U.S. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Business Travel Card Program Regulations, 27704-27707 [2019-12301]
Download as PDF
27704
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
federalism implications that warrant the
preparation of a federalism assessment.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
8 CFR Part 235
In accordance with Executive Order
12988, the Institute has determined that
this rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order.
[CBP Dec. 19–05]
Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)
AGENCY:
In accordance with Executive Order
13175, the Institute has evaluated this
rule and determined that it has no
potential negative effects on federally
recognized Indian tribes.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
List of Subjects in 2 CFR Part 3187
Federal awards, Definitions.
For the reasons stated in the preamble
and under the authority of 20 U.S.C.
9101 et seq., the Institute of Museum
and Library Services amends 2 CFR part
3187 as follows:
PART 3187—UNIFORM
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS,
COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT
REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL
AWARDS
1. The authority citation for part 3187
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 9101–9176, 9103(h);
20 U.S.C. 80r–5; 2 CFR part 200.
2. In § 3187.3, amend paragraph (a)
introductory text by adding ‘‘, tribal,’’
after ‘‘Museum means a public’’, and by
adding ‘‘, cultural heritage,’’ after
‘‘educational’’.
Dated: June 10, 2019.
Kim Miller,
Grants Management Specialist, Institute of
Museum and Library Services.
[FR Doc. 2019–12519 Filed 6–13–19; 8:45 am]
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 7036–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jun 13, 2019
Jkt 247001
U.S. Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) Business Travel
Card Program Regulations
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.
ACTION: Final rule; conforming
amendment.
This document amends the
Department of Homeland Security’s
(DHS) regulations pertaining to the U.S.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) Business Travel Card Program to
conform to the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act
of 2017 (APEC Act of 2017). Among
other conforming changes, it removes
the sunset provision and adds a
definition of trusted traveler program. It
also updates the regulations to correct
two minor errors.
DATES: The final rule is effective June
14, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eddy (Rafael) R. Henry, Office of Field
Operations, (202) 344–3251,
rafael.e.henry@cbp.dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
■
■
RIN 1651–AB24
I. Background
A. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC)
B. The APEC Business Travel Card (ABTC)
C. U.S. Participation in the ABTC Program
II. Discussion of Regulatory Changes
III. Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed
Effective Date
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review), 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review) and
13771 (Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs)
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
List of Subjects
Amendments to the Regulations
I. Background
The Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act
of 2011 (APEC Act of 2011) established
the U.S. APEC Business Travel Card
(ABTC) Program and authorized the
Secretary of Homeland Security to issue
ABTCs through September 30, 2018.
Public Law 112–54, 125 Stat. 550. It also
authorized DHS to issue implementing
regulations. The U.S. ABTC Program
provides qualified U.S. business
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
travelers engaged in business in the
APEC region, or U.S. Government
officials actively engaged in APEC
business, the ability to access fast-track
immigration lanes at participating
airports in foreign APEC member
economies. DHS implemented the
program, including the general
eligibility requirements, through an
interim final rule (IFR) published in the
Federal Register (79 FR 27161) on May
13, 2014. This interim rule was adopted
as a final rule published in the Federal
Register (81 FR 84403) on November 23,
2016. On November 2, 2017, the
President signed into law the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation Business
Travel Cards Act of 2017 (APEC Act of
2017). Public Law 115–79, 131 Stat.
1258. The APEC Act of 2017 replaced
the APEC Act of 2011, setting forth,
without changing, the general eligibility
requirements for the U.S. ABTC and
making the U.S. ABTC Program an
ongoing program. In addition, the APEC
Act of 2017 included some clarifying
provisions, such as a definition of a
trusted traveler program. APEC, the U.S.
ABTC Program, and the new law are
discussed in more detail below.
A. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC)
The United States is a member of
APEC, which is an economic forum
comprised of twenty-one members.1
APEC’s primary goal is to support
sustainable economic growth and
prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.
One way APEC promotes this is by
facilitating a favorable and sustainable
business environment. APEC also
promotes regional connectivity through
better physical and institutional
linkages to ensure goods, services, and
people move quickly and efficiently
across borders. The ABTC Program
discussed in Section B makes it simpler
for business people to travel, thus
enabling them to conduct their business,
trade, and investment.
B. The APEC Business Travel Card
(ABTC)
One of APEC’s business facilitation
initiatives is the ABTC Program.
Pursuant to the ABTC Program, APEC
members can issue ABTC cards to
1 APEC members are also referred to as
‘economies’ since the APEC process is primarily
concerned with trade and economic issues with the
members engaging each other as economic entities.
The most recently updated list of members is
available at the APEC website at https://
www.apec.org/About-Us/About-APEC/MemberEconomies (last accessed Oct. 22, 2018). For
simplicity, we will generally refer to them in the
preamble of this document as APEC ‘‘members,’’
except where the term ‘‘member economy’’ or
‘‘member economies’’ is more appropriate.
