Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 535 

1 Immigration Bond Notifications, 88 FR 53358 

(Aug. 8, 2023). 

(d) Annual review of Supervision fees. 

Fees for Supervision in paragraph (a)(2) 

of this section will be set according to 

the following: 

(1) Supervision tonnage fee. The 

supervision tonnage fee is the sum of 

the prior fiscal year program costs plus 

an operating reserve adjustment divided 

by the average yearly tons of domestic 

U.S. grain shipments inspected or 

weighed, or both, including land carrier 

shipments to Canada and Mexico, 

during the previous 5 fiscal years. If the 

calculated value is zero or a negative 

value, the Service will suspend the 

collection of supervision tonnage fees 

for 1 calendar year. 

(2) Operating reserve adjustment. The 

operating reserve adjustment is the 

supervision program costs for the 

previous fiscal year divided by 2, less 

the end of previous fiscal year operating 

reserve balance. 

(e) Periodic review. The Service will 

periodically review and adjust all Direct 

Service and Supervision fees in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, 

respectively, as necessary to ensure they 

reflect the true cost of providing and 

supervising official service. This process 

will incorporate any fee adjustments 

from paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section. 

(f) Miscellaneous fees for other 

services. For each calendar year, the 

Service will review fees included in this 

section and publish fees in the Federal 

Register and on its public website. 

(1) Registration certificates and 

renewals. The fee for registration 

certificates and renewals will be 

published annually in the Federal 

Register and on the Service’s public 

website, and the Service will calculate 

the fee using the noncontract hourly rate 

published pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section multiplied by 5. If you 

operate a business that buys, handles, 

weighs, or transports grain for sale in 

foreign commerce, or you are in a 

control relationship with respect to a 

business that buys, handles, weighs, or 

transports grain for sale in interstate 

commerce, you must complete an 

application and pay the published fee. 

(2) Designation amendments. The fee 

for amending designations will be 

published annually in the Federal 

Register and on the Service’s public 

website. The Service will calculate the 

fee using the cost of publication plus 1 

hour at the noncontract hourly rate. If 

submitting an application to amend a 

designation, the published fee must be 

paid. 

■ 6. In § 800.72: 

■ a. Lift the stay on paragraph (b); and 

■ b. Revise paragraph (b). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 800.72 Explanation of additional service 

fees for services performed in the United 

States only. 

* * * * * 

(b) In addition to a 2-hour minimum 

charge for service on Saturdays, 

Sundays, and holidays, an additional 

charge will be assessed when the 

revenue from the services in 

§ 800.71(a)(1) does not equal or exceed 

what would have been collected at the 

applicable hourly rate. The additional 

charge will be the difference between 

the actual unit fee revenue and the 

hourly fee revenue. Hours accrued for 

travel and standby time shall apply in 

determining the hours for the minimum 

fee. 

§ 800.73 [Amended] 

■ 7. In § 800.73, in paragraph (d), 

remove the citation ‘‘§§ 800.72(a) and 

800.74’’ and add, in its place, the 

citation ‘‘§ 800.72’’. 

§ 800.74 [Removed] 

■ 8. Remove § 800.74. 

§ 800.156 [Amended] 

■ 9. In § 800.156, in paragraph (d)(5), in 

the last sentence, remove the citation 

‘‘§ 800.74’’ and add, in its place, the 

citation ‘‘§ 800.71’’. 

§ 800.197 [Amended] 

■ 10. In § 800.197, in paragraph (b)(3), 

remove the citation ‘‘§ 800.74’’ and add, 

in its place, the citation ‘‘§ 800.71’’. 

Melissa Bailey, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31140 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

8 CFR Part 103 

[DHS Docket No. ICEB–2021–0015] 

RIN 1653–AA85 

Immigration Bond Notifications 

AGENCY: U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On August 8, 2023, DHS 

issued an interim final rule which 

amended the regulations to authorize 

ICE to serve bond-related notices to 

obligors electronically. The rule allowed 

DHS to electronically serve demand and 

other immigration bond notices for 

delivery, order of supervision, or 

voluntary departure bonds to obligors 

who consent to electronic service. DHS 

is now issuing this final rule that 

introduces no substantive changes from 

the interim final rule. 

DATES: The effective date of this final 

rule is January 6, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Hageman, Deputy Assistant 

Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs 

and Policy, U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, Department of 

Homeland Security, 500 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20536. Telephone 202– 

732–6960 (this is not a toll-free 

number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) published an interim 

final rule (IFR) on August 8, 2023,1 that 

established that DHS may electronically 

serve demand notices, and other bond 

notices for delivery, order of 

supervision, or voluntary departure 

bonds for obligors who consent to 

electronic service. See 8 CFR 103.6(g) 

and (h). This final rule adopts the IFR 

provisions in 8 CFR 103.6(g) and (h) to 

electronically serve bond-related notices 

to obligors who consent to electronic 

service. This final rule also amends 

typographical errors, updates 

terminology for accuracy, and 

restructures regulatory text for clarity 

and consistency in 8 CFR 103.6(g) and 

(h). This final rule introduces no 

substantive changes from the IFR. 

B. Legal Authority 

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), as amended, section 

103(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), charge the 

Secretary of DHS (the Secretary) with 

administration and enforcement of the 

immigration and naturalization laws. 

The Secretary promulgates this final 

rule under the broad authority to 

administer DHS, and the authorities 

provided under the Homeland Security 

Act of 2002, the immigration and 

nationality laws, and other delegated 

authority. 

Over the past twenty years, Congress 

and the Executive Branch have 

promoted the use of electronic 

transactions and electronic records 

when feasible instead of relying solely 

upon in-person or paper transactions. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
536 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

2Office of Management and Budget, Transition to 

Electronic Records (OMB/NARA M–19–21) (June 

28, 2019), https://www.archives.gov/files/recordsmgmt/policy/m-19-21-transition-to-federalrecords.pdf. 

3Robert A. Wittie & Jane K. Winn, Electronic 

Records and Signatures under the Federal E-Sign 

Legislation and the UETA, 56 Bus. Law. 293, 314 

(2000). 

4The provisions of the E–SIGN Act are generally 

inapplicable to federal government agencies. See 15 

U.S.C. 7003(b)(1) (‘‘The provisions of [E–SIGN Act] 

shall not apply to—(1) court orders or notices, or 

official court documents (including briefs, 

pleadings, and other writings) required to be 

executed in connection with court proceedings;’’). 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

concluded that based on the legislative history, 

Congress explicitly excluded governmental 

transactions from coverage under the E–SIGN Act. 

See OMB Guidance on Implementing the Electronic 

Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 

M–00–15, Attachment at p.3., (September 2000), 

available at Memoranda 00–10—OMB Procedures 

and Guidance on Implementing the Government. 

The White House (archives.gov) and ESIGN 

guidance.PDF (archives.gov), updated by OMB M– 

04–04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal 

Agencies (Dec. 16, 2003). Accordingly, although the 

electronic consent complies with E–SIGN 

requirements, such compliance is not required of 

DHS. 

5 DHS Delegation No. 7030.2, Delegation of 

Authority to the Assistant Secretary for U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ¶ 2(T) 

(signed Nov. 13, 2004) (effective Mar. 1, 2003), 

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/policy/7030.2_

DelegationAuthority_03.01.2003.pdf. 

6 DHS Delegation No. 7030.2, supra note 4, ¶ 2(U). 

In this context, ‘‘surety bonds’’ is used in the same 

manner as it is used in 8 CFR 103.6(b)(1) to include 

immigration bonds underwritten by a surety 

company or posted by an entity or individual who 

deposits cash equal to the face amount of the bond 

as security for performance. 

7See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

https://www.ice.gov/mission (last visited Nov. 14, 

2024). 

8The preamble of this Final Rule uses 

‘‘noncitizen’’ as equivalent to the statutory term 

‘‘alien.’’ See Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. 222, 226 n.2 

(2020) (quoting 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)). 

Under the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act (GPEA), Public Law 

105–277, tit. XVII, section 1703, 112 

Stat. 2681, 2681–749 (Oct. 21, 1998), 44 

U.S.C. 3504 note, federal agencies are 

required, when practicable, to provide 

the option of electronic maintenance, 

submission, or disclosure of information 

as a substitute for paper transactions. 

More recently, on June 28, 2019, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA) jointly 

issued a memorandum that encouraged 

agencies to consider cost-effective 

opportunities to transition related 

business processes to an electronic 

environment.2 Offering electronic 

processes in place of paper or in-person 

transactions has the benefits of making 

it ‘‘easier for the public to connect with 

the Federal Government, and apply for 

and receive services, improving 

customer satisfaction. Electronic records 

. . . reduce processing times and 

decrease the probability of lost or 

missing information . . . [and] . . . 

greatly improve agencies’ ability to 

provide public access to Federal 

records, promoting transparency and 

accountability.’’ Executive Office of the 

President, Delivering Government 

Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform 

Plan and Reorganization 

Recommendations, at 100 (June 2018). 

The GPEA establishes the means for the 

use and acceptance of electronic 

signatures (e-signatures). This rule will 

enhance the ability of U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to fully 

implement the GPEA. 

The Electronic Signatures in Global 

and National Commerce Act (E–SIGN 

Act), 15 U.S.C. 7001–7031, effective for 

most purposes on October 1, 2000, 

allows electronic records and signatures 

to be given the same effect as paper and 

ink documents. See 15 U.S.C. 7001(a). 

The E–SIGN Act provides ‘‘legal parity’’ 

for electronic records with paper 

records, when the procedures an agency 

adopts for the creation, maintenance, 

and retention of electronic records 

comply with the Federal Records Act 

and NARA guidelines governing 

digitization of records.3 Except for 

records maintained by government 

agencies (other than contracts to which 

it is a party), the E–SIGN Act does not 

require any person to agree to use or 

accept electronic records. Id. sec. 

7001(b)(2); see also 12 CFR 609.910(a) 

(noting that under the E–SIGN Act, ‘‘Ecommerce is optional; all parties to a 

legally valid transaction must agree to 

the electronic use before it can be 

used’’).4 ICE intends to comply with this 

requirement by obtaining consent from 

immigration bond sureties and obligors 

to send electronic notices. 

The Secretary is charged with the 

administration and enforcement of laws 

relating to the immigration and 

naturalization of noncitizens and ‘‘shall 

. . . prescribe such forms of bond’’ as 

deemed necessary for carrying out the 

authority under the INA. See INA 

103(a)(1), (3), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (3). 

Additionally, where a noncitizen is 

arrested on a warrant and detained 

pending a decision on removal from the 

United States, the Secretary may be 

authorized to ‘‘release [the noncitizen] 

on . . . (A) bond of at least $1,500 with 

security approved by, and containing 

conditions prescribed by [the Secretary 

of Homeland Security].’’ INA 236(a)(2), 

8 U.S.C. 1226(a)(2). Further, the 

Secretary ‘‘at any time may revoke a 

bond’’ authorized under INA 236(a)(2), 

re-arrest the noncitizen, and detain 

them. INA 236(b), 8 U.S.C. 1226(b). 

Under the terms and conditions 

provided in Form I–352, Immigration 

Bond, ‘‘Federal law shall apply to the 

interpretation of the bond.’’ ICE and the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) approve 

several types of immigration bonds such 

as delivery bonds, 8 CFR 236.1(c)(10); 

voluntary departure bonds, 8 CFR 

240.25(b), 8 CFR 1240.26(b)(3)(i), 

(c)(3)(i); and order of supervision bonds, 

8 CFR 241.5(b). 

With respect to cash bonds, the 

Secretary delegated to the ICE Director 

the authority to ‘‘issue and execute 

detainers and warrants of arrest or 

removal, detain aliens, release aliens on 

bond and other appropriate conditions 

as provided by law. . . .’’ 5 With 

respect to surety bonds, the Secretary 

delegated to the ICE Director the 

‘‘[a]uthority to approve surety bonds 

issued pursuant to the immigration 

laws, to determine whether such surety 

bonds have been breached, and to take 

appropriate action to protect the 

interests of the United States with 

respect to such surety bonds.’’ 6

C. Background 

ICE’s mission is to protect America 

through criminal investigations and 

enforcing immigration laws to preserve 

national security and public safety.7 ICE 

secures the nation’s borders by 

enforcing more than 400 federal statutes 

and issuing a wide range of notices, 

decisions, and other documents to 

entities including universities, 

businesses, courts, and noncitizens.8

Generally, Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) regulations authorize 

ICE to serve notices, decisions, and 

other documents in person or through 

the U.S. Postal Service. DHS regulations 

distinguish between ‘‘personal’’ and 

‘‘routine’’ service of notices, decisions, 

and other documents. See 8 CFR 

103.8(a). 

Current regulations define personal 

service as personal delivery; delivery at 

a person’s home or usual residence by 

leaving a copy with a person of suitable 

age and discretion; delivery at an 

attorney’s or corporate office by leaving 

a copy with a person in charge; mailing 

a copy by certified or registered mail, 

return receipt requested, addressed to a 

person at his or her last known address; 

or notifying the party by electronic mail 

and posting the decision to the party’s 

account with U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) if so 

requested by the party. 8 CFR 

103.8(a)(2); cf. 8 CFR 103.8(a)(3) 

(providing additional methods for 

‘‘personal service involving notices of 

intention to fine’’). Personal service of 

initiating notice and of notice of any 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 537 

9An immigration bond secured by a cash deposit 

posted by an individual, law firm, non-profit 

organization, or other entity. 

10 Immigration Bond Statistics maintained by 

ICE’s Bonds Branch, Financial Service CenterBurlington, as of January 17, 2024. 

11Provided that the surety company or cash bond 

obligor satisfies all the requisite steps for ICE to 

accept the bond payment. 

12 Department of Homeland Security, Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (Nov. 2023), https://

www.ice.gov/doclib/forms/i352.pdf. 

13 Immigration Bond Statistics maintained by 

ICE’s Bond Management Unit, Non-Detained 

Management Division, Enforcement and Removal 

Operations, as of January 17, 2024. 

14 Immigration bonds are contracts subject to a 

regulatory scheme with the result that ICE bond 

breach determinations are reviewed by a court 

under the arbitrary and capricious standard of 

review set forth in the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). See United States v. 

Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Ins. Agency, Inc., 728 

F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1087–92 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Safety 

Nat’l Cas. Corp. v. DHS, 711 F. Supp. 2d 697, 701 

& 708–09 (S.D. Tex. 2008), rev’d in part on other 

grounds, AAA Bonding Agency Inc. v. DHS, 447 F. 

App’x 603 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. 

Minnesota Trust Co., 59 F.3d 87, 90 (8th Cir. 1995). 

15However, the list is non-exhaustive in the sense 

that more types of notices could be subject to 

electronic notice in the future. The rule does not 

limit electronic service to these four types of bond 

notices. 

16Form I–340 (rev. Dec. 2023). 

17Form I–323 (rev. Oct. 2020). See 8 CFR 

103.6(e). 

18Form I–391 (rev. Mar. 2023). 

decision is required in any proceeding 

initiated by DHS that has a proposed 

adverse effect on the recipient, except as 

provided in section 239 of the INA. 8 

CFR 103.8(c)(1). If the recipient is 

confined to a penal or mental institution 

or hospital, or if the recipient is a minor 

under the age of 14 or mentally 

incompetent, personal service to 

additional entities or individuals may 

be required. 8 CFR 103.8(c)(1) and (2). 

When personal service is not 

required, the regulations allow routine 

service to be used. See 8 CFR 103.8(d). 

Routine service includes mailing a 

notice by ordinary mail addressed to the 

affected party or the party’s attorney or 

representative at his or her last known 

address or notifying the party by 

electronic mail and posting the decision 

to the party’s USCIS account if so 

requested by the party. 8 CFR 

103.8(a)(1); see also 8 CFR part 292 

(Representation and Appearances); and 

8 CFR part 1292 (Representation and 

Appearances). 

D. Immigration Bonds 

An immigration bond is a formal 

written guarantee by an obligor (an 

individual, entity, or surety company) 

posted as security for the amount noted 

on the face of the immigration bond. 

The bond assures ICE that the obligor 

will perform the obligations for the type 

of bond indicated on Form I–352, 

Immigration Bond. The posting of 

immigration bonds can occur with the 

deposit of cash in the full principal 

amount of the bond, known as ‘‘cash 

bonds,’’ 9 or where a surety company 

and its agent agree to pay the amount of 

the bond if there is a substantial 

violation of the bond’s terms and 

conditions, known as a ‘‘surety bond.’’ 

ICE approved 20,494 immigration bonds 

in 2023,10 of which 15,323 (75 percent) 

were cash bonds and 5,171 (25 percent) 

were surety bonds. If the noncitizen 

performs the conditions set forth in the 

bond, the bond will be cancelled. If the 

noncitizen substantially violates the 

conditions of the bond, the bond will be 

considered breached. See 8 CFR 

103.6(e). 

