50954 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Code, if the service had been covered 

under chapter 84 of title 5, United States 

Code, plus interest. 

(iii) The department or agency must 

remit the amount of Government 

contributions under this section to OPM 

at the same time it remits the employee 

deposit for this service to OPM in 

accordance with instructions issued by 

OPM. 

(9) Interest. Interest must be 

computed as described under 

paragraphs (2) and (3) of 5 U.S.C. 

8334(e). Interest must be computed for 

each distinct period of service from the 

midpoint of each distinct period of 

service. The interest accrues annually 

on the outstanding deposit and is 

compounded annually, until the deposit 

is paid. 

(10) Effect of deposit. An individual 

completing a deposit under this section 

will receive retirement credit for the 

service covered by the deposit when 

OPM receives certification that the 

deposit has been paid in full, and the 

deposit payment and agency 

contributions are remitted to the Civil 

Service Retirement and Disability Fund. 

(11) Appeal rights. When the 

department or agency processing an 

application for deposit under this 

section determines that the individual is 

not eligible to make a deposit for a 

period of service, it must provide the 

individual with a written decision 

explaining the reason for the decision 

and explaining the individual’s right to 

appeal the decision to the Merit Systems 

Protection Board. 

[FR Doc. 05–17053 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

8 CFR Part 103 

[CIS No. 2245–02 and Docket No. DHS–

2004–0021] 

RIN 1615–AA88 

Adjustment of the Appeal and Motion 

Fees To Recover Full Costs 

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule adjusts the fee for 

filing appeals of, and motions to reopen 

or reconsider, any decision under the 

immigration laws in any type of 

proceeding other than those described at 

8 CFR 1003.1(b), over which the Board 

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) has 

appellate jurisdiction. The rule also 

adds a non-substantive modification to 

the language of the fee regulation in 

order to enhance clarity. 

This rule applies to fees for appeals 

and motions relating to the types of 

cases under the jurisdiction of the 

Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). 

The AAO is an appellate office of U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS). The BIA remains a component 

of DOJ, and has appellate jurisdiction 

over the orders of immigration judges, 

denials of relative immigrant visa 

petitions (Form I–130), and decisions 

involving administrative fines and 

penalties. This rule does not apply to, 

or affect in any manner, the fees 

associated with the BIA. Appeals from 

denials of all other types of 

applications, such as Applications for 

Temporary Protected Status (Form I–

821), and petitions, such as Petitions for 

Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special 

Immigrant (Form I–360), and any 

subsequently filed motions, are under 

the jurisdiction of the AAO. 

The fees, deposited into the 

Immigration Examinations Fee Account 

(IEFA), are adjusted from $110 to $385 

to recover the full costs associated with 

the processing of an appeal, motion to 

reopen or motion to reconsider. Federal 

statutes authorize USCIS to establish 

and collect fees to recover the full cost 

of processing immigration benefit 

applications, rather than supporting 

these services with tax revenue. 

Finally, the rule replaces a reference 

in the regulations to an obsolete form 

with a reference to the revised version 

of that form. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective September 28, 2005. 

Compliance Date: Applications 

mailed, postmarked, or otherwise filed, 

on or after September 28, 2005 require 

the new fee. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Schlesinger, Director, Office of Budget, 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, Department of Homeland 

Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, 

NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20529, 

telephone (202) 272–1930. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

USCIS published a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register on November 30, 

2004, at 69 FR 69546, to adjust the fees 

for processing of an appeal, motion to 

reopen or motion to reconsider. The 

proposed rule was published with a 30- 

day comment period, which closed on 

December 30, 2004. USCIS received 14 

comments pertaining to the adjustment 

of the fees for processing of an appeal 

or motion to reopen or motion to 

reconsider. 

Comments were received from 13 

concerned individuals and one 

association. All of the relevant 

comments were carefully considered 

before preparing this final rule. USCIS’

responses to the concerns raised by the 

commenters primarily are based upon 

the November 2002 fee review report 

provided by KMPG Consulting. 

The following is a discussion of the 

comments received for the November 

30, 2004 proposed rule and USCIS’

response. 

II. Summary of Comments 

A. Why Is the Fee Increase Necessary? 

Eight comments were received 

expressing dissatisfaction with the size 

of the fee increase. Three commenters 

also stated that the increase in appeals 

and motions of 12% over the last 10 

years does not justify the proposed 

increased fees. USCIS notes, however, 

that the fee increase is not based upon 

the 12% increase in the filing of 

motions and appeals. While the fees for 

other applications have increased more 

than threefold during this time, the 

appeal and motion fee has remained the 

same. 

