, 64213-64245 [X09-101207]

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 233 (Monday, December 7, 2009)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 64213-64245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X09-101207]


[[Page 64213]]




DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in 2003 pursuant 
to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. DHS has a vital 
mission: to secure the nation from the many threats we face. This 
requires the dedication of more than 225,000 employees in jobs that 
range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from 
cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are 
wide-ranging, but our goal is clear -- keeping America safe.
Our mission gives us five main areas of responsibility:
1. Guarding against Terrorism,
2. Securing our Borders,
3. Enforcing our Immigration Laws,
4. Improving our Readiness for, Response to and Recovery from 
            Disasters, and
5. Maturing and Unifying the Department.
In achieving these goals, we are continually strengthening our 
partnerships with communities, first responders, law enforcement, and 
government agencies -- at the State, local, tribal, Federal and 
international levels. We are accelerating the deployment of science, 
technology, and innovation in order to make America more secure. And we 
are becoming leaner, smarter, and more efficient, ensuring that every 
security resource is used as effectively as possible. For a further 
discussion of our five main areas of responsibility, see the DHS 
website at https://www.dhs.gov/xabout/responsibilities.shtm.
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's Fall 2009 
Regulatory Plan and in the Unified Agenda support the Department's five 
responsibility areas listed above. These regulations will improve the 
Department's ability to accomplish its mission.
The regulations we have identified in the this year's Fall Regulatory 
Plan continue to address recent legislative initiatives including, but 
not limited to, the following acts: the Implementing Recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act), Pub. L. 110-53 (Aug. 3, 
2007); the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 
(PKEMRA), Pub. L. 109-295 (Oct. 4, 2006); the Consolidated Natural 
Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Pub. L. No. 110-220 (May 7, 2008); the 
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), 
Pub. L. 109-347 (Oct. 13, 2006); and the Consolidated Security, 
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 
110-329 (Sept. 30, 2008).
DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized and 
unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Office of 
the General Counsel manages the Department's regulatory program, 
including the Unified Regulatory Agenda and Regulatory Plan. In 
addition, DHS senior leadership reviews each significant regulatory 
project to ensure that the project fosters and supports the 
Department's mission.
DHS is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory initiatives are 
aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil rights and civil 
liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and partnerships, 
develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to the American 
public. DHS is also committed to the principles described in Executive 
Order 12,866, as amended, such as promulgating regulations that are 
cost-effective and maximizing the net benefits of regulations. The 
Department values public involvement in the development of its 
Regulatory Plan, Unified Agenda, and regulations, and takes particular 
concern with the impact its rules have on small businesses. DHS and 
each of its components continue to emphasize the use of plain language 
in our notices and rulemaking documents to promote a better 
understanding of regulations and increased public participation in the 
Department's rulemakings.
The Fall 2009 Regulatory Plan for DHS includes regulations from the 
Department's major offices and directorates such as the National 
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). In addition, it includes 
regulations from DHS components -- including U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and 
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) -- that have active 
regulatory programs. Below is a discussion of the Fall 2009 Regulatory 
Plan for DHS offices and directorates as well as DHS regulatory 
components.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administers 
immigration services and benefits through the rule of law while 
ensuring that no one is admitted to the United States who is a threat 
to public safety or national security. As a nation of immigrants, the 
United States has a strong commitment to welcoming those individuals 
who seek legal entry through our immigration system, and to also assist 
those in need of humanitarian protection against harm. USCIS seeks to 
welcome lawful immigrants while preventing exploitation of the 
immigration system and to create and maintain a high-performing, 
integrated, public service organization.
Based on a comprehensive review of the USCIS planned regulatory agenda, 
USCIS will promulgate several rulemakings to directly support these 
commitments and goals.
Regulations Related to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
During 2009, USCIS issued a series of regulations to implement the 
transition of U.S. immigration law to the Commonwealth of Northern 
Mariana Islands (CNMI) as required under title VII of the Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act of 2008. USCIS will be issuing the following CNMI 
final rules during Fiscal Year 2010: ``CNMI Transitional Worker 
Classification,'' E-2 Nonimmigrant Status for Aliens of the CNMI with 
Long-Term Investor Status, and the joint USCIS/Department of Justice 
regulation ``Application of Immigration Regulations to the CNMI.''
Improvements to the Immigration System
USCIS strives to provide efficient, courteous, accurate, and responsive 
services to those who seek and qualify to come to our country, as well 
as to provide seamless, transparent, and dedicated customer support 
services. To improve our customer service goals, USCIS is pursuing a 
regulatory initiative that will provide for visa number lottery 
selection of H-1B petitions based on electronic registration.
Registration Requirements for Employment-Based Categories Subject to 
Numerical Limitations. USCIS is considering proposing a revised 
registration process for cap-subject H-1B petitioners. The rule would 
propose to create a process by which USCIS would randomly select a 
sufficient number of

[[Page 64214]]

