adds new
subparagraph (iii) to 8 CFR 241.4(g)(1) to provide for a 90-day removal
period once the alien is taken into custody if at liberty or in another
agency's custody at the time the removal order becomes administratively
final and amends 8 CFR 241.13(b)(3) to clarify that aliens who fall
within the provisions of 236A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1226a, are not
covered by the provisions of 8 CFR 241.13(a) (such alien covered by the
specific provisions of section 236A).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Under development; this rule is not significant for economic reasons.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 11/14/01 66 FR 56967
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/14/02
Final Action 05/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
INS No. 2156-01
Transferred from RIN 1115-AG29
Agency Contact:
Jason Johnsen
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
500 12th Street SW.
Washington, DC 20024
Phone: 202 732-4245
Email: jason.johnsen@dhs.gov
RIN: 1653-AA13
[[Page 64242]]
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USICE
81. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE AND STORAGE OF FORM I-9, EMPLOYMENT
ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1324a; 8 CFR 2
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 274a
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations provide that
employers and recruiters or referrers for a fee required to complete
and retain Forms I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, may sign and
retain these forms electronically.
Statement of Need:
This final rule on the Electronic Signature and Storage of Form I-9,
Employment Eligibility Verification will respond to comments and make
minor changes to the IFR that was published in 2006.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Under development.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 06/15/06 71 FR 34510
Interim Final Rule
Effective 06/15/06
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 08/14/06
Final Rule 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Additional Information:
ICE 2345-05
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Allan Vanscoy
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
500 12th Street SW.
Washington, DC 20025
Phone: 202 732-5798
RIN: 1653-AA47
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--USICE
82. EXTENDING PERIOD FOR OPTIONAL PRACTICAL TRAINING BY 17 MONTHS FOR
F-1 NONIMMIGRANT STUDENTS WITH STEM DEGREES AND EXPANDING THE CAP-GAP
RELIEF FOR ALL F-1 STUDENTS WITH PENDING H-1B PETITIONS
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
8 USC 1101 to 1103; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184 to 1187; 8 USC 1221; 8 USC
1281 and 1282; 8 USC 1301 to 1305
CFR Citation:
8 CFR 214
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Currently, foreign students in F-1 nonimmigrant status who have been
enrolled on a full-time basis for at least one full academic year in a
college, university, conservatory, or seminary certified by U.S.
Immigration and Custom Enforcement's (ICE) Student and Exchange Visitor
Program (SEVP) are eligible for 12 months of optional practical
training (OPT) to work for a U.S. employer in a job directly related to
the student's major area of study. The maximum period of OPT is 29
months for F-1 students who have completed a science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree and accept employment with
employers enrolled in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'
(USCIS') E-Verify employment verification program. Employers of F-1
students with an extension of post-completion OPT authorization must
report to the student's designated school official (DSO) within 48
hours after the OPT student has been terminated from, or otherwise
leaves, his or her employment with that employer prior to end of the
authorized period of OPT.
The final rule will respond to public comments and may make adjustments
to the regulations.
Statement of Need:
ICE will improve SEVP processes by publishing the Final Optional
Practical Training (OPT) rule, which will respond to comments on the
OPT interim final rule (IFR). The IFR increased the maximum period of
OPT from 12 months to 29 months for nonimmigrant students who have
completed a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM)
degree and who accept employment with employers who participate in the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS') E-Verify employment
verification program.
Alternatives:
DHS is considering several alternatives to the 17-month extension of
OPT and cap-gap extension, ranging from taking no action to further
extension for a larger populace. The interim final rule addressed an
immediate competitive disadvantage faced by U.S. industries and
ameliorated some of the adverse impacts on the U.S. economy. DHS
continues to evaluate both quantitative and qualitative alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Based on an estimated 12,000 students per year that will receive an OPT
extension and an estimated 5,300 employers that will need to enroll in
E-verify, DHS projects that this rule will cost students approximately
$1.49 million per year in additional information collection burdens,
$4,080,000 in fees, and cost employers $1,240,000 to enroll in E-Verify
and $168,540 per year thereafter to verify the status of new hires.
However, this rule will increase the availability of qualified workers
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematical fields; reduce
delays that place U.S. employers at a disadvantage when recruiting
foreign job candidates, thereby improving strategic and resource
planning capabilities; increase the quality of life for participating
students, and increase the integrity of the student visa program.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 04/08/08 73 FR 18944
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 06/09/08
Final Rule 05/00/10
[[Page 64243]]
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
URL For More Information:
www.dhs.gov/sevis/
Agency Contact:
Sharon Snyder
Acting Branch Chief, SEVP Policy, Student and Exchange Visitor Program
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Potomac Center North
500 12th Street SW.