The increase in fees is necessary so 

that USCIS can recover the full costs of 

processing appeals and motions. 

Three commenters asserted that the 

increase in fees should also increase the 

timeliness and quality of the decisions 

rendered. Similarly, one commenter 

suggested that the AAO be added to the 

USCIS backlog reduction plan, while 

another indicated support for the 

proposed increase with the stipulation 

that the increase be used to fund 

additional resources for the AAO. 

USCIS agrees with commenters that 

the timeliness and quality of the 

decisions is important, as are increases 

in personnel and resources and notes 

that such considerations were taken into 

account during the fee review. In 

response to the commenter’s suggestion 

that the AAO be added to the USCIS 

backlog reduction plan, we note that the 

AAO has been a part of the backlog 

reduction plan since its inception. As 

indicated in the proposed rule, based on 

the increase in motion and appeal 

filings from 1993 to 2002, a fee review 

was conducted by a consulting firm to 

determine the fee necessary to ensure 

that USCIS was able to collect the full 

cost for processing motions and appeals. 

According to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A–25, the ‘‘full 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 50955 

cost’’ includes direct and indirect 

personnel costs, physical overhead, 

consulting, and other indirect costs (e.g., 

material and supply costs, utilities, 

insurance, travel and rents), 

management and supervisory costs, and 

the costs of collection, research, and 

regulation. Included as part of the fee 

study was a determination of increased 

staffing necessary to meet the 

President’s 5-year goal of processing 

immigration benefit applications in 6 

months or less, as well as the cost of 

labor-intensive activities such as legal 

research, decision writing, and decision 

review. 

Three commenters opposed the 

proposed fee increase because USCIS 

provides no recourse to waive fees or 

refund fees in order to correct an 

obvious error on the part of USCIS. 

Examples of obvious errors include an 

erroneous finding that an appeal or 

motion was not timely filed or an 

erroneous finding related to statutory 

eligibility such as age or marital status. 

Additionally, one commenter suggested 

that USCIS waive or refund fees when 

a decision is reversed on a motion to 

reconsider due to USCIS error. 

In response to these comments, USCIS 

notes that it does have the authority to 

reopen a case sua sponte and utilizes 

this ability in instances where, in its 

discretion, it determines that there is an 

obvious error. An applicant may bring 

such an error to the attention of the 

AAO, and the AAO may reopen the case 

on its own motion. In such cases, the 

applicant does not need to submit any 

fee for the motion, so that waiver of the 

fee or refund of the fee is not an issue. 

In instances where an applicant pays a 

fee for a motion to reopen or reconsider, 

without first attempting to resolve the 

error with the AAO, the AAO may 

refund the fee if, in its discretion, it 

determines that there clearly was an 

error in the AAO’s original decision. 

Service centers and district offices also 

have procedures in place to issue 

refunds in certain instances where 

USCIS error can be demonstrated. 

One commenter stated that the 

administrative costs for processing one 

particular type of appeal should not be 

‘‘anything close to’’ $385, because the 

decisions of the AAO often ‘‘fail to 

address the issues presented, fail to 

provide any legal or factual analysis, fail 

to cite any legal authority, 

inconsistently apply general principles 

to identical factual situations, and 

completely disregard various 

contractual obligations of the DHS.’’

USCIS and the AAO are very careful 

about the quality of appellate decisions. 

Decisions are reviewed before issuance 

to ensure that there are no such failings. 

Moreover, as indicated above and in the 

proposed rule, the $385 fee is necessary 

to maintain USCIS appellate operations 

without passing costs on to taxpayers. 

B. Why Doesn’t USCIS Charge a Lower 

Fee for Motions to Reconsider? 

Five comments were received 

opposing the increase in fees for socalled ‘‘simpler’’ appeals and motions to 

reconsider, while supporting the fee 

increase for more complex appeals and 

motions to reopen. USCIS does not 

accept the premise that there is a 

standard by which the complexity of 

appeals can be measured, or that the 

differences between the two types of 

motions can be apportioned in order to 

justify separate fees. 

USCIS regulations set forth a uniform 

appeals process. Appeals are considered 

on a case-by-case basis. Each case has 

unique substantive components that 

impact the ease or complexity of review. 

A motion to reconsider can, in a 

particular case, consume more USCIS 

resources than a motion to reopen. The 

process, however, is consistent 

throughout. In each case, the 

adjudicating office initially reviews 

each Form I–290B (Notice of Appeal to 

the AAO) on a case-by-case basis. The 

adjudicating office then decides the next 

appropriate step (i.e., forward the matter 

to AAO for review, re-adjudicate and 

approve, or re-adjudicate and issue 

another request for evidence). 

Depending upon the timeframe and 

action, additional background checks 

may also be required. 

This procedure does not vary 

significantly by application or petition 

type. It is true that in certain cases an 

application or petition is not forwarded 

to the AAO for review, but the 

conclusion that this path would mean a 

significantly lower administrative cost 

to USCIS does not necessarily follow. A 

service center or district office, after the 

preliminary review of the material 

provided, must complete many of the 

same tasks normally completed by the 

AAO: Data entry, additional review of 

the record, security checks, and 

issuance of a decision. These offices 

may even have to issue an additional 

Request For Evidence. 

A more varied fee structure that 

accommodated perceived differences in 

the degree of complexity for appeals 

would be more difficult to administer 

and could, itself, increase costs. These 

increased costs would necessarily be 

reflected in higher overall fees. 

Although there are 66 separate 

petitions or applications which may 

underlay the actual appeal or motion, 

because the processes for an appeal and 

motion are similar, USCIS and the 

consulting firm treated them similarly 

for purposes of the fee review and 

arrived at a statistically meaningful 

average processing time due to the fact 

that the appeals and motion process is 

singular as set forth in the regulations. 

Similarly, despite the fact that the 

regulations provide different eligibility 

requirements for the filing of a motion 

to reopen versus a motion to reconsider, 

because the process for filing and 

adjudicating each motion is the same, a 

separate fee is not warranted. It is 

common practice with other USCIS 

applications and petitions to charge one 

standard application processing fee 

despite the fact that one application or 

petition may be used for the 

adjudication of benefits under several 

different statutory and/or regulatory 

provisions and may require the 

demonstration of various, unique 

eligibility requirements. 

For example, the Form I–485, 

Application to Register Permanent 

Residence or Adjust Status, covers not 

only family as well as employmentbased and Diversity Visa adjustment of 

status, but also adjustment under 

Registry, the Haitian Refugee 

Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA), the 

Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central 

American Relief Act (NACARA), the 

Legal Immigration and Family Equity 

(LIFE) Act, the Cuban Adjustment Act 

and others. The Form I–129, Petition for 

a Nonimmigrant Worker, likewise 

covers change or extension of 

nonimmigrant status as well as the 

beneficiary’s eligibility for a variety of 

classifications of nonimmigrant status. 

Nonetheless, one application processing 

fee is charged. One fee will similarly be 

assessed for the Form I–290B. 

Another commenter stated that, 

despite the statement to the contrary in 

the proposed rule, the new fee will have 

a negative impact on small businesses. 

The commenter challenges the validity 

of the small business analysis in the 

proposed rule, and recommends that 

USCIS ‘‘take into consideration the 

levels at which small companies are not 

appealing denials.’’ It would be possible 

for USCIS to examine the percentage of 

denials for which no appeal is filed, but 

it would not be practical or cost 

effective for USCIS to assess the extent 

to which the fee for the appeal served 

as the basis for the decision to not file 

an appeal. The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act portion of this rule discusses more 

fully USCIS’ perspective on how the 

appeal fee increase may or may not 

affect the decision to pursue an appeal. 

The commenter also recommended that 

the number of denials of Form I–129, 

Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, be 

included in the analysis of the effect of 

50956 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

this rule on small businesses. That 

recommendation has been adopted. 

Another comment noted that the 

proposed rule failed to remove reference 

to the obsolete Form I–290A in all 

pertinent areas of the regulation. The 

commenter is incorrect, because the 

listing for the Form I–290A in 8 CFR 

103.7(b) was removed by the Final Rule 

published April 15, 2004 (69 FR 20527). 

Finally, several additional comments 

were received that were beyond the 

scope of the proposed rule and, 

therefore, are not mentioned herein. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the new fees as outlined in 

the proposed rule, without substantive 

change. Any applications or petitions 

mailed, postmarked, or otherwise filed, 

on or after September 28, 2005 will 

require the new fee. 

