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, Public Law 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 2010 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 this year’s fall regulatory plan continue to address 

legislative initiatives including, but not limited to, the following acts: The Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 

2007); the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA), Public Law 

109-295 (Oct. 4, 2006); the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Public Law No. 

110-220 (May 7, 2008); the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port 

Act), Public Law 109-347 (Oct. 13, 2006); and the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, 

and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Public Law 110-329 (Sep. 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 Agenda and The 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 12866, 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, 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 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

1
and rulemaking documents to promote a better understanding of regulations and increased public 

participation in the Department’s rulemakings. 

 The fall 2010 Regulatory Plan for DHS 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), which have active regulatory programs. In addition, it includes regulations 

from the Department’s major offices and directorates such as the National Protection and 

Programs Directorate (NPPD). Below is a discussion of the fall 2010 regulatory plan for DHS 

regulatory components, as well as for DHS offices and directorates. 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administer immigration benefits and 

services while protecting homeland security. USCIS has a strong commitment to welcoming 

individuals who seek entry through the U.S. immigration system, providing clear and useful 

information regarding the immigration process, promoting the values of citizenship, and assisting 

those in need of humanitarian protection. Based on a comprehensive review of the planned 

USCIS 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 extension 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 issue the following CNMI 

final rules during fiscal year 2011: “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 (DOJ) regulation “Application of Immigration Regulations to the CNMI.” 

Improvements to the Immigration System 

 USCIS is currently engaged in a multi-year transformation effort to create a more efficient, 

effective, and customer-focused organization by improving our business processes and 

technology. In the coming years, USCIS will publish several rules to facilitate that effort. To 

improve customer service specifically, USCIS is pursuing a regulatory initiative that will provide 

for selection of visa numbers by lottery for H-1B petitions based on electronic registration. 

Registration Requirements for Employment-Based Categories Subject to Numerical Limitations

 USCIS will propose a revised registration process for H-1B petitioners who are subject to a 

numerical limit or “cap.” The rule would propose to create a process by which USCIS would 

randomly select a sufficient number of timely filed registrations to meet the applicable cap. Only 

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 costs 

incurred by USCIS in 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. 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

2
 

Asylum and Withholding Definitions

 USCIS plans a regulatory proposal 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 definition of membership in a 

particular social group. This effort should provide greater stability and clarity in this important 

area of the law. 

 

Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, or Temporary Protected Status, and 

Withholding of Removal 

 DHS, in a joint rulemaking with DOJ, will propose amendments to existing DHS and DOJ 

regulations to resolve ambiguity in the statutory language precluding eligibility for asylum, refugee 

resettlement, temporary protected status, and withholding of removal of an applicant who 

ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of others. The proposed 

rule would provide a limited exception for persecutory actions taken by the applicant under duress 

and clarify the required levels of the applicant’s knowledge of the persecution. 

“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 human trafficking, 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 

greater clarity to the law enforcement community. In addition, publication of these rules will 

inform the community about 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 one of the U.S. Government's 

most significant and important strengths 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 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

3
from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies. The rulemaking projects 

identified for the Coast Guard in the Unified Agenda, and the rules appearing in the fall 2010 

Regulatory Plan below, contribute to the fulfillment of those responsibilities and reflect our 

regulatory policies. The Coast Guard’s rulemaking projects support 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 and 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 also 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 requirements of 

the National Invasive Species Act (NISA). 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. This rulemaking supports maritime stewardship. 

Outer Continental Shelf Activities

 The Coast Guard is revising regulations to address new developments in the offshore industry, to 

fully address existing legislation, to effectively implement interagency agreements, to respond to 

comments received from the notice of proposed rulemaking (Outer Continental Shelf Activities, 64 FR 

68416 (Dec. 7, 1999), and to update security requirements and procedures. This proposed rule 

would improve the level of safety in the workplace and security for personnel and units engaged in 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities. The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for OCS 

workplace safety and health—other than for matters generally related to drilling and production that 

are regulated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement—on 

facilities and vessels engaged in the exploration for, or development or production of, minerals on the 

OCS. The last major revision of the Coast Guard’s OCS regulations occurred in 1982. At that time, 

the offshore industry was not as technologically advanced as it is today. Offshore activities were in 

relatively shallow water near land, where help was readily available during emergency situations. 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

4
The regulations required only basic equipment, primarily for lifesaving appliances and hand-held 

portable fire extinguishers. Since 1982, the requirements in 33 CFR chapter I, subchapter N, have 

not kept pace with the changing offshore technology or the safety problems it creates as OCS 

activities extend to deeper water (10,000 feet) and move farther offshore (150 miles). This 

rulemaking would reassess all of the Coast Guard’s current OCS regulations in order to help make 

the OCS a safer workplace, and it supports the Commandant's strategic goals of marine safety and 

environmental stewardship. 

Updates to 33 CFR Subchapter H—Maritime Security. 

 The intent of this rulemaking is to strengthen security of our Nation’s ports, vessels, facilities, 

and Outer Continental Shelf facilities by incorporating clarifications realized since the original 

Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) regulations of 2003, Security and Accountability for 

Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) requirements, and the Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2006. This proposed rule would incorporate feedback received from 

industry stakeholders, Coast Guard field units, and the public since the original MTSA regulations 

came into effect in 2003. The proposed rule would also consolidate into regulation appropriate 

actions promulgated in a series of Policy Advisory Council (PAC) papers, Navigation and 

Inspection Circulars (NVICs), and MTSA Help Desk responses; address screening standards for 

port facilities and vessels; establish security training standards that will be modeled after the 

courses developed by the Maritime Administration (MARAD); and the training standards 

(mandatory and non-mandatory) and courses developed by the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO). It would also update existing regulations regarding the areas of maritime 

security plans, facility and vessel security plans, and facility exercise requirements in the SAFE 

Port Act of 2006. This rulemaking supports the Commandant's strategic goal of maritime security.

Assessment Framework and Organizational Restatement Regarding Preemption for Certain 

Regulations Issued by the Coast Guard 

 This rule would restate the preemptive effect of existing Coast Guard regulations and 

articulate the assessment framework for evaluating the preemptive effect of future regulations. 

This rule would not alter the preemptive effect of any regulation: It would merely restate the 

existing law. By clarifying the preemptive effect of Coast Guard regulations, the Coast Guard 

intends to increase transparency, encourage appropriate State regulation, and avoid or reduce 

litigation related to State and local attempts to regulate in preempted areas. In doing so, the 

Coast Guard intends to comply with the May 2009 presidential memoranda on preemption, and 

on transparency and open government, and also intends to reinforce a uniform maritime 

regulatory regime that is predictable and useful for maritime interests. The Coast Guard expects 

no additional cost impacts to the industry from this rule, because it only restates and clarifies the 

status of Federal and State law as it exists. 

 The following Coast Guard rulemakings may be of particular interest to small entities: 

Inspection of Towing Vessels 

Based on preliminary analysis, the Coast Guard determined 1,059 operators of 5,208 

uninspected towing vessels would incur additional costs from this rulemaking and over 92 percent 

of these entities are small businesses. This rulemaking would require operators of previously 

uninspected towing vessels to incur the costs of becoming regulated under a new inspection 

regime. 

 

Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters 

Based on preliminary analysis in the notice of proposed rulemaking (74 FR 44632), the Coast 

Guard determined 850 U.S. operators of 2,616 vessels would incur additional costs from this 

rulemaking and over 57 percent of these entities are small businesses. This rulemaking would 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

5
require operators to purchase and install ballast water management systems costing between 

$258,000 and $419,000 per vessel, depending vessel and technology type. 

Updates to 33 CFR Subchapter H—Maritime Security 

Based on preliminary analysis, the Coast Guard determined that 55 percent of operators 

affected by this rulemaking are small entities. This rulemaking would require operators to incur 

additional costs for training and exercise provisions. 

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 is also 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 United States; maintaining 

export controls; and protecting U.S. 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 intends to finalize several rules 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 (ESTA). 

 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 field 

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 I94W 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 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

6
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. On August 9, 2010, CBP published an interim final rule amending the ESTA 

regulations to require ESTA applicants to pay a congressionally mandated fee which is the sum 

of two amounts: a $10 travel promotion fee for an approved ESTA and a $4 operational fee for 

the use of ESTA set by the Secretary of Homeland Security to, at a minimum, ensure the 

recovery of the full costs of providing and administering the ESTA. CBP is working to finalize the 

2008 and 2010 interim final rules during fiscal year 2011. 

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 Public Law No. 109-347, section 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. 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. 

 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 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 flexibility provided in the interim final rule. CBP 

intends to publish a final rule during fiscal year 2011. 

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 Consolidated National 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 others 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 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. CBP intends to issue a final 

rule during fiscal year 2011. 

Global Entry Program

 Pursuant to section 7208(k) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, 

as amended, CBP issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the fall of 2009, 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 proposed to establish Global 

Entry as a permanent voluntary regulatory program. CBP will evaluate the public comments 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

7
received in response to the NPRM, in order to develop a final rule. CBP intends to issue a final 

rule during fiscal year 2011. 

 The rules discussed above foster DHS’ 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 of the Border Patrol and transferred into CBP. It 

is noted that certain regulatory authority of the United States Customs Service relating to customs 

revenue function 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 2011, expects to continue to issue regulatory documents 

that will facilitate legitimate trade and implement trade benefit program. CBP regulations 

regarding the customs revenue function are discussed in the regulatory plan of the Department of 

the Treasury. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

 The mission of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 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 2011, 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 PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) (Pub. L. 109-295, Oct. 4, 2006), 

and to implement lessons learned from past events. 

Public Assistance Program regulations 

 FEMA will work to revise the Public Assistance Program regulations in 44 CFR part 206 to 

reflect changes made to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by 

PKEMRA, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006 (PETS Act) (Pub. L. 

No. 109-308, Oct. 6, 2006), the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006 (Pub. L. No. 109-218, 

Apr. 20, 2006), and the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) 

(Pub. L. No. 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 

689(h) of PKEMRA, thus allowing private nonprofit educational facilities to be eligible for 

restoration funding; add accelerated Federal assistance to available assistance 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. 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

 The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have any significant 

regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2011. 

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

8
 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the principal criminal investigative arm of 

the Department of Homeland Security and one of the three Department components charged with 

the civil enforcement of the Nation’s immigration laws. ICE's primary mission is to protect 

national security, public safety, and the integrity of our borders through the criminal and civil 

enforcement of Federal law governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. 

 During fiscal year 2011, ICE will pursue rulemaking actions that improve two critical subject 

areas: The detention of aliens who are subject to final orders of removal and the processes for 

the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). 

Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal 

 ICE will improve the post order custody review process in a final rule related to the continued 

detention of aliens subject to final orders of removal in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) and Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005), 

as well as make changes pursuant to the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. 

During fiscal year 2011, ICE will also issue a companion notice of proposed rulemaking that will 

allow the public an opportunity to comment on new sections of the custody determination process 

not previously published for comment. 

Processes for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program

 ICE will improve SEVP processes by publishing a final Optional Practical Training (OPT) rule, 

which will respond to comments on the OPT Interim Final Rule (IFR) published on June 9, 2008. 

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 degree and 

who accept employment with employers who participate in USCIS’ E-Verify employment 

verification program. 

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, Public Law No. 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. 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

9
 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, which the Department hopes to issue during fiscal 

year 2011. 

 

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 

 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 a notice of proposed rulemaking 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 No.110-329 (Sep. 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 as soon as practicable. 

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 2011, 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 the Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 

2007) that TSA establish a system to screen 100 percent of cargo transported on passenger 

aircraft by August 3, 2010. To assist in carrying out this mandate, TSA has established a 

voluntary program under which it certifies 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) 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

10
 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 (GA) by expanding the scope of current requirements and by adding new 

requirements for certain 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 enhance aviation security of certain GA aircraft to undertake other 

security measures. 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 Surface Mode Employees 

 TSA will propose regulations to enhance the security of several non-aviation modes of 

transportation. In particular, TSA will propose regulations requiring freight railroad carriers, public 

transportation agencies (including rail mass transit and bus systems), passenger railroad carriers, 

over-the-road bus operators, and motor carriers transporting certain hazardous materials to 

conduct security training for front line employees. This regulation would implement sections 1408 

(Public Transportation), 1517 (Freight Railroads), and 1534(a) (Over the Road (OTR) Buses) of 

the 9/11 Act. The NPRM will define which employees must be trained under these provisions, in 

compliance with the definitions of frontline employees in the pertinent provisions of the 9/11 Act. . 

Some parts of the proposed rule would extend beyond the requirements of the 9/11 Act; those 

portions are authorized by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. 

Aircraft Repair Station Security. 

 TSA will finalize a rule requiring repair stations that are certificated by the Federal Aviation 

Administration under 14 CFR part 145 to adopt and implement standard security programs and to 

comply with security directives issued by TSA. TSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on 

November 18, 2009. The final rule will also codify the scope of TSA’s existing inspection program 

and 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. 

Standardized 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 that TSA 

conducts. The scope of the rulemaking will include transportation workers from almost all modes 

of transportation who are required to undergo an STA by a regulatory program and new 

programs, including those covered under the 9/11 Act. In addition, TSA will propose equitable 

fees to cover the cost of the STAs and credentials for some personnel. TSA plans to identify new 

efficiencies in processing STAs and ways to streamline existing regulations by simplifying 

language and removing redundancies. 

United States Secret Service 

 The United States Secret Service does not have any significant regulatory actions planned for 

fiscal year 2011. 

DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2011

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

11
 A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise DHS' fall 2010 regulatory 

plan follows.

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

12
The 30 Actions Described in the Regulatory Plan

Title

Regulation 

Identifier 

Number

Rulemaking 

Stage

Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program 1601-AA52 Proposed Rule Stage

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)

1601-AA34 Final Rule Stage

Asylum and Withholding Definitions 1615-AA41 Proposed Rule Stage

Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File H-1B Petitions on Behalf of Aliens

Subject to Numerical Limitations 1615-AB71 Proposed Rule Stage

Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, and Temporary Protected Status,

and Withholding of Removal 1615-AB89 Proposed Rule Stage

New Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons; Eligibility for T

Nonimmigrant Status 1615-AA59 Final Rule Stage

Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T and U Nonimmigrant

Status 1615-AA60 Final Rule Stage

New Classification for Victims of Criminal Activity; Eligibility for the "U" Nonimmigrant

Status 1615-AA67 Final Rule Stage

E-2 Nonimmigrant Status for Aliens in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

With Long-Term Investor Status 1615-AB75 Final Rule Stage

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Transitional Worker Classification 1615-AB76 Final Rule Stage

Application of Immigration Regulations to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands 1615-AB77 Final Rule Stage

Outer Continental Shelf Activities 1625-AA18 Proposed Rule Stage

Inspection of Towing Vessels 1625-AB06 Proposed Rule Stage

Assessment Framework and Organizational Restatement Regarding Preemption for

Certain Regulations Issued by the Coast Guard 1625-AB32 Proposed Rule Stage

Updates to Maritime Security 1625-AB38 Proposed Rule Stage

Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters 1625-AA32 Final Rule Stage

Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements 1651-AA70 Final Rule Stage

Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic System for Travel

Authorization (ESTA) Program 1651-AA72 Final Rule Stage

Establishment of Global Entry Program 1651-AA73 Final Rule Stage

Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program 1651-AA77 Final Rule Stage

Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport

Operator Security Program 1652-AA53 Proposed Rule Stage

Public Transportation and Passenger Railroads--Security Training of Employees 1652-AA55 Proposed Rule Stage

Freight Railroads--Security Training of Employees 1652-AA57 Proposed Rule Stage

Over-the-Road Buses--Security Training of Employees 1652-AA59 Proposed Rule Stage

Aircraft Repair Station Security 1652-AA38 Final Rule Stage

Air Cargo Screening 1652-AA64 Final Rule Stage

Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal 1653-AA60 Proposed Rule Stage

Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal 1653-AA13 Final Rule Stage

Extending Period for Optional Practical Training by 17 Months for F-1 Nonimmigrant

Students With STEM Degrees and Expanding the CAP-GAP Relief for All F-1 Students

With Pending H-1B Petitions

1653-AA56 Final Rule Stage

Update of FEMA's Public Assistance Regulations 1660-AA51 Proposed Rule Stage

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Office of the Secretary ( OS ) RIN: 1601-AA52

 View Related Documents

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

13
Title: Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program

Abstract: This rulemaking will implement the December 2007 amendment to the Homeland Security Act entitled "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."

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 6 CFR 31 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: sec 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, subtitle J--Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate,

PL 110-161

Legal Deadline: 

 Action Source Description Date

NPRM Statutory Publication of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 05/26/2008 

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Pursuant to section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Secure Handling of

Ammonium Nitrate Act, Public Law 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 would 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 would

be much more difficult for terrorists to obtain ammonium nitrate materials for use in improvised explosive devices. 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).

Legal Basis: Section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, subtitle J-- Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate,

Public Law 110-161, authorizes and requires this rulemaking.

Alternatives: The Department of Homeland Security is required by statute to publish regulations implementing the Secure

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.

Costs and Benefits: A proposed rule registering certain buyers and sellers of ammonium nitrate would have 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 would 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.

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

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

14
ANPRM 10/29/2008 73 FR 64280 

Correction 11/05/2008 73 FR 65783 

ANPRM Comment Period End 12/29/2008 

NPRM 03/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal

Federalism: Yes

Energy Affected: No

RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact: Todd Klessman 

Acting Deputy Director, Infrastructure Security Compliance Division

Department of Homeland Security

Office of the Secretary

Ballston 1 - 5th floor Room 5030

Arlington , VA 22201 

Phone: 703 235-4921 

E-Mail: todd.klessman@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Office of the Secretary ( OS ) RIN: 1601-AA34

 View Related Documents

Title: 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)

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.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 215.1; 8 CFR 215.8 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

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

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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.

Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: The proposed rule would require aliens who are subject to US-VISIT biometric requirements upon entering the

United 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.

Costs and Benefits: The proposed rule expenditure and delay costs for a 10-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

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

15
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.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 04/24/2008 73 FR 22065 

NPRM Comment Period End 06/23/2008 

Final Rule 04/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov

Related RINs: Previously Reported as 1650-AA04

Agency Contact: Long D. Kaiser 

Policy Analyst, National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), US-VISIT

Department of Homeland Security

Office of the Secretary

Washington , DC 20528 

Phone: 202 295-0735 

E-Mail: long.d.kaiser@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AA41

 View Related Documents

Title: Asylum and Withholding Definitions

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.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1158; 8 USC 1226; 8 USC 1252; 8 USC 1282; 8 CFR 2

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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.

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

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

16
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 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.

Costs 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 United States. 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 12/07/2000 65 FR 76588 

NPRM Comment Period End 01/22/2001 

NPRM 03/00/2011 

NPRM Comment Period End 05/00/2011 

Additional Information: CIS No. 2092-00 Transferred from RIN 1115-AF92

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Agency Contact: Jedidah Hussey 

Deputy Chief, Asylum Division

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Suite 3300, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 272-1663 

E-Mail: jedidah.m.hussey@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AB71

 View Related Documents

Title: Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File H-1B Petitions on Behalf of Aliens Subject to Numerical

Limitations

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

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

17
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.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 299 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 8 USC 1184(g)

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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.

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.

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.

Costs and Benefits: USCIS estimates that this rule will result in a net benefit to society. Currently, employers submit a

petition, at great expense, without any certainty that an H-1B cap number will ultimately be allocated to the beneficiary named

on the petition. The new mandatory, Internet-based registration system allows employers to complete a much shorter and less

expensive registration process for consideration of available H-1B cap numbers. The new system will also relieve a significant

administrative burden and expense from USCIS. This rule will reduce costs for some employers and increase them for others.

For employers that are not allocated a cap number and therefore do not ultimately file a petition, there will be a significant cost

savings. Employers that are allocated a cap number and ultimately file a petition will experience the new and additional cost of

filing the registration. Additionally, USCIS will incur additional costs to implement and maintain the registration system. USCIS

has weighed the benefits and costs associated with this rule and determined that the benefits to society outweigh the costs.

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 01/00/2011 

NPRM Comment Period End 03/00/2011 

Additional Information: USCIS 2443-08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

Agency Contact: Claudia F. Young Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Service Center Operations 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 272-8163 

E-Mail: cf1young@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

18
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AB89

 View Related Documents

Title: Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, and Temporary Protected Status, and Withholding of Removal

Abstract: This joint rule proposes amendments to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ)

regulations to describe the circumstances under which an applicant will continue to be eligible for asylum, refugee, or temporary

protected status, special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, and

withholding of removal, even if DHS or DOJ has determined that the applicant’s actions contributed, in some way, to the

persecution of others. The purpose of this rule is to resolve ambiguity in the statutory language precluding eligibility for asylum,

refugee, and temporary protected status of an applicant who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the

persecution of others. The proposed amendment would provide a limited exception for actions taken by the applicant under

duress and clarify the required levels of the applicant’s knowledge of the persecution.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 244; 8 CFR 1244; ... (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal

Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1158; 8 USC 1226; PL 107-26; PL 110-229; ...

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule resolves ambiguity in the statutory language precluding eligibility for asylum, refugee, and

temporary protected status of an applicant who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of others.

The proposed amendment would provide a limited exception for actions taken by the applicant under duress and clarify the

required levels of the applicant’s knowledge of the persecution.

Legal Basis: In Negusie v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1159 (2009), the Supreme Court addressed whether the persecutor bar

should apply where an alien's actions were taken under duress. DHS believe that this is an appropriate subject for rulemaking

and propose to amend the applicable regulations to set out their interpretation of the statute. In developing this regulatory

initiative, DHS has carefully considered the purpose and history behind enactment of the persecutor bar, including its

international law origins and the criminal law concepts upon which they are based.

Alternatives: DHS did consider the alternative of not publishing a rulemaking on these issues. To leave this important area

of the law without an administrative interpretation, however, would confuse adjudicators and the public.

Costs and Benefits: The programs affected by this rule exist so that the United States may respond effectively to global

humanitarian situations and assist people who are in need. USCIS provides a number of humanitarian programs and protection

to assist individuals in need of shelter or aid from disasters, oppression, emergency medical issues, and other urgent

circumstances. This rule will advance the humanitarian goals of the asylum/refugee program, and other specialized programs.

The main benefits of such tend to be intangible and difficult to quantify in economic and monetary terms. These forms of relief

have not been available to certain persecutors. This rule will allow an exception to this bar from protection for applicants who

can meet the appropriate evidentiary standard. Consequently, this rule may result in a small increase in the number of

applicants for humanitarian programs. To the extent a small increase in applicants occurs, there could be additional fee costs

incurred by these applicants.

Risks: If DHS were not to publish a regulation, the public would face a lengthy period of confusion on these issues. There

could also be inconsistent interpretations of the statutory language, leading to significant litigation and delay for the affected

public.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 03/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Molly Groom 

Office of the Chief Counsel

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20259 

Phone: 202 272-1400 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

19
FAX: 202 272-1408

E-Mail: molly.groom@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AA59

 View Related Documents

Title: New Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons; Eligibility for T Nonimmigrant Status

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 law enforcement with their investigation or prosecution of 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. 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.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a; 8 CFR 299 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of

Federal Regulations ) 

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; ...

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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.

Legal Basis: Section 107(e) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), Public Law 106-386, as amended, 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.

Costs and Benefits: There is no cost to applicants 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: 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 01/31/2002 67 FR 4784 

Interim Final Rule Effective 03/04/2002 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

20
Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 04/01/2002 

Interim Final Rule 09/00/2011 

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State

Small Entities Affected: Business; Governmental

Jurisdictions; Organizations Federalism: No

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 1200

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 272-1470 

FAX: 202 272-1480

E-Mail: laura.dawkins@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AA60

 View Related Documents

Title: Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T and U Nonimmigrant Status

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.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 245 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

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

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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.

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.

Costs 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 in the first year, $1.9 million in the second year, and

an average about $32 million 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

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

21
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; 2. Heightened awareness of trafficking-inpersons 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 12/12/2008 73 FR 75540 

Interim Final Rule Effective 01/12/2009 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 02/10/2009 

Interim Final Rule 09/00/2011 

Additional Information: CIS No. 2134-01 Transferred from RIN 1115-AG21

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

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 1200

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 272-1470 

FAX: 202 272-1480

E-Mail: laura.dawkins@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AA67

 View Related Documents

Title: New Classification for Victims of Criminal Activity; Eligibility for the "U" Nonimmigrant Status

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.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 299 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of

Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1101 note; 8 USC 1102

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

22
persons, while offering protection to alien crime victims in keeping with the humanitarian interests of the United States.

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 stay 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 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.

Costs and Benefits: USCIS estimates the total annual cost of this interim rule to applicants 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 09/17/2007 72 FR 53013 

Interim Final Rule Effective 10/17/2007 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 11/17/2007 

Interim Final Rule 09/00/2011 

Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG39

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

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 1200

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 272-1470 

FAX: 202 272-1480

E-Mail: laura.dawkins@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AB75

 View Related Documents

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

23
Title: E-2 Nonimmigrant Status for Aliens in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands With Long-Term Investor

Status

Abstract: This final rule amends Department of Homeland Security regulations governing E-2 nonimmigrant treaty investors

to establish procedures for classifying long-term investors in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) as E-2

nonimmigrants. This final rule implements the CNMI nonimmigrant investor visa provisions of the Consolidated Natural

Resources Act of 2008, extending the immigration laws of the United States to the CNMI.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 8 USC 1101 to 1103; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8 USC 1186a

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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.

Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Costs 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 to 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.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 09/14/2009 74 FR 46938 

NPRM Comment Period End 10/14/2009 

Final Action 12/00/2010 

Additional Information: CIS No. 2458-08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: Local; State

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings 

Chief of Business and Foreign Workers Division

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Office of Policy and Strategy 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20529-2140 

Phone: 202 272-8410 

FAX: 202 272-1542

E-Mail: kevin.cummings@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AB76

 View Related Documents

Title: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Transitional Worker Classification

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

24
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 5-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.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.2 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: PL 110-229

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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.

Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Costs 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.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 10/27/2009 74 FR 55094 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 11/27/2009 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End Extended 12/09/2009 74 FR 64997 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 01/08/2010 

Final Action 03/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: State

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings 

Chief of Business and Foreign Workers Division

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Office of Policy and Strategy 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20529-2140 

Phone: 202 272-8410 

FAX: 202 272-1542

E-Mail: kevin.cummings@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AB77

 View Related Documents

Title: Application of Immigration Regulations to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Abstract: On October 28, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) published

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

25
a joint interim final rule in the Federal Register 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 finalizes the interim rule with additional changes to

provisions concerning adjustment of status and change of status of aliens in the CNMI, immigrant petitions for multinational

executives, acceptable documents for employment eligibility verification (Form I-9), and the Northern Marianas identification

card. It is intended that such changes will ameliorate any adverse impact that implementation of the CNRA may have on CNMI

employers and alien workers.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

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 (To

search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: PL 110-229

Legal Deadline: 

 Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory Consolidated Natural Resources Act (CNRA) of 2008 11/28/2009 

Regulatory Plan:

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. 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.

Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Costs 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.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 10/28/2009 74 FR 55725 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 11/27/2009 

Correction 12/22/2009 74 FR 67969 

Final Action 03/00/2011 

Additional Information: CIS 2460-08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings 

Branch Chief, Business and Trade Services

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Second Floor Office of Program and Regulations Development 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 272-8412 

FAX: 202 272-1452

E-Mail: kevin.cummings@dhs.gov

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

26
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AA18

 View Related Documents

Title: Outer Continental Shelf Activities

Abstract: The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for workplace safety and health, other than for matters generally

related to drilling and production that are regulated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement

(BOEMRE) on facilities and vessels engaged in the exploration for, or development or production of, minerals on the OCS. This

project would revise the regulations on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities to: 1) Add new requirements for fixed OCS

facilities for lifesaving, fire protection, training, hazardous materials used as stores and accommodation spaces; and 2) address

foreign vessels engaged in OCS activities to comply with requirements similar to those imposed on U.S. vessels similarly

engaged. This project would affect the owners and operators of facilities and vessels engaged in offshore activities.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 140 to 147 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 43 USC 1333(d)(1); 43 USC 1348(c); 43 USC 1356; DHS Delegation No 0170.1

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The last major revision of Coast Guard OCS regulations occurred in 1982. At that time, the offshore

industry was not as technologically advanced as it is today. Offshore activities were in relatively shallow water near land, where

help was readily available during emergency situations. The equipment regulations required only basic equipment, primarily for

lifesaving appliances and hand-held portable fire extinguishers. Since 1982, the requirements in 33 CFR chapter I, subchapter

N, have not kept pace with the changing offshore technology or the safety problems created as OCS activities extend to deeper

water (10,000 feet) and move farther offshore (150 miles). This rulemaking reassesses all of our current OCS regulations in

order to help make the OCS a safer workplace.

Legal Basis: The authority for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise, or amend these regulations is provided under

14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333(d)(1), 1347(c), 1348(c), 1356; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Section 145.100 also issued under 14 U.S.C. 664 and 31 U.S.C. 9701.

Alternatives: The Coast Guard considered filling the shortfall in existing OCS regulations by extending the current vessel

and Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit regulations. This approach was rejected after concluding that the differences between fixed

and floating units made this approach impractical. We also considered requiring compliance with industry standards. Those

standards, though, do not cover all of the areas needing regulation. The new rule would adopt available consensus standards

where appropriate. Nonregulatory alternatives, such as agency policy documents and voluntary acceptance of industry

standards were also considered. They were also rejected because enforceable regulations are necessary in order to carry out

the relevant statutes.

Costs and Benefits: The Coast Guard is currently estimating the costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking.

Industry would incur additional costs as a result of provisions for training, firefighting, lifesaving, and monitoring of unsafe

conditions. This proposed rule supports the Commandant's strategic goals of marine safety and environmental stewardship and

is designed to help make the OCS a safer workplace by preventing accidents or reducing the consequences of accidents on the

OCS. In addition, the proposed rule will include measures that meet the changing offshore technology and the safety problems

it creates as OCS activities extend to deeper water and move farther offshore.

Risks: The extensive revisions to health and safety requirements for OCS units in this rule would substantially reduce the risk

of injury or illness on those units.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Request for Comments 06/27/1995 60 FR 33185 

Comment Period End 09/25/1995 

NPRM 12/07/1999 64 FR 68416 

NPRM Correction 02/22/2000 65 FR 8671 

NPRM Comment Period Extended 03/16/2000 65 FR 14226 

NPRM Comment Period Extended 06/30/2000 65 FR 40559 

NPRM Comment Period End 11/30/2000 

Supplemental NPRM 08/00/2011 

Additional Information: Docket Numbers: The notice of request for comments published June 27, 1995, was assigned

Coast Guard docket number 95-016. Following the request for comments, that docket was terminated. This project continues

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

27
under Docket No. USCG-1998-3868 and RIN 1625-AA18. This docket may be viewed online by going to www.regulations.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact: Kevin Y. Pekarek 

Program Manager

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

Commandant, CG-5222 2100 2nd Street SW., STOP 7126

Washington , DC 20593-7126 

Phone: 202 372-1386 

E-Mail: kevin.y.pekarek2@uscg.mil

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AB06

 View Related Documents

Title: Inspection of Towing Vessels

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 auditors and surveyors, along with

standards for construction, operation, vessel systems, safety equipment, and recordkeeping.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 46 CFR 2; 46 CFR 15; 46 CFR 136 to 144 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal

Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 46 USC 3103; 46 USC 3301; 46 USC 3306; 46 USC 3308; 46 USC 3316; 46 USC 3703; 46 USC 8104;

46 USC 8904; DHS Delegation No 0170.1

Legal Deadline: On October 15, 2010, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 was enacted as Public Law 111-281. It

requires that a proposed rule be issued within 90 days after enactment and that a final rule be issued within 1 year of

enactment.

 Action Source Description Date

NPRM Statutory 01/13/2011 

Regulatory Plan:

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; covering vessel equipment, systems, operational standards, and inspection requirements.

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), Public Law 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). We do not believe, however, that this approach would recognize the 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

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

28
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.

Costs and Benefits: We estimate that owners and operators of towing vessels would incur additional costs from this

rulemaking. The cost of this rulemaking would involve provisions for safety management systems, standards for construction,

operation, vessel systems, safety equipment, and recordkeeping. 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 vessel

accidents result in fatalities, injuries, property damage, pollution, and delays.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 01/00/2011 

Additional Information: The Regulations.gov docket number is USCG-2006-24412.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business;

Governmental Jurisdictions; Organizations Government Levels Affected: State

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: Undetermined

RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact: Michael Harmon 

Program Manager, CG-5222

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

2100 2nd Street SW., STOP 7126

Washington , DC 20593-7126 

Phone: 202 372-1427 

E-Mail: michael.j.harmon@uscg.mil

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AB32

 View Related Documents

Title: Assessment Framework and Organizational Restatement Regarding Preemption for Certain Regulations Issued by the

Coast Guard

Abstract: The proposed rule will operate in two ways. First, it will describe the Coast Guard's interpretation of the preemptive

effect of certain current Coast Guard regulations. This analysis will apply to previously promulgated regulations even if a

complete description of federalism implications was clearly articulated in the development of the regulation. Second, the rule will

set forth criteria and a process that the Coast Guard will undertake in future regulatory projects for evaluating the preemptive

impact of those regulations. This part of the analysis is prospective in nature and will lay out a roadmap for future regulatory

projects regarding federalism and preemption principles. This rulemaking will support the Coast Guard's broad role and

responsibility of further enhancing maritime stewardship by reinforcing a uniform maritime regulatory regime that is predictable

and useful for maritime interests.

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

29
Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 1.06 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 14 USC 2; 14 USC 91; 33 USC 1223; 33 USC 1231; 33 USC 1903(b); 46 USC 3203; 46 USC 3306; 46

USC 3703; 46 USC 3717; 46 USC 4302; 46 USC 6101; DHS Delegation No 0170.1

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: In light of recent Federal court cases and the President's May 20, 2009, memorandum regarding

preemption, the Coast Guard believes that a clear agency statement of the preemptive impact of our regulations, particularly

those regulations issued prior to the promulgation of E.O. 13132, can be of great benefit to State and local governments, the

public, and regulated entities. Therefore, the Coast Guard intends to issue a general statement of preemption policy, coupled

with specific statements of policy regarding regulations issued under the authority of statutes with preemptive effect, including,

among others, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1221 et. seq.). The Coast Guard

proposes to publish these policies in a new section 1.06 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to allow for easy access

by interested persons and parties.

Legal Basis: The statutory authorities for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise, or amend these regulations are

provided under 14 U.S.C. 2 and 91; 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231, and 1903(b); 46 U.S.C. 3203, 3306, 3703, 3717, 4302, and 6101;

and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Alternatives: The Coast Guard considered alternative mechanisms for restating the preemptive effect of regulations,

including the use of a notice of policy. These methods would not provide the same level of transparency as codification in the

Code of Federal Regulations, however, because they would not be as readily located by State and local government or other

members of the public. They also would not satisfy the President’s May 20, 2009, memorandum regarding preemption, which

directs agencies to include preemption provisions in the codified regulation.

Costs and Benefits: We expect no additional cost impacts to the industry from this proposed rule, because it only restates

and clarifies the status of Federal and State law as it exists.

Risks: Not applicable to this rulemaking.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 03/00/2011 

Additional Information: The docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2008-1259. The docket can be found at

www.regulations.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

RIN Information URL: http://www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: http://www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact: LCDR Stephen DaPonte 

Program Manager

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

Commandant (CG-0941) 2100 2nd Street SW., STOP 7121

Washington , DC 20593-7121 

Phone: 202 372-3865 

E-Mail: stephen.daponte@uscg.mil

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AB38

 View Related Documents

Title: Updates to Maritime Security

Abstract: The Coast Guard proposes certain additions, changes, and amendments to 33 CFR, subchapter H. Subchapter H

is comprised of parts 101 thru 106. Subchapter H implements the major provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of

2002. This rulemaking is the first major revision to subchapter H. The proposed changes would further enhance the security of

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

30
our Nation's ports, vessels, facilities, and Outer Continental Shelf facilities and incorporate requirements from legislation

implemented since the original publication of these regulations in 2003. This rulemaking has international interest because of the

close relationship between subchapter H and the International Ship and Port Security Code (ISPS).

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 33 CFR subchapter H (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 33 USC 1226; 33 USC 1231; 46 USC ch 701; 50 USC 191 and 192; EO 12656; 3 CFR 1988 Comp, p

585; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 33 CFR 6.04-11; 33 CFR 6.14; 33 CFR 6.16; 33 CFR 6.19; DHS Delegation No 0170.1

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is needed to incorporate Coast Guard Policy Advisory Council (PAC) decisions on the

interpretation of regulations, guidance provided in response to questions to the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002

(MTSA) hotline, and to implement various requirements found in the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 and

the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006. In addition, this rulemaking is needed to incorporate

recommendations from the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee. It also incorporates various U.S. Maritime

Administration and International Maritime Organization voluntary consensus standards related to maritime security training.

Legal Basis: The fundamental legal basis for subchapter H remains the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 as

amended by the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of

2006.

Alternatives: The Coast Guard is currently evaluating a number of alternatives based on applicability and risk (threat,

vulnerability, and consequence). However, an overall update to make necessary changes to subchapter H and address

improvements resulting from our experience since 2003 is prudent.

Costs and Benefits: The Coast Guard is currently estimating the costs associated with this rulemaking. Industry would

incur additional costs as a result of provisions for standardized training requirements, updates to security plans and other

documentation, and full-scale exercises requirements for high-risk facilities. The potential benefit from these provisions is

reduction in risk of security incidents. This rulemaking expands and improves competencies associated with Maritime Domain

Awareness (MDA). MDA is the effective understanding of anything associated with the global maritime domain that could impact

the United States’ security, safety, economy, or environment. The proposed rule would improve MDA through training, exercise,

and security plan enhancements. As a result, the primary benefit of the proposed rule would result from reducing the risk of a

Transportation Security Incident (TSI) and therefore averting or mitigating the economic and environmental consequences of a

TSI.

Risks: With this rulemaking, the Coast Guard seeks to maintain the risk reduction goals established with the promulgation of

the original MTSA regulations and further reduce risks by incorporating provisions related to more recent legislation and

warranted by our experience with subchapter H since 2003.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 03/00/2011 

Additional Information: The Regulations.gov docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2007-0009.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise

be of international interest.

RIN Information URL: http://www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: http://www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact: LCDR Loan O'Brien 

Project Manager

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

Commandant, (CG-5442) 2100 2nd Street SW., STOP 7581

Washington , DC 20593-7581 

Phone: 877 687-2243 Extension: Optn 1 

FAX: 202 372-1906

E-Mail: loan.t.o'brien@uscg.mil

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

31
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AA32

 View Related Documents

Title: Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters

Abstract: This rulemaking adds performance standards to 33 CFR part 151, subparts C and D, for discharges of ballast

water. It supports the Coast Guard's broad roles and responsibilities of maritime safety and maritime stewardship. This project is

economically significant.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 151 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 16 USC 4711

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The unintentional introduction 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.

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: The Coast Guard 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 3 years based on the best scientific information available to the Coast Guard at the time of that review. On

August 28, 2009, the Coast Guard published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Standards for Living

Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters in the Federal Register (74 FR 44632). The proposed rule

included 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 (one that is one thousand times more stringent). 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 standard can practicably be implemented. Based on the comments received,

we plan to move forward swiftly with a final rule.

Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking would affect certain vessels operating in U.S. waters seeking to discharge ballast

water into waters of the United States. 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 existing vessels. Operating and maintenance costs are substantially less than the

installation costs. 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. The Coast Guard issued a preliminary regulatory analysis of the costs, benefits, and other impacts

of the 2009 NPRM. In this preliminary analysis, we estimated the total phase-one costs to be about $1.18 billion over a 10-year

period of analysis (this and other values below at a 7 percent discount rate). As previously described, the implementation costs

vary by year. We estimated the annualized cost over the same period to be approximately $168 million per year. We did not

provide cost estimates for the phase-two costs in this preliminary analysis since data and information was not available at that

time for technology that would meet the anticipated phase-two standard (1,000 x the IMO standard). In the same preliminary

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

32
analysis, we estimated annualized benefits (damages avoided) for phase one are potentially as high as $553 million, with a midrange estimate of $165 million to $282 million per year. We estimated total phase-one benefits to be as high as $3.88 billion,

with a mid-range estimate of $1.16 billion to $1.98 billion over a 10-year period of analysis. The Coast Guard has received

public comments on the impacts of the NPRM and will be incorporating these comments into a revised Regulatory Analysis for

the next rulemaking publication.

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 03/04/2002 67 FR 9632 

ANPRM Comment Period End 06/03/2002 

NPRM 08/28/2009 74 FR 44632 

Public Meeting 09/14/2009 74 FR 46964 

Public Meeting 09/28/2009 74 FR 49355 

Public Meeting 09/22/2009 74 FR 48190 

Notice--Extension of Comment Period 10/15/2009 74 FR 52941 

Public Meeting Correction 10/26/2009 74 FR 54944 

Public Meeting 10/22/2009 74 FR 54533 

NPRM Comment Period End 12/04/2009 74 FR 52941 

Final Rule 04/00/2011 

Additional Information: The Regulations.gov docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2001-10486.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: State

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise

be of international interest.

RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact: Mr. John C Morris 

Project Manager

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

2100 Second Street SW., STOP 7126

Washington , DC 20593-7126 

Phone: 202 372-1433 

E-Mail: john.c.morris@uscg.mil

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection ( USCBP ) RIN: 1651-AA70

 View Related Documents

Title: Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements

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.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector

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

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

33
CFR 146.32; 19 CFR 149; 19 CFR 192.14 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

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

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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 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 intends to improve 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.

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 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.

Costs 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 importers' 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. 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). 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 "breakeven" analysis to inform decisionmakers 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 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

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

34
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.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 01/02/2008 73 FR 90 

NPRM Comment Period Extended 02/01/2008 73 FR 6061 

NPRM Comment Period End 03/03/2008 

NPRM Comment Period End 03/18/2008 

Interim Final Rule 11/25/2008 73 FR 71730 

Interim Final Rule Effective 01/26/2009 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 06/01/2009 

Correction 07/14/2009 74 FR 33920 

Correction 12/24/2009 74 FR 68376 

Final Action 03/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise

be of international interest.

RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: 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 

E-Mail: richard.dinucci@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection ( USCBP ) RIN: 1651-AA72

 View Related Documents

Title: Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) Program

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.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 217.5 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1187; 8 CFR 2

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

35
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.

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.

Costs 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. Costs 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. Costs 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 U.S.C. 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 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.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Action 06/09/2008 73 FR 32440 

Interim Final Rule Effective 08/08/2008 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 08/08/2008 

Notice - Announcing Date Rule Becomes Mandatory 11/13/2008 73 FR 67354 

Final Action 03/00/2011 

Additional Information: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/esta/

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

36
be of international interest.

RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov

Related RINs: Related to 1651-AA83

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 

E-Mail: cbp.esta@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection ( USCBP ) RIN: 1651-AA73

 View Related Documents

Title: Establishment of Global Entry Program

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.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 235; 8 CFR 103 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 8 USC 1365b(k)(1); 8 USC 1365b(k)(3); 8 USC 1225; 8 USC 1185(b)

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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 recordkeeping technologies, the risk of terrorists entering the United 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.

Legal Basis: The Global Entry program is based on section 7208(k) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act

of 2004 (IRTPA), as amended by section 565 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which requires the Secretary of Homeland

Security to create a program to expedite the screening and processing of pre-approved low risk air travelers into the United

States.

Alternatives: 

Costs 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 5-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 1 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

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

37
leisure travelers. For this evaluation, we assume that all enrollees will be U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or Lawful Permanent

Residents.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 11/19/2009 74 FR 59932 

NPRM Comment Period End 01/19/2010 

Final Rule 02/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

RIN Information URL: 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 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection ( USCBP ) RIN: 1651-AA77

 View Related Documents

Title: Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program

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.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No

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 (To search for a

specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: PL 110-229, sec 702

Legal Deadline: 

 Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory PL 110-229 11/04/2008 

Regulatory Plan:

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.

