Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 55043 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 101, 105 and 106 

Transportation Security Administration 

49 CFR Part 1572 

[Docket Nos. TSA–2006–24191; USCG–

2006–24196] 

RIN 1652–AA41 

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential (TWIC) Implementation in 

the Maritime Sector; Hazardous 

Materials Endorsement for a 

Commercial Driver’s License 

AGENCY: Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA), United States 

Coast Guard, Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), through the 

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) and the United States Coast 

Guard (Coast Guard), issues this final 

rule to amend provisions of its 

previously issued final rule, to allow for 

greater participation in the TWIC 

program and codify final fees to obtain 

a TWIC. This final rule continues to 

further secure our Nation’s ports and 

modes of transportation, and also 

implements the Maritime 

Transportation Security Act of 2002 

(MTSA) and the Security and 

Accountability for Every Port Act of 

2006 (SAFE Port Act). Those statutes 

require credentialed merchant mariners 

and individuals with unescorted access 

to secure areas of vessels and facilities 

to undergo a security threat assessment 

and receive a biometric credential, 

known as a Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential (TWIC). 

With this final rule, the Coast Guard 

amends its regulations on vessel and 

facility security, requiring the use of the 

TWIC as an access control measure. 

Specifically, the Coast Guard is 

amending its definition of secure areas, 

to take into account facilities in the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, whose workers are not required 

to obtain work visas from the United 

States before being allowed to work. 

With this final rule, TSA amends its 

regulations on TWIC to allow additional 

non-resident aliens to apply for a TWIC 

if they are working in a job that requires 

them to have unescorted access to a 

maritime facility regulated under 33 

CFR parts 105 or 106. TSA also amends 

the scope provision of the rule to 

include additional non-resident aliens 

that may apply for TWIC. TSA amends 

its regulations to clarify those 

credentialed merchant mariners who 

may receive a TWIC at a reduced fee. 

TSA amends the fee portion of the 

regulation, increasing the replacement 

credential fee from $36 to $60 and 

codifying the other fees that were 

announced in the Federal Register on 

March 20, 2007. Finally, TSA 

announces a reduction in the fee 

charged by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) to conduct 

fingerprint-based criminal history 

record checks (CHRCs) that are 

submitted to the FBI electronically. 

Therefore, the standard fee for a TWIC 

is $132.50 and the reduced TWIC fee for 

applicants who have completed a 

comparable threat assessment is 

$105.25. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

September 28, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of dockets TSA–2006–24191 and 

USCG–2006–24196, and are available 

for inspection or copying at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Until September 27, 2007, you 

may also find and submit electronic 

comments to this docket on the Internet 

at http://dms.dot.gov. You may submit 

documents by fax, by courier or in 

person until September 28 at noon. On 

October 1, the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) will 

replace the current system and you will 

be able to find and submit related 

documents at www.regulations.gov. The 

mailing address and fax numbers will 

remain the same. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on the TSA portions 

of this rule, call Christine Beyer, 

telephone (571) 227–2657. If you have 

questions on the Coast Guard portions 

of this rule, call LCDR Jonathan 

Maiorine, telephone 1–877–687–2243. If 

you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

(202) 493–0402. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Regulatory History 

On May 22, 2006, The Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) through the 

United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) 

and the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) published a joint 

notice of proposed rulemaking entitled 

‘‘Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential (TWIC) Implementation in 

the Maritime Sector; Hazardous 

Materials Endorsement for a 

Commercial Driver’s License’’ in the 

Federal Register. 71 FR 29396. This was 

followed by a 45-day comment period 

and four public meetings. The Coast 

Guard and TSA issued a joint final rule, 

under the same title, on January 25, 

2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 

original TWIC final rule). 72 FR 3492. 

The preamble to the original TWIC final 

rule contains a discussion of all the 

comments received on the NPRM, as 

well as a discussion of the provisions 

found in that final rule, which became 

effective on March 26, 2007. 

On July 13, 2007, the Coast Guard 

issued another final rule, extending the 

deadline for facilities wishing to 

redefine their secure areas, under 33 

CFR 105.115. 72 FR 38486. This delay 

allowed facility owners and operators to 

take guidance, issued by the Coast 

Guard in Navigation and Vessel 

Inspection Circular 03–07 on July 6, 

2007, into consideration before being 

required to submit new security plans. 

II. Background and Purpose 

A complete discussion of the 

background and purpose of the original 

TWIC final rule may be found beginning 

at 72 FR 3494. This final rule is being 

issued in order to make amendments to 

the original TWIC final rule that have 

become necessary due to delays in the 

implementation of the original TWIC 

final rule, or that are necessary in order 

to allow for a more effective 

implementation of the original TWIC 

final rule. 