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
business travelers and senior
government officials who meet certain
standards established by the members to
provide simpler short-term entry
procedures within the APEC region.2
The parameters of the ABTC Program
are more fully set forth in the APEC
Business Travel Card Operating
Framework (‘‘APEC Framework’’).3
Individuals may apply for the ABTC
Program if they: (1) Are citizens of a
participating member economy; 4 (2)
have never been convicted of a criminal
offense; (3) hold a valid passport issued
by the home economy; 5 and, (4) are
bona fide business persons engaged in
business who may need to travel
frequently on short-term visits within
the APEC region to fulfill business
commitments. A bona fide business
person is defined in the APEC
Framework as a person who is engaged
in the trade of goods, the provision of
services, or the conduct of investment
activities. Senior government officials or
other government officials actively
engaged in APEC business may be
eligible for an ABTC as well. Each APEC
member determines its own definition
of the term ‘‘senior Government
official.’’ Under the APEC Framework,
the following persons are not eligible for
ABTCs: the business person’s
dependent spouse or children; persons
who wish to engage in paid employment
2 APEC distinguishes between fully participating
and transitional members for the purposes of the
ABTC Program. In particular, fully participating
members do not require a separate business visa or
permit application from ABTC holders to whom
they have granted preclearance. Generally, preclearance is the prior permission given by
economies to an ABTC holder that grants
cardholders the authorization to travel to, enter and
undertake legitimate business in participating
economies without first obtaining a visa. While this
term is not strictly defined in the current iteration
of the APEC Framework, later versions of the
framework may include such a definition. The
United States does not currently participate in the
pre-clearance aspect of the ABTC Program. Canada
and the United States are currently transitional
members and do not offer visa-free travel for ABTC
holders unless they otherwise qualify for visa-free
travel. The IFR published on May 13, 2014 includes
a more detailed description of the two types of
membership. 79 FR 27161, 27162.
3 According to the IFR, standards for the ABTCs
were set forth in the APEC Framework, dated
October 2010. 79 FR 27161, 27162. At the time the
IFR was published, the current version of the APEC
Framework was Version 17, agreed to on January
30, 2013. 79 FR 27161, 27163 at n. 11. The APEC
Framework is now current as Version 20, agreed to
on February 26, 2018. Any subsequent revisions to
the APEC Framework that directly affect the U.S.
ABTC may require a regulatory change.
4 In the case of Hong Kong China, this applies to
its permanent residents who hold Hong Kong
permanent identity cards.
5 In the case of Hong Kong China, this applies to
its permanent residents who hold a Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region passport or a valid
travel document issued by another country or
territory.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Jun 13, 2019
Jkt 247001
(i.e., obtain a paid employment position
located in a foreign APEC member
economy) or a working holiday; and
professional athletes, news
correspondents, entertainers, musicians,
artists, or persons engaged in similar
occupations. Finally, the APEC
Framework provides that members may
impose additional eligibility criteria.
C. U.S. Participation in the ABTC
Program
(i) APEC Act of 2011
The APEC Act of 2011 became law on
November 12, 2011. Public Law 112–54,
125 Stat. 550. It set forth the basic
eligibility and operational criteria for
the U.S. ABTCs, and authorized the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in
coordination with the Secretary of State,
to issue U.S. ABTCs through September
30, 2018. The APEC Act of 2011
specifically authorized the Secretary of
Homeland Security to issue U.S. ABTCs
to any eligible person, including
business persons and U.S. Government
officials actively engaged in APEC
business, who is approved and in good
standing in an international trusted
traveler program of DHS. The APEC Act
of 2011 also authorized the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in coordination
with the Secretary of State, to prescribe
the necessary regulations regarding
conditions of or limitations on
eligibility for an ABTC.
Pursuant to the APEC Act of 2011,
and after consultation with the
Department of State and the private
sector, DHS published an IFR in the
Federal Register amending the DHS
regulations to establish the U.S. ABTC
program. 79 FR 27161 (May 13, 2014).6
The rule promulgated regulations that
adhered to the APEC Framework in
effect at that time and implemented the
U.S. ABTC program in accordance with
the APEC Act of 2011. A final rule
published on November 23, 2016 that
adopted the interim amendments as
final.7
The IFR explained that, in accordance
with the APEC Framework,
participation in the U.S. ABTC Program
was limited to U.S. citizens 8 who are
either bona fide business persons
engaged in APEC business, or U.S.
6 The
IFR became effective on June 12, 2014. 79
FR 27161 (May 13, 2014).
7 81 FR 84403. As discussed in more detail below,
the final rule adopted the interim amendments as
final. Notwithstanding this, subsequent citations are
to the IFR only, except where a citation to the final
rule is necessary.
8 In accordance with the APEC Framework, CBP
noted that an APEC member may only issue ABTCs
to its own citizens; thus, eligibility for the U.S.
ABTC was limited to U.S. citizens. 79 FR 27161,
27162, 27174.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27705
Government officials actively engaged
in APEC business. 79 FR 27161, 27164,
27174. It further defined ‘‘bona fide
business persons engaged in business in
the APEC region’’ as persons engaged in
the trade of goods, the provision of
services or the conduct of investment
activities in the APEC region, and
‘‘APEC business’’ to mean U.S.
Government activities that support the
work of APEC. Id. At the same time, the
IFR noted that, in accordance with the
APEC Framework, professional athletes,
news correspondents, entertainers,
musicians, artists or persons engaged in
similar occupations were not considered
to be bona fide business travelers. Id.
The IFR clarified that, while the APEC
Act of 2011 referred to membership in
a DHS trusted traveler program as a
precondition for participation in the
U.S. ABTC Program, not all DHS trusted
traveler programs were compatible with
U.S. ABTC travel. Consequently, DHS
limited eligibility to participants of
Global Entry, NEXUS and SENTRI due
to their eligibility requirements, vetting
process and expedited processing at
ports of entry.9 Id. The IFR and final rule
also set forth the U.S. ABTC application
process.10 See, 79 FR 27161, 27165, 81
FR 84403, 84407.
