```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 105386-105391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30774]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 105387]]

    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: Ren[aacute] 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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).
    \2\ See Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 
U.N.T.S. 85, 114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``IFR'' means ``interim final rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 notice-and-comment rulemaking 
regarding whether to modify or rescind the Security Bars final rule. 
Id. at 79792-93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Pangea Legal Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 512 
F. Supp. 3d 966, 977 (N.D. Cal. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 105388]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 105389]]

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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, 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.
    \7\ See, 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/fact-sheet-hhs-actions-to-support-response-marburg-outbreak-in-rwanda.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 105390]]

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.

[[Page 105391]]

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
```