Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 159 / Friday, August 20, 2021 / Proposed Rules agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed rule, or final rule for which the agency published a proposed rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in $100 million or more expenditure adjusted annually for inflation in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
While this proposed rule is expected to exceed the $100 million expenditure in any 1 year when adjusted for inflation $169.8 million in 2020 dollars based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers CPIU,105 the Departments do not believe this proposed rule would impose any unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or on the private sector. The impacts are likely to apply to individuals, potentially in the form of beneficial distributional effects and cost savings. There could be tax impacts related to the distributional effects.
However, these do not constitute mandates. Further, the real resource costs quantified in this analysis apply to the Federal Government and also are not mandates. Therefore, the Departments have not prepared a written statement.
K. Congressional Review Act The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this proposed rule is a major rule within the meaning of Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 also known as the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 8042.
Accordingly, it is expected that this rule, if enacted as a final rule, would be effective 60 days after the final rules publication.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

L. Executive Order 13132 Federalism This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or 105 See BLS, Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers CPIU: U.S. City Average, All Items, https www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/
supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202103.pdf last visited May 5, 2021.
Calculation of inflation: 1 Calculate the average monthly CPIU for the reference year 1995 and the most recent current year available 2020; 2
Subtract reference year CPIU from current year CPIU; 3 Divide the difference of the reference year CPIU and current year CPIU by the reference year CPIU; 4 Multiply by 100 = Average monthly CPIU for 2020Average monthly CPIU
for 1995/Average monthly CPIU for 1995 100
= 258.811152.383/152.383 100 = 106.428/
152.383 100 = 0.6984 100 = 69.84 percent = 69.8
percent rounded.
Calculation of inflation-adjusted value: $100
million in 1995 dollars 1.698 = $169.8 million in 2020 dollars.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:46 Aug 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
M. Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3a and 3b2 of Executive Order 12988.
N. Family Assessment The Departments have assessed this proposed action in accordance with section 654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105277, Div. A. With respect to the criteria specified in section 654c, the Departments determined that the proposed rule would not have any adverse impacts on family safety or stability. The proposed rule would allow families seeking asylum the possibility of parole from custody, thereby helping preserve family unity and safety given the COVID19
pandemic. Additionally, this proposed rule would result in greater efficiencies in the expedited removal and asylum processes, providing speedier resolution of meritorious cases, and reducing the overall asylum system backlogs.
O. Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule would not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
P. National Environmental Policy Act The Departments analyze actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act, Public Law 91190, 42 U.S.C. 4321 through 4347
NEPA, applies to them and, if so, what degree of analysis is required. See DHS, Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act Directive 02301, issued Oct. 31, 2014, and Instruction Manual, issued Nov. 6, 2014, https www.dhs.gov/publication/
directive-023-01-rev-01-and-instructionmanual-023-01-001-01-rev-01-andcatex. Both the DHS Directive 02301

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

46939

and the Instruction Manual establish the policies and procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality CEQ
regulations for implementing NEPA, 40
CFR parts 1500 through 1508.
The CEQ regulations allow Federal agencies to establish, with CEQ review and concurrence, categories of actions categorical exclusions that experience has shown do not have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. 40
CFR 1501.4, 1507.3e2ii. The DHS
categorical exclusions are listed in Appendix A of the Instruction Manual.
For an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions: 1 The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; 2
the action is not a piece of a larger action; and 3 no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.106
As discussed in more detail throughout this proposed rule, the Departments are proposing to modify the expedited removal process, specifically for those who are found to have a positive credible fear. The proposed rule could result in an increase in the number of noncitizens in expedited removal paroled out of custody, thereby possibly allowing for efficient processing or prioritizing use of DHSs limited detention bed space to detain those noncitizens who pose the greatest threats to national security and public safety.
Generally, the Departments believe NEPA does not apply to a rule intended to change a discrete aspect of an immigration program because any attempt to analyze its potential impacts would be largely, if not completely, speculative. This proposed rule would not alter any eligibility criteria, but rather would change certain procedures, specifically, which Federal agency adjudicates certain asylum claims. The proposed rule also would not make any changes to detention facilities. Rather, the detention facilities are already in existence and to attempt to calculate how many noncitizens would be paroleda highly discretionary benefitand how many would proceed to the detention centers would be near impossible to determine. The Departments have no reason to believe that these amendments would change 106 Instruction
E:FRFM20AUP2.SGM

20AUP2

Manual section V.B2ac.