SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this IFR. The Department also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this rule. To provide the most assistance to the Department, comments should reference a specific portion of the IFR; explain the reason for any recommended change; and include data, information, or authority that supports the recommended change.

All comments submitted for this rulemaking should include the agency name and reference RIN 1125-AA45 or EOIR Docket No. EOIR-26-AA45. Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection at www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personally identifying information (such as a person's name, address, or any other data that might personally identify that individual) that the commenter voluntarily submits.

If you want to submit personally identifying information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment and precisely and prominently identify the confidential business information of which you seek redaction. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on www.regulations.gov.

Personally identifying information and confidential business information provided as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file but not posted online. The Department may withhold from public viewing information provided in comments that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of www.regulations.gov. To inspect the agency's public docket file in person, you must make an appointment with the agency. Please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph above for agency contact information.

II. Legal Authority

The Department is issuing this IFR pursuant to section 103(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “Act”), 8 U.S.C. 1103(g), as amended by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (“HSA”), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (as amended). Under the HSA, the Attorney General retains the authority to “establish such regulations, . . . issue such instructions, review such administrative determinations in immigration proceedings, delegate such authority, and perform such other acts as the Attorney General determines to be necessary for carrying out” the Attorney General's authorities under the INA. HSA 1102, 116 Stat. at 2273-74; INA 103(g)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1103(g)(2). In Attorney General Order Number 7081-2026 and Attorney General Order Number 6918-2026, the Attorney General has exercised authority under 28 U.S.C. 509 and 510 to delegate authority to issue regulations related to procedures for imposing penalties under 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(5)(A) and to amend the regulations at 28 CFR part 68, respectively, to EOIR's Director. ( printed page 51577)

III. Background

A. Regulation of International Marriage Brokers Before IMBRA

In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Public Law 104-208, Div. C., Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-546. Section 652 of IIRIRA, previously codified at 8 U.S.C. 1375, addressed the “mail-order bride business.” ^[1] Congress found that, in “many . . . cases, anecdotal evidence suggests that mail-order brides find themselves in abusive relationships” in the United States and that there was “evidence to suggest that a substantial number” of marriages arranged by IMBs were fraudulent. IIRIRA 652(a)(3), (a)(5).

Section 652(b)(1) of IIRIRA required all international matchmaking organizations conducting business in the United States to provide certain information to each potential recruit ^[2] at the time of recruitment and in the recruit's native language. The same provision required the information provided to detail certain immigration and naturalization information and explain the immigration benefits available to individual spouses and fiancé(e)s of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) and the penalties for marriage fraud. IIRIRA 652(b)(1). Section 652(b)(2) of IIRIRA established a civil money penalty of up to $20,000 for international matchmaking organizations that failed to comply with the information dissemination requirements.

B. Enactment of IMBRA

Despite IIRIRA's provisions related to international matchmaking organizations, following a 2004 Senate hearing on the IMB industry,^[3] Congress decided further regulation was necessary. At the time, an estimated 8,000 to 12,000 individuals in the United States found foreign spouses through IMBs each year.^[4] In 2006, IMBRA repealed the “mail-order bride” provisions at section 652 of IIRIRA and implemented new provisions regulating IMBs. See Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (“VAWA Reauthorization Act of 2005”), Public Law 109-162, Title VIII, Subtitle D, Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 2960, 3066-77.

C. IMBRA Requirements

1. Obligations of the Government

Unlike the obligations prescribed by the “mail-order bride” provisions at section 652 of IIRIRA, IMBRA requires the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Department of State (“DOS”) to disseminate an information pamphlet to applicants for a K nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15)(K) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K). 8 U.S.C. 1375a(a)(1). The pamphlet must contain information about the visa application process and the marriage-based immigration process; the illegality of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse; the availability of services for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault; the legal rights of immigrant victims of abuse and other crimes in immigration, criminal justice, family law, and other matters; the obligations of parents to provide child support; marriage fraud and related penalties; the potential use of the K nonimmigrant visa process by individuals with a history of abuse; and the requirement for IMBs to provide foreign national clients with background information on U.S. clients, with a notification that such information may be incomplete or inaccurate.^[5] 8 U.S.C. 1375a(a)(2)(A)-(H).

IMBRA requires the information pamphlet to be developed by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State (and with nongovernmental organizations with expertise on the legal rights of immigrant victims of battery, extreme cruelty, sexual assault, and other crimes). 8 U.S.C. 1375a(a)(1).^[6] Consular officers are required to provide this pamphlet to foreign fiancé(e)s and provide an oral summary, in the alien's primary language, of that pamphlet at the time of visa or adjustment interviews.^[7] 8 U.S.C. 1375a(b)(1)(B).

2. Definition of “International Marriage Brokers”

IMBRA defines “international marriage broker” as an individual or other legal entity (including a corporation, partnership, or business, whether or not organized under any law of the United States) that charges fees for providing dating, matrimonial, or matchmaking services, or social referrals between U.S. citizens, nationals, or LPRs and foreign national clients by providing personal contact information or otherwise facilitating communication between individuals. 8 U.S.C. 1375a(e)(4)(A). This definition includes both IMBs that are based in the United States and those that are based abroad. Id. However, the definition of an IMB excludes traditional nonprofit matchmaking organizations of a cultural or religious nature and dating services that do not match U.S. citizens or U.S. residents with aliens as their principal business and that charge all participants comparable rates and offer comparable services regardless of a client's sex or country of citizenship. 8 U.S.C. 1375a(e)(4)(B).

3. Other Protections

IMBRA also creates additional safeguards. For example, 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(1) prohibits IMBs from providing any person or entity with the contact information for, a photograph of, or general information about the background or interests of anyone under the age of 18. A related provision, section 832(a)(1)(D) of IMBRA, codified at section 214(d)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(d)(2), specifies that DHS will not generally approve a petition for a K visa before verifying that the petitioner has not, prior to the pending petition, petitioned on behalf of two or more applying aliens and, if the petitioner has had such a petition previously ( printed page 51578) approved, that two years have elapsed since the filing of such previously approved petition. Relatedly, section 214(r)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(r)(4), requires the creation of a government database to record multiple petitions filed by the same U.S. petitioner.

IMBRA also ensures that, as part of the K nonimmigrant visa process, DOS will provide to foreign fiancé(e)s any criminal and other relevant background information obtained through DHS's background check of the visa petitioner. 8 U.S.C. 1375a(b)(1)(A). Additionally, before an IMB may provide contact information of any foreign national client to a U.S. client or representative, an IMB must: (1) perform a search of the National Sex Offender Public website for information regarding the U.S. client; (2) obtain from the U.S. client information about any criminal history (restraining or protective orders, arrests or convictions for violent crimes, child abuse or neglect, prostitution, or substance abuse), marital history, and related information; (3) provide this information to the foreign national client in the client's primary language; (4) provide to the foreign national client the DHS IMBRA pamphlet about the legal rights and resources available in the United States to immigrant victims of domestic violence and other crimes; and (5) obtain the foreign national client's written consent to release his or her information to the U.S. client. 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(3).

D. Penalties for Failure To Comply With IMBRA

IMBs that fail to comply with IMBRA's requirements in 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(1)-(4) are subject to civil penalties.^[8] 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(5)(A). IMBRA authorizes a range of civil penalties, from a minimum of $5,000 to a maximum of $25,000, 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(5)(A)(i), which is a higher maximum penalty than the maximum $20,000 penalty previously prescribed by section 652(b)(2) of IIRIRA. These penalties are in addition to those available under any other existing laws. 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(5)(C).

Under 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(5)(A)(ii), a civil penalty may be imposed either by a Federal judge, or by the Attorney General after notice and an opportunity for an agency hearing on the record in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 551-59.^[9] In other words, the Attorney General may impose a civil penalty after the IMB has had an opportunity for a formal hearing on the record before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). However, IMBRA does not contain specific procedures, beyond the general requirements of the APA, for the conduct of such hearings. See generally8 U.S.C. 1375a.

IV. Provisions of the IFR

This IFR implements procedures for the adjudication of IMBRA civil penalty cases through hearings conducted by ALJs in EOIR's Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (“OCAHO”).^[10] OCAHO's ALJs currently adjudicate immigration-related civil penalty cases pertaining to unlawful employment, employment eligibility verification, immigration-related employment discrimination, and document fraud, under sections 274A, 274B, and 274C of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, 1324b, and 1324c, respectively. OCAHO ALJs adjudicate these cases according to APA statutory guidelines and OCAHO's rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before its ALJs as set forth at 28 CFR part 68. This IFR applies OCAHO's existing hearing procedures for employment- and document fraud-related proceedings in 28 CFR part 68 to IMBRA cases.

Because IMBRA requires APA-compliant notice and an opportunity for a hearing prior to the imposition of a civil penalty and because OCAHO ALJs have significant experience conducting proceedings that are consistent with the APA's requirements, authorizing OCAHO ALJs to adjudicate IMBRA cases under existing OCAHO procedures is the most logical way to implement IMBRA. See8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(5)(A)(ii). The existing processes for OCAHO ALJ hearings were explicitly designed to comply with the APA. See28 CFR 68.28(a); see also Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before Administrative Law Judges in Cases Involving Allegations of Unlawful Employment of Aliens and Unfair Immigration-related Employment Practices, 56 FR 50049, 50051 (Oct. 3, 1991) (explaining that, when making revisions, 28 CFR 68.28 was “changed to emphasize the importance of the [APA]”). For example, existing OCAHO regulations explicitly state that, in any proceeding under 28 CFR part 68, “the [ALJ] shall have all appropriate powers necessary to conduct fair and impartial hearings,” including conducting “formal hearings in accordance with the provisions of the [APA]” and taking “any action authorized by the [APA].” 28 CFR 68.28(a). Following OCAHO's existing procedures will ensure that respondents are afforded notice and an opportunity for a hearing as required by statute. 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(5)(A)(ii); see also5 U.S.C. 551-59.

In addition, applying OCAHO's existing hearing procedures to IMBRA cases will allow the Department to capitalize on OCAHO's extensive institutional experience administering APA-compliant adjudicatory proceedings in immigration-related civil penalty cases. These procedures have the benefit of having been tested for more than 30 years. Cf.56 FR 50050 (explaining, in issuing revisions to 28 CFR 68, that the Department was “amend[ing] several sections which have proven particularly troublesome or add[ing] new sections to increase administrative efficiency”). Further, authorizing OCAHO ALJs to adjudicate IMBRA cases is consistent with the statutory authorization for imposition of civil penalties by the Attorney General, since the OCAHO ALJs who are imposing the penalties are acting pursuant to the authority of the Attorney General. 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(5)(A)(ii). Accordingly, this IFR makes OCAHO's general procedures applicable to IMBRA cases, see28 CFR 68.1, while also implementing specific changes to certain procedures to better suit the adjudication of IMBRA cases.^[11]

( printed page 51579)

Under this rule, in an IMBRA case, the administrative adjudication process will begin when the IMBRA enforcement official ^[12] files a complaint pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d) with OCAHO. 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(6)(A) (“The Attorney General shall be responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of this section, including the prosecution of civil and criminal penalties provided for by this section.”). Proceedings before an OCAHO ALJ would commence when OCAHO serves that complaint upon the respondent as provided in 28 CFR 68.3. This IFR specifies the information that a complaint filed in an IMBRA case must contain and requires such complaints to be signed by the IMBRA enforcement official. 28 CFR 68.7(b)-(c). Further, the IFR outlines where service of the complaint and notice of hearing may be made in IMBRA cases, which satisfies IMBRA's notice requirements. 28 CFR 68.3(d); see also8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(5)(A)(ii). Additionally, there is no requirement to affirmatively request a hearing in an IMBRA case, ¹³ see28 CFR 68.7(c), and when scheduling a hearing in an IMBRA case, “due regard will be given to the convenience of the parties and the witnesses in selecting a place for a hearing within the United States,” 28 CFR 68.5(b). If a respondent fails to respond to the complaint, the ALJ may deem such failure to be a waiver of the right to a hearing and acceptance of the civil penalty that the IMBRA enforcement official sought to impose in the complaint. See28 CFR 68.9(b) (“Failure of the respondent to file an answer within the time provided may be deemed to constitute a waiver of his or her right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint.”).

Once an IMBRA case commences, OCAHO's general procedures apply, see28 CFR 68 et seq., except that this IFR alters certain procedural time limits in IMBRA cases. For example, subsequent to the initial 30-day period to file a responsive pleading in proceedings before OCAHO, the IFR provides the respondent in an IMBRA case with an additional 30 days to file a responsive pleading, thus amounting to a 60-day timeframe to file a responsive pleading. See28 CFR 68.9(a). Similarly, this IFR provides a respondent in an IMBRA case with 20 days—compared to the 10 days provided in other proceedings—to respond after a written motion is served. See28 CFR 68.11(b). Because the IMBRA statute does not mandate certain time requirements for these responsive filings, and because IMBs may have their principal operations located abroad, the Department believes that it is appropriate to provide longer periods of time for IMBs covered by IMBRA.