The IFR provided that U.S. ABTC
card holders may apply to renew their
membership up to a year prior to the
expiration of their ABTCs, as long as
they did so before the expiration of the
U.S. ABTC Program. The IFR also noted
that a renewal application would
require a new U.S. ABTC application,
fee and review of eligibility criteria,
including membership in a CBP trusted
traveler program. Id.
Finally, the IFR set forth the
notification procedures for applicants
who may be denied a U.S. ABTC, listed
reasons that a U.S. ABTC holder may be
removed from the U.S. ABTC Program,
and provided redress procedures for
individuals who wished to contest their
denial or termination from the U.S.
ABTC Program. Id. at 27165–66, 27175.
The IFR became effective on June 12,
2014, and on that date CBP began
issuing U.S. ABTCs to qualified U.S.
citizens. At that time, in accordance
9 DHS determined that other DHS trusted traveler
programs such as FAST and TSA Precheck do not
fit the parameters of the U.S. ABTC Program due
to their vetting process and their inapplicability to
international air travel.
10 At the time the IFR and final rule were
published, U.S. ABTC applications were accepted
through CBP’s Global Online Enrollment System
(GOES) website. On October 1, 2017, CBP launched
a new cloud-based website, the Trusted Traveler
Programs (TTP) System, which replaced the Global
Online Enrollment System (GOES). The TTP
website can be accessed at https://ttp.cbp.dhs.
gov/.
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
27706
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
with the APEC Framework, CBP issued
U.S. ABTCs valid for three years or until
the expiration date of the card holder’s
passport (if earlier), provided the card
holder’s participation in the program
was not revoked by CBP prior to the end
of the period. On November 23, 2016,
DHS adopted the interim amendments
as final, albeit with two changes: The
final rule amended the validity period
of U.S. ABTCs to five years in
conformity with revisions to the APEC
Framework, and removed all references
in the regulations to suspension from
the program because CBP does not use
suspension as a remedial action. 81 FR
84403.
(ii) APEC Act of 2017
The APEC Act of 2017 became law on
November 2, 2017. Public Law 115–79,
131 Stat. 1258. The APEC Act of 2017
replaced the APEC Act of 2011, setting
forth, without changing, the general
eligibility requirements for the U.S.
ABTC and making the U.S. ABTC
Program permanent. Id. In comparison
with the APEC Act of 2011, the APEC
Act of 2017 provides more specific
details on eligibility and incorporates
certain definitions of terms that were
originally set forth in the IFR and
regulations that implemented the APEC
Act of 2011.
Although certain differences exist
between the APEC Act of 2011 and the
APEC Act of 2017, in most cases, these
differences are consistent with the
current regulations and therefore do not
warrant a change in the regulations. For
example, the APEC Act of 2017 now
specifies U.S. citizenship in the
eligibility criteria for U.S. ABTCs,
whereas the APEC Act of 2011 did not.
However, the IFR had clarified the
eligibility criteria to include U.S.
citizenship based on the criteria set
forth in the APEC Framework. Since the
regulations limit eligibility to U.S.
citizens, the inclusion of this
requirement in the APEC Act of 2017
does not warrant a change in the
regulations. Similarly, the APEC Act of
2017 provides that U.S. ABTCs may be
issued to individuals who are ‘‘engaged
in business’’ in the APEC region and
U.S. Government officials ‘‘actively
engaged in [APEC] business.’’ Public
Law 115–79. This language is consistent
with the eligibility requirements set
forth in the APEC Framework. In
contrast, the APEC Act of 2011 had
described as eligible ‘‘business leaders
and United States Government officials
who are actively engaged in [APEC]
business.’’ Public Law 112–54, 125 Stat.
550. The IFR implementing the APEC
Act of 2011 had retained the distinction
made in the APEC Framework, which is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jun 13, 2019
Jkt 247001
now made clearer in the APEC Act of
2017. As such, no amendment to the
regulations is necessary as a result of
this change. Finally, the APEC Act of
2017 specifically vested authority for
implementing the program with the
Commissioner of CBP, where
previously, in the APEC Act of 2011,
such authority had been vested in the
Secretary of Homeland Security. As the
IFR was issued jointly by CBP and DHS,
no change to the regulations is required
per se.11
Two specific differences between the
APEC Act of 2017 and the APEC Act of
2011 do require modifications to the
regulations: (1) The inclusion of a
definition for ‘‘trusted traveler program’’
in the APEC Act of 2017, and (2) the
provision within the APEC Act of 2017
that makes the U.S. ABTC Program an
ongoing program. The APEC Act of 2017
provides that, solely for the purposes of
the U.S. ABTC Program, ‘‘the term
‘trusted traveler program’ means a
voluntary program of the Department
that allows U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to expedite clearance of preapproved, low-risk travelers arriving in
the United States’’; no such definition
was included in the APEC Act of 2011.
Public Law 115–79; Public Law 112–54,
125 Stat. 54. DHS is incorporating this
definition into the regulations. We note
that as this definition is consistent with
CBP’s previous interpretation, its
inclusion in the regulations does not
necessitate a change in the CBP trusted
traveler programs deemed compatible
with the U.S. ABTC Program. The
Global Entry, SENTRI, and NEXUS
trusted traveler programs meet this
definition and will continue to be the
applicable trusted traveler programs for
purposes of the ABTC regulations.12
Additionally, the APEC Act of 2017
makes the U.S. ABTC Program an
ongoing program and the regulations are
11 The APEC Act of 2017 also does not provide
the Commissioner of CBP with authority to
terminate the U.S. ABTC Program. Previously,
pursuant to the APEC Act of 2011, the Secretary of
Homeland Security had such authority, provided
that termination was determined to be in the
interest of the United States. As there is no
provision regarding termination in the regulations,
no change or amendment is required.
12 CBP does not consider the FAST and TSA
Precheck programs to meet the statutory definition.
The FAST program is a commercial clearance
program for known low-risk commercial shipments
entering the United States from Canada and Mexico.
FAST has its own vetting process and focuses more
specifically on the business of highway carriers
using trucks to transport cargo into the United
States rather than on low-risk travelers in general.
The TSA Precheck program does not deem an
individual low-risk for CBP inspectional purposes.
It facilitates pre-flight aviation security screening of
travelers boarding flights within and departing the
United States on U.S. carriers.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
amended accordingly, as discussed in
the section below.
The regulations contained at 8 CFR
235.13, as revised, remain critical to the
implementation of the U.S. ABTC
Program as they set forth specific
application, renewal and redress
procedures not contained in the APEC
Act of 2017, and they define terms used,
but not defined, in the APEC Act of
2017.
II. Discussion of Regulatory Changes
Section 235.13(b)(1) sets forth the
eligibility criteria for participation in
the U.S. ABTC Program. This same
section provides definitions for terms
and phrases used in the relevant
statutory and regulatory provisions.
This document revises § 235.13(b)(1)(ii)
by incorporating the definition of
‘‘trusted traveler program’’ included in
the APEC Act of 2017.
In the final rule establishing the
regulations governing the U.S. ABTC
Program, DHS removed references to
suspension of previously issued cards as
CBP does not use suspension as a
remedial action. One reference to
suspension inadvertently remained in
the regulations, at 8 CFR 235.13(g). This
document corrects the error by
removing the remaining reference to
suspension. Additionally, this
document corrects an inadvertent
editorial error in § 235.13(g)(1) by
adding a space between the words
‘‘removal’’ and ‘‘by’’.
Section 235.13(h) concerns the
duration of the U.S. ABTC Program and
provides that DHS will issue ABTCs
through September 30, 2018. The APEC
Act of 2017 makes the ABTC Program
ongoing. Public Law 115–79, 131 Stat.
1258. Therefore, § 235.13(h) is no longer
necessary. This document removes the
now-obsolete provision. In light of the
savings clause in section 4(b)(2) of the
APEC Act of 2017, any ABTCs issued
pursuant to the APEC Act of 2011
remain valid until their stated
expiration date unless otherwise
revoked.
III. Inapplicability of Notice and
Delayed Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) generally requires that agencies
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
in the Federal Register and provide
interested persons the opportunity to
submit comments. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)
and (c). However, there are certain
exceptions to this rule.
The APA provides an exception from
notice and comment procedures when
an agency finds for good cause that
those procedures are ‘‘impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 115 / Friday, June 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
interest.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In
this case, CBP finds that good cause
exists for dispensing with notice and
public procedure as unnecessary
because the conforming amendments
and minor non-substantive edits set
forth in this document are required to
ensure that the regulation reflects
changes to the underlying statutory
authority affected by the APEC Act of
2017 and to remove a minor inadvertent
error. For this same reason, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), CBP finds that good
cause exists for dispensing with the
requirement for a delayed effective date.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
IV. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review), 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review) and 13771 (Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs)
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 12866 section
3(f) provides criteria for what
constitutes ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. Executive
Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs
agencies to reduce regulation and
control regulatory costs, and provides
that for each new regulation issued, two
prior regulations must be identified for
elimination. Executive Order 13771 also
requires that agencies prudently manage
and control the cost of planned
regulations through a budgeting process.
As these amendments to the regulations
are conforming amendments to reflect
statutory changes and to make minor
non-substantive edits, they do not meet
the criteria for a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as specified in Executive Order
12866, and as supplemented by
Executive Order 13563. Accordingly,
OMB has not reviewed this regulation.
Further, as this rule is not a significant
regulatory action, it is exempt from the
requirements of Executive Order 13771.
See OMB’s Memorandum titled
‘‘Guidance Implementing Executive
Order 13771, Titled ‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’’’ (April 5, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jun 13, 2019
Jkt 247001
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
and Fairness Act of 1996, requires an
agency to prepare and make available to
the public a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of a
proposed rule on small entities (i.e.,
small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions)
when the agency is required to publish
a general notice of proposed rulemaking
for a rule. Since this document is not
subject to the notice and public
procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553,
it is not subject to the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
an agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a
valid OMB control number. The
collections of information in this final
rule are approved in accordance with
the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act under control number
1651–0121. There are no changes being
made to the information collection as a
result of this final rule.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 235
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens, Immigration,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Amendments to the Regulations
For the reasons set forth above, 8 CFR
part 235 is amended as set forth below.
PART 235—INSPECTION OF PERSONS
APPLYING FOR ADMISSION
1. The authority citations for part 235
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 6 U.S.C. 218 and note; 8 U.S.C.
1101 and note, 1103, 1158, 1182, 1183, 1185
(pursuant to E.O. 13323, 69 FR 241, 3 CFR,
2004 Comp., p.278), 1185 note, 1201, 1224,
1225, 1226, 1228, 1365a note, 1365b, 1379,
1731–32; 48 U.S.C. 1806 and note.
2. Amend § 235.13 as follows:
a. Revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii);
■ b. In paragraph (g) introductory text,
remove the words ‘‘suspended or’’ in
the first sentence;
■ c. In the first sentence of paragraph
(g)(1), add a space between the words
‘‘removal’’ and ‘‘by’’; and
■ d. Remove paragraph (h).
The revision reads as follows:
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27707
§ 235.13 U.S. Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Business Travel Card
Program.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) An existing member in good
standing of a CBP trusted traveler
program or approved for membership in
a CBP trusted traveler program during
the application process described in
paragraph (c) of this section. For the
purpose of this section only, ‘‘trusted
traveler program’’ is defined as a
voluntary program of the Department
that allows U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to expedite clearance of preapproved, low-risk travelers arriving in
the United States; and
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 24, 2019.
Kevin K. McAleenan,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–12301 Filed 6–13–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 21
[Docket No. FAA–2019–0197]
Airworthiness Criteria: Glider Design
Criteria for Alexander Schleicher
GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau Model
ASK 21 B Glider
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Issuance of final airworthiness
design criteria.
AGENCY:
These airworthiness design
criteria are issued to Alexander
Schleicher GmbH & Co.
Segelflugzeugbau for the Model ASK 21
B glider. The administrator finds the
design criteria, which make up the
certification basis for the Model ASK 21
B glider, acceptable.
DATES: These airworthiness design
criteria are effective July 15, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Jim Rutherford, AIR–692, Federal
Aviation Administration, Policy &
Innovation Division, Small Airplane
Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room
301, Kansas City, MO 64106, telephone
(816) 329–4165, FAX (816) 329–4090.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
On August 16, 2018, Alexander
Schleicher GmbH & Co.
Segelflugzeugbau (Alexander
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 115 (Friday, June 14, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27704-27707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12301]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
8 CFR Part 235
[CBP Dec. 19-05]
RIN 1651-AB24
U.S. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Business Travel
Card Program Regulations
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Final rule; conforming amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Department of Homeland Security's
(DHS) regulations pertaining to the U.S. Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) Business Travel Card Program to conform to the Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2017 (APEC
Act of 2017). Among other conforming changes, it removes the sunset
provision and adds a definition of trusted traveler program. It also
updates the regulations to correct two minor errors.
DATES: The final rule is effective June 14, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddy (Rafael) R. Henry, Office of
Field Operations, (202) 344-3251, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
B. The APEC Business Travel Card (ABTC)
C. U.S. Participation in the ABTC Program
II. Discussion of Regulatory Changes
III. Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed Effective Date
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review),
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and 13771
(Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
List of Subjects
Amendments to the Regulations
I. Background
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of
2011 (APEC Act of 2011) established the U.S. APEC Business Travel Card
(ABTC) Program and authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to
issue ABTCs through September 30, 2018. Public Law 112-54, 125 Stat.
550. It also authorized DHS to issue implementing regulations. The U.S.
ABTC Program provides qualified U.S. business travelers engaged in
business in the APEC region, or U.S. Government officials actively
engaged in APEC business, the ability to access fast-track immigration
lanes at participating airports in foreign APEC member economies. DHS
implemented the program, including the general eligibility
requirements, through an interim final rule (IFR) published in the
Federal Register (79 FR 27161) on May 13, 2014. This interim rule was
adopted as a final rule published in the Federal Register (81 FR 84403)
on November 23, 2016. On November 2, 2017, the President signed into
law the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of
2017 (APEC Act of 2017). Public Law 115-79, 131 Stat. 1258. The APEC
Act of 2017 replaced the APEC Act of 2011, setting forth, without
changing, the general eligibility requirements for the U.S. ABTC and
making the U.S. ABTC Program an ongoing program. In addition, the APEC
Act of 2017 included some clarifying provisions, such as a definition
of a trusted traveler program. APEC, the U.S. ABTC Program, and the new
law are discussed in more detail below.
A. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
The United States is a member of APEC, which is an economic forum
comprised of twenty-one members.\1\ APEC's primary goal is to support
sustainable economic growth and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.
One way APEC promotes this is by facilitating a favorable and
sustainable business environment. APEC also promotes regional
connectivity through better physical and institutional linkages to
ensure goods, services, and people move quickly and efficiently across
borders. The ABTC Program discussed in Section B makes it simpler for
business people to travel, thus enabling them to conduct their
business, trade, and investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ APEC members are also referred to as `economies' since the
APEC process is primarily concerned with trade and economic issues
with the members engaging each other as economic entities. The most
recently updated list of members is available at the APEC website at
https://www.apec.org/About-Us/About-APEC/Member-Economies (last
accessed Oct. 22, 2018). For simplicity, we will generally refer to
them in the preamble of this document as APEC ``members,'' except
where the term ``member economy'' or ``member economies'' is more
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The APEC Business Travel Card (ABTC)
One of APEC's business facilitation initiatives is the ABTC
Program. Pursuant to the ABTC Program, APEC members can issue ABTC
cards to
[[Page 27705]]
business travelers and senior government officials who meet certain
standards established by the members to provide simpler short-term
entry procedures within the APEC region.\2\ The parameters of the ABTC
Program are more fully set forth in the APEC Business Travel Card
Operating Framework (``APEC Framework'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ APEC distinguishes between fully participating and
transitional members for the purposes of the ABTC Program. In
particular, fully participating members do not require a separate
business visa or permit application from ABTC holders to whom they
have granted preclearance. Generally, pre-clearance is the prior
permission given by economies to an ABTC holder that grants
cardholders the authorization to travel to, enter and undertake
legitimate business in participating economies without first
obtaining a visa. While this term is not strictly defined in the
current iteration of the APEC Framework, later versions of the
framework may include such a definition. The United States does not
currently participate in the pre-clearance aspect of the ABTC
Program. Canada and the United States are currently transitional
members and do not offer visa-free travel for ABTC holders unless
they otherwise qualify for visa-free travel. The IFR published on
May 13, 2014 includes a more detailed description of the two types
of membership. 79 FR 27161, 27162.
\3\ According to the IFR, standards for the ABTCs were set forth
in the APEC Framework, dated October 2010. 79 FR 27161, 27162. At
the time the IFR was published, the current version of the APEC
Framework was Version 17, agreed to on January 30, 2013. 79 FR
27161, 27163 at n. 11. The APEC Framework is now current as Version
20, agreed to on February 26, 2018. Any subsequent revisions to the
APEC Framework that directly affect the U.S. ABTC may require a
regulatory change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals may apply for the ABTC Program if they: (1) Are
citizens of a participating member economy; \4\ (2) have never been
convicted of a criminal offense; (3) hold a valid passport issued by
the home economy; \5\ and, (4) are bona fide business persons engaged
in business who may need to travel frequently on short-term visits
within the APEC region to fulfill business commitments. A bona fide
business person is defined in the APEC Framework as a person who is
engaged in the trade of goods, the provision of services, or the
conduct of investment activities. Senior government officials or other
government officials actively engaged in APEC business may be eligible
for an ABTC as well. Each APEC member determines its own definition of
the term ``senior Government official.'' Under the APEC Framework, the
following persons are not eligible for ABTCs: the business person's
dependent spouse or children; persons who wish to engage in paid
employment (i.e., obtain a paid employment position located in a
foreign APEC member economy) or a working holiday; and professional
athletes, news correspondents, entertainers, musicians, artists, or
persons engaged in similar occupations. Finally, the APEC Framework
provides that members may impose additional eligibility criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In the case of Hong Kong China, this applies to its
permanent residents who hold Hong Kong permanent identity cards.
\5\ In the case of Hong Kong China, this applies to its
permanent residents who hold a Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region passport or a valid travel document issued by another country
or territory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. U.S. Participation in the ABTC Program
(i) APEC Act of 2011
The APEC Act of 2011 became law on November 12, 2011. Public Law
112-54, 125 Stat. 550. It set forth the basic eligibility and
operational criteria for the U.S. ABTCs, and authorized the Secretary
of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to
issue U.S. ABTCs through September 30, 2018. The APEC Act of 2011
specifically authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue
U.S. ABTCs to any eligible person, including business persons and U.S.
Government officials actively engaged in APEC business, who is approved
and in good standing in an international trusted traveler program of
DHS. The APEC Act of 2011 also authorized the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to prescribe the
necessary regulations regarding conditions of or limitations on
eligibility for an ABTC.
Pursuant to the APEC Act of 2011, and after consultation with the
Department of State and the private sector, DHS published an IFR in the
Federal Register amending the DHS regulations to establish the U.S.
ABTC program. 79 FR 27161 (May 13, 2014).\6\ The rule promulgated
regulations that adhered to the APEC Framework in effect at that time
and implemented the U.S. ABTC program in accordance with the APEC Act
of 2011. A final rule published on November 23, 2016 that adopted the
interim amendments as final.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The IFR became effective on June 12, 2014. 79 FR 27161 (May
13, 2014).
\7\ 81 FR 84403. As discussed in more detail below, the final
rule adopted the interim amendments as final. Notwithstanding this,
subsequent citations are to the IFR only, except where a citation to
the final rule is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IFR explained that, in accordance with the APEC Framework,
participation in the U.S. ABTC Program was limited to U.S. citizens \8\
who are either bona fide business persons engaged in APEC business, or
U.S. Government officials actively engaged in APEC business. 79 FR
27161, 27164, 27174. It further defined ``bona fide business persons
engaged in business in the APEC region'' as persons engaged in the
trade of goods, the provision of services or the conduct of investment
activities in the APEC region, and ``APEC business'' to mean U.S.
Government activities that support the work of APEC. Id. At the same
time, the IFR noted that, in accordance with the APEC Framework,
professional athletes, news correspondents, entertainers, musicians,
artists or persons engaged in similar occupations were not considered
to be bona fide business travelers. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In accordance with the APEC Framework, CBP noted that an
APEC member may only issue ABTCs to its own citizens; thus,
eligibility for the U.S. ABTC was limited to U.S. citizens. 79 FR
27161, 27162, 27174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IFR clarified that, while the APEC Act of 2011 referred to
membership in a DHS trusted traveler program as a precondition for
participation in the U.S. ABTC Program, not all DHS trusted traveler
programs were compatible with U.S. ABTC travel. Consequently, DHS
limited eligibility to participants of Global Entry, NEXUS and SENTRI
due to their eligibility requirements, vetting process and expedited
processing at ports of entry.\9\ Id. The IFR and final rule also set
forth the U.S. ABTC application process.\10\ See, 79 FR 27161, 27165,
81 FR 84403, 84407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ DHS determined that other DHS trusted traveler programs such
as FAST and TSA Precheck do not fit the parameters of the U.S. ABTC
Program due to their vetting process and their inapplicability to
international air travel.
\10\ At the time the IFR and final rule were published, U.S.
ABTC applications were accepted through CBP's Global Online
Enrollment System (GOES) website. On October 1, 2017, CBP launched a
new cloud-based website, the Trusted Traveler Programs (TTP) System,
which replaced the Global Online Enrollment System (GOES). The TTP
website can be accessed at https://ttp.cbp.dhs. gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IFR provided that U.S. ABTC card holders may apply to renew
their membership up to a year prior to the expiration of their ABTCs,
as long as they did so before the expiration of the U.S. ABTC Program.
The IFR also noted that a renewal application would require a new U.S.
ABTC application, fee and review of eligibility criteria, including
membership in a CBP trusted traveler program. Id.
Finally, the IFR set forth the notification procedures for
applicants who may be denied a U.S. ABTC, listed reasons that a U.S.
ABTC holder may be removed from the U.S. ABTC Program, and provided
redress procedures for individuals who wished to contest their denial
or termination from the U.S. ABTC Program. Id. at 27165-66, 27175.
The IFR became effective on June 12, 2014, and on that date CBP
began issuing U.S. ABTCs to qualified U.S. citizens. At that time, in
accordance
[[Page 27706]]
with the APEC Framework, CBP issued U.S. ABTCs valid for three years or
until the expiration date of the card holder's passport (if earlier),
provided the card holder's participation in the program was not revoked
by CBP prior to the end of the period. On November 23, 2016, DHS
adopted the interim amendments as final, albeit with two changes: The
final rule amended the validity period of U.S. ABTCs to five years in
conformity with revisions to the APEC Framework, and removed all
references in the regulations to suspension from the program because
CBP does not use suspension as a remedial action. 81 FR 84403.
(ii) APEC Act of 2017
The APEC Act of 2017 became law on November 2, 2017. Public Law
115-79, 131 Stat. 1258. The APEC Act of 2017 replaced the APEC Act of
2011, setting forth, without changing, the general eligibility
requirements for the U.S. ABTC and making the U.S. ABTC Program
permanent. Id. In comparison with the APEC Act of 2011, the APEC Act of
2017 provides more specific details on eligibility and incorporates
certain definitions of terms that were originally set forth in the IFR
and regulations that implemented the APEC Act of 2011.
Although certain differences exist between the APEC Act of 2011 and
the APEC Act of 2017, in most cases, these differences are consistent
with the current regulations and therefore do not warrant a change in
the regulations. For example, the APEC Act of 2017 now specifies U.S.
citizenship in the eligibility criteria for U.S. ABTCs, whereas the
APEC Act of 2011 did not. However, the IFR had clarified the
eligibility criteria to include U.S. citizenship based on the criteria
set forth in the APEC Framework. Since the regulations limit
eligibility to U.S. citizens, the inclusion of this requirement in the
APEC Act of 2017 does not warrant a change in the regulations.
Similarly, the APEC Act of 2017 provides that U.S. ABTCs may be issued
to individuals who are ``engaged in business'' in the APEC region and
U.S. Government officials ``actively engaged in [APEC] business.''
Public Law 115-79. This language is consistent with the eligibility
requirements set forth in the APEC Framework. In contrast, the APEC Act
of 2011 had described as eligible ``business leaders and United States
Government officials who are actively engaged in [APEC] business.''
Public Law 112-54, 125 Stat. 550. The IFR implementing the APEC Act of
2011 had retained the distinction made in the APEC Framework, which is
now made clearer in the APEC Act of 2017. As such, no amendment to the
regulations is necessary as a result of this change. Finally, the APEC
Act of 2017 specifically vested authority for implementing the program
with the Commissioner of CBP, where previously, in the APEC Act of
2011, such authority had been vested in the Secretary of Homeland
Security. As the IFR was issued jointly by CBP and DHS, no change to
the regulations is required per se.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The APEC Act of 2017 also does not provide the Commissioner
of CBP with authority to terminate the U.S. ABTC Program.
Previously, pursuant to the APEC Act of 2011, the Secretary of
Homeland Security had such authority, provided that termination was
determined to be in the interest of the United States. As there is
no provision regarding termination in the regulations, no change or
amendment is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two specific differences between the APEC Act of 2017 and the APEC
Act of 2011 do require modifications to the regulations: (1) The
inclusion of a definition for ``trusted traveler program'' in the APEC
Act of 2017, and (2) the provision within the APEC Act of 2017 that
makes the U.S. ABTC Program an ongoing program. The APEC Act of 2017
provides that, solely for the purposes of the U.S. ABTC Program, ``the
term `trusted traveler program' means a voluntary program of the
Department that allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection to expedite
clearance of pre-approved, low-risk travelers arriving in the United
States''; no such definition was included in the APEC Act of 2011.
Public Law 115-79; Public Law 112-54, 125 Stat. 54. DHS is
incorporating this definition into the regulations. We note that as
this definition is consistent with CBP's previous interpretation, its
inclusion in the regulations does not necessitate a change in the CBP
trusted traveler programs deemed compatible with the U.S. ABTC Program.
The Global Entry, SENTRI, and NEXUS trusted traveler programs meet this
definition and will continue to be the applicable trusted traveler
programs for purposes of the ABTC regulations.\12\ Additionally, the
APEC Act of 2017 makes the U.S. ABTC Program an ongoing program and the
regulations are amended accordingly, as discussed in the section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ CBP does not consider the FAST and TSA Precheck programs to
meet the statutory definition. The FAST program is a commercial
clearance program for known low-risk commercial shipments entering
the United States from Canada and Mexico. FAST has its own vetting
process and focuses more specifically on the business of highway
carriers using trucks to transport cargo into the United States
rather than on low-risk travelers in general. The TSA Precheck
program does not deem an individual low-risk for CBP inspectional
purposes. It facilitates pre-flight aviation security screening of
travelers boarding flights within and departing the United States on
U.S. carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regulations contained at 8 CFR 235.13, as revised, remain
critical to the implementation of the U.S. ABTC Program as they set
forth specific application, renewal and redress procedures not
contained in the APEC Act of 2017, and they define terms used, but not
defined, in the APEC Act of 2017.
II. Discussion of Regulatory Changes
Section 235.13(b)(1) sets forth the eligibility criteria for
participation in the U.S. ABTC Program. This same section provides
definitions for terms and phrases used in the relevant statutory and
regulatory provisions. This document revises Sec. 235.13(b)(1)(ii) by
incorporating the definition of ``trusted traveler program'' included
in the APEC Act of 2017.
In the final rule establishing the regulations governing the U.S.
ABTC Program, DHS removed references to suspension of previously issued
cards as CBP does not use suspension as a remedial action. One
reference to suspension inadvertently remained in the regulations, at 8
CFR 235.13(g). This document corrects the error by removing the
remaining reference to suspension. Additionally, this document corrects
an inadvertent editorial error in Sec. 235.13(g)(1) by adding a space
between the words ``removal'' and ``by''.
Section 235.13(h) concerns the duration of the U.S. ABTC Program
and provides that DHS will issue ABTCs through September 30, 2018. The
APEC Act of 2017 makes the ABTC Program ongoing. Public Law 115-79, 131
Stat. 1258. Therefore, Sec. 235.13(h) is no longer necessary. This
document removes the now-obsolete provision. In light of the savings
clause in section 4(b)(2) of the APEC Act of 2017, any ABTCs issued
pursuant to the APEC Act of 2011 remain valid until their stated
expiration date unless otherwise revoked.
III. Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that
agencies publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register and provide interested persons the opportunity to submit
comments. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). However, there are certain
exceptions to this rule.
The APA provides an exception from notice and comment procedures
when an agency finds for good cause that those procedures are
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
[[Page 27707]]
interest.'' See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In this case, CBP finds that
good cause exists for dispensing with notice and public procedure as
unnecessary because the conforming amendments and minor non-substantive
edits set forth in this document are required to ensure that the
regulation reflects changes to the underlying statutory authority
affected by the APEC Act of 2017 and to remove a minor inadvertent
error. For this same reason, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), CBP finds
that good cause exists for dispensing with the requirement for a
delayed effective date.
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and 13771 (Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 12866 section 3(f) provides criteria for what constitutes
``significant regulatory action'' and Executive Order 13563 emphasizes
the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing
costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive
Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)
directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs, and
provides that for each new regulation issued, two prior regulations
must be identified for elimination. Executive Order 13771 also requires
that agencies prudently manage and control the cost of planned
regulations through a budgeting process. As these amendments to the
regulations are conforming amendments to reflect statutory changes and
to make minor non-substantive edits, they do not meet the criteria for
a ``significant regulatory action'' as specified in Executive Order
12866, and as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Accordingly, OMB
has not reviewed this regulation. Further, as this rule is not a
significant regulatory action, it is exempt from the requirements of
Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled ``Guidance
Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs''' (April 5, 2017).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996,
requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed
rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to
publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since this
document is not subject to the notice and public procedure requirements
of 5 U.S.C. 553, it is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB
control number. The collections of information in this final rule are
approved in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act under control number 1651-0121. There are no changes being made to
the information collection as a result of this final rule.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 235
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Amendments to the Regulations
For the reasons set forth above, 8 CFR part 235 is amended as set
forth below.
PART 235--INSPECTION OF PERSONS APPLYING FOR ADMISSION
0
1. The authority citations for part 235 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 6 U.S.C. 218 and note; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1103,
1158, 1182, 1183, 1185 (pursuant to E.O. 13323, 69 FR 241, 3 CFR,
2004 Comp., p.278), 1185 note, 1201, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1228, 1365a
note, 1365b, 1379, 1731-32; 48 U.S.C. 1806 and note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 235.13 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii);
0
b. In paragraph (g) introductory text, remove the words ``suspended
or'' in the first sentence;
0
c. In the first sentence of paragraph (g)(1), add a space between the
words ``removal'' and ``by''; and
0
d. Remove paragraph (h).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 235.13 U.S. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel
Card Program.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) An existing member in good standing of a CBP trusted traveler
program or approved for membership in a CBP trusted traveler program
during the application process described in paragraph (c) of this
section. For the purpose of this section only, ``trusted traveler
program'' is defined as a voluntary program of the Department that
allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection to expedite clearance of pre-
approved, low-risk travelers arriving in the United States; and
* * * * *
Dated: May 24, 2019.
Kevin K. McAleenan,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12301 Filed 6-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P