[No title available]

[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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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:

Undete

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.