```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 535-557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31358]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \1\ Immigration Bond Notifications, 88 FR 53358 (Aug. 8, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 536]]

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

    \2\ Office of Management and Budget, Transition to Electronic 
Records (OMB/NARA M-19-21) (June 28, 2019), https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/policy/m-19-21-transition-to-federal-records.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, ``E-commerce 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Robert A. Wittie & Jane K. Winn, Electronic Records and 
Signatures under the Federal E-Sign Legislation and the UETA, 56 
Bus. Law. 293, 314 (2000).
    \4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, https://www.ice.gov/mission (last visited Nov. 14, 2024).
    \8\ The 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 537]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An 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 Center-Burlington, as of January 17, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Provided 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Immigration Bond Statistics maintained by ICE's Bond 
Management Unit, Non-Detained Management Division, Enforcement and 
Removal Operations, as of January 17, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ However, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Form I-340 (rev. Dec. 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Form I-323 (rev. Oct. 2020). See 8 CFR 103.6(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Form I-391 (rev. Mar. 2023).

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

[[Page 538]]

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

    \19\ Form 71-042 (rev. Jan. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \20\ Immigration Bond Notification, 88 FR 53358 (Aug. 08, 2023); 
8 CFR 103.6(g)-(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters requested additional time for the public to 
comment. DHS reviewed all the timely-filed 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

[[Page 539]]

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

    \22\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 stand-alone 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Post a Bond, 
https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management/bonds (last visited 
Sept. 6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 540]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ U.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.
    \26\ U.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.
    \27\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 541]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Stanford 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-the-federal-governments-billion-dollar-immigration-detention-and-bond-operations/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 bond-related 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 cost-analysis 
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

[[Page 542]]

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

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

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See ICE Directive 8014.1, Section 508 Accessibility (Mar. 
3, 2023), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/policy/8014.1_Section508_Accessibility.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 bond-related 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Commenter 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: DHS concluded that the rule does not have an impact on 
family-being 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 low-
income 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

[[Page 543]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Language Access 
Information and Resources (last updated May 7, 2024), https://www.ice.gov/detain/language-access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Site Policies 
(last updated Aug. 6, 2024), https://www.ice.gov/site-policies#accessibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \34\ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Post a Bond, 
Frequently Asked Questions, How to Pay a Bond?, https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management/bonds (last visited Aug. 25, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ U.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.
    \37\ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Language Access 
Plan (June 14, 2015), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ICE%20Language%20Access%20Plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \38\ Id.
    \39\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Language Access at 
the Department of Homeland Security (last updated Feb. 28, 2024), 
https://www.dhs.gov/language-access.
    \40\ Language Access Plan, supra note 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 544]]

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

    \41\ To 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Federal 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \43\ U.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).
    \44\ U.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-ICFO-31476.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \45\ Federal Reserve Bank Services, FedNow Service 2024 Fee 
Schedule, www.frbservices.org/resources/fees/fednow-2024 (last 
visited July 24, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 low-income 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 546]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Post a Bond (last 
updated Sept. 17, 2024), https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management/bonds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As listed on the ICE website, an obligor must provide at least one 
(1) document to ICE from the applicable category below.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Post a Bond (last 
updated Sept. 17, 2024), https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management/bonds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 non-profit 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 bond-posting 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 sub-agency 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 bond-
eligible 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

[[Page 547]]

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 system-wide outages, crashes, or failures. 
Furthermore, the number of customer-reported 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 [email protected].

O. In-Person Bond Payment

    Comment: The majority of commenters requested ICE allow obligors 
the option to pay bonds in-person 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 in-person 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Post a Bond (last 
updated Sept. 17, 2024), https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management/bonds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters stated that ICE's informational web page fails to inform 
the public when ICE may accept an in-person 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 non-

[[Page 548]]

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

    \50\ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE Alternatives 
to Detention (last updated June 24, 2024), https://www.ice.gov/features/atd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \51\ See, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-and-comment 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-effective-date 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

[[Page 549]]

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 cost-savings 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ OMB 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.

           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    RIA.
                                   delivery. Reduced
                                   paper waste.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Costs ($
 Mil):
    (3%)........................  .544..............  RIA.
    (7%)........................  .584..............  RIA.
Annualized Quantified, but
 Unmonetized, Costs.
Unquantified Costs..............  Cost to public to   RIA.
                                   access electronic
                                   system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers..
From Whom to Whom...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Other Analyses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on State, Local, and/or   No Impact.........  FR.
 Tribal Governments.
Effects on Small Business.......  Undetermined......  FR.
Effects on Wages................
Effects on Growth...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 550]]

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 web-based 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \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 in-
person payment option for such exceptions, but for the purpose of 
not inserting additional uncertainty into this analysis, DHS has not 
changed this assumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).

[[Page 551]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Description of         Affected
            Provision                   change            population          Cost impact       Benefit impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serve Bond-Related Notices        The electronic       All bond    Improved
 Electronically.                   service process     obligors who post   Familiarization     program delivery.
                                   entails serving     immigration bonds   costs.              Expedited
                                   immigration (ICE)   online using the    Potential   service process.
                                   bond-related        CeBONDS or eBONDS   technology costs.
                                   notices             system.            
                                   electronically      Federal     Opportunity costs
                                   and sending email   Government.         to create an
                                   notifications                           CeBONDS account.
                                   that notices have                       Program
                                   been posted to                          cost savings..
                                   their account to
                                   bond obligors who
                                   have posted a
                                   bond using the
                                   eBONDS and
                                   CeBONDS systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 co-obligors' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Except that portion of 8 CFR 103.8(a)(2) that is applicable 
solely to USCIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Average annual
                                                            number of
                      Notice type                         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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See 87 FR 10570 (Feb. 24, 2022) and 87 FR 18078 (Mar. 29, 
2022).
    \57\ Average 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.
    \58\ Calculation: 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 
(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.

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

[[Page 552]]

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

    \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.
    \60\ This 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.
    \61\ Range for total familiarization cost: lower bound $44.88 x 
41,846 = $1,878,048; upper bound $53.86 x 41,846 = $2,253,826.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Average 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 x 41,820 annual average number of 
unique cash bond obligors (see Table 2).
    \65\ $191.88 = $7.38 x 26 annual average number of surety 
companies and surety agents FY2018-FY2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \66\ Estimates provided by ERO, Bond Management Unit, July 14, 
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 wide-ranging 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 bond-related 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.

[[Page 553]]

                                    Table 5--Total Estimated Quantified Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Discounted at   Discounted at
                              Year                                 Undiscounted         3%              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 Bond-Related 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt., Pay & Leave (January 2024), 
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/24Tables/html/RUS_h.aspx (last visited Nov. 15, 2024).
    \68\ 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.
    \69\ Cost 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 6--Government Cost Savings of Bond-Related Notices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Average number
                                                                    of notices       Cost per
                          Notice type                            mailed (FY 2018-     notice        Total cost
                                                                      2020)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 554]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Discounted at   Discounted at
                              Year                                 Undiscounted         3%              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 bond-related 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 
bond-related 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Data obtained internally by DHS/ICE BMIS, Financial Service 
Center-Burlington, as of March 8, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \71\ See Public Law 105-277, tit. XVII, section 1703, 112 Stat. 
2681, 2681-749 (Oct. 21, 1998), 44 U.S.C. 3504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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            Cost to
                               familiarization,      process
                               technology, or        nonelectronic mail.
                               opportunity cost to  
                               public.               Nonalignment with
                                                     the Government
                                                     Paperwork
                                                     Elimination Act.
                                                     No
                                                     improvement in
                                                     program delivery.
                                                     Costs to
                                                     maintain physical
                                                     records.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 555]]

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

    \72\ Public Law 105-277, tit. XVII, section 1703, 112 Stat. 
2681, 2681-749 (Oct. 21, 1998), 44 U.S.C. 3504.
    \73\ Office of Management and Budget, Transition to Electronic 
Records (OMB/NARA M-19-21) (June 28, 2019), https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/policy/m-19-21-transition-to-federal-records.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See 5 U.S.C. 604(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 556]]

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 Sec.  
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 well-being 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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  103.6 by revising paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  103.6  Immigration bonds.

* * * * *
    (g) Delivery bond notices to surrender aliens. Notwithstanding the 
requirements of Sec.  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

[[Page 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
```