An immigration bond may be posted 

by a surety company or a cash bond 

obligor.11 Surety bonds are bonds 

underwritten by a surety company 

certified to issue bonds on behalf of the 

federal government. See generally 8 CFR 

103.6(b) (identifying the parties that 

may serve as sureties on immigration 

bonds). Under the terms of the bond 

contract, the surety is the obligor, the 

agent that posts a bond on behalf of a 

surety is a co-obligor, the noncitizen (on 

whose behalf the bond is issued) is the 

principal, and ICE is the beneficiary of 

all bonds it authorizes. An acceptable 

surety is either a company that appears 

on the current Department of the 

Treasury Circular 570 as a company 

holding a certificate of authority to 

underwrite federal bonds pursuant to 31 

U.S.C. 9304–9308 or is an entity or 

individual who deposits the amount of 

the bond with ICE. See 8 CFR 

103.6(b)(1). The surety (obligor) and its 

agent (co-obligor) guarantee the 

performance and fulfillment of the 

noncitizen’s duties as set forth in the 

bond form. See Form I–352, at 1 (rev. 

11/23).12

ICE approves and issues three 

different types of bonds. 

• Delivery Bonds: To release a 

noncitizen from DHS custody while 

removal proceedings are pending. 

• Voluntary Departure Bonds: To 

ensure a noncitizen who is granted 

voluntary departure leaves the United 

States on or before the voluntary 

departure date set by an Immigration 

Judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA). 

• Order of Supervision Bonds: To 

ensure noncitizens released on an order 

of supervision comply with the material 

terms of the supervised release. 

Out of the 20,494 immigration bonds 

that ICE issued in 2023, 91 percent were 

delivery bonds, 9 percent were 

voluntary departure bonds, and fewer 

than 1 percent were order of supervision 

bonds.13

To trigger an obligor’s performance, 

ICE issues a demand notice, Form I–340, 

Notice To Obligor To Deliver Alien. DHS 

regulations authorize ICE to use 

personal service as defined by 8 CFR 

103.8 to deliver demand notices issued 

on delivery bonds so ICE can confirm 

receipt (the date the obligor receives the 

demand notice). ICE confirms receipt of 

demand notices (proof of service) issued 

on delivery bonds to confirm that timely 

notice was provided to an obligor of 

their duty to surrender a noncitizen at 

an ICE office on the designated date. For 

breach notices,14 cancellation notices, 

and notices of bond breach 

reconsideration decisions, DHS 

regulations authorize ICE to use routine 

mail service to the obligor’s last known 

address. 8 CFR 103.8(a)(1). ICE uses 

routine mail service as well to issue 

invoices and demand letters to surety 

companies and their agents, either by 

ordinary mail or a mail method that 

allows ICE to track and confirm 

delivery, or by email (electronically) 

with the co-obligors’ consent. 

If the noncitizen performs the 

conditions set forth in the bond, the 

bond will be cancelled. 8 CFR 103.6(c). 

ICE will send a demand notice to notify 

the obligor to deliver the noncitizen. 8 

CFR 103.6(g). If the noncitizen 

substantially violates the conditions of 

the bond, the bond will be considered 

breached. 8 CFR 103.6(e). 

Depending on the type of bond and 

action in accordance with the bond, ICE 

may issue certain bond notices. The IFR 

and this final rule currently apply to the 

following circumstances 15 when ICE 

may serve a bond notice electronically 

to obligors: 

1. Delivery Demand. Form I–340, 

Notice to Obligor to Deliver Alien, 

instructs the bond obligor to surrender 

the noncitizen to an ICE Office or to an 

immigration court on a designated 

date.16

2. Breach Notice. Form I–323, 

Notice—Immigration Bond Breached, 

informs the obligor that a condition of 

the bond was substantially violated, 

notating the date the bond was 

breached, and apprises the obligor of the 

right to file an administrative appeal of 

the breach determination.17

3. Cancellation Notice. Form I–391, 

Notice—Immigration Bond Cancelled, 

informs the obligor that substantial 

compliance with the conditions of the 

bond was performed and that, for cash 

bonds, the deposit will be refunded.18


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
538 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

19Form 71–042 (rev. Jan. 2013). 

20 Immigration Bond Notification, 88 FR 53358 

(Aug. 08, 2023); 8 CFR 103.6(g)–(h). 

21 In instances where the noncitizen has been 

granted voluntary departure by an IJ or the BIA, a 

noncitizen may not necessarily be in detention and 

may be posting bond to satisfy the requirements for 

the relief. 

4. Bond Breach Reconsideration. 

Form 71–042, Notice of Bond Breach 

Reconsideration Decision, rescinds a 

bond breach issued in error and informs 

the obligor either that the bond has been 

reinstated or cancelled.19 For surety 

bonds that have been breached, ICE 

issues an invoice with information 

about the government’s collection 

processes to satisfy the requirement to 

notify the co-obligors of the demand for 

payment under 31 CFR 901.2. ICE may 

issue a demand letter to the co-obligors 

summarizing the facts supporting the 

breach determination and attaching 

documents that support the 

determination that a debt is owed. 

In April 2023, ICE launched the Cash 

Electronic Bonds Online System 

(CeBONDS), a web-based system that 

provides the public an automated, 

secure online capability to verify bond 

information and post cash immigration 

bonds for detained noncitizens. 

CeBONDS also provides the capability 

for ICE to serve electronic notices to 

cash bond obligors who consent to 

receive bond notices electronically. 

CeBONDS has allowed obligors to 

initiate and process immigration bonds 

online without having to visit an ICE 

office in person, making the process 

more convenient for the public. 

Currently, the electronic service 

capability is being further developed 

and finalized, and the system has not 

electronically served bond notices to 

obligors yet. 

E. Interim Final Rule 

On August 8, 2023, DHS published 

the IFR, which authorized ICE to serve 

bond-related notices electronically to 

obligors who consent to electronic 

delivery of service.20 DHS received 37 

public comments before the close of the 

comment period. Most of the comments 

received do not focus on the limited 

scope of the rule, which only authorizes 

ICE to serve bond related notices 

electronically to consenting recipients. 

Rather, commenters expressed 

opposition to ICE’s CeBONDS, primarily 

in the context of confirming bond 

information and posting payments 

electronically, and voiced concerns 

about the system’s reliability and 

accessibility. DHS considered all public 

comments before issuing this final rule. 

A discussion of the public comments 

and responses follows later in this 

preamble. 

F. Changes From the Interim Final Rule 

The IFR amended regulations to allow 

ICE to serve bond-related notices (such 

as Form I–340, Form I–391, Form 71– 

042, or Form I–323) electronically to 

obligors who consent to electronic 

delivery of service; these notices may 

pertain to delivery, order of supervision, 

or voluntary departure immigration 

bonds, such as bond breach or 

cancellations, and other immigration 

bond related notices. 8 CFR 103.6(g)– 

(h). As discussed in the comment and 

response sections below in this final 

rule, DHS has considered the input 

provided by commenters in response to 

the IFR. The changes from the IFR 

amend typographical errors, update 

terminology for accuracy, and 

restructure regulatory text for clarity 

and consistency in 8 CFR 103.6(g) and 

8 CFR 103.6(h). This final rule 

introduces no substantive changes. 

Technical and Clarifying Changes 

In this final rule, DHS is updating the 

terms ‘‘notice’’ and ‘‘notification,’’ 

‘‘receipt’’ to ‘‘proof of service,’’ and 

‘‘obligor’’ to ‘‘bond obligor.’’ DHS is 

updating ‘‘notification’’ to ‘‘notice,’’ to 

clarify the difference between the two. 

While the IFR used the terms 

‘‘notification’’ and ‘‘notice’’ 

interchangeably, this final rule provides 

clarity and differentiation between the 

terms. ‘‘Notification’’ refers to the email 

that alerts the obligor to log into the 

CeBONDS system to view the bond 

notice. Notifications do not include any 

substantive or personal information. 

‘‘Notice’’ refers to the forms related to 

bonds that are issued and served by ICE 

via CeBONDS. Opening the notice in the 

ICE bond system will constitute proof of 

service. Similarly, ‘‘receipt’’ is updated 

to ‘‘proof of service’’ which better 

describes when an obligor opens a 

notice in CeBONDS. 

II. Discussion of Public Comments on 

the Interim Final Rule 

A. Summary of Public Comments 

DHS received 37 public comments 

from a variety of persons and entities, 

including businesses, nonprofits, 

advocacy organizations, and individual 

members of the public. DHS reviewed 

all the public comments received in 

response to the IFR and addresses those 

comments in this final rule. 

Commenters primarily expressed 

concern about CeBONDS’s technical 

issues, processing times, and potential 

implications on a noncitizen’s liberty. 

DHS addresses these issues in more 

detail below. DHS reiterates that 

receiving bond-related notices 

electronically is entirely voluntary and 

ICE will continue to send notices by 

mail if ICE cannot confirm proof of 

service. 

Several comments are concerned with 

technical issues related to posting bond 

payments electronically and concerns 

on whether the in-person payment 

option would remain available based on 

the promulgation of the IFR. The IFR 

and this final rule authorizes ICE to 

electronically serve immigration bond 

notices after a noncitizen has been 

released from custody following a bond 

payment by the obligor.21 This final rule 

does not change the obligor’s option to 

post bonds in-person, nor the 

requirements of the obligor as listed in 

Form I–352. 

Some commenters requested 

additional time for the public to 

comment. DHS reviewed all the timelyfiled public comments received in 

response to the IFR and addressed 

relevant comments in this final rule, 

grouped by subject. DHS received 

several comments on subjects unrelated 

to electronic bond notices that are 

outside the scope of the IFR. DHS has 

not individually responded to these 

comments but has summarized out of 

scope comments and provided a general 

response. 

B. Comments Expressing Support 

Comment: Commenters expressed 

their appreciation for DHS’s efforts to 

improve the efficiency of the 

immigration bond process by 

modernizing the bond payment system. 

One commenter stated, ‘‘[i]f the system 

in this interim rulemaking helps build 

and promote a fair and efficient 

immigration process through equitable 

and impartial monitoring and 

enforcement it would be beneficial to 

the public.’’ This commenter 

recommended that this rulemaking 

should be considered for approval once 

the agency has reviewed all the public 

comments received. 

Response: DHS appreciates the 

support from the commenters. DHS 

seeks to make it easier for the public to 

connect with ICE and improve customer 

satisfaction. Authorizing ICE to serve 

notices electronically to consenting 

obligors may reduce processing times 

and decrease the probability of lost or 

missing information. Specifically, 

serving electronic immigration bond 

notices will likely increase efficiency 

and reduce the cost of mail delivery by 

providing electronic transmission of 

bond notices. DHS appreciates these 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 539 

22See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)–(c); see also, e.g., Pickus v. 

U.S. Bd. of Parole, 507 F.2d 1107, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 

1974) (inapplicability of notice-and-comment 

requirement to agency actions ‘‘ ‘relating to practice 

or procedure’ means technical regulation of the 

form of agency action and proceedings . . . [and] 

should not be deemed to include any action which 

goes beyond formality and substantially affects the 

rights of those over whom the agency exercises 

authority’’). 

23 Dep’t of Educ. v. Brown, 600 U.S. 551, 557–58 

(2023). 

24U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Post a Bond, https://www.ice.gov/detain/detentionmanagement/bonds (last visited Sept. 6, 2023). 

commenters’ support for the IFR and 

did not make any changes in this final 

rule based on the comments. 

C. Comments Expressing Opposition 

Comment: The majority of 

commenters expressed general 

opposition to the rule, including some 

comments that were outside the scope 

of this rule. Some commenters stated 

that the CeBONDS system is 

inaccessible, dysfunctional, and 

inconsistently implemented across ICE 

facilities. Other commenters stated the 

rule imposes various hurdles to using 

CeBONDS and that the lack of 

accessibility and transparency of 

CeBONDS hinders the effectiveness of 

the system. Commenters stated that 

CeBONDS needs to be user friendly, 

accessible, simple, and transparent. 

Commenters suggested DHS narrow the 

issue of notifications until CeBONDS 

accessibility and dysfunctional issues 

are addressed or defer the rule, so the 

system does not further perpetuate these 

challenges. 

Response: The IFR did not implement 

CeBONDS. Rather, the rule allows ICE 

to serve bond notices (demand notices, 

bond breach, bond cancellation, and 

other bond notices) electronically to 

obligors who consent to receive 

electronic service, which is currently 

one of many functions of CeBONDS. 

Electronic service may reduce burdens, 

cost, and increase convenience to the 

public. Electronic notices provide 

expedited delivery and improve 

recordkeeping by tracking when 

notifications are sent and read. ICE will 

continue to make improvements to 

CeBONDS to decrease any technical 

issues experienced by users. 

D. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

Comment: Commenters stated ICE 

failed to provide timely and consistent 

information on its intent to fully 

transition to CeBONDS prior to 

implementing the rule.22 Commenters 

pointed out that the IFR stated ‘‘ICE 

ERO is currently developing 

CeBONDS.’’ See 88 FR at 53360. One 

commenter stated that ICE did not 

provide the public with sufficient notice 

and an opportunity to comment by 

setting the same date for the rule’s 

effective date and the deadline for 

public comment. The commenter 

continued by stating this does not align 

with the APA which ‘‘typically requires 

agencies to give the public [g]eneral 

notice of [a] proposed rulemaking by 

publication in the Federal Register, and 

then to provide interested persons an 

opportunity to participate in the rule 

making through submission of written 

data, views, or arguments regarding the 

proposed rule.’’ 23 Numerous 

commenters requested DHS provide 

more time for the public to review and 

comment on the rule and its objectives, 

and then convene a public hearing. 

Response: The IFR and this final rule 

did not implement CeBONDS. This rule 

only authorizes an additional optional 

procedure for ICE to serve bond related 

notices (demand notices, bond breach, 

bond cancellation, and other bond 

notices) to obligors who consent to 

receive those notices electronically. See 

8 CFR 103.6(g)–(h). Neither DHS nor ICE 

are removing or limiting any of the 

current methods of service found in 8 

CFR 103.8(a)(1) or (2). For these reasons, 

DHS believes that these changes are 

procedural in nature, improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of agency 

operations, and do not alter substantive 

rights. Therefore, because the IFR and 

this final rule are procedural, notice and 

opportunity for public comment are not 

required by the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A). DHS nevertheless invited the 

public to comment on the IFR and 

considered all timely-filed comments 

submitted during the 30-day public 

comment period. 

DHS believes the 30-day comment 

period was sufficient to allow for 

meaningful public input as evidenced 

by the 37 timely-filed public comments 

received. The IFR stated that 

‘‘[c]omments providing the most 

assistance to DHS will reference a 

specific portion of the IFR, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include the data, information, or 

authority that supports the 

recommended change.’’ Commenters 

generally did not explain in their 

submissions what additional issues they 

would raise during a longer comment 

period or what issues would be 

deliberated during a public hearing after 

a longer comment period, but the 

number of comments—as well as their 

breadth—reflects an adequate 

consideration of issues during the 

comment period. Additionally, 

commenters primarily focused on the 

CeBONDS system, its capability and 

functionality, rather than the actual 

regulatory amendments on electronic 

service. In short, there is no indication 

that the comment period was 

insufficient. 

Notably, the APA does not require a 

specific comment period length, see 5 

U.S.C. 553(b), (c), and although 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

recommend a comment period of at 

least 60 days, a 60-day period is not 

required. DHS is not aware of any case 

law holding that a 30-day comment 

period is categorically insufficient. 

Indeed, some courts have found 30 days 

to be a reasonable comment period 

length. For example, the D.C. Circuit has 

stated that, although a 30-day period is 

often the ‘‘shortest’’ period that will 

satisfy the APA, such a period is 

generally ‘‘sufficient for interested 

persons to meaningfully review a 

proposed rule and provide informed 

comment,’’ even when ‘‘substantial rule 

changes are proposed.’’ Nat’l Lifeline 

Ass’n v. FCC, 921 F.3d 1102, 1117 (D.C. 

Cir. 2019) (citing Petry v. Block, 737 

F.2d 1193, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). Here, 

because the IFR did not require a public 

comment period under the APA and 

expanded service options for obligors, 

DHS believes the 30-day comment 

period was sufficient for interested 

persons to meaningfully review the rule 

and provide informed comment. 

E. Privacy 

Comment: Some commenters stated 

their preference to pay bonds in person 

and receive bond notices via mail 

because they are concerned about the 

security of their personal information. 

One commenter stated ICE has not 

published a Privacy Impact Assessment 

(PIA) to address how obligors’ 

information entered into CeBONDS will 

be protected. The commenter 

highlighted ICE website’s claim that it 

had ‘‘initiate[d] the Bonds Management 

Program PIA in January 2023.’’ 24

However, the commenter was unable to 

locate the PIA information and assumes 

that ICE has not conducted a standalone PIA for CeBONDS. Further, the 

commenter stated that the documents 

ICE claims to have updated regarding 

privacy risks fail to indicate such 

updates. The commenter asserts the 

public has not been informed about the 

privacy impact of ICE’s collection of 

information from obligors and ICE’s 

statements about the updates are 

misleading. 

Response: Commenters’ comments are 

focused on the obligor’s personal 

information entered in CeBONDS rather 

than the purpose of the rule, which 

allows ICE to serve bond-related notices 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
540 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

25U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Privacy Impact Assessment Update for the Bond 

Management Information System (Jan. 19, 2011), 

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/ 

publications/ice-pia-005-v2-bmis-web-2011.pdf. 

26U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Privacy Impact Assessment Update for the Bonds 

Online System (eBONDS) Phase Two (Jan. 24, 

2013), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/ 

publications/ice-pia-008-a-ebonds-2013.pdf. 

27U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Post a Bond, What steps has ICE taken to ensure 

CeBONDS provides data privacy and security as 

part of its processes? (last updated Sept. 17, 2024), 

https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management/ 

bonds. 

to obligors who consent to receive those 

notices electronically. See 8 CFR 

103.6(g)–(h). 

Prior to the deployment of CeBONDS 

in 2023, the Bond Management 

Information System/Web Version (BMIS 

Web) 25 and Bonds Online System 

(eBONDS) PIA were updated to assess 

the privacy risks associated with 

CeBONDS and to document ICE’s 

privacy protections for the collection 

and maintenance of information on 

noncitizens and obligors involved in the 

processing and posting of immigration 

bonds.26 Separately, due to the 

expansion of online bond posting 

capabilities, ICE initiated the Bonds 

Management Program PIA in January 

2023 and will provide the PIA to the 

public once it is available.27

F. Consent to Electronic Service 

Comment: Commenters stated their 

confusion regarding the option to opt-in 

to receive electronic bond notifications. 

Commenters stated the IFR implies 

obligors may choose to consent to 

receive notifications, which contrasts 

with obligors’ requirement to consent to 

receive notifications as a prerequisite to 

use CeBONDS. One commenter stated 

that state laws, rules, and regulations 

can differ on how individuals ‘‘opt in or 

out’’ of receiving electronic mail. 

Commenters urged ICE to clearly convey 

to the public, obligors, and noncitizens 

the methods ICE will use to provide 

notifications about noncitizens 

conditions of release and what will 

constitute consent to electronic service. 

Response: This rule authorizes ICE to 

serve bond related notices to obligors 

who consent to receive those notices 

electronically. See 8 CFR 103.6(g)–(h). 

ICE will not utilize the electronic 

system to serve notices to obligors who 

have not consented to receiving 

electronic notices. As updates are made 

to the CeBONDS system, ICE will 

provide further guidance to users. ICE 

will add specific information that 

obligors may opt in to communicate 

electronically and consent to electronic 

delivery of bond notices and any other 

bond-related notices via CeBONDS and 

by electronic mail. Consent will mean 

that the obligor agrees to check their 

CeBONDS account, alerts, messages, 

and associated email to stay apprised of 

the important notices and information. 

In instances where the obligor fails to 

open a notice electronically after 

receiving the notification and the 

system cannot confirm electronic proof 

of service, the CeBONDS system will 

generate a new notice that will be sent 

via mail as required by the regulations. 

If the obligor’s address (mailing or 

email) changes after posting a bond, the 

obligor must promptly update contact 

information in CeBONDS or submit 

Form I–333, Obligor Change of Address, 

to ICE with the obligor’s new address. 

As noted in the IFR and in this final 

rule, an obligor must agree to receive 

bond related notices electronically. See 

8 CFR 103.6(g)–(h). The option to ‘‘opt 

in’’ to receive immigration bond related 

notices does not vary from state to state. 

Federal regulations, specifically in this 

rule, are not subject to state ‘‘opt in’’ 

laws or rules. 

If the obligor does not wish to post a 

bond or receive bond notices 

electronically, the obligor may still post 

the bond in-person at an ICE office and 

receive the notice by mail. In these 

instances, contact the nearest ICE office 

for guidance. 

General service of electronic 

notifications or notices to the noncitizen 

is outside the scope of this rule as this 

rule specifically pertains to electronic 

service of bond notices to the obligors. 

G. Proof of Electronic Service 

Comment: Commenters stated the 

action of logging into CeBONDS should 

not constitute proof of receipt of the 

notification and that clicking a link or 

opening a document through CeBONDS 

does not guarantee that the individual 

accessing the notice understands its 

contents. Commenters explained 

CeBONDS can and does fail, logging 

obligors out at random—regardless of 

whether the obligor has seen the notice. 

Additionally, commenters stated the 

mechanism to validate receipt of service 

is insufficient. One example raised by a 

commenter outlined that, if an obligor 

used their work email address to log 

into CeBONDS and later departs from 

that place of employment, there is no 

way to validate receipt of the bond 

notice. Commenters expressed concern 

and questioned how ICE will track 

unopened electronic notifications in 

CeBONDS and verify users’ email 

addresses. 

Commenters requested ICE inform the 

public about how it intends to track 

notifications and provide the public a 

meaningful chance to voice its 

preferences, to ensure related 

accountability from ICE. Commenters 

stated the IFR does not specify a 

timeline when ICE will reissue a bond 

notification via mail to the CeBONDS 

users who do not open the notification. 

Furthermore, the IFR does not state if 

ICE will take action pending someone’s 

receipt of paper-based notifications. One 

commenter stated that DHS and ICE 

should provide clear procedures that 

ensure notifications to CeBONDS users 

and confirm receipt of notification prior 

to engaging in adverse actions towards 

the obligor and noncitizen. Another 

commenter suggested adding a 

checkbox to the confirmation message. 

A commenter stated CeBONDS 

financially impacts obligors, as these 

events can determine whether ICE will 

return funds paid as bonds. If an obligor 

fails to receive timely notification of a 

breach, their opportunity to appeal the 

bond breach determination is limited, 

which may lead to the forfeiting of the 

bond amount. 

Response: The ability to confirm 

delivery of electronic notices is essential 

to this rule which authorizes ICE to 

serve electronic notices. Importantly, an 

obligor merely logging into the 

CeBONDS account in and of itself does 

not constitute proof of electronic 

service. While some commenters voiced 

concerns about the technical issues, 

such as the system logging obligors out 

at random, the obligors can log back in 

to review these notices again at any 

time, as they will continue to be 

available in their CeBONDS accounts. 

As described further below, CeBONDS 

captures detailed information regarding 

the actions executed through the system 

and the electronic process to satisfy the 

requirements for electronic service. 

Electronic notices (Form I–340, Form I– 

391, Form 71–042, or Form I–323) are 

sent to the obligor’s CeBONDS account. 

When the notices are sent to the 

obligor’s CeBONDS account, a separate 

email notification is generated and sent 

to the obligor’s email address on file to 

notify the obligor to log into their 

CeBONDS account. ICE captures a 

timestamp of these actions in the 

CeBONDS system—logging specifically 

the month, day, year, hour, minute, and 

ante or post-meridiem when the notices 

are sent to the obligor’s CeBONDS 

account—e.g., ‘‘Form I–340 Sent to 

Obligor.’’ When the obligor opens the 

notice in CeBONDS, the system will 

track the action that the obligor has 

opened the notice—‘‘Form I–340 

Viewed by Obligor’’—and log the 

timestamp. This event constitutes the 

point in time when the obligor received 

service of the notice. At each step of this 

process, CeBONDS tracks the actions 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 541 

28Stanford Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic 

et al., Following the Money: New Information about 

the Federal Government’s Billion Dollar 

Immigration Detention and Bond Operations (May 

9, 2019), https://law.stanford.edu/publications/ 

following-the-money-new-information-about-thefederal-governments-billion-dollar-immigrationdetention-and-bond-operations/. 

taken in the system by all users, 

including the actions of the obligor. 

If the obligor does not open the 

notice, a new notice will be sent via 

mail to the last known address. See 8 

CFR 103.6(g) and (h) (specifying the 

backup method of service as certified 

mail for demand notices and ordinary 

mail for breach, bond cancellation, and 

other bond notices). During this time, 

when the notice is sent electronically 

and then via mail, generally, there is no 

impact to the noncitizen, as ICE will not 

take any custody action until service is 

completed and there is proof of service. 

Generally, ICE will confirm proof of 

service electronically or via certified 

mail for demand notices prior to taking 

any actions against the noncitizen. If the 

obligor’s address (mailing or email) 

changes after posting a bond, the obligor 

must promptly update their address 

information in CeBONDS or submit 

Form I–333, Obligor Change of Address, 

to ICE with the obligor’s new address. 

If the obligor does not update their 

address and contact information, ICE 

will use the last updated address to 

serve the notice via mail. 

To the extent that the commenters 

express concerns that the information 

about this timeline was not set forth in 

detail in the IFR, ICE did not provide a 

specific timeline for when it will reissue 

a bond notice via mail because ICE is 

continuously improving the system and 

implementing updates to better serve 

the public needs and improve 

communication. Therefore, as ICE seeks 

to implement various updates, this may 

impact the timeframe when a notice is 

mailed to the obligor. As technology 

improves, or related updates are made 

to CeBONDS, the information on the ICE 

website will also be updated for 

stakeholders’ awareness. ICE notes, 

however, that the IFR specified that if 

ICE could not confirm proof of service 

of electronic notice, ICE would reissue 

the notices by an appropriate mailing 

method. 8 CFR 103.6(g)–(h). 

Additionally, as stated throughout this 

rule, if an obligor receives a notice 

electronically or by mail, and does not 

understand the content of the notice, the 

obligor can contact the nearest ICE 

office for guidance irrespective of how 

the notice was served. 

There is no data to suggest that 

CeBONDS will result in an increase in 

bond breaches. DHS believes the use of 

electronic notices may improve 

notification delivery time because these 

specific bond notices cannot be lost 

through physical mail, and obligors will 

receive a notification immediately via 

electronic means. Furthermore, obligors 

have the option to print or view the 

notice in CeBONDS at any time. This 

may reduce the possibility that an 

obligor will not be able to appeal a bond 

breach determination in time, because 

there is less likelihood of potential 

delays or errors associated with 

electronic mail service which would 

otherwise lead to the forfeiting of the 

bond amount. 

H. Governmental Actions and 

Interference With Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights 

Comment: Commenters raised 

concerns that the rule implicates 

governmental takings of private 

property. A commenter indicated that 

the inefficiencies and delays caused by 

CeBONDS during the electronic 

payment process impacted property 

interests of the detained noncitizens and 

the obligors’ bond funds. Another 

commenter stated that CeBONDS users’ 

inability to access information through 

the system could result in governmental 

takings of bond payments. As such, the 

commenter disagreed with DHS’ 

determination that the rule did not 

cause a taking of private property or 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionality Protected Property 

Rights. Specifically, a commenter 

pointed that CeBONDS financially 

impacts obligors, as the bond notices 

served electronically are associated with 

events that can determine whether ICE 

will return the paid bond funds. If 

obligors fail to receive timely bond 

notices, their appeal rights may be 

affected for breach notices, which could 

lead to the forfeiting of paid bonds. It 

could also lead to obligors not 

requesting a refund of the paid bond 

amounts. The commenter stated that 

‘‘the potential increases in the Breached 

Bond Discretionary Fund (BBDF) are 

linked directly to the prospect of 

expanding immigration detention bed 

space, a system with a record of abuses 

and medical neglect.’’ Furthermore, the 

commenter referenced a report 

indicating that ICE held more than $200 

million in unclaimed bond funds in 

2018.28

Response: DHS does not agree with 

commenters’ concerns that this rule 

would lead to the taking of private 

property or have taking implications 

under Executive Order 12630. This rule 

narrowly provides a regulatory 

framework that allows ICE to serve 

certain bond notices electronically for 

obligors who consent to electronic 

service. See 8 CFR 103.6(g)–(h). To 

confirm proof of service of an electronic 

bond notice, the system captures the 

exact date and time that the notices 

were opened. Notably, the rule provides 

safeguards in instances where electronic 

service is not confirmed. ICE must 

effectuate service via mail, which would 

be the equivalent method of service for 

an obligor who opts out of electronic 

service. Thus, an obligor who consented 

to electronic service would be in the 

same procedural posture as an obligor 

who opts to receive service by mail, as 

they would have the same due process 

rights and appellate opportunities. 

Accordingly, the rule itself would not 

lead to any changes in the course of 

action that would normally follow after 

the bond notices have been served by 

mail. In this aspect, the rule would have 

no impact on property rights nor 

implications of any governmental 

takings. 

There is no data to suggest that 

CeBONDS will result in an increase in 

bond breaches. DHS believes the use of 

electronic service may improve delivery 

time because these specific bond notices 

cannot be lost through physical mail, 

and obligors will receive a notification 

immediately via electronic means. This 

benefit is expected to reduce the 

likelihood that an obligor will be unable 

to appeal a bond breach determination 

in time, which would otherwise lead to 

the forfeiting of the bond amount. 

DHS appreciates the concerns raised 

by the commenters. The IFR and this 

final rule do not impact an individuals’ 

ability to receive notices traditionally 

through the U.S. Postal Service, but 

rather authorizes ICE to issue bondrelated notices to obligors electronically 

should obligors consent to receive them. 

That said, DHS believes that authorizing 

this electronic system will improve 

delivery time, thereby reducing the 

likelihood that an obligor will be unable 

to appeal a bond breach determination, 

which may lead to the forfeiting of the 

bond amount. 

I. Cost Analysis 

Comment: A commenter indicated 

that ICE’s cost-analysis for this rule is 

deficient because the cost-analysis fails 

to address at least two critical issues. 

See 88 FR at 53 366–69. First, the costanalysis is silent about any investment 

by ICE to ensure that the proposed 

framework for notifications to 

CeBONDS users will comply with the 

requirements of the Rehabilitation Act 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
542 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

29Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. 

30See ICE Directive 8014.1, Section 508 

Accessibility (Mar. 3, 2023), https://www.ice.gov/ 

doclib/foia/policy/8014.1_Section508_

Accessibility.pdf. 

31Commenter cited to Actions—H.R.4328—105th 

Congress (1997–1998): Omnibus Consolidated and 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 

1999, H.R.4328, 105th Cong. (1998), https://

www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/ 

4328/actions. 

of 1973.29 Second, the cost-analysis 

does not include any costs that the 

notification-scheme may pose to 

CeBONDS users. The commenter urges 

ICE to clarify to the public whether 

CeBONDS users may be subject to any 

such costs. A commenter stated 

CeBONDS financially impacts obligors, 

as these events can determine whether 

ICE will return funds paid as bonds. If 

an obligor fails to receive timely 

notification of a breach, their 

opportunity to appeal the bond breach 

determination is limited, which may 

lead to the forfeiting of the bond 

amount. 

One commenter stated that ICE 

facilities require travel tickets for 

detained noncitizens before being 

released but if the noncitizen is not 

released on the scheduled day, the 

obligors would incur additional travel 

costs with having to travel to the ICE 

facility again and prolong the 

noncitizen’s detention. 

Response: Regarding the first point, 

section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 requires that when Federal 

departments and agencies develop, 

procure, maintain, or use electronic and 

information technology, they ensure 

that the electronic and information 

technology is accessible to individuals 

with disabilities who are Federal 

employees, applicants for employment, 

or members of the public. ICE ensures 

policies meet 508 compliances. ICE 

accessibility policies and procedures 

ensure all employees, contractors, and 

members of the public, regardless of any 

disability, have access to, and use of, all 

ICE Information and Communication 

Technology. CeBONDS, which utilizes 

electronic bond notifications outlined in 

this final rule, was tested by DHS for 

section 508 compliance on July 17, 

2023, and found to be compliant.30

To the extent that the commenter 

references travel costs associated with 

the noncitizen’s release, this comment 

pertains to the costs associated with 

posting a bond. It does not pertain to 

costs related to implementing this rule 

for electronic service of bond notices, 

which are applicable at later stages after 

the noncitizen has already been released 

on bond. 

The IFR authorized ICE to serve bondrelated notices electronically to obligors 

who consent to receiving those notices 

electronically. DHS only accounted for 

the impacts to create an online account 

and noted that there can be additional 

technology-related costs for obligors 

without access to the internet. Obligors 

who consent to electronic service of 

notices will receive those notices 

without charge. 

Finally, DHS believes that authorizing 

electronic service will improve the 

timely delivery of notices, thereby 

reducing the likelihood that an obligor 

will be unable to appeal a bond breach 

determination, which may lead to the 

forfeiting of the bond amount. 

J. Family Impact 

Comment: Commenters stated DHS 

failed to examine the rule’s implications 

on the mental, financial, and well-being 

of families. Specifically, a commenter 

stated DHS did not appraise the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, in which agencies 

assess the impact of proposed agency 

actions on the well-being of a family.31

The commenter stated that ICE must 

provide notifications to CeBONDS users 

that contain critical information about 

the posting or status of an immigration 

bond. By its very nature, such 

information, and its present 

inaccessibility to many CeBONDS users, 

stand to have significant impacts on any 

family within the United States with a 

relative who is subject to an 

immigration bond. One commenter 

stated that ICE should explain why it 

believes this rule would not impact the 

well-being of a family. 

Response: DHS concluded that the 

rule does not have an impact on familybeing within the meaning of section 654 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 

1999. However, the comments do not 

focus on the rule which allows ICE the 

ability to serve electronic bond notices 

to obligors who opt-in to receive those 

notifications. The rule allows obligors to 

consent to electronic service, at their 

discretion, and provides a backup 

procedure of service by mail. See 8 CFR 

103.6(g)–(h). 

For obligors who consent to electronic 

notifications, they will receive an alert 

to log into their CeBONDS account. No 

personal information is included in the 

notification, but it simply alerts the 

obligor to log into CeBONDS. Electronic 

notices are served to only obligors who 

consent to receive those notifications. 

As discussed in Section II., G. Proof of 

Service, CeBONDS incorporates a 

timestamp when an obligor views the 

notice in the system. Viewing of the 

notice by the obligor constitutes service 

of the notice. At each step of this 

process, CeBONDS tracks all user 

actions taken in the system, including 

the actions of the obligor. 

If the obligor does not open the 

notice, then DHS cannot confirm proof 

of service of the notice. Therefore, a new 

notice will be sent via mail to the last 

known address. See 8 CFR 103.6(g)–(h). 

During this time, when the notice is 

served electronically and then via mail, 

DHS does not anticipate that there will 

be any impact to the noncitizen. 

Given the narrow regulatory 

framework for this rule and the 

safeguards in place, DHS does not 

believe that the rule pertaining to an 

alternate method of service would create 

any adverse impact on families. There is 

no data indicating that there is a 

correlation between adding another 

method of service and any negative 

effects to families. DHS is making no 

changes to its assessment of the impact 

of the regulation on families in this final 

rule. 

K. Inequality and Inaccessibility 

1. General 

Comment: Commenters raised 

concerns that CeBONDS 

disproportionately impacts vulnerable 

populations including those with 

limited English proficiency, mental 

impairments or competency issues, 

limited technological literacy, physical 

disabilities, health problems or need of 

medical attention, people of color, 

indigenous groups, low-income and 

-resources, and limited access to 

computers and internet, financial 

establishments, and others. Commenters 

explained that using CeBONDS 

specifically burdens the populations 

who have limited English proficiency, 

lack the access to computers with 

internet, or lack online bank accounts. 

The commenters state that these 

burdens perpetuate inequalities toward 

those with low-incomes and increase 

racial disparities and injustices because 

most detained noncitizens are lowincome and people of color. The 

commenters expressed that lack of 

income and knowledge of the CeBONDS 

system will impede noncitizens from 

receiving official immigration bond 

documents. Commenters suggested ICE 

preserve the option of posting 

immigration bonds in person to 

facilitate payment accessibility for 

everyone, irrespective of race or income 

level. 

Response: DHS recognizes there may 

be difficulties faced by vulnerable 

populations navigating the immigration 

process due to various factors. This rule 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 543 

32U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Language Access Information and Resources (last 

updated May 7, 2024), https://www.ice.gov/detain/ 

language-access. 

33U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Site Policies (last updated Aug. 6, 2024), https://

www.ice.gov/site-policies#accessibility. 

34U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Post a Bond, Frequently Asked Questions, How to 

Pay a Bond?, https://www.ice.gov/detain/detentionmanagement/bonds (last visited Aug. 25, 2023). 

35U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Pagar una fianza ICE (last updated Sept. 17, 2024), 

https://www.ice.gov/es/fianzas. 

36 Is CeBONDS accessible to people with limited 

English proficiency?, supra note 36. 

37U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Language Access Plan (June 14, 2015), https://

www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ 

ICE%20Language%20Access%20Plan.pdf. 

38 Id. 

39U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Language Access at the Department of Homeland 

Security (last updated Feb. 28, 2024), https://

www.dhs.gov/language-access. 

40Language Access Plan, supra note 39. 

41To the extent that the commenter believes that 

DHS may be violating its obligations to provide 

equal access to speakers of other languages, DHS 

notes that Executive Order 13166, Improving Access 

to Services for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency, 65 FR 50121 (Aug. 11, 2000), ‘‘does not 

create any right or benefit, substantive or 

procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party 

against the United States, its agencies, its officers 

or employees, or any person.’’ Id. at 50121–22. The 

commenter has not provided any specific citations 

to show that CeBONDS violates any Federal law. 

authorizes ICE to serve bond-related 

notices electronically to obligors who 

consent to electronic delivery of service 

and is not dependent on how CeBONDS 

operates for posting bonds. The IFR and 

this final rule provide a regulatory 

framework for obligors who consent to 

electronic service, at their discretion, 

and provide a backup procedure of 

service by mail. See 8 CFR 103.6(g)–(h). 

The option to receive electronic service 

is offered to all obligors and does not 

change the existing process of in-person 

bond payment and service of bond 

notices. The scope of this rule is limited 

to electronic service of bond notices. 

While the rule does not implement 

CeBONDS, ICE will utilize this 

immigration bond delivery system to 

effectuate service to those obligors who 

consent to electronic service. 

DHS designed CeBONDS to alleviate 

various burdens on the public such as 

posting bonds at an ICE facility, provide 

bond information in real time, increase 

record keeping and tracking, and 

expediate delivery of immigration bond 

notices. CeBONDS serves as an 

additional alternative method for 

conducting transactions electronically 

to better serve the needs of obligors who 

face accessibility barriers and resource 

constraints and does not replace the 

current existing process for posting 

bonds and receiving notices. 

The Coronavirus disease (COVID–19) 

pandemic prompted a shift in certain 

ICE business processes and highlighted 

the need to develop online capabilities 

to mitigate the risks associated with 

person-to-person contact, especially for 

those with vulnerable health risks. 

CeBONDS provides the public with the 

online capability to make requests for 

bond information, update contact 

information, upload necessary 

documents to verify eligibility to post 

the bond, post cash immigration bonds 

electronically for eligible detained 

noncitizens, and receive bond notices 

electronically. 

Obligors who are concerned with 

accessibility or other factors continue to 

have the option to post bonds in-person 

and receive notices by mail. As 

elaborated in the sections below, DHS 

includes additional options and 

alternatives for those with limited 

means and accessibility. Any obligor 

who has a question about posting a 

bond in person can contact the nearest 

ICE office for guidance. ICE will 

continue to work with obligors who 

want to pay bonds at an ICE office and 

provide obligors assistance in-person. 

ICE offices have access to an ICE-wide 

24/7 language services contract for 

interpretation (oral), translation 

(written), and transcription (audio to 

text).32

Moreover, DHS has Department-wide 

policy directives to ensure 

nondiscrimination for individuals with 

disabilities served by DHS-conducted 

programs and activities. Consistent with 

the requirements of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 and Department of 

Homeland Security Directives, 

CeBONDS was designed to be section 

508 compliant. If the format of any 

material on its website or system 

interferes with an individual’s ability to 

access the information due to an issue 

with accessibility caused by a disability 

as defined in the Rehabilitation Act, the 

user can contact the ICE Section 508 

Coordinator for assistance.33

2. Language Barrier 

Comment: Commenters stated that 

noncitizens and obligors have difficulty 

navigating CeBONDS due to language 

barriers. Commenters stated the ICE 

landing page 34 is only accessible in 

English and Spanish and therefore 

deters payment from those with limited 

English or Spanish proficiency or may 

force obligors to rely on third parties for 

payment putting them at risk of fraud. 

Commenters stated the failure to 

provide translation into the languages of 

greatest frequency violates DHS’s 

obligations to provide equal access to 

speakers of other languages and suggests 

DHS increase accessibility. Another 

commenter urged DHS to include a 

requirement that DHS examine the 

feasibility of translating the website into 

languages of greatest frequency and 

ensure that a mechanism exists for 

people with limited English proficiency 

to pay bonds in person. 

Response: DHS recognizes the 

importance of being able to 

communicate effectively with 

individuals, including those with 

Limited English Proficiency (LEP). 

However, the rule authorizes an 

additional procedure for ICE to serve 

bond related notices (demand notices, 

bond breach, bond cancellation, and 

other bond notices) to obligors who 

consent to receive those notices 

electronically. This regulation does not 

implement CeBONDS. Therefore, if 

CeBONDS is not a viable option, LEP 

individuals continue to have the option 

to visit an ICE office for assistance to 

post a bond. 

Currently the CeBONDS landing page 

is available in English and Spanish.35

From the Spanish landing page, obligors 

are able to select their preferred 

language from the drop-down menu in 

the web browser.36 Furthermore, ICE 

offices have access to an ICE-wide 24/ 

7 language services contract for 

interpretation and translation, and 

guidance and best practices materials 

for identifying LEP individuals and 

their primary language to secure the 

necessary interpretation and translation 

services for them. ICE offices are 

pursuing several initiatives to help 

promote communication with LEP 

individuals encountered at ICE offices 

functions.37

DHS is striving to improve CeBONDS’ 

accessibility for those with language 

barriers and limited resources by 

providing an alternative language on its 

website, instructions to select their 

preferred language through their web 

browser, and equipping the offices with 

language access programs to 

communicate with obligors.38

Consistent with Executive Order 13166, 

Improving Access to Services for 

Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency, and DHS 39 and ICE’s 

Language Access Plan,40 DHS will 

continue to assess and consider ways to 

enhance the system to expand 

accessibility, including the possibility of 

adding languages. 

Although not all ICE forms are 

translated into languages most 

frequently used,41 ICE is committed to 

ensuring that external LEP stakeholders 

(including members of the public who 

seek access to programs, and 

noncitizens who are subject to ICE 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
544 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

42Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2021 

FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and 

Underbanked Households, https://www.fdic.gov/ 

analysis/household-survey/index.html (last visited 

Aug. 25, 2023). 

43U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Post a Bond, Frequently Asked Questions, How can 

I pay a bond if I have little to no access to banking 

services, internet, or computing devices?, https://

www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management/bonds 

(last visited on Aug. 25, 2023). 

44U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Enforcement and Removal Operations, Bond 

Management Handbook, 23 (Aug. 19, 2014), https:// 

www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/dro_policy_memos/ 

eroBondManagementHandbook2018-ICFO31476.pdf. 

45Federal Reserve Bank Services, FedNow Service 

2024 Fee Schedule, www.frbservices.org/resources/ 

fees/fednow-2024 (last visited July 24, 2024). 

46U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Post a Bond, Frequently Asked Questions, How can 

I pay a bond if I have little to no access to banking 

services, internet, or computing devices? (last 

updated Sept. 17, 2024), https://www.ice.gov/ 

detain/detention-management/bonds. 

enforcement actions and/or are in ICE 

custody) have meaningful access to its 

programs, services, and activities by 

providing quality language assistance 

services in a timely manner. ICE will 

consider processes for enhancing 

language access services for programs 

and activities that include external 

stakeholders, provided that such 

processes do not unduly burden the 

Agency mission. 

3. Bank Account 

Comment: Commenters stated that 

obligors are financially limited and lack 

access to banking services (whether 

managed or traditional), which 

increases the difficulty to post bonds 

and prolongs detention. Some 

commenters stated, without evidence, 

that over 63 million adults in the United 

States have limited to no access to bank 

accounts and services and therefore 

cannot use web applications like 

CeBONDS. Commenters suggested DHS 

ensure that the process of posting bonds 

does not create financial hardship on 

obligors or noncitizens and consider 

that there are almost six million U.S. 

households in which no adult has a 

bank account.42

Commenters stated the lack of 

payment options impedes equal access 

to pay bonds and creates a two-tiered 

system: obligors with financial 

resources who can post bonds quickly 

and obligors without resources that will 

experience delays, denials, and 

confusion. Another commenter stated 

the coronavirus pandemic highlighted 

the inequalities and differences in 

access to things society otherwise 

deemed ubiquitous, such as the internet 

and bank accounts. 

Another commenter asserted that 

CeBONDS has associated higher fees 

than paying a bond with a money order. 

Commenters stated their confusion in 

learning the components of bank wiring 

systems and routing numbers. To post 

bonds, obligors can use either Fedwire, 

a system for the electronic transfer of 

funds operated by the Federal Reserve 

Bank; or the Automated Clearing House 

(ACH), an electronic network of banks 

that allows the transfer of money from 

one account to the other.43 These 

payment options require identification, 

access to a computer or smartphone 

with internet capabilities, and access to 

a financial institution. One commenter 

stated using ACH was complicated and 

prolonged the process almost two weeks 

compared to paying the bond at an ICE 

facility. Another commenter stated the 

ICE’s Bond Management Handbook 44

claims obligors can pay bonds in cash, 

i.e., currency, money order, certified 

check, or cashier’s check which does 

not require a bank account. The 

commenter added that obligors may 

prefer to pay bonds with cash at an ICE 

office instead of going to a bank and 

dealing with the Fedwire or ACH 

systems. Another commenter stated, 

without evidence, that most obligors do 

not have access to a local bank or bank 

accounts (managed or traditional) which 

increases the difficulty to post bonds 

and prolongs detention. 

Another commenter suggested 

CeBONDS accept other payment 

methods that do not require a bank 

account. 

Response: Commenters’ comments are 

specific to payment of bonds rather than 

the authorization of ICE to serve bond 

notices to obligors who consent to 

receive those notices electronically. 

ICE will continue to work with 

obligors who walk into an ICE office to 

post bonds. Obligors who post bonds at 

an ICE office are not required to have 

access to banking services in order to 

post bonds on behalf of noncitizens. 

While cash is not accepted at an ICE 

office, obligors can post bonds using a 

cashier’s check or money order which 

can be acquired without a bank account. 

Furthermore, money orders can be 

purchased in places other than financial 

entities. Nevertheless, this rule does not 

impact or change the current method of 

payment, process of payment, or 

acceptable forms of payment. This rule 

focuses on electronic service of bond 

notices to consenting obligors. 

Obligors who prefer to post a bond 

using CeBONDS have the option to use 

either Fedwire or an ACH to post an 

immigration bond, both of which charge 

for the use of service, with fees ranging 

from $0.20 to $1.50 per transaction.45

Separately, there are no fees associated 

with the use of the CeBONDS system. 

Obligors without access to banking 

services may use an immigration bond 

company to post a bond or work with 

community-based organizations across 

the country that assist with immigration 

bonds.46

4. Computer and Internet 

Comment: A majority of commenters 

stated that DHS is unreasonable and 

should not assume obligors and 

noncitizens have access to computers, 

smart phones, etc., with reliable internet 

especially for people of color and lowincome communities. Although the 

administration pushes to expand 

internet access, a large majority of 

people still do not have internet access. 

Commenters stated over 42 million 

people across the United States lack 

access to broadband and access to 

computers varies widely according to 

income levels. Commenters stated that 

obligors and noncitizens do not have 

routine or readily available computers 

or the internet to check emails. This 

mechanism falls short of meaningful 

access to important information. 

A commenter stated obligors with 

limited financial resources may rely on 

public libraries for computer and 

internet access to use CeBONDS. 

Another commenter indicated the 

struggles of the U.S. public library 

system and the movement to increase 

reliance on technology when 

technological access facilitated through 

public libraries is decreasing across the 

country is terribly timed. 

One commenter requested 

clarification if the bond documents are 

electronic, how will obligors receive 

those notifications and documents 

without these resources? Commenters 

suggested DHS ensure bond payments 

be completed in person and require ICE 

to accept in-person payments. 

Response: DHS does not expect this 

rule to prevent any individual from 

paying an immigration bond because the 

rule pertains to ICE’s ability to send 

electronic bond notices to obligors who 

consent to receive those notifications. 

DHS assessed the impacts to the 

affected populations, and considered 

whether bond obligors would face 

technology costs to utilize these 

services. There are a variety of means by 

which obligors can access internet 

services to receive electronic 

notifications, including the use of smart 

phones, personal computers, or 

community services that can provide 

those services. The cost of these are 

either low or no-cost, such as the use of 

libraries or free Wi-Fi services which are 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 545 

publicly available across the United 

States. 

The use of electronic service is 

voluntary. If the obligor does not open 

the notice in CeBONDS, a new notice 

will be sent via certified mail for 

demand notices and via ordinary mail 

for any other bond-related notice 

pertaining to this rule ICE does not 

expect this rule to prevent any obligors 

from paying immigration bonds. 

L. Detention 

1. Prolonged Detention 

Comment: Commenters raised 

concerns of prolonged detention for 

noncitizens who are granted bonds 

because CeBONDS lacks up-to-date 

information. Commenters stated that 

CeBONDS take days or weeks to process 

bond payments—making the release of a 

noncitizen unpredictable compared to 

in-person payment which are processed 

the same day along with the release of 

the noncitizen. Commenters stated that 

CeBONDS prolongs a noncitizen’s 

release because payments are only 

accepted between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. in 

the time zone of the facility where the 

noncitizen is detained. 

Another commenter asserted that ICE 

developed a one-size-fits-all approach to 

an issue that should be tailored to the 

needs of those who pay (often 

thousands of dollars) to secure the 

liberty of those detained. 

Some commenters described the 

impact of prolonged detention on the 

noncitizen’s mental health, finances, 

and families without providing data. A 

commenter stated that noncitizens are 

losing large periods of their lives being 

detained in prison which makes it 

harder for the noncitizen to reintegrate 

into society. The commenter wrote that 

incarcerated individuals experience 

trauma from the prison system, other 

inmates, and the correctional officers, 

due to incredibly inhumane treatment. 

Response: The rule authorizes ICE to 

serve bond-related notices (ICE Form I– 

340, ICE Form I–391, ICE Form 71–042, 

or ICE Form I–323) electronically to 

obligors, who consent to electronic 

service, that pertain to delivery, order of 

supervision, or voluntary departure 

immigration bonds, such as bond breach 

or cancellations, and other immigration 

bond related notices. See 8 CFR 

103.6(g)–(h). 

Bond-related notices applicable to 

this rule are issued to the obligor 

months or years after the bond was 

posted and when the noncitizen is not 

in custody. Any correlation between the 

posting of bonds via CeBONDS and 

release dates, if applicable, is expected 

to be de minimis. Bond-related notices 

to which this rule applies are issued to 

obligors after the bond has been 

accepted by ICE and the noncitizen is 

not in custody. When the obligor starts 

the process of posting a bond, there has 

already been a custody determination. 

ICE will review the bond to confirm the 

bond matches the custody 

determination and verify nothing 

prevents the bond from being posted. 

Additionally, ICE must verify the funds 

have been transferred to ICE for the 

bond amount. The process to notify the 

detention facility after a bond is 

approved is the same for all bond 

posting methods (in-person, eBONDS, 

CeBONDS) and is not the type of notice 

that is encompassed under the 

regulations at 8 CFR 103.6(g)–(h). 

If the obligor does not open the 

notice, a new notice will be sent via 

mail to the obligor’s last known address. 

See 8 CFR 103.6(g)–(h). During this 

time, when the notice is served 

electronically and later via mail, there is 

no impact to the noncitizen. Generally, 

ICE will confirm proof of service 

electronically or via certified mail for 

demand notices prior to taking any 

actions. 

CeBONDS is updated with 

information in real time during the bond 

posting process. Since CeBONDS was 

deployed, about 10,537 bonds have 

posted. Of those posted bonds, less than 

1 percent, or 680 posted bonds, had 

release dates of 2 or more days after a 

bond was posted. More than 99 percent, 

or more than 9,850 posted bonds, had 

release dates within 2 days. Based on 

this information, there is little evidence 

that the use of CeBONDS results in 

‘‘days or weeks’’ of delay. DHS will 

continue to make improvements to 

CeBONDS and other sites to decrease 

technical issues experienced. 

2. Impact on Proceedings 

Comment: A commenter indicated 

that DHS’ shift to electronic 

notifications through CeBONDS, a 

system that is flawed and still under 

development, would undermine the 

liberty interests of noncitizens eligible 

for release from detention and increase 

the number of cases on the immigration 

court’s detained docket. The commenter 

noted that the bond notifications could 

impact the outcome of removal 

proceedings for individuals released on 

bond, including instances where the 

notices inform obligors to bring the 

noncitizen to important appointments, 

but the deficiencies in service result in 

a noncitizen’s failure to appear. 

Response: There is no indication that 

this rule on electronic service of certain 

limited bond notices would impact 

removal proceedings or the custody 

status after a noncitizen has been 

released. This rule provides a regulatory 

framework to allow ICE to serve certain 

bond notices electronically for obligors 

who consent to electronic service. 

Under the rule, if the electronic 

notification system fails, the obligor 

would receive service by mail, which 

would be the equivalent method of 

service for an obligor who opts out of 

electronic service. Given the safeguards, 

the rule itself would not lead to any 

changes on the course of action that 

would normally follow when the bond 

notifications have been served by mail. 

An obligor who consents to electronic 

service would be in the same procedural 

posture as an obligor who opts to 

receive service by mail, as they would 

have the same due process rights and 

appellate opportunities. In this aspect, 

there is no correlation between 

electronic service of bond notices and a 

noncitizen’s removal proceeding or 

custody status. 

DHS believes that the use of 

electronic notices could potentially 

improve notification delivery time 

because these specific bond notices 

cannot be lost through physical mail 

and service via electronic means is 

instantly effectuated. As described in 

Section II.G., Proof of Service, the 

system is designed to capture the date 

and time of the actions taken to 

effectuate electronic service—namely, 

when the notification is sent and when 

the notice is opened by the obligor. 

Thus, electronic notices could improve 

the likelihood of a noncitizens’ 

appearance at ICE appointments and 

court appearances and reduce the 

likelihood that an obligor will be unable 

to appeal a bond breach determination 

in time. 

M. CeBONDS Instructions (In-Person 

and Online) 

Comment: Commenters stated the 

inconsistent information and lack of 

guidance provided by DHS and on the 

CeBONDS web page complicate an 

already complex and difficult process 

for obligors to pay a bond for the release 

of a noncitizen. Obligors are subjected 

to inconsistent policies and practices at 

offices which hinder their ability to use 

CeBONDS. 

Commenters expressed that obligors 

may not understand whether there is an 

option to pay in person and urge DHS 

and ICE to clarify, publicize, and 

enforce this option. Commenters stated 

that CeBONDS was deployed without 

notice or guidance to the public or 

proper training to ICE staff which has 

caused a multitude of problems. 

Commenters stated that detention 

centers are operating under arbitrary 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
546 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

47U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Post a Bond (last updated Sept. 17, 2024), https:// 

www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management/bonds. 

48U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Post a Bond (last updated Sept. 17, 2024), https:// 

www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management/bonds. 

rules, taking up to several days to 

process bonds. One commenter 

described being asked to provide 

business cards and authorization letters, 

which are not qualifying documents. 

Another commenter experienced the 

inability of the ICE staff to provide next 

steps after ICE deemed a noncitizen 

‘‘not releasable’’ despite the existence of 

a bond order, slow email responses from 

the general Helpdesk, and slow 

response times from local ICE offices 

processing bonds because bond 

processing is still constrained to specific 

local business hours. 

Commenters stated that ICE 

employees are unfamiliar with the 

CeBONDS and unable to answer routine 

questions or provide crucial information 

such as where the bond request is being 

handled. One commenter stated ICE 

explained that bond requests were 

handled out of state, making it more 

difficult to obtain contact information, 

and suggested the commenter to wait 

until the next day, delaying release. 

Commenters stated the need to make 

several phone calls or emails to reach an 

ICE employee who was able to answer 

any bond-related questions. 

Commenters requested all public 

facing materials and web content 

provide consistent guidance, explicitly 

state what factors are considered when 

determining if bonds can be paid in 

person, and allow obligors the option to 

pay bonds in person at ICE facilities. 

Response: Commenters’ comments 

focus on using CeBONDS and public 

information on posting bonds. However, 

the purpose of the rule is to authorize 

ICE to serve bond-related notices 

electronically to obligors who consent to 

receive electronic bond related notices. 

See 8 CFR 103.6(g)–(h). 

Prior to the deployment and 

implementation of CeBONDS, all ICE 

staff at ICE offices processing bonds 

were provided training on the system. 

CeBONDS provides an online 

capability for bond obligors to request 

bond information and post cash 

immigration bonds for detained 

noncitizens determined by the IJ or ICE 

to be eligible for release on bond. The 

process and procedures ICE officials 

utilize to verify an obligor’s eligibility to 

post a bond, to approve the bond and 

payment, and to release the noncitizen 

from ICE custody are the same for bonds 

posted in CeBONDS, eBONDS, and 

walking into an ICE office. 

The ICE website provides a video 

tutorial on using CeBONDS, a section on 

frequently asked questions, and 

categorically lists acceptable documents 

applicable to the obligor.47

As listed on the ICE website, an 

obligor must provide at least one (1) 

document to ICE from the applicable 

category below.48

U.S. Citizen 

• U.S. Passport 

• U.S. Birth Certificate 

• U.S. Citizen Born Abroad Document 

• USCIS Naturalization Certificate 

• State-issued Driver’s License (only 

REAL ID Card) 

• State-issued ID Card (only REAL ID 

Card) 

• Military Identification Card 

Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) 

• Permanent Resident Card (commonly 

known as a ‘‘Green Card’’) 

• Military Identification Card 

Non-Profit Organization 

• IRS Letter 947—(Letter of 

Determination) 

• SS4 IRS Notification Letter (Employer 

identification number [EIN] approval 

letter) 

• Letter of authorization from the nonprofit for representative/obligor 

posting the bond 

• Representative’s identification 

Law Firms 

• SS4 IRS Notification Letter (Employer 

identification number [EIN] approval 

letter) 

• Letter of authorization from the law 

firm for representative/obligor posting 

the bond 

• Representative’s identification 

Noncitizen Posting a Voluntary 

Departure (VD) or Order of Supervision 

Bond 

• Form I–862, Notice to Appear 

• VD Order (for VD Bond) 

• IJ Order (for Order of Supervision 

Bond) 

• ICE Form I–220B (Order of 

Supervision) 

• Form I–765—Employment 

Authorization Document (EAD) 

ICE continues to allow obligors to 

post a bond in person at the appropriate 

ICE office. ICE will continue to work 

with obligors who want to pay bonds in 

person at an ICE office. DHS continues 

to work to improve the system and the 

process but makes no changes to the 

rule in response to these comments. 

N. Technical Issues 

Comment: Commenters stated that 

CeBONDS has numerous technical 

issues, and frequently crashes, which 

prevents payment and creates 

uncertainty whether the request or 

system failed. Commenters stated 

CeBONDS relies on human approvals at 

every stage of the bond-posting process, 

which results in lengthy wait times, or 

worse, the denial or failure of bondposting requests. A commenter stated 

their payment was not instantaneous 

and waited over four hours for ICE to 

accept and process the bond request. 

Commenters stated they did not receive 

any information such as confirmation, 

receipt of payment, or status update 

while waiting for ICE to accept and 

process the bond request. 

Commenters stated CeBONDS does 

not contain accurate, up-to-date 

information. One commenter 

experienced a delay for several days 

between Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR), a subagency of the DOJ, setting a bond and 

information being properly entered into 

CeBONDS. Failures by the CeBONDS 

system to contain accurate, up-to-date 

information has frustrated sponsors 

attempting to pay bonds for bondeligible noncitizens who provided the 

necessary documentation, leading to the 

noncitizens’ prolonged detention. 

Another commenter stated after 

uploading documents to CeBONDS, the 

commenter needed to provide 

additional copies because the ICE 

employee was unable to locate the 

documents in CeBONDS. Commenters 

stated CeBONDS lacks a real-time way 

to solve problems that forces obligors to 

engage with ICE agents for help, and 

request status updates and information. 

Other commenters experienced slow 

email responses from the general 

Helpdesk and slow response times from 

local ICE offices processing bonds. 

Other commenters stated the ICE 

Information Technology (IT) support 

staff are unable to respond or provide 

timely remedies for detained 

noncitizens. 

Commenters stated CeBONDS is 

difficult and confusing to navigate 

regardless of English proficiency. 

Commenters stated that CeBONDS 

increases the complexity of paying 

bonds and using the system should not 

require obligors to be technologically 

savvy. 

Response: These comments are 

focused on technical and functional 

issues related to CeBONDS, but this rule 

does not implement this system. Rather, 

the rule authorizes ICE to serve bond 

related notices to obligors who consent 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 547 

49U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Post a Bond (last updated Sept. 17, 2024), https:// 

www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management/bonds. 

to receive those notices electronically. 

Additionally, commenters did not 

provide specific dates or times of 

alleged outages. 

DHS has made various system 

updates to CeBONDS to improve 

functionality. Since CeBONDS deployed 

in April 2023, the system has not 

experienced any unscheduled systemwide outages, crashes, or failures. 

Furthermore, the number of customerreported issues or incidents has 

substantially decreased. Comparably, 

from April to June 2023, there were 783 

customer reported issues or incidents. 

That number was reduced by 62 percent 

or 487 reported issues or incidents from 

October to December of the same year. 

CeBONDS does not contain 

information from EOIR. Once a request 

to post bond is received either via 

CeBONDS or in-person at an ICE office, 

the process for validating all the bond 

information is the same and is 

performed by an ICE official. An obligor 

can utilize the CeBONDS system’s 

comment section to communicate (send 

comments or upload documents) in real 

time with ICE officials throughout the 

bond process. 

CeBONDS payments are made via 

Fedwire or ACH. Depending on the time 

of day the payment is made, Fedwire 

payments are settled the same day and 

ACH payments typically settle 1 to 2 

business days after they have been 

initiated. After the payment has been 

completed between the financial 

institutions, ICE can verify the payment. 

Next, the obligor will upload the 

payment receipt and bond contract and 

submit these documents. Thereafter, the 

obligor will receive correspondence via 

email and in their CeBONDS account 

that their request is under ICE review. 

Once the review and payment are 

confirmed, the obligor will receive an 

email and their CeBONDS account will 

reflect that the bond has been approved. 

When the noncitizen is released from 

custody, the obligor will receive 

correspondence via email and in their 

CeBONDS account that the noncitizen 

has been released from custody. At each 

step in the bond posting process, the 

actions from ICE and the obligor are 

both tracked in CeBONDS. 

The system does not require anyone 

to be technologically savvy. ICE has 

provided a tutorial along with 

frequently asked questions on the 

ICE.gov/bonds web page to assist 

obligors. The tutorial is provided in 

English and Spanish. Additionally, 

obligors can contact their local ICE 

office for assistance or email any system 

related questions or concerns to 

ICECeBONDS-Helpdesk@ice.dhs.gov. 

O. In-Person Bond Payment 

Comment: The majority of 

commenters requested ICE allow 

obligors the option to pay bonds inperson indefinitely. Commenters stated 

that paying bonds in-person is quicker 

and completed within hours compared 

to CeBONDS which takes days to 

process. One commenter stated that 

eliminating the option of in-person 

bond payments to transition to 

CeBONDS will stymie obligors from 

complying with ICE requirements. 

Another commenter stated that bond 

notices delivered by mail increases the 

assurance of noncitizens and obligors 

receive and sign all notices. Without 

evidence, the commenter stated paying 

bonds in-person can reduce the 

likelihood of fraud and increase 

noncitizens presence for court hearings. 

Another commenter stated paying 

bonds in person facilitates an efficient 

process and alleviates stressful 

situations for noncitizens and obligors 

when dealing with immigration 

detention. The commenter continued 

that if ICE intended this electronic 

system provide organizations with a 

more convenient way to pay bonds, then 

it should honor its intention and 

maintain the option of in-person 

payments. This will ensure that the 

bond payment system is truly 

responsive to the needs of the 

community it serves and does not create 

unnecessary barriers for those grappling 

with challenging circumstances. 

One commenter suggested that inperson bond payment would increase 

ICE funds because CeBONDS is too 

difficult to understand, and obligors do 

not have bank accounts or computers. 

Commenters stated the IFR does not 

intend to refuse obligors from posting 

bonds in-person. However, commenters 

asserted this contradicts the practice at 

ICE facilities and information on the ICE 

website.49

Commenters stated that ICE’s 

informational web page fails to inform 

the public when ICE may accept an inperson bond payment. Commenters 

expressed that obligors may not know or 

understand if there is an option to pay 

in person and urges DHS and ICE to 

clarify, publicize, and enforce this 

option. 

Response: The rule does not impact 

the payment methods of obligors. This 

rule provides a regulatory framework 

that allows ICE to serve certain bond 

notices electronically for obligors who 

consent to electronic service. Notably, 

the rule provides safeguards in 

instances where electronic service is not 

confirmed, for which ICE must 

effectuate service via mail, which would 

be the equivalent method of service for 

an obligor who opts out of electronic 

service. 

To assure the notice is opened by the 

obligor, CeBONDS will track the 

timestamp when the notice is viewed in 

the system. Viewing of the notice in the 

system constitutes when the obligor is 

served with the notice. At each step of 

this process, CeBONDS tracks the 

actions taken in the system and the 

actions of the obligor. Furthermore, the 

notice in CeBONDS is available to the 

obligor anytime the obligor logs into the 

system. 

If the obligor does not open the 

notice, a new notice will be sent via 

ordinary or certified mail (depending on 

the notice) to the last known address. 

The requirements of the obligor are 

not dependent on how the obligor posts 

bond (in-person or electronically). 

Therefore, obligors who post a bond as 

security for performance and fulfillment 

of the bonded noncitizen’s obligations 

to the government are not impacted. The 

obligor still must comply with the 

requirements in the contract with ICE. 

Regarding the comment about ICE 

funds increasing with in-person 

payment, there is no data to support this 

statement, and is irrelevant because the 

option of in-person payment is not 

removed by this rule. If electronic 

payment is unattainable, obligors can 

continue to use the in-person system. 

Obligors can still pay bonds in 

person. The intent of the IFR and this 

final rule are to improve the service 

delivery of bond notices to obligors. It 

does not impact an individual’s ability 

to pay in person. The rule authorizes 

ICE to serve bond-related notices to 

obligors who opt-in to receive those 

notices electronically. 

From April 2023 to January 2024, 

7,424 obligors paid bonds using 

CeBONDS or in-person. Forty percent of 

obligors (3,021) used CeBONDS and 60 

percent (4,400) paid bonds in-person at 

an ICE facility. This highlights that the 

ability to pay in person remains an 

option. Any obligor who has a question 

about posting a bond in person can 

contact the nearest ICE office for 

guidance. 

P. Out of Scope 

1. Alternatives to Detention 

Comment: One commenter provided a 

comment regarding ICE’s Alternatives to 

Detention (ATD) program, which uses 

case management and technology tools 

to support noncitizen compliance with 

release conditions while on ICE’s nonVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:06 Jan 03, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06JAR1.SGM 06JAR1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
548 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

50U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

ICE Alternatives to Detention (last updated June 24, 

2024), https://www.ice.gov/features/atd. 

51See, e.g., Tennessee Scrap Recyclers Ass’n v. 

Bredesen, 556 F.3d 442, 458 (6th Cir. 2009) (city 

ordinance requiring payment by check, money, or 

payment vouchers only did not violate or implicate 

31 U.S.C. 5103); Genesee Scrap & Tin Baling Co. v. 

City of Rochester, 558 F. Supp. 2d 432, 434 

(W.D.N.Y. 2008) (city ordinance specifying that 

cash may not be used for transactions did not 

violate 31 U.S.C. 5103); In re Reyes, 482 B.R. 603, 

606 (D. Ariz. 2012) (requiring debtors to make plan 

payments using only certified funds, automatic 

wage withdrawals, or electronic transfers did not 

violate 31 U.S.C. 5103). As the bankruptcy court In 

re Reyes explained, narrowly interpreting the 

statute ‘‘to forbid all but cash payments ‘would 

strain logic.’ ’’ 482 B.R. at 606. 

detained docket. The commenter 

suggested that DHS propose a 

mechanism for seizing and/or shutting 

off such electronic monitoring devices 

remotely for noncitizens who abscond. 

Additionally, the commenter noted 

various sources and statistics to indicate 

an increase in the use of ATD 

technology and stated that there are 

issues associated with such technology, 

such as inefficiency, lack of 

punishments for violations, and no 

deportations for noncitizens under 

SmartLink. The commenter generally 

raised concerns on releasing noncitizens 

under the ATD program; noncitizens 

working unlawfully; and how such 

releases may be perceived by human 

smugglers, cartels, and migrants. 

Response: This comment is beyond 

the scope of the IFR and this final rule 

because it does not relate to immigration 

bond notifications or electronic service 

of immigration bond related notices. 

ICE’s ATD program is utilized to ensure 

that a noncitizen complies with their 

release conditions.50 The IFR and this 

final rule are not intended to address 

any such issues. Thus, no further 

response is required for this comment. 

2. 31 U.S.C. 5103, Legal Tender 

Comment: One commenter stated the 

rule challenges 31 U.S.C. 5103 which 

requires the acceptance of any legal 

tender for all debts, public charges, 

taxes, and dues. 

Response: Section 5103 of Title 31 of 

the U.S. Code provides that ‘‘United 

States coins and currency (including 

Federal reserve notes and circulating 

notes of Federal reserve banks and 

national banks) are legal tender for all 

debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. 

Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal 

tender for debts.’’ The commenter did 

not explain how this statute is relevant 

to electronic service of bond notices and 

why this rule implicates the statute. If 

the commenter is implying that the 

statute requires the government to 

accept cash payments from an obligor, 

such comment is outside of the scope of 

this rule, as the rule focuses on 

electronic service of bond notices. 

Nevertheless, in the context of posting 

bond payments through CeBONDS, the 

commenter’s interpretation 

misconstrues the meaning of the statute. 

The statute establishes what constitutes 

legal tender in the United States and 

does not impose a requirement on the 

government to accept cash payments.51

Congress enacted this statute to 

‘‘establish and maintain a uniform 

national currency’’ to avoid having a 

‘‘system in which individual states can 

issue their own currency, or declare 

things other than federally-issued 

money to constitute legal tender.’’ 

Genesee Scrap & Tin Baling Co. v. City 

of Rochester, 558 F. Supp. 2d 432, 437 

(W.D.N.Y. 2008). In any event, given 

that the statute does not have any 

bearing on immigration bond 

notifications and electronic service, this 

comment is beyond the scope of this 

rule and requires no further response. 

III. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

DHS developed this final rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

The below sections summarize the 

analyses based on a number of these 

statutes or executive orders. 

A. Administrative Procedure Act 

The Department has forgone the 

Administrative Procedure Act’s 

(‘‘APA’’) delayed-effective-date 

procedure in implementing this rule 

because the APA’s requirement for a 30- 

day delayed effective date applies to 

substantive rules, see 5 U.S.C. 553(d), 

whereas this rule, like the IFR, is a rule 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice, see 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). In the 

IFR, ICE invoked the procedural rule 

exception to bypass notice-andcomment rulemaking. ICE, in citing the 

D.C. Circuit’s ‘‘oft-cited formulation,’’ 

explained the procedural-rule exception 

‘‘ covers agency actions that do not 

themselves alter the rights or interests of 

parties, although it may alter the 

manner in which the parties present 

themselves or their viewpoints to the 

agency.’’ JEM Broad. Co., Inc. v. FCC, 22 

F.3d 320, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting 

Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 

(D.C. Cir. 1980)); see also Mendoza v. 

Perez, 754 F.3d 1002, 1023–24 (D.C. Cir. 

2014). The IFR merely added another 

method (e.g., electronic service) for ICE 

to serve bond-related notifications for 

anyone enrolling in or using an ICE 

electronic bonds systems. ICE is not 

removing or limiting any of the current 

methods of service found in 8 CFR 

103.8(a)(1) or (2). These changes were 

procedural in nature, improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of agency 

operations, and did not alter substantive 

rights. The same is the case with this 

rule. 

Even if the 30-day delayed-effectivedate requirement did apply, the 

Department would find good cause to 

make this rule effective sooner. 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). The IFR is already in effect 

and the changes in the final rule are 

merely clarifying or technical. None of 

the amendments implicate the 

justifications for the 30-day waiting 

period. The purpose of the waiting 

period 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). Here, however, that purpose 

would not be served by delaying the 

effective date of the rule: The IFR has 

been in effect since September 7, 2023, 

and finalizing the provisions in this rule 

does not require anyone to change their 

conduct or to take any particular steps 

in advance of the effective date. See 

United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 

1099, 1104 (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 other action which the 

issuance may prompt’ ’’ (citing S. Rep. 

No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 15 (1946); 

H.R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 

25 (1946))). In fact, ICE has already 

implemented the IFR and the public 

will not need to adjust its behavior at all 

following the issuance of this final rule. 

Because there were no substantive 

changes from the IFR, the public has 

had sufficient notice of the provisions in 

this final rule and a delay in the rule’s 

effective date is unnecessary. 

B. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094: 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, 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 549 

52OMB Circular A–4 states that ‘‘the benefits and 

costs of a regulation are generally measured against 

a no-action baseline: an analytically reasonable 

forecast of the way the world would look absent the 

regulatory action being assessed.’’ Nov. 9, 2023, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 

2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf (last visited September 26, 

2024). Consistent with OMB Circular A–4, DHS has 

analyzed finalization of the IFR as compared to a 

state of the world that (hypothetically) lacks the 

IFR. The ‘‘without-IFR baseline’’ is the primary 

baseline. This rule has no effects relative to a state 

of the world that includes the IFR (i.e., a ‘‘with-IFR 

baseline), because this rule’s changes relative to the 

IFR are clarifying and technical in nature and have 

no real-world effects on the government or the 

public. 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. 

This final rule has not been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, as amended by Executive 

Order 14094. Accordingly, the rule has 

not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

Summary of the Analysis 

DHS estimates the effects of the final 

rule relative to a baseline condition 

without the 2023 IFR.52 DHS estimates 

that the final rule will have public costs 

and unquantified benefits, and result in 

cost-savings and unquantified benefits 

to the government. The overall 

quantified impact of this rule is a net 

savings of $561,317 discounted at 3 

percent and $182,870 discounted at 7 

percent, with unquantified benefits 

expected to outweigh the unquantified 

costs. The rule is expected to expedite 

delivery and improve the reliability of 

service of bond-related notices. In 

accounting for the costs and costsavings of this final rule, ICE has 

assumed that all obligors will adopt 

electronic service within the first year of 

the publishing of this final rule. New 

bond obligors who consent to enrolling 

in CeBONDS or eBONDS will use 

electronic notifications as a feature of 

using these systems, though they will 

have the option to utilize physical 

notification under certain 

circumstances, such as an obligor 

lacking the means to access the internet. 

Lastly, while the analysis assumes that 

bond obligors will enroll in these 

services sooner rather than later, full 

adoption may ultimately depend on 

several factors, such as obligors being 

made aware of these changes, 

understanding the benefits of these 

provisions, and possessing the means to 

access the internet. Table 1 summarizes 

the findings of this regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA). 

TABLE 1—OMB CIRCULAR A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT 2023 

[Millions] 

Category Impact Source 

Benefits 

Annualized Monetized Benefits ($ Mil): 

(3%) .................................................................................................................... ................................................................. RIA. 

(7%) .................................................................................................................... ................................................................. RIA. 

Annualized Quantified, but Unmonetized, Benefits.

Unquantified Benefits ................................................................................................ Improved program delivery. Reduced 

paper waste.

RIA. 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized Costs ($ Mil): 

(3%) .................................................................................................................... .544 ......................................................... RIA. 

(7%) .................................................................................................................... .584 ......................................................... RIA. 

Annualized Quantified, but Unmonetized, Costs.

Unquantified Costs .................................................................................................... Cost to public to access electronic system.RIA. 

Transfers 

Annualized Monetized Transfers.

From Whom to Whom.

Other Analyses 

Effects on State, Local, and/or Tribal Governments ................................................. No Impact ................................................ FR. 

Effects on Small Business ........................................................................................ Undetermined .......................................... FR. 

Effects on Wages.

Effects on Growth.


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
550 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

53U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, Privacy 

Impact Assessment Update for the Bonds Online 

System (eBONDS) Phase Two (Jan. 24, 2013), 

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/ 

publications/ice-pia-008-a-ebonds-2013.pdf. 

54 ICE subject matter experts expressed that they 

expect nearly every obligor to utilize these systems, 

and that in the first year of the CeBONDS system 

being active only approximately five percent of 

obligors pay bonds in person. This analysis assumes 

the percentage of in-person payments will decline 

over time as adoption continues. Commenters and 

stakeholders did not present data that challenged 

this assumption broadly but provided anecdotal 

evidence of certain obligors not being able to use 

the electronic systems and needing an in-person 

option. DHS is committed to maintaining an inperson payment option for such exceptions, but for 

the purpose of not inserting additional uncertainty 

into this analysis, DHS has not changed this 

assumption. 

Background and Purpose of Final Rule 

As part of its mission to enforce U.S. 

immigration laws, ICE currently issues a 

wide range of notices, decisions, and 

other documents to entities such as, but 

not limited to, universities, businesses, 

noncitizens, courts, and employees. 

Prior to the IFR, the rules on service 

limited ICE to serving documents in 

person or by certified, registered, or 

regular mail. However, serving 

documents in this manner can take 

more time and be more costly compared 

to electronic methods of service. The 

final rule confirms the IFR in 

authorizing ICE to serve electronic 

bond-related notices and notifications to 

obligors who enroll in CeBONDS and 

eBONDS. 

Currently, ICE uses certified mail for 

the service of demand notices issued on 

delivery bonds so that ICE can confirm 

the date upon which an obligor receives 

the demand notice. Since 2010, ICE has 

employed eBONDS, which is a webbased system used primarily by surety 

agents and ICE to facilitate the ICE 

immigration bond management process. 

This system was implemented to allow 

surety agents the option to post surety 

bonds electronically for noncitizens 

determined by ICE to be eligible for 

release on bond. Additionally, eBONDS 

was built with functionality that 

included the ability to serve electronic 

bond-related notifications to surety 

companies and their agents within 

eBONDS for those companies who 

opted-in to electronic service, but due to 

the regulatory requirements under 8 

CFR 103.8(a)(1) and 103.8(a)(2) for 

personal and routine service (pre-IFR), 

that capability has not been 

implemented in eBONDS.53 Similarly, 

ICE has developed CeBONDS to allow 

cash bond obligors to post cash 

immigration bonds online without 

obligors having to appear in person at 

an ICE office. CeBONDS offers to 

individuals posting cash bonds all the 

conveniences that eBONDS provides to 

surety companies. This final rule 

authorizes ICE to serve bond-related 

notices and notifications electronically 

for those who consent, setup an 

account, and utilize the eBONDS and 

CeBONDS systems. 

Time Horizon for the Analysis 

ICE estimates the economic effects of 

this final rule will be sustained 

indefinitely. ICE assumes a 10-year 

timeframe to outline, quantify, and 

monetize the costs and benefits of the 

rule, and to demonstrate its net effects. 

DHS expresses quantified impacts in 

2023 dollars and uses discount rates of 

3 and 7 percent, pursuant to Circular A– 

4. 

Analysis Considerations 

With regard to bond-related 

notifications, ICE derived quantitative 

estimates of the costs that will be saved 

in ICE’s operations, attributable to ICE 

serving the notifications electronically 

rather than through a non-electronic 

method. In order to calculate these 

estimates, this analysis assumes that full 

use of eBONDS and CeBONDS will 

entail that current obligors adopt 

electronic notifications as they become 

familiar with the changes presented in 

this final rule. Based on input from ICE 

subject matter experts, this analysis also 

assumes that all current bond obligors 

will adopt these services within the first 

year of publishing this rule to realize the 

benefits of electronic bond-related 

notifications and will elect to use these 

services sooner rather than later. While 

the analysis assumes that all bond 

obligors will utilize these systems, full 

adoption may ultimately depend on 

several factors, such as obligors being 

made aware of these changes, 

understanding the benefits of these 

provisions, and possessing the means to 

access the internet.54 Lastly, this 

estimate does not account for any 

change in the total number of notices 

that will occur in the future, or under 

circumstances when ICE needs to send 

paper notices by mail if emails fail, or 

the possibility of less than full adoption 

by the public. With this final rule, 

obligors utilizing CeBONDS and 

eBONDS will automatically enroll in 

electronic notifications upon consent, 

though they will have the option to 

utilize physical service under certain 

circumstances—such as an obligor 

lacking the means to access the internet. 

Affected Population 

The final rule affects ICE officers and 

all bond obligors who post immigration 

bonds online using CeBONDS or 

eBONDS. Once ICE has the ability to 

serve electronic notifications to bond 

obligors, ICE will begin to serve all 

bond-related notices electronically to 

any obligor who chooses to post a bond 

electronically. 

To account for these populations, ICE 

utilized its Bond Management 

Information System (BMIS) to collect 

and analyze data on surety companies 

and their agents that post bonds and 

data on individual obligors who post 

cash bonds. Using this information, ICE 

found that an average of 41,820 cash 

bonds were posted annually by obligors 

between fiscal years (FYs) 2018 and 

2020. Additionally, ICE found that 

between FYs 2018 and 2020, a total of 

15 agents and 11 surety companies 

posted ICE immigration bonds on behalf 

of surety bond obligors. Combined, 

these representatives posted bonds for 

an average 8,190 obligors. Table 2 

displays this information below by 

fiscal year and category of bonds. 

TABLE 2—TOTAL BONDS POSTED BY CASH AND SURETY OBLIGORS

Category FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Average 

Surety Bonds ................................................................................................... 8,081 9,098 7,391 8,190 

Cash Bonds ..................................................................................................... 49,793 50,135 25,531 41,820 

Total .......................................................................................................... 57,874 59,233 32,922 50,010 

Source: DHS/ICE Bond Management Information System (BMIS). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 551 

55Except that portion of 8 CFR 103.8(a)(2) that is 

applicable solely to USCIS. 

56See 87 FR 10570 (Feb. 24, 2022) and 87 FR 

18078 (Mar. 29, 2022). 

57Average hourly total compensation $44.27 = 

($45.42 civilian workers + $43.11 private industry 

workers) ÷ 2. Total Compensation for civilian 

workers and private industry workers, U.S. Dep’t of 

Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs 

for Employe Compensation—December 2023, 

(March 13, 2024), https://www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/archives/ecec_03132024.pdf. 

58Calculation: Average total compensation for 

civilian and private industry ($44.27 = ($45.42 + 

43.11) ÷ 2)), multiplied by the (lower and upper 

bound) number of hours required to read the rule 

Continued 

Baseline 

This section details the regulatory 

baseline for this final rule. The table 

below provides a summary of the 

anticipated changes to baseline 

conditions due to this final rule. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF EXPECTED IMPACTS

Provision Description of change Affected population Cost impact Benefit impact 

Serve Bond-Related Notices Electronically.The electronic service 

process entails serving 

immigration (ICE) bondrelated notices electronically and sending email 

notifications that notices 

have been posted to 

their account to bond 

obligors who have posted a bond using the 

eBONDS and 

CeBONDS systems.

• All bond obligors who 

post immigration bonds 

online using the 

CeBONDS or eBONDS 

system.

• Federal Government .....

• Familiarization costs ......

• Potential technology 

costs.

• Opportunity costs to create an CeBONDS account.

• Program cost savings. 

• Improved program delivery. 

• Expedited service process. 

Operational Baseline 

Currently, ICE uses routine service as 

defined by 8 CFR 103.8(a)(1) to serve 

breach notices, cancellation notices, and 

notices of bond breach reconsideration 

decisions. ICE performs the routine 

service by sending ordinary mail to the 

obligor’s last known address. ICE also 

uses routine service to serve invoices 

and demand letters to surety companies 

and their agents, sending them either by 

ordinary mail, an alternative mailing 

method that allows ICE to track and 

confirm delivery, or email (with the coobligors’ consent). 

Additionally, ICE uses personal 

service as defined by 8 CFR 

103.8(a)(2) 55 to effect service of demand 

notices issued on delivery bonds so that 

ICE may confirm the date on which the 

obligor receives the demand notice. 

Currently, for ICE, ‘‘personal service’’ 

may be utilized through any of the 

following methods: personal delivery; 

delivery at a person’s home or usual 

residence by providing a copy to a 

person of suitable age and discretion; 

delivery at the office or residence of an 

attorney or representative; or mailing by 

certified or registered mail, with return 

receipt requested, to a person’s last 

known address. 

To establish a baseline analysis for all 

bond-related notices, ICE calculated the 

average number of notices served by 

mail per year, of each type of 

immigration bond, based on data from 

fiscal year 2018 to 2020 (Table 4). ICE 

found the average number of all types of 

notices per year to be 45,358. 

TABLE 4—TYPES OF IMMIGRATION

BOND NOTICES

Notice type 

Average annual 

number of 

notices mailed 

(FY 2018–2020) 

I–391 Cash Bond Cancellations .... 15,317 

I–340 Cash Bond Obligor to Deliver Noncitizen .......................... 12,020 

I–323 Cash Bond Breaches .......... 7,128 

I–340 Surety Bond Obligor to Deliver Noncitizen .......................... 6,080 

I–391 Surety Bond Cancellations .. 2,841 

I–323 Surety Bond Breaches ........ 1,412 

Surety Bond Motion to Reopen or 

Reconsider ................................. 306 

Cash Bond Motion to Reopen or 

Reconsider ................................. 254 

Total ....................................... 45,358 

Source: DHS/ICE Bond Management Information 

System (BMIS). 

ICE anticipates that, in the absence of 

this rulemaking, the agency would 

continue to serve all bond-related 

notices using personal or routine 

service, at a cost to both the federal 

government and the recipients. ICE 

would still be required to process and 

serve notices manually, and bond 

obligors would continue to receive 

physical notifications via an authorized 

form of paper-based service. 

Costs of the Final Rule 

This alternative electronic method of 

ICE’s process for serving bond notices 

will introduce familiarization, 

technology, and opportunity costs to the 

affected populations. 

Quantified Costs 

Familiarization—A likely impact of 

the final rule is that various individuals 

and other entities will incur costs 

associated with familiarization with the 

provisions of the rule. Familiarization 

costs involve the time spent reviewing 

and learning the provisions of a rule. 

Various offices throughout ICE may 

review the rule to determine how they 

are subject to the final rule. To the 

extent these entities are directly 

regulated by the rule, familiarization 

costs will be incurred, and those 

familiarization costs are a direct cost of 

the rule. 

In addition to those being directly 

regulated by the rule, a wide variety of 

other entities will likely choose to read 

the rule and incur familiarization costs. 

For example, surety companies and 

noncitizens may want to become 

familiar with the provisions of this rule. 

At approximately 18,250 words, ICE 

estimates the time to read the final rule 

is approximately 61 to 73 minutes per 

person, resulting in opportunity costs of 

time. Congruent with other DHS impact 

analyses, ICE assumes the average 

professional reads technical documents 

at a rate of 250 to 300 words per 

minute.56 An entity, such as a surety 

company may have more than one 

person who reads the final rule. Using 

the average hourly rate of total 

compensation of $44.27 for all 

occupations (both civilian and 

private),57 ICE estimates that the 

opportunity cost of time will range from 

$44.88 to $53.86 per individual who 

must read and review the final rule (in 

2023 dollars).58


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
552 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

(1.014 and 1.217, respectively), equate to the per 

individual opportunity cost of time required to read 

the rule ($44.88 to $53.86, respectively). Word 

count estimated as of March 25, 2024. 

59 Data was obtained from the DHS/ICE BMIS 

(obtained July 16, 2021, see Table 2). An average 

of 41,820 cash bonds were posted annually between 

2018 and 2020. ICE used the average cash bonds 

posted as an estimate of the number of cash bond 

obligors. Cash bonds are generally posted by 

noncitizens or loved ones. 

60This includes surety agents who post bonds of 

behalf of obligors. ICE found that between fiscal 

year 2018 and 2020, a total of 15 agents and 11 

surety companies posted ICE immigration bonds on 

behalf of surety bond obligors. 

61Range for total familiarization cost: lower 

bound $44.88 × 41,846 = $1,878,048; upper bound 

$53.86 × 41,846 = $2,253,826. 

62Average hourly total compensation $44.27 = 

($45.42 civilian workers + $43.11 private industry 

workers) ÷ 2. Total Compensation for civilian 

workers and private industry workers, U.S. Dep’t of 

Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs 

for Employe Compensation—December 2023, (Mar. 

13, 2024), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

archives/ecec_03132024.pdf. 

63 Data was obtained from the DHS/ICE BMIS and 

utilized the number of unique Tax Identification 

Numbers (TIN) for bond obligors within a given set 

of years (obtained July 16, 2021). 

64 $308,361.60 = $7.38 × 41,820 annual average 

number of unique cash bond obligors (see Table 2). 

65 $191.88 = $7.38 × 26 annual average number 

of surety companies and surety agents FY2018– 

FY2020. 

66Estimates provided by ERO, Bond Management 

Unit, July 14, 2022. 

While the analysis assumes all bond 

obligors will utilize these systems, there 

are many factors which may impact the 

adoption of CeBONDS, such as 

awareness of the system and internet 

access. Given this, ICE provides an 

estimate for the number of people that 

will familiarize themselves with this 

rule based on expected users. To 

estimate this population, ICE utilized 

counts of bond obligors 59 and surety 

companies 60 between FY 2018 and FY 

2020 to derive an annual average of 

41,846 obligors (41,820 cash obligors + 

11 surety companies + 15 agents). 

Assuming that at least one person from 

each entity or party will be responsible 

for reading the final rule, the total 

familiarization cost will range from 

$1,878,048 to $2,253,826 (in 2023 

dollars).61 The average of this estimated 

range for familiarization for bond 

obligor entities, $2,065,937, is used in 

the accounting of the first year of the 

cost of this final rule. 

Account Creation—In accounting for 

the costs of electronic bond-related 

notices, ICE considered whether bond 

obligors or surety companies will face 

opportunity costs to utilize eBONDS 

and CeBONDS. For ICE to send 

notifications electronically to bond 

obligors, the bond obligors will need to 

create a personal account to access 

bond-related notices and process bond 

payments. ICE estimates the time to 

create this account is no more than 10 

minutes. Using the average total rate of 

compensation as $44.27 62 per hour for 

all occupations, ICE estimates that the 

opportunity cost of time will be $7.38 

per individual (or surety company) who 

creates an account. To estimate this 

population, ICE utilized a 3-year average 

population count 63 of bond obligors 

between fiscal year 2018 and 2020 (from 

table 2) and assumes that all obligors 

will enroll into the program within the 

first year of implementation. The 

estimated total opportunity cost during 

the first-year adoption period for the 

current obligor population is 

$308,823.64 To account for surety 

companies and surety agents, ICE also 

utilized BMIS to account for each 

representative which posted surety 

bonds between fiscal year 2018 and 

2020, determining that a total of 15 

agents and 11 surety companies had 

posted immigration bonds. The 

estimated total opportunity cost during 

the first-year adoption period for this 

population to adopt these systems is 

$191.88.65

Lastly, in order to determine the cost 

of new obligors entering the pool and 

creating new accounts over the time 

horizon, ICE utilized prior cash bond 

obligor population data from fiscal years 

2018 to 2020 to project that an average 

of 41,820 new cash bond obligors will 

create accounts each year. This will 

equate to a total cost to the public of 

$3,086,316 over 10 years. 

CeBONDS Development & 

Maintenance—CeBONDS began 

development in April of 2021, with the 

total development cost for ICE being 

estimated at roughly $1,507,000. The 

maintenance costs for ICE have been 

estimated to be $150,000 annually.66

Similar to eBONDS, without this rule, 

ICE would still develop and implement 

CeBONDS to allow obligors to post cash 

bonds electronically, and ICE would 

continue to serve all bond-related 

notices using personal or routine 

service. Therefore, ICE did not include 

these development and maintenance 

costs as a part of the total costs in this 

analysis since the development and 

operation of the CeBONDS system is 

occurring independent of this final rule. 

Unquantified Costs 

ICE also identified additional 

unquantified costs that will result from 

this final rule. 

Technology—In accounting for the 

costs of electronic bond-related notices 

and notifications, ICE considered 

whether bond obligors will face 

technology costs to utilize these 

services, namely the cost to access the 

internet. There are a variety of means by 

which obligors can access the internet to 

receive electronic bond-related notices 

and notifications, including the use of 

smart phones or personal computers. 

Due to the high prevalence and wideranging public and private access the 

internet, including access to free Wi-Fi 

in public and private locations, access 

to computers and internet at public 

libraries, as well as likely connections to 

family and friends who have ready 

access to the internet, ICE expects bond 

obligors who opt for electronic service 

will be able to gain access with de 

minimis cost. Furthermore, obligors can 

still opt out of electronic service and 

follow the same practice as in the 

baseline case. It is unclear how many 

obligors will choose to use the in-person 

option, but since the rule provides 

greater flexibility by permitting 

electronic service while retaining the 

existing method for paying bonds, ICE 

does not expect the rule to induce 

substantive access costs. 

Validity Check—In creating the online 

account for obligors, ICE will perform a 

validity check as part of the sign-up 

process for receiving electronic bondrelated notices and notifications, as 

users cannot complete their account 

creation if their email is not first 

validated. The time burden to perform 

this check will be based on how long it 

takes for ICE to submit a verification 

email to the provided email address and 

confirm the accuracy of that address. 

However, because this process will 

likely be automated via computer 

software that is already available to ICE 

(see CeBONDS system development 

costs), ICE does not expect this process 

to produce a substantive cost. 

Total Estimated Costs 

Table 5 summarizes the quantified 

impact of this final rule. The total 

monetized costs of the rule do not 

include the development and annual 

maintenance costs required to operate 

the CeBONDS system given that they are 

not tied to this this final rule, as 

discussed above. The 10-year costs of 

the final rule are approximately $4.63 

million and $4.09 million (in 2023 

dollars) at 3 and 7 percent discount 

rates, respectively, and include the 

opportunity costs of familiarization and 

setting up an online account. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 553 

67U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt., Pay & Leave 

(January 2024), https://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/ 

24Tables/html/RUS_h.aspx (last visited Nov. 15, 

2024). 

68U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Employer Costs for Employe Compensation— 

December 2023 (Mar. 13, 2024), https://

www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_

03132024.pdf. 

69Cost per notice estimates provided by ERO 

Bond Management Unit and include, when 

applicable, costs for certified mail, postage, paper, 

envelopes, and materials (such as toner/ink), as of 

July 26, 2021. 

TABLE 5—TOTAL ESTIMATED QUANTIFIED COSTS

Year Undiscounted Discounted at 

3% 

Discounted at 

7% 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... $2,374,761 $2,305,593 $2,219,402 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 308,632 290,915 269,571 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 308,632 282,442 251,935 

4 ................................................................................................................................................... 308,632 274,215 235,454 

5 ................................................................................................................................................... 308,632 266,228 220,050 

6 ................................................................................................................................................... 308,632 258,474 205,654 

7 ................................................................................................................................................... 308,632 250,946 192,200 

8 ................................................................................................................................................... 308,632 243,637 179,626 

9 ................................................................................................................................................... 308,632 236,540 167,875 

10 ................................................................................................................................................. 308,632 229,651 156,893 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 5,152,445 4,638,641 4,098,661 

Annualized ..................................................................................................................... ........................ 543,790 583,557 

Cost Savings of the Final Rule 

This alternative method of ICE’s 

process for serving bond-related notices 

and issuing electronic bond-related 

notifications is expected to reduce labor 

costs for the government by reducing 

the time needed to process these 

notices, and it will eventually 

significantly reduce, if not eliminate, 

the costs of material items such as 

postage and paper that would otherwise 

be incurred for notices that are 

physically mailed. As mentioned above, 

ICE calculates quantitative benefits 

based on the assumption that new 

obligors are incentivized toward 

adoption into the eBONDS and 

CeBONDS systems within the first year 

of publishing this final rule. 

Cost Savings Due to Electronic BondRelated Service Process 

Mailing Cost Savings—ICE estimated 

the cost-savings to government that will 

be obtained from a 100 percent adoption 

of electronic bond-related service 

process to be $609,594 per year (in 2023 

dollars). To arrive at the full cost 

savings estimate, ICE calculated the 

average cost of sending physical notices 

by certified or first-class mail. 

Specifically, ICE calculated the time 

required for an ICE official to collect, 

process, and place in the mail each 

physical notice, which was 5 minutes. 

ICE divided the 5 minutes by 60 

minutes per hour, and multiplied by 

$59.24, which is the fully loaded 

average hourly wage based on a General 

Schedule Grade 11, Step 10 salary, with 

a ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locality adjustment of 

16.82 percent.67 ICE based the fully 

loaded wage rate on the wage rate of 

$45.19 per hour, adjusted upward by 

31.1 percent to account for 

compensation for benefits (in addition 

to wages).68 This calculation resulted in 

an estimated labor cost of $4.94 per 

mailing. ICE then added this labor cost 

to the cost of materials (for the 

envelope, paper, etc.) 69 and the postage 

per notice (which varies depending on 

the type of notice) to determine the 

various costs per notice. ICE then 

multiplied this total by the number of 

pieces that are mailed per notice (which 

also varies depending on the type of 

notice), and by the average total number 

of notices issued for each type. Table 6 

displays how the total cost of $609,594 

was derived. 

TABLE 6—GOVERNMENT COST SAVINGS OF BOND-RELATED NOTICES

Notice type 

Average 

number of 

notices mailed 

(FY 2018–2020) 

Cost per 

notice Total cost 

I–391 Cash Bond Cancellations ................................................................................................ 15,317 $5.61 $85,928 

I–340 Cash Bond Obligor to Deliver Alien ................................................................................ 12,020 10.52 126,450 

I–323 Cash Bond Breaches ...................................................................................................... 7,128 10.52 74,987 

I–340 Surety Bond Obligor to Deliver Alien .............................................................................. 6,080 42.07 255,786 

I–391 Surety Bond Cancellations .............................................................................................. 2,841 11.22 31,876 

I–323 Surety Bond Breaches .................................................................................................... 1,412 21.04 29,708 

Surety Bond Motion to Reopen or Reconsider ......................................................................... 306 11.22 3,433 

Cash Bond Motion to Reopen or Reconsider ........................................................................... 254 5.61 1,425 

Totals .................................................................................................................................. 45,358 13.44 609,594 

Total Estimated Quantified Savings 

Table 7 summarizes the quantified 

cost savings of this final rule. The total 

monetized savings of the rule includes 

the average cost savings for ICE of 

replacing physically mailed notices (by 

certified, registered, or regular mail) 

with electronic bond-related notices in 

the CeBONDS system, as well as 

emailed notifications. In order to 

capture these cost savings over the time 

horizon of the analysis, ICE assumed a 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
554 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

70 Data obtained internally by DHS/ICE BMIS, 

Financial Service Center-Burlington, as of March 8, 

2021. 

71See Public Law 105–277, tit. XVII, section 

1703, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681–749 (Oct. 21, 1998), 44 

U.S.C. 3504. 

constant average rate of notices over a 

10-year period. Thus, this estimate does 

not account for any change in the total 

number of notices that may occur in the 

future, or circumstances under which 

ICE needs to send paper notices by mail 

if emails fail, or the possibility of less 

than full adoption by the public. The 

10-year cost-savings of the final rule in 

2023 dollars are $5.1 million and $4.2 

million at 3 and 7 percent discount 

rates, respectively. 

TABLE 7—TOTAL ESTIMATED QUANTIFIED COST SAVINGS

Year Undiscounted Discounted at 

3% 

Discounted at 

7% 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... $609,594 $591,839 $569,714 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 609,594 574,601 532,443 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 609,594 557,865 497,610 

4 ................................................................................................................................................... 609,594 541,616 465,056 

5 ................................................................................................................................................... 609,594 525,841 434,632 

6 ................................................................................................................................................... 609,594 510,525 406,198 

7 ................................................................................................................................................... 609,594 495,655 379,624 

8 ................................................................................................................................................... 609,594 481,219 354,789 

9 ................................................................................................................................................... 609,594 467,203 331,579 

10 ................................................................................................................................................. 609,594 453,595 309,887 

Total ............................................................................................................................... 6,095,937 5,199,958 4,281,531 

Annualized ..................................................................................................................... ........................ 609,594 609,594 

Unquantified Benefits of the Final Rule 

This alternative method of ICE’s 

process, serving bond-related notices 

electronically and issuing electronic 

bond-related notifications, is expected 

to increase efficiency, accessibility, 

expedited delivery, and reliability of 

bond notices to the obligor. These 

benefits are described in more detail 

below. 

Program Delivery—By serving bondrelated notices electronically via the 

CeBONDS system and making bond 

obligors responsible for ensuring that 

electronic bond-related notifications can 

be received by email, ICE expects it will 

significantly reduce the number of 

bond-related notices that are not 

received by the obligor. A random 

sample of 100 delivery cash bonds that 

were declared as being breached during 

calendar years 2017–2019 indicates that 

approximately 28 percent of demand 

notices sent by certified mail to the 

obligor’s address of record were 

returned as undeliverable or 

unclaimed.70 The electronic bondrelated service process will significantly 

reduce the occurrence of notices being 

lost in the mail during delivery, while 

still providing notifications in the event 

that obligors move from their physical 

address or are away from that address 

for an extended period of time. This 

process is also expected to reduce the 

likelihood that an obligor would miss 

the opportunity to appeal a bond breach 

determination in time, which would 

otherwise lead to the forfeiting of the 

bond amount. Additionally, in creating 

the online account for obligors, ICE will 

perform a validity check as part of the 

sign-up process for receiving electronic 

bond-related notices, as users cannot 

create an online account if their email 

is not validated. This use of a verified 

email address will ensure that the 

notifications have a high probability of 

being successfully delivered 

electronically to an email address that 

the obligor uses, ensuring that the 

notification reaches its proper recipient. 

ICE also intends to expedite delivery 

of notifications. For example, when an 

obligor chooses to post a bond online 

and receive bond-related notifications 

electronically, the system is designed to 

notify the obligor immediately by email 

when a notice has been issued. ICE, in 

turn, will also be able to confirm 

immediately the date that the cash bond 

obligor opens and views the notice. In 

this way, recipients can receive 

notifications without being present at 

their physical mailing address as long as 

they have access to the internet. 

Paperless Records—The changes due 

to this final rule are consistent with the 

types of changes now being made across 

the federal government regarding the 

mechanisms through which federal 

offices deliver documents to the public. 

In accordance with the Government 

Paperwork Elimination Act,71 electronic 

notifications will significantly reduce 

the use of paper and physical storage 

space. 

Alternative Analysis 

Before proposing service of electronic 

bond-related notifications, ICE 

evaluated one alternative option that 

would affect the entities subject to the 

rule requirements, namely the no action 

alternative. The details of this option are 

described below, and Table 8 presents 

the unquantified costs and benefits for 

this alternative. 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Action Benefits Costs 

• Take No Action ................ • No familiarization, technology, or opportunity cost to 

public.

• Cost to process nonelectronic mail. 

• Nonalignment with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. 

• No improvement in program delivery. 

• Costs to maintain physical records. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 555 

72Public Law 105–277, tit. XVII, section 1703, 

112 Stat. 2681, 2681–749 (Oct. 21, 1998), 44 U.S.C. 

3504. 

73Office of Management and Budget, Transition 

to Electronic Records (OMB/NARA M–19–21) (June 

28, 2019), https://www.archives.gov/files/recordsmgmt/policy/m-19-21-transition-to-federalrecords.pdf. 74See 5 U.S.C. 604(a). 

Alternative: Take No Action 

ICE considered a ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative under which ICE would 

continue to serve bond-related notices 

to obligors for immigration bonds using 

personal or routine service, at a cost to 

both the federal government and the 

recipients. 

The opportunity costs associated with 

electing a ‘‘no action’’ alternative would 

be equivalent to the current average cost 

to ICE of sending physical notices by 

certified or first-class mail, which ICE 

estimated to be $573,470 per year. ICE 

would still be required to process and 

mail notices by hand, and bond obligors 

would continue to receive physical 

notifications. This alternative also 

means that ICE would not be acting in 

alignment with government-wide efforts 

to shift agencies’ business processes and 

recordkeeping to a fully electronic 

environment as encouraged by statutes 

like the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act,72 and more recently, 

the joint memorandum issued by OMB 

and the National Archives and Records 

Administration 73 requiring the 

government to store records 

electronically. Additionally, this 

alternative of ‘‘no action’’ would also 

not result in any cost savings with 

regard to system development or 

deployment, because the eBONDS 

systems was already built and deployed 

independent of this final rule and the 

CeBONDS system is already being built 

and deployed independent of this final 

rule. 

The cost savings and benefits 

associated with this action involve the 

development, familiarization, 

technology, and opportunity costs 

associated with implementing this final 

rule. Absent the requirement to use the 

CeBONDS system, bond obligors would 

not face the potential costs associated 

with learning about the final rule, 

acquiring the necessary technological 

means to access the internet, or the 

expended time in creating an eBONDS 

or CeBONDS account. 

Additionally, any preference by 

obligors either to maintain physical 

records or to receive nonelectronic mail 

notices has already been considered in 

the development of final rule. As part of 

the process of deciding to post a bond 

electronically with ICE, the obligor will 

be informed that bond notices will be 

served electronically, and the obligor 

must agree to receive them 

electronically as well as bond-related 

electronic notifications. If the obligor 

does not wish to post a bond 

electronically or receive bond notices 

and notifications electronically, the 

obligor may post the bond in person at 

an ICE office and receive notices and 

other bond-related information via 

another form of authorized paper-based 

service. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. 

However, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required when a rule is 

exempt from notice-and-comment 

rulemaking; therefore, since this action 

is exempt under the APA, it is not 

subject to the regulatory flexibility 

analysis requirements.74

D. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 

121, DHS wants to assist small entities 

in understanding this final rule so that 

they can better evaluate the effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the final rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction, and you have questions 

concerning the provisions or options for 

compliance; please consult ICE using 

the contact information provided in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section above. 

E. Congressional Review Act 

This final rule is not a major rule as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, also known as 

the ‘‘Congressional Review Act,’’ as 

enacted in section 251 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 

121, 110 Stat. 847, 868 et seq. This final 

rule would not result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more; a major increase in costs or prices; 

or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based companies to compete 

with foreign based companies in 

domestic and export markets. A report 

about the issuance of this final rule has 

been submitted to Congress and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act addresses actions that may 

result in the expenditure by a State, 

local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any year. Though this final rule 

would not result in such an 

expenditure, DHS does discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act— 

Collection of Information 

All Departments are required to 

submit to OMB for review and approval 

any reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements inherent in a rule under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat. 163 

(codified at 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Under the PRA, an agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless the agency obtains 

approval from OMB for the collection 

and the collection displays a valid OMB 

control number. See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 

3507. 

With respect to immigration bonds, 

regardless of using either eBONDS or 

CeBONDS, there would be no changes 

to the reporting burden for the existing 

collection of information associated 

with Form I–352, Immigration Bond 

(OMB control number 1653–0022) or 

Form I–333, Obligor Change of Address 

(OMB control number 1653–0042). 

There are no substantive changes to 

those forms because of this rule. If DHS 

identifies any impacts that would 

modify or create a new collection, DHS 

will submit a revision to OMB at that 

time. 

H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. DHS has analyzed 

this final rule under Executive Order 

13132 and determined that it does not 

have implications for federalism. 

I. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

This final rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
556 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

a clear legal standard for affected 

conduct, and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 

J. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

DHS analyzed this final rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. DHS has 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

K. National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive (MD) 

023–01, Rev. 01 establishes procedures 

that DHS and its Components use to 

comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321–4375, and the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations for implementing 

NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500–1508. 

CEQ regulations allow federal 

agencies to establish categories of 

actions, which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment and, therefore, 

do not require an Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact 

Statement. 40 CFR 1508.4. The DHS 

Categorical Exclusions are listed in IM 

023–01–001–01 Rev. 01, Appendix A, 

Table 1. 

For an action to be categorically 

excluded, MD 023–01 requires the 

action to satisfy each of the following 

three conditions: 

(1) The entire action clearly fits 

within one or more of the Categorical 

Exclusions; 

(2) The action is not a piece of a larger 

action; and 

(3) No extraordinary circumstances 

exist that create the potential for a 

significant environmental effect. IM 

023–01–001–01 Rev. 01 § V(B)(2)(a)–(c). 

If the action does not clearly meet all 

three conditions, DHS or the 

Component prepares an Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact 

Statement, according to CEQ 

requirements, MD 023–01, and IM 023– 

01–001–01 Rev. 01. 

ICE has analyzed this rule under MD 

023–01 Rev. 01 and IM 023–01–001–01 

Rev.01. ICE has made the determination 

that this rulemaking action is one of a 

category of actions, which does not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This final rule clearly fits 

within the Categorical Exclusion found 

in IM 023–01–001–01 Rev. 01, 

Appendix A, Table 1, number A3(d): 

‘‘Promulgation of rules . . . that 

interpret or amend an existing 

regulation without changing its 

environmental effect.’’ This final rule is 

not part of a larger action. This final rule 

presents no extraordinary circumstances 

creating the potential for significant 

environmental effects. Therefore, this 

final rule is categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

L. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This final rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

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. 

M. Executive Order 12630: 

Governmental Actions and Interference 

With Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights 

This final rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

N. 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 risk or safety risk 

that may disproportionately affect 

children. DHS has reviewed this final 

rule and determined that this final rule 

is not an economically significant rule 

and would not create an environmental 

risk to health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

Therefore, DHS has not prepared a 

statement under this executive order. 

O. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise 

impracticable. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

specifications of materials, performance, 

design, or operation; test methods; 

sampling procedures; and related 

management systems practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. This final 

rule does not use technical standards. 

Therefore, DHS did not consider the use 

of voluntary consensus standards. 

P. Family Assessment 

DHS has determined that this final 

rule action will not affect family wellbeing within the meaning of section 654 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 

enacted as part of the Omnibus 

Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act of 

1999 (Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681). 

List of Subjects 

8 CFR Part 103 

Administrative practice and 

procedures, Authority delegations 

(government agencies), Fees, Freedom of 

Information, Immigration, Privacy, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Surety bonds. 

Regulatory Amendments 

Accordingly, DHS amends chapter I of 

title 8 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 103—IMMIGRATION BENEFITS; 

BIOMETRIC RECORDS; AVAILABILITY 

OF RECORDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 103 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 

U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 1356, 1356b, 1372; 

31 U.S.C. 9701; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 

2135 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.); Pub. L. 112–54, 

125 Stat 550 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note); E.O. 12356, 

47 FR 14874, 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 

166; 8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 112–54; 125 Stat. 

550; 31 CFR part 223. 

■ 2. Amend § 103.6 by revising 

paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows: 

§ 103.6 Immigration bonds. 

* * * * * 

(g) Delivery bond notices to surrender 

aliens. Notwithstanding the 

requirements of § 103.8 for the service of 

other notices, ICE may serve demand 

notices electronically to bond obligors 

who consent to electronic delivery of 

service, or by any mail service that 

allows delivery confirmation to cause an 

alien who has been released from DHS 

custody on an immigration bond to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 557 

appear at an ICE office or an 

immigration court. An electronic record 

from the ICE bonds system showing that 

the bond obligor opened the demand 

notice will constitute valid proof of 

service of the notice. If ICE cannot 

confirm proof of service of the 

electronic notice, ICE will issue a new 

demand notice to the bond obligor’s last 

known address using any mail service 

that allows delivery confirmation. 

(h) Bond breach, bond cancellation, 

and other bond notices. 

Notwithstanding the service 

requirements for demand notices in 

paragraph (g) of this section, ICE may 

serve any other bond-related notices 

that pertain to delivery, order of 

supervision, or voluntary departure 

immigration bonds, such as bond breach 

or cancellation notices, electronically to 

obligors who consent to electronic 

delivery of service, or by ordinary mail. 

An electronic record from the ICE bonds 

system showing that the bond obligor 

opened the bond-related notice will 

constitute valid proof of service of the 

notice. If ICE cannot confirm proof of 

service of the electronic notice, ICE will 

reissue another notice to the bond 

obligor’s last known address using 

ordinary mail. 

Alejandro N. Mayorkas, 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31358 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–CB–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2023–2222; Airspace 

Docket No. 23–AGL–32] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Establishment of Class E Airspace; 

Redfield, SD 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class 

E airspace at Redfield, SD. This action 

due to the development of new public 

instrument procedures and to support 

instrument flight rule (IFR) operations. 

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 17, 

2025. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under 1 CFR part 51, 

subject to the annual revision of FAA 

Order JO 7400.11 and publication of 

conforming amendments. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all 

comments received, this final rule, and 

all background material may be viewed 

online at www.regulations.gov using the 

FAA Docket number. Electronic 

retrieval help and guidelines are 

available on the website. It is available 

24 hours each day, 365 days each year. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, and 

subsequent amendments can be viewed 

online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/ 

publications/. You may also contact the 

Rules and Regulations Group, Office of 

Policy, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Operations Support 

Group, Central Service Center, 10101 

Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 

76177; telephone (817) 222–5711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it establishes 

Class E airspace extending upward from 

700 feet above the surface at Redfield 

Municipal Airport, Redfield, SD, to 

support IFR operations at this airport. 

History 

The FAA published an NPRM for 

Docket No. FAA–2023–2222 in the 

Federal Register (88 FR 83874; 

December 1, 2023) proposing to 

establish Class E airspace at Redfield, 

SD. Interested parties were invited to 

participate in this rulemaking effort by 

submitting written comments on the 

proposal to the FAA. No comments 

were received. 

Incorporation by Reference 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA 

Order JO 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

which is incorporated by reference in 14 

CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This 

document amends the current version of 

that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, 

dated July 31, 2024, and effective 

September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 

7400.11J is publicly available as listed 

in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. These amendments will be 

published in the next update to FAA 

Order JO 7400.11. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, 

B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic 

service routes, and reporting points. 

The Rule 

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 

establishes Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet above the surface 

to within a 6.3-mile radius of Redfield 

Municipal Airport, Redfield, SD. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. It, therefore: (1) is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that only affects air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 

paragraph 5–6.5.a. This airspace action 

is not expected to cause any potentially 

significant environmental impacts, and 

no extraordinary circumstances exist 

that warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES