DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) 

Fall 2011 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/xabout/responsibilities.shtm. 

 The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall 2011 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. 

1

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 The regulations we have identified in this year’s fall regulatory plan continue to address legislative 

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

9/11 Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007); the Post-Katrina Emergency 

Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA), Public Law 109-295 (Oct. 4, 2006); the Consolidated 

Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Public Law No. 110-220 (May 7, 2008); the Security and 

Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109-347 (Oct. 13, 2006); and the 

Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Public Law 110-

329 (Sep. 30, 2008). 

 DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized and unified approach in managing its 

regulatory resources. The Office of the General Counsel manages the Department's regulatory program, 

including the agenda and regulatory plan. In addition, DHS senior leadership reviews each significant 

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

 The Department is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory initiatives are aligned with its guiding 

principles to protect civil rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and partnerships, 

develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to the American public. 

 DHS is also committed to the principles described in Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 (as 

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

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

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

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

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Many of the regulations in DHS’ 

regulatory plan support the Department’s efforts pursuant to the DHS Final Plan for the Retrospective 

Review of Existing Regulations. DHS issued its final plan on August 22, 2011. 

 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 

2

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
and each of its components continue to emphasize the use of plain language in our notices and 

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

participation in the Department’s rulemakings. 

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations 

 Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 

18, 2011), DHS identified the following regulatory actions in the Department’s Final Plan for the 

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations (“DHS Final Plan”). DHS has identified these regulatory 

actions as associated with retrospective review and analysis. You can view the DHS Final Plan on 

www.regulations.gov by searching for docket number DHS-2011-0015. 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 Significantly Reduces 

Burdens on Small 

Businesses 

1615-AB71 Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File H-1B 

Petitions on Behalf of Aliens Subject to Numerical Limitations 

No 

1615-AB76 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Transitional 

Worker Classification 

No 

1615-AB83 Immigration Benefits Business Transformation, Increment I No 

1615-AB95 Immigration Benefits Business Transformation: Nonimmigrants; 

Student and Exchange Visitor Program 

No 

1625-AA16 Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International 

Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and 

Watchkeeping (STCW) for Seafarers, 1978 

No 

1625-AB38 Updates to Maritime Security No 

TBD Elimination of TWIC for Certain Mariner Populations No 

3

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
(Implementation of Section 809 of the 2010 Coast Guard 

Authorization Act) 

1651-AA73 Establishment of Global Entry Program No 

1651-AA93 Closing of the Port of Whitetail, Montana No 

1651-AA94 Internet Publication of Administrative Seizure/Forfeiture Notices No 

1652-AA01 Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee (ASIF) No 

1652-AA35 Flight Training for Aliens and Other Designated Individuals; 

Security Awareness Training for Flight School Employees 

No 

1653-AA44 Clarification of Eligibility Criteria for F and M Students and for 

Schools Certified by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program 

To Enroll F and/or M Students 

No 

 The fall 2011 regulatory plan for DHS includes regulations from DHS components—including U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which have active 

regulatory programs. In addition, it includes regulations from the Department’s major offices and 

directorates such as the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). Below is a discussion of 

the fall 2011 regulatory plan for DHS regulatory components, as well as for DHS offices and directorates. 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 

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

while protecting and securing our homeland. USCIS has a strong commitment to welcoming individuals 

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

immigration process, promoting the values of citizenship, and assisting those in need of humanitarian 

4

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
protection. Based on a comprehensive review of the planned USCIS regulatory agenda, USCIS will 

promulgate several rulemakings to directly support these commitments and goals. 

 Improvements to the Immigration System. USCIS is currently engaged in a multi-year transformation 

effort to create a more efficient, effective, and customer-focused organization by improving our business 

processes and technology. In the coming years, USCIS will publish rules to facilitate that effort, including 

rules that will remove references to form numbers, form titles, expired regulatory provisions, and 

descriptions of internal procedure; will mandate electronic filing in certain circumstances; and will 

comprehensively reorganize 8 CFR part 214. In addition, to streamline processes and improve efficiency, 

USCIS plans to revise its regulations governing appeals and motions before the Administrative Appeals 

Office. USCIS will also finalize a final rule related to the extension of immigration law to the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

 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. During 2009, USCIS issued 

three regulations to implement the extension of U.S. immigration law to the Commonwealth of Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI), as required under title VII of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. 

During fiscal year 2011, USCIS issued two final rules related to the extension of the U.S. immigration law 

to the CNMI. In fiscal year 2012, USCIS will issue the following CNMI final rule: The joint 

USCIS/Department of Justice (DOJ) regulation "Application of Immigration Regulations to the CNMI." 

5

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 Regulatory Changes Involving Humanitarian Benefits. USCIS offers protection to individuals who face 

persecution by adjudicating applications for refugees and asylees. Other humanitarian benefits are 

available to individuals who have been victims of severe forms of trafficking or criminal activity. 

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

govern asylum eligibility and refugee status determinations. The amendments are expected to focus on 

portions of the 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 effort 

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

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

Withholding of Removal. In a joint rulemaking, DHS and DOJ will propose amendments to existing DHS 

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

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

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

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

the required level of the applicant's knowledge of the persecution. 

 "T" and "U" Nonimmigrants. USCIS plans additional regulatory initiatives related to T nonimmigrants 

(victims of trafficking), U nonimmigrants (victims of criminal activity), and Adjustment of Status for T and U 

status holders. By promulgating additional regulations related to these victims of specified crimes or 

severe forms of human trafficking, USCIS hopes to provide greater consistency for these vulnerable 

groups, their advocates, and the community. These rulemakings will contain provisions to adjust 

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

enforcement community. 

6

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 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). Among other things, 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 in DOJ. The agencies implemented this legislation with interim procedures 

that the TVPRA mandated within 90 days after enactment. The proposed rule would amend both 

agencies’ regulations to finalize the procedures to determine when an alien child is unaccompanied and 

how jurisdiction is transferred to USCIS for initial adjudication of the child’s asylum application. In 

addition, this rule would address adjustment of status for special immigrant juveniles and voluntary 

departure for unaccompanied alien children in removal proceedings. 

United States Coast Guard 

 The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is a military, multi-mission, maritime service of the United States 

and the only military organization within DHS. It is the principal Federal agency responsible for maritime 

safety, security, and stewardship, and delivers daily value to the Nation through multi-mission resources, 

authorities, and capabilities. 

 Effective governance in the maritime domain hinges upon an integrated approach to safety, security, 

and stewardship. The Coast Guard's policies and capabilities are integrated and interdependent, 

delivering results through a network of enduring partnerships. The Coast Guard's ability to field versatile 

capabilities and highly-trained personnel is one of the U.S. Government's most significant and important 

strengths in the maritime environment. 

 America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and economic prosperity are intrinsically 

linked to the oceans. Safety, efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are essential to 

our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised to meet the demands of the modern maritime 

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

7

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
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 2011 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 Coast Guard proposed to amend its 

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

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

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

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

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

through the interim rule and through policy letters and Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars 

(NVICs); and (3) attempt to clarify regulations that have generated confusion. The Coast Guard 

published this proposal as a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on August 1, 2011. 

The Coast Guard intends to review and analyze comments received on that SNPRM, and publish a 

subsequent rule complying with the requirements of the newly amended STCW Convention. DHS 

included this rulemaking in the DHS Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations, 

which DHS released on August 22, 2011. 

 

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

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

8

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
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 Coast Guard’s 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. 

 Nontank Vessel Response Plans and Other Vessel Response Plan Requirements. The Coast Guard 

intends to promulgate a rule to further protect the Nation from the threat of oil spills in U.S. waters, which 

supports the strategic goals of protection of natural resources and maritime mobility. The rule, once final, 

would require owners and operators of nontank vessels to prepare and submit oil spill response plans. The 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act defines nontank vessels as self-propelled vessels of 400 gross tons or 

greater that operate on the navigable waters of the United States, carry oil of any kind as fuel for main 

propulsion, and are not tank vessels. The rule would specify the content of a response plan and would 

address, among other issues, the requirement that a plan for responding to a worst case discharge and a 

substantial threat of such a discharge. Additionally, the rule would require vessel owners and operators to 

submit their vessel response plan control number as part of already required notice of arrival information.

 Revision to Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Requirements for Mariners. The Coast 

Guard is developing revisions to its merchant mariner credentialing regulations, to implement changes made 

by section 809 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. Section 809 eliminated the requirement for 

certain mariner populations to obtain TWIC. The Coast Guard is also considering revising its regulations to 

provide an exemption for certain fees associated with merchant mariner credentialing for those mariners not 

required to hold a TWIC who may still be required to visit a TWIC enrollment center to provide the information 

9

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
necessary to obtain a Merchant Mariner Credential. DHS highlighted this rulemaking in the DHS Final Plan 

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

 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, regulations to implement section 617 of the Act. As required by the Act, this regulation would 

provide for the safe carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition to crew on OSVs of at 

least 6000 gross tonnage as measured under the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of 

Ships (6,000 GT ITC). In developing the regulations, the Coast Guard is taking into account the 

characteristics of offshore supply vessels, their methods of operation, and their service in support of 

exploration, exploitation, or production of offshore mineral or energy resources. 

United States Customs and Border Protection

 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the Federal agency principally responsible for the 

security of our Nation’s borders at and between the ports of entry and at official crossings into the United 

States. CBP must accomplish its border security and enforcement mission while facilitating 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 import and export of goods into and out 

of the United States, and enforcing the laws concerning the entry of persons into and out of 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 and exports; 

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 

10

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
illegally; protecting our agriculture and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; conducting 

inspections of all people, vehicles, and cargo entering the United States; enforcing export controls; and 

protecting U.S. businesses from theft of their intellectual property. 

 In carrying out its priority mission, CBP’s goal is to facilitate the processing of legitimate trade and 

people efficiently without compromising security. Consistent with its primary mission of homeland 

security, CBP intends to finalize several rules during the next fiscal year that are intended to improve 

security at our borders and ports of entry. We have highlighted some of these rules below. 

 Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). On June 9, 2008, CBP published an interim final 

rule amending DHS regulations to implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for 

aliens who wish to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at air or sea ports of 

entry. This rule is intended to fulfill the requirements of section 711 of the Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). The rule establishes ESTA and 

delineates the data field DHS has determined will be collected by the system. The rule requires that each 

alien traveling to the United States under the VWP must obtain electronic travel authorization via the 

ESTA in advance of such travel. VWP travelers may obtain the required ESTA authorization by 

electronically submitting to CBP biographic and other information as currently required by the I-94W 

Nonimmigrant Alien Arrival/Departure Form (I-94W). By Federal Register notice dated November 13, 

2008, the Secretary of Homeland Security informed the public that ESTA would become mandatory 

beginning January 12, 2009. This means that all VWP travelers must either obtain travel authorization in 

advance of travel under ESTA or obtain a visa prior to traveling to the United States. 

 By shifting from a paper to an electronic form and requiring the data in advance of travel, CBP will be 

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

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

By modernizing the VWP, the ESTA is intended to increase national security and provide for greater 

efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by allowing for vetting of subjects of potential 

interest well before boarding, thereby reducing traveler delays based on lengthy processes at ports of 

11

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
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 on ESTA 

and the ESTA fee. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling, and ensure cargo safety and security. This rule, which became 

effective on January 26, 2009, improves CBP risk assessment and targeting capabilities, facilitates the 

prompt release of legitimate cargo following its arrival in the United States, and assists CBP in increasing 

the security of the global trading system. The comment period for the interim final rule concluded on June 

1, 2009. CBP is analyzing comments and conducting a structured review of certain flexibility provided in 

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

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

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

new Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver program. This rule implements portions of the Consolidated National 

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

12

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
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. 

 Global Entry Program. In the fall of 2009, pursuant to section 7208(k) of the Intelligence Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as amended, CBP issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 

proposing to establish an international trusted traveler program, called Global Entry. This voluntary 

program would allow CBP to expedite clearance of pre-approved, low-risk air travelers into the United 

States. CBP has been operating the Global Entry program as a pilot at several airports since June 6, 

2008. Based on the successful operation of the pilot, CBP proposed to establish Global Entry as a 

permanent voluntary regulatory program. CBP has evaluated the public comments received in response 

to the NPRM and intends to issue a final rule during the next fiscal year. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

function was retained by the Department of the Treasury (see the Department of the Treasury regulatory 

plan). In addition to its plans to continue issuing regulations to enhance border security, CBP, during 

fiscal year 2012, 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. 

13

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 Federal Emergency Management Agency 

 The mission of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is to support our citizens and 

first responders to ensure that, as a Nation, we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability 

to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. In fiscal year 2012, 

FEMA will continue to serve that mission and promote the Department of Homeland Security's goals. In 

furtherance of the Department and Agency's goals, in the upcoming fiscal year, FEMA will work on 

regulations to implement provisions of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 

(PKEMRA) (Pub. L. No. 109-295, Oct. 4, 2006) and to implement lessons learned from past events. 

 Public Assistance Program Regulations. FEMA will work to revise the Public Assistance Program 

regulations in 44 CFR part 206 to reflect changes made to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act by PKEMRA, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006 

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

109-218, Apr. 20, 2006), and the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) 

(Pub. L. No. 109-347, Oct. 13, 2006), and to make other substantive and nonsubstantive clarifications 

and corrections to the Public Assistance regulations. The proposed changes would expand eligibility to 

include performing arts facilities and community arts centers pursuant to section 688 of PKEMRA; include 

education in the list of critical services pursuant to section 689(h) of PKEMRA, thus allowing private 

nonprofit educational facilities to be eligible for restoration funding; add accelerated Federal assistance to 

available assistance pursuant to section 681 of PKEMRA; include household pets and service animals in 

essential assistance pursuant to section 689 of PKEMRA and section 4 of the PETS Act; provide for 

expedited payments of grant assistance for the removal of debris pursuant to section 610 of the SAFE 

Port Act; and allow for a contract to be set aside for award based on a specific geographic area pursuant 

to section 2 of the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006. Other changes would include adding or 

changing requirements to improve and streamline the Public Assistance grant application process. 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

14

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have any significant regulatory 

actions planned for fiscal year 2012. 

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 2012, ICE will pursue rulemaking actions that improve two critical subject areas: The 

detention of aliens who are subject to final orders of removal and the processes for the Student and 

Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). 

 Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal. ICE will improve the post order 

custody review process in a Final Rule related to the continued detention of aliens subject to final orders 

of removal in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) and 

Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005), as well as changes pursuant to the enactment of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002. During fiscal year 2012, ICE will also issue a companion Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) that will allow the public an opportunity to comment on new sections of the custody 

determination process not previously published for comment. 

 Processes for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. ICE will improve SEVP processes by 

publishing a final Optional Practical Training (OPT) rule, which will respond to comments on the OPT 

Interim Final Rule (IFR). The IFR increased the maximum period of OPT from 12 months to 29 months 

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

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

verification program. 

15

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 

National Protection and Programs Directorate 

 The goal of the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) is to advance the Department's 

risk-reduction mission. Reducing risk requires an integrated approach that encompasses both physical 

and virtual threats and their associated human elements. 

 Ammonium Nitrate Security Program. The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act, section 563 of 

the Fiscal Year 2008 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, Public Law No. 110-161, 

amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide DHS with the authority to “regulate the sale and 

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

ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.” 

 

 The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act directs DHS to promulgate regulations requiring 

potential buyers and sellers of ammonium nitrate to register with DHS. As part of the registration process, 

the statute directs DHS to screen registration applicants against the Federal Government’s Terrorist 

Screening Database. The statute also requires sellers of ammonium nitrate to verify the identities of 

those seeking to purchase it; to record certain information about each sale or transfer of ammonium 

nitrate; and to report thefts and losses of ammonium nitrate to DHS. 

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

would implement the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act. The rule would aid the Federal 

Government in its efforts to prevent the misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use in acts of terrorism. 

By preventing such misappropriation, this rule aims to limit terrorists’ abilities to threaten the public and to 

threaten the Nation’s critical infrastructure and key resources. By securing the Nation’s supply of 

ammonium nitrate, it will be more difficult for terrorists to obtain ammonium nitrate materials for use in 

terrorist acts. 

16

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 On October 29, 2008, DHS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for the 

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

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

August 3, 2011. NPPD will accept public comment on until December 1, 2011, after which NPPD will 

review the public comments and develop a Final Rule related to the Security Handling of Ammonium 

Nitrate Program. 

 

Transportation Security Administration 

 The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the Nation’s transportation systems to 

ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. TSA is committed to continuously setting the 

standard for excellence in transportation security through its people, processes, and technology as we 

work to meet the immediate and long-term needs of the transportation sector. 

 In fiscal year 2012, 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. 

 General Aviation Security and Other Aircraft Operator Security. TSA plans to issue a Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) to propose amendments to current aviation transportation 

security regulations to enhance the security of general aviation (GA) by expanding the scope of current 

requirements and by adding new requirements for certain GA aircraft operators. To date, the 

Government’s focus with regard to aviation security generally has been on air carriers and commercial 

operators. As vulnerabilities and risks associated with air carriers and commercial operators have been 

reduced or mitigated, terrorists may perceive that GA aircraft are more vulnerable and may view them as 

attractive targets. This rule would enhance aviation security by requiring operators of certain GA aircraft 

to adopt a security program and to undertake other security measures. TSA published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on October 30, 2008, and received over 7,000 public comments, generally urging 

17

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
significant changes to the proposal. The SNPRM will respond to the comments and contain proposals on 

addressing security in the GA sector.

 Security Training for Surface Mode Employees. TSA will propose regulations to enhance the security 

of several non-aviation modes of transportation. In particular, TSA will propose regulations requiring 

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

passenger railroad carriers, and over-the-road bus operators to conduct security training for front line 

employees. This regulation would implement sections 1408 (Public Transportation), 1517 (Freight 

Railroads), and 1534(a) (Over the Road Buses) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 

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

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

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

definitions for transportation security-sensitive materials, as required by section 1501 of the 9/11 Act.

 Railroad Carrier Vulnerability Assessment and Security Plans. TSA will also propose regulations 

requiring high-risk freight and passenger railroads to conduct vulnerability self-assessments, as well as 

develop and implement comprehensive security plans. TSA would need to approve both the vulnerability 

assessment and security plan. This regulation, implementing section 1512 of the 9/11 Act, would include 

proposed provisions to identify which railroads would be considered high-risk and include proposed 

provisions about the associated vulnerability assessment and security planning requirements.

18

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 Aircraft Repair Station Security. TSA will finalize a rule requiring repair stations that are certificated by 

the Federal Aviation Administration under 14 CFR part 145 to adopt and implement standard security 

programs and to comply with security directives issued by TSA. TSA issued an Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) on November 18, 2009. The final rule will also codify the scope of TSA’s existing 

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

property, facilities, and records relevant to repair stations. This rulemaking action will implement section 

1616 of the 9/11 Act.

 Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Process and Fees. TSA is developing a proposed 

rule to revise and standardize the procedures, adjudication criteria, and fees for most of the security 

threat assessments (STA) of individuals that TSA conducts. DHS is considering a proposal that would 

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

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

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

processing STAs and ways to streamline existing regulations by simplifying language and removing 

redundancies.

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

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

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

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

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

changes to the AFSP that would improve equity among fee payers and enable the implementation of new 

technologies to support vetting. 

United States Secret Service 

19

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 The United States Secret Service does not have any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal 

year 2012. 

DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2012

 A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise DHS's fall 2011 regulatory plan 

follows. 

20

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
The 29 Actions Described in the Regulatory Plan

Title

Regulation 

Identifier 

Number

Rulemaking 

Stage

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

Asylum and Withholding Definitions 1615-AA41 Proposed Rule Stage

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

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

and Withholding of Removal 1615-AB89 Proposed Rule Stage

Electronic Filing of Requests for Immigration Benefits; Requiring an Application To

Change or Extend Nonimmigrant Status To Be Filed Electronically 1615-AB94 Proposed Rule Stage

Immigration Benefits Business Transformation: Nonimmigrants; Student and Exchange

Visitor Program 1615-AB95 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

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

Nonimmigrant Status 1615-AA59 Final Rule Stage

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

Status 1615-AA60 Final Rule Stage

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

Nontank Vessel Response Plans and Other Vessel Response Plan Requirements 1625-AB27 Final Rule Stage

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

Revision to Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Requirements for

Mariners 1625-AB80 Final Rule Stage

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

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

Authorization (ESTA) Program 1651-AA72 Final Rule Stage

Establishment of Global Entry Program 1651-AA73 Final Rule Stage

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

General Aviation Security and Other Aircraft Operator Security 1652-AA53 Proposed Rule Stage

Freight Railroads, Public Transportation and Passenger Railroads, and Over-the-Road

Buses--Security Training of Employees 1652-AA55 Proposed Rule Stage

Freight Railroads and Passenger Railroads--Vulnerability Assessment and Security Plan 1652-AA56 Proposed Rule Stage

Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Services 1652-AA61 Proposed Rule Stage

Aircraft Repair Station Security 1652-AA38 Final Rule Stage

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

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

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

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

With Pending H-1B Petitions

1653-AA56 Final Rule Stage

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

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

Title: Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program

21

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
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: Proposed 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: 

Action Source Description Date

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

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Pursuant to section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 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. The rule, as proposed by this NPRM, 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 e-mail 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 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 seeks public

comment on the numerous alternative ways in which the final Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program could carry out

the requirements of the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act.

Costs and Benefits: The Department estimates 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 (co-ops), golf

courses, landscaping services, explosives distributors, mines, retail garden centers, and lab supply wholesalers. The

Department estimates 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

this 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 to reduce the Nation's vulnerability to terrorist

22

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
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

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 

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 

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 

Ammonium Nitrate Program Manager

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 

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

23

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
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.

Legal Basis: The purpose of this rule is to provide guidance on certain issues that have arisen in the context of asylum and

withholding adjudications. The 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees contains the internationally accepted

definition of a refugee. United States immigration law incorporates an almost identical definition of a refugee as a person

outside his or her country of origin "who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself

of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act.

Alternatives: A sizable body of interpretive case law has developed around the meaning of the refugee definition.

Historically, much of this case law has addressed more traditional asylum and withholding claims based on the protected

grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. In recent years, however, the United States increasingly has

encountered asylum and withholding applications with more varied bases, related, for example, to an applicant's gender or

sexual orientation. Many of these new types of claims are based on the ground of "membership in a particular social group,"

which is the least well-defined of the five protected grounds within the refugee definition. On December 7, 2000, DOJ published

a proposed rule in the Federal Register providing guidance on the definitions of "persecution" and "membership in a particular

social group." Prior to publishing a new proposed rule, the Department will be considering how the nexus between persecution

and a protected ground might be further conceptualized; how membership in a particular social group might be defined and

evaluated; and what constitutes a State's inability or unwillingness to protect the applicant where the persecution arises from a

non-State actor. This rule will provide guidance to the following adjudicators: USCIS asylum officers, Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) immigration judges, and members of the EOIR Board of Immigration Appeals.

The alternative to publishing this rule would be to allow the standards governing this area of law to continue to develop

piecemeal through administrative and judicial precedent. This approach has resulted in inconsistent and confusing standards,

and the Department has therefore determined that promulgation of the 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 risks of further inconsistency and confusion in the

law. The Government's interests in fair, efficient, and consistent adjudications would be compromised.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 12/07/2000 65 FR 76588 

NPRM Comment Period End 01/22/2001 

NPRM 05/00/2012 

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

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Office of Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Suite 3200 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20259 

Phone: 202 272-1614 

FAX: 202 272-1994

E-Mail: ted.kim@dhs.gov

24

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

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

Abstract: This rule sets forth application requirements for a new nonimmigrant status. The U classification is for non-U.S.

Citizen/Lawful Permanent Resident victims of certain crimes who cooperate with an investigation or prosecution of those crimes.

There is a limit of 10,000 principals per year. This rule establishes the procedures to be followed in order to petition for the U

nonimmigrant classifications. Specifically, the rule addresses the essential elements that must be demonstrated to receive the

nonimmigrant classification, procedures that must be followed to make an application, and evidentiary guidance to assist in the

petitioning process. Eligible victims will be allowed to remain in the United States. The Trafficking Victims Protection

Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457, made amendments to the T nonimmigrant status provisions of the

Immigration and Nationality Act. The Department will issue a proposed rule to make the changes required by recent legislation

and to provide the opportunity for notice and comment.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

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

Federal Regulations ) 

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

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule provides requirements and procedures for aliens seeking U nonimmigrant status. U

nonimmigrant classification is available to alien victims of certain criminal activity who assist government officials in the

investigation or prosecution of that criminal activity. The purpose of the U nonimmigrant classification is to strengthen the ability

of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute such crimes as domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking in

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

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

(BIWPA). Congress intended to strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of

domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking of aliens, and other crimes, while offering protection to victims of such crimes.

Congress also sought to encourage law enforcement officials to better serve immigrant crime victims.

Alternatives: USCIS has identified four alternatives, the first being chosen for the rule: 1. USCIS would adjudicate petitions

on a first in, first out basis. Petitions received after the limit has been reached would be reviewed to determine whether or not

they are approvable, but for the numerical cap. Approvable petitions that are reviewed after the numerical cap has been reached

would be placed on a waiting list and written notice sent to the petitioner. Priority on the waiting list would be based upon the

date on which the petition is filed. USCIS would provide petitioners on the waiting list with interim relief until the start of the next

fiscal year in the form of deferred action, parole, or a stay of removal. 2. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out

basis, establishing a waiting list for petitions that are pending or received after the numerical cap has been reached. Priority on

the waiting list would be based upon the date on which the petition was filed. USCIS would not provide interim relief to

petitioners whose petitions are placed on the waiting list. 3. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis.

However, new filings would be reviewed to identify particularly compelling cases for adjudication. New filings would be rejected

once the numerical cap is reached. No official waiting list would be established; however, interim relief until the start of the next

fiscal year would be provided for some compelling cases. If a case was not particularly compelling, the filing would be denied or

rejected. 4. USCIS would adjudicate petitions on a first in, first out basis. However, new filings would be rejected once the

numerical cap is reached. No waiting list would be established nor would interim relief be granted.

Costs and Benefits: USCIS estimates the total annual cost of this interim rule to applicants to be $6.2 million. This cost

includes the biometric services fee that petitioners must pay to USCIS, the opportunity cost of time needed to submit the

required forms, the opportunity cost of time required for a visit to an Application Support Center, and the cost of traveling to an

Application Support Center. This rule will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute such

crimes as domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking in persons, while offering protection to alien crime victims in

keeping with the humanitarian interests of the United States.

Risks: In the case of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, or perjury, the interpretive challenge for USCIS was to

determine whom the BIWPA was meant to protect, given that these criminal activities are not targeted against a person.

Accordingly it was determined that a victim of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, or perjury is an alien who has been

directly and proximately harmed by the perpetrator of one of these three crimes, where there are reasonable grounds to

conclude that the perpetrator principally committed the offense as a means: (1) To avoid or frustrate efforts to investigate,

arrest, prosecute, or otherwise bring him or her to justice for other criminal activity; or (2) to further his or her abuse or

25

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
exploitation of, or undue control over, the alien through manipulation of the legal system.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 09/17/2007 72 FR 53013 

Interim Final Rule Effective 10/17/2007 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 11/17/2007 

NPRM 06/00/2012 

Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG39

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

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Agency Contact: Laura M. Dawkins

Chief, Family Immigration and Victim Protection Division

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Suite 1200 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 272-1470 

FAX: 202 272-1480

E-Mail: laura.dawkins@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

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

Regulations ) 

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

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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

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

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

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

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

should apply where an alien's actions were taken under duress. DHS 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

26

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
to assist individuals in need of shelter or aid from disasters, oppression, emergency medical issues, and other urgent

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

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

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

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

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

incurred by these applicants.

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

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

public.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 05/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Molly Groom 

Office of the Chief Counsel

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20259 

Phone: 202 272-1400 

FAX: 202 272-1408

E-Mail: molly.groom@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AB94

 View Related Documents

Title: Electronic Filing of Requests for Immigration Benefits; Requiring an Application To Change or Extend Nonimmigrant

Status To Be Filed Electronically

Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing regulations to govern the electronic filing of requests for

immigration benefit requests with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). DHS also proposes to mandate

electronic applications in the new Integrated Operating Environment that is under development, with limited exceptions, for an

Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status from any individual in the M, J, B-1, and B-2 classifications; change of

status requests to the F, M, J, B-1, or B-2 classifications; and reinstatement of status requests in the F or M classification.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204 (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

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: USCIS is in the process of transforming its operations to improve service, operational efficiency, and

national security. This rule will allow USCIS to modernize its processes, which will provide applicants and petitioners with better

and faster services and enhance the ability of USCIS to process cases with greater accuracy, security, and timeliness.

Legal Basis: Authority for this rule falls within the broad authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to administer DHS,

the administration of immigration and nationality laws, and other delegated authority. See Homeland Security Act of 2002,

Public Law 107-296 section 102 (Nov. 25, 2002), 6 U.S.C. 112, and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended,

section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act provides that, when possible, Federal agencies are

directed to make available electronic forms and provide for electronic filing and submissions when conducting agency business

with the public. See Public Law 105-277, section 1703 (Oct. 21, 1998), 44 U.S.C. 3504. GPEA also establishes the means for

the use and acceptance of electronic signatures. The INA provides a detailed list of classes of nonimmigrant aliens. See, e.g.,

INA sections 101(a)(15)(B), (C), (F), and (M); 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15) (B), (C), (F), and (M). The Secretary of Homeland Security

may authorize a change to any other nonimmigrant classification in the case of any alien who is lawfully admitted to the United

27

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
States as a nonimmigrant, maintains his or her lawful status, does not fall under certain nonimmigrant visa categories that are

listed in the statute, and is not inadmissible or whose inadmissibility has been waived under the pertinent sections of the

immigration and nationality laws of the United States. See INA section 248(a); 8 U.S.C. 1258(a). This rule is also proposed in

compliance with Executive Order 13571 "Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service." See Executive Order

No. 13571, 76 FR 24339 (Apr. 27, 2011). Executive Order 13571 tasks each Federal department and agency with establishing

an initiative that uses technology to improve the experience of individuals and entities receiving services from that Federal

department or agency. See Executive Order No. 13571, section 2(a).

Alternatives: DHS has examined the alternative of maintaining paper processing for applications to extend/change status

(Form I-539) and has determined that the continuation of legacy data systems and current processes do not meet the need for

USCIS to modernize operations.

Costs and Benefits: DHS is proposing to mandate the electronic filing of stand-alone Applications to Extend/Change

Nonimmigrant Status. Only a limited number of nonimmigrants would be impacted by this change. Specifically, those individuals

in the following nonimmigrant classifications would be required to file this application electronically: B-1, B-2, F, M, or J. In

transforming its immigration benefit processes into a paperless system, DHS anticipates the following benefits: •Streamlined

operations •More timely submission and adjudication of the benefit requested •Reduced requests for additional or missing

information •Enhanced security for the applicant •Enhanced customer service For those applicants that do not currently possess

or have access to the tools needed to submit immigration benefit requests electronically--namely, computer, Internet service,

and a scanner--this rule would result in additional costs to these petitioners or applicants. DHS is in the process of examining

the potential monetary costs and benefits of the proposed rule.

Risks: Populations with no or limited Internet access and individuals with no or limited English proficiency may be affected by

this rule. This risk can be mitigated by including a waiver process.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 08/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Dan Konnerth 

Policy and Coordination Chief, Office of Transformation Coordination

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

6th Floor 633 Third Street NW.

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 233-2381 

E-Mail: dan.konnerth@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) RIN: 1615-AB95

 View Related Documents

Title: Immigration Benefits Business Transformation: Nonimmigrants; Student and Exchange Visitor Program

Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its nonimmigrant regulations to enable U.S. Citizenship

and Immigration Services (USCIS) to migrate from a paper file-based, non-integrated systems environment to an electronic,

customer-focused, centralized case management environment for benefit processing. This rulemaking, the second in a series of

business transformation rules, primarily focuses on 8 CFR part 214, reorganizes and streamlines general information relating to

nonimmigrant classifications, and relocates other information relating to specific, individual nonimmigrant classifications to a

separate subpart for each major nonimmigrant classification. DHS is making these amendments because part 214 contains more

than 20 nonimmigrant classifications, and it has become very large and complex to navigate. This regulation will provide the

public with simpler, better organized regulatory requirements for each nonimmigrant classification and facilitate future revisions.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 245; 8 CFR 248; 8 CFR 274a (To search for a specific CFR, visit

the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 5 USC 301; 5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1103

Legal Deadline: None

28

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: USCIS is in the process of transforming its operations to improve service, operational efficiency, and

national security. This rule will provide the public with clearly written, better organized regulatory requirements for each

nonimmigrant classification.

Legal Basis: The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, section 102, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002), 6

U.S.C. 112, and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), charge the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) with

administration and enforcement of the immigration and nationality laws. See INA section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103. This rule will

significantly enhance the ability of USCIS to fully implement the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA). See Public

Law 105-277, tit. XVII, section 1701 to 1710, 112 Stat. 2681 at 2681-749, (Oct. 21, 1998) (codified at 44 U.S.C. 3504 & note).

GPEA provides that, when possible, Federal agencies use electronic forms, electronic filing, and electronic submissions to

conduct agency business with the public. Id. The USCIS modernization and transformation effort will move its operations away

from a paper-based system to an electronic environment wherever possible in an effort to implement the requirements of

GPEA.

Alternatives: The regulations for the more than 20 nonimmigrant classifications are included in 8 CFR 214. As more

nonimmigrant classifications have been added to the Act and as the statutory requirements for existing classifications have

become more complex, sections within 8 CFR 214 have become increasingly difficult to read, comprehend and cite. DHS will

reorganize 8 CFR 214 to address this lack of clarity.

Costs and Benefits: DHS will amend its regulations at 8 CFR part 214 to streamline and reorganize the content into a

more reader-friendly and logical format. DHS is not making substantive changes to the content or requirements of existing

regulations. There are no additional costs anticipated as a result of this rulemaking.

Risks: This rule may initially lead to confusion of those who are familiar with the previous organization of 8 CFR 214. USCIS

can mitigate this risk by informing the public of these changes.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 06/00/2012 

Additional Information: CIS# 2505-11. This rule (RIN 1615-AB95) is adopting the following three rules as final rules: 1615-

AA35, 1615-AA56, and 1615-AA53.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Dan Konnerth 

Policy and Coordination Chief, Office of Transformation Coordination

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

6th Floor 633 Third Street NW.

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 233-2381 

E-Mail: dan.konnerth@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 and Department of Justice regulations relating to

asylum applications filed by unaccompanied alien children. The rule will amend both Departments' 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 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

29

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Major: Undetermined 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 codify existing agency guidance on the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children. The

rule will also codify 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: Congress has given USCIS initial jurisdiction over the asylum claims of unaccompanied alien

children. New costs can accrue when EOIR immigration judges transfer cases involving unaccompanied alien minors to USCIS

for asylum interviews and adjudication if USCIS does not grant the asylum application and the case is returned to EOIR for

further adjudication. This additional cost is offset, however, when USCIS grants such an application because the costs of USCIS

asylum adjudications are generally much lower than the processing of immigration court applications for that benefit. In addition,

USCIS provides a non-adversarial setting for asylum seeker interviews and has recently developed extensive and ongoing

training in children's issues. These factors can assist unaccompanied children in expressing their fear of return to their native

countries. Unaccompanied alien children also compose a uniquely vulnerable population with often compelling protection issues;

therefore, affording unaccompanied alien children every consideration in the asylum process greatly benefits them. Finally,

benefits will also accrue because the regulation will improve upon the process initially implemented upon passage of the

TVPRA, incorporating lessons learned and optimizing the procedures for USCIS and EOIR.

Risks: N/A

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 06/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Federal

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Ted Kim 

Deputy Chief, Asylum Division

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Office of Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Suite 3200 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20259 

Phone: 202 272-1614 

FAX: 202 272-1994

E-Mail: ted.kim@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's 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 makes additional changes necessitated by the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security

and its components.

30

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
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 ) 

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 note 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, USCIS 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 03/00/2012 

Additional Information: Previously 1615-AB29 (CIS 2311-04), which was withdrawn in 2007. DHS has included this rule in

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required: Undetermined 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 

Phone: 703 224-4501 

E-Mail: william.k.renwick@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

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

Abstract: T classification was created by 107(e) of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA),

Public Law 106-386. The T nonimmigrant classification was designed for eligible victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons

who aid law enforcement with their investigation or prosecution of the traffickers, and who can establish that they would suffer

extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm if they were removed from the United States. The rule establishes

application procedures and responsibilities for the Department of Homeland Security and provides guidance to the public on

how to meet certain requirements to obtain T nonimmigrant status. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of

31

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
2008, Public Law 110-457, made amendments to the T nonimmigrant status provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization

Act. The Department will issue another interim final rule to make the changes required by recent legislation and to provide the

opportunity for notice and comment.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

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

Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101 to 1104; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8 USC 1187; 8 USC 1201; 8

USC 1224 to 1227; 8 USC 1252 to 1252a; 22 USC 7101; 22 USC 7105

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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

have complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking in persons,

and who can demonstrate that they would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm if removed from the

United States. This rule addresses the essential elements that must be demonstrated for classification as a T nonimmigrant

alien; the procedures to be followed by applicants to apply for T nonimmigrant status; and evidentiary guidance to assist in the

application process.

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

the T classification to create a safe haven for certain eligible victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons, who assist law

enforcement authorities in investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators of these crimes.

Alternatives: To develop a comprehensive Federal approach to identifying victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons,

to provide them with benefits and services, and to enhance the Department of Justice's ability to prosecute traffickers and

prevent trafficking in persons in the first place, a series of meetings with stakeholders were conducted with representatives from

key Federal agencies; national, State, and local law enforcement associations; non-profit, community-based victim rights

organizations; and other groups. Suggestions from these stakeholders were used in the drafting of this regulation.

Costs and Benefits: There is no cost to applicants associated with this regulation. Applicants for T nonimmigrant status do

not pay application or biometric fees. The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Assistance to trafficked victims and

their families, prosecution of traffickers in persons, and the elimination of abuses caused by trafficking activities. Benefits which

may be attributed to the implementation of this rule are expected to be: 1. An increase in the number of cases brought forward

for investigation and/or prosecution; 2. Heightened awareness by the law enforcement community of trafficking in persons; 3.

Enhanced ability to develop and work cases in trafficking in persons cross-organizationally and multi-jurisdictionally, which may

begin to influence changes in trafficking patterns.

Risks: There is a 5,000-person limit to the number of individuals who can be granted T-1 status per fiscal year. Eligible

applicants who are not granted T-1 status due solely to the numerical limit will be placed on a waiting list to be maintained by

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). To protect T-1 applicants and their families, USCIS will use various means

to prevent the removal of T-1 applicants on the waiting list, and their family members who are eligible for derivative T status,

including its existing authority to grant deferred action, parole, and stays of removal.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 01/31/2002 67 FR 4784 

Interim Final Rule Effective 03/04/2002 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 04/01/2002 

Interim Final Rule 06/00/2012 

Additional Information: CIS No. 2132-01; AG Order No. 2554-2002 There is a related rulemaking, CIS No. 2170-01, the

new U nonimmigrant status (RIN 1615-AA67). Transferred from RIN 1115-AG19

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

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Related RINs: Related to 1615-AA67

Agency Contact: Laura M. Dawkins

Chief, Family Immigration and Victim Protection Division

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Suite 1200 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 272-1470 

32

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
FAX: 202 272-1480

E-Mail: laura.dawkins@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

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

Abstract: This rule sets forth measures by which certain victims of severe forms of trafficking who have been granted T

nonimmigrant status and victims of certain criminal activity who have been granted U nonimmigrant status may apply for

adjustment to permanent resident status in accordance with Public Law 106-386, Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection

Act of 2000; and Public Law 109-162, Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. The

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457, made amendments to the T nonimmigrant

status provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The Department will issue another interim final rule to make the

changes required by recent legislation and to provide the opportunity for notice and comment.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

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

Legal Authority: 5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101 to 1104; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8 USC 1187; 8 USC 1201; 8

USC 1224 to 1227; 8 USC 1252 to 1252a; 8 USC 1255; 22 USC 7101; 22 USC 7105

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This regulation is necessary to permit aliens in lawful T or U nonimmigrant status to apply for

adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent residents. T nonimmigrant status is available to aliens who are victims of a

severe form of trafficking in persons and who are assisting law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of the acts of

trafficking. U nonimmigrant status is available to aliens who are victims of certain crimes and are being helpful to the

investigation or prosecution of those crimes.

Legal Basis: This rule implements the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Public Law 106-

386, 114 Stat. 1464 (Oct. 28, 2000), as amended, to permit aliens in lawful T or U nonimmigrant status to apply for adjustment

of status to that of lawful permanent residents.

Alternatives: USCIS did not consider alternatives to managing T and U applications for adjustment of status. Ease of

administration dictates that adjustment of status applications from T and U nonimmigrants would be best handled on a first in,

first out basis, because that is the way applications for T and U status are currently handled.

Costs and Benefits: USCIS uses fees to fund the cost of processing applications and associated support benefits. The

fees to be collected resulting from this rule will be approximately $3 million in the first year, $1.9 million in the second year, and

an average about $32 million in the third and subsequent years. To estimate the new fee collections to be generated by this

rule, USCIS estimated the fees to be collected for new applications for adjustment of status from T and U nonimmigrants and

their eligible family members. After that, USCIS estimated fees from associated applications that are required such as

biometrics, and others that are likely to occur in direct connection with applications for adjustment, such as employment

authorization or travel authorization. The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Continued assistance to trafficked

victims and their families, increased investigation and prosecution of traffickers in persons, and the elimination of abuses

caused by trafficking activities. Benefits that may be attributed to the implementation of this rule are expected to be: 1. An

increase in the number of cases brought forward for investigation and/or prosecution; 2. Heightened awareness of trafficking-inpersons issues by the law enforcement community; and 3. Enhanced ability to develop and work cases in trafficking in persons

cross-organizationally and multi-jurisdictionally, which may begin to influence changes in trafficking patterns.

Risks: Congress created the U nonimmigrant status ("U visa") to provide immigration protection to crime victims who assist in

the investigation and prosecution of those crimes. Although there are no specific data on alien crime victims, statistics

maintained by the Department of Justice have shown that aliens, especially those aliens without legal status, are often reluctant

to help in the investigation or prosecution of crimes. U visas are intended to help overcome this reluctance and aid law

enforcement accordingly.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 12/12/2008 73 FR 75540 

Interim Final Rule Effective 01/12/2009 

33

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 02/10/2009 

Interim Final Rule 06/00/2012 

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

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

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Agency Contact: Laura M. Dawkins

Chief, Family Immigration and Victim Protection Division

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Suite 1200 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 272-1470 

FAX: 202 272-1480

E-Mail: laura.dawkins@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

34

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 10/28/2009 74 FR 55725 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 11/27/2009 

Correction 12/22/2009 74 FR 67969 

Final Action 03/00/2012 

Additional Information: CIS 2460-08.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

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

AB75

Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings 

Branch Chief, Business and Trade Services

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

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

Washington , DC 20529 

Phone: 202 272-1470 

FAX: 202 272-1480

E-Mail: kevin.cummings@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 watch-standing and other arrangements aboard seagoing merchant ships of the United States. In addition, the Coast Guard

has identified the need for additional changes to the interim rule issued in 1997. This project supports the Coast Guard's broad

role and responsibility of maritime safety. It also supports the roles and responsibilities of the Coast Guard of reducing deaths

and injuries of crew members on domestic merchant vessels and eliminating substandard vessels from the navigable waters of

the United States. The Coast Guard published an NPRM on November 17, 2009, and Supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) on March

23, 2010. At a June 2010 diplomatic conference, the IMO adopted additional amendments to the STCW convention which

change the minimum training requirements for seafarers. In response to feedback and to the adoption of those amendments,

the Coast Guard developed a second Supplemental NPRM to incorporate the 2010 Amendments into the 1990 interim rule.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 46 CFR 10; 46 CFR 11; 46 CFR 12; 46 CFR 15 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal

Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 46 USC 2103; 46 USC chs. 71 and 73; DHS Delegation No. 0170.1

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The Coast Guard proposed to amend its regulations to implement changes to its interim rule published

on June 26, 1997. These proposed amendments go beyond changes found in the interim rule and seek to more fully

incorporate the requirements of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW), in the requirements for the credentialing of United States merchant mariners. The new

changes are primarily substantive and: (1) Are necessary to continue to give full and complete effect to the STCW Convention;

(2) Incorporate lessons learned from implementation of the STCW through the interim rule and through policy letters and

NVICs; and (3) Attempt to clarify regulations that have generated confusion.

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

46 U.S.C. 2103 and 46 U.S.C. chapters 71 and 73; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

35

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
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 and $274.3 million at a 3 percent discount rate. The changes in anticipated costs since the publication of

2009 NPRM are due to the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention: Medical examinations and endorsements, leadership

and management skills, engine room management training, tankerman endorsements, safety refresher training and able

seafarer deck and engine certification requirements. However, there would be potential savings from the costs of training

requirements as the Coast Guard would accept various methods for demonstrating competence, including the on-the-job

training and preservation of the "hawsepipe" programs. We anticipate the primary benefit of this rulemaking is to ensure that

the U.S. meets its obligations under the STCW Convention. Another benefit is an increase in vessel safety and a resulting

decrease in the risk of shipping casualties.

Risks: No risks.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Notice of Meeting 08/02/1995 60 FR 39306 

Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End 09/29/1995 

Notice of Inquiry 11/13/1995 60 FR 56970 

Comment Period End 01/12/1996 

NPRM 03/26/1996 61 FR 13284 

Notice of Public Meetings 04/08/1996 61 FR 15438 

NPRM Comment Period End 07/24/1996 

Notice of Intent 02/04/1997 62 FR 5197 

Interim Final Rule 06/26/1997 62 FR 34505 

Interim Final Rule Effective 07/28/1997 

NPRM 11/17/2009 74 FR 59353 

NPRM Comment Period End 02/16/2010 

Supplemental NPRM 03/23/2010 75 FR 13715 

Public Meeting Notice 08/02/2011 76 FR 46217 

Supplemental NPRM 08/01/2011 76 FR 45908 

Comment Period End 09/30/2011 

Final Action 01/00/2012 

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. Include Retrospective Review under E.O. 13563.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

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

be of international interest.

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

Agency Contact: Mark Gould 

Project Manager, CG-5221

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

2100 Second Street SW., STOP 7126

Washington , DC 20593-7126 

Phone: 202 372-1409 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AA99

 View Related Documents

Title: Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System

36

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
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 (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 1223

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: There is no central mechanism in place to capture vessel, crew, passenger, or specific cargo

information on vessels less than or equal to 300 gross tons (GT) intending to arrive at or depart from U.S. ports unless they are

arriving with certain dangerous cargo (CDC) or at a port in the 7th Coast Guard District; nor is there a requirement for vessels

to submit notification of departure information. The lack of NOAD information of this large and diverse population of vessels

represents a substantial gap in our maritime domain awareness (MDA). We can minimize this gap and enhance MDA by

expanding NOAD applicability to vessels greater than 300 GT, all foreign commercial vessels and all U.S. commercial vessels

coming from a foreign port, and further enhance (and corroborate) MDA by tracking those vessels (and others) with AIS. This

information is necessary in order to expand our MDA and provide Nation maritime safety and security.

Legal Basis: This rulemaking is based on congressional authority provided in the Ports and Waterways Safety Act and the

Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.

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 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 agency 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 non-binding 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 seven and three 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.

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

37

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
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 

Notice of Second Public Meeting Comment Period End 04/15/2009 

NPRM Comment Period End 04/15/2009 

Final Rule 03/00/2012 

Additional Information: We have indicated in past notices and rulemaking documents, and it remains the case that we

have worked to coordinate implementation of AIS MTSA requirements with the development of our ability to take advantage of

AIS data (68 FR 39355 and 39370, Jul. 1, 2003). The docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2005-21869. The docket can

be found at www.regulations.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: Business Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

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

Related RINs: Related to 1625-AA93; Related to 1625-

AB28

Agency Contact: LT Sharmine Jones

Program Manager, Office of Vessel Activities, Foreign and Offshore Vessel Activities Div. (CG-5432)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

2100 2nd Street SW., STOP 7581

Washington , DC 20593-7581 

Phone: 202 372-1234 

E-Mail: sharmine.n.jones@uscg.mil

Agency Contact: Jorge Arroyo 

Project Manager, Office of Navigation Systems CG-5531

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

2100 2nd Street SW., STOP 7683

Washington , DC 20593-7683 

Phone: 202 372-1563 

E-Mail: jorge.arroyo@uscg.mil

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AB27

 View Related Documents

Title: Nontank Vessel Response Plans and Other Vessel Response Plan Requirements

Abstract: This rulemaking would establish regulations requiring owners or operators of nontank vessels to prepare and

submit oil spill response plans. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act defines nontank vessels as self-propelled vessels of

400 gross tons or greater that operate on the navigable waters of the United States, carry oil of any kind as fuel for main

propulsion, and are not tank vessels. The NPRM proposed to specify the content of a response plan, and among other issues,

address the requirement to plan for responding to a worst case discharge and a substantial threat of such a discharge.

Additionally, the NPRM proposed to update International Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) requirements that

apply to certain nontank vessels and tank vessels. Finally, the NPRM proposed to require vessel owners and operators to

submit their vessel response plan control number as part of the notice of arrival information. This project supports the Coast

Guard's broad roles and responsibilities of maritime stewardship.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

CFR Citation: 33 CFR 151; 33 CFR 155; 33 CFR 160 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations )

38

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Legal Authority: 3 USC 301 to 303; 33 USC 1223; 33 USC 1231; 33 USC 3121; 33 USC 1903; 33 USC 1908; 46 USC

6101

Legal Deadline: 

Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 04/15/2012 

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rule implements the statutory requirement for an owner or operator of a self-propelled, nontank

vessel of 400 gross tons or greater, which operates on the navigable waters of the United States, to prepare and submit an oil

spill response plan to the Coast Guard. This rule specifies the content of a vessel response plan (VRP), including the

requirement to plan for responding to a worst-case discharge (WCD) and a substantial threat of such a discharge as mandated

in statute. The rule also specifies the procedures for submitting a VRP to the Coast Guard. This rule will improve our Nation's

pollution response planning and preparedness posture, and help limit the environmental damage resulting from nontank vessel

marine casualties.

Legal Basis: Section 311(j)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)), as amended by

section 4202 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat 484); the Coast Guard and Maritime

Transportation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-293, 118 Stat. 102); and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006

(Pub. L. 109-241, 120 Stat. 516) sets out the statutory mandate requiring tank and nontank vessel owners or operators to

prepare and submit oil or hazardous substance discharge response plans for certain vessels operating on the navigable waters

of the United States.

Alternatives: In the development of these regulations, the Coast Guard considered four alternatives: Three regulatory

alternatives and one non-regulatory alternative. The alternatives are—(1) Establish regulations for the submission of NTVRPs to

the USCG; (2) amend the tank vessel response plan (TVRP) regulations to incorporate NTVRPs; (3) acceptance of flagapproved SOPEPs; and (4) provide interpretive guidance through a USCG's Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC).

Costs and Benefits: We are developing the cost and benefit estimates associated with this step of the rulemaking. The

cost elements associated with this rule include: (1) Nontank vessel plan development, maintenance, and submission; (2) the

service of an Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO); (3) the contract with a Qualified Individual (QI) along with a Spill

Management Team; and (4) training and exercises. We expect this proposed rule to provide quantifiable benefits in the form of

barrels of oil not spilled into the water in addition to qualitative benefits, which include improved preparedness and reaction to

an incident, including a worst-case discharge and improved effectiveness of onboard and shore-side response activities. In the

2009 NPRM, we estimated that the rulemaking would affect about 2,951 U.S. flag vessels and 1,228 associated planholders.

We estimated the total 10-year present value cost of the proposed rule to U.S. flag nontank vessel owners and operators to be

about $111.4 million at a 7 percent discount rate and $134.8 million at a 3 percent discount rate. We found the training and

exercise requirements to be the most costly element or over 90 percent of the total discounted cost of the proposed rule for

vessel owners. We estimated the total U.S. annualized cost of the proposed rule over the 10-year period of analysis to be

about $15.8 million at both 7 and 3 percent discount rates.

Risks: Response plans are required by statute. A response plan will not prevent a discharge of oil, but it may help minimize

the discharge and resulting damage to the environment. We estimate the proposed rule would prevent between 2,014 and

2,446 barrels of oil from being spilled into the water during the 10-year period of analysis.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 08/31/2009 74 FR 44970 

Public Meeting 09/25/2009 74 FR 48891 

NPRM Comment Period End 11/30/2009 

Final Rule 04/00/2012 

Additional Information: The docket number for this rulemaking is USCG-2008-1070. The docket can be found at

www.regulations.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

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

Related RINs: Related to 1625-AA19; Related to 1625-

AA26

Agency Contact: LCDR Kevin B. Ferrie 

Project Manager

39

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

2100 2nd Street SW, Stop 7581

Washington , DC 20593-7581 

Phone: 202 372-1000 

E-Mail: kevin.b.ferrie@uscg.mil

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AB62

 View Related Documents

Title: Offshore Supply Vessels of At Least 6000 GT ITC

Abstract: The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 removed the size limit on offshore supply vessels (OSVs). The Act also

directed the Coast Guard to issue, as soon as is practicable, a regulation to implement section 617 of the Act and to ensure the

safe carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition to the crew on vessels of at least 6,000 gross tonnage as

measured under the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (6,000 GT ITC). Accordingly, the Coast

Guard's rule will address design, manning, carriage of personnel, and related topics for OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC. This

rulemaking will meet the requirements of the Act and will support the Coast Guard's mission of marine safety, security, and

stewardship.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No

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

Legal Authority: PL 111-281, sec 617

Legal Deadline: 

Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 01/01/2012 

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: In section 617 of Public Law 111-281, Congress removed OSV tonnage limits and instructed the

Coast Guard to promulgate regulations to implement the amendments and authorities of section 617. Additionally, Congress

directed the Coast Guard to ensure the safe carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition to the crew on

OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC.

Legal Basis: The statutory authority to promulgate these regulations is found in section 617(f) of Public Law 111-281.

Alternatives: The Coast Guard Authorization Act removed OSV tonnage limits and the Coast Guard will examine

alternatives during the development of the regulatory analysis.

Costs and Benefits: The Coast Guard is currently developing a regulatory impact analysis of regulations that ensure the

safe carriage of oil, hazardous substances, and individuals in addition to the crew on OSVs of at least 6,000 GT ITC. A

potential benefit of this rulemaking is the ability of industry to expand and take advantage of new commercial opportunities in

the building of larger OSVs.

Risks: No risks.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 01/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

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

Agency Contact: Thomas L. Neyhart

Program Manager

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

2100 2nd Street SW., STOP 7126

Washington , DC 20593-7126 

Phone: 202 372-1360 

E-Mail: thomas.l.neyhart@uscg.mil

40

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) RIN: 1625-AB80

 View Related Documents

Title: Revision to Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Requirements for Mariners

Abstract: This Policy Letter describes both short-term and long-term steps that the Coast Guard is taking to implement the

requirements of section 809 of Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, Public Law 111-281. Section 809 excludes certain

mariners from the statutory requirement to obtain and hold a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) in order to

receive a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC). In the short-term, while working to promulgate implementing regulations, the

Coast Guard is relaxing its enforcement posture for mariners without a valid TWIC who operate on board vessels that do not

have a security plan. The Coast Guard is also altering its policies to allow these mariners to obtain a MMC without holding a

valid TWIC. Specifically, mariners already hold or held a TWIC, and who no longer require a TWIC, may skip the TWIC

enrollment process and apply for a renewal MMC directly with a Regional Examination Center (REC), in accordance with title 46

CFR, section 10.209. However, mariners that are being issued an initial MMC, or who never held a TWIC, will need to enroll for

a TWIC at a TWIC enrollment center. They will also have to pay all applicable fees associated with getting a TWIC. This is

required because the TWIC enrollment center is the only place where the Coast Guard can obtain biometric information

(fingerprints) from the applicant. In the long-term, as part of a rulemaking to promulgate implementing regulations, the Coast

Guard is considering waiving a portion of the fees for a MMC in order to compensate the mariner for the cost of enrolling for a

TWIC. However, it is emphasized that such action is contingent on the promulgation of a regulation to adjust the fee structure.

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: sec 809 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, PL 111-281, codified at 46 USC 70105(b)(2); 46

USC 2110(g)

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The Coast Guard is revising its merchant mariner credentialing regulations to implement changes

made by section 809 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, codified at 46 U.S.C. 70105(b)(2), which reduces the

population of mariners who are required to obtain and hold a valid Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC). Prior

to section 809, 46 U.S.C. 70105(b)(2) required each mariner required to hold an MMC issued by the Coast Guard to also obtain

and hold a valid TWIC issued by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Section 809 removes this requirement, and

now a TWIC is statutorily required if the mariner is "allowed unescorted access to a secure area designated in a vessel security

plan approved under section 70103 of title 46 [U.S.C.]" The Coast Guard is revising the applicability of the TWIC requirements

in Coast Guard merchant mariner credentialing regulations as well as revising some of its merchant mariner credentialing

processes contained in Coast Guard regulations. Current Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR parts 10, 11, 12, and 15 contain

the processes for issuing an MMC that are intertwined with TSA processes for issuing a TWIC. The Coast Guard utilizes the

TWIC enrollment process to capture information necessary to issue an MMC. Although the Coast Guard is changing some of its

processes for obtaining an MMC, some mariners no longer required to hold a TWIC may still have to complete the TWIC

enrollment process in order to provide information necessary to obtain an MMC. For any such mariner that must still go through

the TWIC enrollment process, including paying the full TWIC enrollment fee, the Coast Guard is revising its regulations to

exempt these mariners from paying a portion of the MMC fees in order to offset the TWIC fee and to minimize the burden on

those mariners of paying for a TWIC when the mariner is no longer statutorily required to hold one.

Legal Basis: The Coast Guard's statutory authority to promulgate regulations addressing TWIC requirements for mariners is

found in 46 U.S.C. 70105(a) and (b). The Coast Guard's statutory authority to promulgate regulations addressing fee

exemptions is found in 46 U.S.C. 2110(g).

Alternatives: This rulemaking implements section 809 of the 2010 Coast Guard Authorization Act. The Coast Guard is

currently evaluating the alternatives as we complete the Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking would provide certain mariner populations a fee exemption when applying or

renewing an MMC. These mariner populations would also benefit from cost savings associated with reduced travels to TWIC

enrollment centers.

Risks: No risks.

Timetable:

41

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 04/00/2012 

Additional Information: DHS has included this rule in its Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations,

which DHS issued on August 22, 2011.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Davis Breyer 

Project Manager

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

CG-5221 2100 2nd Street SW

Washington , DC 20593 

Phone: 202 372-1445 

E-Mail: davis.j.breyer@uscg.mil

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

Title: Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements

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

of 2006. It amended CBP Regulations to require carriers and importers to provide to CBP, via a CBP-approved electronic data

interchange system, information necessary to enable CBP to identify high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and insure cargo

safety and security. Under the rule, importers and carriers must submit specified information to CBP before the cargo is brought

into the United States by vessel. This advance information will improve CBP's risk assessment and targeting capabilities, assist

CBP in increasing the security of the global trading system, and facilitate the prompt release of legitimate cargo following its

arrival in the United States. The interim final rule requested comments on those required data elements for which CBP provided

certain flexibilities for compliance and on the revised costs and benefits and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 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

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Vessel carriers are currently required to transmit certain manifest information by way of the CBP

Vessel Automated Manifest System (AMS) 24 hours prior to lading of containerized and non-exempt break bulk cargo at a

foreign port. For the most part, this is the ocean carrier's or non-vessel operating common carrier's (NVOCC) cargo declaration.

CBP analyzes this information to generate its risk assessment for targeting purposes. Internal and external government reviews

have concluded that more complete advance shipment data would produce even more effective and vigorous cargo risk

assessments. In addition, pursuant to section 203 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-

347, 6 U.S.C. 943) (SAFE Port Act), the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commissioner of CBP, must

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

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

cargo on vessels at foreign seaports. Based upon its analysis, as well as the requirements under the SAFE Port Act, CBP is

requiring the electronic transmission of additional data for improved high-risk targeting. Some of these data elements are being

required from carriers (Container Status Messages and Vessel Stow Plan) and others are being required from "importers," as

that term is defined for purposes of the regulations. This rule intends to improve CBP's risk assessment and targeting

capabilities and enables the agency to facilitate the prompt release of legitimate cargo following its arrival in the United States.

The information will assist CBP in increasing the security of the global trading system and, thereby, reducing the threat to the

United States and world economy.

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

42

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
U.S.C. 943) (SAFE Port Act), the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commissioner of CBP, must promulgate

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

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

vessels at foreign seaports.

Alternatives: CBP considered and evaluated the following four alternatives: Alternative 1 (the chosen alternative): Importer

Security Filings and Additional Carrier Requirements are required. Bulk cargo is exempt from the Importer Security Filing

requirements; Alternative 2: Importer Security Filings and Additional Carrier Requirements are required. Bulk cargo is not

exempt from the Importer Security Filing requirements; Alternative 3: Only Importer Security Filings are required. Bulk cargo is

exempt from the Importer Security Filing requirements; and Alternative 4: Only the Additional Carrier Requirements are required.

Costs and Benefits: When the NPRM was published, CBP estimated that approximately 11 million import shipments

conveyed by 1,000 different carrier companies operating 37,000 unique voyages or vessel-trips to the United States will be

subject to the rule. Annualized costs range from $890 million to $7.0 billion (7 percent discount rate over 10 years). The

annualized cost range estimate resulted from varying assumptions about the importers' estimated security filing transaction

costs or fees charged to the importers by the filing parties, the potential for supply chain delays, and the estimated costs to

carriers for transmitting additional data to CBP. The regulation may increase the time shipments are in transit, particularly for

shipments consolidated in containers. For such shipments, the supply chain is generally more complex and the importer has

less control of the flow of goods and associated security filing information. Foreign cargo consolidators may be consolidating

multiple shipments from one or more shippers in a container destined for one or more buyers or consignees. In order to ensure

that the security filing data is provided by the shippers to the importers (or their designated agents) and is then transmitted to

and accepted by CBP in advance of the 24-hour deadline, consolidators may advance their cut-off times for receipt of

shipments and associated security filing data. These advanced cut-off times would help prevent a consolidator or carrier from

having to unpack or unload a container in the event the security filing for one of the shipments contained in the container is

inadequate or not accepted by CBP. For example, consolidators may require shippers to submit, transmit, or obtain CBP

approval of their security filing data before their shipments are stuffed in the container, before the container is sealed, or before

the container is delivered to the port for lading. In such cases, importers would likely have to increase the times they hold their

goods as inventory, and thus incur additional inventory carrying costs to sufficiently meet these advanced cut-off times imposed

by their foreign consolidators. The high end of the cost ranges presented assumes an initial supply chain delay of 2 days for the

first year of implementation (2008) and a delay of 1 day for years 2 through 10 (2009 to 2017). Ideally, the quantification and

monetization of the benefits of this regulation would involve estimating the current level of risk of a successful terrorist attack,

absent this regulation, and the incremental reduction in risk resulting from implementation of the regulation. CBP would then

multiply the change by an estimate of the value individuals place on such a risk reduction to produce a monetary estimate of

direct benefits. However, existing data limitations and a lack of complete understanding of the true risks posed by terrorists

prevent us from establishing the incremental risk reduction attributable to this rule. As a result, CBP has undertaken a "breakeven" analysis to inform decisionmakers of the necessary incremental change in the probability of such an event occurring that

would result in direct benefits equal to the costs of the proposed rule. CBP's analysis finds that the incremental costs of this

regulation are relatively small compared to the median value of a shipment of goods, despite the rather large absolute estimate

of present value cost. The benefit of this rule is the improvement of CBP's risk assessment and targeting capabilities, while at

the same time, enabling CBP to facilitate the prompt release of legitimate cargo following its arrival in the United States. The

information will assist CBP in increasing the security of the global trading system, and thereby reducing the threat to the United

States and the world economy.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 01/02/2008 73 FR 90 

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

NPRM Comment Period End 03/03/2008 

NPRM Comment Period End 03/18/2008 

Interim Final Rule 11/25/2008 73 FR 71730 

Interim Final Rule Effective 01/26/2009 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 06/01/2009 

Correction 07/14/2009 74 FR 33920 

Correction 12/24/2009 74 FR 68376 

Final Action 10/00/2012 

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

43

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Agency Contact: Christopher Kennally 

Acting Director, Cargo Control, Office of Field Operations, CBP

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20229 

Phone: 202 344-2476 

E-Mail: christopher.j.kennally@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: This interim final rule implements the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for aliens who travel to the

United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at air or sea ports of entry. Under the rule, VWP travelers are required to

provide certain biographical information to CBP electronically before departing for the United States. This allows CBP to

determine before their departure whether these travelers are eligible to travel to the United States under the VWP and whether

such travel poses a security risk. The rule is intended to fulfill the requirements of section 711 of the Implementing

recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). In addition to fulfilling a statutory mandate, the rule serves the

twin goals of promoting border security and legitimate travel to the United States. By modernizing the VWP, the ESTA is

intended to increase national security and to provide for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by allowing

for vetting of subjects of potential interest well before boarding, thereby reducing traveler delays at the ports of entry. CBP

requested comments on all aspects of the interim final rule and plans to issue a final rule after completion of the comment

analysis.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No

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

Legal Authority: 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1187

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Section 711 of the 9/11 Act requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the

Secretary of State, to develop and implement a fully automated electronic travel authorization system that will collect

biographical and other information in advance of travel to determine the eligibility of the alien to travel to the United States, and

to determine whether such travel poses a law enforcement or security risk. ESTA is intended to fulfill these statutory

requirements. Under this rule, VWP travelers provide certain information to CBP electronically before departing for the United

States. VWP travelers who receive travel authorization under ESTA are not required to complete the paper Form I-94W when

arriving on a carrier that is capable of receiving and validating messages pertaining to the traveler's ESTA status as part of the

traveler's boarding status. By automating the I-94W process and establishing a system to provide VWP traveler data in

advance of travel, CBP is able to determine the eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from VWP countries to travel to the

United States and to determine whether such travel poses a law enforcement or security risk, before such individuals begin

travel to the United States. ESTA provides for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by allowing CBP to

identify subjects of potential interest before they depart for the United States, thereby increasing security and reducing traveler

delays upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry.

Legal Basis: The ESTA program is based on congressional authority provided under section 711 of the Implementing

Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 and section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Alternatives: CBP considered three alternatives to this rule: 1. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with a $1.50 fee per

each travel authorization (more costly) 2. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with only the name of the passenger and the

admissibility questions on the I-94W form (less burdensome) 3. The ESTA requirements in the rule, but only for the countries

entering the VWP after 2009 (no new requirements for VWP, reduced burden for newly entering countries). CBP determined

that the rule provides the greatest level of enhanced security and efficiency at an acceptable cost to traveling public and

potentially affected air carriers.

Costs and Benefits: The purpose of ESTA is to allow DHS and CBP to establish the eligibility of certain foreign travelers

to travel to the United States under the VWP, and whether the alien's proposed travel to the United States poses a law

enforcement or security risk. Upon review of such information, DHS will determine whether the alien is eligible to travel to the

United States under the VWP. Costs to Air & Sea Carriers CBP estimated that eight U.S.-based air carriers and eleven sea

44

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
carriers will be affected by the rule. An additional 35 foreign-based air carriers and five sea carriers will be affected. CBP

concluded that costs to air and sea carriers to support the requirements of the ESTA program could cost $137 million to $1.1

billion over the next 10 years depending on the level of effort required to integrate their systems with ESTA, how many

passengers they need to assist in applying for travel authorizations, and the discount rate applied to annual costs. Costs to

Travelers ESTA will present new costs and burdens to travelers in VWP countries who were not previously required to submit

any information to the U.S. Government in advance of travel to the United States. Travelers from Roadmap countries who

become VWP countries will also incur costs and burdens, though these are much less than obtaining a nonimmigrant visa

(category B1/B2), which is currently required for short-term pleasure or business to travel to the United States. CBP estimated

that the total quantified costs to travelers will range from $1.1 billion to $3.5 billion depending on the number of travelers, the

value of time, and the discount rate. Annualized costs are estimated to range from $133 million to $366 million. Benefits As set

forth in section 711 of the 9/11 Act, it was the intent of Congress to modernize and strengthen the security of the Visa Waiver

Program under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187) by simultaneously enhancing program

security requirements and extending visa-free travel privileges to citizens and eligible nationals of eligible foreign countries that

are partners in the war on terrorism. By requiring passenger data in advance of travel, CBP may be able to determine, before

the alien departs for the United States, the eligibility of citizens and eligible nationals from VWP countries to travel to the United

States under the VWP, and whether such travel poses a law enforcement or security risk. In addition to fulfilling a statutory

mandate, the rule serves the twin goals of promoting border security and legitimate travel to the United States. By modernizing

the VWP, ESTA is intended to both increase national security and provide for greater efficiencies in the screening of

international travelers by allowing for the screening of subjects of potential interest well before boarding, thereby reducing

traveler delays based on potentially lengthy processes at U.S. ports of entry. CBP concluded that the total benefits to travelers

could total $1.1 billion to $3.3 billion over the period of analysis. Annualized benefits could range from $134 million to $345

million. In addition to these benefits to travelers, CBP and the carriers should also experience the benefit of not having to

administer the I-94W except in limited situations. While CBP has not conducted an analysis of the potential savings, it should

accrue benefits from not having to produce, ship, and store blank forms. CBP should also be able to accrue savings related to

data entry and archiving. Carriers should realize some savings as well, though carriers will still have to administer the I-94 for

those passengers not traveling under the VWP and the Customs Declaration forms for all passengers aboard the aircraft and

vessel.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Action 06/09/2008 73 FR 32440 

Interim Final Rule Effective 08/08/2008 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 08/08/2008 

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

Final Action 08/00/2012 

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

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

be of international interest.

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

Related RINs: Related to 1651-AA83

Agency Contact: Suzanne Shepherd 

Director, Electronic System for Travel Authorization

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20229 

Phone: 202 344-2073 

E-Mail: cbp.esta@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

Title: Establishment of Global Entry Program

45

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Abstract: CBP already operates several regulatory and non-regulatory international registered traveler programs, also known

as trusted traveler programs. In order to comply with the Intelligence Reform Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRPTA), CBP is

proposing to amend its regulations to establish another international registered traveler program called Global Entry. The Global

Entry program would expedite the movement of low-risk, frequent international air travelers by providing an expedited inspection

process for pre-approved, pre-screened travelers. These travelers would proceed directly to automated Global Entry kiosks upon

their arrival in the United States. This Global Entry Program, along with the other programs that have already been established,

are consistent with CBP's strategic goal of facilitating legitimate trade and travel while securing the homeland. A pilot of Global

Entry has been operating since June 6, 2008.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

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

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

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: CBP has been operating the Global Entry program as a pilot at several airports since June 6, 2008,

and the pilot has been very successful. As a result, there is a desire on the part of the public that CBP establish the program as

a permanent program, and expanded the program to additional airports and to citizens from other countries if possible. By

establishing this program, CBP will make great strides toward facilitating the movement of people in a more efficient manner,

thereby accomplishing our strategic goal of balancing legitimate travel with security. Through the use of biometric and

recordkeeping technologies, the risk of terrorists entering the United States would be reduced. Improving security and facilitating

travel at the border, both of which are accomplished by Global Entry, are primary concerns within CBP jurisdiction.

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

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

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

States.

Alternatives:

Costs and Benefits: Global Entry is a voluntary program that provides a benefit to the public by speeding the CBP

processing time for participating travelers. Travelers who are otherwise admissible to the United States will be able to enter or

exit the country regardless of whether they participate in Global Entry. CBP estimates that over a 5-year period, 250,000

enrollees will be processed (an annual average of 50,000 individuals). CBP estimates that each application will require 40

minutes (0.67 hours) of the enrollee's time to search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review

the application form. Additionally, an enrollee will experience an "opportunity cost of time" to travel to an Enrollment Center

upon acceptance of the initial application. We assume that 1 hour will be required for this time spent at the Enrollment Center

and travel to and from the Center, though we note that during the pilot program, many applicants coordinated their trip to an

Enrollment Center with their travel at the airport. CBP has used 1 hour of travel time so as not to underestimate potential

opportunity costs for enrolling in the program. CBP used a value of $28.60 for the opportunity cost for this time, which is taken

from the Federal Aviation Administration's "Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory Decisions, A Guide." (Jul. 3,

2007) This value is the weighted average for U.S. business and leisure travelers. For this evaluation, CBP assumed that all

enrollees will be U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or Lawful Permanent Residents.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 11/19/2009 74 FR 59932 

NPRM Comment Period End 01/19/2010 

Final Rule 12/00/2011 

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.globalentry.gov

Agency Contact: John P. Wagner

Executive Director, Admissibility and Passenger Programs

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

46

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Office of Field Operations 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20229 

Phone: 202 344-2118 

E-Mail: john.p.wagner@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.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No

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

specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: PL 110-229, sec 702

Legal Deadline: 

Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory PL 110-229 11/04/2008 

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Currently, aliens who are citizens of eligible countries may apply for admission to Guam at a Guam

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

nonimmigrant visa, provided that they are otherwise eligible for admission. Section 702(b) of the Consolidated Natural

Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), supersedes the Guam visa waiver program by providing for a visa waiver program for Guam

and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program). Section 702(b) requires DHS to

promulgate regulations within 180 days of enactment of the CNRA to allow nonimmigrant visitors from eligible countries to

apply for admission into Guam and the CNMI, for business or pleasure, without a visa, for a period of authorized stay of no

longer than 45 days.

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

Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA).

Alternatives: None

Costs and Benefits: The most significant change for admission to the CNMI as a result of the rule will be for visitors from

those countries who are not included in either the existing U.S. Visa Waiver Program or the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program

established by the rule. These visitors must apply for U.S. visas, which require in-person interviews at U.S. embassies or

consulates and higher fees than the CNMI currently assesses for its visitor entry permits. CBP anticipates that the annual cost

to the CNMI will be $6 million. These are losses associated with the reduced visits from foreign travelers who may no longer

visit the CNMI upon implementation of this rule. In addition, we estimate Government implementation costs of between $87 and

91 million over the 5-year period of analysis. The anticipated benefits of the rule are enhanced security that will result from the

federalization of the immigration functions in the CNMI.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule Effective 01/16/2009 

Interim Final Rule 01/16/2009 74 FR 2824 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 03/17/2009 

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

Final Action 10/00/2012 

47

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

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

be of international interest.

Related RINs: Related to 1651-AA81

Agency Contact: Erin Martin 

Program Manager, Office of Field Operations

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

Washington , DC 20229 

Phone: 202 344-2728 

E-Mail: erin.m.martin@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA53

 View Related Documents

Title: General Aviation Security and Other Aircraft Operator Security

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

(NPRM), proposing to amend current aviation transportation security regulations to enhance the security of general aviation by

expanding the scope of current requirements, and by adding new requirements for certain large aircraft operators and airports

serving those aircraft. TSA also proposed that all aircraft operations, including corporate and private charter operations, with

aircraft having a maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW) above 12,500 pounds (large aircraft) be required to adopt a large

aircraft security program. TSA also proposed to require certain airports that serve large aircraft to adopt security programs. TSA

is preparing a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM), which will include a comment period for public comments. After considering

comments received on the NPRM and meeting with stakeholders, TSA decided to revise the original proposal to tailor security

requirements to the general aviation industry. TSA is considering alternatives to the following proposed provisions in the

SNPRM: (1) The type of aircraft subject to TSA regulation; (2) compliance oversight; (3) watch list matching of passengers; (4)

prohibited items; (5) scope of the background check requirements and the procedures used to implement the requirement; and

(6) other issues. Additionally, in the SNPRM, TSA plans to propose security measures for foreign aircraft operators. U.S. and

foreign operators would implement commensurate measures under the proposed rule.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector

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

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

Legal Authority: 6 USC 469; 18 USC 842; 18 USC 845; 46 USC 70102 to 70106; 46 USC 70117; 49 USC 114; 49 USC

114(f)(3); 49 USC 5103; 49 USC 5103a; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44901 to 44907; 49 USC 44913 to 44914; 49 USC 44916 to

44918; 49 USC 44932; 49 USC 44935 to 44936; 49 USC 44942; 49 USC 46105

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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

place for operators of certain types of aircraft to operators of other aircraft, including general aviation operators. While the focus

of TSA's existing aviation security programs has been on air carriers and commercial operators, TSA is aware that general

aviation aircraft of sufficient size and weight may inflict significant damage and loss of lives if they are hijacked and used as

missiles. TSA has current regulations that apply to large aircraft operated by air carriers and commercial operators, including

the twelve-five program, the partial program, and the private charter program. However, the current regulations in 49 CFR part

1544 do not cover all general aviation operations, such as those operated by corporations and individuals, and such operations

do not have the features that are necessary to enhance security. Therefore, TSA is preparing a SNPRM which proposes to

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

regulations.

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

Alternatives: DHS considered continuing to use voluntary guidance to secure general aviation, but determined that to

ensure that each aircraft operator maintains an appropriate level of security, these security measures would need to be

mandatory requirements.

48

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Costs and Benefits: TSA has not quantified benefits. Unquantified benefits of this rule include those in the areas of

security and quality governance. The rule would enhance security by expanding the mandatory use of security measures to

certain operators of large aircraft that are not currently required to have a security plan. These measures would deter malicious

individuals from perpetrating acts that might compromise transportation or national security by using large aircraft for these

purposes. As stated above, TSA is revising this proposed rule and preparing a SNPRM. Aircraft operators, passengers, and

TSA would incur costs to comply with the requirements of the proposed rule. TSA is currently evaluating the costs of the

revised rule which will be published in the SNPRM. TSA uses a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off between the

beneficial effects of the SNPRM and the costs of implementing the rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses scenarios

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

must reduce the overall risk of a terrorist attack in order for the expected benefits of the SNPRM to justify the estimated costs.

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

consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a method similar to that used for the break-even analyses conducted in earlier

DHS rules. After estimating the total consequences of each scenario by monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, capital

replacement, and clean-up, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the SNPRM to calculate the frequency of

attacks averted in order for the SNPRM to break even.

Risks: This rulemaking addresses the national security risk of general aviation aircraft being used as a weapon or as a means

to transport persons or weapons that could pose a threat to the United States.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 10/30/2008 73 FR 64790 

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

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

NPRM Comment Period End 12/29/2008 

NPRM Extended Comment Period End 02/27/2009 

Supplemental NPRM 09/00/2012 

Additional Information: Public Meetings held on: Jan. 6, 2009, at White Plains, NY; Jan. 8, 2009, at Atlanta, GA; Jan 16,

2009, at Chicago, IL; Jan. 23, 2009, at Burbank, CA; and Jan. 28, 2009, at Houston, TX. Additional Comment Sessions held in

Arlington, VA, on April 16, 2009, May 6, 2009, and June 15, 2009.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: Local

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

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

be of international interest.

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

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

AA04

Agency Contact: Erik Jensen 

Assistant General Manager, General Aviation Security

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Sector Network Management TSA-28, HQ, E10-132S 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-2154 

FAX: 571 227-1923

E-Mail: erik.jensen@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Thomas Philson 

Deputy Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Sector Network Management TSA-28, HQ, E10-411N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-3236 

FAX: 571 227-1362

E-Mail: thomas.philson@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Denise Daniels 

Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of the Chief Counsel TSA-2, HQ, E12-127S 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6002 

49

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Phone: 571 227-3443 

FAX: 571-227-1381

E-Mail: denise.daniels@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Kiersten Ols 

Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of the Chief Counsel TSA-2, HQ, E12-316N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6002 

Phone: 571 227-2403 

FAX: 571 227-1378

E-Mail: kiersten.ols@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA55

 View Related Documents

Title: Freight Railroads, Public Transportation and Passenger Railroads, and Over-the-Road Buses--Security Training of

Employees

Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose a new regulation to improve the security of freight

railroads, public transportation and passenger railroads, and over-the-road buses in accordance with the Implementing

Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. This rulemaking will propose general requirements for the

owner/operators of a freight railroad, a public transportation system or passenger railroad, and over-the-road bus operation

determined by TSA to be high-risk to develop and implement a security training program to prepare security-sensitive

employees, including frontline employees identified in sections 1402 and 1501 of the Act, for potential security threats and

conditions. The rulemaking will also propose extending the security coordinator and reporting security incident requirements

applicable to rail operators under current 49 CFR part 1580 to the non-rail transportation components of covered public

transportation agencies. In addition, the rulemaking will also propose requiring the affected over-the-road bus owner/operators

to identify security coordinators and report security incidents, similar to the requirements for rail in current 49 CFR 1580. The

regulation will take into consideration any current security training requirements or best practices.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Undetermined 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 section 1408 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission

Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266), interim final regulations for public transportation agencies are due 90 days after the

date of enactment (Nov. 1, 2007), and final regulations are due 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.

Action Source Description Date

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

of enactment. 11/01/2007 

Other Statutory Rule for railroads and over-the-road buses are due 6 months after date

of enactment. 02/03/2008 

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

enactment. 08/03/2008 

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: A security training program for freight railroads, public transportation agencies and passenger

railroads, and over-the-road bus operations is proposed to prepare freight railroad security-sensitive employees, public

transportation and passenger railroad security-sensitive employees, and over-the-road bus security sensitive employees for

potential security threats and conditions.

Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114; sections 1408, 1517, and 1534 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the

9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).

Alternatives: TSA is required by statute to publish regulations requiring security training programs for these

owner/operators. As part of its notice of proposed rulemaking, TSA will seek public comment on the alternative ways in which

the final rule could carry out the requirements of the statute.

Costs and Benefits: TSA will estimate the costs that the freight railroad systems, public transportation agencies and

50

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
passenger railroads, and over-the-road bus (OTRB) entities covered by this proposed rule would incur following its

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

program and submitting it to TSA; (2) Training (initial and recurrent) all security-sensitive employees; (3) Maintaining records of

employee training; (4) Being available for inspections; (5) As applicable, providing information on security coordinators and

alternates; and (6) As applicable, reporting security concerns. TSA will also estimate the costs TSA itself would expect to incur

with the implementation of this rule. TSA has not quantified benefits. However, the primary benefit of the Security Training

NPRM will be to enhance United States surface transportation security by reducing the vulnerability of freight railroad systems,

public transportation agencies, and passenger railroads to terrorist activity through the training of security-sensitive employees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

use this figure and the annualized cost of the NPRM for freight rail, public transportation and passenger rail, and OTRB

operators to calculate a breakeven annual likelihood of attack.

Risks: The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States and to reduce the

vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By providing for security training for personnel, TSA intends in this rulemaking to

reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on this transportation sector.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 05/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Local

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

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

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

AA59

Agency Contact: Scott Gorton 

Policy and Plans Branch Chief for Freight Rail

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Sector Network Management TSA-28, HQ, E10-423N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-1251 

FAX: 571 227-2930

E-Mail: scott.gorton@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: David Kasminoff 

Sr. Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of the Chief Counsel TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6002 

Phone: 571 227-3583 

FAX: 571 227-1378

E-Mail: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Steve Sprague 

Highway Passenger, Infrastructure and Licensing Branch Chief; Highway and Motor Carrier Programs

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

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

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-1468 

E-Mail: steve.sprague@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA56

51

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
 View Related Documents

Title: Freight Railroads and Passenger Railroads--Vulnerability Assessment and Security Plan

Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will propose a new regulation to improve the security of freight

railroads and passenger railroads in accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.

This rulemaking will propose thresholds for which a risk determination can be made to determine whether a freight railroad and

passenger railroad should be considered "high risk." The rulemaking will also propose requirements for vulnerability

assessments and security plans for owner/operators of those railroads. The proposed requirements include procedures for TSA's

review and approval of these assessments and plans, and recordkeeping requirements. The regulation will take into

consideration any current security assessment and planning requirements or best practices.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1570; 49 CFR 1580; 49 CFR 1582 (New) (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code

of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 49 USC 114; PL 110-53, sec 1512

Legal Deadline: According to section 1512 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission

Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266), a final regulation for freight railroads and passenger railroads is due no later than 12

months after the date of enactment of the Act.

Action Source Description Date

Other Statutory Rule for freight railroads and passenger railroads is due no later than

12 months after date of enactment. 08/03/2008 

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: The rulemaking will propose requirements for owner/operators of high-risk freight railroads and highrisk passenger railroads to conduct vulnerability assessments and carry-out security plans to address the railroad carrier's

preparedness and response for potential security threats and conditions.

Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114; section 1512 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 vulnerability assessments and security plans for

owner/operators of high-risk freight railroads and high-risk passenger railroads. As part of its notice of proposed rulemaking,

TSA will seek public comment on the alternative ways in which the final rule could carry out the requirements of the statute.

Costs and Benefits: TSA will estimate the costs that the freight rail systems and passenger railroad carriers covered by

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

Completing, modifying, or updating a vulnerability assessment and submitting it to TSA; (2) Developing, modifying, or updating

a security plan and submitting it to TSA; (3) Implementing a security plan; (4) Maintaining records, including master copies of

the vulnerability assessment and security plan and all plans or documents referenced in the security plan; and (5) Being

available for inspection. The expected primary benefit of the Vulnerability Assessment and Security Plan NPRM will be to

enhance U.S. surface transportation security by reducing vulnerability to terrorist attacks in two different ways. First,

vulnerability assessments, as required in this proposed rule, would identify assets and infrastructure that are critical to

owner/operators and provide an assessment of security risks that need to be mitigated at these locations. Second, in an effort

to mitigate security risks, security plans would help target resources and mitigation strategies toward security gaps in an

owner/operator's specific freight or passenger railroad operation to address the risks identified by the vulnerability assessments.

TSA has not quantified benefits. For the purposes of this rulemaking, TSA employs a break even analysis to compare the cost

of the risk reduction resulting from the proposed rule with the dollar value of the type of terrorist attacks that could potentially be

averted due to the requirements in the proposed rule. This provides a framework for evaluating the tradeoff between program

costs and benefits. For purposes of this analysis, TSA evaluates three scenarios in the freight rail mode of surface

transportation and three scenarios in the passenger railroad mode of surface transportation covered by the proposed rule. For

each scenario, TSA calculates a total monetary consequence from an estimated statistical value of the human casualties and

capital replacement resulting from the attack. TSA compared an expected value of the monetary cost of an attack to the each

rail mode and TSA's annualized cost of conducting vulnerability assessments and implementing security plans, discounted at 7

percent, to estimate how often an attack of that nature would need to be averted for the expected benefits to equal estimated

costs. For a given level of pre-existing or baseline risk of an attack, the calculation of the break-even point—the reduction in

baseline risk for which the estimated costs and expected benefits are equal—and a detailed description of each scenario is

presented in the regulatory evaluation for this NPRM.

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 owner/operators of high-risk freight railroads and owner/operators

of high-risk passenger railroads to conduct vulnerability assessments and adopt and carry out security plans, TSA intends in

this rulemaking to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on the passenger rail transportation sector.

