Security Bars and Processing; Delay of Effective Date

CourtExecutive Office For Immigration Review
Citation86 FR 73615
Record Number2021-28016
Publication Date28 December 2021
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
Rules and Regulations Federal Register
73615
Vol. 86, No. 246
Tuesday, December 28, 2021
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
8 CFR Part 208
[Docket No: USCIS 2020–0013]
RIN 1615–AC57
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Executive Office for Immigration
Review
8 CFR Part 1208
[A.G. Order No. 5283–2021]
RIN 1125–AB08
Security Bars and Processing; Delay of
Effective Date
AGENCY
: U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security; Executive Office for
Immigration Review, Department of
Justice.
ACTION
: Interim final rule with request
for comments.
SUMMARY
: On December 23, 2020, the
Department of Homeland Security
(‘‘DHS’’) and the Department of Justice
(‘‘DOJ’’) (collectively, ‘‘the
Departments’’) published a final rule
(‘‘Security Bars rule’’), to clarify that the
‘‘danger to the security of the United
States’’ standard in the statutory bar to
eligibility for asylum and withholding
of removal encompasses certain
emergency public health concerns and
to make certain other changes. That rule
was scheduled to take effect on January
22, 2021, but, as of January 21, 2021, the
Departments delayed the rule’s effective
date for 60 days to March 22, 2021. The
Departments subsequently further
extended and delayed the rule’s
effective date to December 31, 2021. In
this rule, the Departments are further
extending and delaying the effective
date of the Security Bars rule until
December 31, 2022. The Departments
are soliciting comments both on the
extension until December 31, 2022, and
whether the effective date of the
Security Bars rule should be extended
beyond that date.
DATES
: Effective date: As of December
28, 2021, the effective date of the final
rule published December 23, 2020, at 85
FR 84160, which was delayed January
25, 2021, at 86 FR 6847, and March 22,
2021, at 86 FR 15069, is further delayed
until December 31, 2022.
Submission of public comments:
Comments must be submitted on or
before February 28, 2022.
ADDRESSES
: You may submit comments
on this rule, identified by DHS Docket
No. USCIS 2020–0013, through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
website instructions for submitting
comments. Comments submitted in a
manner other than the one listed above,
including emails or letters sent to the
Departments’ officials, will not be
considered comments on the rule and
may not receive a response from the
Departments. Please note that the
Departments cannot accept any
comments that are hand-delivered or
couriered. In addition, the Departments
cannot accept comments contained on
any form of digital media storage
devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB
drives. The Departments are not
accepting mailed comments at this time.
If you cannot submit your comment by
using http://www.regulations.gov,
please contact Samantha Deshommes,
Chief, Regulatory Coordination
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, Department of Homeland
Security, by telephone at (240) 721–
3000 (not a toll-free call) for alternate
instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
For USCIS: Rena
´Cutlip-Mason, Chief,
Division of Humanitarian Affairs, Office
of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, Department
of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital
Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD
20588–0009; telephone (240) 721–3000
(not a toll-free call).
For EOIR: Lauren Alder Reid,
Assistant Director, Office of Policy,
Executive Office for Immigration
Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041; telephone (703)
305–0289 (not a toll-free call).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
I. Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on this action to
further extend and delay the effective
date of the Security Bars rule by
submitting relevant written data, views,
or arguments. To provide the most
assistance to the Departments,
comments should reference a specific
portion of the rule; explain the reason
for any recommendation; and include
data, information, or authority that
supports the recommended course of
action. Comments must be submitted in
English, or an English translation must
be provided. Comments submitted in a
manner other than those listed above,
including emails or letters sent to the
Departments’ officials, will not be
considered comments on the rule and
may not receive a response from the
Departments.
Instructions: If you submit a
comment, you must include the agency
name and the DHS Docket No. USCIS
2020–0013 for this rulemaking. All
submissions will be posted, without
change, to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov,
and will include any personal
information you provide. Therefore,
submitting this information makes it
public. You may wish to consider
limiting the amount of personal
information that you provide in any
voluntary public comment submission
you make to the Departments. The
Departments may withhold information
provided in comments from public
viewing that they determine may impact
the privacy of an individual or is
offensive. For additional information,
please read the Privacy and Security
Notice available at http://
www.regulations.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket and
to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov, referencing DHS
Docket No. USCIS 2020–0013. You may
also sign up for email alerts on the
online docket to be notified when
comments are posted or a final rule is
published.
II. Background and Basis for Delay of
Effective Date
A. Background
On December 23, 2020, the
Departments published the Security
Bars rule to amend existing regulations
to clarify that in certain circumstances
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:57 Dec 27, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
73616
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 28, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
1
See 85 FR 80274 (Dec. 11, 2020).
2
Pangea Legal Servs. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland
Sec., 512 F. Supp. 3d 966, 977 (N.D. Cal. 2021). By
issuing this rule to further extend and delay the
effective date of the Security Bars rule, the
Departments are not indicating a position on the
outcome thus far in Pangea II.
3
See, e.g., 85 FR at 84176 (‘‘As noted, the
[Security Bars] final rule is not, as the NPRM
proposed, modifying the regulatory framework to
apply the danger to the security of the United States
bars at the credible fear stage because, in the
interim between the NPRM and the final rule, the
[Global Asylum final rule] did so for all of the bars
to eligibility for asylum and withholding of
removal.’’); id. at 84189 (describing changes made
in the Security Bars rule ‘‘to certain regulatory
provisions not addressed in the proposed rule as
necessitated by the intervening promulgation of the
[Global Asylum final] Rule’’).
4
Security Bars and Processing, 85 FR 41201,
41216–18 (July 9, 2020).
5
See id. at 41207.
6
Id. at 41210–12.
7
Id. at 41210.
8
85 FR 80274 (Dec. 11, 2020).
9
Id. at 80391.
10
Id.
11
85 FR at 84174–77.
12
See, e.g., id. at 84194–98 (revising 8 CFR
208.30, 235.6, 1208.30, and 1235.6, among other
provisions); accord 85 FR at 80390–80401 (same).
13
See 85 FR at 84175 (‘‘The Departments note
that the final rule is not, as the NPRM proposed,
modifying the regulatory framework to apply the
danger to the security of the United States bars at
there are ‘‘reasonable grounds for
regarding [an] alien as a danger to the
security of the United States’’ or
‘‘reasonable grounds to believe that [an]
alien is a danger to the security of the
United States’’ based on emergency
public health concerns generated by a
communicable disease, making the
noncitizen ineligible to be granted
asylum in the United States under
section 208 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (‘‘INA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), 8
U.S.C. 1158, or the protection of
withholding of removal under the Act or
subsequent regulations (because of the
threat of torture). Security Bars and
Processing, 85 FR 84160 (Dec. 23, 2020).
The rule was scheduled to take effect on
January 22, 2021.
On January 20, 2021, the White House
Chief of Staff issued a memorandum
asking agencies to consider delaying,
consistent with applicable law, the
effective dates of any rules that had
been published and not yet gone into
effect, for the purpose of allowing the
President’s appointees and designees to
review questions of fact, law, and policy
raised by those regulations. See
Memorandum for the Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies
from Ronald A. Klain, Assistant to the
President and Chief of Staff, Re:
Regulatory Freeze Pending Review (Jan.
20, 2021), available at 86 FR 7424 (Jan.
28, 2021). As of January 21, 2021, the
Departments delayed the effective date
of the Security Bars rule to March 22,
2021, and then further delayed the
effective date of the Security Bars rule
to December 31, 2021, consistent with
that memorandum and a preliminary
injunction in place with respect to a
related rule, as discussed below. See
Security Bars and Processing; Delay of
Effective Date, 86 FR 6847 (Jan. 25,
2021); Security Bars and Processing;
Delay of Effective Date, 86 FR 15069
(Mar. 22, 2021).
B. Reason for Delay
As stated in the Security Bars and
Processing; Delay of Effective Date
interim final rule (‘‘March Security Bars
Delay IFR’’) published on March 22,
2021, the Departments had good cause
to delay the Security Bars rule’s
effective date further without advance
notice and comment because
implementation of the Security Bars
rule was infeasible due to a preliminary
injunction against a related rule. See 86
FR at 15070. Specifically, the Security
Bars rule relies on revisions to the
Departments’ regulations previously
made on December 11, 2020, by a
separate joint rule, Procedures for
Asylum and Withholding of Removal;
Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear
Review (‘‘Global Asylum final rule’’).
1
The Global Asylum final rule was
scheduled to become effective before the
Security Bars rule. However, on January
8, 2021, 14 days prior to the effective
date of the Security Bars rule, in the
case of Pangea Legal Services v.
Department of Homeland Security
(‘‘Pangea II’’), a district court
preliminarily enjoined the Departments
‘‘from implementing, enforcing, or
applying the [Global Asylum final] rule
. . . or any related policies or
procedures.’’
2
The preliminary
injunction remains in place. Thus,
implementation of the Security Bars
rule continues to be infeasible.
Specifically, the Security Bars rule
relies upon the regulatory framework
that was established in the Global
Asylum final rule in applying bars to
asylum eligibility and withholding of
removal during credible fear
screenings.
3
On July 9, 2020, the
Departments published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for the Security
Bars rule (‘‘Security Bars NPRM’’),
which proposed regulatory text
instructing adjudicators to apply the
security bars to asylum eligibility and
withholding of removal during credible
fear screenings.
4
This proposal would
have modified the then-existing
regulatory framework instructing that
evidence that the individual is, or may
be, subject to a bar to asylum eligibility
or withholding of removal, including
the ‘‘danger to the security of the United
States’’ bars underlying the Security
Bars rule, does not have an impact on
a credible fear determination.
5
The
Security Bars NPRM justified this
modification as necessary to allow DHS
to quickly remove individuals covered
by the security bars to asylum eligibility
and withholding of removal, rather than
sending potentially barred individuals
to full removal proceedings pursuant to
section 240 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a
(‘‘section 240 removal proceedings’’), for
consideration of further relief or
protection from removal before an
immigration judge, which can take
months or even years.
6
The Security
Bars NPRM further explained that
applying the security bars during
credible fear screenings was necessary
to reduce health and safety dangers to
both the public at large and DHS
officials.
7
On December 11, 2020, while the
Departments were reviewing the
comments submitted in response to the
Security Bars NPRM, the Global Asylum
final rule was published.
8
The Global
Asylum final rule changed the general
practice described above to apply all
bars to asylum eligibility and
withholding of removal during credible
fear screenings.
9
Most relevant, the
Global Asylum final rule changed the
then-existing regulatory framework
described above, in which evidence of
a bar to asylum eligibility or
withholding of removal does not have
any impact on a credible fear
determination (even though the bars
would be part of the ultimate
adjudication of asylum eligibility or
withholding of removal before the
Executive Office of Immigration
Review), to a framework that instead
required asylum officers to apply all of
the bars to asylum eligibility or
withholding of removal during credible
fear screenings.
10
On December 23, 2020, the Security
Bars rule was published. In this final
rule, the Departments revised the text
from the Security Bars NPRM to
explicitly rely on the intervening
changes made by the Global Asylum
final rule.
11
As a result, the regulatory
text of significant portions of the
Security Bars rule relies upon and
repeats broader regulatory text
established by the Global Asylum final
rule, such as applying bars to asylum
eligibility and withholding of removal
during credible fear screenings.
12
The
Security Bars rule assumed that the
Global Asylum final rule would be in
effect, and, therefore, the Security Bars
rule did not make additional changes to
the credible fear framework.
13
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:57 Dec 27, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
73617
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 28, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
the credible fear stage. In the interim between the
NPRM and the final rule, the Global Asylum final
rule did so for bars to eligibility for asylum and
withholding of removal.’’).
14
As the Departments explained in the Security
Bars rule, the intervening Global Asylum final rule
made changes to the credible fear screening
framework to provide that noncitizens receiving
positive credible fear determinations be placed in
asylum-and-withholding only proceedings, rather
than section 240 removal proceedings. See 85 FR
at 84188. The Security Bars rule relied upon this
change made in the Global Asylum final rule to
provide that noncitizens who receive positive
credible fear determinations under the Security
Bars rule will be placed in such asylum-and-
withholding only proceedings rather than section
240 removal proceedings, unless they are removed
to third countries. See id. The Security Bars rule
also assumes that the Departments are using the
reasonable possibility of persecution or torture
standards for withholding of removal claims in the
credible fear screening context, which is also a
change that was made in the Global Asylum final
rule. See id. at 84188, 84191.
15
See, e.g., Executive Order 14010 of February 2,
2021, Creating a Comprehensive Regional
Framework to Address the Causes of Migration, to
Manage Migration Throughout North and Central
America, and to Provide Safe and Orderly
Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States
Border, 86 FR 8267 (Feb. 5, 2021); Executive Order
14012 of February 2, 2021, Restoring Faith in Our
Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening
Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New
Americans, 86 FR 8277 (Feb. 5, 2021).
16
See Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Spring 2021 Unified Agenda of
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, Bars to
Asylum Eligibility and Procedures, https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?
pubId=202104&RIN=1615-AC69 (last visited Dec.
14, 2021).
17
See 86 FR at 15069, 15071.
18
See Public Health Reassessment and Order
Suspending the Right to Introduce Certain Persons
from Countries Where a Quarantinable
Communicable Disease Exists, 86 FR 42828, 42830,
42833, 42835–36 (Aug. 5, 2021).
As a result of the interplay between
the two rules, implementation of the
Security Bars rule would risk violating
the injunction against the application,
implementation, or enforcement of the
Global Asylum final rule and any
related policies or procedures. Effective
implementation of the Security Bars
rule relies on the application of the
asylum and withholding of removal bars
to eligibility at the credible fear
screening stage, as established by the
Global Asylum final rule.
14
Accordingly, implementing the Security
Bars rule—and effectively reinserting or
relying upon regulatory provisions that
the Pangea II court has enjoined—may
potentially violate the court’s
injunction. In other words, the court’s
injunction in Pangea II makes it
impermissible under the current
regulatory framework to apply the bars
to asylum eligibility and withholding of
removal outlined in the Security Bars
rule to noncitizens in the credible fear
screening process. Given these
circumstances, the Departments believe
that the Security Bars rule, which could
not be implemented as designed, would
not necessarily provide the framework
for achieving its intended goals.
Accordingly, the Departments are
further extending and delaying the
effective date of the Security Bars rule
until December 31, 2022, because of the
aforementioned litigation. If the
injunction against implementation of
the Global Asylum final rule is lifted
before December 31, 2022, the
Departments can revise the effective
date of the Security Bars rule as needed
to account for this change. Similarly, if
the injunction remains in effect on that
date, the Departments may delay the
effective date of the Security Bars rule
further. The Departments have chosen
this time-limited delay, rather than an
indefinite delay, due to the preliminary
nature of the injunction.
C. Future Rulemaking To Modify or
Rescind Security Bars Rule
The Departments are reviewing and
reconsidering the Security Bars rule in
light of the Administration’s policies of
ensuring the safe and orderly reception
and processing of asylum seekers
consistent with public health and safety,
strengthening the asylum system, and
removing barriers that impede access to
immigration benefits, with the
additional context of the complex
relationship between the Global Asylum
final rule and the Security Bars rule,
and the court’s injunction in Pangea
II.
15
The Departments are reevaluating
whether the Security Bars rule provides
the most appropriate and effective
framework for achieving its goals of
mitigating the spread of communicable
diseases, including COVID–19, among
certain noncitizens in the credible fear
screening process, as well as DHS
personnel and the public. The
Departments plan to publish a separate
NPRM to solicit public comments on
whether to modify or rescind the
Security Bars rule.
16
In the March Security Bars Delay IFR,
the Departments explained that they
were considering amending or
rescinding the Security Bars rule and
noted that they may extend the delay in
its effective date beyond December 31,
2021, if the injunction remained in
effect at the time. 86 FR at 15071. The
Departments sought public comments
on whether the Security Bars rule
should be revised or revoked and
information on alternative approaches
that may achieve the best public health
outcome consistent with the
Administration’s immigration policy
goals.
17
The Departments received 66
comments in response to the March
Security Bars Delay IFR, which the
Departments would address in any
separate future rulemaking to modify or
rescind the Security Bars rule.
The Departments recognize that the
COVID–19 public health emergency is
highly dynamic and continues to pose
health and safety risks for noncitizens
held in congregate settings, particularly
at holding and detention facilities,
agency personnel, and the public.
18
As
the COVID–19 public health emergency
has continued to evolve, the
Departments continue to reconsider and
reevaluate how best to mitigate the
spread of COVID–19 and which actions
are most appropriate in accordance with
their legal authorities.
III. Request for Comment on Further
Delay of the Effective Date of the
Security Bars Rule
The Departments continue to
welcome data, views, and information
regarding the effective date of the
Security Bars rule. The Departments
also are soliciting comments on whether
the effective date should be extended
beyond December 31, 2022, if the
Pangea II injunction is still in effect or
if other intervening events occur.
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (‘‘APA’’), agencies are not required
to engage in pre-promulgation notice-
and-comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and
(c) when an agency ‘‘for good cause
finds . . . that notice and public
procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). As stated
above, the Departments have
determined that the good cause
exception applies to this rule because
implementation of the Security Bars
rule has not been—and continues to not
be—feasible due to a preliminary
injunction against a related rule. As
explained above, the Security Bars
rule’s reliance upon—and interplay
with—the Global Asylum final rule
means that implementation of the
Security Bars rule would risk violating
the Pangea II injunction. The
preliminary injunction remains in place.
It is therefore impractical and
unnecessary for the Departments to
provide notice and an opportunity to
comment, because any comments
received cannot and will not affect the
injunction underlying the need for
delay. See EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. E.P.A., 795 F.3d 118, 134–35
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:57 Dec 27, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
73618
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 28, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
19
In response to the March Security Bars Delay
IFR, the Departments received one comment
objecting to a further delay. The commenter
asserted that implementation was needed to
mitigate the risk of the potential spread of deadly
communicable diseases by noncitizens from
countries where the disease was prevalent. As
noted, however, agencies have been enjoined from
applying bars to asylum eligibility and withholding
of removal when making a credible fear
determination.
(D.C. Cir. 2015) (explaining that the
good cause exception applied because
‘‘commentators could not have said
anything during a notice and comment
period that would have changed’’ the
agency’s response to a judicial
decision). The Departments notified the
public in March that ‘‘if the injunction
remains in effect on December 31,
[2021,] the Departments may delay the
effective date of the Security Bars rule
further.’’ 86 FR at 15071.
19
B. Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review) direct agencies to assess the
costs, benefits, and transfers of available
alternatives, and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits,
including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and equity.
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, reducing costs,
harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility. Pursuant to Executive Order
12866, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget determined
that this rule is ‘‘significant’’ under
Executive Order 12866 and has
reviewed this regulation.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Departments have reviewed this
rule in accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., and
have determined that this rule to further
delay the effective date of the Security
Bars rule (85 FR 84160) will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Neither the Security Bars rule, nor this
rule to delay its effective date, regulate
‘‘small entities’’ as that term is defined
in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Only individuals,
rather than entities, are eligible to apply
for asylum and related forms of relief,
and only individuals are placed in
immigration proceedings.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule will not result in the
expenditure by state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions are
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
E. Congressional Review Act
This rule is not a major rule as
defined by section 804 of the
Congressional Review Act (‘‘CRA’’). 5
U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in
an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; a major increase in
costs or prices; or significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign
based enterprises in domestic and
export markets. The Departments have
complied with the CRA’s reporting
requirements and have sent this rule to
Congress and to the Comptroller General
as required by 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1).
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order 13132, the Departments believe
that this rule will not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement.
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This rule meets the applicable
standards set forth in section 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not create new, or
revisions to existing, ‘‘collection[s] of
information’’ as that term is defined
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104–13, 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, and its implementing
regulations, 5 CFR part 1320.
I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
This rule does not have ‘‘tribal
implications’’ because it does not have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Accordingly, Executive Order 13175
(Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments) requires no
further agency action or analysis.
Alejandro N. Mayorkas,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security.
Dated: December 18, 2021.
Merrick B. Garland,
Attorney General, Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2021–28016 Filed 12–27–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–30–P; 9111–97–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
8 CFR Parts 251 and 258
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
19 CFR Part 4
[Docket No. USCBP–2021–0046; CBP Dec.
No. 21–19]
RIN 1651–AB18
Automation of CBP Form I–418 for
Vessels
AGENCY
: U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, DHS.
ACTION
: Interim final rule; solicitation of
comments.
SUMMARY
: This rule amends the
regulations in title 8 and title 19 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
regarding the submission of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
Form I–418, Passenger List—Crew List
(Form I–418) in paper form. Currently,
the master or agent of every commercial
vessel arriving in the United States,
with limited exceptions, must submit
Form I–418, along with certain
information regarding longshore work,
in paper form to CBP at the port where
immigration inspection is performed.
Most commercial vessel operators are
also required to submit a paper Form I–
418 to CBP at the final U.S. port prior
to departing for a foreign place. DHS is
modifying the applicable regulations to
provide for the electronic submission of
Form I–418. Under this rule, vessel
operators will be required to
electronically submit the data elements
on Form I–418 to CBP through an
electronic data interchange system (EDI)
approved by CBP in lieu of submitting
a paper form. This will streamline
vessel arrival and departure processes
by providing for the electronic
submission of the information collected
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:57 Dec 27, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT