105386 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4—FGIS BILLED ACCOUNTS SUMMARY TABLE FOR REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS BY SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION SIZE CLASSIFICATION—Continued 

Fiscal year 

All firms Large firms Small firms 

Total fees 

paid 

Total fees 

paid 

Share paid 

(%) 

Total fees 

paid 

Share paid 

(%) 

Grand Total ................................................................... 167,481,991 148,706,765 89 18,775,226 11 

The revised fees implemented by the 

interim rule and adopted herein do not 

change the relative burden of fees on 

small businesses. The provisions of this 

final rule will apply equally to all 

entities. The revised fees will benefit all 

inspection applicants, regardless of size, 

as the fees more closely reflect the 

current costs of inspections. Finally, 

this final rule will not impose 

additional reporting, record keeping, or 

other compliance requirements on small 

entities. FGIS has not identified any 

other Federal rules which may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

final rule. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988—Civil 

Justice Reform. It is not intended to 

have retroactive effect. Section 18 of the 

USGSA (7 U.S.C. 87g) provides that no 

State or subdivision thereof may require 

or impose any requirements or 

restrictions concerning the inspection, 

weighing, or description of grain under 

the USGSA. Otherwise, this final rule 

will not preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this final rule. There are no 

administrative procedures that must be 

exhausted prior to any judicial 

challenge to the provisions of this final 

rule. 

Executive Order 13175 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 13175— 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal governments, which 

requires agencies to consider whether 

their rulemaking actions would have 

Tribal implications. FGIS has 

determined that this final rule is 

unlikely to have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes. 

Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801–808), the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

designated this final rule as not a major 

rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

E-Government Act 

USDA is committed to complying 

with the provisions of the EGovernment Act (44 U.S.C. 3601–3616) 

by promoting the use of the internet and 

other information technologies to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule will not impose any 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

FGIS customers. In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. chapter 35), FGIS reports and 

forms are periodically reviewed to 

reduce information collection 

requirements and duplication. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 800 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Conflict of interests, Exports, 

Freedom of information, Grains, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Agricultural Marketing 

Service adopts the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR part 800 published 

June 6, 2024, at 89 FR 48257, as final 

without change. 

Melissa Bailey, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30603 Filed 12–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

8 CFR Part 208 

[CIS No. 2791–25; DHS Docket No. USCIS– 

2020–0013] 

RIN 1615–AC57 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review 

8 CFR Part 1208 

[A.G. Order No. 6106–2024] 

RIN 1125–AB08 

Security Bars and Processing; Delay of 

Effective Date 

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (‘‘USCIS’’), 

Department of Homeland Security 

(‘‘DHS’’); Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (‘‘EOIR’’), 

Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’). 

ACTION: Interim final rule with request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: On December 23, 2020, 

during the COVID–19 pandemic, the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(‘‘DHS’’) and the Department of Justice 

(‘‘DOJ’’) (collectively, ‘‘the 

Departments’’) published a final rule 

entitled Security Bars and Processing 

(‘‘Security Bars final rule’’) to define 

‘‘danger to the security of the United 

States’’ to include certain emergency 

public health concerns. The 

Departments have delayed the final 

rule’s effective date such that it has 

never gone into effect. This rulemaking 

further delays the Security Bars final 

rule’s effective date until December 31, 

2025. 

DATES: 

Effective date: As of December 27, 

2024, the effective date of the final rule 

published December 23, 2020, at 85 FR 

84160, which was delayed by the rules 

published at 86 FR 6847 (Jan. 25, 2021), 

86 FR 15069 (Mar. 22, 2021), 86 FR 

73615 (Dec. 28, 2021), and 87 FR 79789 

(Dec. 28, 2022), is further delayed until 

December 31, 2025. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 105387 

1The Departments use the term ‘‘noncitizen’’ to 

be synonymous with the term ‘‘alien’’ as it is used 

in the Immigration and Nationality Act. See INA 

101(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3); 8 CFR 1001.1(gg). 

2See Convention Against Torture and Other 

Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 

Punishment, art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, 

114. 

3 ‘‘IFR’’ means ‘‘interim final rule.’’ 

4See Pangea Legal Servs. v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Homeland Sec., 512 F. Supp. 3d 966, 977 (N.D. Cal. 

2021). 

Submission of public comments: 

Comments must be submitted on or 

before January 27, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this rulemaking, identified by DHS 

Docket No. USCIS–2020–0013, through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

website instructions for submitting 

comments. The electronic Federal 

Docket Management System will accept 

comments prior to midnight eastern 

time at the end of the day listed in the 

DATES section. 

Comments submitted in a manner 

other than the one listed above, 

including emails or letters sent to the 

Departments’ officials, will not be 

considered comments on the rule and 

may not receive a response from the 

Departments. Please note that the 

Departments cannot accept any 

comments that are hand-delivered or 

couriered. In addition, the Departments 

cannot accept comments contained on 

any form of digital media storage 

devices, such as CDs, DVDs, or USB 

drives. The Departments are not 

accepting mailed comments at this time. 

If you cannot submit your comment by 

using https://www.regulations.gov, 

please contact Samantha Deshommes, 

Chief, Regulatory Coordination 

Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, Department of Homeland 

Security, by telephone at (240) 721– 

3000 for alternate instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For USCIS: Rena ́ Cutlip-Mason, Chief, 

Division of Humanitarian Affairs, Office 

of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Department 

of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital 

Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 

20588–0009; telephone (240) 721–3000 

(not a toll-free call). 

For EOIR: Sarah Flinn, Acting 

Assistant Director for Policy, Office of 

Policy, Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, Department of Justice, 5107 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; 

telephone (703) 305–0289 (not a toll-free 

call). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this action to further delay 

the effective date of the Security Bars 

final rule by submitting relevant written 

data, views, or arguments. To provide 

the most assistance to the Departments, 

comments should reference specific 

portions of the rule; explain the reason 

for any recommendation; and include 

data, information, or authority that 

supports the recommended course of 

action. Comments must be submitted in 

English, or an English translation must 

be provided. Comments submitted in a 

manner other than those listed above, 

including emails or letters sent to the 

Departments’ officials, will not be 

considered comments on the rule and 

may not receive a response from the 

Departments. 

Instructions: If you submit a 

comment, you must include the agency 

name and the DHS Docket No. USCIS– 

2020–0013 for this rulemaking. All 

submissions will be posted, without 

change, to the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at https://www.regulations.gov 

and will include any personal 

information you provide. Therefore, 

submitting this information makes it 

public. You may wish to consider 

limiting the amount of personal 

information that you provide in any 

public comment submission you make 

to the Departments. The Departments 

may withhold information provided in 

comments from public viewing that they 

determine may impact the privacy of an 

individual or is offensive. For additional 

information, please read the Privacy and 

Security Notice available at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket and 

to read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, referencing DHS 

Docket No. USCIS–2020–0013. You may 

also sign up for email alerts on the 

online docket to be notified when 

comments are posted or when the final 

rule is published. 

II. Background 

On December 23, 2020, during the 

COVID–19 pandemic, the Departments 

published the Security Bars final rule to 

amend existing regulations to provide 

that certain emergency public health 

concerns generated by a communicable 

disease constitute circumstances for 

which there are ‘‘reasonable grounds for 

regarding [a noncitizen 1] as a danger to 

the security of the United States’’ or 

‘‘reasonable grounds to believe that [a 

noncitizen] is a danger to the security of 

the United States,’’ making the 

noncitizen ineligible to be granted (1) 

asylum in the United States under 

section 208 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (‘‘INA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), 8 

U.S.C. 1158; (2) withholding of removal 

under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1231(b)(3); and (3) withholding 

of removal under regulations 

implementing U.S. obligations under 

Article 3 of the Convention Against 

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or 

Degrading Treatment or Punishment 

(‘‘CAT’’),2 8 CFR 208.16(c), 1208.16(c). 

See Security Bars and Processing, 85 FR 

84160 (Dec. 23, 2020). 

Although the Security Bars final rule 

was scheduled to take effect January 22, 

2021, intervening events and 

circumstances have prompted the 

Departments to delay its effective date, 

most recently until December 31, 2024. 

See Security Bars and Processing; Delay 

of Effective Date, 86 FR 6847 (Jan. 25, 

2021); Security Bars and Processing; 

Delay of Effective Date, 86 FR 15069 

(Mar. 22, 2021); Security Bars and 

Processing; Delay of Effective Date, 86 

FR 73615 (Dec. 28, 2021); Security Bars 

and Processing; Delay of Effective Date, 

87 FR 79789 (Dec. 28, 2022) (‘‘December 

2022 Delay IFR’’ 3). 

In the December 2022 Delay IFR, the 

Departments explained that they were 

delaying the Security Bars final rule’s 

effective date because its 

implementation would be infeasible due 

to a preliminary injunction 4 against 

another asylum-related rule, Procedures 

for Asylum and Withholding of 

Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable 

Fear Review, 85 FR 80274 (Dec. 11, 

2020) (‘‘Global Asylum final rule’’). 87 

FR 79790–91. Further, the Departments 

determined that, as a result of a 

subsequent, intervening rulemaking, 

Procedures for Credible Fear Screening 

and Consideration of Asylum, 

Withholding of Removal, and CAT 

Protection Claims by Asylum Officers, 

87 FR 18078 (Mar. 29, 2022) (‘‘Asylum 

Processing IFR’’), implementation of the 

Security Bars final rule would result in 

conflicting and confusing regulatory 

text. Id. at 79791–92. Finally, the 

Departments stated that delaying the 

effective date would permit the 

Departments time to engage in noticeand-comment rulemaking regarding 

whether to modify or rescind the 

Security Bars final rule. Id. at 79792–93. 

The Departments requested public 

comment on the second, third, and 

fourth delays and received comments 

addressing both the delay of the 

effective date and a potential proposal 

to modify or rescind the Security Bars 

final rule. In the December 2022 Delay 

IFR, the Departments addressed 

previously received comments related to 

the Security Bars final rule’s delayed 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
105388 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

5 DHS published a final rule on this same topic. 

See Application of Certain Mandatory Bars in Fear 

Screenings, 89 FR 103370 (December 18, 2024). 

effective date. See id. at 79792–93 

(discussing and responding to 

comments related to the delayed 

effective date). 

The Departments received comments 

in response to the December 2022 Delay 

IFR. Relevant to the delayed effective 

date, most commenters urged the 

Departments to rescind the Security 

Bars final rule in its entirety, rather than 

issuing another delay. Specifically, 

commenters stated that repeated delays 

are an inefficient use of time and 

resources and that the Departments have 

had sufficient time to study the Security 

Bars final rule’s legality and impact on 

asylum seekers. Commenters also 

expressed concern that further delay 

without rescission could allow the 

Security Bars final rule to go into effect 

if a future administration’s priorities 

were to shift. Another commenter stated 

that rescission of the rule would not 

cause the Federal Government to incur 

any costs because the rule has never 

been implemented. Some commenters 

suggested that, if the Departments did 

not rescind the Security Bars final rule, 

they should delay the Security Bars 

final rule’s effective date indefinitely or 

for a significant, extended period of 

time and suggested that other legal 

means should be used to manage 

concerns related to infectious diseases. 

In contrast, one comment, while not 

explicitly addressing the December 2022 

Delay IFR, appeared to be generally 

supportive of the Security Bars final 

rule. 

The Departments have considered the 

concerns raised by commenters. With 

respect to commenters’ statements that 

the Departments should have had 

sufficient time to issue a rule during the 

most recent delay period, the 

Departments acknowledge that in the 

December 2022 Delay IFR, the 

Departments stated that they were 

working towards publication of a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) to 

modify or rescind the Security Bars final 

rule. See 87 FR 79792 (‘‘The 

Departments are working to publish a 

separate NPRM in the near future to 

solicit public comments on whether to 

modify or rescind the Security Bars rule. 

. . .’’). At that time, the Departments 

also anticipated that delaying the 

effective date until December 31, 2024, 

would provide ‘‘sufficient time to 

complete notice-and-comment 

rulemaking to modify or rescind the 

Security Bars final rule, even in the 

event that circumstances require 

shifting departmental priorities and 

resources.’’ Id. 

However, superseding regulatory 

priorities prevented completion of this 

anticipated rulemaking prior to 

December 31, 2024. See, e.g., 

Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 

527 (2007) (‘‘[A]n agency has broad 

discretion to choose how best to 

marshal its limited resources and 

personnel to carry out its delegated 

responsibilities.’’). For example, since 

the publication of the December 2022 

Delay IFR, the Departments issued the 

Circumvention of Lawful Pathways and 

Securing the Border rules. See, e.g., 

Securing the Border, 89 FR 81156 (Oct. 

7, 2024); Circumvention of Lawful 

Pathways, 88 FR 31314 (May 16, 2023). 

Accordingly, although the 

Departments have considered the 

comments on the December 2022 Delay 

IFR, the Departments have now 

determined—in light of the 

Departments’ limited resources and 

intervening regulatory priorities as just 

discussed, and for the additional 

reasons described in Section III of this 

preamble—that a 1-year further delay of 

the effective date of the Security Bars 

final rule is appropriate. The 

Departments continue to welcome data, 

views, and information regarding the 

effective date of the Security Bars rule, 

including whether the rule should be 

delayed beyond December 31, 2025. The 

Departments are not seeking comments 

on whether the rule should be modified 

or rescinded or otherwise addressing the 

substance of the Security Bars final rule. 

III. Additional Bases for Delay of 

Effective Date 

Because of the resource constraints 

described in section II of this preamble, 

and for the following additional reasons, 

the Departments are further delaying the 

effective date of the Security Bars final 

rule until December 31, 2025. 

A. The Security Bars Final Rule’s 

Amendments Would Create 

Inconsistency 

Since the December 2020 publication 

of the Security Bars final rule, the 

Departments have further issued 

additional rules involving the credible 

fear screening process and asylum 

eligibility to address important policy 

objectives. See, e.g., Asylum Processing 

IFR, 87 FR 18078; Circumvention of 

Lawful Pathways, 88 FR 31314; 

Application of Certain Mandatory Bars 

in Fear Screenings, 89 FR 41347 (May 

13, 2024) 5 (‘‘Mandatory Bars rule’’); 

Securing the Border, 89 FR 81156. 

These rules have made significant 

changes to the credible fear screening 

process and to asylum eligibility more 

generally. 

Specifically, the Circumvention of 

Lawful Pathways rule, with certain 

exceptions, applies a rebuttable 

presumption of asylum ineligibility to 

noncitizens who arrive at the southwest 

land border and adjacent coastal borders 

within a prescribed period of time. See 

88 FR 31314. Similarly, the Securing the 

Border rule, with an exception for 

exceptionally compelling 

circumstances, applies a limitation on 

asylum eligibility to certain noncitizens 

who arrive irregularly at the United 

States southern border during 

emergency border circumstances. See 89 

FR 81156. Additionally, the Asylum 

Processing IFR allows USCIS asylum 

officers to adjudicate the asylum 

applications of noncitizens subject to 

expedited removal who are found to 

have a credible fear of persecution or 

torture. See 87 FR 18078. And the 

recently published Mandatory Bars rule, 

as finalized, allows asylum officers to 

consider the potential applicability of 

specified mandatory bars to asylum and 

statutory withholding of removal during 

fear screening processes. See 89 FR 

41347 (NPRM). 

These intervening rules and their 

impacts on the credible fear screening 

process necessitated further evaluation 

of their potential interplay with the 

Security Bars final rule. If the Security 

Bars final rule were allowed to go into 

effect, and if a public health situation 

triggered the bars outlined in the rule, 

many noncitizens entering the United 

States would likely be subject to the 

provisions of several of these 

rulemakings. This possibility requires 

further time for the Departments to 

consider the potential operational 

impacts of any procedural 

inconsistencies between the rules (such 

as those discussed below) and assess 

whether allowing the Security Bars final 

rule to go into effect is necessary or 

practicable. 

Procedurally, the Security Bars final 

rule—if it were to take effect—would 

conflict with regulatory changes 

implemented by the intervening 

rulemakings, resulting in conflicting 

and confusing changes to the 

Departments’ regulations. For example, 

in the December 2022 Delay IFR, the 

Departments explained that the 

subsequent publication of the Asylum 

Processing IFR would create conflicting 

and confusing regulatory text if the 

Security Bars final rule were to go into 

effect. See 87 FR 79791–92. Specifically, 

the Asylum Processing IFR amended 

certain regulations related to the 

credible fear screening process to return 

to the regulatory framework in place 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 105389 

6See, e.g., CDC, Addendum to the Technical 

Instructions for Medical Examination of Aliens: 

Communicable Diseases of Public Health 

Significance (May 15, 2024), https://www.cdc.gov/ 

immigrant-refugee-health/hcp/panel-physicians/ 

communicable-diseases-addendum.html; CDC, 

Travelers’ Health: Travel Health Notices (last 

reviewed Nov. 22, 2024), https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/ 

travel/notices. 

7See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 

Fact Sheet: HHS Actions to Support Response to 

Marburg Outbreak in Rwanda (Oct. 7, 2024), 

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2024/10/07/factsheet-hhs-actions-to-support-response-marburgoutbreak-in-rwanda.html. 

before the Global Asylum final rule was 

promulgated and to establish 

procedures for the newly created 

Asylum Merits interview process. Id. at 

79792. Because the Security Bars final 

rule is founded upon the processes set 

forth in the Global Asylum final rule, 

allowing the Security Bars final rule to 

go into effect would add to the Code of 

Federal Regulations language from the 

Global Asylum final rule that the 

Departments have been enjoined from 

implementing and would result in 

conflicting regulatory provisions. 

Similarly, the Circumvention of 

Lawful Pathways rule rescinded a 

separate final rule regarding transit 

through a third country entitled Asylum 

Eligibility and Procedural 

Modifications, 85 FR 82260 (Dec. 17, 

2020) (‘‘TCT Bar final rule’’). This 

rescission required, among other 

changes, removing and reserving 8 CFR 

208.30(e)(5)(iii), 208.13(c)(4), and 

1208.13(c)(4). See 88 FR 31319. If the 

Security Bars final rule were to go into 

effect, its publication of 8 CFR 

208.30(e)(5)(iii)—which included 

provisions implementing the Security 

Bars final rule and the now-enjoined 

Global Asylum final rule—would create 

conflicting and confusing regulatory 

text, as the remainder of the TCT Bar 

final rule was rescinded in the 

Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule. 

Additionally, if the Security Bars final 

rule were to go into effect, its 

publication of cross-references to the 

now nonexistent 8 CFR 208.13(c)(4) and 

1208.13(c)(4) would introduce 

inconsistencies in the regulations and 

create confusion as to the Departments’ 

intended procedures for credible fear 

determinations. 

Likewise, the Security Bars final rule 

would create procedural confusion 

because of its inconsistency with the 

Mandatory Bars rule as finalized. For 

example, under the Mandatory Bars 

rule, as finalized, if a noncitizen can 

establish a credible fear of torture, but 

appears subject to one or more specified 

mandatory bars to asylum or 

withholding of removal, then DHS must 

issue a Notice to Appear to initiate 

removal proceedings before an 

immigration judge or retain jurisdiction 

over the case for further consideration of 

the noncitizen’s claim for deferral of 

removal under the CAT (‘‘CAT 

deferral’’). See 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5)(i) (as 

amended by the Mandatory Bars final 

rule). In contrast, the Security Bars final 

rule would publish § 208.30(e)(5)(iv), 

which contains an additional ‘‘more 

likely than not’’ CAT deferral screening 

standard for these same noncitizens. See 

85 FR 84177–78, 84195. Thus, these 

differing provisions would create 

confusion over the proper procedures 

for these noncitizens, as one rule 

requires placement in removal 

proceedings or further consideration 

before DHS, while the other rule 

requires the noncitizen to first meet a 

higher CAT deferral screening standard. 

The Security Bars final rule would 

also, if it were to take effect, elevate 

consideration of the now nonexistent 

regulatory bar created by the TCT Bar 

final rule above other potential bars that 

may be considered. See 85 FR 84198 

(amending 8 CFR 1208.30 to state in 

paragraph (g)(1)(ii), another paragraph 

removed and reserved by the 

Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule 

that would be reprinted if the Security 

Bars final rule were to go into effect, 

that an immigration judge ‘‘shall first 

review’’ any asylum officer 

determination that a noncitizen is 

ineligible for asylum under the TCT Bar 

final rule). 

Therefore, the Departments are 

delaying the effective date of the 

Security Bars final rule to prevent these 

confusing and inconsistent changes 

from taking effect and to avoid the 

addition to the Code of Federal 

Regulations of any enjoined language 

from the Global Asylum final rule while 

the Departments consider further action 

on the rule. 

B. There Would Be No Direct, 

Immediate Impact on Eligibility for 

Relief or Protection if the Security Bars 

Final Rule Takes Effect on December 31, 

2024 

The Departments have also concluded 

that there would be no direct, 

immediate impact on eligibility for 

asylum or other protection if the 

Security Bars final rule were to go into 

effect on December 31, 2024, because 

there is no existing public health 

situation that would trigger the bars 

outlined in the rule. This lack of any 

immediate impact supports further 

delay of the effective date of the 

Security Bars final rule while the 

Departments consider further action on 

the rule. 

Specifically, the bars outlined in the 

Security Bars final rule could be 

triggered in two ways. The first way is 

‘‘if a communicable disease has 

triggered an ongoing declaration of a 

public health emergency.’’ 85 FR 

84193–94, 84197. No such emergency 

currently exists. 

Second, the bars could be triggered if, 

‘‘regarding a communicable disease of 

public health significance as defined at 

42 CFR 34.2(b), the Secretary [of 

Homeland Security] and the Attorney 

General, in consultation with the 

Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, have jointly . . . 

[d]etermined’’ that the physical 

presence in the United States of 

individuals from affected regions 

‘‘would cause a danger to the public 

health,’’ such that the situation warrants 

designating noncitizens within the 

incubation and contagion period of the 

disease ‘‘a danger to the security of the 

United States.’’ 85 FR 84193–94, 84196– 

97. Although a number of 

‘‘communicable disease[s] of public 

health significance’’ within the meaning 

of 42 CFR 34.2(b) exist in the world 

today, the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (‘‘CDC’’) has not 

determined that current health 

conditions warrant issuance of its most 

severe type of Travel Health Notice for 

any geographic area.6 In the absence of 

such conditions, the Departments do not 

have a current basis for making the 

determinations required to trigger the 

bars outlined in the Security Bars final 

rule—which in effect create an asylum 

bar based on a general geographic 

designation. In addition, the Federal 

Government has measures to address 

potential public health risks, such as 

routing international flights from areas 

with known outbreaks to specific 

airports and conducting public health 

screenings of passengers at those 

airports.7 Hence, because the bars 

would not currently be triggered if the 

Security Bars final rule went into effect, 

the Departments believe that the rule is 

unnecessary in the short term. 

The Departments acknowledge that 

some commenters suggested that an 

indefinite delay or a very long delay 

would be appropriate if the Security 

Bars final rule were not rescinded. But 

the Departments believe that a delay of 

only 1 year is appropriate. The rule has 

already been delayed for a substantial 

period, and the Departments project that 

a 1-year delay will suffice to determine 

what further regulatory steps best 

balance the relevant interests. And, as 

noted above, the Departments welcome 

comments on whether a delay beyond 

December 31, 2025, would be 

appropriate. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
105390 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

A. Administrative Procedure Act 

Under the Administrative Procedure 

Act (‘‘APA’’), agencies must generally 

provide ‘‘notice of proposed rule 

making’’ in the Federal Register and, 

after such notice, ‘‘give interested 

persons an opportunity to participate in 

the rule making through submission of 

written data, views, or arguments.’’ 5 

U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). The Departments 

satisfied this notice requirement 

through the December 2022 Delay IFR, 

which indicated the possibility of a 

future delay of the effective date of the 

Security Bars final rule and requested 

comments on such a potential future 

delay. 87 FR 79793. In the December 

2022 Delay IFR, the Departments 

explicitly stated that they ‘‘continue to 

welcome data, views, and information 

regarding the effective date of the 

Security Bars [final] rule’’ and 

specifically ‘‘solicit[ed] comments on 

whether the effective date should be 

delayed beyond December 31, 2024.’’ Id. 

In addition, the Departments have 

considered the comments received in 

response to the December 2022 Delay 

IFR and have concluded—for the 

reasons explained in Sections II and III 

of this preamble—that, notwithstanding 

certain comments to the contrary, a 1- 

year delay is appropriate. The agencies 

have accordingly satisfied any 

obligation under the APA to consider 

and respond to the comments received. 

See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 575 

U.S. 92, 96 (2015) (‘‘An agency must 

consider and respond to significant 

comments received during the period 

for public comment.’’). 

The Departments have also 

determined that good cause exists to 

forego the APA’s procedures that 

generally require a delay between a final 

rule’s publication and its effective date. 

See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) (providing that 

‘‘[t]he required publication or service of 

a substantive rule shall be made not less 

than 30 days before its effective date 

. . . except as otherwise provided by 

the agency for good cause found and 

published with the rule’’). The purpose 

of this delay is ‘‘to give affected parties 

time to adjust their behavior before the 

final rule takes effect.’’ Riverbend 

Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479, 

1485 (9th Cir. 1992); see also H.R. Rep. 

No. 79–1980, at 25 (1946) (similar). 

Here, however, that purpose would not 

be served by a delay before effectuating 

this IFR, given that this IFR merely 

preserves the status quo by further 

delaying the effective date of the 

Security Bars final rule. Accordingly, 

this IFR does not require any parties to 

change their conduct or take any 

particular steps in advance of the IFR’s 

effective date. See United States v. 

Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 & n.9 

(8th Cir. 1977) (noting that the 

legislative history of the APA indicates 

that the waiting period ‘‘was not 

intended to unduly hamper agencies 

from making a rule effective 

immediately,’’ but intended ‘‘to ‘afford 

persons affected a reasonable time to 

prepare for the effective date of a rule 

. . . or to take any other action which 

the issuance of rules may prompt’ ’’ 

(quoting S. Rep. No. 79–752, at 15 

(1946))). 

B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), and Executive 

Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory 

Review) 

Executive Order 12866 (‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’), as amended by 

Executive Order 14094 (‘‘Modernizing 

Regulatory Review’’), and Executive 

Order 13563 (‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’), directs 

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, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

the Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this rule is 

‘‘significant’’ under Executive Order 

12866 and has reviewed this regulation. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Departments have reviewed this 

rule in accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, Public Law 96–354, 94 

Stat. 1164 (1980), as amended (codified 

at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and have 

determined that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The rule does not regulate ‘‘small 

entit[ies]’’ as that term is defined in 5 

U.S.C. 601(6). Only individuals, rather 

than entities, may seek asylum or 

withholding or deferral of removal, and 

only individual noncitizens are 

otherwise placed in immigration 

proceedings. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year, adjusted for inflation, 

and it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. Therefore, no 

actions were deemed necessary under 

the provisions of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public 

Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 48; see also 2 

U.S.C. 1532(a). 

E. Congressional Review Act 

This rule does not meet the criteria set 

forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, the Departments have 

determined that this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement. 

G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This rule meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. 

H. Family Assessment 

The Departments have assessed this 

rule in accordance with section 654 of 

the Treasury General Appropriations 

Act, 1999, Public Law 105–277, div. A, 

112 Stat. 2681, 2681–528, and have 

determined that, because the Security 

Bars final rule is not in effect, further 

delaying the rule would not affect 

family well-being. Further, even as 

compared to a world in which the 

Security Bars final rule is allowed to go 

into effect on December 31, 2024, the 

Departments believe further delay of the 

rule will not affect family well-being 

because, as described in section III.B of 

this preamble, there are no current 

public health conditions that would 

trigger the bars outlined in the rule. 

I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

This rule does not have Tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175 because it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 248 / Friday, December 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 105391 

1All references to ‘‘country’’ or ‘‘countries’’ in the 

laws authorizing the VWP are read to include 

Taiwan. See Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, Public 

Law 96–8, section 4(b)(1) (codified at 22 U.S.C. 

3303(b)(1)) (providing that ‘‘[w]henever the laws of 

the United States refer or relate to foreign countries, 

nations, states, governments, or similar entities, 

such terms shall include and such laws shall apply 

with respect to Taiwan’’). This is consistent with 

the United States’ one-China policy, under which 

the United States has maintained unofficial 

relations with Taiwan since 1979. 

J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks) 

Executive Order 13045 requires 

agencies to consider the impacts of 

environmental health risks or safety 

risks that may disproportionately affect 

children. The Departments have 

reviewed this rule and have determined 

that this rule is not a covered regulatory 

action under Executive Order 13045. 

The rule is not considered economically 

significant and does not create an 

environmental risk to health or a risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

K. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not promulgate new, or 

revise existing, ‘‘collection[s] of 

information’’ as that term is defined 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat. 163, 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its 

implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 

1320. 

Alejandro N. Mayorkas, 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. 

Dated: December 17, 2024. 

Merrick B. Garland, 

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30774 Filed 12–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P; 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

8 CFR Part 217 

Update to Procedures for Listing 

Designated Countries and Location of 

List 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: This rule updates the DHS 

practice for notifying the public of 

countries designated for participation in 

the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). It 

amends the definition of ‘‘designated 

country’’ by referring to countries that 

the Secretary of Homeland Security 

(Secretary) has designated for VWP 

participation and noting that a list of 

such countries is available on the 

public-facing DHS VWP website. This 

rule does not alter which countries have 

been designated for the VWP or the 

criteria for initial and continued 

designation as a program country. This 

update refers the public to the 

applicable website www.dhs.gov/visawaiver-program and will allow DHS to 

update designations more efficiently 

and expeditiously. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 23, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anjum Agarwala, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security; Office of Strategy, 

Policy, and Plans; VWP Office (202) 

790–5207. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 217 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 

8 U.S.C. 1187, the Secretary, in 

consultation with the Secretary of State, 

may designate certain countries as VWP 

countries if certain requirements are 

met.1 Once a country has met the 

requirements and been designated by 

the Secretary as a program country, 

eligible citizens and nationals of a 

program country may apply for 

admission to the United States at U.S. 

ports of entry as nonimmigrant visitors 

for a period of ninety days or less for 

business or pleasure without first 

obtaining a nonimmigrant visa, 

provided that they are otherwise eligible 

for admission under applicable statutory 

and regulatory requirements. 

II. List of Designated Countries 

As noted above, the Secretary, in 

consultation with the Secretary of State, 

may designate a country for 

participation in the VWP, or suspend or 

terminate such participation, consistent 

with section 217 of the INA. The 

regulations currently define ‘‘designated 

country’’ as a country listed explicitly in 

8 CFR 217.2(a). 

Historically, DHS, and before DHS the 

legacy Immigration and Naturalization 

Service (INS), have maintained a list in 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

of currently designated countries 

participating in the VWP. This practice 

started with the designation of the 

United Kingdom as the first VWP 

country. See 53 FR 24898 (June 30, 

1988). Subsequent designations or 

terminations have been the subject of a 

rule in the Federal Register. Such rules 

update the list of countries in the CFR. 

See, e.g., 73 FR 79597 (Dec. 30, 2008) 

(Malta); 75 FR 15992 (Mar. 31, 2010) 

(Greece); 77 FR 64411 (Oct. 22, 2012) 

(Taiwan); 79 FR 17854 (Mar. 31, 2014) 

(Chile); 84 FR 60318 (Nov. 8, 2019) 

(Poland); 86 FR 54031 (Sept. 30, 2021) 

(Croatia); 88 FR 67065 (Sept. 29, 2023) 

(Israel); and 89 FR 78785 (Sept. 26, 

2024) (Qatar). 

Through this final rule, DHS is 

amending 8 CFR 217.2(a) to remove 

references to specific countries in the 

regulations. Instead, DHS will define 

‘‘designated country’’ as ‘‘any country 

currently designated by the Secretary for 

participation in the Visa Waiver 

Program.’’ The updated definition will 

also point readers to the list of currently 

designated countries on the DHS VWP 

website, https://www.dhs.gov/visawaiver-program. 

With this change, DHS will continue 

to update the list of designated 

countries on the DHS VWP website. In 

addition, DHS will continue its outreach 

to stakeholders and the public, such as 

through press releases, directly 

notifying air carriers, and updating the 

Electronic System for Travel 

Authorization (ESTA) to account for 

future changes to the list of designated 

countries participating in the VWP. 

Following this change, however, DHS 

will no longer pursue the separate 

administrative step of publishing a 

technical amendment in the Federal 

Register for each new designation. This 

change removes an unnecessary 

administrative burden and allows for 

more expedient updates to the list of 

designated countries participating in the 

VWP. It will also reduce any risk of 

confusion by the public or international 

partners due to a time lag between the 

Secretary’s designation and the 

publication of a technical amendment in 

the Federal Register. 

This rule does not change which 

countries are designated to participate 

in the VWP. 

III. Administrative Procedure Act 

Under the Administrative Procedure 

Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)), an agency may 

waive notice and comment 

requirements if it finds, for good cause, 

that the requirements are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest. This rule reflects an 

administrative change that merely 

removes the list of designated countries 

participating in the VWP from the CFR 

and adds a reference to the DHS VWP 

website. This rule does not alter which 

countries have been designated or the 

criteria for initial and continued 

designation as a program country. 

Because the VWP country list is readily 

available online, the update would not 

affect the public’s rights, interests, or 

access to information. Therefore, notice 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES