Comment Submitted by Noah Clifton Patterson

I would first like to address several of the questions you posed for commenters in your proposed rulemaking. You asked for comments regarding submission of registration applications. In my opinion, applications should be submitted electronically. This mode of application is much more fiscally responsible and more efficient than the alternative. While electronic application should be the preferred mode of application submission, it would also be wise to provide applicants with the option of obtaining paper applications from United States Post Offices in case they do not have internet access. You also asked for comments regarding DHS distribution of Ammonium Nitrate (“AN”) registration letters or certificates (email or regular mail). Again, I think it is much more efficient to make email the preferred mode of distribution. Regular mail should only be used if the applicant does not have internet access. There are several benefits of this rulemaking. The first and most obvious benefit of this rulemaking is the increased security it will provide. Since AN is such a basic component of an easily constructed explosive, monitoring its sale and manufacture appears to be a good idea. Second, the quick turnaround in both application decisions (72 hours) and appeals (72 hours) is a significant benefit of this rulemaking. This will minimize the burden of this proposed rulemaking on the AN manufacturing/retail industry. My primary concern with this proposed rule is the lack of standards provided for DHS discretion in the approving or denying of applications for registration. On what grounds can an application be denied? How strong does the link to terrorist activity have to be? Is it all within the discretion of DHS? Are there any other grounds on which DHS could deny an application for registration (e.g. a criminal history, etc.)? The lack of specific standards or guidelines for approval or rejection of an application for an AN registration is a major weakness of this proposed rulemaking. This rulemaking needs specific guidelines for what constitutes an appropriate basis for a denial. Additionally, I think there should be some third-party check on DHS’ discretion concerning the approval or denial of AN registration applications. While there is an appeal opportunity provided to an applicant whose application is denied, this appeal opportunity appears to only be considered by the DHS itself. Since the proposed rulemaking presents very little standards or guidelines for DHS to follow in terms of approval or denial of applications, it would likely be helpful for there to be a third party to which applicants could appeal the DHS final decision. I would propose that a review board be composed of various agency officials (not all within the DHS) to review the appeals to initial DHS decisions to deny applications for registration. Finally, I would like to comment on the best methods or processes for interacting with state and local governments regarding AN security. I think it would be wise to involve state and local governments in the enforcement of this act. It makes sense for DHS to centrally process all of the applications for registration. However, the enforcement efforts would likely be best achieved by collaboration between DHS and the state/local governments.