timely filed registrations to meet the applicable cap. Only those 
petitioners whose registrations are randomly selected would be eligible 
to file an H-1B petition for a cap-subject prospective worker. 
Enhancing customer service, the rule would eliminate the need for 
petitioning employers to prepare and file complete H-1B petitions 
before knowing whether a prospective worker has ``won'' the H-1B 
lottery. The rule would also reduce the burden on USCIS of entering 
data and subsequently returning non-selected petitions to employers 
once the cap is reached.
Regulatory Changes Involving Humanitarian Benefits
USCIS offers protection to individuals who face persecution by 
adjudicating applications for refugees and asylees. Other humanitarian 
benefits are available to individuals who have been victims of severe 
forms of trafficking or criminal activity.
Asylum and Withholding Definitions. USCIS plans a regulatory effort to 
amend the regulations that govern asylum eligibility. The amendments 
are expected to focus on portions of the regulations that deal with 
determinations of whether persecution is inflicted on account of a 
protected ground, the requirements for establishing the failure of 
State protection, and the parameters for defining membership in a 
particular social group. This effort should provide greater stability 
and clarity in this important area of the law.
``T'' and ``U'' Nonimmigrants. USCIS plans additional regulatory 
initiatives related to T nonimmigrants (victims of trafficking), U 
nonimmigrants (victims of criminal activity), and Adjustment of Status 
for T and U status holders. By promulgating additional regulations 
related to these victims of specified crimes or severe forms of 
trafficking in persons, USCIS hopes to provide greater stability for 
these vulnerable groups, their advocates, and the community. These 
rulemakings will contain provisions that seek to ease documentary 
requirements for this vulnerable population and provisions that provide 
clarification to the law enforcement community. As well, publication of 
these rules will inform the community on how their petitions are 
adjudicated.
United States Coast Guard
The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is a military, multi-mission, 
maritime service of the United States and the only military 
organization within DHS. It is the principal federal agency responsible 
for maritime safety, security, and stewardship and delivers daily value 
to the Nation through multi-mission resources, authorities, and 
capabilities.
Effective governance in the maritime domain hinges upon an integrated 
approach to safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast Guard's 
policies and capabilities are integrated and interdependent, delivering 
results through a network of enduring partnerships. The Coast Guard's 
ability to field versatile capabilities and highly-trained personnel is 
the U.S. Government's most significant and important strength in the 
maritime environment.
America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and 
economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety, 
efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are 
essential to our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised 
to meet the demands of the new millennium. The Coast Guard creates 
value for the public through solid prevention and response efforts. 
Activities involving oversight and regulation, enforcement, maritime 
presence, and public and private partnership foster increased maritime 
safety, security, and stewardship.
The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard include ensuring 
marine safety and security, preserving maritime mobility, protecting 
the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and international treaties, 
and performing search and rescue. The Coast Guard supports the 
Department's overarching goals of mobilizing and organizing our Nation 
to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and 
other emergencies. In performing its duties, the Coast Guard fulfills 
its three broad roles and responsibilities - maritime safety, maritime 
security, and maritime stewardship.
The rulemaking projects identified for the Coast Guard in the Unified 
Agenda, and the two rules appearing in the Fall 2009 Regulatory Plan 
below, contribute to the fulfillment of those responsibilities and 
reflect our regulatory policies. The Coast Guard has issued many rules 
supporting maritime safety, security and environmental protection as 
indicated by the wide range of topics covered in its rulemaking 
projects in this Unified Agenda.
Inspection of Towing Vessels. In 2004, Congress amended U.S. law by 
adding towing vessels to the types of commercial vessels that must be 
inspected by the Coast Guard. Congress also provided guidance relevant 
to the use of a safety management system as part of the inspection 
regime. The intent of the proposed rule is to promote safer work 
practices and reduce casualties on towing vessels by ensuring that 
towing vessels adhere to prescribed safety standards and safety 
management systems. The proposed rule was developed in cooperation with 
the Towing Vessel Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). It would establish 
a new subchapter dedicated to towing vessels and covering vessel 
equipment, systems, operational standards, and inspection requirements. 
To implement this change, the Coast Guard is developing regulations to 
prescribe standards, procedures, tests, and inspections for towing 
vessels. This rulemaking supports maritime safety and maritime 
stewardship.
Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in 
U.S. Waters. This rule would set performance standards for the quality 
of ballast water discharged in U.S. waters and require that all vessels 
that operate in U.S. waters, are bound for ports or places in the U.S., 
and are equipped with ballast tanks, install and operate a Coast Guard 
approved Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) before discharging 
ballast water into U.S. waters. This would include vessels bound for 
offshore ports or places. As the effectiveness of ballast water 
exchange varies from vessel to vessel, the Coast Guard believes that 
setting performance standards would be the most effective way for 
approving BWMS that are environmentally protective and scientifically 
sound. Ultimately, the approval of BWMS would require procedures 
similar to those located in title 46, subchapter Q, of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, to ensure that the BWMS works not only in the 
laboratory but under shipboard conditions. These would include: pre-
approval requirements, application requirements, land-based/shipboard 
testing requirements, design and construction requirements, electrical 
requirements, engineering requirements, and piping requirements. This 
requirement is intended to meet the directive from the National 
Invasive Species Act (NISA) requiring the Coast Guard to ensure to the 
maximum extent practicable that nonindigenous species (NIS) are not 
discharged into U.S. waters. This rulemaking supports maritime 
stewardship. As well, this rulemaking provides additional benefits. 
Ballast water discharged from ships is a

[[Page 64215]]