III. Fee Adjustments 

The fee adjustments, as adopted in 

this rule, are shown as follows: 

Description Fee 

Appeal/Motion Fee ......................... $385.00 

IV. Technical Improvements 

This rule also clarifies that the fee 

amount of $385 also applies when an 

appeal is filed based on the denial of a 

petition with multiple beneficiaries, 

provided they are all beneficiaries of the 

same petition, and therefore affected by 

the same decision. In so doing, it 

corrects a transcription error in the Code 

of Federal Regulations in 1989 that 

failed to amend the fee amount from $50 

to $110 for two or more aliens when the 

aliens are covered by one decision at the 

same time that the base fee (for one 

alien) was raised from $50 to $110, as 

provided in the final rule dated April 4, 

1989 (54 FR 13513). The error resulted 

in an unintended discrepancy between 

the base fee, and the fee for two or more 

aliens when the aliens are covered by 

one decision. Notwithstanding this 

transcription error, the form instructions 

reflected the proper fee amount. 

Accordingly, affected aliens have been 

properly charged, and the former 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

as well as USCIS have collected the 

correct fee since the 1989 amendment. 

This rule corrects the discrepancy in 8 

CFR 103.7(b)(1) and brings this fee as 

properly amended ($50 to $110) from 

$110 to $385 so that both fees are now 

equal as intended. 

Finally, this final rule also makes a 

conforming change to 8 CFR 

103.5(a)(1)(iii) to replace an obsolete 

reference to a withdrawn form, Form I–

290A, with a reference to Form I–290B. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DHS has reviewed this regulation in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), and by 

approving it, DHS has determined that 

this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities since a 

majority of motions and appeals are 

submitted by individuals and not small 

entities as that term is defined in 5 

U.S.C. 601(6). 

DHS acknowledges, however, that 

some small entities, particularly those 

filing appeals of and/or motions to 

reopen or to reconsider denials of 

business-related petitions, such as the 

Form I–140, Immigrant Petition for 

Alien Worker; Form I–526, Immigrant 

Petition for Alien Entrepreneur; Form I–

129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker; 

and Form I–829, Petition for 

Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions; 

may be affected by this rule. USCIS does 

not collect data on the size of the 

businesses filing appeals or motions 

related to employment-based petitions, 

and therefore does not know the precise 

number of small businesses that may be 

affected by this rule (as the majority of 

petitions are filed by individuals). 

USCIS records indicate that the 

following numbers of business-related 

petitions were denied during the Fiscal 

Year 2003/2004 biennial period: 

Form I–140, Immigrant Petition for 

Alien Worker (35,866 denials) 

Form I–526, Immigrant Petition by 

Alien Entrepreneur (217 denials) 

Form I–829, Petition by Entrepreneur to 

Remove Conditions (174 denials) 

Form I–129, Petition for Nonimmigrant 

Worker (171,154 denials) 

Based on these figures, the volume of 

denied petitions that might be appealed 

to the USCIS over a two-year period is 

207,411. During the fiscal years 2003 

and 2004, the AAO received 

approximately 50,000 appeals. 

USCIS is unable to determine how 

many of these petitioners are small 

businesses. In the past, some large 

employers have filed hundreds of 

petitions in a single year. Therefore, the 

number of small entities that have filed 

petitions and subsequently, appeals, is 

less than 207,411 and 50,000, 

respectively. Nevertheless, even 

assuming that all of these petitioners 

were small entities, economic impact on 

those businesses would not be 

substantial within the meaning of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

According to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, the average wage of a worker 

in the United States in 2002 was 

$36,764. Cost to an employer would 

include benefits, social security, payroll 

taxes and other items not reflected in 

the wage itself. 

It is reasonable to assume that a small 

business would be less likely to expend 

resources pursuing appeals or litigating 

decisions regarding lower-paid and less 

skilled immigrant employees. 

Accordingly, small businesses which 

choose to file appeals on behalf of 

immigrant employees are likely to do so 

only for more skilled, and therefore 

higher paid, immigrant employees. Such 

employees, presumably, would be paid 

in excess of the $36,764 average wage. 

Thus, the $275 increase in fees imposed 

by this rule would represent well under 

one percent of the total annual wage 

cost of the employee on whose behalf 

the pleading was filed and would 

represent an even smaller percentage of 

the cost of the employee’s combined 

salary and benefits. 

Moreover, based upon the appeals 

received by the AAO, we note that the 

majority of small businesses impacted 

by this rule would have more than one 

employee; in all probability, a minority 

of those employees would require the 

filing of one of the pleadings impacted 

by this rule. The overall economic 

impact of this rule on affected small 

businesses would therefore amount to 

substantially less than one percent of 

overall payroll and benefit expenses and 

an even smaller percentage of overall 

revenues. 

Accordingly, the degree of economic 

impact resulting from this rule would 

not be deemed significant under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, an 

analysis of the economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under 5 U.S.C. 603 is not required for 

this rule. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by state, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 

1996. This rule will not result in an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, a major increase of 

costs or prices, significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

on the ability of United States-based 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 50957 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule is considered by DHS to be 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review. 

Accordingly, this rule has been 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. DHS has 

assessed both the costs and benefits of 

this rule as required by section 1(b)(6) 

of Executive Order 12866 and has made 

a determination that, although 

increasing the fee to $385 will increase 

the cost to the individual applicant and/ 

or petitioner, USCIS must establish and 

collect fees to recover the full costs of 

processing immigration benefit 

applications, as required by the 

authorizing statute, the INA. The 

implementation of this rule also will 

provide USCIS with an additional $6.7 

million in FY 2005 over the fee revenue 

that would be collected under the 

current fee structure. If USCIS does not 

adjust the current fees to recover the full 

costs of processing immigration benefit 

applications, our programs will not be 

fully funded and we will not be able to 

process applications in a timely manner. 

Thus, the backlog will likely increase. 

The results of the review showed that if 

the AAO’s staffing increased, processing 

times would likely meet the President’s 

mandate regarding backlog reduction. 

The revenue increase is based on USCIS 

costs and projected volumes that were 

available at the time of this rule. 

Executive Order 13132 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, DHS has determined that 

this rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. 

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

This rule meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

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

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

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

163 (1995), all Departments are required 

to submit to OMB, for review and 

approval, any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a rule. 

This rule does not impose any new 

reporting or record-keeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

However, it should be noted that 

USCIS solicited public comments on the 

change of fees in the proposed rule that 

was published in the Federal Register 

on November 30, 2004. Because the 

change to the fees requires a change to 

Form I–290B, USCIS submitted a change 

request to OMB indicating the fee 

change from $110 to $385. OMB has 

approved changes to this form, 

consistent with the provisions in this 

final rule. The fee change is now 

reflected on USCIS Form I–290B. 

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 103 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Authority delegations 

(government agencies), Freedom of 

information, Privacy, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Surety 

bonds. 

■ Accordingly, part 103 of chapter I of 

title 8 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 103—POWERS AND DUTIES; 

AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 103 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1101, 1103, 1304, 1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 

Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 

1 et seq.); E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874, 15557, 

3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR part 2. 

■ 2. In § 103.5(a)(1)(iii), the introductory 

text is revised to read as follows: 

§ 103.5 Reopening or reconsideration. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Filing Requirements—A motion 

shall be submitted on Form I–290B and 

may be accompanied by a brief. It must 

be: 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 103.7(b)(1) is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the entry for the form ‘‘I–

290B’’; and by 

■ b. Revising the fee ‘‘$110’’ to read 

‘‘$385’’ wherever that fee appears in the 

entry for ‘‘Motion.’’

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 103.7 Fees. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * 

Form I–290B. For filing an appeal 

from any decision under the 

immigration laws in any type of 

proceeding over which the Board of 

Immigration Appeals does not have 

appellate jurisdiction—$385.00 (the fee 

will be the same when an appeal is 

taken from the denial of a petition with 

one or multiple beneficiaries, provided 

that they are all covered by the same 

petition, and therefore, the same 

decision). 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 22, 2005. 

Michael Chertoff, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–17132 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 72 

RIN 3150–AH70 

List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage 

Casks: VSC–24 Revision, Confirmation 

of Effective Date 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Direct final rule: confirmation of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is confirming the 

effective date of September 13, 2005, for 

the direct final rule that was published 

in the Federal Register on June 30, 2005 

(70 FR 37647). This direct final rule 

amended the NRC’s regulations to revise 

the VSC–24 cask system listing to 

include Amendment No. 5 to Certificate 

of Compliance (CoC) No. 1007. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of 

September 13, 2005, is confirmed for 

this direct final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Documents related to this 

rulemaking, including comments 

received, may be examined at the NRC 

Public Document Room, located at One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. These same 

documents may also be viewed and 

downloaded electronically via the 

rulemaking Web site (http:// 

ruleforum.llnl.gov). For information 

about the interactive rulemaking Web 

site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher (301) 

415–5905; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 

415–6219, e-mail jmm2@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

30, 2005 (70 FR 37647), the NRC 

published a direct final rule amending 

its regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 to