Washington, DC 20024-6121
Phone: 703 603-3415
RIN: 1653-AA56
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
83. DISASTER ASSISTANCE; FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND
HOUSEHOLDS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
42 USC 5174
CFR Citation:
44 CFR 206
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, October 15, 2002.
Abstract:
This rulemaking implements section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. In doing so, the notice
of proposed rulemaking would propose further revisions to 44 CFR part
206, subpart D (the Individuals and Households Program (IHP)) and
remove subpart E (Individual and Family Grant Programs). Among other
things, it would propose to implement section 686 of the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) to remove the IHP
subcaps; and PKEMRA section 685 regarding semi-permanent and permanent
housing construction eligibility. It would revise FEMA's regulations
related to individuals with disabilities pursuant to PKEMRA section
689; and revise FEMA's regulations to allow for the payment of security
deposits and the costs of utilities, excluding telephone service, in
accordance with section 689d of PKEMRA. The rule would propose to
implement section 689f of PKEMRA by authorizing assistance to relocate
individuals displaced from their predisaster primary residence, to and
from alternate locations for short- or long-term accommodations.
Statement of Need:
FEMA needs to revise its IHP regulations to reflect lessons learned,
from Hurricane Katrina and subsequent events, to address comments
received on the interim regulations, and to implement recent
legislative changes (i.e. Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
of 2006). These changes are intended to provide clear information to
disaster assistance applicants, implement new authorities, and help
ensure the consistent administration of the Individuals and Households
Program.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This rulemaking is authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act as amended by the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006.
Alternatives:
The rule is under development.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The economic analysis for this rule is under development.
Risks:
This action does not adversely affect public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/23/02 67 FR 3412
NPRM Comment Period End 03/11/02
Interim Final Rule 09/30/02 67 FR 61446
Corrections 10/09/02 67 FR 62896
Corrections Effective 10/09/02
Interim Final Rule
Effective 10/15/02
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 04/15/03
NPRM 08/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Additional Information:
Transferred from RIN 3067-AD25; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0005
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
Julia Chiu
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20472-3100
Phone: 202 212-1100
Fax: 202 212-1002
Email: fema-ia-regulations@dhs.gov
RIN: 1660-AA18
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--FEMA
84. UPDATE OF FEMA'S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
42 USC 5121-5207
CFR Citation:
44 CFR 206
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This proposed rule would revise the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Public Assistance program regulations. Many of these changes
reflect amendments made to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act of 2006 and the Security and Accountability For Every Port
Act of 2006. The proposed rule also proposes to reflect lessons learned
from recent events, and propose further substantive and non-substantive
clarifications and corrections to improve upon the Public Assistance
regulations. This proposed rule is intended to improve the efficiency
and consistency of the Public Assistance program, as well as implement
new statutory authority by expanding Federal assistance, providing for
precautionary evacuations, improving the Project Worksheet process,
empowering grantees, and improving State Administrative Plans.
[[Page 64244]]
Statement of Need:
The proposed changes implement new statutory authorities and
incorporate necessary clarifications and corrections to streamline and
improve the Public Assistance program. Portions of FEMA's Public
Assistance regulations have become out of date and do not implement all
of FEMA's available statutory authorities. The current regulations
inhibit FEMA's ability to clearly articulate its regulatory
requirements, and the Public Assistance applicants' understanding of
the program. The proposed changes are intended to improve the
efficiency and consistency of the Public Assistance program.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal authority for the changes in this proposed rule is contained
in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 to 5207, as amended by the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006, 6 U.S.C. 701 et seq., the Security and
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, 6 U.S.C. 901 note, the Local
Community Recovery Act of 2006, Public Law 109-218, 120 Stat. 333, and
the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006, Public
Law 109-308, 120 Stat. 1725.
Alternatives:
One alternative is to revise some of the current regulatory
requirements (such as application deadlines) in addition to
implementing the amendments made to the Stafford Act by (1) the Post-
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) Public law
109-295, 120 Stat. 1394; 2) the Security and Accountability for Every
Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884,
3) the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006, Public Law 109-218, 120
Stat. 333; and 4) the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act
of 2006 (PETS Act), Public Law 109-308, 120 Stat. Another alternative
is to expand funding by expanding force account labor cost eligibility
to Category A Projects (debris removal) as well as Category B Projects
(emergency protective measures).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The proposed rule is expected to have economic impacts on the public,
grantees, subgrantees, and FEMA. The expected benefits are a reduction
in property damages, societal losses, and losses to local businesses,
as well as improved efficiency and consistency of the Public Assistance
program. The expected cost impact of the proposed rule is mainly the
costs to FEMA in administering the Public Assistance program of
approximately $60 million per year. Less than $1 million per year is
expected to be attributed to grantees, and FEMA estimates the rule will
have no costs added to subgrantees. These costs to FEMA are expected to
accrue from the inclusion of education to the list of eligible private
nonprofit critical services; expansion of force account labor cost
eligibility; the inclusion of durable medical equipment; the
evacuation, care, and sheltering of pets; as well as providing for
precautionary evacuation measures. However, most of the proposed
changes are not expected to result in any additional cost to FEMA or
any changes in the eligibility of assistance. For example, the proposed
rule would provide for accelerated Federal assistance and expedited
payment of Federal share for debris removal. These are expected to
improve the agency's ability to quickly provide funding to grantees and
subgrantees without affecting Public Assistance funding amounts.