52

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 09/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Local

Federalism: Undetermined

Energy Affected: No

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

Related RINs: Related to 1652-AA58; Related to 1652-

AA60

Agency Contact: Scott Gorton 

Policy and Plans Branch Chief for Freight Rail

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Sector Network Management TSA-28, HQ, E10-423N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-1251 

FAX: 571 227-2930

E-Mail: scott.gorton@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: David Kasminoff 

Sr. Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of the Chief Counsel TSA-2, HQ, E12-310N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6002 

Phone: 571 227-3583 

FAX: 571 227-1378

E-Mail: david.kasminoff@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Morvarid Zolghadr 

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

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

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

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-2957 

FAX: 571 227-0729

E-Mail: morvarid.zolghadr@dhs.gov

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) will propose new regulations to revise and standardize the

procedures, adjudication criteria, and fees for most of the security threat assessments (STA) of individuals for which TSA is

responsible. In accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), the scope

of the rulemaking will include transportation workers from all modes of transportation who are required to undergo an STA in

other regulatory programs, including certain aviation workers and frontline employees for public transportation agencies and

railroads. In addition, TSA will propose fees to cover the cost of the STAs, and credentials for some personnel. TSA plans to

improve efficiencies in processing STAs and streamline existing regulations by simplifying language and removing

redundancies. As part of this proposed rule, TSA will propose revisions to the Alien Flight Student Program (AFSP) regulations.

TSA published an interim final rule for ASFP on September 20, 2004. TSA regulations require aliens seeking to train at Federal

Aviation Administration-regulated flight schools to complete an application and undergo an STA prior to beginning flight training.

There are four categories under which students currently fall; the nature of the STA depends on the student's category. TSA is

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

technologies to support vetting.

Priority: Economically Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

53

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 49 USC 114; PL 110-53, secs 1411, 1414, 1520, 1522, 1602; 6 USC 469

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: Through this rulemaking, TSA proposes to carry out statutory mandates to perform security threat

assessments (STA) of certain transportation workers pursuant to the 9/11 Act. Also, TSA proposes to fully satisfy 6 U.S.C. 469,

which requires TSA to fund security threat assessment and credentialing activities through user fees. The proposed rulemaking

would increase transportation security by enhancing identification and immigration verification standards, providing for more

thorough vetting, improving the reliability and consistency of the vetting process, and increasing fairness to vetted individuals by

providing more robust redress and reducing redundant STA requirements.

Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114(f): Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (Pub. L. 170-71, Nov. 19, 2001,

115 Stat. 597), TSA assumed responsibility to oversee the vetting of certain aviation workers. See 49 U.S.C. 44936. Under the

Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), (Pub. L. 107-295, sec. 102, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2064), codified at 46 U.S.C.

70105, TSA vets certain merchant mariners and individuals who require unescorted access to secure areas of vessels and

maritime facilities. Under the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and

Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) (Pub. L. 107-56, Oct. 25, 2001, 115 Stat. 272), TSA vets individuals seeking

hazardous materials endorsements (HME) to commercial driver's licenses (CDL) issued by the States. In the Implementing

Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53, Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 266), Congress directed TSA

to vet additional populations of transportation workers, including certain public transportation and railroad workers. In 6 U.S.C.

469, Congress directed TSA to fund vetting and credentialing programs through user fees.

Alternatives: TSA considered a number of viable alternatives to lessen the impact of the proposed on entities deemed

"small" by the Small Business Administration (SBA) standards. This included: (1) Extending phone pre-enrollment to populations

eligible to enroll via the web; and (2) changing the current delivery and activation process and instituting centralized activation

of biometric credentials that allow applicants to receive their credentials through the mail rather than returning to the enrollment

center to pick up the credential. These alternatives are discussed in detail in the rule and regulatory evaluation.

Costs and Benefits: TSA conducted a regulatory evaluation to estimate the costs regulated entities, individuals, and TSA

would incur to comply with the requirements of the NPRM. The NPRM would impose new requirements for some individuals,

codify existing requirements not included in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and modify current STA requirements for

many transportation workers. The primary benefit of the NPRM would be that it will improve TSA's vetting product, process, and

structure by improving STAs, increasing equity, decreasing reliance on appropriated funds, and improving reusability of STAs

and mitigating redundant STAs. TSA has not quantified benefits. TSA uses a break-even analysis to assess the trade-off

between the beneficial effects of the NPRM and the costs of implementing the rulemaking. This break-even analysis uses

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

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

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

consistency, TSA developed the analyses with a method similar to that used for the break-even analyses conducted in earlier

DHS rules. After estimating the total consequences of each scenario by monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, capital

replacement, and clean-up, TSA will use this figure and the annualized cost of the NPRM to calculate the frequency of attacks

averted in order for the NPRM to break even. TSA estimates that the total savings to the alien flight students, over a 5-year

period, will be $18,107 at a 7 percent discount rate.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 08/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Federalism: Undetermined

Energy Affected: No

Related RINs: Related to 1652-AA35

Agency Contact: Hao-y Tran Froemling 

Program Manager, Maritime and Surface Credentialing

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing TSA-19, HQ, E3-401N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6019 

Phone: 571 227-2782 

E-Mail: hao-y.froemling@dhs.gov

54

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Agency Contact: Thomas Philson 

Deputy Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Sector Network Management TSA-28, HQ, E10-411N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-3236 

FAX: 571 227-1362

E-Mail: thomas.philson@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: John Vergelli 

Attorney, Regulations and Security Standards Division

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

DHS, TSA, Office of the Chief Counsel TSA-2, HQ, E12-309N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6002 

Phone: 571 227-4416 

FAX: 571 227-1378

E-Mail: john.vergelli@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) RIN: 1652-AA38

 View Related Documents

Title: Aircraft Repair Station Security

Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposed to add a new regulation to improve the security of

domestic and foreign aircraft repair stations, as required by the section 611 of Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization

Act and section 1616 of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. The regulation proposed general requirements for security programs

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

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

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

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

coordinated its efforts with the FAA throughout the rulemaking process to ensure that the final rule does not interfere with FAA's

ability or authority to regulate part 145 repair station safety matters.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Yes Unfunded Mandates: No

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

Legal Authority: 49 USC 114; 49 USC 44924

Legal Deadline: Section 611(b)(1) of Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176; Dec. 12, 2003;

117 Stat. 2490), codified at 49 U.S.C. 44924, requires TSA issue “final regulations to ensure the security of foreign and

domestic aircraft repair stations.” Section 1616 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007

(Pub. L. 110–531; Aug. 3, 2007; 21 Stat. 266) requires TSA issue a final rule on foreign repair station security.

Action Source Description Date

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

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

Regulatory Plan:

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

domestic and foreign aircraft repair stations. The NPRM proposed to require repair stations that are certificated by the Federal

Aviation Administration to adopt and carry out a security program. The proposal will codify the scope of TSA's existing

inspection program. The proposal also provides procedures for repair stations to seek review of any TSA determination that

security measures are deficient.

Legal Basis: Section 611(b)(1) of Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176; Dec. 12, 2003; 117

Stat. 2490), codified at 49 U.S.C. 44924, requires TSA to issue "final regulations to ensure the security of foreign and domestic

aircraft repair stations" within 240 days from date of enactment of Vision 100. Section 1616 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing

Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266) requires that the FAA may not certify any

foreign repair stations if the regulations are not issued within 1 year after the date of enactment of the 9/11 Commission Act

unless the repair station was previously certificated or is in the process of certification.

55

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Alternatives: TSA is required by statute to publish regulations requiring security programs for aircraft repair stations. As part

of its notice of proposed rulemaking, TSA sought public comment on the numerous alternative ways in which the final rule could

carry out the requirements of the statute.

Costs and Benefits: TSA anticipates costs to aircraft repair stations mainly related to the establishment of security

programs, which may include adding such measures as access controls, a personnel identification system, security awareness

training, the designation of a security coordinator, employee background verification, and contingency plan. The NPRM

estimated the total 10-year undiscounted cost of the program at $344 million. The cost of the program, annualized and

discounted at 7 percent, is $241 million. Security coordinator and training costs represent the largest portions of the program.

TSA has not quantified benefits. However, a major line of defense against an aviation-related terrorist act is the prevention of

explosives, weapons, and/or incendiary devices from getting on board a plane. To date, efforts have been primarily related to

inspection of baggage, passengers, and cargo, and security measures at airports that serve air carriers. With this rule, attention

is given to aircraft that are located at repair stations, and to aircraft parts that are at repair stations, themselves to reduce the

likelihood of an attack against aviation and the country. Since repair station personnel have direct access to all parts of an

aircraft, the potential exists for a terrorist to seek to commandeer or compromise an aircraft when the aircraft is at one of these

facilities. Moreover, as TSA tightens security in other areas of aviation, repair stations increasingly may become attractive

targets for terrorist organizations attempting to evade aviation security protections currently in place. TSA uses a break-even

analysis to assess the trade-off between the beneficial effects of the final rule and the costs of implementing the rulemaking.

This break-even analysis uses three attack scenarios to determine the degree to which the final rule must reduce the overall

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

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

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

total consequences of each scenario by monetizing lives lost, injuries incurred, and capital replacement, TSA will use this figure

and the annualized cost of the final rule to calculate the frequency of attacks averted in order for the final rule to break even.

Risks: The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States and to reduce the

vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By requiring security programs for aircraft repair stations, TSA will focus on

preventing unauthorized access to repair work and to aircraft to prevent sabotage or hijacking.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Notice--Public Meeting; Request for Comments 02/24/2004 69 FR 8357 

Report to Congress 08/24/2004 

NPRM 11/18/2009 74 FR 59873 

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

NPRM Comment Period End 01/19/2010 

NPRM Extended Comment Period End 02/19/2010 

Final Rule 09/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Business Government Levels Affected: No

Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

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

Agency Contact: Celio Young 

Program Manager, Repair Stations

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Sector Network Management, General Aviation Division TSA-28, HQ, E5 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-3580 

FAX: 571 227-1362

E-Mail: celio.young@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Thomas Philson 

Deputy Director, Regulatory and Economic Analysis

Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Office of Transportation Sector Network Management TSA-28, HQ, E10-411N 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6028 

Phone: 571 227-3236 

FAX: 571 227-1362

E-Mail: thomas.philson@dhs.gov

Agency Contact: Linda L. Kent

Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards Division

Department of Homeland Security

56

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Transportation Security Administration

Office of the Chief Counsel TSA-2, HQ, E12-126S 601 South 12th Street

Arlington , VA 20598-6002 

Phone: 571 227-2675 

FAX: 571 227-1381

E-Mail: linda.kent@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accordance with the separate detention standard provided under the Act.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No

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

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

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Basis:

Alternatives:

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

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

of the rule.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 04/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Related RINs: Related to 1653-AA13

Agency Contact: Alexander Hartman 

Regulatory Coordinator

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

500 12th Street SW.

Washington , DC 20536 

Phone: 202 732-6202 

57

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
E-Mail: alexander.hartman@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

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

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

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Basis:

Alternatives:

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

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

process.

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 11/14/2001 66 FR 56967 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 01/14/2002 

Final Action 04/00/2012 

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Agency Contact: Alexander Hartman 

Regulatory Coordinator

Department of Homeland Security

58

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

500 12th Street SW.

Washington , DC 20536 

Phone: 202 732-6202 

E-Mail: alexander.hartman@dhs.gov

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

adjustments to the regulations.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule

Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No

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

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

1301 to 1305

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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

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

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

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

(USCIS') E-Verify employment verification program.

Legal Basis:

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

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

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

evaluate both quantitative and qualitative alternatives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risks:

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule 04/08/2008 73 FR 18944 

Interim Final Rule Comment Period End 06/09/2008 

Final Rule 08/00/2012 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

59

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
Federalism: No

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

Agency Contact: Sharon Snyder 

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

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Potomac Center North 500 12th Street SW.

Washington , DC 20024-6121 

Phone: 703 603-3415 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

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

 View Related Documents

Title: Update of FEMA's Public Assistance Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Administrative Plans.

Priority: Other Significant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

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

Legal Authority: 42 USC 5121 to 5207

Legal Deadline: None

Regulatory Plan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of 2006, Public Law 109-295, the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, 6 U.S.C. 901 note, the Local

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

removal).

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

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

improved efficiency and consistency of the Public Assistance program. FEMA estimates the primary economic impact of the

proposed rule is the additional transfer of funding from FEMA through the Public Assistance program to grantees and

subgrantees that is effectuated by this rulemaking.

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

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

60

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan
NPRM 03/00/2012 

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

Tribal

Federalism: Yes

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Tod Wells 

Recovery Directorate

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Emergency Management Agency

500 C Street SW.

Washington , DC 20472-3100 

Phone: 202 646-3936 

FAX: 202 646-3363

E-Mail: tod.wells@dhs.gov

61

Regulations.gov Friday, January 20, 2012 The Regulatory Plan