significant pathway for the introduction and spread of non-indigenous 
aquatic nuisance species. These organisms, which may be plants, 
animals, bacteria or pathogens, have the potential to displace native 
species, degrade native habitats, spread disease and disrupt human 
economic and social activities that depend on water resources.
The Coast Guard has supported the e-rulemaking initiative and, starting 
on the day of the first Federal Register publication in a rulemaking 
project, the public can submit comments electronically and view agency 
documents and public comments on the Federal Register's Document 
Management System, which is available online at https://
www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.htmlhome. The Coast Guard 
endeavors to reduce the paperwork burden it places on the public and 
strives to issue only necessary regulations that are tailored to impose 
the least burden on society.
United States Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the federal agency 
principally responsible for the security of our Nation's borders, both 
at and between the ports of entry and at official crossings into the 
United States. CBP must accomplish its border security and enforcement 
mission without stifling the flow of legitimate trade and travel. The 
primary mission of CBP is its homeland security mission, that is, to 
prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United 
States. An important aspect of this priority mission involves improving 
security at our borders and ports of entry, but it also means extending 
our zone of security beyond our physical borders.
CBP also is responsible for administering laws concerning the 
importation into the United States of goods, and enforcing the laws 
concerning the entry of persons into the United States. This includes 
regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import 
duties; enforcing U.S. trade, immigration and other laws of the United 
States at our borders; inspecting imports, overseeing the activities of 
persons and businesses engaged in importing; enforcing the laws 
concerning smuggling and trafficking in contraband; apprehending 
individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; protecting 
our agriculture and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; 
servicing all people, vehicles and cargo entering the U.S.; maintaining 
export controls; and protecting American businesses from theft of their 
intellectual property.
In carrying out its priority mission, CBP's goal is to facilitate the 
processing of legitimate trade and people efficiently without 
compromising security. Consistent with its primary mission of homeland 
security, CBP published several final and proposed rules during the 
last fiscal year and intends to propose and finalize others during the 
next fiscal year that are intended to improve security at our borders 
and ports of entry. We have highlighted some of these rules below.
Electronic System for Travel Authorization. On June 9, 2008, CBP 
published an interim final rule amending DHS regulations to implement 
the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for aliens who 
wish to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) at 
air or sea ports of entry. This rule is intended to fulfill the 
requirements of section 711 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). The rule establishes ESTA and 
delineates the data fields DHS has determined will be collected by the 
system. The rule requires that each alien traveling to the United 
States under the VWP must obtain electronic travel authorization via 
the ESTA System in advance of such travel. VWP travelers may obtain the 
required ESTA authorization by electronically submitting to CBP 
biographic and other information as currently required by the I-94W 
Nonimmigrant Alien Arrival/Departure Form (I-94W). By Federal Register 
notice dated November 13, 2008, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
informed the public that ESTA would become mandatory beginning January 
12, 2009. This means that all VWP travelers must either obtain travel 
authorization in advance of travel under ESTA or obtain a visa prior to 
traveling to the United States.
By shifting from a paper to an electronic form and requiring the data 
in advance of travel, CBP will be able to determine before the alien 
departs for the U.S., the eligibility of nationals from VWP countries 
to travel to the United States and to determine whether such travel 
poses a law enforcement or security risk. By modernizing the VWP, the 
ESTA is intended to increase national security and provide for greater 
efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by allowing 
for vetting of subjects of potential interest well before boarding, 
thereby reducing traveler delays based on lengthy processes at ports of 
entry. CBP intends to issue a final rule during the next fiscal year.
Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements. The 
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), 
calls for CBP to promulgate regulations to require the electronic 
transmission of additional data elements for improved high-risk 
targeting. See Pub. L. No. 109-347, Sec.  203 (Oct. 13, 2006). This 
includes appropriate security elements of entry data for cargo destined 
for the United States by vessel prior to loading of such cargo on 
vessels at foreign seaports. Id. The SAFE Port Act requires that the 
information collected reasonably improve CBP's ability to identify 
high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and 
security. Id.
On November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule ``Importer 
Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements,'' amending CBP 
Regulations to require carriers and importers to provide to CBP, via a 
CBP approved electronic data interchange system, information necessary 
to enable CBP to identify high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and 
ensure cargo safety and security. This rule, which became effective on 
January 26, 2009, improves CBP's risk assessment and targeting 
capabilities, facilitates the prompt release of legitimate cargo 
following its arrival in the United States, and assists CBP in 
increasing the security of the global trading system. The comment 
period for the interim final rule concluded on June 1, 2009. CBP is 
analyzing comments and conducting a structured review of certain 
flexibilities provided in the interim final rule. CBP intends to 
publish a final rule during the next fiscal year.
Implementation of the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. CBP published an 
interim final rule in November 2008 amending the DHS Regulations to 
replace the current Guam Visa Waiver Program with a new Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver program. This rule implements portions of the Natural Resources 
Act of 2008 (CNRA), which extends the immigration laws of the United 
States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and 
among other things, provides for a visa waiver program for travel to 
Guam and the CNMI. The amended regulations set forth the requirements 
for nonimmigrant visitors who seek admission for business or pleasure 
and solely for entry into and stay on Guam or the CNMI

[[Page 64216]]