Risks:
This action does not adversely affect public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 06/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Agency Contact:
James A. Walke
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20472-3100
Phone: 202 646-2751
Fax: 202 646-3304
Email: james.walke@dhs.gov
RIN: 1660-AA51
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS--FEMA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
85. SPECIAL COMMUNITY DISASTER LOANS PROGRAM
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
42 USC 5121 to 5207
CFR Citation:
44 CFR 206
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule amends FEMA's regulations to implement loan cancellation
provisions for Special Community Disaster Loans (Special CDLs), which
were provided by FEMA to local governments in the Gulf region following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This rule would not automatically cancel
all Special CDLs, but would establish the procedures and requirements
for governments who received Special CDLs to apply for cancellation of
loan obligations as authorized by the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans'
Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act,
2007 (Troop Act). With the passage of the Troop Act, FEMA has the
discretionary ability to cancel Special CDLs subject to the limitations
of section 417(c)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). Under section 417 of the
Stafford Act, FEMA is authorized to cancel a loan if it determines that
the ``revenues of the local government during the three full fiscal
year period following the major disaster are insufficient to meet the
operating budget of the local government, including additional
disaster-related expenses of a municipal operation character.'' Since
the cancellation provisions of section 417 of the Stafford Act already
exist in the Traditional CDL Program regulations at 44 CFR 206.366, and
section 417 of the Stafford Act provides the basis for cancellation of
loans under both the Special CDL Program and the Traditional CDL
Program, FEMA proposed to mirror the Traditional CDL cancellation
provisions for Special CDLs. This rule will not affect the
[[Page 64245]]
cancellation provisions for the Traditional CDL Program.
Statement of Need:
This rulemaking is needed to address the needs of the communities
affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. This rule would
provide for the alleviation of financial hardship on those communities
who can demonstrate that in the three full fiscal years after the
disaster they have not recovered to the point that their revenues are
sufficient to meet their operating budget. This rule is needed to help
those communities recover from that catastrophic disaster by offering
the potential for relief of an additional financial burden.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This rulemaking is authorized by the Community Disaster Loan Act of
2005 (Pub. L. 109-88), the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006,
(Pub. L. 109-234), and the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care,
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007
(Pub. L. 110-28).
Alternatives:
FEMA considered creating new and different cancellation application
requirements for these communities but decided against that method as
the cancellation authority is the same as the authority for traditional
CDLs and the regulations currently used to cancel traditional CDLs has
been in place and working for 19 years. New requirements may be
confusing, additionally burdensome, or insufficient. FEMA is also
considering the alternatives proposed by the commenters in drafting the
final rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The overall impact of this rule is the cost to the applicant to apply
for the cancellation, as well as the impact on the economy of
potentially forgiving all Special Community Disaster Loans and any
related interest and costs. As the total amount of loans approved in
the SCDL program reached almost $1.3 billion, therefore, the maximum
total economic impact of this rule is approximately $1.3 billion.
However, without knowing which communities will apply for cancellation
and the dollar amount of the loans that will be cancelled, it is
impossible to predict the amount of the economic impact of this rule
with any precision. Although the impact of the rule could be spread
over multiple years as applications are received, processed, and loans
cancelled, the total economic effect of a specific loan cancellation
would only occur once, rather than annually.
Risks:
This action does not adversely affect public health, safety, or the
environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 10/18/05 70 FR 60443
Interim Final Rule
Effective 10/18/05
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 12/19/05
NPRM 04/03/09 74 FR 15228
NPRM Comment Period End 06/02/09
Final Rule 01/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Additional Information:
Docket ID FEMA-2005-0051
URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov
URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov
Agency Contact:
James A. Walke
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20472-3100
Phone: 202 646-2751
Fax: 202 646-3304
Email: james.walke@dhs.gov
RIN: 1660-AA44
BILLING CODE 9110-9B-S
