DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) 

Fall 2013 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 2013 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. 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

1
 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); 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); the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Public 

Law 110-329 (Sep. 30, 2008), and the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA), Public Law 113-2 (Jan. 

29, 2013). 

 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 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

2
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-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 1995 Amendments to the International 

Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and 

Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978 

1625-AB38 Update to Maritime Security 

1625-AB80 Revision to Transportation Worker Identification Credential 

(TWIC) Requirements for Mariners 

1625-XXXX Inland Waterways Navigation Regulations 

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

1651-AA94 Internet Publication of Administrative Seizure/Forfeiture Notices 

1651-XXXX Passenger List/Crew List I-418 

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

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

3
(Market Share)

1652-AA61 Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Services 

1653-AA44 Amendment to Accommodate Process Changes with SEVIS II 

Implementation 

1660-AA75 Debris Removal: Eligibility of Force Account Labor Straight-Time 

Costs Under the Public Assistance Program for Hurricane 

Sandy 

1660-AA77 Change in Submission Requirements for State Mitigation Plans 

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 U.S. 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 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

4
for maritime safety, security, and environmental protection closely aligns with the U.S. 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 U.S. 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-U.S. 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 CanadaU.S. 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, the 

U.S. Coast Guard 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 2013 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 2013 regulatory plan for DHS regulatory 

components, 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 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

5
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 to amend regulations regarding continued employment authorization 

for nonimmigrant workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)-only Transitional 

Worker (CW-1) classification. Finally, USCIS will 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. 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

6
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. This final rule amends DHS and 

Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations to comply with the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 

(CNRA). The CNRA extends the immigration laws of the United States to the Consolidated Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI). In 2009, USCIS issued an interim final rule to implement conforming 

amendments to the DHS and DOJ regulations. This joint DHS-DOJ final rule titled “Application of 

Immigration Regulations to the CNMI” would finalize the 2009 interim final rule. 

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 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

7
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) and U nonimmigrants (victims of criminal activity). 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. 

DHS and DOJ 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, 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

8
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 2013 Regulatory Plan below, contribute to the fulfillment of 

those responsibilities and reflect our regulatory policies. 

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

Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978. 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 Coast Guard complies with the STCW Convention’s requirements. The Coast Guard 

published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on November 17, 2009, and supplemental NPRMs 

(SNPRMs) on March 23, 2010 and August 1, 2011. 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 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

9
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars; and (3) attempt to clarify regulations that have generated 

confusion. The Coast Guard has reviewed and analyzed public comments to the SNPRM, and intends to 

publish a final rule complying with the requirements of the newly amended STCW Convention. This 

rulemaking is associated with DHS’s retrospective review and analysis efforts. 

 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 regulation, the Coast Guard is 

taking into account the characteristics of OSVs, 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

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

10
 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. CBP is also automating some procedures that increase efficiencies and 

reduce the costs and burdens to travelers. 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 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

11
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 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. 

During the next fiscal year, CBP intends to issue a final rule that will finalize the two ESTA rulemakings, 

the 2008 ESTA interim final rule and the 2010 ESTA fee interim final rule. 

 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. This includes appropriate 

security elements of entry data for cargo destined for the United States by vessel prior to loading of such 

cargo on vessels at foreign seaports. The SAFE Port Act requires that the information collected 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

12
reasonably improve CBP's ability to identify high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo 

safety and security. 

 On November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule titled "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 ended 

on June 1, 2009. CBP has conducted a structured review of data elements for which CBP provided 

certain flexibilities for compliance in the interim final rule and is analyzing the comments in light of the 

structured review. CBP intends to publish a final rule during the next fiscal year. 

 Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. CBP published an interim final rule in 

November 2008 amending the DHS regulations to replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a 

new Guan-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. This rule implements portions of the Consolidated National 

Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), which extends the immigration laws of the United States to the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and among others things, provides for a visa 

waiver program for travel to Guam and the CNMI. The amended regulations set forth the requirements for 

nonimmigrant visitors who seek admission for business or pleasure and solely for entry into and stay on 

Guam or the CNMI without a visa. The rule also establishes six ports of entry in the CNMI for purposes of 

administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. CBP intends to issue a final rule 

during the next fiscal year. 

 Definition of Form I-94 to Include Electronic Format. On March 27, 2013, CBP published an interim 

final rule titled “Definition of Form I-94 to Include Electronic Format.” DHS issues the Form I-94 to certain 

aliens and uses the Form I-94 for various purposes such as documenting status in the United States, the 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

13
approved length of stay, and departure. DHS generally issues the Form I-94 to aliens at the time they 

lawfully enter the United States. The rule amended the DHS regulations to add a new definition of the 

term “Form I-94,” which includes the collection of arrival/departure and admission or parole information by 

DHS, whether in paper or electronic format. The definition also clarified various terms that are associated 

with the use of the Form I-94 to accommodate an electronic version of the Form I-94. The rule also 

added a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant DHS admission or parole stamp in a foreign passport to the list of 

documents designated as evidence of alien registration. These revisions to the regulations will enable 

DHS to transition to an automated process whereby DHS will create a Form I-94 in an electronic format 

based on passenger, passport and visa information DHS currently obtains electronically from air and sea 

carriers and the Department of State as well as through the inspection process. CBP intends to publish 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 U.S. 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 

2014, 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 (FEMA) does not have any significant regulatory 

actions planned for fiscal year 2014. 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

14
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

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

actions planned for fiscal year 2014. 

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 2014, 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; enabling Libyan nationals, who were previously barred from doing so, to 

engage in aviation or nuclear-related studies in the United States; 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 DHS 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 final standards will reflect existing ICE and other DHS 

detention policies. 

This regulation is in response to the President's May 17, 2012 Memorandum titled "Implementing the 

Prison Rape Elimination Act.” The President issued the Memorandum on the same day that 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 and institute rules or procedures necessary to 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

15
satisfy the requirements of PREA. Additionally, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 

(VAWA), which was enacted on March 7, 2013, included a section addressing sexual abuse in custodial 

settings. On December 19, 2012, DHS issued a proposed rule, which proposed standards for preventing, 

detecting, and responding to sexual abuse and assault in DHS confinement facilities. DHS intends to 

issue the final rule during fiscal year 2014. 

 Enabling Libyan Nationals to Engage in Aviation or Nuclear-Related Studies in the United States. ICE 

is considering regulatory action that would rescind the regulatory provisions promulgated in 1983 that 

terminated the nonimmigrant status and barred the granting of certain immigration benefits to Libyan 

nationals and foreign nationals acting on behalf of Libyan entities who are engaging in or seeking to 

obtain studies or training in aviation maintenance, flight operations, or nuclear-related fields. As the U.S. 

and U.N. have lifted most of the restrictions and sanctions that had been imposed toward Libya, the U.S. 

Government and the Government of Libya have normalized their relationship and are working to establish 

robust diplomatic, military, and economic ties. The rescission of this regulation would permit DHS and 

other agencies of the U.S. Government to continue to improve outreach to Libyan counterparts. This 

rulemaking would rescind the restrictions that deny nonimmigrant status and benefits to a specific group 

of Libyan nationals. DHS intends to issue a rulemaking on this matter in fiscal year 2014. 

 Updating and Enhancing Limitations on Designated School Official Assignment and Study by F-2 and 

M-2 Nonimmigrants. ICE is working on revising 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. In addition, ICE is working to modify the regulatory 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 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

16
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 National Protection and Programs Directorate’s (NPPD) vision is a safe, secure, and resilient 

infrastructure where the American way of life can thrive. NPPD leads the national effort to protect and 

enhance the resilience of the nation’s physical and cyber infrastructure. 

 Ammonium Nitrate Security Program. Recognizing both the economic importance of ammonium nitrate 

and the fact that ammonium nitrate is susceptible to use by terrorists in explosive devices, Congress 

granted DHS 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 section 563 of the Fiscal Year 2008 DHS Appropriations Act, which amended the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002. This authority is contained in a new Secure Handling of Ammonium 

Nitrate subtitle of the Homeland Security Act (HSA) (Subtitle J, 6 U.S.C. 488 - 488i). 

 The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate provisions of the HSA direct DHS to promulgate 

regulations requiring potential buyers and sellers of ammonium nitrate to register with DHS, in order to 

obtain ammonium nitrate registration numbers from DHS. The HSA also requires DHS to screen each 

applicant against the Terrorist Screening Database. The statute also requires sellers of ammonium 

nitrate to verify the identities of those individuals seeking to purchase ammonium nitrate; to record certain 

information about each sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate; and to report thefts and losses of 

ammonium nitrate to federal authorities. 

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

Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program. DHS received a number of public comments. DHS 

reviewed those comments and published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 3, 2011. 

DHS accepted public comments concerning the NPRM until December 1, 2011, and is now reviewing and 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

17
adjudicating the public comments as the Department moves forward in developing a final rule for an 

Ammonium Nitrate Security Program. 

 The final rule is intended to aid the Federal Government in its efforts to prevent the misappropriation of 

ammonium nitrate for use in acts of terrorism and to limit terrorists' abilities to threaten the Nation's critical 

infrastructure and key resources. By securing the Nation's supply of ammonium nitrate through the 

implementation of this rule, it will be more difficult for terrorists to obtain ammonium nitrate materials for 

use in terrorist acts. 

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 2014, 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 intends to issue a final rule to 

amend its civil aviation regulations to address whether 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). TSA published an NPRM on March 26, 2012, 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 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

18
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). 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. On November 18, 2009, TSA issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 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 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

19
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 2014. 

DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2014

 A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise DHS's fall 2013 regulatory plan 

follows. 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

20
The 25 Actions Described in the Regulatory Plan

Title

Regulation 

Identifier 

Number

Rulemaking 

Stage

Ammonium Nitrate Security Program 1601-AA52 Final Rule 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

Application of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of

2008 to Unaccompanied Alien Children Seeking Asylum 1615-AB96 Proposed Rule Stage

Administrative Appeals Office: Procedural Reforms To Improve Efficiency 1615-AB98 Proposed Rule Stage

Enhancing Opportunities for H-1B1, CW-1, and E-3 Nonimmigrants and EB-1 Immigrants 1615-AC00 Proposed Rule Stage

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

Nonimmigrant Status 1615-AA59 Final Rule Stage

New Classification for Victims of Criminal Activity; Eligibility for the U Nonimmigrant Status 1615-AA67 Final Rule Stage

Application of Immigration Regulations to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands 1615-AB77 Final 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

Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader Requirements 1625-AB21 Final Rule Stage

Offshore Supply Vessels of at Least 6000 GT ITC 1625-AB62 Final Rule Stage

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

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

Authorization (ESTA) Program 1651-AA72 Final Rule Stage

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

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

Aircraft Repair Station Security 1652-AA38 Final Rule Stage

Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology 1652-AA67 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 Final Rule Stage

Rescinding Suspension of Enrollment for Certain F and M Nonimmigrant Students from

Libya and Third Country Nationals Acting on Behalf of Libyan Entities 1653-AA69 Final Rule Stage

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

Title: Ammonium Nitrate Security Program

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

Handling of Ammonium Nitrate." The amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to "regulate the sale and

transfer of ammonium nitrate by an ammonium nitrate facility...to prevent the misappropriation or use of ammonium nitrate in an

act of terrorism."

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector

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

Legal Authority: 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, sec 563, subtitle J--Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, PL 110-

161

Legal Deadline: 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

21
Action Source Description Date

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

Other Statutory Publication of Final Rule 12/26/2008 

Regulatory Plan:

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

Ammonium Nitrate, Public Law 110-161, the Department of Homeland Security is required to promulgate a rulemaking to create

a registration regime for certain buyers and sellers of ammonium nitrate. This rule would create that regime, and 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 could 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 should be much more difficult for

terrorists to obtain ammonium nitrate materials for use in improvised explosive devices. As a result, there is a direct value in the

deterrence of a catastrophic terrorist attack using ammonium nitrate, such as the Oklahoma City attack that killed over 160 and

injured 853 people.

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

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

Alternatives: The Department considered several alternatives when developing the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program

proposed rule. The alternatives considered were: (a) Register individuals applying for an AN Registered User Number using a

paper application (via facsimile or the U.S. mail) rather than through in person application at a local Cooperative Extension

office or only through a web-based portal; (b) verify AN Purchasers through both an Internet based verification portal and call

center rather than only a verification portal or call center; (c) communicate with applicants for an AN Registered User Number

through U.S. Mail rather than only through email or a secure web-based portal; (d) establish a specific capability within the

Department to receive, process, and respond to reports of theft or loss rather than leverage a similar capability which already

exists with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); (e) require AN Facilities to maintain records

electronically in a central database provided by the Department rather than providing flexibility to the AN Facility to maintain

their own records either in paper or electronically; (f) require agents to register with the Department prior to the sale or transfer

of ammonium nitrate involving an agent rather than allow oral confirmation of the agent with the AN Purchaser on whose behalf

the agent is working; and (g) exempt explosives from this regulation rather than not exempting them. As part of its notice of

proposed rulemaking, the Department sought public comment on the numerous alternative ways in which the Department could

carry out the requirements of the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate provisions of the Homeland Security Act.

Costs and Benefits: In its proposed rule, the Department estimated the number of entities that purchase ammonium nitrate to

range from 64,950 to 106,200. These purchasers include farms, fertilizer mixers, farm supply wholesalers and cooperatives (coops), golf courses, landscaping services, explosives distributors, mines, retail garden centers, and lab supply wholesalers. The

Department estimated the number of entities that sell ammonium nitrate to be between 2,486 and 6,236, many of which are

also purchasers. These sellers include ammonium nitrate fertilizer and explosive manufacturers, fertilizer mixers, farm supply

wholesalers and co-ops, retail garden centers, explosives distributors, fertilizer applicator services, and lab supply wholesalers.

Individuals or firms that provide transportation services within the distribution chain may be categorized as sellers, agents, or

facilities depending upon their business relationship with the other parties to the transaction. The total number of potentially

regulated farms and other businesses ranges from 64,986 to 106,236 (including overlap between the categories). The cost of

the proposed rule ranges from $300 million to $1,041 million over 10 years at a 7 percent discount rate. The primary estimate is

the mean which is $670.6 million. For comparison, at a 3 percent discount rate, the cost of the program ranges from $364

million to $1.3 billion with a primary (mean) estimate of $814 million. The average annualized cost for the program ranges from

$43 million to $148 million (with a mean of $96 million), also employing a 7 percent discount rate. Because the value of the

benefits of reducing risk of a terrorist attack is a function of both the probability of an attack and the value of the consequence,

it is difficult to identify the particular risk reduction associated with the implementation of this rule. These elements and related

qualitative benefits include point of sale identification requirements and requiring individuals to be screened against the Terrorist

Screening Database (TSDB), resulting in known bad actors being denied the ability to purchase ammonium nitrate. The

Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of

the United States to terrorism. By preventing the misappropriation or use of ammonium nitrate in acts of terrorism, this

rulemaking will support the Department's efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and reduce the Nation's vulnerability to terrorist

attacks. This rulemaking is complementary to other Department programs seeking to reduce the risks posed by terrorism,

including the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program (which seeks in part to prevent terrorists from gaining access

to dangerous chemicals) and the Transportation Worker Identification Credential program (which seeks in part to prevent

terrorists from gaining access to certain critical infrastructure), among other programs.

Risks: Explosives containing ammonium nitrate are commonly used in terrorist attacks. Such attacks have been carried out

both domestically and internationally. The 1995 Murrah Federal Building attack in Oklahoma City claimed the lives of 167

individuals and demonstrated firsthand to America how ammonium nitrate could be misused by terrorists. In addition to the

Murrah Building attack, the Provisional Irish Republican Army used ammonium nitrate as part of its London, England bombing

campaign in the early 1980s. More recently, ammonium nitrate was used in the 1998 East African Embassy bombings and in

the November 2003 bombings in Istanbul, Turkey. Additionally, since the events of 9/11, stores of ammonium nitrate have been

confiscated during raids on terrorist sites around the world, including sites in Canada, England, India, and the Philippines.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

ANPRM 10/29/2008 73 FR 64280 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

22
Correction 11/05/2008 73 FR 65783 

ANPRM Comment Period End 12/29/2008 

NPRM 08/03/2011 76 FR 46908 

Notice of Public Meetings 10/07/2011 76 FR 62311 

Notice of Public Meetings 11/14/2011 76 FR 70366 

NPRM Comment Period End 12/01/2011 

Final Rule 03/00/2014 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: Federal

Federalism: Yes

Energy Affected: No

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

Agency Contact: Jon MacLaren

Chief, Rulemaking Section

Department of Homeland Security

Office of the Secretary

Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (NPPD/ISCD), Mail Stop 0610, 245 Murray Lane SW., Arlington, VA 20598-0610

Arlington , VA 20598-0610 

Phone: 703 235-5263 

E-Mail: jon.m.maclaren@hq.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

Title: Asylum and Withholding Definitions

Abstract: This rule proposes to amend Department of Homeland Security regulations that govern asylum eligibility. The

amendments focus on portions of the regulations that deal with the definitions of membership in a particular social group, the

requirements for failure of State protection, and determinations about whether persecution is inflicted on account of a protected

ground. This rule codifies long-standing concepts of the definitions. It clarifies that gender can be a basis for membership in a

particular social group. It also clarifies that a person who has suffered or fears domestic violence may under certain

circumstances be eligible for asylum on that basis. After the Board of Immigration Appeals published a decision on this issue in

1999, Matter of R-A-, Int. Dec. 3403 (BIA 1999), it became clear that the governing regulatory standards required clarification.

The Department of Justice began this regulatory initiative by publishing a proposed rule addressing these issues in 2000.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 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 by

applicants whose claims fall outside of the rubric of the protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. One

example of such claims which often fall within the particular social group ground concerns people who have suffered or fear

domestic violence. This rule is expected to consolidate issues raised in a proposed rule in 2000 and to address issues that

have developed since the publication of the proposed rule. This 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,

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

23
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." Before DHS

publishes a new proposed rule, DHS will consider 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 06/00/2014 

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 6030, 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-AB89

 View Related Documents

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

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

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

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

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

persecution of others when the applicant's actions were taken when the applicant was under duress.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1; 8 CFR 207; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 240; 8 CFR 244; 8 CFR 1001; 8 CFR 1208; 8 CFR 1240 (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:

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

24
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 individuals who engaged in persecution of others under duress. 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 09/00/2014 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Related Agencies: Joint : DOJ

Agency Contact: Ronald W. Whitney 

Deputy Chief, Refugee and Asylum Law Division

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Office of Chief Counsel, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 415 293-1244 

FAX: 202 272-1411

E-Mail: ronald.w.whitney@uscis.dhs.gov

Department 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 certain H-4 dependent spouses of principal H-1B nonimmigrants who have begun the process of

seeking lawful permanent resident status through employment. 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:

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

25
Statement of Need: DHS believes that 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.

Congress has expressed concern 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.

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 01/00/2014 

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 Division

Department 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-AB96

 View Related Documents

Title: Application of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to Unaccompanied Alien

Children Seeking Asylum

Abstract: This rule implements the provisions of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of

2008 (TVPRA), Public Law 110-457, 122 Stat. 5074 (Dec. 23, 2008) relating to unaccompanied alien children seeking asylum.

Specifically, the rule proposes to amend Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations

relating to asylum applications filed by unaccompanied alien children. The rule will amend both DHS and DOJ regulations to

reflect that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has initial jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by an

unaccompanied alien child. The rule will also add new special procedures for all children in interviews before USCIS officers

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

26
and for unaccompanied alien children in proceedings before immigration judges in the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

Legal Authority: PL 110-457

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The TVPRA mandated promulgation of regulations taking into account the specialized needs of

unaccompanied alien children and addressing both procedural and substantive aspects of handling unaccompanied alien

children's cases. This rule will replace existing agency guidance on the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children. The

rule will also incorporate policies in agency guidance implementing the TVPRA. Such guidance has been in effect since March

2009 and, based on experience gained in following the guidance, will be revised in the rule.

Legal Basis: The purpose of this rule is to comply with the TVPRA mandate to promulgate regulations taking into account the

specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children and addressing both procedural and substantive aspects of handling

unaccompanied alien children's cases.

Alternatives: N/A

Costs and Benefits: This rule will codify existing agency guidance on the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children

in accordance with implementing the TVPRA. In addition, the regulation will codify improvements that DHS has implemented

over the passage of time since TVPRA to incorporate lessons learned and operational efficiencies for USCIS and EOIR. DHS

anticipates that this rule would result in benefits both to the Federal Government by streamlining the processing of cases for

asylum by unaccompanied children, and to the public by ensuring that DHS regulations are transparent in the eligibility and

application requirements for this vulnerable population. DHS anticipates that any costs associated with establishing eligibility for

asylum under the TVPRA would be outweighed by the benefits of this rulemaking.

Risks: N/A

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 09/00/2014 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Federal

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Related Agencies: Joint : DOJ

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 6030, 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-AB98

 View Related Documents

Title: Administrative Appeals Office: Procedural Reforms To Improve Efficiency

Abstract: This proposed rule revises the requirements and procedures for the filing of motions and appeals before the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and its Administrative Appeals Office. The

proposed changes are intended to streamline the existing processes for filing motions and appeals and will reduce delays in the

review and appellate process. This rule also proposes additional changes necessitated by the establishment of DHS and its

components.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 205; 8 CFR 210; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 245a; 8 CFR 320; 8 CFR 105 (new); ... (To

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

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

27
Legal Authority: 5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1304; 6 USC 112

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule proposes to make numerous changes to streamline the current appeal and motion processes

which: (1) Will result in cost savings to the Government, applicants, and petitioners; and (2) will provide for a more efficient use

of USCIS officer and clerical staff time, as well as more uniformity with Board of Immigration Appeals appeal and motion

processes.

Legal Basis: 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and notes 1102, 1103, 1151, 1153, 1154, 1182, 1184,

1185 note (sec. 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458; title VII of Pub. L. 110-229), 1186a, 1187, 1221,1223, 1225 to 1227, 1255a, and

1255a note, 1281, 1282, 1301 to 1305, 1324a ,1356, 1372, 1379, 1409(c), 1443 to 1444, 1448, 1452, 1455, 1641, 1731 to

1732; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 48 U.S.C. 1901, 1931 note; section 643, Public Law 104-208, 110, Stat. 3009-708; section 141 of the

Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the

Government of Palau; title VII of Public Law 110-229; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); Public Law 82-

414, 66 Stat. 173, 238, 254, 264; title VII of Public Law 110-229; E.O. 12356.

Alternatives: The alternative to this rule would be to continue under the current process without change.

Costs and Benefits: As a result of streamlining the appeal and motion process, DHS anticipates quantitative and qualitative

benefits to DHS and the public. We also anticipate cost savings to DHS and applicants as a result of the proposed changes.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 09/00/2014 

Additional Information: Previously 1615-AB29 (CIS 2311-04), which was withdrawn in 2007.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Governmental

Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Related RINs: Duplicate of 1615-AB29

Agency Contact: William K. Renwick 

Supervisory Citizenship and Immigration Appeals Officer

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Administrative Appeals Office, Washington, DC 20529-2090

Washington , DC 20529-2090 

Phone: 703 224-4501 

E-Mail: william.k.renwick@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 H-1B1, CW-1, and E-3 Nonimmigrants and EB-1 Immigrants

Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes 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 (E3), and the immigration classification for employment-based first preference (EB-1) outstanding professors and researchers.

Additionally, it proposes to amend regulations regarding continued employment authorization for nonimmigrant workers in the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)-Only Transitional Worker (CW-1) classification. DHS proposes changes

that would harmonize the regulations for E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrant classifications with existing regulations for other

similarly situated nonimmigrant classifications. DHS is proposing these changes to the regulations to benefit these high-skilled

workers and CW-1 transitional workers by removing unnecessary hurdles that place such workers at a disadvantage when

compared to similarly situated workers in other visa classifications.

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; ...

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

28
Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: DHS proposes changes to harmonize the regulations for E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrant

classifications with the existing regulations for other, similarly situated nonimmigrant classifications. These changes to the

regulations would benefit these highly skilled workers and CW-1 transitional workers by removing unnecessary hurdles that

place such workers at a disadvantage when compared to similarly situated workers in other visa classifications.

Legal Basis:

Alternatives:

Costs and Benefits: The portion of the proposed rule addressing E-3 and H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrant classifications

would extend the period of authorized employment while requests for an extension of stay for these employment-based

nonimmigrant visa classifications are being reviewed. The regulations at 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20) generally provide aliens in

specific nonimmigrant classifications with authorization to continue employment with the same employer for a 240-day period

beyond the period specified on the Arrival-Departure Record, Form I-94, as long as a timely application for an extension of stay

is filed on an alien's behalf. This provision applies only to the classifications specified in the regulation which does not currently

include the E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrant classifications. By harmonizing the regulations for E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1

nonimmigrants with the other listed nonimmigrant classifications, this proposed rule would provide equity for these

nonimmigrants relative to other nonimmigrant classifications. The proposed rule also would help employers of E-3, H-1B1, and

CW-1 nonimmigrants avoid potential interruptions of employment for E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 employees during the period that

requests for an extension of these employment-based nonimmigrant visa classifications are being reviewed. These disruptions

could result in lost wages for an employee and lost productivity for an employer. DHS does not have data on the number of

employers or E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrants experiencing disruption in employment by not receiving an approval of the

extension before the expiration date specified on the Arrival-Departure Record or the duration (length of time) of any disruption.

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)

through (F) to establish that the EB-1 professor or researcher is recognized internationally as outstanding in his or her academic

field. Similar to the benefits of harmonizing E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 provisions, the harmonization of the evidentiary

requirements for EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers with other comparable employment-based immigrant

classifications would provide equity for EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers relative to those other employment-based

visa categories. The proposed rule may also facilitate petitioners' recruitment of the EB-1 outstanding professors and

researchers by expanding the range of evidence that may be adduced to support their petitions.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 04/00/2014 

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 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-AA59

 View Related Documents

Title: 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 streamlines

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. Several reauthorizations, including the Violence Against

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

29
Women Act (VAWA) of 2013, Public Law 113-4, have made amendments to the T nonimmigrant status provisions of the

Immigration and Naturalization Act. This rule implements those amendments.

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; PL 113-4

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: T nonimmigrant status is available to eligible victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons who: (1) are

victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons (defined by section 103 of the TVPA), (2) are physically present in the United

States, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or at a port of entry, on account of trafficking

(including the alien having been allowed entry into the United States for participation in investigative or judicial processes

associated with an act or perpetrator of trafficking), (3) have complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the

investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking in persons (or are under 18 years of age or are unable to cooperate due to

physical or psychological trauma), and (4) 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 and implements statutory amendments to these elements, streamlines 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 provide immigration relief 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 provide victims with immigration benefits and services, keeping in mind the purpose of the T visa also being

a law enforcement tool, DHS is considering and using suggestions from stakeholders in developing this regulation. These

suggestions came in the form of public comment to the 2002 interim final rule as well as from over ten years of experience with

the T nonimmigrant status program, including regular meetings with stakeholders and regular outreach events.

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; and (3) Streamlining the application process for victims.

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 04/01/2002 

Interim Final Rule 12/00/2013 

Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG19

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

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn 

Chief, Family Immigration and Victim Protection Division

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 272-1470 

FAX: 202 272-1480

E-Mail: maureen.a.dunn@uscis.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

30
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 and eligibility requirements for U nonimmigrant status. The U classification is for nonU.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 fiscal year. This rule establishes the procedures to be followed 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 file a petition and evidentiary guidance to assist in the

petitioning process. Eligible victims will be allowed to remain in the United States if granted U nonimmigrant status. The

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457, and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

of 2013, Public Law 113-4, made amendments to the U nonimmigrant status provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Department of Homeland Security had issued an interim final rule in 2007. DHS 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; PL 113-4

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This regulation is necessary to allow alien victims of certain crimes to petition for U nonimmigrant status.

U nonimmigrant status is available to eligible victims of certain qualifying criminal activity who: (1) has suffered substantial

physical or mental abuse as a result of the qualifying criminal activity; (2) the alien possesses information about the crime; (3)

the alien has been, is being, or is likely to be helpful in the investigation or prosecution of the crime; and (4) the criminal activity

took place in the United States, including military installations and Indian country, or the territories or possessions of the United

States. This rule addresses the eligibility requirements that must be met for classification as a U nonimmigrant alien and

implements statutory amendments to these requirements, streamlines the procedures to petition for U nonimmigrant status, and

provides evidentiary guidance to assist in the petition process.

Legal Basis: Congress created the U nonimmigrant classification in the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000

(BIWPA) to provide immigration relief for alien victims of certain qualifying criminal activity and who are helpful to law

enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of these crimes.

Alternatives: To provide victims with immigration benefits and services and keeping in mind the purpose of the U visa as a

law enforcement tool, DHS is considering and using suggestions from stakeholders in developing this regulation. These

suggestions came in the form of public comment from the 2007 interim final rule as well as USCIS' six years of experience with

the U nonimmigrant status program, including regular meetings and outreach events with stakeholders and law enforcement.

Costs and Benefits: DHS estimated the total annual cost of this interim rule to petitioners to be $6.2 million in the interim

final rule 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 and cost of traveling to visit a USCIS Application Support Center. DHS is

currently in the process of updating our cost estimates since U nonimmigrant visa petitioners are no longer required to pay the

biometric services fee. The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include assistance to victims of qualifying criminal activity

and their families and increases in arrests and prosecutions of criminals nationwide. Additional benefits include heightened

awareness by law enforcement of victimization of aliens in their community, and streamlining the petitioning process so that

victims may benefit from this immigration relief.

Risks: There is a statutory cap of 10,000 principal U nonimmigrant visas that may be granted per fiscal year at INA 214(p)(2).

Eligible petitioners who are not granted principal U-1 nonimmigrant 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 U-1 petitioners and their families,

USCIS will use various means to prevent the removal of U-1 petitioners and their eligible family members on the waiting list,

including exercising its authority to allow deferred action, parole, and stays of removal, in cooperation with other DHS

components.

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 09/00/2014 

Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG39

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

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

31
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

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

Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn 

Chief, Family Immigration and Victim Protection Division

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 272-1470 

FAX: 202 272-1480

E-Mail: maureen.a.dunn@uscis.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

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

Abstract: This final rule amends the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations

to comply with the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA). The CNRA extends the immigration laws of the United

States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). This rule finalizes the interim rule and implements

conforming amendments to their respective regulations.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 208 and 209; 8 CFR 214 and 215; 8 CFR 217; 8 CFR 235; 8 CFR 248; 8 CFR 264; 8 CFR 274a (To

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

Legal Authority: PL 110-229

Legal Deadline: 

Action Source Description Date

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

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule finalizes the interim rule to conform existing regulations with the CNRA. Some of the changes

implemented under the CNRA affect existing regulations governing both DHS immigration policy and procedures and

proceedings before the immigration judges and the Board. Accordingly, it is necessary to make amendments both to the DHS

regulations and to the DOJ regulations. The Secretary and the Attorney General are making conforming amendments to their

respective regulations in this single rulemaking document.

Legal Basis: Congress extended the immigration laws of the United States to the CNMI. The stated purpose of the CNRA is

to ensure effective border control procedures, to properly address national security and homeland security concerns by

extending U.S. immigration law to the CNMI (phasing-out the CNMI's nonresident contract worker program while minimizing to

the greatest extent practicable the potential adverse economic and fiscal effects of that phase-out), to maximize the CNMI's

potential for future economic and business growth, and to assure worker protections from the potential for abuse and

exploitation.

Alternatives:

Costs and Benefits: Costs: The interim rule established basic provisions necessary for the application of the INA to the CNMI

and updated definitions and existing DHS and DOJ regulations in areas that were confusing or in conflict with how they are to

be applied to implement the INA in the CNMI. As such, that rule made no changes that had identifiable direct or indirect

economic impacts that could be quantified. Benefits: This final rule makes additional regulatory changes in order to lessen the

adverse impacts of the CNRA on employers and employees in the CNMI and assist the CNMI in its transition to the INA.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 10/28/2009 74 FR 55725 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 11/27/2009 

Correction 12/22/2009 74 FR 67969 

Final Action 09/00/2014 

Additional Information: CIS 2460-08

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

32
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

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

Related RINs: Related to 1615-AB76; Related to 1615-AB75

Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings 

Chief, Business and Foreign Workers Division

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140

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. 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 States

complies 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 NPRMs (SNPRM) on March

23, 2010 and August 1, 2011. 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 71; 46 USC 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

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

33
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 11/00/2013 

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-OES-1

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509

Washington , DC 20593-7509 

Phone: 202 372-1409 

E-Mail: mark.c.gould@uscg.mil

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 System

Abstract: 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; 33 CFR 101; 33 CFR 110; 33

CFR 117; 33 CFR 151; 46 CFR 4; 46 CFR 148 (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

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

34
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 The 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 actions

against 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 06/00/2014 

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: Business Government Levels Affected: No

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

35
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

2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501

Washington , DC 20593-7501 

Phone: 202 372-1218 

E-Mail: michael.d.lendvay@uscg.mil

Agency Contact: Jorge Arroyo

Project Manager, Office of Navigation Systems (CG-NAV-1)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7418, Washington, DC 20593-7418

Washington , DC 20593-7418 

Phone: 202 372-1563 

E-Mail: jorge.arroyo@uscg.mil

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: Final 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). The final rule is required 2

years after the commencement of the pilot program. 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. In an ANPRM, published in March of 2009, and NPRM, published in April of

2013, the Coast Guard 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.,

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

36
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. We considered several

alternatives in the formulation of this proposal. These alternatives were based on risk analysis of different combinations of

facility and vessel populations facing TWIC reader requirements. The preferred alternative selected allowed the Coast Guard to

target the highest risk entities while minimizing the overall burden.

Costs and Benefits: The main cost drivers of this rule are the acquisition and installation of TWIC readers and the

maintenance of the affected entity's TWIC reader system. Initial Costs, which we would distribute over a phased-in

implementation period, consist predominantly of the costs to purchase, install, and integrate approved TWIC readers into their

current physical access control system. Recurring annual costs will be driven by costs associated with canceled card list

updates, opportunity costs associated with delays and replacement of TWICs that cannot be read, and maintenance of the

affected entity's TWIC reader system. As reported in the NPRM Regulatory Analysis, the total 10-year total industry and

government cost for the TWIC is $234.3 million undiscounted and $186.1 discounted at 7 percent. The benefits of the

rulemaking include the enhancement of the security of vessel ports and other facilities by ensuing that only individuals who hold

valid TWICs are granted unescorted access to secure areas at those locations. Rule We estimate the annualized cost of this

rule to industry to be $26.5 million at a 7 percent discount rate.

Risks: USCG used risk-based decision-making to develop this rulemaking. Based on this analysis, the Coast Guard has

proposed requiring higher-risk vessels and facilities to meet the requirements for electronic TWIC inspection, while continuing

to allow lower-risk vessels and facilities to use TWIC as a visual identification credential.

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 03/22/2013 78 FR 20558 

NPRM Comment Period Extended 05/10/2013 78 FR 27335 

NPRM Comment Period Extended End 06/20/2013 

Final Rule 04/00/2014 

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: Business;

Governmental Jurisdictions 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), 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501

Washington , DC 20593-7501 

Phone: 202 372-1133 

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

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

37
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 02/00/2014 

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: LCDR Heather Mattern 

Program Manager (CG-ENG-1)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509

Washington , DC 20593-7509 

Phone: 202 372-1361 

E-Mail: heather.r.mattern@uscg.mil

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

Title: Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements

Abstract: This final rule implements the provisions of section 203 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006.

On November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule (CBP Dec. 08–46) in the Federal Register (73 FR 71730), that

finalized most of the provisions proposed in the NPRM. The interim final rule did not finalize six data elements that were

identified as areas of potential concern for industry during the rulemaking process and, for which, CBP provided some type of

flexibility for compliance with those data elements. CBP solicited public comment on these six data elements, conducted a

structured review, and also invited comments on the revised Regulatory Assessment and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

[See 73 FR 71782-85 for regulatory text and 73 CFR 71733-34 for general discussion.] The remaining requirements of the rule

were adopted as final. CBP plans to issue a final rule after CBP completes a structured review of the flexibilities and analyzes

the comments.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector

CFR Citation: 19 CFR 4; 19 CFR 12.3; 19 CFR 18.5; 19 CFR 103.31a; 19 CFR 113; 19 CFR 123.92; 19 CFR 141.113; 19 CFR

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

Legal Authority: PL 109-347, sec 203; 5 USC 301; 19 USC 66; 19 USC 1431; 19 USC 1433 to 1434; 19 USC 1624; 19 USC

2071 (note); 46 USC 60105

Legal Deadline: None

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

38
Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule improves CBP's risk assessment and targeting capabilities and enables the agency to facilitate

the prompt release of legitimate cargo following its arrival in the United States. The information will assist CBP in increasing the

security of the global trading system and, thereby, reducing the threat to the United States and world economy.

Legal Basis: Pursuant to section 203 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 6 U.S.C.

943) (SAFE Port Act), the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commissioner of CBP, must promulgate

regulations to require the electronic transmission of additional data elements for improved high-risk targeting, including

appropriate security elements of entry data for cargo destined to the United States by vessel prior to loading of such cargo on

vessels at foreign seaports.

Alternatives: CBP is considering whether to maintain the flexibilities on the data elements that were not finalized in the

interim final rule.

Costs and Benefits: CBP is currently developing a regulatory impact analysis based on the comments and the structured

review of the data elements not finalized in the interim final rule.

Risks: No risks.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 01/02/2008 73 FR 90 

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

NPRM Comment Period End 03/03/2008 

NPRM Comment Period End 03/18/2008 

Interim Final Rule 11/25/2008 73 FR 71730 

Interim Final Rule Effective 01/26/2009 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 06/01/2009 

Correction 07/14/2009 74 FR 33920 

Correction 12/24/2009 74 FR 68376 

Final Action 08/00/2014 

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: Craig Clark

Program Manager, Vessel Manifest & Importer Security Filing, Office of Cargo and Conveyance Security

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229

Washington , DC 20229 

Phone: 202 344-3052 

E-Mail: craig.clark@cbp.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

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

Abstract: 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 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 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

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

39
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: The rule fulfills the requirements of section 711 of the 9/11 Act to develop and implement a fully

automated electronic travel authorization system in advance of travel for VWP travelers. The advance information allows CBP to

determine before their departure whether VWP travelers are eligible to travel to the United States and to determine 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. ESTA increases national security by allowing for vetting

of subjects of potential interest before they depart for the United States. It promotes legitimate travel to the United States by

providing for greater efficiencies in the screening of travelers thereby 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 (Pub. L. 110-53) and section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(INA), 8 U.S.C. 1187.

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 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 01/00/2014 

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

40
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 20229

Washington , DC 20229 

Phone: 202 344-2073 

E-Mail: suzanne.m.shepherd@cbp.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

Title: Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program

Abstract: This rule amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations to implement section 702 of the Consolidated

Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA). This law extends the immigration laws of the United States to the Commonwealth of

the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and provides for a joint visa waiver program for travel to Guam and the CNMI. This rule

implements section 702 of the CNRA by amending the regulations to replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a

new Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. The amended regulations set forth the requirements for nonimmigrant visitors who seek

admission for business or pleasure and solely for entry into and stay on Guam or the CNMI without a visa. This rule also

establishes six ports of entry in the CNMI for purposes of administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program.

Section 702 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), subject to a transition period, extends the immigration

laws of the United States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and provides for a visa waiver program

for travel to Guam and/or the CNMI. On January 16, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through CBP, issued

an interim final rule in the Federal Register replacing the then-existing Guam Visa Waiver Program with the Guam-CNMI Visa

Waiver Program and setting forth the requirements for nonimmigrant visitors seeking admission into Guam and/or the CNMI

under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. As of November 28, 2009, the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program is operational.

This program allows nonimmigrant visitors from eligible countries to seek admission for business or pleasure for entry into Guam

and/or the CNMI without a visa for a period of authorized stay not to exceed forty-five days. This rulemaking would finalize the

January 2009 interim final rule.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 100.4; 8 CFR 212.1; 8 CFR 233.5; 8 CFR 235.5; 19 CFR 4.7b; 19 CFR 122.49a (To search for a specific

CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: PL 110-229, sec 702

Legal Deadline: 

Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory PL 110-229 11/04/2008 

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Previously, aliens who were citizens of eligible countries could apply for admission to Guam at a Guam

port of entry as nonimmigrant visitors for a period of fifteen (15) days or less, for business or pleasure, without first obtaining a

nonimmigrant visa, provided that they are otherwise eligible for admission. Section 702(b) of the CNRA, supersedes the Guam

visa waiver program by providing for a visa waiver program for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

(Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program). Section 702(b) required DHS to promulgate regulations within 180 days of enactment of

the CNRA to allow nonimmigrant visitors from eligible countries to apply for admission into Guam and the CNMI, for business or

pleasure, without a visa, for a period of authorized stay of no longer than forty-five (45) days. Under the interim final rule, a

visitor seeking admission under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program must be a national of an eligible country and must meet

the requirements enumerated in the current Guam visa waiver program as well as additional requirements that bring the GuamCNMI Visa Waiver Program into soft alignment with the U.S. Visa Waiver Program provided for in 8 CFR 217. The country

eligibility requirements take into account the intent of the CNRA and ensure that the regulations meet current border security

needs. The country eligibility requirements are designed to: (1) ensure effective border control procedures, (2) properly address

national security and homeland security concerns in extending U.S. immigration law to the CNMI, and (3) maximize the CNMI's

potential for future economic and business growth. This interim rule also provided that visitors from the People's Republic of

China and Russia have provided a significant economic benefit to the CNMI. However, nationals from those countries cannot,

at this time, seek admission under the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program due to security concerns. Pursuant to section 702(a)

of the CNRA, which extends the immigration laws of the United States to the CNMI, this rule also establishes six ports of entry

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

41
in the CNMI to enable the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary) to administer and enforce the Guam-CNMI Visa

Waiver Program.

Legal Basis: The Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program is based on congressional authority provided under 702(b) of the

Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA).

Alternatives: None

Costs and Benefits: CBP is currently evaluating the costs and benefits associated with finalizing the interim final rule. The

most significant change for admission to the CNMI as a result of the rule was for visitors from those countries who are not

included in either the existing U.S. Visa Waiver Program or the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program established by the rule.

These visitors must apply for U.S. visas, which require in-person interviews at U.S. embassies or consulates and higher fees

than the CNMI assessed for its visitor entry permits. These are losses associated with the reduced visits from foreign travelers

who no longer visited the CNMI upon implementation of this rule. The anticipated benefits of the rule were enhanced security

that would result from the federalization of the immigration functions in the CNMI.

Risks: No risks.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 01/16/2009 74 FR 2824 

Interim Final Rule Effective 01/16/2009 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 03/17/2009 

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

Final Action 06/00/2014 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

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

international interest.

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

Related RINs: Related to 1651-AA81

Agency Contact: Paul Minton

CBP Officer (Program Manager)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229

Washington , DC 20229 

Phone: 202 344-2723 

E-Mail: paul.a.minton@cbp.dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection ( USCBP ) RIN: 1651-AA96

 View Related Documents

Title: Definition of Form I-94 to Include Electronic Format

Abstract: Currently, CBP generally issues the Form I-94 to aliens at the time they lawfully enter the United States. CBP is

transitioning to an automated process whereby it will create a Form I-94 in an electronic format based on passenger, passport,

and visa information currently obtained electronically from air and sea carriers and the Department of State as well as through

the inspection process. The Form I-94 is issued by DHS to certain aliens upon arrival in the United States or when changing

status in the United States. The Form I-94 is used to document arrival and departure and provides evidence of the terms of

admission or parole. Prior to this rule, the Form I-94 was solely a paper form that was completed by the alien upon arrival. After

the implementation of the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) following 9/11, CBP began collecting information on

aliens traveling by air or sea to the United States electronically from carriers in advance of arrival. For aliens arriving in the

United States by air or sea, CBP obtains almost all of the information contained on the paper Form I-94 electronically and in

advance via APIS. The few fields on the Form I-94 that are not collected via APIS are either already collected by the

Department of State and transmitted to CBP or can be collected by the CBP Officer from the individual at the time of inspection.

This means that CBP no longer needs to collect Form I-94 information as a matter of course directly from aliens traveling to the

United States by air or sea. At this time, the automated process will apply only to aliens arriving at air and sea ports of entry.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1.4; 8 CFR 264.1(b) (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1201; 8 USC 1301; 8 USC 1303 to 1305; 5 USC 301; PL 107-296, 116

stat 2135; 6 USC 1 et seq

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

42
Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule makes the necessary changes to the regulations to enable CBP to transition to an automated

process whereby CBP will create an electronic Form I-94 based on the information in its databases.

Legal Basis: Section 103(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally authorizes the Secretary of Homeland

Security to establish such regulations and prescribe such forms of reports, entries, and other papers necessary to carry out his

or her authority to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws and to guard the borders of the United States

against illegal entry of aliens.

Alternatives: CBP considered two alternatives to this rule: eliminating the paper Form I–94 in the air and sea environments

entirely and providing the paper Form I–94 to all travelers who are not B–1/B–2 travelers. Eliminating the paper Form I–94

option for refugees, applicants for asylum, parolees, and those travelers who request one would not result in a significant cost

savings to CBP and would harm travelers who have an immediate need for an electronic Form I-94 or who face obstacles to

accessing their electronic Form I–94. A second alternative to the rule is to provide a paper Form I–94 to any travelers who are

not B–1/B–2 travelers. Under this alternative, travelers would receive and complete the paper Form I– 94 during their inspection

when they arrive in the United States. The electronic Form I–94 would still be automatically created during the inspection, but

the CBP Officer would need to verify that the information appearing on the form matches the information in CBP's systems. In

addition, CBP would need to write the Form I–94 number on each paper Form I–94 so that their paper form matches the

electronic record. As noted in the analysis, 25.1 percent of aliens are non-B–1/B–2 travelers. Filling out and processing this

many paper Forms I–94 at airports and seaports would increase processing times considerably. At the same time, it would only

provide a small savings to the individual traveler.

Costs and Benefits: With the implementation of this rule, CBP will no longer collect Form I–94 information as a matter of

course directly from aliens traveling to the United States by air or sea. Instead, CBP will create an electronic Form I–94 for

foreign travelers based on the information in its databases. This rule makes the necessary changes to the regulations to enable

CBP to transition to an automated process. Both CBP and aliens would bear costs as a result of this rule. CBP would bear

costs to link its data systems and to build a website so aliens can access their electronic Forms I–94. CBP estimates that the

total cost for CBP to link data systems, develop a secure website, and fully automate the Form I–94 fully will equal about $1.3

million in calendar year 2012. CBP will incur costs of $0.09 million in subsequent years to operate and maintain these systems.

Aliens arriving as diplomats and students would bear costs when logging into the website and printing electronic I–94s. The

temporary workers and aliens in the ''Other/Unknown'' category bear costs when logging into the website, traveling to a location

with public internet access, and printing a paper copy of their electronic Form I–94. Using the primary estimate for a traveler's

value of time, aliens would bear costs between $36.6 million and $46.4 million from 2013 to 2016. Total costs for this rule for

2013 would range from $34.2 million to $40.1 million, with a primary estimate of costs equal to $36.7 million. CBP, carriers, and

foreign travelers would accrue benefits as a result of this rule. CBP would save contract and printing costs of $15.6 million per

year of our analysis. Carriers would save a total of $1.3 million in printing costs per year. All aliens would save the eight-minute

time burden for filling out the paper Form I–94 and certain aliens who lose the Form I–94 would save the $330 fee and 25-

minute time burden for filling out the Form I–102. Using the primary estimate for a traveler's value of time, aliens would obtain

benefits between $112.6 million and $141.6 million from 2013 to 2016. Total benefits for this rule for 2013 would range from

$110.7 million to $155.6 million, with a primary estimate of benefits equal to $129.5 million. Overall, this rule results in

substantial cost savings (benefits) for foreign travelers, carriers, and CBP. CBP anticipates a net benefit in 2013 of between

$59.7 million and $98.7 million for foreign travelers, $1.3 million for carriers, and $15.5 million for CBP. Net benefits to U.S.

entities (carriers and CBP) in 2013 total $16.8 million. CBP anticipates the total net benefits to both domestic and foreign

entities in 2013 range from $76.5 million to $115.5 million. In our primary analysis, the total net benefits are $92.8 million in

2013. For the primary estimate, annualized net benefits range from $78.1 million to $80.0 million, depending on the discount

rate used.

Risks: N/A

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 03/27/2013 78 FR 18457 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 04/26/2013 

Interim Final Rule Effective 04/26/2013 

Final Action 10/00/2014 

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

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

Agency Contact: Suzanne Shepherd

Director, Electronic System for Travel Authorization

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

43
Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229

Washington , 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 address 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 (9/11 Act). As required by the 9/11 Act, the rulemaking will propose that

certain railroads, public transportation agencies, and over-the-road bus companies provide security training to their frontline

employees in the areas of security awareness, operational security, incident prevention and response, and security exercises

that test effectiveness of training. The rulemaking will also propose extending 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 and over-the-road buses. 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: Employee training is an important and effective tool for averting or mitigating potential terrorist attacks by

terrorists or others with malicious intent who may target surface transportation and plan or perpetrate actions that may cause

significant injuries, loss of life, or economic disruption.

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 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 surface

mode transportation employees.

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 08/00/2014 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: Local

Federalism: No

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

44
Energy Affected: No

Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov

Related RINs: Related to 1652-AA56; Merge with 1652-

AA57; Merge with 1652-AA59

Agency Contact: Chandru (Jack) Kalro 

Deputy Director, Surface Division

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: 571 227-1145 

FAX: 571 227-2935

E-Mail: jack.kalro@tsa.dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Monica Grasso Ph.D.

Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-3329 

E-Mail: monica.grasso@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, 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, HQ, E12, 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-AA61

 View 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. The scope of the rulemaking will include transportation workers from all modes of transportation who are required

to undergo an STA, including surface maritime and aviation workers. In accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of

the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will address STAs for frontline

employees for public transportation agencies and railroads. In addition, TSA will propose fees to cover the cost of all STAs. 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, 5103A, 44903 and 44936; 46 USC 70105; 6 USC 469; PL 110-53, secs 1411, 1414, 1520,

1522 and 1602

Legal Deadline: None

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

45
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 reduce reliance on appropriations for certain vetting services; minimize redundant background checks; and increase

transportation security by enhancing identification and immigration verification standards.

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 assess security in all modes of transportation and minimize threats to national

and transportation security. TSA is required to vet certain aviation workers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44903 and 44936. TSA is

required to vet individuals with unescorted access to maritime facilities pursuant to 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. Pursuant to 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) for

commercial drivers licensed 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 in the field of transportation 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 for applicants to receive

credentials through the mail rather than returning to the enrollment center. These alternatives are discussed in detail in the

proposed 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 benefits of the NPRM are that it would reduce reliance on appropriations to cover

certain vetting services; improve security by requiring new and enhanced vetting; reduce the need for redundant background

checks; and improve TSA's vetting product, process, and structure. TSA estimates that the NPRM would result in a cost

savings to the alien flight student program. The estimated total savings for alien flight students, over a 5-year period is

approximately $18 million at 7 percent discount rate.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 08/00/2014 

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Federalism: Undetermined

Energy Affected: No

Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov

Related RINs: Related to 1652-AA35

Agency Contact: Hao-y Tran Froemling 

Acting Director, Program Management Division

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Intelligence and Analysis, TSA-10, HQ, E6 , 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6010

Arlington , VA 20598-6010 

Phone: 571 227-2782 

E-Mail: haoy.froemling@tsa.dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Monica Grasso Ph.D.

Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-3329 

E-Mail: monica.grasso@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, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

46
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-AA38

 View Related Documents

Title: Aircraft Repair Station Security

Abstract: Pursuant to the requirements of section 611 of Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act and section 1616

of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is developing a regulation to improve the

security of domestic and foreign aircraft repair stations. TSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on November

18, 2009, and requested public comment by January 19, 2010. At the request of the stakeholders, TSA extended the comment

period to February 19, 2010; this provided the aviation industry and other interested entities and individuals additional time to

submit comments. The NPRM proposed to require certain repair stations that are certificated by the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) to adopt and carry out a security program. TSA is working on a final rule that would finalize this rulemaking

project. Throughout the development of this rulemaking, TSA has coordinated its efforts with the FAA to ensure that the

rulemaking 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) proposed 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 NPRM proposed to 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 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 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: In the NPRM, TSA anticipated costs to aircraft repair stations mainly related to the establishment of

security programs. The NPRM estimated total cost of the program is $344.4 million (10-year, undiscounted) and $241 million

(discounted at 7 percent). 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 also used a breakeven analysis to assess the trade-off between the beneficial effects and the costs of implementing the rulemaking. The NPRM

break-even analysis used three attack scenarios to determine the degree to which the rule must reduce the overall risk of a

terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits to justify the estimated rule costs. TSA is revising the NPRM costs and benefits

estimates for the final rule.

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. In the regulation, 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 

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

47
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 11/00/2013 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact: Shawn Gallagher

Regional Security Inspector, Compliance Programs, Repair Stations

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Security Operations, TSA-29, HQ, E5, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6029

Arlington , VA 20598-6029 

Phone: 571 227-4005 

E-Mail: shawn.gallagher@tsa.dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Monica Grasso Ph.D.

Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-3329 

E-Mail: monica.grasso@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, 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-AA67

 View Related Documents

Title: Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology

Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends to issue a final rule to address whether 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). The NPRM was published on March 26, 2012, to comply with the decision rendered by the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 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.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final 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: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: TSA is issuing a final rule 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 Columbia

Circuit found that TSA failed to justify its failure to conduct notice and comment rulemaking and remanded to TSA for further

proceedings.

Alternatives: As alternatives to the preferred regulatory proposal presented in the NPRM, TSA examined three other options.

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

48
These alternatives include a continuation of the screening environment prior to 2008 (no action), increased use of physical patdown searches that supplements primary screening with walk through metal detectors (WTMDs), and increased use of

explosive trace detection (ETD) screening that supplements primary screening with WTMDs. These alternatives, and the

reasons why TSA rejected them in favor of the proposed rule, are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of the AIT NPRM Regulatory

Evaluation.

Costs and Benefits: TSA reports that the net cost of AIT deployment from 2008–2011 has been $841.2 million

(undiscounted) and that TSA has borne over 99 percent of all costs related to AIT deployment. TSA projects that from 2012–

2015 net AIT related costs will be approximately $1.5 billion (undiscounted), $1.4 billion at a three percent discount rate, and

$1.3 billion at a seven percent discount rate. During 2012–2015, TSA estimates it will also incur over 98 percent of AIT-related

costs with equipment and personnel costs being the largest categories of expenditures. The operations described in this rule

produce benefits by reducing security risks through the deployment of AIT that is capable of detecting both metallic and nonmetallic weapons and explosives. Terrorists continue to test our security measures in an attempt to find and exploit

vulnerabilities. The threat to aviation security has evolved to include the use of non-metallic explosives. AIT is a proven

technology based on laboratory testing and field experience and is an essential component of TSA's security screening because

it provides the best opportunity to detect metallic and nonmetallic anomalies concealed under clothing.

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 03/26/2013 78 FR 18287 

NPRM Comment Period End 06/24/2013 

Final Rule 09/00/2014 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Public Comment URL: www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact: Chawanna Carrington

Project 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: 571 227-2958 

FAX: 571 227-1931

E-Mail: chawanna.carrington@tsa.dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Monica Grasso Ph.D.

Manager, Economic Analysis Branch-Cross Modal Division

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, TSA-28, HQ, E10, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-3329 

E-Mail: monica.grasso@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, 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 where

international 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

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

49
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: No 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 11/00/2013 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

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

international interest.

Related RINs: 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 final regulations setting detention standards to

prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and assault in DHS confinement facilities. These regulations address and respond

to public comments received on the notice of proposed rulemaking published December 19, 2012, at 77 FR 75300.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final 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: VAWA Reauthorization Act

Action Source Description Date

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

50
Other Statutory VAWA Reauthorization Act 09/03/2013 

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The purpose of this rulemaking is to finalize regulations setting standards to prevent, detect, and respond

to sexual abuse in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confinement facilities. The standards build on current U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) and other DHS

detention policies. Also, this rulemaking is a response to the President's May 17, 2012 Memorandum, "Implementing the Prison

Rape Elimination Act," which directs all agencies with Federal confinement facilities to propose rules or procedures setting

standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse in confinement facilities. In addition, the Violence Against Women

Reauthorization Act of 2013 requires DHS to publish a final rule adopting national standards for the detection, prevention,

reduction, and punishment of rape and sexual assault in immigration detention and holding facilities. See Public Law 113-4

(Mar. 7, 2013).

Legal Basis:

Alternatives:

Costs and Benefits: The final rule will 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 standards will 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 rule will 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 regulation and the costs of implementing the rule. The break-even analysis uses the monetized estimates of incidents

avoided to determine the degree to which the regulation must reduce the annual incidence of sexual abuse for the costs of

compliance to break even with the monetized benefits of the standards. This does not include non-monetizable benefits of

sexual abuse avoidance. The rule will include a Regulatory Impact Assessment.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 12/19/2012 77 FR 75300 

NPRM Comment Period Extended 02/07/2013 78 FR 8987 

NPRM Comment Period End 02/19/2013 

NPRM Extended Comment Period End 02/26/2013 

Final Action 11/00/2013 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Governmental

Jurisdictions Government Levels Affected: Federal; Local; State

Federalism: No

Agency 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

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( USICE ) RIN: 1653-AA69

 View Related Documents

Title: Rescinding Suspension of Enrollment for Certain F and M Nonimmigrant Students from Libya and Third Country

Nationals Acting on Behalf of Libyan Entities

Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its regulations by rescinding the regulatory provisions

promulgated in 1983 that terminated the nonimmigrant status and barred the granting of certain immigration benefits to Libyan

nationals and foreign nationals acting on behalf of Libyan entities who are engaging in or seeking to obtain studies or training in

aviation maintenance, flight operations, or nuclear-related fields. The United States Government and the Government of Libya

have normalized their relationship and most of the restrictions and sanctions imposed by the United States and the United

Nations toward Libya have been lifted. Therefore, DHS, after consultation with the Department of State and the Department of

Defense, is considering rescinding the restrictions that deny nonimmigrant status and benefits to a specific group of Libyan

nationals.

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

51
Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.5 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1102; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8 USC 1186a; 8 USC 1187; 8 USC

1221; 8 USC 1281; 8 USC 1282; 8 USC 1301 to 1305; 8 USC 1372; 48 USC 1806

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will amend its regulations by rescinding the regulatory

provisions promulgated in 1983 that terminated the nonimmigrant status and barred the granting of certain immigration benefits

to Libyan nationals and foreign nationals acting on behalf of Libyan entities who are engaging in or seeking to obtain studies or

training in aviation maintenance, flight operations, or nuclear-related fields. The United States Government and the Government

of Libya have normalized their diplomatic relations and most of the restrictions and sanctions imposed by the United States and

the United Nations toward Libya have been lifted. Therefore, DHS, after consultation with the Department of State and the

Department of Defense, finds it necessary to rescind the restrictions that deny nonimmigrant status and benefits to a specific

group of Libyan nationals.

Legal Basis:

Alternatives:

Costs and Benefits: The regulatory action will rescind the regulation which prohibits Libyan nationals, or any other foreign

nationals acting on behalf of Libyan entities, from engaging in aviation maintenance, flight operation, or nuclear-related studies

or training in the United States. The rescission would permit DHS and other agencies of the U.S. government to provide

training and technical assistance in the justice, defense, and border security sectors to the new Libyan government. This will

contribute to the growing relationship between the two governments.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Final Action 03/00/2014 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: Undetermined

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

international interest.

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

Regulations.gov Tuesday, November 26, 2013 Regulatory Plan

52