without a visa. The rule also establishes six ports of entry in the 
CNMI for purposes of administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver program.
Global Entry Program. Pursuant to section 7208(k) of the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as amended, in the fall of 
2009, CBP issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), proposing to 
establish an international trusted traveler program, called Global 
Entry. This voluntary program would allow CBP to expedite clearance of 
pre-approved, low-risk air travelers into the United States. CBP has 
been operating the Global Entry program as a pilot at several airports 
since June 6, 2008. Based on the successful operation of the pilot, CBP 
now proposes to establish Global Entry as a permanent voluntary 
regulatory program. CBP will evaluate the public comments received in 
response to the NPRM, in order to develop a final rule.
The rules discussed above foster DHS's mission. Under section 403(1) of 
the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the former-U.S. Customs Service, 
including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, 
transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. As part of the 
initial organization of DHS, the Customs Service inspection and trade 
functions were combined with the immigration and agricultural 
inspection functions and the Border Patrol and transferred into CBP. It 
is noted that certain regulatory authority of the United States Customs 
Service relating to customs revenue functions was retained by the 
Department of the Treasury (see the Department of the Treasury 
Regulatory Plan). In addition to its plans to continue issuing 
regulations to enhance border security, CBP, during fiscal year 2010, 
expects to continue to issue regulatory documents that will facilitate 
legitimate trade and implement trade benefit programs. CBP regulations 
regarding the customs revenue function are discussed in the Regulatory 
Plan of the Department of the Treasury.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to 
ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve 
our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover 
from, and mitigate all hazards. In fiscal year 2010, FEMA will continue 
to serve that mission and promote the Department of Homeland Security's 
goals. In furtherance of the Department and agency's goals, in the 
upcoming fiscal year, FEMA will be working on regulations to implement 
provisions of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 
(PKEMRA) (Public Law 109-295, Oct. 4, 2006), the U.S. Troop Readiness, 
Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 
Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28, May 25, 2007), and to 
implement lessons learned from past events.
Disaster Assistance; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households. 
FEMA intends to update the current interim rule titled ``Disaster 
Assistance; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households.'' This 
rulemaking would implement section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) (42 
U.S.C. 5121-5207). It would also make further revisions to 44 CFR part 
206, subparts D (the Individuals and Households Program (IHP)) and 
remove subpart E (Individual and Family Grant Programs). Among other 
things, it would implement section 686 of PKEMRA to remove the IHP 
subcaps; implement section 685 regarding semi-permanent and permanent 
housing construction eligibility; revise FEMA's regulations related to 
individuals with disabilities pursuant to PKEMRA section 689; and 
revise FEMA's regulations to allow for the payment of security deposits 
and the costs of utilities, excluding telephone service, in accordance 
with section 689d of PKEMRA. This regulation also would propose to 
implement section 689f of PKEMRA by authorizing assistance to relocate 
individuals displaced from their predisaster primary residence, to and 
from alternate locations for short-or long-term accommodations.
Public Assistance Program regulations. FEMA will also work to revise 
the Public Assistance Program regulations in 44 CFR part 206 to reflect 
changes made to the Stafford Act by PKEMRA, the Pets Evacuation and 
Transportation Standards Act of 2006 (PETS Act) (Public Law 109-308, 
Oct., 2006), the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-
218, Apr. 20, 2006), and the Security and Accountability for Every Port 
Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) (Public Law 109-347, Oct. 13, 2006), and to 
make other substantive and nonsubstantive clarifications and 
corrections to the Public Assistance regulations. The proposed changes 
would expand eligibility to include performing arts facilities and 
community arts centers pursuant to section 688 of PKEMRA; include 
education in the list of critical services pursuant to section 689h of 
PKEMRA, thus allowing private nonprofit educational facilities to be 
eligible for restoration funding; add accelerated Federal assistance to 
available assistance and precautionary evacuations to activities 
eligible for reimbursement pursuant to section 681 of PKEMRA; include 
household pets and service animals in essential assistance pursuant to 
section 689 of PKEMRA and section 4 of the PETS Act; provide for 
expedited payments of grant assistance for the removal of debris 
pursuant to section 610 of the SAFE Port Act; and allow for a contract 
to be set aside for award based on a specific geographic area pursuant 
to section 2 of the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006. Other changes 
would include adding or changing requirements to improve and streamline 
the Public Assistance grant application process.
Special Community Disaster Loans. In addition, FEMA intends to address 
public comments and publish a final rule that would implement loan 
cancellation provisions for Special Community Disaster Loans (SCDLs). 
FEMA provided SCDLs to local governments in the Gulf region following 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This rule would not result in the 
automatic cancellation of all SCDLs. It would finalize the procedures 
and requirements for governments who received SCDLs to apply for 
cancellation of loan obligations as authorized by section 4502 of the 
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. The final rule would establish 
the procedures by which loan holders would provide FEMA with 
information that would then be used to determine when cancelation of a 
SCDL, in whole or in part, is warranted. The final rule would not apply 
to any loans made under FEMA's traditional Community Disaster Loans 
Program which is governed under separate regulations.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have any 
significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2010.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
The mission of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is to 
protect national security by enforcing our nation's customs and 
immigration laws. During fiscal year 2010, ICE will

[[Page 64217]]

pursue rulemaking actions that improve three critical subject areas: 
the processes for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP); the 
detention of aliens who are subject to final orders of removal; and the 
electronic signature and storage of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility 
Verification.
Processes for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. ICE will 
improve SEVP processes by publishing the Optional Practical Training 
(OPT) final rule, which will respond to comments on the OPT interim 
final rule (IFR). The IFR increased the maximum period of OPT from 12 
months to 29 months for nonimmigrant students who have completed a 
science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree and who 
accept employment with employers who participate in the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services E-Verify employment verification 
program.
In addition, ICE will publish proposed revisions of 8 CFR 214.1-4 in a 
regulation that will clarify the criteria for F, M and J nonimmigrant 
status and for schools certified by SEVP, update policy and procedure 
for SEVP, remove obsolete provisions, and support the implementation of 
a major reprogramming of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information 
System (SEVIS), known as ``SEVIS II.''
Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal. ICE will also 
improve the post order custody review process in the final rule related 
to the Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal 
in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 
U.S. 678 (2001), Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005). ICE will also 
make conforming changes as required by the Homeland Security Act of 
2002.
Electronic Signature and Storage of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility 
Verification. A final rule on the Electronic Signature and Storage of 
Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification will respond to comments 
and make minor changes to the IFR that was published in 2006.
National Protection and Programs Directorate
The goal of the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) is 
to advance the Department's risk-reduction mission. Reducing risk 
requires an integrated approach that encompasses both physical and 
virtual threats and their associated human elements.
Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program
The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act, section 563 of the Fiscal 
Year 2008 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-
161, amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide DHS with the 
authority to ``regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an 
ammonium nitrate facility . . . to prevent the misappropriation or use 
of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.''
The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act directs DHS to promulgate 
regulations requiring potential buyers and sellers of ammonium nitrate 
to register with DHS. As part of the registration process, the statute 
directs DHS to screen registration applicants against the Federal 
Government's Terrorist Screening Database. The statute also requires 
sellers of ammonium nitrate to verify the identities of those seeking 
to purchase it; to record certain information about each sale or 
transfer of ammonium nitrate; and to report thefts and losses of 
ammonium nitrate to DHS.
The rule would aid the Federal Government in its efforts to prevent the 
misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use in acts of terrorism. By 
preventing such misappropriation, this rule will limit terrorists' 
abilities to threaten the public and to threaten the Nation's critical 
infrastructure and key resources. By securing the nation's supply of 
ammonium nitrate, it will be more difficult for terrorists to obtain 
ammonium nitrate materials for use in terrorist acts.
DHS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for the 
Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Program on October 29, 2008, and 
has received a number of public comments on that ANPRM. DHS is 
presently reviewing those comments and is in the process of developing 
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which the Department hopes to 
issue in Spring 2010.
US-VISIT
The U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) 
is an integrated, automated entry-exit system that records the arrival 
and departure of aliens, verifies aliens' identities, and verifies 
aliens' travel documents by comparison of biometric identifiers. The 
goals of US-VISIT are to enhance the security of U.S. citizens and 
visitors to the United States, facilitate legitimate travel and trade, 
ensure the integrity of the U.S. immigration system, and protect the 
privacy of visitors to the United States.
The US-VISIT program, through CBP officers or Department of State (DOS) 
consular offices, collects biometrics (digital fingerprints and 
photographs) from aliens seeking to enter the United States. DHS checks 
that information against government databases to identify suspected 
terrorists, known criminals, or individuals who have previously 
violated U.S. immigration laws. This system assists DHS and DOS in 
determining whether an alien seeking to enter the United States is, in 
fact, admissible to the United States under existing law. No biometric 
exit system currently exists, however, to assist DHS or DOS in 
determining whether an alien has overstayed the terms of his or her 
visa or other authorization to be present in the United States.
NPPD published an NPRM on April 24, 2008, proposing to establish an 
exit program at all air and sea ports of departure in the United 
States. Congress subsequently enacted the Consolidated Security, 
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, Public 
Law 110-329, 122 Stat. 3574, 3669 - 70 (Sept. 30, 2008), requiring DHS 
to delay issuance of a final rule until the conclusion of pilot tests 
to analyze the collection of biometrics from at least two air exit 
scenarios. DHS currently is reviewing the results of those tests. DHS 
continues to work to ensure that the final air/sea exit rule will be 
issued during fiscal year 2010.
Transportation Security Administration
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the Nation's 
transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and 
commerce. TSA is committed to continuously setting the standard for 
excellence in transportation security through its people, processes, 
and technology as we work to meet the immediate and long-term needs of 
the transportation sector.
In fiscal year 2010, TSA will promote the DHS mission by emphasizing 
regulatory efforts that allow TSA to better identify, detect, and 
protect against threats against various modes of the transportation 
system, while facilitating the efficient movement of the traveling 
public, transportation workers, and cargo.
Screening of Air Cargo. TSA will finalize an interim final rule that 
codifies a statutory requirement of Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2008 (9/11 Act)

[[Page 64218]]

that TSA establish a system to screen 100 percent of cargo transported 
on passenger aircraft by August 3, 2010. TSA is working to finalize the 
interim rule by November 2010. To assist in carrying out this mandate, 
TSA is establishing a voluntary program under which it will certify 
cargo screening facilities to screen cargo according to TSA standards 
prior to its being tendered to aircraft operators for carriage on 
passenger aircraft.
Large Aircraft Security Program (General Aviation). TSA plans to issue 
a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to propose 
amendments to current aviation transportation security regulations to 
enhance the security of general aviation by expanding the scope of 
current requirements and by adding new requirements for certain General 
Aviation (GA) aircraft operators. To date, the government's focus with 
regard to aviation security generally has been on air carriers and 
commercial operators. As vulnerabilities and risks associated with air 
carriers and commercial operators have been reduced or mitigated, 
terrorists may perceive that GA aircraft are more vulnerable and may 
view them as attractive targets. This rule would yield benefits in the 
areas of security and quality governance by expanding the mandatory use 
of security measures to certain operators of large aircraft that are 
not currently required to have a security plan. TSA published a notice 
of proposed rulemaking on October 30, 2008, and received over 7,000 
public comments, generally urging significant changes to the proposal. 
The SNPRM will respond to the comments and contain proposals on 
addressing security in the GA sector.
Security Training for Non-Aviation Modes. TSA will propose regulations 
to enhance the security of several non-aviation modes of 
transportation, in accordance with the requirements of the 9/11 Act. In 
particular, TSA will propose regulations requiring freight railroads, 
passenger railroads, public transportation system operators, over-the-
road bus operators, and motor carriers transporting certain hazardous 
materials to conduct security training for certain of their employees. 
Requiring security training programs of these employees is important, 
because it will prepare these employees, including frontline employees, 
for potential security threats and conditions.
Aircraft Repair Station Security. TSA will propose regulations to 
require repair stations that are certificated by the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) under 14 CFR part 145 to adopt and implement 
standard security programs and to comply with security directives 
issued by TSA. The rule will also propose to codify the scope of TSA's 
existing inspection program and to require regulated parties to allow 
DHS officials to enter, inspect, and test property, facilities, and 
records relevant to repair stations. This rulemaking action implements 
section 1616 of the 9/11 Act.
Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Process and Fees. TSA is developing 
a proposed rule to revise and standardize the procedures, adjudication 
criteria, and fees for most of the security threat assessments (STA) of 
individuals for which TSA is responsible. The scope of the rulemaking 
will include transportation workers from all modes of transportation 
who are required to undergo an STA in other regulatory programs. In 
addition, TSA will propose fees to cover the cost of the STAs, and 
credentials for some personnel. TSA plans to improve efficiencies in 
processing STAs and streamline existing regulations by simplifying 
language and removing redundancies. Standardized procedures and 
adjudication criteria will allow TSA to reduce the need for certain 
individuals to undergo multiple STAs; streamlined processes are 
intended to reduce the time needed for TSA to complete the adjudication 
of STAs.
United States Secret Service
The United States Secret Service does not have any significant 
regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2010.
DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2010
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise 
DHS's Fall 2009 Regulatory Plan follows.
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--Office of the Secretary (OS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




56. SECURE HANDLING OF AMMONIUM NITRATE PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


Sec 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Subtitle J--Secure 
Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, PL 110-161


CFR Citation:


6 CFR 31


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, May 26, 2008, Publication of Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.


Abstract:


This rulemaking will implement the December 2007 amendment to the 
Homeland Security Act entitled the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate. 
The amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to 
``regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an ammonium 
nitrate facility . . .to prevent the misappropriation or use of 
ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.''


Statement of Need:


Pursuant to section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act, P.L. 110-161, the 
Department of Homeland Security is required to promulgate a rulemaking 
to create a registration regime for certain buyers and sellers of 
ammonium nitrate. The rule, as proposed by this NPRM, would create that 
regime, and will aid the Federal Government in its efforts to prevent 
the misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use in acts of terrorism. 
By preventing such misappropriation, this rule will limit terrorists' 
abilities to threaten the public and to threaten the Nation's critical 
infrastructure and key resources. By securing the nation's supply of 
ammonium nitrate, it will be much more difficult for terrorists to 
obtain ammonium nitrate materials for use in improvised explosive 
devices (IEDs). As a result, there is a direct value in the deterrence 
of a catastrophic terrorist attack using ammonium nitrate such as the 
Oklahoma City attack that killed over 160, injured 853 people, and is 
estimated to have caused $652 million in damages ($921 million in 
$2009).


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Subtitle J -- 
Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, PL 110-161, authorizes and 
requires this rulemaking.


Alternatives:


The Department of Homeland Security is required by statute to publish 
regulations implementing the Secure

[[Page 64219]]

Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act. As part of its notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the Department will seek public comment on the numerous 
alternative ways in which the final Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate 
Program could carry out the requirements of the Secure Handling of 
Ammonium Nitrate Act.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There will be costs to ammonium nitrate (AN) purchasers, including 
farms, fertilizer mixers, farm supply wholesalers and coops, golf 
courses, landscaping services, explosives distributors, mines, retail 
garden centers, and lab supply wholesalers. There will also be costs to 
AN sellers, such as ammonium nitrate fertilizer and explosive 
manufacturers, fertilizer mixers, farm supply wholesalers and coops, 
retail garden center, explosives distributors, fertilizer applicator 
services, and lab supply wholesalers. Costs will relate to the point of 
sale requirements, registration activities, recordkeeping, inspections/
audits, and reporting of theft or loss. DHS plans to provide an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis, which covers the populations and cost 
impacts on small business.


Because the value of the benefits of reducing risk of a terrorist 
attack is a function of both the probability of an attack and the value 
of the consequence, it is difficult to identify the particular risk 
reduction associated with the implementation of this rule. When the 
proposed rule is published, DHS will provide a break even analysis. The 
program elements that would help achieve the risk reductions will be 
discussed in the break even analysis. These elements and related 
qualitative benefits include point of sale identification requirements 
and requiring individuals to be screened against the TSDB resulting in 
known bad actors being denied the ability to purchase ammonium nitrate.


Risks:


Explosives containing ammonium nitrate are commonly used in terrorist 
attacks. Such attacks have been carried out both domestically and 
internationally. The 1995 Murrah Federal Building attack in Oklahoma 
City claimed the lives of 167 individuals and demonstrated firsthand to 
America how ammonium nitrate could be misused by terrorists. In 
addition to the Murrah Building attack, the Provisional Irish 
Republican Army used ammonium nitrate as part of its London, England 
bombing campaign in the early 1980s. More recently, ammonium nitrate 
was used in the 1998 East African Embassy bombings and in November 2003 
bombings in Istanbul, Turkey. Additionally, since the events of 9/11, 
stores of ammonium nitrate have been confiscated during raids on 
terrorist sites around the world, including sites in Canada, England, 
India, and the Philippines.


The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent terrorist attacks 
within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of the United 
States to terrorism. By preventing the misappropriation or use of 
ammonium nitrate in acts of terrorism, this rulemaking will support the 
Department's efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce the 
Nation's vulnerability to terrorist attacks. This rulemaking is 
complementary to other Department programs seeking to reduce the risks 
posed by terrorism, including the Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism 
Standards program (which seeks in part to prevent terrorists from 
gaining access to dangerous chemicals) and the Transportation Worker 
Identification Credential program (which seeks in part to prevent 
terrorists from gaining access to certain critical infrastructure), 
among other programs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           10/29/08                    73 FR 64280
Correction                      11/05/08                    73 FR 65783
ANPRM Comment Period End        12/29/08
NPRM                            04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State, Tribal


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Dennis Deziel
Infrastructure Security Compliance Division
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Phone: 703 235-5263
Email: dennis.deziel@dhs.gov
RIN: 1601-AA52
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--OS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




57. COLLECTION OF ALIEN BIOMETRIC DATA UPON EXIT FROM THE UNITED STATES 
AT AIR AND SEA PORTS OF DEPARTURE; UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT 
STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM (US-VISIT)

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1101 to 1104; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184 to 1185 (pursuant to EO 
13323); 8 USC 1221; 8 USC 1365a, 1365b; 8 USC 1379; 8 USC 1731 to 1732


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 215.1; 8 CFR 231.4


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


DHS established the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 
Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT) in accordance with a series of 
legislative mandates requiring that DHS create an integrated automated 
entry-exit system that records the arrival and departure of aliens; 
verifies aliens' identities; and authenticates travel documents. This 
rule requires aliens to provide biometric identifiers at entry and upon 
departure at any air and sea port of entry at which facilities exist to 
collect such information.