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

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

38
Costs 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.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule Effective 01/16/2009 

Interim Final Rule 01/16/2009 74 FR 2824 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 03/17/2009 

Technical Amendment; Change of Implementation Date 05/28/2009 74 FR 25387 

Final Action 03/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise

be of international interest.

Related RINs: Related to 1651-AA81

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 

E-Mail: cheryl.c.peters@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA53

 View Related Documents

Title: Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport Operator Security Program

Abstract: On October 30, 2008, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM), 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 type of 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. Additionally, in the SNPRM, TSA plans to propose security measures for foreign aircraft operators. U.S. and

foreign operators would implement commensurate measures under the proposed rule.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1515; 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1522; 49 CFR 1540; 49 CFR 1542; 49 CFR 1544; 49 CFR 1550 (To

search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

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

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule would enhance current security measures and might apply security measures currently in

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

39
place for operators of certain types of aircraft to operators of other aircraft, including general aviation operators. 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 in 49 CFR part

1544 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. Therefore, TSA is preparing a SNPRM which proposes to

establish new security measures for operators, including general aviation operators, that are not covered under TSA's current

regulations.

Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114, 40113, 44903.

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.

Costs 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. As stated above, TSA is revising this

proposed rule and preparing a SNPRM. Aircraft operators, passengers, and TSA would incur costs to comply with the

requirements of the proposed rule. TSA is currently evaluating the costs of the revised rule which will be published in the

SNPRM.

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 10/30/2008 73 FR 64790 

Notice--NPRM Comment Period Extended 11/25/2008 73 FR 71590 

Notice--Public Meetings; Requests for Comments 12/28/2008 73 FR 77045 

NPRM Comment Period End 12/29/2008 

NPRM Extended Comment Period End 02/27/2009 

Supplemental NPRM 06/00/2011 

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.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Local

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise

be of international interest.

RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov

Related RINs: Related to 1652-AA03; Related to 1652-

AA04

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

E-Mail: erik.jensen@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: 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 

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

40
Phone: 571 227-4656 

FAX: 571 227-1362

E-Mail: holly.merwin@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: 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

E-Mail: mai.dinh@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: 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

E-Mail: kiersten.ols@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA55

 View Related Documents

Title: Public Transportation and Passenger Railroads--Security Training of Employees

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.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 49 USC 114; PL 110-53, secs 1408 and 1517

Legal Deadline: 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.

 Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory Interim Rule for public transportation agencies is due 90 days after date

of enactment. 11/01/2007 

Other Statutory Rule for railroads is due 6 months after date of enactment. 02/03/2008 

Other Statutory Rule for public transportation agencies is due 1 year after date of

enactment. 08/03/2008 

Regulatory Plan:

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.

Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114; sections 1408 and 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.

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

41
Costs and Benefits: TSA will estimate the costs that the public transportation agencies and passenger railroads covered

by this proposed rule would incur following its implementation. These costs will include estimates for the following elements: 1)

creating or modifying a security training program and submitting it to TSA; 2) training (initial and recurrent) all security-sensitive

employees; 3) maintaining records of employee training; 4) being available for inspections; 5) providing information on security

coordinators and alternates; and 6) reporting security concerns. TSA will also estimate the costs TSA itself would expect to

incur with the implementation of this rule. The primary benefit of the Security Training NPRM will be to enhance United States

surface transportation security by reducing the vulnerability of public transportation agencies and passenger railroads to

terrorist activity through the training of security-sensitive employees. TSA uses a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off

between the beneficial effects of the Security Training NPRM and the costs of implementing the rulemaking. This break-even

analysis uses scenarios extracted from the TSA Transportation Sector Security Risk Assessment (TSSRA) to determine the

degree to which the Security Training NPRM must reduce the overall risk of a terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits

of the NPRM to justify the estimated costs. For its analyses, TSA uses scenarios with varying levels of risk, but only details the

consequence estimates. To maintain consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a method similar to that used for the breakeven analyses conducted in earlier DHS rules. After estimating the total consequence of each scenario by monetizing lives lost,

injuries incurred, capital replacement and clean-up, and lost revenue, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the

NPRM for public transportation and passenger rail to calculate a breakeven annual likelihood of attack.

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 03/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Federalism: Undetermined

Energy Affected: No

Related RINs: Related to 1652-AA57; Related to 1652-

AA59

Agency Contact: Morvarid Zolghadr 

Branch Chief, Policy and Plans, Mass Transit and Passenger Rail Security

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Sector Network Management TSA-28, E10-113S 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-2957 

FAX: 571 227-0729

E-Mail: morvarid.zolghadr@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Nicholas (Nick) Acheson 

Sr. Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Sector Network Management TSA-28, HQ, E10-341N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-5474 

FAX: 703 603-0302

E-Mail: nicholas.acheson@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: 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

E-Mail: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA57

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

42
 View Related Documents

Title: Freight Railroads--Security Training of Employees

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.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1517

Legal Deadline: 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.

 Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory Rule is due 6 months after date of enactment. 02/03/2008 

Regulatory Plan:

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.

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.

Costs and Benefits: TSA will estimate the costs that the freight rail systems covered by this proposed rule would incur

following its implementation. These costs will include estimates for the following elements: 1) Creating or modifying a security

training program and submitting it to TSA; 2) training (initial and recurrent) all security-sensitive employees; 3) maintaining

records of employee training; 4) being available for inspections; 5) providing information on security coordinators and alternates;

and 6) reporting security concerns. TSA will also estimate the costs TSA itself would expect to incur with the implementation of

this rule. The primary benefit of the Security Training NPRM will be to enhance United States surface transportation security by

reducing the vulnerability of freight railroad systems to terrorist activity through the training of security-sensitive employees.

TSA uses a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off between the beneficial effects of the Security Training NPRM and the

costs of implementing the rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses scenarios extracted from the TSA Transportation Sector

Security Risk Assessment (TSSRA) to determine the degree to which the Security Training NPRM must reduce the overall risk

of a terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits of the NPRM to justify the estimated costs. For its analyses, TSA uses

scenarios with varying levels of risk, but only details the consequence estimates. To maintain consistency, TSA developed the

analyses with a method similar to that used for the break-even analyses conducted in earlier DHS rules. After estimating the

consequence of each scenario by monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, capital replacement and clean-up, and lost revenue,

TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the NPRM for freight rail to calculate a breakeven annual likelihood of

attack.

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 03/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Federalism: Undetermined

Energy Affected: No

Related RINs: Related to 1652-AA55; Related to 1652-

AA59

Agency Contact: Scott Gorton 

Policy and Plans Branch Chief for Freight Rail

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

43
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

E-Mail: scott.gorton@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Nicholas (Nick) Acheson 

Sr. Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Sector Network Management TSA-28, HQ, E10-341N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-5474 

FAX: 703 603-0302

E-Mail: nicholas.acheson@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: 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

E-Mail: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA59

 View Related Documents

Title: Over-the-Road Buses--Security Training of Employees

Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose new regulations to improve the security of over-theroad 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.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1534

Legal Deadline: 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.

 Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory Rule due 6 months after date of enactment. 02/03/2008 

Regulatory Plan:

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.

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).

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.

Costs and Benefits: TSA will estimate the costs that the commercial over-the-road bus (OTRB) entities covered by this

proposed rule would incur following its implementation. These costs will include estimates for the following elements: 1) Creating

or modifying a security training program and submitting it to TSA; 2) training (initial and recurrent) all security-sensitive

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

44
employees; 3) maintaining records of employee training; 4) being available for inspections; 5) providing information on security

coordinators and alternates; and 6) reporting security concerns. TSA will also estimate the costs TSA itself would expect to

incur with the implementation of this rule. The primary benefit of the Security Training NPRM will be to enhance United States

surface transportation security by reducing the vulnerability of commercial OTRB operators to terrorist activity through the

training of security-sensitive employees. TSA uses a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off between the beneficial effects

of the Security Training NPRM and the costs of implementing the rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses scenarios

extracted from the TSA Transportation Sector Security Risk Assessment (TSSRA) to determine the degree to which the Security

Training NPRM must reduce the overall risk of a terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits of the NPRM to justify the

estimated costs. For its analyses, TSA uses scenarios with varying levels of risk, but only details the consequence estimates.

To maintain consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a method similar to that used for the break-even analyses

conducted in earlier DHS rules. After estimating the consequence of each scenario by monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred,

capital replacement and clean-up, and lost revenue, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the NPRM for OTRB

operators to calculate a breakeven annual likelihood of attack.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 03/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Federalism: Undetermined

Energy Affected: No

Related RINs: Related to 1652-AA55; Related to 1652-

AA57

Agency Contact: Steve Sprague 

Highway Passenger, Infrastructure and Licensing 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: 571 227-1468 

E-Mail: steve.sprague@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: 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

E-Mail: shaina.pereira@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Traci Klemm 

Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of the Chief Counsel TSA-2, E12-335N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6002 

Phone: 571 227-3596 

E-Mail: traci.klemm@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA38

 View Related Documents

Title: Aircraft Repair Station Security

Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposed 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 proposed general requirements for security programs

to be adopted and implemented by repair stations certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A notice of

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

45
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009, requesting public comments to be

submitted by January 19, 2010. The comment period was extended to February 19, 2010, on request of the stakeholders to

allow the aviation industry and other interested entities and individuals additional time to complete their comments.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1554 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 49 USC 114; 49 USC 44924

Legal Deadline: 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.

 Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory Rule within 240 days of the date of enactment of Vision 100. 08/08/2004 

Other Statutory Rule within 1 year after the date of enactment of 9/11 Commission Act. 08/03/2008 

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is proposing regulations to improve the security of

domestic and foreign aircraft repair stations. The NPRM proposed to 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 provides procedures for repair stations to seek review of any TSA determination that

security measures are deficient.

Legal Basis: 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 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 1 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 sought public comment on the numerous alternative ways in which the final rule could

carry out the requirements of the statute.

Costs 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 contingency plan. The total 10-year

undiscounted cost of the program is $344 million. The discounted at 7 percent, 10-year cost of the program is $241 million.

Security coordinator costs of $132 million and training costs of $132 million represent the largest portions of the program. A

major line of defense against an aviation-related terrorist act is the prevention of explosives, weapons, and/or incendiary

devices from getting on board a plane. To date, efforts have been primarily related to inspection of baggage, passengers, and

cargo, and security measures at airports that serve air carriers. With this rule, attention is given to aircraft that are located at

repair stations, and to aircraft parts that are at repair stations, themselves to reduce the likelihood of an attack against aviation

and the country. Since repair station personnel have direct access to all parts of an aircraft, the potential exists for a terrorist to

seek to commandeer or compromise an aircraft when the aircraft is at one of these facilities. Moreover, as TSA tightens security

in other areas of aviation, repair stations increasingly may become attractive targets for terrorist organizations attempting to

evade aviation security protections currently in place.

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 02/24/2004 69 FR 8357 

Report to Congress 08/24/2004 

NPRM 11/18/2009 74 FR 59873 

NPRM Comment Period Extended 12/29/2009 74 FR 68774 

NPRM Comment Period End 01/19/2010 

NPRM Extended Comment Period End 02/19/2010 

Final Rule 05/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: No

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

46
Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov

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

E-Mail: celio.young@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: 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

E-Mail: thomas.philson@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: 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

E-Mail: linda.kent@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA64

 View Related Documents

Title: Air Cargo Screening

Abstract: On September 16, 2009, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) that

established the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) that certifies shippers, manufacturers, and other entities to screen

air cargo intended for transport on a passenger aircraft. This is the primary means through which TSA will meet the

requirements of section 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 that mandates that

100 percent of air cargo transported on passenger aircraft, operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or

intrastate air transportation, be screened by August 2010, to ensure the security of all such passenger aircraft carrying cargo.

Under this rulemaking, each certified cargo screening facility (CCSF) and its employees and authorized representatives that will

be screening cargo must successfully complete a security threat assessment. The CCSF must also submit to an assessment of

their security measures by TSA-approved validators, screen cargo using TSA-approved methods, and initiate strict chain of

custody measures to ensure the security of the cargo throughout the supply chain prior to tendering it for transport on

passenger aircraft. TSA will issue a final rule responding to public comments from the IFR.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1522; 49 CFR 1540; 49 CFR 1544; 49 CFR 1548; 49 CFR 1549 (To search for a

specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: PL 110-53, sec 1602; 49 USC 114; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44901 to 44905; 49 USC 44913 to 44914; 49

USC 44916; 49 USC 44935 to 44936; 49 USC 46105

Legal Deadline: Section 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53,

121 Stat. 266, 478, Aug. 3, 2007) requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security establish a system to screen 50 percent of

cargo on passenger aircraft NLT 18 months after the date of enactment and 100 percent of such cargo NLT 3 years after the

date of enactment. The 9/11 Act also requires that TSA issue a final rule NLT 1 year after the effective date of the interim final

rule (Nov. 2010).

 Action Source Description Date

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

47
Other Statutory Screen 50 percent of cargo on passenger aircraft. 02/03/2009 

Other Statutory Screen 100 percent of cargo on passenger aircraft. 08/03/2010 

Other Statutory 1 year after effective date of the interim final rule. 11/03/2010 

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: TSA is establishing a system to screen 100 percent of cargo transported on passenger aircraft

operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate air transportation to ensure the security of all

such passenger aircraft carrying cargo. The system shall require, at a minimum, that equipment, technology, procedures,

personnel, or other methods approved by the Administrator of TSA, used to screen cargo carried on passenger aircraft, provide

a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage.

Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114; section 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007

(Pub. L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 478, 10/3/2007), codified at 49 U.S.C. 44901(g).

Alternatives: The Interim Final Rule (IFR) states that as an alternative to establishing the CCSP, TSA considered meeting

the statutory requirements by having aircraft operators screen cargo intended for transportation on passenger aircraft—that is,

continuing the current cargo screening program but expanding it to 85 percent of air cargo on passenger aircraft, with the

remaining 15 percent assumed to be shipped via other modes. Under this alternative, the cost drivers are screening equipment,

personnel for screening, training of personnel, and delays. Delays are the largest cost component, totaling $7.0 billion over 10

years, undiscounted. In summary, the undiscounted 10 year cost of the alternative is $11.1 billion, and discounted at 7 percent,

the cost is $7.7 billion.

Costs and Benefits: TSA estimates the cost of the rule will be $1.9 billion (discounted at 7 percent) over 10 years. TSA

analyzed the alternative of not establishing the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) and, instead, having aircraft

operators and air carriers perform screening of all cargo transported on passenger aircraft. Absent the CCSP, the estimated

cost to aircraft operators and air carriers is $7.7 billion (discounted at 7 percent) over 10 years. The bulk of the costs for both

the CCSP and the alternative are attributed to personnel and the impact of cargo delays resulting from the addition of a new

operational process. The benefits of the FR are five-fold. First, passenger air carriers will be more firmly protected against an

act of terrorism or other malicious behaviors by the screening of 100 percent of cargo shipped on passenger aircraft. Second,

allowing the screening process to occur throughout the supply chain via the Certified Cargo Screening Program will reduce

potential bottlenecks and delays at the airports. Third, the FR will allow market forces to identify the most efficient venue for

screening along the supply chain, as entities upstream from the aircraft operator may apply to become CCSFs and screen

cargo. Fourth, the CCSP enables members to screen valuable cargo earlier in the supply chain and avoid any potentially

invasive screening that may occur at the aircraft operator level. Finally, validation firms will perform assessments of the entities

that become CCSFs, allowing TSA to set priorities for compliance inspections.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 09/16/2009 74 FR 47672 

Interim Final Rule Effective 11/16/2009 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 11/16/2009 

Final Rule 03/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Victor Parker 

Branch Chief, Air Cargo Policy & Plans

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Sector Network Management TSA-28, HQ 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-3664 

E-Mail: victor.parker@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Adam Sicking 

Economist, Regulatory Development and Economic Analysis

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Sector Network Management TSA-28, HQ, E10-345N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-2304 

FAX: 571 227-1362

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

48
E-Mail: adam.sicking@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Alice Crowe 

Sr. Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of the Chief Counsel TSA-2, HQ, E12-320N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6002 

Phone: 571 227-2652 

FAX: 571 227-1379

E-Mail: alice.crowe@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( USICE ) RIN: 1653-AA60

 View Related Documents

Title: Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal

Abstract: This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is proposing to amend the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

regulatory provisions for custody determinations for aliens in immigration detention who are subject to an administratively final

order of removal. The proposed amendment would add a paragraph to 8 CFR 241.4(g) providing that U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (ICE) shall have a reasonable period of time to effectuate an alien's removal where the alien is not in

immigration custody when the order of removal becomes administratively final. The proposed rule would also clarify the removal

period time frame afforded to the agency following an alien's compliance with his or her obligations regarding removal

subsequent to a period of obstruction or failure to cooperate. The rule proposes to make conforming changes to 241.13(b)(2).

Lastly, the rule proposes to add a paragraph to 8 CFR 241.13(b)(3) to make clear that aliens certified by the Secretary under

section 236A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1226a, are not subject to the provisions of 8 CFR 241.13, in

accordance with the separate detention standard provided under the Act.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 241 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1223; 8 USC 1227; 8 USC 1231; 8 USC 1253

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The companion final rule will improve the post order custody review process in the final rule related to

the Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis,

533 U.S. 678 (2001), Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) and conforming changes as required by the enactment of the

Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA). This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will propose to amend 8 CFR 241.1(g) to

provide for a new 90-day removal period once an alien comes into compliance with his or her obligation to make timely

application in good faith for travel or other documents and not conspire or act to prevent removal.

Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Costs and Benefits: This proposed rule will clarify the regulatory provisions concerning the removal of aliens that are

subject to an administratively final order of removal. DHS does not anticipate there will be cost impacts to the public as a result

of the rule.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 03/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Related RINs: Related to 1653-AA13

Agency Contact: Jason Johnsen Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

500 12th Street SW.

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

49
Washington , DC 20024 

Phone: 202 732-4245 

E-Mail: jason.johnsen@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( USICE ) RIN: 1653-AA13

 View Related Documents

Title: Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal

Abstract: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is finalizing, with amendments, the interim rule that was published on

November 14, 2001, by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service). The interim rule included procedures for

conducting custody determinations in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001),

which held that the detention period of certain aliens who are subject to a final administrative order of removal is limited under

section 241(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) to the period reasonably necessary to effect their removal. The

interim rule amended section 241.4 of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), in addition to creating two new sections: 8

CFR 241.13 (establishing custody review procedures based on the significant likelihood of the alien's removal in the reasonably

foreseeable future) and 241.14 (establishing custody review procedures for special circumstances cases). Subsequently, in the

case of Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005), the Supreme Court clarified a question left open in Zadvydas, and held that

section 241(a)(6) of the Act applies equally to all aliens described in that section. This rule amends the interim rule to conform to

the requirements of Martinez. Further, the procedures for custody determinations for post-removal period aliens who are subject

to an administratively final order of removal, and who have not been released from detention or repatriated, have been revised

in response to comments received and experience gained from administration of the interim rule published in 2001. This final

rule also makes conforming changes as required by the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA). Additionally,

certain portions of the final rule were determined to require public comment and, for this reason, have been developed into a

separate/companion notice of proposed rulemaking; RIN 1653-AA60.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 241 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1223; 8 USC 1227; 8 USC 1231; 8 USC 1253; ...

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule will improve the post order custody review process in the final rule related to the Detention

of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678

(2001), Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) and conforming changes as required by the enactment of the Homeland Security

Act of 2002 (HSA). A companion notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will propose to amend 8 CFR 241.1(g) to provide for a

new 90-day removal period once an alien comes into compliance with his or her obligation to make timely application in good

faith for travel or other documents and not conspire or act to prevent removal.

Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: 

Costs and Benefits: The changes are administrative and procedural in nature, and will not result in cost impacts to the

public. The benefits of making these changes to the regulations will allow for expedited review of the post-order custody review

process.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 11/14/2001 66 FR 56967 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 01/14/2002 

Final Action 03/00/2011 

Additional Information: INS No. 2156-01 Transferred from RIN 1115-AG29

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Agency Contact: Jason Johnsen Department of Homeland Security

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

50
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

500 12th Street SW.

Washington , DC 20024 

Phone: 202 732-4245 

E-Mail: jason.johnsen@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( USICE ) RIN: 1653-AA56

 View Related Documents

Title: Extending Period for Optional Practical Training by 17 Months for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With STEM Degrees and

Expanding the CAP-GAP Relief for All F-1 Students With Pending H-1B Petitions

Abstract: Currently, foreign students in F-1 nonimmigrant status who have been enrolled on a full-time basis for at least one

full academic year in a college, university, conservatory, or seminary certified by U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement's

(ICE) Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) are eligible for 12 months of optional practical training (OPT) to work for a

U.S. employer in a job directly related to the student’s major area of study. The maximum period of OPT is 29 months for F-1

students who have completed a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree and accept employment with

employers enrolled in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS') E-Verify employment verification program. Employers

of F-1 students with an extension of post-completion OPT authorization must report to the student’s designated school official

(DSO) within 48 hours after the OPT student has been terminated from, or otherwise leaves, his or her employment with that

employer prior to end of the authorized period of OPT. The final rule will respond to public comments and may make

adjustments to the regulations.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 8 USC 1101 to 1103; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184 to 1187; 8 USC 1221; 8 USC 1281 and 1282; 8 USC

1301 to 1305

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: ICE will improve SEVP processes by publishing the Final Optional Practical Training (OPT) rule,

which will respond to comments on the OPT interim final rule (IFR). The IFR increased the maximum period of OPT from 12

months to 29 months for nonimmigrant students who have completed a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics

(STEM) degree and who accept employment with employers who participate in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'

(USCIS') E-Verify employment verification program.

Legal Basis: 

Alternatives: DHS is considering several alternatives to the 17-month extension of OPT and cap-gap extension, ranging

from taking no action to further extension for a larger populace. The interim final rule addressed an immediate competitive

disadvantage faced by U.S. industries and ameliorated some of the adverse impacts on the U.S. economy. DHS continues to

evaluate both quantitative and qualitative alternatives.

Costs and Benefits: Based on an estimated 12,000 students per year that will receive an OPT extension and an

estimated 5,300 employers that will need to enroll in E-verify, DHS projects that this rule will cost students approximately $1.49

million per year in additional information collection burdens, $4,080,000 in fees, and cost employers $1,240,000 to enroll in EVerify and $168,540 per year thereafter to verify the status of new hires. However, this rule will increase the availability of

qualified workers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematical fields; reduce delays that place U.S. employers at a

disadvantage when recruiting foreign job candidates, thereby improving strategic and resource planning capabilities; increase

the quality of life for participating students, and increase the integrity of the student visa program.

Risks: 

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 04/08/2008 73 FR 18944 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 06/09/2008 

Final Rule 03/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

51
Federalism: No

RIN Information URL: www.dhs.gov/sevis/

Agency Contact: Sharon Snyder 

Acting Branch Chief, SEVP Policy, Student and Exchange Visitor Program

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Potomac Center North 500 12th Street SW.

Washington , DC 20024-6121 

Phone: 703 603-3415 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA ) RIN: 1660-AA51

 View Related Documents

Title: Update of FEMA's Public Assistance Regulations

Abstract: This proposed rule would revise the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Public Assistance program

regulations. Many of these changes reflect amendments made to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 and the Security and Accountability For Every

Port Act of 2006. The proposed rule also proposes to reflect lessons learned from recent events, and propose further

substantive and non-substantive clarifications and corrections to improve upon the Public Assistance regulations. This proposed

rule is intended to improve the efficiency and consistency of the Public Assistance program, as well as implement new statutory

authority by expanding Federal assistance, improving the Project Worksheet process, empowering grantees, and improving

State Administrative Plans.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 44 CFR 206 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 42 USC 5121 to 5207

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The proposed changes implement new statutory authorities and incorporate necessary clarifications

and corrections to streamline and improve the Public Assistance program. Portions of FEMA's Public Assistance regulations

have become out of date and do not implement all of FEMA's available statutory authorities. The current regulations inhibit

FEMA's ability to clearly articulate its regulatory requirements, and the Public Assistance applicants' understanding of the

program. The proposed changes are intended to improve the efficiency and consistency of the Public Assistance program.

Legal Basis: The legal authority for the changes in this proposed rule is contained in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief

and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 to 5207, as amended by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act

of 2006, 6 U.S.C. 701 et seq, the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, 6 U.S.C. 901 note, the Local

Community Recovery Act of 2006, Public Law 109-218, 120 Stat. 333, and the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards

Act of 2006, Public Law 109-308, 120 Stat. 1725.

Alternatives: One alternative is to revise some of the current regulatory requirements (such as application deadlines) in

addition to implementing the amendments made to the Stafford Act by (1) the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform

Act of 2006 (PKEMRA), Public Law 109-295, 120 Stat. 1394; 2) the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006

(SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884; 3) the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006, Public Law 109-218, 120

Stat. 333; and 4) the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006 (PETS Act), Public Law 109-308, 120 Stat.

1725. Another alternative is to expand funding by expanding force account labor cost eligibility to Category A Projects (debris

removal).

Costs and Benefits: The proposed rule is expected to have economic impacts on the public, grantees, subgrantees, and

FEMA. The expected benefits are a reduction in property damages, societal losses, and losses to local businesses, as well as

improved efficiency and consistency of the Public Assistance program. The total economic impact of the proposed rule is

estimated to be approximately $50 million per year (in 2010 dollars). The primary economic impact of the proposed rule is the

additional transfer of funding from FEMA through the Public Assistance program to grantees and subgrantees that is effectuated

by this rulemaking. The proposed rule will also incur additional administrative costs to grantees and FEMA, which is estimated

to be approximately $230,000, and $20,000 per year, respectively. However, most of the proposed changes are not expected to

result in any additional cost to FEMA or any changes in the eligibility of assistance.

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

52
Risks: This action does not adversely affect public health, safety, or the environment.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 04/00/2011 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State;

Tribal

Federalism: Yes

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Tod Wells 

Recovery Directorate

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Emergency Management Agency

500 C Street SW.

Washington , DC 20472-3100 

Phone: 202 646-3936 

FAX: 202 646-3363

E-Mail: tod.wells@dhs.gov

Regulations.gov Monday, December 20, 2010 The Regulatory Plan

53