On February 17, 2026, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), published a final rule in the Federal Register. This rule introduces technical amendments to specific sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to align terminology with the statutory language of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Effective immediately upon publication, the amendments replace the term 'non-U.S. citizen' with 'alien' in regulations governing aviation, transportation security, and related programs. The move addresses inconsistencies between TSA's rules and federal immigration statutes, emphasizing precision in legal language without changing any operational or compliance obligations. This development underscores ongoing efforts to maintain regulatory harmony across federal agencies, particularly in areas intersecting immigration and national security.
Background and Rationale for the Amendments
The INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., defines 'alien' as 'any person not a citizen or national of the United States.' This definition has long served as the cornerstone for immigration-related terminology in federal law. TSA's prior use of 'non-U.S. citizen' in its regulations, while functionally similar, deviated from this statutory standard. The final rule corrects this by restoring the INA's precise language, as stated in the Federal Register entry: 'This action is necessary to conform TSA regulations with statutory terminology used in the Immigration and Nationality Act.'
Historically, federal agencies have periodically updated nomenclature to ensure alignment with governing statutes. For instance, similar technical corrections have occurred in other DHS components, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to standardize terms like 'alien' in enforcement contexts. The TSA amendments affect 49 CFR Parts 1500, 1552, and 1570, which cover general applicability, flight training security, and transportation security rules. No new policies or requirements are introduced, the entry emphasizes that 'the revisions are not substantive and will not affect the regulatory requirements in the affected parts.' This reflects a procedural adjustment rather than a policy shift, driven by administrative efficiency.
Key Changes and Affected Regulations
The rule specifies targeted replacements across TSA's regulatory framework. In 49 CFR Part 1500, which outlines terms and abbreviations for transportation security, the definition of 'Non-U.S. citizen' is removed and replaced with 'Alien,' defined directly from 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3). Part 1552, focused on flight training security programs, sees amendments in sections 1552.1 and 1552.3, where 'non-U.S. citizen' is swapped for 'alien' in contexts related to aviation safety and vetting.
Part 1570, addressing general rules for transportation security, removes the definition of 'Alien registration number' entirely, as it is deemed unnecessary following the terminology update. A table in the Federal Register details these changes, listing affected sections and the nature of each amendment, such as replacing terms in definitions or procedural requirements. For example, in flight training contexts, the shift ensures that security vetting for non-citizens aligns with INA standards without expanding or restricting eligibility.
These updates were issued without prior notice and public comment, justified under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). TSA determined that such procedures were 'unnecessary' because the changes are purely technical and do not alter rights or obligations. The rule also qualifies as exempt under the APA's provision for rules of agency procedure, as noted: 'TSA has also determined that this rule is exempt from the notice and comment requirement under the APA because it is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice.'
Legal and Procedural Context
The amendments draw authority from multiple statutes, including 49 U.S.C. 114 (TSA's general authority), 44939 (flight training security), and provisions from the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, such as 6 U.S.C. 469. These laws empower TSA to regulate security in transportation sectors while coordinating with immigration enforcement.
Precedents for such nomenclature adjustments include prior DHS rulemakings, where terms have been harmonized to avoid legal ambiguities. For example, in 2016, DHS updated regulations to clarify 'alien' usage in employment authorization contexts, citing the need for statutory fidelity. Politically, these changes occur amid broader debates on immigration terminology, with some advocates arguing that 'alien' carries outdated connotations, while others prioritize legal consistency. The rule avoids engaging in these debates, focusing solely on alignment. Perspectives vary: legal experts may view it as a minor housekeeping measure, while immigration policy groups could see it as reinforcing traditional statutory language amid evolving national discussions on inclusivity.
Implications for Stakeholders
Short-term effects are minimal, as the rule takes effect immediately and imposes no new compliance burdens. Entities like flight schools, transportation operators, and security vetting programs will continue operations unchanged, but with updated language in official documents. For aliens seeking flight training or transportation credentials, the terminology shift clarifies that TSA's processes remain tied to INA definitions, potentially streamlining interactions with other federal agencies.
Long-term, this could enhance regulatory coherence across DHS, reducing risks of misinterpretation in judicial or enforcement settings. However, it highlights ongoing tensions in federal immigration policy, where terminology can influence public perception and legal outcomes. Different viewpoints exist: supporters of strict immigration enforcement might welcome the restoration of statutory terms, while reform advocates could argue for modernizing language in future legislation. The rule does not endorse any side but illustrates how administrative actions can subtly shape policy implementation.
In summary, TSA's technical amendments represent a procedural refinement to ensure regulatory language mirrors federal statutes. Key takeaways include the replacement of 'non-U.S. citizen' with 'alien' in targeted CFR sections, justified under APA exemptions for non-substantive changes. Looking ahead, potential next steps could involve monitoring for similar alignments in other DHS regulations or addressing any unintended interpretive issues that arise. Ongoing debates may focus on whether Congress should update the INA's terminology to reflect contemporary norms, presenting challenges for balancing legal precision with evolving societal expectations. Stakeholders, including legal professionals and policymakers, should watch for any related guidance from TSA to clarify application in practice.