This IFR also reflects the statutory language establishing a civil money penalty range for IMBRA violations. See28 CFR 68.52(f); accord8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(5)(A)(i). The IFR states that if an ALJ determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent named in the complaint violated or attempted to violate IMBRA's requirements, the final order “will require the respondent or respondents to pay a civil money penalty in an amount of not less than $5,000 and not more than $25,000 for each violation.” ^[14] 28 CFR 68.52(f).

Further, the IFR clarifies when an ALJ's order in an IMBRA case becomes the final agency order. 28 CFR 68.52(h) (explaining that an ALJ's final order in an IMBRA case becomes the final agency order 60 days after entry unless the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer modifies, vacates, or remands the final order or the final order is referred to the Attorney General).

Once an ALJ has issued a final order in an IMBRA case, the IFR provides specific procedures for administrative review of such orders, including review to correct clerical or typographical errors and review of interlocutory orders. See28 CFR 68.52(g) (correction of clerical and typographical errors), 68.53(a), (c) (review of interlocutory orders in IMBRA cases). Final orders in IMBRA cases will be subject to review by the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer pursuant to the specific time limits and procedural requirements outlined in 28 CFR 68.54. The Department notes that the time period during which a party may request review by the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, the deadline to submit briefs, and the amount of time afforded to the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer to enter an order are longer than in cases arising under sections 274A and 274C of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a and 1324c, because IMBRA cases are not subject to the same statutory timeframes as those cases. Accordingly, the Department is allowing additional time for the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer to review decisions by an ALJ in IMBRA cases. In addition to review by the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, IMBRA cases are also subject to referral to the Attorney General upon the Attorney General's request ^[15] and may be subject to Attorney General review upon request by the IMBRA enforcement official. 28 CFR 68.55(a)-(b), (d)(2).

Finally, this IFR makes several changes to update the regulatory text to include IMBRA cases in relevant existing procedures. Procedurally, the IFR clarifies that a government attorney filing a complaint in an IMBRA case is not required to file a notice of appearance. 28 CFR 68.33(f). This IFR also adds definitions of the terms “IMB”, “IMBRA case”, and “IMBRA enforcement official” to OCAHO's regulations. 28 CFR 68.2. Additionally, to account for IMBRA cases, this IFR revises the current definitions of “Complainant”, “Final agency order”, and “Issued”. Id. This IFR also makes minor, non-substantive changes to the regulations for clarity, such as changing some instances of “shall” to “will” or “must” and adding the term “final” before “order” where relevant.

V. Regulatory Requirements

A. Administrative Procedure Act

Under the APA, agencies must generally provide notice of a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and, ( printed page 51580) after such notice, “give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)-(c). However, the APA provides exceptions to this requirement, as explained in more detail below. Consistent with the APA and for the reasons explained below, this IFR is exempt from notice-and-comment procedures because: (1) it is a rule of agency procedure and practice, id. 553(b)(A), and (2) it involves a foreign affairs function of the United States, id. 553(a)(1). At the same time, the Department seeks and welcomes post-promulgation comments on this IFR.

1. Rule of Agency Organization, Procedure, or Practice

As an initial matter, this IFR is exempt from notice-and-comment procedures because it is a rule of agency procedure and practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The purpose of the “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” exception is “to ensure that agencies retain latitude in organizing their internal operations.” Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980). However, this exception does not apply in matters where “agency action trenches on substantial private rights and interests.” Id. at 708. “[T]he critical feature of a rule that satisfies the . . . procedural exception is that it covers agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although it may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.” AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 57 F.4th 1023, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (quoting James V. Hurson Assocs., Inc. v. Glickman, 229 F.3d 277, 280 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (cleaned up)).

As discussed in Section IV of this preamble, the IMBRA statute provides the substantive bases for violations of the law, while this IFR merely applies OCAHO's existing hearing procedures to adjudicating such cases. This IFR is also consistent with prior OCAHO procedural rulemakings pertaining solely to agency procedures and practices regarding the processing of cases before OCAHO. See, e.g.,56 FR 50052; Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before Administrative Law Judges in Cases Involving Allegations of Unlawful Employment of Aliens, Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices, and Document Fraud, 64 FR 7066, 7072 (Feb. 12, 1999).

2. Foreign Affairs

Additionally, this IFR is excepted from the APA's notice-and-comment requirements because it involves a “foreign affairs function of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Notably, the Secretary of State has determined “that all efforts, conducted by any agency of the federal government, to control the status, entry, and exit of people, and the transfer of goods, services, data, technology, and other items across the borders of the United States, constitute a foreign affairs function of the United States under the Administrative Procedure Act.” Determination: Foreign Affairs Functions of the United States, 90 FR 12200 (Mar. 14, 2025). The Department agrees with and adopts the Secretary of State's determination as it relates to IMBRA violations, and as such, finds that the Department's efforts through this IFR constitute a foreign affairs function of the United States.

By their nature, IMBRA cases relate to the “status, entry, and exit” of aliens from the United States under the Secretary of State's determination. 90 FR 12200. Moreover, most IMBs are located outside the United States, and IMB-related issues covered by IMBRA often, if not exclusively, arise prior to an alien's arrival in the United States. Therefore, because this IFR provides procedures for the adjudication of IMBRA violations, it implicates the United States' foreign affairs with the countries of origin of IMBs that violate IMBRA, and foreign nationals recruited by IMBs for matchmaking services. See E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 775-76 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that the foreign affairs exception applies in the immigration context when “ordinary application of `the public rulemaking provisions [will] provoke definitely undesirable international consequences[ ]' ”).

This IFR is intended to specify the procedures for adjudicating violations of an important statute aimed at reducing exploitation of aliens and marriage fraud, both of which undermine the United States' ability to effectively manage the alien population and reduce unlawful immigration. Implementing these procedures will, in turn, disincentivize efforts to bring aliens unlawfully to the United States through fraudulent marriages.

Consequently, as this IFR clearly and directly involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and following notice-and-comment requirements would result in undesirable international consequences, this IFR is exempt from these rulemaking procedures. See5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1); see also E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant, 932 F.3d at 775-76.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or other law. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). Because this IFR involves a foreign affairs function of the United States, id. 553(a)(1), and is a rule of agency procedure and practice, id. 553(b)(A), it is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking, and no RFA analysis is required for this rule.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This IFR 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 (adjusted annually for inflation), and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

D. Congressional Review Act

This IFR is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804. This IFR 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 U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

E. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

The Department has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Nevertheless, the Department certifies that this regulation has been drafted in accordance with the principles of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

The Department has determined that the benefits of this IFR justify the costs. ( printed page 51581) Implementation of this IFR will incur both monetary ( e.g., additional staff resources) and non-monetary ( e.g., additional work for existing staff resources) costs to the Department associated with adjudicating claims of IMBRA violations. Such costs are justified by the significant benefits of deterring future infractions, as well as protecting against fraudulent marriages and exploitation of foreign nationals who are recruited by IMBs. Congress clearly recognized that any costs associated with the implementation of the procedures set forth in this IFR are outweighed by the benefits, as evidenced by Congress's explicit authorization for the Attorney General to impose civil penalties for IMBRA violations “after notice and an opportunity for an agency hearing on the record.” 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(5)(A)(ii). Additionally, this IFR will not impose any cost on the public. Rather, this IFR only implements the imposition of statutory penalties on persons for violations, or attempted violations, of 8 U.S.C. 1375a(d)(1)-(4), provisions with which affected parties are already obligated to comply. Therefore, the Department has assessed the costs and benefits of this IFR and believes that the regulatory approach selected maximizes net benefits.

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This IFR 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 Department has determined that this IFR does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

This IFR meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this IFR because the Department has not imposed new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

I. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)

This IFR is a “regulation[] issued with respect to a[n] . . . immigration-related function of the United States” and is therefore exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192 under section 5(a) of that Order.

J. Executive Order 14219 (Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative)

This IFR is “an[ ] action related to a[n] . . . immigration-related function of the United States” and is therefore exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14219 under section 7(a) of that Order.

K. Executive Order 14294 (Overcriminalization of Federal Regulations)

Executive Order 14294 requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each element of those offenses. This rule does not adopt a criminal regulatory offense and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14924 requirements.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, and by the authority vested in the Acting Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, by the Attorney General Order Number 6918-2026 and Attorney General Order Number 7081-2026, the Department amends part 68 of chapter I of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

91 FR 51576