III. Discussion of Changes 

A. Secure Areas 

With this final rule, the Coast Guard 

amends its regulations on vessel and 

facility security, requiring the use of the 

TWIC as an access control measure. 

Specifically, the Coast Guard is 

amending its definition of secure area to 

take into account facilities in the 

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 

Islands (CNMI) where non-resident 

alien workers are not required to obtain 

work visas from the United States before 

being allowed to work. Under the 

existing rule, these workers are 

ineligible to obtain TWICs. There are 

currently 12 facilities regulated by part 

105 located in the CNMI. Non-resident 

alien workers at these facilities are not 

required to obtain visas from the U.S. 

Department of State (State Department) 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
55044 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

before being allowed to work at facilities 

in CNMI. Without this amendment, 

these workers would be unable to obtain 

TWICs, and the facilities in CNMI 

would lose approximately 50 percent of 

their present workforce. Note that these 

facilities must continue to implement 

their previously approved facility 

security plans, which include 

provisions for maintaining access 

control. Vessels coming from the CNMI 

to any other port in the United States 

will still need to go through the same 

port state control screening required of 

a vessel coming from a foreign country. 

Additionally, workers provided 

unescorted access to facilities in the 

CNMI would not be eligible for 

unescorted access to any other part 105 

facility, nor would they be eligible for 

unescorted access to any part 104 

vessel, unless the were issued a TWIC. 

This amendment may be found at 33 

CFR 101.105. 

B. Areas Adjacent to Vessels 

The Coast Guard is also adding a 

provision into parts 105 and 106 to 

mirror a provision added into part 104 

in the original TWIC final rule. These 

provisions allow mariners serving 

aboard vessels to have access to those 

spaces immediately adjacent to their 

vessel when they are working in those 

spaces in the conduct of vessel activity, 

even if they do not have a TWIC. This 

provision was discussed in the 

preamble to the original TWIC final rule 

on 72 FR 3521, but the corresponding 

amendments were not made in parts 105 

and 106. This final rule corrects that 

oversight. These amendments can be 

found in 105.105 and 106.105. 

C. TWIC Eligibility 

In the original TWIC final rule, TSA 

listed the categories of non-resident 

aliens who work in the maritime sector 

and would be eligible to apply for 

TWICs. TSA’s intention was to allow 

lawful non-immigrants with legitimate 

employment authorization and lawful 

presence to obtain TWICs. Shortly after 

publication of the original TWIC final 

rule, Coast Guard received comments 

from industry questioning why B1/OCS 

(Outer Continental Shelf) and H2B visas 

were not included in the list of 

acceptable visas under 49 CFR 

1572.105. This led TSA to re-examine 

the list of categories of individuals who 

should be able to apply for a TWIC and 

to make the changes described below to 

allow additional non-resident aliens to 

apply for a TWIC. 

After further research, we determined 

that B1/OCS visas are currently in use 

in the maritime industry to allow 

specialized workers to fill open 

positions where U.S. employees are not 

available. Approximately 4,000 B1/OCS 

visas are issued annually to seamen who 

work at OCS operations. If these 

workers are not eligible to apply for a 

TWIC, they will likely not be 

employable in OCS operations. Further, 

owners/operators who currently rely on 

holders of B1/OCS visas will be 

adversely impacted if they cannot hire 

workers in sufficient numbers to keep 

the OCS facilities operating. For these 

reasons and in keeping with the criteria 

we established in the original TWIC 

final rule to determine which lawful 

non-immigrants should be eligible to 

apply for a TWIC, we are adding the B1/ 

OCS visa to the list of permissible visa 

categories in 49 CFR 1572.105. (See 72 

FR 3492, 3502–3505 for a full 

discussion of the immigration eligibility 

criteria.) Holders of the B1/OCS visa 

have restricted authorization to work 

and the restriction is intrinsically 

related to the maritime industry. 

Individuals who hold the visa typically 

will require a TWIC in order to 

complete their employment duties and 

the employers will be required to obtain 

the TWIC once the employment for 

which the visa was issued is completed. 

At this time we are not adding the 

H2B visa to the list of permissible visas 

in section 1572.105. We believe 

approximately 78,000 H2B visas are 

issued annually, an indeterminate 

number of which are issued to maritime 

workers. The H2B visa is issued to 

temporary unskilled or skilled workers 

for up to one year, without regard to 

whether they work in the maritime 

industry. Workers who hold this visa 

are not restricted to work in the 

maritime industry and therefore, a 

maritime employer typically would 

have little control over when the 

employment for which the visa was 

issued is completed and the visa 

expires. This fact would make it 

difficult for the employer to retrieve the 

TWIC if the employee ceased working at 

that location. 

Even though TSA is not adding the 

H2B visas explicitly to the list of 

permissible visa categories at this time, 

we may consider permitting H2B visa 

holders to apply for a TWIC under a 

new provision of the rule. We are 

adding new subparagraph 

1572.105(a)(7)(x) to the immigration 

standards to permit TSA to determine 

whether additional categories of lawful 

non-immigrants not explicitly listed in 

49 CFR 1572.105(a)(7) may apply for a 

TWIC. We believe this provision is 

necessary to avoid the chance that we 

will inadvertently exclude aliens who 

possess lawful U.S. presence and are 

prevalent in or important to the 

maritime industry. Also, given the 

national interest in immigration reform 

legislation, there may be new visa 

categories created in the future that 

should be eligible for TWIC. Under this 

new provision, TSA may permit 

individuals to apply for TWIC if they 

possess an authorization that confers 

legal status, and the legal status is 

comparable to those listed in paragraphs 

(a)(7)(i)–(ix) of this section. 

TSA will evaluate whether to add 

new categories of lawful nonimmigrants using the same criteria by 

which we created the list of permissible 

categories in the original TWIC final 

rule. (See 72 FR 3492, 3502–3505 for a 

full discussion of the immigration 

eligibility criteria.) The critical issues 

we examined and on which we rely to 

determine whether an alien should be 

permitted to apply for a TWIC or 

hazardous materials endorsement 

(HME) are: (1) The statutory language 

regarding immigration status; (2) the 

degree to which TSA can complete a 

thorough threat assessment both 

initially and perpetually on the 

applicant; (3) the duration of the 

applicant’s legal status as of the date he 

or she enrolls and the degree to which 

we can control possession of a TWIC 

once legal status ends; (4) the 

restrictions, if any, that apply to the 

applicant’s immigration status; (5) 

particular maritime professions that 

commenters stated often involve aliens; 

and (6) the checks done by the State 

Department or other federal agency 

relevant to granting alien status. 

TSA would make such determinations 

after careful evaluation and in 

consultation with the Coast Guard, the 

State Department, and other pertinent 

agencies within DHS. TSA would notify 

affected populations and provide the 

appropriate training to TWIC enrollment 

personnel to ensure that only the 

appropriate applicants are permitted to 

enroll. 

With respect to H2B visas, 

commenters have informed Coast Guard 

and TSA that there may be particular 

operations or locations, such as large 

construction projects at port facilities, 

that rely heavily on H2B visa holders for 

completion. Although we are not 

amending the immigration standards to 

permit all H2B visa holders to apply for 

TWIC, we may consider permitting 

workers at these locations to apply for 

a TWIC to prevent adverse economic or 

security impacts on maritime 

operations. Employers in these kinds of 

operations should notify their respective 

Captain of the Port to discuss potential 

solutions to immigration eligibility 

problems. There may be methods to 

have the H2B visas holders complete the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 55045 

1Although the majority of the Enrollment/ 

Issuance requirements have already been satisfied 

by the applicant through initial enrollment, there 

are still some enrollment/issuance functions 

associated with card replacements, such as 

overhead. 

work without requiring a TWIC. See, for 

example, Navigation and Inspection 

Circular 03–07, issued by the Coast 

Guard on July 2, 2007, enclosure (3) at 

3.3 c.(6). If that is not possible, TSA may 

consider permitting the workers to 

apply for a TWIC, ensuring that the 

employer is in a position to retrieve all 

credentials TSA issues when the project 

is complete. 

In addition to amending 49 CFR 

1572.105(a)(7), TSA amends the scope 

provision to include other individuals 

that TSA may consider eligible to apply 

for a TWIC, such as holders of a visa not 

specifically listed in 49 CFR 

1572.105(a)(7) that TSA has determined 

should be permitted to hold a TWIC. As 

discussed in the paragraph above, there 

may be other or new visas or similar 

authorizations that we have not 

anticipated that serve as legitimate 

grounds for lawful presence in the 

United States and justification for 

holding a TWIC. By adding this 

language to the scope provision of the 

rule, we remove unnecessary 

restrictions on broadening the applicant 

pool, if the need arises in the future due 

to the discovery of other visa holders or 

with the passage of new legislation. 

Also, in the future TSA may wish to 

expand the TWIC program to nonmaritime modes of transportation and 

this new scope provision facilitates 

extending coverage to other 

populations. For instance, there may be 

situations in which a transportation 

worker who seeks access to a secure or 

otherwise prohibited area would wish to 

voluntarily undergo the threat 

assessment described in part 1572 to 

gain the benefit of access. The expanded 

scope provision would facilitate this. 

TSA also may wish to make the threat 

assessment mandatory, not voluntary, 

for a new population. If so, we would 

provide notice to the public and an 

opportunity to comment before 

implementing an expansion of the 

requirement to a new population. 

TSA also amends the scope provision 

of part 1572 to include commercial 

drivers licensed in Canada or Mexico 

who apply for a TWIC so that they may 

transport hazardous materials in the 

United States in accordance with 49 

CFR 1572.201. This population is 

permitted to apply for a TWIC under the 

original final rule, but was inadvertently 

omitted from the scope provision. 

TSA is also amending its regulations 

to clarify which credentialed merchant 

mariners who may receive a TWIC at a 

reduced fee. The original TWIC final 

rule contained a separate 

implementation schedule for mariners, 

which allowed a mariner who had 

already undergone a security threat 

assessment by the Coast Guard to apply 

for their TWIC but forego an additional 

security threat assessment by TSA. This 

would allow mariners to obtain their 

TWIC at a reduced fee, but would also 

mean that their TWIC would be given 

the same expiration date as the 

credential for which the Coast Guard 

conducted their security assessment. 

This provision, found at 49 CFR 

1572.19(b), incorrectly limited those 

mariners who may take advantage of 

this provision by including an end date 

of March 26, 2007 (i.e., the effective date 

of the original TWIC final rule). That 

date should have been the September 

25, 2008 date, calculated to mark the 

compliance date for mariners, to allow 

all mariners who receive their Coast 

Guard security assessment before they 

are required to obtain a TWIC the 

opportunity to receive a reduced fee and 

not have to undergo an additional 

security threat assessment. We are 

amending 49 CFR 1572.19(b) to reflect 

the September 25, 2008 compliance 

date. 

D. TWIC Fees 

TSA is amending the TWIC Card 

Replacement Fee, codifying the exact 

fee amounts for the Standard and 

Reduced TWIC Fees, and codifying a 

change the FBI is making to its fees for 

electronic submission of fingerprintbased criminal history record checks 

(CHRC). 

1. Card Replacement Fee 

TSA is increasing the Card 

Replacement Fee for lost, damaged, or 

stolen TWICs to $60.00 and is amending 

§ 1572.501(d) to include the revised 

amount. In the original TWIC final rule, 

TSA established the Card Replacement 

Fee at $36.00 as was proposed in the 

TWIC NPRM. However, TSA stated that 

a re-evaluation of the costs associated 

with card replacement revealed that the 

actual cost should be $60.00. For a 

detailed discussion of the increased 

Card Replacement Fee, see the preamble 

of the original TWIC final rule at 72 FR 

3505–3508. 

In summary, the per-person cost for 

the Card Replacement Fee is derived 

from four of the cost components that 

make up the total TWIC fee: Enrollment/ 

Issuance,1 the TWIC information data 

management system (IDMS), Card 

Production, and Program Support. The 

Enrollment/Issuance cost component 

increased by approximately one percent 

to account for the contractor fee of $5 

associated with replacing a credential. 

The IDMS cost component increased by 

$19 per credential produced due to: (1) 

The need to increase the hardware and 

software required to obtain a Security 

Certification & Accreditation, and to 

support the full volume of TWIC 

applicants; (2) system changes required 

to address security vulnerabilities; and 

(3) increases in contractor support 

necessary for systems operations and 

maintenance. 

The Card Production cost increased 

by approximately 39 percent based on 

the need to add a third work shift at the 

production facility to produce cards 

more rapidly during the initial 

enrollment phase. This increase was 

necessary to address concerns from 

stakeholders that cards must be 

produced very quickly to minimize 

adverse impacts on commerce. Also, 

this increase was necessary to cover 

technology and product improvements 

for the TWIC system, credentials, and 

readers in the future. Including the cost 

of technology and system improvements 

is a common practice for programs that 

rely heavily on software and hardware 

to collect and transmit large amounts of 

information. 

Finally, the Program Support cost 

decreased by approximately 17 percent 

based on reduced program staff levels 

and the cost of interagency 

communications. This resulted in a $2 

per card decrease. 

We invited comment on raising the 

Card Replacement fee from $36 to $60 

and received comments from four 

entities. One entity stated that 

replacement cards should cost no more 

than the actual card stock and 

personalization, which it asserts is $14, 

shipping and handling at $10, and a 

reasonable contractor issuance fee of 

$5—a total of $29. 

We developed the fees by spreading 

all of the program costs (enrollment/ 

issuance, IDMS, threat assessment, card 

production, and program support) over 

5 years and according to whether a 

particular cost component is related to 

the corresponding fee. If we failed to 

calculate the fees in this way, there 

would be an unfair distribution of the 

costs among the population and over the 

time period, and the regular applicant 

fee during initial enrollment would be 

significantly higher. Thus, the card 

replacement fee includes a portion of 

the program costs that relates to issuing 

a replacement card, including the IDMS 

and program support costs. Therefore, 

we are not accepting the recommended 

change—we must take into account the 

cost of the IDMS, enrollment/issuance, 

card production, and program support 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
55046 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

because producing a replacement card 

involves all of these program 

components. As stated in the original 

final TWIC rule, the IDMS cost 

increased by 135 percent from the 

NPRM due to the need for more 

hardware and software, and additional 

security features. In addition, card 

production costs increased by 39 

percent due to the need to add a third 

worker shift to cover card production 

during initial enrollment. These 

increased the Card Replacement Fee. 

Another entity stated that increasing 

the Card Replacement Fee based on the 

need for three shifts rather than two at 

the card production facility during the 

initial enrollment phase should not 

apply to replacement cards at all, 

because most replacement cards will be 

issued after the initial enrollment phase. 

This argument is similar to the one 

immediately above. We disagree. We 

calculated the fees by spreading the 

costs of the program over 5 years to 

prevent the unfair result of having 

people who enroll in TWIC in the first 

year pay a much higher fee than those 

who apply in the third year. 

An entity stated that using three shifts 

rather than two in the card production 

process should decrease, not increase, 

TSA’s card production costs because the 

fixed costs would remain and the cost 

per card would be lower. We disagree. 

Even assuming the fixed costs remain 

constant with the addition of a third 

shift, which would not necessarily be 

the case, there are increased labor costs 

associated with adding a third shift that 

increase TSA’s costs. 

An entity suggested that TSA should 

conduct a cost-comparison between the 

federally-managed card production 

facility and an established commercial 

card production facility, such as a credit 

card facility, where high-volume 

services around the clock are typical. 

We agree. Under the terms of the 

enrollment provider contract, we permit 

our contractor to seek out and use other 

card production facilities that offer high 

quality products that meet the TWIC 

specifications at lower cost. 

An entity commented that if a TWIC 

card malfunctions as a result of normal 

wear, TSA should replace it free of 

charge. TSA is purchasing card stock 

that is designed to remain operable 

under normal conditions for 5 years. If 

TSA determines that the card stock does 

not perform satisfactorily under normal 

handling conditions or fails to meet the 

design warranty, TSA will replace the 

cards at no charge to applicants. 

Finally, an entity claimed that 

technology improvements should 

decrease, not increase, costs associated 

with the TWIC system, credentials and 

card production. We agree that 

technology improvements that occur in 

the future will improve efficiency and 

are likely to reduce some costs. 

However, equipment and software 

changes will be necessary to take 

advantage of the improved technology, 

and therefore, those costs must be 

accounted for in the TWIC fee. If TSA’s 

overall costs decrease, TSA will reduce 

the TWIC fees accordingly. 

2. FBI Fee 

The Criminal Justice Information 

Services (CJIS) Division of the FBI 

recently notified government agencies 

and other entities of revised interim fees 

for fingerprint-based CHRCs, effective 

October 1, 2007. The revised interim 

fees will remain in effect until the FBI 

announces final fees through a Notice in 

the Federal Register. However, the FBI 

does not anticipate significant changes 

to the interim fee structure. 

The FBI is reducing its fee for 

electronically submitted CHRCs from 

$22.00 to $17.25. The existing rule text 

in § 1572.501(b)(3) states that if the FBI 

changes its fee for CHRCs, TSA will 

collect the amended FBI fee. Therefore, 

it is not necessary to change the rule 

text to authorize TSA to collect $17.25 

from applicants rather than $22.00. 

Nonetheless, to avoid confusion, TSA is 

amending the rule text by removing the 

old fee amount—‘‘$22’’— from 

§ 1572.501(b)(3). We are retaining the 

language stating that if the FBI amends 

its fees in the future, TSA will collect 

the amended FBI fee. 

3. Standard and Reduced TWIC Fees 

In this final rule, TSA also codifies 

the exact Standard TWIC and Reduced 

TWIC Fee amounts. When the original 

TWIC final rule was published, we 

provided ranges for these fees in the 

preamble as follows: the Standard TWIC 

Fee would be $139–$159, and the 

Reduced TWIC Fee would be $107–

$127. TSA could not provide exact 

figures at that time because the contract 

for enrollment services was not yet 

finalized and thus some of the costs 

could not be determined with 

specificity. We noted that we would 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

announcing the exact fee amounts as 

soon as possible. 

On March 20, 2007, TSA announced 

the exact fee amounts. 72 FR 13026. For 

the Standard TWIC Fee, the Enrollment 

Segment Fee would be $43.25, the Full 

Card Production/Security Threat 

Assessment Segment Fee would be $72, 

and the FBI Fee would be $22. We 

announced the Standard TWIC Fee total 

as $137.25 ($43.25 + $72 + $22) to 

obtain a TWIC. In this final rule, we are 

codifying the Enrollment Segment Fee 

($43.25) and the Full Card Production/ 

Security Threat Assessment Segment 

Fee ($72). However, since the FBI is 

changing its fee as of October 1, 2007, 

as discussed in detail above, the new 

Standard TWIC Fee total for a TWIC is 

$132.50. We are codifying these fees in 

§ 1572.501(b). 

In March, TSA also announced that 

the Reduced TWIC Fee for applicants 

who have completed a comparable 

threat assessment and can forego a new 

FBI criminal check would total $105.25. 

This includes the Enrollment Segment 

Fee of $43.25 and the Reduced Card 

Production/Security Threat Assessment 

Segment Fee of $62. We are codifying 

these fee amounts in § 1572.501(c). 

IV. Regulatory Requirements 

A. Administrative Procedure Act 

TSA and the Coast Guard provided 

the public an opportunity to comment 

on the bases for the TWIC fee 

calculations. However, we did not 

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) regarding other amendments in 

this final rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 

the Coast Guard and TSA find that good 

cause exists for not publishing an NPRM 

with respect to these amendments, 

because providing opportunity for 

public comment is unnecessary and 

would be contrary to the public interest. 

Each of the provisions being amended 

by this final rule without prior notice 

and comment ease a restriction on the 

public, in some cases by removing 

regulatory requirements completely, or 

by expanding the pool of persons 

allowed to apply for a TWIC in a 

manner that meets the rule’s original 

intent. These immediate revisions are in 

the public interest because they expand 

the pool of workers who are lawfully 

present in the United States and will 

perform needed services. For the same 

reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the 

Coast Guard and TSA also find that 

good cause exists for making this rule 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

We note that the fee provisions of this 

final rule were subject to notice and 

comment, and therefore we need not 

claim good cause for the amendments to 

49 CFR 1572.501. 

B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) 

This final rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. The Office of 

Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. We expect 

the economic impact of this rule to be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 55047 

minimal and a full Regulatory 

Evaluation is unnecessary. 

This rule provides technical 

clarifications and additional flexibility 

for some mariners and vessel and 

facility owners and operators to comply 

with TWIC requirements. The rule 

better clarifies the definition of secure 

areas and corrects for omissions from 

the original TWIC final rule. The rule 

extends the end date for mariners who 

may receive a TWIC at a reduced fee. To 

the extent that deadlines have changed, 

affected parties may incur some TWICrelated costs later rather than sooner. 

With this final rule, TSA is amending 

provisions to allow TSA to evaluate and 

decide if individuals holding other visa 

types are eligible for a TWIC on a caseby-case basis. TSA is also formally 

publishing final fee changes after 

considering public comments and 

assessing final impacts in the original 

TWIC final rule. 

We anticipate that these changes will 

not substantially increase TWIC-related 

compliance costs to the affected entities 

and in most cases will provide them 

advantages through deadline extensions, 

technical clarifications, and flexibility. 

C. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

We do not expect this rule to 

substantially increase TWIC-related 

compliance costs. This rule provides 

technical clarification and adds 

flexibility for some mariners and vessel 

and facility owners and operators 

affected by the TWIC requirements. The 

Coast Guard and TSA certify under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under sec. 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking. Small 

businesses may send comments on the 

actions of Federal employees who 

enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard and TSA will not retaliate 

against small entities that question or 

complain about the rule or any policy of 

the Coast Guard or TSA. 

E. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520). 

F. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under E.O. 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. We have analyzed this rule under 

that Order and have determined that it 

does not have implications for 

federalism. 

G. 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 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 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

H. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under E.O. 12630, 

Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

I. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 

12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and 

reduce burden. 

J. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 

13045, Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and does not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that may disproportionately affect 

children. 

K. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under E.O. 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, because it 

does 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. 

L. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

The Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

not designated it as a significant energy 

action. Therefore, it does not require a 

Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 

13211. 

M. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (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 impractical. 

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 rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

N. Environment 

The provisions of this rule have been 

analyzed under the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) Management 

Directive (MD) 5100.1, Environmental 

Planning Program, which is the DHS 

policy and procedures for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), and related E.O.s and 

requirements. The changes being made 

by this final rule have no effect on the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
55048 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

environmental analysis that 

accompanied the promulgation of the 

original TWIC final rule. That analysis 

can be found at 72 FR 3576–3577. 

Accordingly, there are no 

extraordinary circumstances presented 

by this rule that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion (CATEX) under 

MD 5100.1, Appendix A, paragraph 3.2. 

The implementation of this rule, like the 

implementation of the original TWIC 

final rule, is categorically excluded 

under the following CATEX listed in 

MD 5100.1, Appendix A, Table 1: 

CATEX A1 (personnel, fiscal, 

management and administrative 

activities); CATEX A3 (promulgation of 

rules, issuance of rulings or 

interpretations); and CATEX A4 

(information gathering, data analysis 

and processing, information 

dissemination, review, interpretation 

and development of documents). 

CATEX B3 (proposed activities and 

operations to be conducted in an 

existing structure that would be 

compatible with and similar in scope to 

ongoing functional uses) and CATEX B 

11 (routine monitoring and surveillance 

activities that support law enforcement 

or homeland security and defense 

operations) would also be applicable. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 101 

Harbors, Maritime security, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Security measures, Vessels, Waterways. 

33 CFR Part 105 

Facilities, Maritime security, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures. 

33 CFR Part 106 

Facilities, Maritime security, Outer 

Continental Shelf, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures. 

49 CFR Part 1572 

Appeals, Commercial drivers license, 

Criminal history background checks, 

Explosives, Facilities, Hazardous 

materials, Incorporation by reference, 

Maritime security, Motor carriers, Motor 

vehicle carriers, Ports, Seamen, Security 

measures, Security threat assessment, 

Vessels, Waivers. 

The Final Rule 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 

Chapter I of Title 33, Code of Federal 

Regulations, parts 101, 105, and 106 and 

the Transportation Security 

Administration amends Chapter XII, 

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, 

part 1572 to read as follows: 

Title 33—Navigation and Navigable 

Waters 

CHAPTER I—COAST GUARD 

PART 101—MARITIME SECURITY: 

GENERAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 101 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 192; Executive 

Order 12656, 3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33 

CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 101.105, revise the definition of 

‘‘secure area’’ to read as follows: 

§ 101.105 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Secure area means the area on board 

a vessel or at a facility or outer 

continental shelf facility over which the 

owner/operator has implemented 

security measures for access control in 

accordance with a Coast Guard 

approved security plan. It does not 

include passenger access areas, 

employee access areas, or public access 

areas, as those terms are defined in 

§§ 104.106, 104.107, and 105.106, 

respectively, of this subchapter. Vessels 

operating under the waivers provided 

for at 46 U.S.C. 8103(b)(3)(A) or (B) have 

no secure areas. Facilities subject to part 

105 of this subchapter located in the 

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 

Islands have no secure areas. Facilities 

subject to part 105 of this subchapter 

may, with approval of the Coast Guard, 

designate only those portions of their 

facility that are directly connected to 

maritime transportation or are at risk of 

being involved in a transportation 

security incident as their secure areas. 

* * * * * 

PART 105—MARITIME SECURITY: 

FACILITIES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 105 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

70103; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–

11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 4. Amend § 105.105 by adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 105.105 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(d) The TWIC requirements found in 

this part do not apply to mariners 

employed aboard vessels moored at U.S. 

facilities only when they are working 

immediately adjacent to their vessels in 

the conduct of vessel activities. 

PART 106—MARITIME SECURITY: 

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS) 

FACILITIES 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 106 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 

6.04–11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 6. Amend § 106.105 by re-designating 

the introductory paragraph and 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) as (a), (1), (2), 

and (3), respectively, and adding 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 106.105 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) The TWIC requirements found in 

this part do not apply to mariners 

employed aboard vessels moored at U.S. 

OCS facilities only when they are 

working immediately adjacent to their 

vessels in the conduct of vessel 

activities. 

Title 49—Transportation 

Chapter XII—Transportation Security 

Administration 

PART 1572—CREDENTIALING AND 

SECURITY THREAT ASSESSMENTS 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 1572 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70105; 49 U.S.C. 114, 

5103a, 40113, and 46105; 18 U.S.C. 842, 845; 

6 U.S.C. 469. 

Subpart A—Procedures and General 

Standards 

■ 8. Revise § 1572.3(b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1572.3 Scope. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Is applying to obtain or renew a 

TWIC in accordance with 33 CFR parts 

104 through 106 or 46 CFR part 10; is 

a commercial driver licensed in Canada 

or Mexico and is applying for a TWIC 

to transport hazardous materials in 

accordance with 49 CFR 1572.201; or 

other individuals approved by TSA. 

■ 9. Revise § 1572.19(b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1572.19 Applicant responsibilities for a 

TWIC security threat assessment. 

* * * * * 

(b) Implementation schedule for 

certain mariners. An applicant, who 

holds a Merchant Mariner Document 

(MMD) issued after February 3, 2003, 

and before September 25, 2008, or a 

Merchant Marine License (License) 

issued after January 13, 2006, and before 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 55049 

September 25, 2008, must submit the 

information required in this section, but 

is not required to undergo the security 

threat assessment described in this part. 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—Qualification Standards for 

Security Threat Assessments 

■ 10. Revise § 1572.105(a)(7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1572.105 Immigration status. 

(a) * * * 

(7) An alien in the following lawful 

nonimmigrant status who has restricted 

authorization to work in the United 

States—

(i) B1/OCS Business Visitor/Outer 

Continental Shelf; 

(ii) C–1/D Crewman Visa; 

(iii) H–1B Special Occupations; 

(iv) H–1B1 Free Trade Agreement; 

(v) E–1 Treaty Trader; 

(vi) E–3 Australian in Specialty 

Occupation; 

(vii) L–1 Intracompany Executive 

Transfer; 

(viii) O–1 Extraordinary Ability; 

(ix) TN North American Free Trade 

Agreement; or 

(x) Another authorization that confers 

legal status, when TSA determines that 

the legal status is comparable to the 

legal status set out in paragraphs 

(a)(7)(i)–(viii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 1572.501 by revising 

paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1572.501 Fee collection. 

* * * * * 

(b) Standard TWIC Fee. The fee to 

obtain or renew a TWIC, except as 

provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section, is made up of the total of 

the following segments: 

(1) The Enrollment Segment covers 

the cost for TSA or its agent to enroll 

applicants. The Enrollment Segment fee 

is $43.25. 

(2) The Full Card Production/Security 

Threat Assessment Segment covers the 

costs for TSA conduct security threat 

assessment and card production. The 

Full Card Production/Security Threat 

Assessment Segment fee is $72. 

(3) The FBI Segment covers the cost 

for the FBI to process fingerprint 

identification records. The FBI Segment 

fee is the amount collected by the FBI 

under Pub. L. 101–515. If the FBI 

amends this fee, TSA or its agent will 

collect the amended fee. 

(c) Reduced TWIC Fee. The fee to 

obtain a TWIC when the applicant has 

undergone a comparable threat 

assessment in connection with an HME, 

FAST card, other threat assessment 

deemed to be comparable under 49 CFR 

1572.5(e) or holds a Merchant Mariner 

Document or Merchant Mariner License 

is made up of the total of the following 

segments: 

(1) The Enrollment Segment covers 

the cost for TSA or its agent to enroll 

applicants. The Enrollment Segment fee 

is $43.25. 

(2) The Reduced Card Production/ 

Security Threat Assessment Segment 

covers the cost for TSA to conduct a 

portion of the security threat assessment 

and card production. The Reduced Card 

Production/Security Threat Assessment 

Segment fee is $62. 

(d) Card Replacement Fee. The fee to 

replace a TWIC that has been lost, 

stolen, or damaged is $60.00. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on 

September 21, 2007. 

Kip Hawley, 

Assistant Secretary, Transportation Security 

Administration. 

F.J. Sturm, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director, 

Inspections and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 07–4750 Filed 9–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Parts 674, 682 and 685 

RIN 1840–AC88 

Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal 

Family Education Loan Program, and 

William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary is amending the 

Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) 

Program, Federal Family Education 

Loan (FFEL) Program, and William D. 

Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) 

Program regulations to implement the 

changes to the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended (HEA), resulting from 

enactment of the Third Higher 

Education Extension Act of 2006 

(THEEA), Pub. L. 109–292. These final 

regulations reflect the provisions of the 

THEEA that authorize the discharge of 

the outstanding balance of certain 

Perkins, FFEL, and Direct Loan Program 

loans for survivors of eligible public 

servants and other eligible victims of the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 

DATES: Effective Date: These final 

regulations are effective October 29, 

2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Brian Smith, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 8th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20006. 

Telephone: (202) 502–7551 or via the 

Internet at: Brian.Smith@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–

800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an alternative 

format (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 28, 2006, the Secretary 

published in the Federal Register (71 

FR 78075) interim final regulations for 

the Federal Perkins Loan, FFEL, and 

Direct Loan programs. The interim final 

regulations were effective on January 29, 

2007. 

The December 28, 2006, interim final 

regulations included a request for public 

comment. This document contains a 

discussion of the comments we received 

and revisions to the interim final 

regulations that we made as a result of 

these comments. 

These final regulations contain 

several significant changes from the 

interim final regulations. We fully 

explain the changes in the Analysis of 

Comments and Changes section 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

In response to the Secretary’s 

invitation in the interim final 

regulations, 8 parties submitted 

comments on the interim final 

regulations. 

An analysis of the comments and of 

the changes in the regulations since 

publication of the interim final 

regulations follows. We group major 

issues according to subject, with 

appropriate sections of the regulations 

referenced in parentheses. Generally, we 

do not address technical and other 

minor changes and suggested changes 

the law does not authorize the Secretary 

to make. We also do not respond to 

comments that address issues that were 

outside the scope of the interim final 

regulations. 

Rights of a Borrower if an Application 

Is Denied 

Comments: One commenter noted 

that, while there is no formal appeals 

process for a borrower whose 

application for a discharge is denied 

under the interim final regulations, if a 

borrower disputes the lender’s decision, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES