## DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)

Fall 2012 Statement of Regulatory Priorities

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) 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 six main areas of responsibility:

1. Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security,

2. Secure and Manage Our Borders,

3. Enforce and Administer our Immigration Laws,

4. Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace,

5. Ensure Resilience to Disasters, and

6. Mature and Strengthen DHS.

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 main areas of

responsibility, see the DHS website at http://www.dhs.gov/our-mission.

The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall 2012 regulatory plan and in the

agenda support the Department’s 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 agenda and regulatory plan. In addition, DHS senior leadership reviews each significant

regulatory project to ensure that the project fosters and supports the Department’s mission.

The Department 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 Orders 13563 and 12866 (as

amended). Both Executive orders direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory

alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits

(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and

equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

Finally, 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 and

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

participation in the Department’s rulemakings.

## Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

Pursuant to Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011),

DHS identified the following regulatory actions as associated with retrospective review and analysis.

Some of the regulatory actions on the below list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The

Regulatory Plan. You can find more information about these completed rulemakings in past publications

of the Unified Agenda (search the Completed Actions sections) on www.reginfo.gov. Some of the entries

on this list, however, are active rulemakings. You can find entries for these rulemakings on

www.regulations.gov.



## RIN Rule

1615-AB71 Electronic Communications; Registration Requirement for

Petitioners Seeking to File H-1B Petitions

1615-AB99 Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for

Certain Immediate Relatives

1615-AB92 Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Spouses

1615-AB95 Immigration Benefits Business Transformation: Nonimmigrants;

Student and Exchange Visitor Program

1625-AA16 Implementation of the Amendments to the International

Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) and Changes to Domestic

Endorsements

1625-AB38 Update to Maritime Security Regulations

1625-AB80 Elimination of Transportation Worker Identification Credential

(TWIC) for Certain Mariner Populations. (Implementation of

Section 809 of the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act)

1651-AA96 Definition of Form I-94 to Include Electronic Format

1651-AA93 Closing of the Port of Whitetail, Montana

1651-AA94 Internet Publication of Administrative Seizure/Forfeiture Notices

1652-AA43 Modification of the Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee (ASIF)

## 1652-AA61 Revisions to the Alien Flight Student Program (AFSP)

Regulations

1653-AA44 Amendment to Accommodate Process Changes with the

Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) II

1660-AA75 Increased Federal Cost Share and Reimbursement for Force

Account Labor for Public for Public Assistance Debris Removal

1660-XXXX State Standard and Enhanced Mitigation Plan

Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4(b) of Executive Order 13609 “Promoting International Regulatory

Cooperation” (May 1, 2012), DHS has identified the following regulatory actions that have significant

international impacts. Some of the regulatory actions on the below list may be completed actions. You

can find more information about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda

(search the Completed Actions sections) on www.reginfo.gov . Some of the entries on this list, however,

are active rulemakings. You can find entries for these rulemakings on www.regulations.gov

.

RIN Rule

1625-AB38 Updates to Maritime Security

1651-AA70 Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements

1651-AA72 Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic System for Travel

Authorization (ESTA) Program

1651-AA98 Amendments to Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements

1651-AA96 Definition of Form I-94 to Include Electronic Format

DHS participates in some international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated

to lead to significant regulations. For example, the Coast Guard is the primary U.S. representative to the

International Maritime Organization (IMO) and plays a major leadership role in establishing international

standards in the global maritime community. IMO’s work to establish international standards for maritime

safety, security, and environmental protection closely aligns with Coast Guard regulations. As an IMO

member nation, the U.S. is obliged to incorporate IMO treaty provisions not already part of U.S. domestic

## policy into regulations for those vessels affected by the international standards. Consequently, the Coast

Guard initiates rulemakings to harmonize with IMO international standards such as treaty provisions and

the codes, conventions, resolutions, and circulars that supplement them.

Also, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper created the Canada-US Regulatory Cooperation

Council (RCC) in February 2011. The RCC is an initiative between both federal governments aimed at

pursuing greater alignment in regulation, increasing mutual recognition of regulatory practices and

establishing smarter, more effective and less burdensome regulations in specific sectors. The CanadaUS RCC initiative arose out of the recognition that high level, focused, and sustained effort would be

required to reach a more substantive level of regulatory cooperation. Since its creation in early 2011,

USCG has participated in stakeholder consultations with their Transport Canada counterparts and the

public, drafted items for inclusion in the RCC Action Plan, and detailed work plans for each included

Action Plan item.

The fall 2012 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 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 2012 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) administers immigration benefits and services

while protecting and securing our homeland. 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 to Facilitate Retention of High-Skilled Workers.

Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses . USCIS will propose to amend its

regulations to extend eligibility for employment authorization to H-4 dependent spouses of principal H-1B

nonimmigrants who have begun the process of seeking lawful permanent resident status through

employment and have extended their authorized period of admission or "stay" in the United States under

section 104(c) or 106(a) of Public Law 106-313, also known as the American Competitiveness in the

Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21). Allowing the eligible class of H-4 dependent spouses to work

encourages professionals with high-demand skills to remain in the country and help spur innovation and

growth of U.S. businesses.

Enhancing Opportunities for High-Skilled Workers. USCIS will propose to amend its regulations

affecting high-skilled workers within the nonimmigrant classifications for specialty occupation

professionals from Chile and Singapore (H-1B1) and from Australia (E-3), to include these classifications

in the list of classes of aliens authorized for employment incident to status with a specific employer, to

extend automatic employment authorization extensions with pending extension of stay requests, and to

update filing procedures. USCIS will also propose amendments related to the immigration classification

for employment-based first preference (EB-1) outstanding professors or researchers to allow the

submission of comparable evidence. These changes will encourage and facilitate the employment and

retention of these high-skilled workers.

Improvements to the Immigration System

.
Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives. USCIS will

amend its regulations to allow certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, who are physically present in

the United States and must seek immigrant visas through consular processing abroad, to apply for

provisional unlawful presence waivers under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act of 1952; 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) while in the United States. This regulatory change would

significantly reduce the length of time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives who must

use the consular process abroad. It also creates greater efficiencies for both the U.S. Government and

applicants.

## Regulations Related to Transformation. 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 regulations to facilitate that effort,

including regulations that would accomplish the following changes: remove references to form numbers,

form titles, expired regulatory provisions, and descriptions of internal procedure; mandate electronic filing

in certain circumstances; and comprehensively reorganize 8 CFR part 214.

Requirements for Filing Motions and Administrative Appeals. USCIS will propose to revise the

procedural regulations governing appeals and motions to reopen or reconsider before its Administrative

Appeals Office, and to require that applicants and petitioners exhaust administrative remedies before

seeking judicial review of an unfavorable decision. The changes proposed by the rule will streamline the

procedures before the Administrative Appeals Office and improve the efficiency of the adjudication

process.

Regulations Related to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. In 2009, USCIS issued three

regulations (two interim final rules and one notice of proposed rulemaking) 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 (CNRA). During fiscal year 2011, USCIS issued

two final rules finalizing the interim final rules from 2009 related to the extension of the U.S. immigration

law to the CNMI. In fiscal year 2013, USCIS plans to issue with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a joint

final rule titled "Application of Immigration Regulations to the CNMI." This regulation would implement the

applicable CNRA provisions to extend U.S. immigration law to the CNMI.

Regulatory Changes Involving Humanitarian Benefits

. Asylum and Withholding Definitions . USCIS plans a regulatory proposal to amend the regulations that

govern asylum eligibility and refugee status determinations. The amendments are expected to revise the

portions of the existing regulations that deal with determinations of whether suffered or feared persecution

is on account of a protected ground, the requirements for establishing that the government is unable or

## unwilling to protect the applicant, and the definition of membership in a particular social group. This

proposal would provide greater clarity and consistency in this important area of the law.

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

Withholding of Removal. In a joint rulemaking, DHS and 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 or 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 would clarify

the required level 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

nonimmigrants to lawful permanent resident status. USCIS hopes to provide greater consistency in

eligibility, application and procedural requirements for these vulnerable groups, their advocates, and the

community through these regulatory initiatives. These rulemakings will contain provisions to adjust

documentary requirements for this vulnerable population and provide greater clarity to the law

enforcement community.

Application of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2008. In a joint rulemaking,

DHS and DOJ will propose amendments to implement the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims

Protection Act of 2008 (TVPRA). This statute specified that USCIS has initial jurisdiction over an asylum

application filed by an unaccompanied alien child in removal proceedings before an immigration judge.

The agencies implemented this legislation with interim procedures that the TVPRA mandated within 90

days after enactment. The proposed rule would amend both agencies' regulations to finalize the

procedures to determine when an alien child is unaccompanied and how jurisdiction would be transferred

to USCIS for initial adjudication of the child's asylum application. In addition, this rule would address

adjustment of status for special immigrant juveniles and voluntary departure for unaccompanied alien

children in removal proceedings.

## 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 modern maritime

environment. The Coast Guard creates value for the public through solid prevention and response efforts.

Activities involving oversight and regulation, enforcement, maritime presence, and public and private

partnership foster increased maritime safety, security, and stewardship.

The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard include ensuring marine safety and security,

preserving maritime mobility, protecting the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and international

treaties, and performing search and rescue. The Coast Guard supports the Department's overarching

goals of mobilizing and organizing our Nation to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, natural

disasters, and other emergencies. The rulemaking projects identified for the Coast Guard in the Unified

Agenda, and the rules appearing in the fall 2012 Regulatory Plan below, contribute to the fulfillment of

those responsibilities and reflect our regulatory policies.

Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader Requirements . The Coast

Guard is proposing to establish electronic card reader requirements for maritime facilities and vessels to

## be used in combination with the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) TWIC. Congress

enacted several statutory requirements within the Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port

Act of 2006 pertaining to TWIC readers, including a requirement to evaluate TSA's final pilot program

report as part of the TWIC reader rulemaking. During the rulemaking process, the Coast Guard is taking

into account the final pilot data and the various conditions in which TWIC readers may be employed. For

example, the Coast Guard is considering the types of vessels and facilities that will use TWIC readers,

locations of secure and restricted areas, operational constraints, and need for accessibility. This

rulemaking will also address recordkeeping requirements, amendments to security plans, and the

requirement for data exchanges (i.e., Canceled Card List) between TSA and vessel or facility

owners/operators.

Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training,

Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978 . The Coast Guard proposed to amend its

regulations to implement changes to an interim rule published on June 26, 1997. These proposed

amendments go beyond changes found in the interim rule and seek to more fully incorporate the

requirements of the STCW in the requirements for the credentialing of U.S. merchant mariners. The

proposed changes are primarily substantive and: (1) Are necessary to continue to give full and complete

effect to the STCW Convention; (2) incorporate lessons learned from implementation of the STCW

through the interim rule and through policy letters and Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars; and (3)

attempt to clarify regulations that have generated confusion. This proposal published as a Supplemental

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on August 1, 2011. The Coast Guard has reviewed and

analyzed comments received on that SNPRM, and intends to publish a final rule complying with the

requirements of the newly amended STCW Convention. DHS included this rulemaking in the DHS Final

Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations, which DHS released on August 22, 2011.

Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System . The

Coast Guard intends to expand the applicability of notice of arrival and departure (NOAD) and automatic

identification system (AIS) requirements to include more commercial vessels. This rule, once final, would

## expand the applicability of notice of arrival (NOA) requirements to include additional vessels, establish a

separate requirement for vessels to submit notices of departure (NOD) when departing for a foreign port

or place, set forth a mandatory method for electronic submission of NOA and NOD, and modify related

reporting content, timeframes, and procedures. This rule would also extend the applicability of AIS

requirements beyond Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) areas to all U.S. navigable waters and require

additional commercial vessels install and use AIS. These changes are intended to improve navigation

safety, enhance our ability to identify and track vessels, and heighten the Coast Guard’s overall maritime

domain awareness, thus helping the Coast Guard address threats to maritime transportation safety and

security and mitigate the possible harm from such threats.

Offshore Supply Vessels of 6000 or more GT ITC. The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (the

Act) removed the size limit on offshore supply vessels (OSVs) and directed the Coast Guard to issue, as

soon as practicable, an interim rule to implement section 617 of the Act. As required by the Act, this

interim rule is intended to provide for the safe carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in

addition to crew on OSVs of at least 6000 gross tonnage as measured under the International Convention

on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (6,000 GT ITC). In developing the regulations the Coast Guard is

taking into account the characteristics of offshore supply vessels, their methods of operation, and their

service in support of exploration, exploitation, or production of offshore mineral or energy resources.

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. These rules foster the DHS’ Strategic Goals of awareness and

prevention. 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 that was previously submitted to CBP

via the I-94W Nonimmigrant Alien Arrival/Departure Form (I-94W). ESTA became mandatory on January

12, 2009. Therefore, VWP travelers must either obtain travel authorization in advance of travel under

ESTA or obtain a visa prior to traveling to the United States.

## The shift from a paper to an electronic form and requiring the data in advance of travel enables CBP to

determine before the alien departs for the U.S., the eligibility of nationals from VWP countries to travel to

the United States and to determine whether such travel poses a law enforcement or security risk. By

modernizing the VWP, the ESTA increases national security and provides 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. On August 9,

2010, CBP also 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 $4.00 operational fee for the use of ESTA set by the

Secretary of Homeland Security to at least ensure the recovery of the full costs of providing and

administering the ESTA system. CBP intends to issue a final rule on ESTA and the ESTA fee during the

next fiscal year.

Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements. The Security and Accountability for

Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), calls for CBP to promulgate regulations to require the electronic

transmission of additional data elements for improved high-risk targeting. See Pub. L. No. 109-347,

Section 203 (October 13, 2006). This includes appropriate security elements of entry data for cargo

destined for the United States by vessel prior to loading of such cargo on vessels at foreign seaports. Id.

The SAFE Port Act requires that the information collected reasonably improve CBP’s ability to identify

high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security. Id.

On November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule “Importer Security filing and Additional

Carrier Requirements,” amending CBP Regulations to require carriers and importers to provide to CBP,

via a CBP approved electronic data interchange system, information necessary to enable CBP to identity

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 the next fiscal year.

Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program

. CBP published an interim final rule in

N ove mb e r 2008 amending the DHS regulations to replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a

new Guan-CNMI Visa Waiver program. This rule implements portions of the 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 Guan 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 the next fiscal

year.

In the above paragraphs, DHS discusses the CBP regulations that foster DHS’s mission. CBP also

issues regulations related to the mission of the Department of the Treasury. Under section 403(1) of the

Homeland Security Act of 2002, the former-U.S. Customs Service, including functions of the Secretary of

the Treasury relating thereto, transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. As part of the initial

organization of DHS, the Customs Service inspection and trade functions were combined with the

immigration and agricultural inspection functions and the Border Patrol and transferred into CBP. It is

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

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 2013, 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 Federal Emergency Management Agency does not have any significant regulatory actions

planned for fiscal year 2013.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

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

actions planned for fiscal year 2013.

United States 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. Its

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 2013, ICE will pursue rulemaking actions to make improvements in three critical

subject areas: Setting national standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and assault in

DHS confinement facilities; improving the detention of aliens who are subject to final orders of removal;

and updating and enhancing policies and procedures governing the Student and Exchange Visitor

Program (SEVP).

Setting National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in DHS

Confinement Facilities. In cooperation with Department and CBP, ICE will set national detention

standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and assault in DHS confinement facilities. For

purposes of this rulemaking, DHS confinement facilities are broken down into two distinct types: 1)

immigration detention facilities and 2) holding facilities. The proposed standards will reflect existing ICE

and other DHS detention policies and are in response to the President’s Memorandum “Implementing the

Prison Rape Elimination Act,” issued on May 17, 2012, the same day the Department of Justice issued its

final rule in response to the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), 42 U.S.C. 15601 et seq.

President Obama’s Memorandum affirmed the goals of PREA and directed Federal agencies with

confinement facilities to propose rules or procedures necessary to satisfy the requirements of PREA

## within 120 days of the Memorandum. The DHS notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will be issued

during fiscal year 2012, with a final rule to follow addressing comments received through the notice-andcomment process.

Improving 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 changes pursuant to the enactment of the

Homeland Security Act of 2002. During fiscal year 2013, ICE will also issue a companion NPRM that will

allow the public an opportunity to comment on new sections of the custody determination process not

previously published for comment.

Updating and enhancing limitations on designated school official assignment and study by F-2 and M2 nonimmigrants. ICE will revise the current regulation that limits the number of designated school

officials (DSOs) that may be nominated for the oversight of each school’s campus(es) where international

students are enrolled, as well as modify the restrictions placed on the dependents of an F-1 or M-1

nonimmigrant student, in order to permit F-2 and M-2 nonimmigrants to enroll in less than a full course of

study at an SEVP-certified school. Currently, schools are limited to ten DSOs per school or per campus

in a multi-campus school. ICE has found that the current DSO limit of ten per campus is too constraining,

especially in schools that have large numbers of F and M nonimmigrant students. ICE believes that, in

many circumstances, elimination of a DSO limit may improve the capability of DSOs to meet their liaison,

reporting and oversight responsibilities. In addition, ICE recognizes that there is increasing global

competition to attract the best and brightest international students to study in our schools. Allowing a

more flexible approach by permitting F-2 and M-2 nonimmigrant spouses and children to engage in study

in the United States at SEVP-certified schools, so long as that study does not amount to a full course of

study, will provide greater incentive for international students to travel to the United States for their

education.

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.

Ammonium Nitrate Security Program

. 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.” This

authority is contained in a new Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate subtitle of the Homeland Security

Act (Subtitle J, 6 U.S.C. §§ 488 – 488i).

The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate provisions of the Homeland Security Act direct 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 with DHS.

The Ammonium Nitrate Security Program Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes requirements that

would implement the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate provisions of the Homeland Security Act.

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 aims to 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.

On October 29, 2008, DHS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for the

Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program, and received a number of public comments on that

ANPRM. DHS reviewed those comments and published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for

## the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program on August 3, 2011. NPPD accepted public comments until

December 1, 2011, and is now reviewing the public comments and developing a Final Rule related to the

Ammonium Nitrate Security Program.

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 2013, 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.

Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT). TSA will propose to amend its civil

aviation regulations to clarify that screening and inspection of an individual, conducted to control access

to the sterile area of an airport or to an aircraft, may include the use of advanced imaging technology

(AIT). This NPRM will be issued to comply with the decision rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District Columbia Circuit in Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) v. U.S. Department of

Homeland Security on July 15, 2011. 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Court directed TSA to conduct

notice and comment rulemaking on the use of AIT in the primary screening of passengers.

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, and over-the-road bus operators 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 Buses) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11

Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007). In compliance with the definitions

## of frontline employees in the pertinent provisions of the 9/11 Act, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) would define which employees are required to undergo training. The NPRM would also propose

definitions for transportation security-sensitive materials, as required by section 1501 of the 9/11 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 (NPRM) on November 18, 2009. The final rule will also codify the scope of TSA’s existing

inspection program and could require regulated parties to allow DHS officials to enter, inspect, and test

property, facilities, and records relevant to repair stations. This rulemaking action will implement 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. DHS is considering a proposal that would

include procedures for conducting STAs for transportation workers from almost all modes of

transportation, 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.

As part of this proposed rule, TSA will propose revisions to the Alien Flight Student Program

(AFSP) regulations. TSA published an interim final rule for ASFP on September 20, 2004. TSA

regulations require aliens seeking to train at Federal Aviation Administration-regulated flight schools to

complete an application and undergo an STA prior to beginning flight training. There are four categories

under which students currently fall; the nature of the STA depends on the student’s category. TSA is

considering changes to the AFSP that would improve equity among fee payers and enable the

implementation of new technologies to support vetting.

## United States Secret Service

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

year 2013.

DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2013

A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise DHS's fall 2012 regulatory plan

follows.The 19 Actions Described in the Regulatory Plan

Title Regulation Identifier Number Rulemaking Stage

Asylum and Withholding Definitions 1615-AA41 Proposed Rule Stage
Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, and Temporary Protected Status, and Withholding of Removal 1615-AB89 Proposed Rule Stage

Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses 1615-AB92 Proposed Rule Stage
Enhancing Opportunities for High-Skilled H-1B1 and E-3 Nonimmigrants and EB-1 Immigrants 1615-AC00 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
Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives 1615-AB99 Final Rule Stage
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader Requirements 1625-AB21 Proposed Rule Stage
Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978 1625-AA16 Final Rule Stage

Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System 1625-AA99 Final Rule Stage

Offshore Supply Vessels of at Least 6000 GT ITC 1625-AB62 Final Rule Stage
Changes to the Visa Waiver Program To Implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) Program 1651-AA72 Final Rule Stage

Security Training for Surface Mode Employees 1652-AA55 Proposed Rule Stage
Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Services 1652-AA61 Proposed Rule Stage
Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology 1652-AA67 Proposed Rule Stage
Aircraft Repair Station Security 1652-AA38 Final Rule Stage
Adjustments to Limitations on Designated School Official Assignment and Study By F-2 and M-2 Nonimmigrants 1653-AA63 Proposed Rule Stage

Standards To Prevent, Detect and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities 1653-AA65 Proposed Rule Stage

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 2; 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 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 byapplicants 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 rule should provide greater stability and clarity in this important area of the law. This rule will also 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 (BIA).

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 contains the internationally accepted definition of a refugee. United States immigration law incorporates an almost identical definition of a refugee as a person outside his or her country of origin "who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Alternatives: A sizable body of interpretive case law has developed around the meaning of the refugee definition. Historically, much of this case law has addressed 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, DOJ published a proposed rule in the Federal Register providing guidance on the definitions of "persecution" and "membership in a particular social group." Prior to publishing a new proposed 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. 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 new proposed 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 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 for this rule, we do not believe this rule will cause a change in the number of asylum applications filed.

Risks: The failure to promulgate a final rule in this area presents significant risk 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 05/00/2013

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: Ted Kim Deputy Chief, Asylum Division, Office of Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 3200, Washington, DC 20259 Washington , DC 20259 Phone: 202 272-1614 FAX: 202 272-1994 E-Mail: ted.h.kim@uscis.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AB89View 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 believes that this is an appropriate subject for rulemaking and proposes to amend the applicable regulations to set out its 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 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 goals 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 03/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Related Agencies: Joint : DOJ Agency Contact: Molly Groom Chief, Refugee and Asylum Law Division, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20259 Washington , DC 20259 Phone: 202 272-1400 FAX: 202 272-1408 E-Mail: molly.m.groom@uscis.dhs.govDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AB92

View Related Documents

Title: Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to amend its regulations by extending the availability of employment authorization to H-4 dependent spouses of principal H-1B nonimmigrants who have begun the process of seeking lawful permanent resident status through employment and have extended their authorized period of admission or "stay" in the U.S. under section 104(c) or 106(a) of Public Law 106-313, also known as the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21). Allowing the eligible class of H-4 dependent spouses to work encourages professionals with high demand skills to remain in the country and help spur the innovation and growth of U.S. companies.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 8 CFR 274a.12(c) (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: INA sec 214(a)(1) 8 USC 1184(a)(1); INA 274A(h)(3) 8 USC 1324a(h)(3); 8 CFR 274a.12(c); sec 104(c) of PL 106-313; sec 106(a) of PL 106-313; ... Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: Congress intended that the AC21 provisions allowing for extension of H-1B status past the 6th year for workers who are the beneficiaries of certain pending or approved employment-based immigrant petitions or labor certification applications would minimize the disruption to U.S. businesses employing H-1B workers that would result if such workers were required to leave the United States. DHS recognizes that the limitation on the period of stay is not the only event that could cause an H-1B worker to leave his or her employment and cause disruption to the employer's business, inclusive of the loss of significant time and money invested in the immigration process. The rule, as proposed by this NPRM, is intended to mitigate some of the negative economic effects of limiting H-1B households to one income during lengthy waiting periods in the adjustment of status process. Also, this rule will encourage H-1B skilled workers to not abandon their adjustment application because their H-4 spouse is unable to work.

Legal Basis: Sections 103(a), and 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally authorize the Secretary to provide for employment authorization for aliens in the United States. In addition, section 214(a)(1) of the INA authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations setting terms and conditions of admission of nonimmigrants.

Alternatives: An alternative considered by DHS was to permit employer authorization for all H-4 dependent spouses. In enacting AC21, Congress was especially concerned with avoiding the disruption to U.S. businesses caused by the required departure of H-1B workers (for whom the businesses intended to file employment-based immigrant visa petitions) upon the expiration of workers' maximum six-year period of authorized stay. Although the inability of an H-4 spouse to work may cause an H-1B worker to consider departing from the United States prior to his or her eligibility for an H-1B extension. This alternative was rejected in favor of the proposed process to limit employment authorization to the smaller sub-class of H-4 nonimmigrants who intend to remain in the United States permanently and who have been granted an extension of H status under the provisions of AC21.

Costs and Benefits: The proposed changes would only impact spouses of H-1B workers who have been admitted or have extended their stay under the provisions of AC21. The costs of the rule would stem from filing fees and the opportunity costs of time associated with filing an Application for Employment Authorization for those eligible H-4 spouses who decide to seek employment while residing in the United States. Allowing certain H-4 spouses the opportunity to work would result in a negligible increase to the overall domestic labor force. The benefits of this rule are retaining highly-skilled persons who intend to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. This is important when considering the contributions of these individuals to the U.S. economy, including advances in entrepreneurial and research and development endeavors, which are highly correlated with overall economic growth and job creation. In addition, the proposed amendments would bring U.S. immigration laws more in line with other countries that seek to attract skilled foreign workers.

Risks:
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 03/00/2013

Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No Energy Affected: No RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings Chief, Business and Foreign Workers DivisionDepartment of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140 Washington , DC 20529-2140 Phone: 202 272-1470 FAX: 202 272-1480 E-Mail: kevin.j.cummings@uscis.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AC00

View Related Documents

Title: Enhancing Opportunities for High-Skilled H-1B1 and E-3 Nonimmigrants and EB-1 Immigrants
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to amend its regulations affecting high-skilled workers withinthe nonimmigrant classifications for specialty occupation professionals from Chile and Singapore (H-1B1) and from Australia (E3), and the immigration classification for employment-based first preference (EB-1) outstanding professors or researchers. DHS proposes changes that would harmonize the regulations for E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrant classifications with existing regulations for other, similarly situated nonimmigrant classifications. DHS is proposing these changes to the regulations to encourage and facilitate the employment and retention of these high-skilled workers.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 248; 8 CFR 274a (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1151; 8 USC 1153; 8 USC 1154; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8 USC 1186a; 8 USC 1255; 8 USC 1641; ... Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: DHS proposes to amend its regulations to improve the programs serving the E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrant classifications and the EB-1 immigrant classification for outstanding professors and researchers. The regulatory changes to these categories would significantly improve procedures to more effectively encourage and facilitate the retention of these high-skilled workers in the United States.

Legal Basis:

Alternatives:

Costs and Benefits: The portion of the proposed rule addressing E-3 and H-1B1 visas would extend the period of employment authorized while requests for an extension of these employment-based nonimmigrant visa classifications are being reviewed. We do not anticipate that this rule would impose any additional costs. The benefits of this portion of the proposed rule include easing the regulatory burden on employers of E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrants and avoiding potential gaps in employment for these nonimmigrant workers. The portion of the proposed rule addressing the evidentiary requirements for the EB-1 outstanding professor and researcher employment-based immigrant classification would allow for the submission of comparable evidence (achievements not listed in the criteria such as important patents or prestigious, peer-reviewed funding grants) for that listed in 8 CFR 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)–(F) to establish that the EB-1 professor or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in his or her academic field. We do not anticipate that this part of the proposed rule would impose additional costs. The non-quantified benefits would include the harmonization of the evidentiary requirements for EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers with other comparable employment-based immigrant classifications and easing petitioners' recruitment of these highly skilled individuals by expanding the range of evidence that may be adduced to support their petitions.

Risks:
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 03/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Small Entities Affected: Business; Organizations Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings Chief, Business and Foreign Workers Division Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServicesOffice of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140 Washington , DC 20529-2140 Phone: 202 272-1470 FAX: 202 272-1480 E-Mail: kevin.j.cummings@uscis.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 (DHS) 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.

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. DHS is considering and using suggestions from these stakeholders in developing this regulation.

Costs and Benefits: 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 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
Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 04/01/2002Interim Final Rule 09/00/2013

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: No Federalism: No
Related RINs: Related to 1615-AA67 Agency Contact: Laura M. Dawkins Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529 Washington , DC 20529 Phone: 202 272-1470 FAX: 202 272-1480 E-Mail: laura.dawkins@uscis.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 of Homeland Security (DHS) will issue another interim final rule to make the changes required by recent legislation.

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: DHS 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: DHS uses fees to fund the cost of processing applications and associated support benefits. In the 2008 interim final rule, DHS estimated the fee collection resulting from this rule at 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, DHS 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, DHS estimated fees from associated applications that are required such as biometrics, and others that are likely to occur in direct connection with applications for adjustment, such as employment authorization or travel authorization. DHS is in the process of updating these cost estimates. 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-in-persons issues by the law enforcement community;and 3. Enhanced ability to develop and work cases in trafficking in persons cross-organizationally and multi-jurisdictionally, which may begin to influence changes in trafficking patterns.

Risks: Congress created the U nonimmigrant status ("U visa") to provide immigration protection to crime victims who assist in the investigation and prosecution of those crimes. Although there are no specific data on alien crime victims, statistics maintained by the Department of Justice have shown that aliens, especially those aliens without legal status, are often reluctant to help in the investigation or prosecution of crimes. U visas are intended to help overcome this reluctance and aid law enforcement accordingly.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
Interim Final Rule 12/12/2008 73 FR 75540
Interim Final Rule Effective 01/12/2009
Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 02/10/2009
Interim Final Rule 09/00/2013

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, Regulatory Coordination Division Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529 Washington , DC 20529 Phone: 202 272-1470 FAX: 202 272-1480 E-Mail: laura.dawkins@uscis.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 U nonimmigrant status provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Department of Homeland Security will issue another interim final rule to make the changes required by the legislation.

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 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: DHS has identified four alternatives, the first being chosen for the rule: 1. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on afirst 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: DHS estimated the total annual cost of this interim rule to petitioners to be $6.2 million in the IFR published in 2007. This cost included the biometric services fee, the opportunity cost of time needed to submit the required forms, the opportunity cost of time required for a visit to a USCIS Application Support Center, and the cost of traveling to an Application Support Center. DHS is currently in the process of updating our cost estimates since U nonimmigrant visa applicants are no longer required to pay the biometric service fee. 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 09/00/2013

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, Regulatory Coordination Division Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529 Washington , DC 20529 Phone: 202 272-1470 FAX: 202 272-1480 E-Mail: laura.dawkins@uscis.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AB99

View Related Documents

Title: Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives
Abstract: On April 2, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a proposed rule at 77 FR 19902 to amend its regulations to allow certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are physically present in the United States to request provisional unlawful presence waivers under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA); 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) in anticipation of immigrant visa processing abroad. The final rule implements the provisional unlawful presence waiver process, and finalizes clarifying amendments to other provisions in part 212 of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Based on the final rule, individuals who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are physically present in the United States and are seeking immigrant visas through consular processing abroad will be able to apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers while in the United States. These changes will significantly reduce the length of time U.S. citizens are separated from their immediate relatives who are consular processing abroad and reduce the degree of interchange between DOS and USCIS, creating greater efficiencies for both the U.S. Government and most applicants.Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 5 USC 301; 5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1304; 8 USC 1182 and note; 8 USC 1184; 8 USC 1187; 8 USC 1223; 8 USC 1225; 8 USC 1226; 8 USC 1227; 8 USC 1255; 8 USC 1304; 8 USC 1356; 8 USC 1185 and note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458); 31 USC 9701; PL 107-296, 116 Stat 2135 (6 USC 1 et seq); EO 12356, 47 FR 14874, 47 FR 15557; 3 CFR 1982 Comp p 166; 8 CFR 2; sec 212.1(q) also issued under sec 702, PL 110-229, 122 Stat 754, 854 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: Currently, certain spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) who are in the United States are not eligible to apply for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status while in the United States. These immediate relatives must travel abroad to obtain an immigrant visa from the Department of State (DOS) and, in many cases, also must request from DHS a waiver of the inadmissibility as a result of their unlawful presence in the United States. These immediate relatives cannot apply for the waiver until after their immigrant visa interviews and must remain outside of the United States, separated from their U.S. citizen spouses, parents, or children while their waiver applications are adjudicated by USCIS. In some cases, waiver application processing can take well over 1 year, prolonging the separation of these immediate relatives from their U.S. citizen spouses, parents, and children. In addition, the action required for these immediate relatives to obtain LPR status in the United States--departure from the United States to apply for an immigrant visa at a DOS consulate abroad--is the very action that triggers the unlawful presence inadmissibility grounds under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i). As a result, many immediate relatives who may qualify for an immigrant visa are reluctant to proceed abroad to seek an immigrant visa. In addition, the action required for these immediate relatives to obtain LPR status in the United States (i.e., departure from the United States to apply for an immigrant visa at a DOS consulate abroad) is the very action that triggers the unlawful presence inadmissibility grounds under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i).

Legal Basis: The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary)'s authority to promulgate this final rule is found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, section 102, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 112, and section 103 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, which give the Secretary the authority to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws. The Secretary's discretionary authority to waive the ground of inadmissibility for unlawful presence can be found in INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v). The regulation governing certain inadmissibility waivers is 8 CFR 212.7. The fee schedule for provisional unlawful presence waiver applications is found at 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(AA).

Alternatives:

Costs and Benefits: This final rule is expected to result in a reduction in the time that U.S. citizens are separated from their alien immediate relatives, thus reducing the financial and emotional hardship for these families. In addition, the Federal Government should achieve increased efficiencies in processing immigrant visas for individuals subject to the unlawful presence inadmissibility bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B). Estimates of the preliminary costs of the rule were developed assuming that current demand is constrained because of concerns that families may endure lengthy separations under the current system. Due to uncertainties as to the degree of the current constraint of demand, DHS used a range of constraint levels with corresponding increases in demand to estimate the costs. In the proposed rule, 77 FR 19913, DHS estimated that the discounted total ten-year cost of this rule would range from approximately $100.6 million to approximately $303.8 million at a seven percent discount rate. Compared with the current waiver process, this rule requires that provisional waiver applicants submit biometric information. Included in the total cost estimate is the cost of collecting biometrics, which we estimated in the proposed rule to range from approximately $28 million to approximately $42.5 million discounted at seven percent over ten years. In addition, as this rule significantly streamlines the current process, DHS expects that additional applicants will apply for the provisional waiver as compared to the current waiver process. To the extent that this rule inducesnew demand for immediate relative visas, additional immigration benefit forms, such as the Petition for Alien Relative, Form I130, will be filed compared to the pre-rule baseline. These additional forms will involve fees being paid by applicants to the Federal Government for form processing and additional opportunity costs of time being incurred by applicants to provide the information required by the forms. The cost estimate in the proposed rule also includes the impact of this induced demand, which we estimate will range from approximately $72.6 million to approximately $261.3 million discounted at seven percent over ten years. DHS is currently drafting the final rule in response to comments, and preparing final cost estimates.

Risks:
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 04/02/2012 77 FR 19902
NPRM Comment Period End 06/01/2012
Final Action 12/00/2012

Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under EO 13563.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: NoEnergy Affected: No RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov
Related RINs: Related to 1615-ZB10 Agency Contact: Mark Phillips Chief, Residence and Naturalization Division Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20529 Washington , DC 20529 Phone: 202 272-1470 FAX: 202 272-1480 E-Mail: mark.phillips@uscis.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AB21

View Related Documents

Title: Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader Requirements
Abstract: The Coast Guard is establishing electronic card reader requirements for maritime facilities and vessels to be used in combination with TSA's Transportation Worker Identification Credential. Congress enacted several statutory requirements within the Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 to guide regulations pertaining to TWIC readers, including the need to evaluate TSA's final pilot program report as part of the TWIC reader rulemaking. During the rulemaking process, we will take into account the final pilot data and the various conditions in which TWIC readers may be employed. For example, we will consider the types of vessels and facilities that will use TWIC readers, locations of secure and restricted areas, operational constraints, and need for accessibility. Recordkeeping requirements, amendments to security plans, and the requirement for data exchanges (i.e., Canceled Card List) between TSA and vessel or facility owners/operators will also be addressed in this rulemaking.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No 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 Legal Deadline: The final rule is required 2 years after the commencement of the pilot program.

Action Source Description Date
Other Statutory SAFE Port Act, codified at 46 USC 70105(k) 08/20/2010

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 explicitly required the issuance of a biometric transportation security card to all U.S. merchant mariners and to workers requiring unescorted access to secure areas of MTSA-regulated facilities and vessels. On May 22, 2006, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to carry out this statute, proposing a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Program where TSA conducts security threat assessments and issues identification credentials, while the Coast Guard requires integration of the TWIC into the access control systems of vessels, facilities, and Outer Continental Shelf facilities. Based on comments received during the public comment period, TSA and the Coast Guard split the TWIC rule. The final TWIC rule, published in January of 2007, addressed the issuance of the TWIC and use of the TWIC as a visual identification credential at access control points. The ANPRM, published in March of 2009, proposed a risk-based approach to TWIC reader requirements and included proposals to classify MTSA-regulated vessels and facilities into one of three risk groups, based on specific factors related to TSI consequence, and apply TWIC reader requirements for vessels and facilities in conjunction with their relative risk-group placement. This rulemaking is necessary to comply with the SAFE Port Act and to complete the implementation of the TWIC Program in our ports. By requiring electronic card readers at vessels and facilities, the Coast Guard will further enhance port security and improve access control measures.

Legal Basis: The statutory authorities for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise, or amend these regulations are provided under 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 192; Executive Order 12656, 3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Alternatives: The implementation of TWIC reader requirements is mandated by the SAFE Port Act. The Coast Guard is currently considering several regulatory alternatives regarding how to implement the TWIC reader requirements. These alternatives will be further explored in the NPRM.

Costs and Benefits: The main cost drivers of this proposal are the acquisition and installation of TWIC readers and the maintenance of the affected entity's TWIC reader system. Costs, which we would distribute over a phased-in implementation period, consist predominantly of the costs to purchase, install, and integrate approved TWIC readers to their current physical access control system. Recurring annual costs will be driven by costs associated with canceled card list updates, opportunitycost associated with delays and replacement of TWICs that cannot be read, and maintenance of the affected entity's TWIC reader system. At this time, we are still developing our estimates for the impacts of this proposed rule. The benefits of the rulemaking include the enhancement of the security of vessel ports and other facilities by ensuring that only individuals who hold valid TWICs are granted unescorted access to secure areas at those locations. It will also implement the 2002 MTSA transportation security card requirements, thereby ensuring compliance with those statutes.

Risks: USCG used risk-based decision-making to develop this proposed rule.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
ANPRM 03/27/2009 74 FR 13360 Notice of Public Meeting 04/15/2009 74 FR 17444
ANPRM Comment Period End 05/26/2009 Notice of Public Meeting Comment Period End 05/26/2009
NPRM 02/00/2013

Additional Information: The docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2007-28915. The docket can be found at www.regulations.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: No
Federalism: No Energy Affected: No RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov
Related RINs: Related to 1625-AB02 Related Agencies: Common: TSA Agency Contact: LCDR Loan O'Brien Project Manager Department of Homeland Security U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, (CG-FAC-2), 2100 Second Street SW., STOP 7581, Washington, DC 20593-7581 Washington , DC 20593-7581 Phone: 202 372-1133 E-Mail: loan.t.o'brien@uscg.mil

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AA16

View Related Documents

Title: Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978
Abstract: The International Maritime Organization (IMO) comprehensively amended the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978, in 1995 and 2010. The 1995 amendments came into force on February 1, 1997. This project implements those amendments by revising current rules to ensure that the United Statescomplies with their requirements on: The training of merchant mariners, the documenting of their qualifications, and watchstanding and other arrangements aboard seagoing merchant ships of the United States. In addition, the Coast Guard has identified the need for additional changes to the interim rule issued in 1997. This project supports the Coast Guard's broad role and responsibility of maritime safety. It also supports the roles and responsibilities of the Coast Guard of reducing deaths and injuries of crew members on domestic merchant vessels and eliminating substandard vessels from the navigable waters of the United States. The Coast Guard published an NPRM on November 17, 2009, and Supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) on March 23, 2010. At a June 2010 diplomatic conference, the IMO adopted additional amendments to the STCW convention which change the minimum training requirements for seafarers. In response to feedback and to the adoption of those amendments, the Coast Guard developed a second Supplemental NPRM to incorporate the 2010 Amendments into the 1990 interim rule.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 46 CFR 10; 46 CFR 11; 46 CFR 12; 46 CFR 15 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 46 USC 2103; 46 USC chs. 71 and 73; DHS Delegation No. 0170.1 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: The Coast Guard proposed to amend its regulations to implement changes to its interim rule published on June 26, 1997. These proposed amendments go beyond changes found in the interim rule and seek to more fully incorporate the requirements of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW), in the requirements for the credentialing of United States merchant mariners. The new changes are primarily substantive and: (1) Are necessary to continue to give full and complete effect to the STCW Convention; (2)Incorporate lessons learned from implementation of the STCW through the interim rule and through policy letters and NVICs; and (3) Attempt to clarify regulations that have generated confusion.

Legal Basis: The authority for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise, or amend these regulations is provided under 46 U.S.C. 2103 and 46 U.S.C. chapters 71 and 73; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Alternatives: For each proposed change, the Coast Guard has considered various alternatives. We considered using policy statements, but they are not enforceable. We also considered taking no action, but this does not support the Coast Guard's fundamental safety and security mission. Additionally, we considered comments made during our 1997 rulemaking to formulate our alternatives. When we analyzed issues, such as license progression and tonnage equivalency, the alternatives chosen were those that most closely met the requirements of STCW.

Costs and Benefits: In the SNPRM, we estimated the annualized cost of this rule over a 10-year period to be $32.8 million per year at a 7 percent discount rate. We estimate the total 10-year cost of this rulemaking to be $230.7 million at a 7 percent discount rate. The changes in anticipated costs since the publication of 2009 NPRM are due to the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention: Medical examinations and endorsements, leadership and management skills, engine room management training, tankerman endorsements, safety refresher training, and able seafarer deck and engine certification requirements. However, there would be potential savings from the costs of training requirements as the Coast Guard would accept various methods for demonstrating competence, including the on-the-job training and preservation of the "hawsepipe" programs. We anticipate the primary benefit of this rulemaking is to ensure that the U.S. meets its obligations under the STCW Convention. Another benefit is an increase in vessel safety and a resulting decrease in the risk of shipping casualties.

Risks: No risks.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite Notice of Meeting 08/02/1995 60 FR 39306 Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End 09/29/1995 Notice of Inquiry 11/13/1995 60 FR 56970
Comment Period End 01/12/1996
NPRM 03/26/1996 61 FR 13284 Notice of Public Meetings 04/08/1996 61 FR 15438
NPRM Comment Period End 07/24/1996
Notice of Intent 02/04/1997 62 FR 5197
Interim Final Rule 06/26/1997 62 FR 34505
Interim Final Rule Effective 07/28/1997
NPRM 11/17/2009 74 FR 59353
NPRM Comment Period End 02/16/2010 Supplemental NPRM 03/23/2010 75 FR 13715 Supplemental NPRM 08/01/2011 76 FR 45908 Public Meeting Notice 08/02/2011 76 FR 46217 Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End 09/30/2011
Final Rule 04/00/2013

Additional Information: The docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2004-17914. The docket is located at www.regulations.gov. The old docket number is CGD 95-062. Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563.

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: Mark Gould Project Manager, CG-5221 Department of Homeland Security U.S. Coast Guard 2100 Second Street SW., STOP 7126, Washington, DC 20593-7126 Washington , DC 20593-7126 Phone: 202 372-1409

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AA99

View Related Documents

Title: Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification SystemAbstract: This rulemaking would expand the applicability for Notice of Arrival and Departure (NOAD) and Automatic Identification System (AIS) requirements. These expanded requirements would better enable the Coast Guard to correlate vessel AIS data with NOAD data, enhance our ability to identify and track vessels, detect anomalies, improve navigation safety, and heighten our overall maritime domain awareness. The NOAD portion of this rulemaking could expand the applicability of the NOAD regulations by changing the minimum size of vessels covered below the current 300 gross tons, require a notice of departure when a vessel is departing for a foreign port or place, and mandate electronic submission of NOAD notices to the National Vessel Movement Center. The AIS portion of this rulemaking would expand current AIS carriage requirements for the population identified in the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention and the Marine Transportation Marine Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 33 CFR 62; 33 CFR 66; 33 CFR 160; 33 CFR 161; 33 CFR 164; 33 CFR 165 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 33 USC 1223; 33 USC 1225; 33 USC 1231; 46 USC 3716; 46 USC 8502 and ch 701; sec 102 of PL 107- 295; EO 12234 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: There is no central mechanism in place to capture vessel, crew, passenger, or specific cargo information on vessels less than or equal to 300 gross tons (GT) intending to arrive at or depart from U.S. ports unless they are arriving with certain dangerous cargo (CDC) or at a port in the 7th Coast Guard District; nor is there a requirement for vessels to submit notification of departure information. The lack of NOAD information of this large and diverse population of vessels represents a substantial gap in our maritime domain awareness (MDA). We can minimize this gap and enhance MDA by expanding NOAD applicability to vessels greater than 300 GT, all foreign commercial vessels and all U.S. commercial vessels coming from a foreign port, and further enhance (and corroborate) MDA by tracking those vessels (and others) with AIS. This information is necessary in order to expand our MDA and provide Nation maritime safety and security.

Legal Basis: This rulemaking is based on congressional authority provided in the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (see 33 U.S.C. 1223(a)(5), 1225, 1226, and 1231) and section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (codified at 46 U.S.C. 70114).

Alternatives: Our goal is to extend our MDA and to identify anomalies by correlating vessel NOAD data with AIS data. NOAD and AIS information from a greater number of vessels, as proposed in this rulemaking, would expand our MDA. We considered expanding NOAD and AIS to even more vessels, but we determined that we needed additional legislative authority to expand AIS beyond what we propose in this rulemaking, and that it was best to combine additional NOAD expansion with future AIS expansion. Although not in conjunction with a proposed rule, the Coast Guard sought comment regarding expansion of AIS carriage to other waters and other vessels not subject to the current requirements (68 FR 39369, Jul. 1, 2003; USCG 2003- 14878; see also 68 FR 39355). Those comments were reviewed and considered in drafting this rule and are available in this docket. To fulfill our statutory obligations, the Coast Guard needs to receive AIS reports and NOADs from vessels identified in this rulemaking that currently are not required to provide this information. Policy or other nonbinding statements by the Coast Guard addressed to the owners of these vessels would not produce the information required to sufficiently enhance our MDA to produce the information required to fulfill our Agency obligations.

Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking will enhance the Coast Guard's regulatory program by making it more effective in achieving the regulatory objectives, which, in this case, is improved MDA. We provide flexibility in the type of AIS system that can be used, allowing for reduced cost burden. This rule is also streamlined to correspond with Customs and Border Protection's APIS requirements, thereby reducing unjustified burdens. We are further developing estimates of cost and benefit that were published in 2008. In the 2008 NPRM, we estimated that both segments of the proposed rule would affect approximately 42,607 vessels. The total number of domestic vessels affected is approximately 17,323 and the total number of foreign vessels affected is approximately 25,284. We estimated that the 10-year total present discounted value or cost of the proposed rule to U.S. vessel owners is between $132.2 and $163.7 million (7 and 3 percent discount rates, respectively, 2006 dollars) over the period of analysis. The Coast Guard believes that this rule, through a combination of NOAD and AIS, would strengthen and enhance maritime security. The combination of NOAD and AIS would create a synergistic effect between the two requirements. Ancillary or secondary benefits exist in the form of avoided injuries, fatalities, and barrels of oil not spilled into the marine environment. In the 2008 NPRM, we estimated that the total discounted benefit (injuries and fatalities) derived from 68 marine casualty cases analyzed over an 8-year data period from 1996 to 2003 for the AIS portion of the proposed rule is between $24.7 and $30.6 million using $6.3 million for the value of statistical life (VSL) at 7 percent and 3 percent discount rates, respectively. Just based on barrels of oil not spilled, we expect the AIS portion of the proposed rule to prevent 22 barrels of oil from being spilled annually. The Coast Guard may revise costs and benefits for the final rule to reflect changes resulting from public comments.

Risks: Considering the economic utility of U.S. ports, waterways, and coastal approaches, it is clear that a terrorist incident against our U.S. Maritime Transportation System (MTS) would have a direct impact on U.S. users and consumers and could potentially have a disastrous impact on global shipping, international trade, and the world economy. By improving the ability of the Coast Guard both to identify potential terrorists coming to the United States while the terrorists are far from our shores and to coordinate appropriate responses and intercepts before the vessel reaches a U.S. port, this rulemaking would contribute significantly to the expansion of MDA, and consequently is instrumental in addressing the threat posed by terrorist actionsagainst the MTS.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 12/16/2008 73 FR 76295 Notice of Public Meeting 01/21/2009 74 FR 3534 Notice of Second Public Meeting 03/02/2009 74 FR 9071
NPRM Comment Period End 04/15/2009 Notice of Second Public Meeting Comment Period End 04/15/2009
Final Rule 04/00/2013

Additional Information: We have indicated in past notices and rulemaking documents, and it remains the case, that we have worked to coordinate implementation of AIS MTSA requirements with the development of our ability to take advantage of AIS data (68 FR 39355 and 39370, Jul. 1, 2003). The docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2005-21869. The docket can be found at www.regulations.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: No Small Entities Affected: Business Federalism: No Energy Affected: No RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov
Related RINs: Related to 1625-AA93; Related to 1625-AB28 Agency Contact: LCDR Michael D. Lendvay Program Manager, Office of Commercial Vessel, Foreign and Offshore Vessel Activities Div. (CG-CVC-2) Department of Homeland Security U.S. Coast Guard 2100 Second Street SW., STOP 7581, Washington, DC 20593-7581 Washington , DC 20593-7581 Phone: 202 372-1234 E-Mail: michael.d.lendvay@uscg.mil Agency Contact: Jorge Arroyo Project Manager, Office of Navigation Systems (CG-5531) Department of Homeland Security U.S. Coast Guard 2100 Second Street SW., STOP 7683, Washington, DC 20593-7683 Washington , DC 20593-7683 Phone: 202 372-1563 E-Mail: jorge.arroyo@uscg.mil

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AB62

View Related Documents

Title: Offshore Supply Vessels of at Least 6000 GT ITC
Abstract: The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 removed the size limit on offshore supply vessels (OSVs). The Act also directed the Coast Guard to issue, as soon as is practicable, a regulation to implement section 617 of the Act and to ensure the safe carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition to the crew on vessels of at least 6,000 gross tonnage as measured under the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (6,000 GT ITC). Accordingly, the Coast Guard's rule will address design, manning, carriage of personnel, and related topics for OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC. This rulemaking will meet the requirements of the Act and will support the Coast Guard's mission of marine safety, security, and stewardship.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: PL 111-281, sec 617 Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date
Other Statutory Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 01/01/2012

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: In section 617 of Public Law 111-281, Congress removed OSV tonnage limits and instructed the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations to implement the amendments and authorities of section 617. Additionally, Congress directed the Coast Guard to ensure the safe carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition to the crew on OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC.Legal Basis: The statutory authority to promulgate these regulations is found in section 617(f) of Public Law 111-281.

Alternatives: The Coast Guard Authorization Act removed OSV tonnage limits and the Coast Guard will examine alternatives during the development of the regulatory analysis.

Costs and Benefits: The Coast Guard is currently developing a regulatory impact analysis of regulations that ensure the safe carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition to the crew on OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC. A potential benefit of this rulemaking is the ability of industry to expand and take advantage of new commercial opportunities in the building of larger OSVs.

Risks: No risks.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
Interim Final Rule 04/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No
Federalism: No RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov Agency Contact: Thomas L. Neyhart Program Manager (CG-ENG-1) Department of Homeland Security U.S. Coast Guard 2100 Second Street SW., STOP 7126, Washington, DC 20593-7126 Washington , DC 20593-7126 Phone: 202 372-1360 E-Mail: thomas.l.neyhart@uscg.mil

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: CBP issued an interim final rule, which implemented 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 must provide certain biographical information to CBP electronically before departing for the United States. This advance information 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 interim final rule also fulfilled 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 increases 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. CBP requested comments on all aspects of the interim final rule and plans to issue a final rule after completion of the comment analysis.

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 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 to 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. CBP issued the ESTA interim final rule to fulfill these statutory requirements. Under the interim final rule, VWP travelers are now required to provide certain information to CBP electronically before departing for the United States. VWP travelers who receive travel authorization under ESTA are not required to complete the paper Form I-94W when arriving on a carrier that is capable of receiving and validating messages pertaining to the traveler's ESTA status as part of the traveler's boarding status. By automating the I-94W process and establishing a system to provide VWP traveler data in advance of travel, CBP is able to determine the eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from VWP countries to travel to the United States and to determine whether such travel poses a law enforcement or security risk, before such individuals begin travel to the United States. ESTA provides for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by allowing CBP to identify subjects of potential interest before they depart for the United States, thereby increasingsecurity 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: When developing the interim final rule, 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 08/00/2013

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 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 20229Washington , DC 20229 Phone: 202 344-2073 E-Mail: suzanne.m.shepherd@cbp.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA55

View Related Documents

Title: Security Training for Surface Mode Employees
Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends to propose a new regulation to improve the security of freight railroads, public transportation, passenger railroads, and over-the-road buses in accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. This rulemaking will propose general requirements for the owner/operators of a freight railroad, public transportation system, passenger railroad, and an over-the-road bus operation determined by TSA to be high-risk to develop and implement a security training program to prepare security-sensitive employees, including frontline employees identified in sections 1402 and 1501 of the Act, for potential security threats and conditions. The rulemaking will also propose extending the security coordinator and reporting security incident requirements applicable to rail operators under current 49 CFR part 1580 to the non-rail transportation components of covered public transportation agencies. In addition, the rulemaking will also propose requiring the affected over-the-road bus owner/operators to identify security coordinators and report security incidents, similar to the requirements for rail in current 49 CFR 1580. The regulation will take into consideration any current security training requirements or best practices.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1570; 49 CFR 1580; 49 CFR 1582 (New); 49 CFR 1584 (New) (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 49 USC 114; PL 110-53, secs 1408, 1517, and 1534 Legal Deadline: According to sec. 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 sec. 1517 of the same Act, final regulations for railroads and over-the-road buses are due no later than 6 months after the date of
enactment.

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 and over-the-road buses are 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 freight railroads, public transportation agencies and passenger railroads, and over-the-road bus operations is proposed to prepare freight railroad security-sensitive employees, public transportation, passenger railroad security-sensitive employees, and over-the-road bus security-sensitive employees for potential security threats and conditions.

Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114; sections 1408, 1517, and 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 training programs for these owner/operators. As part of its notice of proposed rulemaking, TSA will seek public comment on the alternative 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 railroad systems, public transportation agencies, passenger railroads, and 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 employees; (3) Maintaining records of employee training; (4) Being available for inspections; (5) As applicable, providing information on security coordinators and alternates; and (6) As applicable, reporting security concerns. TSA will also estimate the costs TSA itself would expect to incur with the implementation of this rule. TSA has not quantified benefits. TSA, however, expects that the primary benefit of the Security Training NPRM will be the enhancement of the United States surface transportation security by reducing the vulnerability of freight railroad systems, publictransportation agencies, passenger railroads, and over-the-road bus entities to terrorist activity through the training of securitysensitive 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 itsanalyses, 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 total consequence of each scenario by monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, and capital replacement and clean-up, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the NPRM for freight rail, public transportation, passenger rail, and OTRB owner/operators 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 07/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Local
Federalism: No Energy Affected: No RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov
Related RINs: Related to 1652-AA56; Merge with 1652- AA57; Merge with 1652-AA59 Agency Contact: Scott Gorton Manager, Freight Rail Security Branch Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10-423N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028 Arlington , VA 20598-6028 Phone: 571 227-1251 FAX: 571 227-2930 E-Mail: scott.gorton@tsa.dhs.gov 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 Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028 Arlington , VA 20598-6028 Phone: 571 227-1468 E-Mail: steve.sprague@tsa.dhs.gov Agency Contact: Dominick S. Caridi Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10-419N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028 Arlington , VA 20598-6028 Phone: 571 227-2952 FAX: 703 603-0404 E-Mail: dominick.caridi@tsa.dhs.gov Agency Contact: David Kasminoff Senior 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 Arlington , VA 20598-6002 Phone: 571 227-3583 FAX: 571 227-1378 E-Mail: david.kasminoff@tsa.dhs.gov Agency Contact: Traci Klemm Senior Counsel, 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 Arlington , VA 20598-6002 Phone: 571 227-3596 E-Mail: traci.klemm@tsa.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA61View Related Documents

Title: Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Services
Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends to propose new regulations to revise and standardize the procedures, adjudication criteria, and fees for most of the security threat assessments (STA) of individuals for which TSA is responsible. In accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), the scope of the rulemaking will include transportation workers from all modes of transportation who are required to undergo an STA in other regulatory programs, including certain aviation workers and frontline employees for public transportation agencies and railroads. In addition, TSA will propose fees to cover the cost of the STAs and credentials for some personnel. TSA plans to improve efficiencies in processing STAs and streamline existing regulations by simplifying language and removing redundancies. As part of this proposed rule, TSA will propose revisions to the Alien Flight Student Program (AFSP) regulations. TSA published an interim final rule for ASFP on September 20, 2004. TSA regulations require aliens seeking to train at Federal Aviation Administration-regulated flight schools to complete an application and undergo an STA prior to beginning flight training. There are four categories under which students currently fall; the nature of the STA depends on the student's category. TSA is considering changes to the AFSP that would improve the equity among fee payers and enable the implementation of new technologies to support vetting.

Priority: Economically 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 1411, 1414, 1520, 1522, 1602; 6 USC 469 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: Through this rulemaking, TSA proposes to carry out statutory mandates to perform security threat assessments (STA) of certain transportation workers pursuant to the 9/11 Act. Also, TSA proposes to fully satisfy 6 U.S.C. 469, which requires TSA to fund security threat assessment and credentialing activities through user fees. The proposed rulemaking would increase transportation security by enhancing identification and immigration verification standards, providing for more thorough vetting, improving the reliability and consistency of the vetting process, and increasing fairness to vetted individuals by providing more robust redress and reducing redundant STA requirements.

Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114(f): Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (Pub. L. 170-71, Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 597), TSA assumed responsibility to oversee the vetting of certain aviation workers. See 49 U.S.C. 44936. Under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), (Pub. L. 107-295, sec. 102, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2064), codified at 46 U.S.C. 70105, TSA vets certain merchant mariners and individuals who require unescorted access to secure areas of vessels and maritime facilities. Under the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) (Pub. L. 107-56, Oct. 25, 2001, 115 Stat. 272), TSA vets individuals seeking hazardous materials endorsements (HME) to commercial driver's licenses (CDL) issued by the States. In the Implementing Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53, Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 266), Congress directed TSA to vet additional populations of transportation workers, including certain public transportation and railroad workers. In 6 U.S.C. 469, Congress directed TSA to fund vetting and credentialing programs through user fees.

Alternatives: TSA considered a number of viable alternatives to lessen the impact of the proposed regulations on entities deemed "small" by the Small Business Administration (SBA) standards. This included: (1) Extending phone pre-enrollment to populations eligible to enroll via the Web; and (2) changing the current delivery and activation process and instituting centralized activation of biometric credentials that allow applicants to receive their credentials through the mail rather than returning to the enrollment center to pick up the credential. These alternatives are discussed in detail in the rule and regulatory evaluation.

Costs and Benefits: TSA conducted a regulatory evaluation to estimate the costs regulated entities, individuals, and TSA would incur to comply with the requirements of the NPRM. The NPRM would impose new requirements for some individuals, codify existing requirements not included in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and modify current STA requirements for many transportation workers. The primary benefit of the NPRM would be that it will improve TSA's vetting product, process, and structure by improving STAs, increasing equity, decreasing reliance on appropriated funds, and improving reusability of STAs and mitigating redundant STAs. TSA has not quantified benefits. TSA uses a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off between the beneficial effects of the NPRM and the costs of implementing the rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses scenarios from the TSA Transportation Sector Security Risk Assessment (TSSRA) to determine the degree to which the 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 total consequences of each scenario by monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, capital replacement, and clean-up, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the NPRM to calculate the frequency of attacks averted in order for the NPRM to break even. TSA estimates that the total savings to the alien flight students, over a 5-year period, will be $18,107 at a 7 percent discount rate.

Risks:
Timetable:Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 07/00/2013

Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Federalism: Undetermined Energy Affected: No
Related RINs: Related to 1652-AA35 Agency Contact: George J. Petersen Acting Division Director Programs Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E3-416N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028 Arlington , VA 20598-6028 Phone: 571 227-2215 FAX: 571 227-1374 E-Mail: george.petersen@tsa.dhs.gov Agency Contact: Dominick S. Caridi Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10-419N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028 Arlington , VA 20598-6028 Phone: 571 227-2952 FAX: 703 603-0404 E-Mail: dominick.caridi@tsa.dhs.gov Agency Contact: John Vergelli Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration DHS, TSA, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, HQ, E12-309N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002 Arlington , VA 20598-6002 Phone: 571 227-4416 FAX: 571 227-1378 E-Mail: john.vergelli@tsa.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA67

View Related Documents

Title: Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology
Abstract: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is being issued to comply with the decision rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit in Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on July 15, 2011, 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Court directed TSA to conduct notice and comment rulemaking on the use of advanced imaging technology (AIT) in the primary screening of passengers. As a result, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposes to amend its civil aviation regulations to clarify that screening and inspection of an individual conducted to control access to the sterile area of an airport or to an aircraft may include the use of AIT.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1540.107 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 49 USC 44925 Legal Deadline: In the July 15, 2011, decision described below, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit directed TSA promptly to proceed to conduct notice and comment rulemaking.

Action Source Description Date
NPRM Judicial TSA issue an NPRM by the end of March 2013. 03/31/2013

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: TSA is proposing regulations to respond to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in EPIC v. DHS 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

Legal Basis: In its decision in EPIC v. DHS 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the District of ColumbiaCircuit found that TSA failed to justify its failure to conduct notice and comment rulemaking and remanded to TSA for further proceedings.

Alternatives: In the NPRM, TSA requests comment on several alternatives to AIR screening.

Costs and Benefits: TSA is currently evaluating the costs and benefits of this proposed rule.

Risks: DHS aims to prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By screening passengers with AIT, TSA will reduce the risk that a terrorist will smuggle a non-metallic threat on board an aircraft.
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 03/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: No
Federalism: No Energy Affected: No Agency Contact: Adam D. Freimanis Portfolio Branch Manager, Passenger Screening Program Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration Office of Security Capabilities, TSA-16, HQ, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6016 Arlington , VA 20598-6016 Phone: 571 227-2952 FAX: 571 227-1931 E-Mail: adam.freimanis@tsa.dhs.gov Agency Contact: Dominick S. Caridi Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10-419N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028 Arlington , VA 20598-6028 Phone: 571 227-2952 FAX: 703 603-0404 E-Mail: dominick.caridi@tsa.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 Arlington , VA 20598-6002 Phone: 571 227-2675 FAX: 571 227-1381 E-Mail: linda.kent@tsa.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 certain repair stations certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A notice of 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, at the request of the stakeholders to allow the aviation industry and other interested entities and individuals additional time to complete their comments. TSA has coordinated its efforts with the FAA throughout the rulemaking process to ensure that the final rule does not interfere with FAA's ability or authority to regulate part 145 repair station safety matters.

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 that 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 certain 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 that 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 NPRM estimated the total 10-year undiscounted cost of the program at $403 million. The cost of the program, discounted at 7 percent, is $285 million. Security coordinator and training costs represent the largest portions of the program. TSA has not quantified benefits. However, 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 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. TSA uses a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off between the beneficial effects of the final rule and the costs of implementing the rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses three attack scenarios to determine the degree to which the final rule must reduce the overall risk of a terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits of the final rule 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 total consequences of each scenario by monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, and capital replacement, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the final rule to calculate the frequency of attacks averted in order for the final rule to break even.

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 certain 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 03/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: No
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 AdministrationOffice of Transportation Sector Network Management, General Aviation Division, TSA-28, HQ, E5, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028 Arlington , VA 20598-6028 Phone: 571 227-3580 FAX: 571 227-1362 E-Mail: celio.young@tsa.dhs.gov Agency Contact: Dominick S. Caridi Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10-419N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028 Arlington , VA 20598-6028 Phone: 571 227-2952 FAX: 703 603-0404 E-Mail: dominick.caridi@tsa.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 Arlington , VA 20598-6002 Phone: 571 227-2675 FAX: 571 227-1381 E-Mail: linda.kent@tsa.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( USICE ) RIN: 1653-AA63

View Related Documents

Title: Adjustments to Limitations on Designated School Official Assignment and Study By F-2 and M-2 Nonimmigrants
Abstract: The proposed rule would revise 8 CFR parts 214.2 and 214.3. First, it would provide additional flexibility to schools in determining the number of designated school officials (DSOs) to nominate for the oversight of the school's campuses whereinternational students are enrolled. Current regulation limits the number of DSOs to 10 per school, or 10 per campus in a multicampus school. Second, the proposed rule would permit F-2 and M-2 spouses and children accompanying academic and vocational nonimmigrant students with F-1 or M-1 nonimmigrant status to enroll in study at an SEVP-certified school so long as any study remains less than a full course of study.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.2(f)(15); 8 CFR 214.3(a); 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 Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: The Department of Homeland Security proposes to amend its regulations under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program to improve management of international student programs and increase opportunities for study by spouses and children of nonimmigrant students. The proposed rule would grant school officials more flexibility in determining the number of designated school officials (DSOs) to nominate for the oversight of campuses. The rule also would provide greater incentive for international students to study in the United States by permitting accompanying spouses and children of academic and vocational nonimmigrant students with F-1 or M-1 nonimmigrant status to enroll in less than a full course of study at an SEVP-certified school.

Legal Basis:

Alternatives:

Costs and Benefits: The anticipated costs of the NPRM derive from the existing requirements for the training and reporting to DHS of additional DSOs. The primary benefits of the NPRM are providing flexibility to schools in the number of DSOs allowed and providing greater incentive for international students to study in the United States by permitting accompanying spouses and children of academic and vocational nonimmigrant students in F-1 or M-1 status to enroll in study at a SEVP-certified school so long as they are not engaged in a full course of study.

Risks:
Timetable:Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 03/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No
Federalism: No
Related RINs: Previously Reported as 1615-AA19 Agency Contact: Katherine H. Westerlund Acting Unit 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., STOP 5600, Washington, DC 20536-5600 Washington , DC 20536-5600 Phone: 703 603-3414 E-Mail: katherine.h.westerlund@ice.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( USICE ) RIN: 1653-AA65

View Related Documents

Title: Standards To Prevent, Detect and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities
Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to issue regulations setting detention standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and assault in DHS confinement facilities.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 6 CFR 115 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) Legal Authority: 5 USC 301; 5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1182; ... Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:
Statement of Need: The purpose of this rulemaking is to propose regulations setting standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confinement facilities. The proposed standards build on current U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) and other DHS detention policies, and respond to the President's May 17, 2012 Memorandum, "Implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act," which directs all agencies with Federal confinement facilities to work with the Attorney General to propose rules or procedures setting standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse in confinement facilities.

Legal Basis:

Alternatives:

Costs and Benefits: The NPRM would impose standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and assault in DHS confinement facilities. These facilities consist of immigration detention facilities and holding facilities. The proposed standards would impose new requirements for some facilities and codify current requirements for other facilities. Such standards will require Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as private entities that operate confinement facilities, to incur costs in implementing and complying with those standards. The primary benefit of the NPRM would be improvements to the prevention, detection, and response to sexual abuse and assault. DHS will follow DOJ methodology for monetizing the value of preventing sexual abuse incidents, which includes consideration for costs of medical and mental health care treatment as well as pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life, among other factors. DHS will use a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off between the beneficial effects of the NPRM and the costs of implementing the rulemaking. The break-even analysis uses the monetized estimates of incidents avoided to determine the degree to which the NPRM must reduce the annual incidence ofsexual abuse for the costs of compliance to break even with the monetized benefits of the standards. This does not include nonmonetizable benefits of sexual abuse avoidance. The NPRM will include a Regulatory Impact Assessment.

Risks:
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 12/00/2012
NPRM Comment Period End 02/00/2013

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Governmental Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State

Federalism: NoAgency Contact: Alexander Hartman Regulatory Coordinator Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 500 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536 Washington , DC 20536 Phone: 202 732-6202 E-Mail: alexander.hartman@ice.dhs.gov