Statement of Need:


This rule establishes an exit system at all air and sea ports of 
departure in the United States. This rule requires aliens subject to 
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program 
biometric requirements upon entering the United States to also provide 
biometric identifiers prior to departing the United States from air or 
sea ports of departure.


Alternatives:


The proposed rule would require aliens who are subject to US-VISIT 
biometric requirements upon entering the United

[[Page 64220]]

States to provide biometric information before departing from the 
United States at air and sea ports of entry. The rule proposed a 
performance standard for commercial air and vessel carriers to collect 
the biometric information and to submit this information to DHS no 
later than 24 hours after air carrier staff secure the aircraft doors 
on an international departure, or for sea travel, no later than 24 
hours after the vessel's departure from a U.S. port. DHS is considering 
numerous alternatives based upon public comment on the alternatives in 
the NPRM. Alternatives included various points in the process, kiosks, 
and varying levels of responsibility for the carriers and government. 
DHS may select another variation between the outer bounds of the 
alternatives presented or another alternative if subsequent analysis 
warrants.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed rule expenditure and delay costs for a ten-year period are 
estimated at $3.5 billion. Alternative costs range from $3.1 billion to 
$6.4 billion. US-VISIT assessed seven categories of economic impacts 
other than direct expenditures. Of these two are economic costs: social 
costs resulting from increased traveler queue and processing time; and 
social costs resulting from increased flight delays. Ten-year benefits 
are estimated at $1.1 billion. US-VISIT assessed seven categories of 
economic impacts other than direct expenditures. Of these five are 
benefits, which include costs that could be avoided, for each 
alternative: cost avoidance resulting from improved detection of aliens 
overstaying visas; cost avoidance resulting from improved U.S. 
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efficiency attempting 
apprehension of overstays; cost avoidance resulting from improved 
efficiency processing Exit/Entry data; improved compliance with NSEERS 
requirements due to the improvement in ease of compliance; and improved 
National Security Environment. These benefits are measured 
quantitatively or qualitatively.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/24/08                    73 FR 22065
NPRM Comment Period End         06/23/08
Final Rule                      07/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


URL For More Information:
www.regulations.gov

URL For Public Comments:
www.regulations.gov

Agency Contact:
Helen DeThomas
Management and Program Analyst
Department of Homeland Security
1616 N. Fort Myer Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 202 298-5173
Email: helen.dethomas@dhs.gov
Related RIN: Previously reported as 1650-AA04
RIN: 1601-AA34
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




58. ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING DEFINITIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1158; 8 USC 1226; 8 USC 1252; 8 USC 1282; 8 CFR 2


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 208


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule proposes to amend Department of Homeland Security regulations 
that govern asylum eligibility. The amendments focus on portions of the 
regulations that deal with the definitions of membership in a 
particular social group, the requirements for failure of State 
protection, and determinations about whether persecution is inflicted 
on account of a protected ground. This rule codifies long-standing 
concepts of the definitions. It clarifies that gender can be a basis 
for membership in a particular social group. It also clarifies that a 
person who has suffered or fears domestic violence may under certain 
circumstances be eligible for asylum on that basis. After the Board of 
Immigration Appeals published a decision on this issue in 1999, Matter 
of R-A-, Int. Dec. 3403 (BIA 1999), it became clear that the governing 
regulatory standards required clarification. The Department of Justice 
began this regulatory initiative by publishing a proposed rule 
addressing these issues in 2000.


Statement of Need:


This rule provides guidance on a number of key interpretive issues of 
the refugee definition used by adjudicators deciding asylum and 
withholding of removal (withholding) claims. The interpretive issues 
include whether persecution is inflicted on account of a protected 
ground, the requirements for establishing the failure of State 
protection, and the parameters for defining membership in a particular 
social group. This rule will aid in the adjudication of claims made by 
applicants whose claims fall outside of the rubric of the protected 
grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. One 
example of such claims which often fall within the particular social 
group ground concerns people who have suffered or fear domestic 
violence. This rule is expected to consolidate issues raised in a 
proposed rule in 2000 and to address issues that have developed since 
the publication of the proposed rule. This should provide greater 
stability and clarity in this important area of the law.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The purpose of this rule is to provide guidance on certain issues that 
have arisen in the context of asylum and withholding adjudications. The 
1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 
Convention) contains the internationally accepted definition of a 
refugee. United States immigration law incorporates an almost identical 
definition of a refugee as a person outside his or her country of 
origin ``who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or 
unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that 
country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on 
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 
social group, or political opinion.'' Section 101(a)(42) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.


Alternatives:


A sizable body of interpretive case law has developed around the 
meaning of the refugee definition. Historically, much of this case law 
has addressed

[[Page 64221]]

more traditional asylum and withholding claims based on the protected 
grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. In recent 
years, however, the United States increasingly has encountered asylum 
and withholding applications with more varied bases, related, for 
example, to an applicant's gender or sexual orientation. Many of these 
new types of claims are based on the ground of ``membership in a 
particular social group,'' which is the least well-defined of the five 
protected grounds within the refugee definition.


On December 7, 2000, a proposed rule was published in the Federal 
Register providing guidance on the definitions of ``persecution'' and 
``membership in a particular social group.'' Prior to publishing a 
final rule, the Department will be considering how the nexus between 
persecution and a protected ground might be further conceptualized; how 
membership in a particular social group might be defined and evaluated; 
and what constitutes a State's inability or unwillingness to protect 
the applicant where the persecution arises from a non-State actor. This 
rule will provide guidance to the following adjudicators: USCIS asylum 
officers, Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review 
(EOIR) immigration judges, and members of the EOIR Board of Immigration 
Appeals. The alternative to publishing this rule would be to allow the 
standards governing this area of law to continue to develop piecemeal 
through administrative and judicial precedent. This approach has 
resulted in inconsistent and confusing standards and the Department has 
therefore determined that promulgation of the final rule is necessary.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


By providing a clear framework for key asylum and withholding issues, 
we anticipate that adjudicators will have clear guidance, increasing 
administrative efficiency and consistency in adjudicating these cases. 
The rule will also promote a more consistent and predictable body of 
administrative and judicial precedent governing these types of cases. 
We anticipate that this will enable applicants to better assess their 
potential eligibility for asylum and to present their claims more 
efficiently when they believe that they may qualify, thus reducing the 
resources spent on adjudicating claims that do not qualify. In 
addition, a more consistent and predictable body of law on these issues 
will likely result in fewer appeals, both administrative and judicial, 
and reduce the associated litigation costs. The Department has no way 
of accurately predicting how this rule will impact the number of asylum 
applications filed in the US. Based on anecdotal evidence and on the 
reported experience of other nations that have adopted standards under 
which the results are similar to those we anticipate from this rule, we 
do not believe this rule will cause a large change in the number of 
asylum applications filed.


Risks:


The failure to promulgate a final rule in this area presents 
significant risks of further inconsistency and confusion in the law. 
The government's interests in fair, efficient and consistent 
adjudications would be compromised.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/07/00                    65 FR 76588
NPRM                            09/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         11/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


CIS No. 2092-00


Transferred from RIN 1115-AF92


Agency Contact:
Jedidah Hussey
Deputy Chief, Asylum Division
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Suite 3300
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-1663
Email: jedidah.m.hussey@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AA41
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCIS



59. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED CATEGORIES SUBJECT 
TO NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


8 USC 1184(g)


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 299


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Homeland Security is proposing to amend its 
regulations governing petitions filed on behalf of alien workers 
subject to annual numerical limitations. This rule proposes an 
electronic registration program for petitions subject to numerical 
limitations contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act). 
Initially, the program would be for the H-1B nonimmigrant 
classification; however, other nonimmigrant classifications will be 
added as needed. This action is necessary because the demand for H-1B 
specialty occupation workers by U.S. companies generally exceeds the 
numerical limitation. This rule is intended to allow USCIS to more 
efficiently manage the intake and lottery process for these H-1B 
petitions.


Statement of Need:


U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) proposes to establish 
a mandatory Internet-based electronic registration process for U.S. 
employers seeking to file H-1B petitions for alien workers subject to 
either the 65,000 or 20,000 caps. This registration process would allow 
U.S. employers to electronically register for consideration of 
available H-1B cap numbers. The mandatory proposed registration process 
will alleviate administrative burdens on USCIS service centers and 
eliminate the need for U.S. employers to needlessly prepare and file H-
1B petitions without any certainty that an H-1B cap number will 
ultimately be allocated to the beneficiary named on that petition.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides limits 
on the number of alien temporary workers who may be granted H-1B 
nonimmigrant status each fiscal year (commonly known as the ``cap''). 
USCIS has responsibility for monitoring the requests for H-1B workers 
and administers the distribution of available H-1B cap numbers in light 
of these limits.

[[Page 64222]]

Alternatives:


To ensure a fair and orderly distribution of H-1B cap numbers, USCIS 
evaluated its current random selection process, and has found that when 
it receives a significant number of H-1B petitions within the first few 
days of the H-1B filing period, it is extremely difficult to handle the 
volume of petitions received in advance of the H-1B random selection 
process. Further, the current petition process of preparing and mailing 
H-1B petitions, with the required filing fee, can be burdensome and 
costly for employers, if the petition is returned because the cap was 
reached and the petition was not selected in the random selection 
process.


Accordingly, this rule proposes to implement a new process to allow 
U.S. employers to electronically register for consideration of 
available H-1B cap numbers without having to first prepare and submit 
the petition.


Risks:


There is a risk that a petitioner will submit multiple petitions for 
the same H-1B beneficiary so that the U.S. employer will have a better 
chance of his or her petition being selected. Accordingly, should USCIS 
receive multiple petitions for the same H-1B beneficiary by the same 
petitioner, the system will only accept the first petition and reject 
the duplicate petitions.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         05/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


2443-08


Agency Contact:
Greg Richardson
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20529
Phone: 202 272-8465
Email: gregory.richardson@dhs.gov
RIN: 1615-AB71
_______________________________________________________________________



DHS--USCIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




60. NEW CLASSIFICATION FOR VICTIMS OF SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING IN 
PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR THE T NONIMMIGRANT STATUS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101 to 1104; 8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1184; 8 
USC 1187; 8 USC 1201; 8 USC 1224 to 1227; 8 USC 1252 to 1252a; 22 USC 
7101; 22 USC 7105; . . .


CFR Citation:


8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a; 8 CFR 299


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


T classification was created by 107(e) of the Victims of Trafficking 
and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA), Public Law 106-386. The T 
nonimmigrant classification was designed for eligible victims of severe 
forms of trafficking in persons who aid the Government with their case 
against the traffickers and who can establish that they would suffer 
extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm if they were removed 
from the United States after having completed their assistance to law 
enforcement. The rule establishes application procedures and 
responsibilities for the Department of Homeland Security and provides 
guidance to the public on how to meet certain requirements to obtain T 
nonimmigrant status. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization 
Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457, made amendments to the T nonimmigrant 
status provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The 
Department will issue another interim final rule to make the changes 
required by recent legislation and to provide the opportunity for 
notice and comment.


Statement of Need:


T nonimmigrant status is available to eligible victims of severe forms 
of trafficking in persons who have complied with any reasonable request 
for as