Exchange Visitor Program-Fees and Charges for Exchange Visitor Program Services, 34419-34424 [E7-11810]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 120 / Friday, June 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
imposes certain requirements on federal
agencies, including the Commission, in
connection with conducting or
sponsoring any collection of
information as defined by the PRA. In
compliance with the PRA, the
Commission through these proposed
rules solicits comments to: (1) Evaluate
whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (2)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (3) enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
minimize the burden of the collection
on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology. The Commission has
submitted the proposed rules and their
associated information collection
requirements to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). The
proposed rules are part of an approved
collection of information (OMB Control
No. 3038–0009). The estimated burden
associated with information to be
provided pursuant to special calls is as
follows:
Average burden of response: One
hour.
Number of respondents: 10 per year.
Frequency of response: One response
per respondent per year.
Annual reporting burden: 10 hours.
Persons wishing to comment on the
information that would be required by
these proposed rules should contact the
Desk Officer, CFTC, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10202,
NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202)
395–7340. Copies of the information
collection submission to OMB are
available from the CFTC Clearance
Officer, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–5160.
Copies of the OMB-approved
information collection package
associated with the rulemaking may be
obtained from the Desk Officer,
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10202, NEOB,
Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395–7340.
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 21
Commodity futures, Commodity
Futures Trading Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, and
pursuant to the authority in the
Commodity Exchange Act, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:59 Jun 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
Commission hereby proposes to amend
Part 21 of Title 17 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
PART 21—SPECIAL CALLS
[Public Notice: 5837]
1. The authority citation for part 21
continues to read as follows:
34419
RIN 1400–AC38
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 2a, 4, 6a, 6c, 6f,
6g, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a, 12a, 19 and 21; 5
U.S.C. 552 and 552(b).
2. Section 21.02 is proposed to be
amended by:
a. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the
end of paragraph (f);
b. Redesignating paragraph (g) as
paragraph (i); and
c. Adding new paragraphs (g) and (h).
The additions read as follows:
§ 21.02 Special calls for information on
open contracts in accounts carried or
introduced by futures commission
merchants, members of contract markets,
introducing brokers, and foreign brokers.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) The total number of futures
contracts exchanged for commodities or
for derivatives positions;
(h) The total number of futures
contracts against which delivery notices
have been issued or received; and
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 21.04 is added to read as
follows:
§ 21.04 Delegation of authority to the
Director of the Division of Market Oversight.
The Commission hereby delegates,
until the Commission orders otherwise,
to the Director of the Division of Market
Oversight, or to the Director’s delegates,
the authority set forth in section 21.01
of this Part to make special calls for
information on controlled accounts from
futures commission merchants and from
introducing brokers and the authority
set forth in section 21.02 of this Part to
make special calls for information on
open contracts in accounts carried or
introduced by futures commission
merchants, members of contract
markets, introducing brokers, and
foreign brokers. The Director may
submit to the Commission for its
consideration any matter that has been
delegated pursuant to this section.
Nothing in this section shall be deemed
to prohibit the Commission, at its
election, from exercising the authority
delegated in this section to the Director.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15,
2007 by the Commission.
Eileen Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7–11984 Filed 6–21–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22 CFR Part 62
Exchange Visitor Program—Fees and
Charges for Exchange Visitor Program
Services
Department of State.
Proposed rule with request for
comment.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department is proposing
to revise its regulations regarding Fees
and Charges for Exchange Visitor
Program services. A new section will
contain all of the fees and charges for
Exchange Visitor Program services. The
long-range goal of these changes is to
recoup the full cost for providing such
services.
DATES: The Department will accept
comments from the public by August
21, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by any of the following
methods:
• Persons with access to the Internet
may view this notice and provide
comments by going to the
regulations.gov Web site at: https://
www.regulations.gov/index.cfm.
• Mail (paper, disk, or CD–ROM
submissions): U.S. Department of State,
Office of Exchange Coordination and
Designation, SA–44, 301 4th Street,
SW., Room 734, Washington, DC 20547.
• E-mail: jexchanges@state.gov. You
must include the RIN (1400–AC38) in
the subject line of your message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stanley S. Colvin, Director, Office of
Exchange Coordination and
Designation, U.S. Department of State,
SA–44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 734,
Washington, DC 20547; 202–203–5096
or e-mail at jexchanges@state.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department of State designates U.S.
government, academic, and private
sector entities to conduct educational
and cultural exchange programs
pursuant to a broad grant of authority
provided by the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as
amended (Fulbright-Hays Act), 22
U.S.C. 2451 et seq.; the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J);
the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998, Public Law
105–277; as well as other statutory
enactments, Reorganization Plans and
Executive Orders. Under those
authorities, designated program
sponsors facilitate the entry of more
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
34420
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 120 / Friday, June 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules
than 300,000 exchange participants each
year.
The Fulbright-Hays Act is the organic
legislation underpinning the entire
Exchange Visitor Program. Section 101
of that Act sets forth the purpose of the
Act, viz., ‘‘to enable the Government of
the United States to increase mutual
understanding between the people of
the United States and the people of
other countries by means of educational
and cultural exchange * * *’’. The Act
authorizes the President to provide for
such exchanges when he considers that
it would strengthen international
cooperative relations. The language of
the Act and its legislative history make
it clear that Congress considered
international educational and cultural
exchanges to be a significant part of the
public diplomacy efforts of the
President in connection with his
Constitutional prerogatives in
conducting foreign affairs.
The former United States Information
Agency (USIA) and, as of October 1,
1999, its successor, the U.S. Department
of State, have promulgated regulations
governing the Exchange Visitor
Program. Those regulations appear at 22
CFR part 62, and have remained largely
unchanged since 1993, when USIA
undertook a major regulatory reform of
the Exchange Visitor Program. The first
fee regulation was promulgated on
September 27, 1999, when USIA
published an Interim Final Rule on fees.
64 FR 51894. User fees were adopted for
the first time under the authority of
Section 810 of the United States
Information and Educational Exchange
Act of 1948, as amended, 22
U.S.C.1475e, and the Independent
Offices Appropriations Act of 1952
(IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701 . Following the
guidelines set forth in Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular No. A–25, USIA determined
that the following user fees were
appropriate in order to recoup the full
cost of providing a benefit or service to
the users of those benefits or services:
Request for § 212(e) waiver review—
$136; Request for program extension—
$198; Request for change of program
category—$198; Request for
reinstatement—$198; Program
Designation —$799; and Requests for
non-routine handling of Form IAP–66
—$43. The Interim Final Rule became
Final on April 14, 2000, 65 FR 20083,
and it has not been changed since that
date.
In 2006, the Department examined the
current fee structure for compliance
with applicable laws and policies, and
to determine the appropriate level of
fees and whether additional fees are
justified. The analysis proceeded from
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:59 Jun 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
the guiding principles set forth in the
legislative framework and authorities
cited above, namely, that user fees
should be fair, that they should reflect
the full cost to perform the services, and
that services performed on behalf of
distinct, identifiable beneficiaries
(versus the public at large) should, to
the extent possible, be self-sustaining.
As a result of our review, we
determined that additional fee
categories and increased fees were
justified.
The services covered by the new
categories of fees include those related
to new applications for Designation and
Redesignation. These fees also include
the cost of applications and requests for
amendments, allotment requests, and
updates of information, as well as the
costs for program compliance,
regulatory review and development,
outreach, and general program
administration. There are also new fees
for ‘‘changes,’’ i.e., requests for change
of program category, extension beyond
maximum duration, requests for
reinstatement, requests to update the
Student and Exchange Visitor
Information System (SEVIS) status, and
similar requests. The fees received for
this category of services also include the
appropriate share of costs for regulatory
review and development, outreach, and
general program administration.
The new fee structure was developed
by once again following the guidelines
set forth in OMB Circular A–25, as well
as the Statement of Federal Finance and
Accounting Standards No. 4 (SFFAS 4).
In accordance with SFFAS 4, the
Department used an ‘‘activity-based
costing’’ (ABC) approach to develop a
sustainable cost model to align the costs
of the program to the specific services
performed on behalf of program
sponsors and other program
stakeholders. Activity-based costing is a
method of identifying the work that is
performed, how resources are consumed
by that work, and how that work
contributes to the production of
required outputs. The ABC methodology
enabled the development of a bottom-up
budget that factored in forecasts for
expected demand of program services in
the years when the fees are effective and
would provide the program with
adequate resources to meet that future
program demand and eliminate the
existing application backlog.
Full Cost
One of the most critical elements in
building the cost models to determine
user fees is to identify all of the sources
and the appropriate amounts of costs to
be included in the analysis. According
to the legislative and regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
guidance as documented in the legal
framework, user charges should be
based on the full cost to the government
of providing the services or things of
value. OMB Circular A–25 defines full
cost as all direct and indirect costs to
any part of the Federal government of
providing a good, resource, or service.
These costs include, but are not limited
to, an appropriate share of:
Æ Direct and indirect personnel costs,
including salaries and fringe benefits
such as medical insurance and
retirement.
Æ Physical overhead, consulting, and
other indirect costs including material
and supply costs, utilities, insurance,
travel, and rents or imputed rents on
land, buildings, and equipment.
Æ Management and supervisory costs.
Æ Costs of enforcement, collection,
research, establishment of standards,
and regulation, including any required
environmental impact statements.
The generally accepted government
accounting practices for managerial cost
accounting, published in SFFAS 4,
provide the standards for cost
definition, recognition, accumulation
and assignment as they relate to the
recognition of full cost. These standards
have been applied to the determination
of what costs to include in or exclude
from the Exchange Visitor Program fee
model. According to SFFAS 4, with
respect to each responsibility segment,
the costs that are to be assigned to
outputs include: (a) Direct and indirect
costs incurred within the responsibility
segment, (b) costs of other responsibility
segments that are assigned to the
segment, and (c) inter-entity costs
recognized by the receiving entity and
assigned to the segment.
Following the relevant guidance,
three general ‘‘pools’’ of costs were
identified that should be considered for
inclusion in the Exchange Visitor
Program fee model: Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs/Office
of Exchange Coordination and
Designation (ECA/EC) costs (direct costs
incurred by ECA/EC to administer the
Exchange Visitor Program); Bureau-wide
costs (indirect costs to provide joint or
common services across ECA); and
Department-wide costs (indirect costs to
provide joint or common services across
the Department).
Cost Model Structure and Historic
Program Cost
Costs within the ECA/EC ABC model
were separated into three categories:
labor, non-labor, and ECA and
Department costs. Bureau costs were
allocated from the Program Direction &
Administration (PD&A) budget of ECA’s
Program Plan; Department costs were
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 120 / Friday, June 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules
allocated from the Congressional Budget
Justification (CBJ).
ECA/EC Costs
ECA/EC direct costs were easily
identified through the transactional data
of ECA’s fee account and the use of
general figures for the average grade and
step for all current and planned
positions. The costs associated with the
Coordination Division and the
administration of the ECA/EC G–1
exchange program were driven to
different activities and outputs than
those for the Exchange Visitor Program.
As a result, these costs were included in
the ECA/EC ABC model but were
excluded from the Exchange Visitor
Program cost and fee calculations. ECA/
EC costs were identified as follows:
Labor Costs
• OPM General Schedule Salary Rates
for Washington, DC area—We used the
OPM General Schedule Salary rates
tables, provided at https://www.opm.gov/
oca to populate the labor costs. The
mid-range (step 5) for each grade was
used to provide a consistent average
labor cost across the board. This is an
accepted method used as prescribed by
OMB Circular A–76, as well as
budgeting processes. In addition to
salary costs, the OMB standard of
32.85% of total salary was applied to
develop the cost for personnel benefits.
Non-Labor Costs
• ECA/EC Fee Account (X0113.P)—
The ECA/EC model uses detailed
transaction data pulled from CFMS for
the fee account—fund X0113.P.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
ECA Bureau-Wide Costs
Bureau-wide labor costs were
identified through specific personnel
within the ECA Executive Office (ECA–
IIP/EX) who provide service directly to
ECA/EC. Bureau-wide non-labor costs
were identified through ECA’s PD&A.
Any costs directly related to other
offices within ECA were excluded from
the analysis. Costs that were shared
across ECA were allocated costs to ECA/
EC based on the ratio of ECA/EC to ECA
FTE and, in the instance of ECA’s
Management Information System
project, the ratio of funds managed.
Department-Wide Costs
There was much less insight into the
nature of the joint or common services
provided by other bureaus throughout
the Department to ECA/EC and the
Exchange Visitor Program. No detail
related to the cost of centrally provided
services could be extracted from either
the central State Department financial
system or ECA’s corporate financial
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:59 Jun 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
system. In addition, neither the
Department nor individual bureaus
discretely allocate the cost of centrally
provided services to constituent bureaus
or formally establish shared services
arrangements to receive reimbursement
for the cost of providing services to
other bureaus.
As a result, the FY2007 CBJ (please
spell out the acronym) was identified as
the best available source of Departmentwide costs. Since the Department does
not discretely allocate intra-entity across
bureaus, a materiality was performed to
determine the inclusion or exclusion of
these costs. Accordingly, these costs
were evaluated on a case-by-case basis
for inclusion based on materiality
factors presented by SFFAS 4:
• Significance to the entity—with
limited exceptions, there are no
significant costs of goods or services
that should be factored into the full cost
of Exchange Visitor Program outputs;
• Directness of relationship to the
entity’s operations—with limited
exceptions, none of the Departmentwide joint or common costs can be
considered as direct costs, an integral
part of, or necessary to, the outputs
produced by the Exchange Visitor
Program; and,
• Identifiability—no formal process
exists to match Department-wide joint
or common costs to any other entity or
responsibility segment. Also, with
limited exceptions, there is no means by
which to match any Department-wide
costs to ECA/EC with reasonable
precision.
Finally, there was no economical way
either to assign directly most of these
costs to ECA/EC or to identify or
establish any cause and effect
relationships between most Departmentwide costs and ECA/EC. As a result,
most Department-wide costs were
excluded from the full cost analysis and
costs were only included from this pool
when a distinct relationship exists
between ECA/EC and other bureaus,
whereby ECA/EC directly consumes
services from the other bureau and these
costs can be reasonably estimated.
The following direct intra-entity
support was identified:
• Office of the Legal Adviser—
provides legal opinions to the Exchange
Visitor Program as required on various
subjects including, but not limited to,
regulations, policies, designations and
sanctions. Pro-rated costs for personnel
compensation were included based on
the ratio of ECA/EC to DoS personnel.
• Bureau of Administration—
provides administration and
infrastructure management across the
Department. Pro-rated costs for GSA
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34421
rent were included based on the ratio of
ECA/EC to DoS personnel.
• Office of the Inspector General—
provides compliance assistance to the
Exchange Visitor Program on a per
referral basis. Pro-rated costs for
personnel compensation were included
based on the ratio of ECA/EC to DoS
personnel.
FY08 and FY09 Budget Formulation
The main goals of budgeting are to
facilitate operational planning, resource
allocation, performance evaluation, and
strategy formulation. In the user fee
environment, the budgeting process
garners even more importance, as the
budget becomes the cost basis for fees.
Organizations depend on the budgeting
process to establish program
requirements and set fees with the
expectation that revenues will cover
costs during the budget execution
period. Too many times, organizations
focus on historic costs or expected
revenues as the basis for fee setting. By
doing so, agencies become fee
constrained and artificially limit their
ability to meet program requirements
and performance standards and service
levels.
To develop the recommended fees for
the Exchange Visitor Program, the
Department developed a bottom-up,
requirements-based budget targeting
FY08 as the implementation year for the
new fees. In this approach, the
Department defined the actual resource
requirement to perform all of the
activities necessary to deliver program
services within existing performance
targets and goals. This approach focused
on determining the budget required to
meet this performance, and then using
this budget as the basis to establish fees.
In addition, the Department developed
the budget requirement for a two-year
period (FY08 and FY09) to coincide
with the lifecycle of the fee as
prescribed by the Chief Financial
Officers’ Act of 1994.
This section presents the budget
requirement formulation process
followed to formulate the FY08 and
FY09 budget requirements and establish
the recommended fees. Program
requirements were also projected
through FY12 based on current
performance and growth projections. By
looking forward to future expected
output vs. future expected costs, the
organization can set realistic fees
instead of depending on historical costs.
Exchange Visitor Program Budget
Formulation
EVP followed a fourstep process to
develop the FY08 and FY09 budget
requirement:
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
34422
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 120 / Friday, June 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules
• Step 1—Identify Strategy, Goals and
Objectives.
• Step 2—Develop Workload
Requirements.
• Step 3—Determine Organizational
Capacity.
• Step 4—Calculate the Budget
Requirement.
The budgeting process begins by
determining the organization’s main
objectives and goals and envisioning a
desired end-state. After mapping out the
strategy and goals, the next step is to
develop performance measures to gauge
how the organization is progressing to
achieving the desired result. The next
task is to develop a reliable forecast of
the expected volume of work in the
upcoming period, as well as to identify
new requirements or initiatives that are
needed to achieve the goals and meet
performance standards. The next step is
to determine the capacity and capability
of the organization as it currently exists,
compare expected workload to existing
capacity, and determine any additional
workload requirement. The final step is
to then perform the calculations to
translate goals/objectives into financial
and human resource requirements.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Workload Requirements
The most basic element needed to
develop the budget requirement for
FY08 is an accurate estimation of
expected workload. To develop
workload estimates for the Exchange
Visitor Program, the activities in the
ABC model were divided into two
general categories: (1) Applicationbased; and (2) non-application based.
The following processes were then used
to develop application volume
estimates, workload estimates and,
subsequently, budget requirements.
Total hours required to perform
application-based workload:
• Estimate the expected demand
(future volume) for each type of
application, or output;
• Determine the cycle time to
produce each individual output; and
• Multiply the expected application
volumes by the cycle times to calculate
the total work hours required to perform
the application-based workload.
Total hours required for nonapplication based workload:
• Measure the percentage of time
spent across the organization on nonapplication-based workload;
• Convert this percentage into hours;
and,
• Hold these hours as fixed cost
(these hours can be held as step-fixed if
application based workload is expected
to increase materially going forward.)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:59 Jun 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
Application Volume
To develop the workload estimates,
application volumes from SEVIS for
FY03–FY06 (to date) were collected.
These data and other information
regarding expected application demand
were used to project workload volume
for FY07–FY12.
Assumptions
• FY07 expected volumes are based
on the average of the volumes from prior
years. For Amendments, a one-time
spike of 80 applications is expected due
to the implementation of the Intern
program category. For Extensions and
Reinstatement-Update SEVIS Status,
FY07 volumes were calculated by
applying a 2% growth rate to FY06
figures because of insufficient historical
data.
• FY08–FY12 expected volumes were
calculated by applying a 2% annual
growth rate. Permission to Issue
volumes were held constant to reflect
the estimated workload demand, since
no SEVIS data exists for this application
type.
Cycle Time
EVP staff were surveyed to collect
percentage of time estimates that each
staff member spent to complete one
application or request for each
application type. The Department also
performed a sampling exercise to
validate the estimates collected in the
survey. Over a five-day period,
observations of the actual time spent
performing the individual tasks for each
activity were collected. A mean for each
task was established and then summed
to calculate the mean cycle time for
each application type.
Total Workload Requirement
With cycle time information and
forecasts for application volumes, the
total application-based workload
requirement was calculated, in hours,
for FY07–FY12.
Organizational Capacity
To determine capacity of the current
organization, the Department calculated
the ratio of FTE hours dedicated
towards application work and nonapplication work. ECA/EC staff
completed activity surveys to provide
estimates for percentage of time spent
performing each activity, as defined in
the ABC model. Survey data was
summarized across office and position
levels, and the percentage of application
and non-application-based workload
was determined. The Department used
the OMB Circular A–76 standard of
1776 hours for the total number of
productive hours for a Federal employee
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
as the basis for establishing hours and
FTE levels.
The Department compared the total
number of hours required to complete
the application-based workload to the
existing total capacity for application
based-workload. This provided the gap
between capacity and the true workload
requirement. For forecasting purposes,
non-application-based costs were held
as fixed. The total number of
application hours in excess of capacity
was divided by 1776 to quantify an FTE
requirement in future years.
Budget Formulation
Once the forecasted workload
requirement was established, the future
budgets for each general cost ‘‘pools’’
included in the full cost of the Exchange
Visitor Program were developed.
ECA/EC Direct Cost Estimation
ECA/EC Direct Costs were provided
by the ECA Executive Office (ECA–IIP/
EX) budget staff. Labor costs were
determined according to the grade level
of each employee within ECA/EC. We
used the following assumptions in
estimating ECA/EC Direct Costs:
• Estimated salary and benefits based
on OPM’s Washington, DC-area GS
salary table, assuming Step 5;
• Estimated salary and benefit costs
based on grade levels, as recommended
in an organizational analysis performed
by ECA/EC;
• Applied the OMB Circular A–76
standard of 32.85% for fringe benefits
for each employee;
• For FY07–FY12, applied a 3.1%
COLA growth rate to salaries to account
for inflation;
• FY07 staffing model reflects the
following expected staff additions:
Æ Compliance Division: 1 GS–9, 1
GS–13;
Æ Private Sector Programs Division: 1
Program officer at GS–13; and,
Æ Office of the Director: 1 Deputy
Director at GS–15.
• Cycle times were established
assuming standard processes and
current performance standards;
• FY08–FY12 costs were estimated
factoring in the additional resources
required as estimated in the workload
analysis; and,
• Non-application workload was held
as fixed and all additional resources
were applied 100% to application
workload.
For non-labor costs, ECA–IIP/EX
provided detailed transaction data
pulled from Corporate Financial
Management System (CFMS) for fund
X0113.P (fee account) to identify ECA/
EC direct costs for FY05 and FY06.
Basic assumptions and or growth rates
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 120 / Friday, June 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules
were applied to estimate all non-labor
direct costs.
ECA Bureau-Wide Cost Estimation
ECA Bureau-wide costs represent
indirect costs to provide joint or
common services across the Bureau. No
direct or cause and effect relationships
are evident for these costs.
Consequently, reasonable allocation
methodologies were used to determine
the appropriate amount of cost to
allocate to ECA/EC for inclusion in the
full cost model. ECA Bureau-wide costs
were divided into two pools of cost:
Labor and Non-labor. Then Application
Development costs were separated from
the Non-labor cost pool, as different cost
allocation methodologies were used to
perform cost allocation for this line
item.
Labor Costs
• A 3.1% COLA growth rate was
applied to the pro-rated figures.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Non-labor Costs
• The average percentage of PD&A
costs to the overall Exchanges Support
budget using FY05 and FY06 figures
was calculated and used to derive the
PD&A costs for FY07.
• Using FY05 and FY06 figures, the
average percentage of the individual
PD&A line items to the total PD&A
amount was calculated. These average
rates were applied to the FY07 PD&A
summary amount to calculate the
individual PD&A line items in order to
derive an estimated value for the
Application Development line item for
FY07.
• Using FY05 and FY06 values, the
Department developed the average
percentage of ECA Application
Development costs allocated to ECA/EC.
The FY07 Application Development
line item was then multiplied by the
rate to develop pro-rated FY07
application development costs.
• To forecast the ECA Bureau-wide
figures for FY08–12, a 4% estimated
growth rate for FY08 and a 2%
estimated growth rate for FY09–FY12
was applied to the Exchanges Support
line item as presented in the FY07 CBJ.
The PD&A summary figure and
individual line items were then
calculated using the FY05–06 average
percentage rates.
• The same estimated growth rates
were used to forecast the ECA FTE
figures and develop ECA/EC to ECA
FTE ratios for FY08–FY12.
• Finally, the forecasted numbers
were pro-rated using the forecasted FTE
and Funds Managed ratios as previously
described.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:59 Jun 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
Department-Wide Cost Estimation
Department-wide costs were collected
from the FY07 CBJ. This document
provided actual costs for FY05,
estimated costs for FY06, and budgeted
requests for FY07 for both cost and FTE.
The following variables were used to
forecast the Department-wide costs for
FY08–12, based on the figures presented
in the FY07 CBJ:
• A 3.1% COLA growth rate (applied
to FY07 CBJ) for pro-rated personnel
compensation costs; and
• Average % increase from prior 2
years applied to FY07 budget figures for
GSA rent figures.
ECA/EC FY08 Budget Model
The final step in the budgeting
process was to align the budget
requirement to its funding sources.
ECA/EC has three sources of funds:
1. Exchange Visitor Program Fees—
revenue generated by the Program
Designation and Exchange Visitor
Changes Fees;
2. DHS ICE Reimbursable
Agreement—reimbursement for
expenses to support SEVIS
development, operations and
maintenance; and,
3. Direct Appropriation—funding to
cover operations of the ECA/EC G–1
Program and Coordination Division.
To accomplish this, the ABC model
was architected to align the costs of
program outputs to their respective
funding sources. Using the same basic
model architecture, model periods for
FY07–FY12 were established and the
output volumes, activity drivers and
budgetary resources were adjusted
according to forecasts. Finally, the
Department entered the forecasted costs
of the organization, aligned those costs
according to the appropriate funding
source, and calculated the model to
determine the total budget requirement
to be recovered in Exchange Visitor
Program user fees.
Recommended Fees
To set the recommended fees, the
budget periods of the Exchange Visitor
Program ABC Model were calculated to
develop the cost of each fee category for
FY07–12 based on forecasts. The units
were calculated based on the expected
periodicity of the fee defined in the fee
structure.
To set the recommended fee, the
budget requirement and forecasted
number of units for FY08 and FY09
were combined to reflect the two-year
expected life cycle of the new fee. The
Department divided the total cost by the
total forecasted volume for each fee
category to calculate the unit-based fee.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34423
The Chief Financial Officer Act of
1994 and OMB Circular A–25 require
that fees be reviewed every two years.
ECA/EC will operate and maintain the
ABC model in order to monitor the
program against its financial plan as
part of ongoing operations. Every two
years, ECA/EC will revise the model as
necessary and evaluate the fee structure
and fee amounts. As the Exchange
Visitor Program evolves, any program
changes will be reflected in the costs
model and the fees will change
accordingly.
The new fees will be flat fees, i.e.,
they will not vary based on program size
and exchange visitor volume. Future
fees, however, may be higher or lower
depending on how volumes and costs
vary in the future.
Regulatory Analysis
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign
affairs function of the United States and,
therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule
making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C.
553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive
Order 13272: Small Business
This rule is not subject to the noticeand-comment rulemaking provisions of
the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other act and, accordingly it does not
require analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.)
and Executive Order 13272, section 3(b).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA),
Public Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C.
1532, generally requires agencies to
prepare a statement before proposing
any rule that may result in an annual
expenditure of $100 million or more by
State, local, or tribal governments, or by
the private sector. This rule will not
result in any such expenditure, nor will
it significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of
congressional review of agency
rulemaking under the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, Public Law 104–121. 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
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of United
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
34424
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 120 / Friday, June 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules
States-based companies to compete with
foreign-based companies in domestic
and import markets.
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Review
The Department of State has reviewed
this rule to ensure its consistency with
the regulatory philosophy and
principles set forth in Executive Order
12866 and has determined that the
benefits of the proposed regulation
justify its costs. The Department does
not consider the rule to be an
economically significant action within
the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the
Executive Order, since it is not likely to
have an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more or to adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local, or tribal
governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132:
Federalism
This regulation will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or 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
rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to require consultations or
warrant the preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement. The
regulations implementing Executive
Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities do not
apply to this regulation.
PART 62—EXCHANGE VISITOR
PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 62 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), 1182,
1184, 1258, 1372 (2001), 1701–1775 (2002);
22 U.S.C. 1431–1442, 2451–2460; 6501
(1998); 5 U.S.C. app. § 1–11 (1977);
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, 3 CFR,
1977 Comp. p. 200; E.O. 12048 of March 27,
1978; 3 CFR, 1978 Comp. p. 168.
2. Revise § 62.17 to read as follows:
§ 62.17
Fees and charges.
(a) Remittances. Fees prescribed
within the framework of 31 U.S.C. 9701
must be submitted as directed by the
Department and must be in the amount
prescribed by law or regulation.
(b) Amounts of fees. The following
fees are prescribed for Fiscal Years
2008–2009 (October 1, 2007–September
30, 2009):
(1) For filing an application for
program designation and/or
redesignation (Form DS–3036)—$1,748.
(2) For filing an application for
exchange visitor status changes (i.e.,
extension beyond the maximum
duration, change of category,
reinstatement, reinstatement-update
SEVIS status, ECFMG sponsorship
authorization, and permission to
issue)—$246.
Subpart H—[Removed]
§ 62.90
[Removed]
3. Remove Subpart H—Fees and
§ 62.90.
Dated: June 12, 2007.
Stanley S. Colvin,
Director, Office of Exchange Coordination
and Designation, Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7–11810 Filed 6–21–07; 8:45 am]
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
BILLING CODE 4710–05–P
The Department has reviewed the
proposed regulations in light of sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No.
12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize
litigation, establish clear legal
standards, and reduce burden.
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Paperwork Reduction Act
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 62
Cultural Exchange Programs.
Accordingly, 22 CFR part 62 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
14:59 Jun 21, 2007
[Docket No. PI2007–1; Order No. 21]
Administrative Practice and Procedure,
Postal Service
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Order and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
This rule does not impose information
collection requirements under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
39 CFR Part 3001
Jkt 211001
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Recent legislation alters the
postal ratemaking process, and tasks the
Postal Regulatory Commission with
developing regulations to implement
this process. This document invites
public comment, in advance of
formulating substantive rule proposals,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on establishing service standards and
performance measurement for market
dominant products.
DATES: Initial comments are due July 16,
2007; reply comments are due July 30,
2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
202–789–6820 and
stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory
History, 72 FR 33261 (June 14, 2007).
I. Background
The Postal Accountability and
Enhancement Act, Public Law 109–435
(PAEA), directs that ‘‘the Postal Service
shall, in consultation with the Postal
Regulatory Commission, by regulation
establish (and may from time to time
thereafter by regulation revise) a set of
service standards for market-dominant
products.’’ 39 U.S.C. 3691. It also directs
the establishment of performance
measurements for market-dominant
products. 39 U.S.C. 3691(b)(1)(D), (b)(2).
The statute requires that these tasks be
completed by December 20, 2007. Id. at
3691(a).
Prior to fulfilling its consultatory role
under 39 U.S.C. 3691(a) and its
obligations under title III of the PAEA,
the Postal Regulatory Commission
(Commission) is issuing this Public
Inquiry to obtain public comment on
these topics. The Commission is
establishing Docket No. PI2007–1 for the
purpose of receiving such comments.
The Commission intends to evaluate the
comments received and use those
suggestions to help carry out its service
standards and performance
measurement responsibilities under the
PAEA. Docket PI2007–1 is established
for the purpose of obtaining a broad
spectrum of opinion to inform
Commission consultation providing
guidance to the Postal Service in
connection with the Commission’s
responsibilities regarding service
standards and performance
measurement under the PAEA. Id.
Interested persons are invited to
provide written comments and
suggestions on what the modern service
standards should be and what system or
systems of performance measurement
should be utilized to evaluate whether
those service standards have been met.
Comments and suggestions are due by
July 16, 2007. All comments and
suggestions received will be available
for review on the Commission’s Web
site, https://www.prc.gov. Interested
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 120 (Friday, June 22, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34419-34424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11810]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 62
[Public Notice: 5837]
RIN 1400-AC38
Exchange Visitor Program--Fees and Charges for Exchange Visitor
Program Services
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department is proposing to revise its regulations
regarding Fees and Charges for Exchange Visitor Program services. A new
section will contain all of the fees and charges for Exchange Visitor
Program services. The long-range goal of these changes is to recoup the
full cost for providing such services.
DATES: The Department will accept comments from the public by August
21, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by any of the following
methods:
Persons with access to the Internet may view this notice
and provide comments by going to the regulations.gov Web site at:
https://www.regulations.gov/index.cfm.
Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): U.S. Department
of State, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, SA-44, 301
4th Street, SW., Room 734, Washington, DC 20547.
E-mail: jexchanges@state.gov. You must include the RIN
(1400-AC38) in the subject line of your message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley S. Colvin, Director, Office of
Exchange Coordination and Designation, U.S. Department of State, SA-44,
301 4th Street, SW., Room 734, Washington, DC 20547; 202-203-5096 or e-
mail at jexchanges@state.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of State designates U.S.
government, academic, and private sector entities to conduct
educational and cultural exchange programs pursuant to a broad grant of
authority provided by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act
of 1961, as amended (Fulbright-Hays Act), 22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.; the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J); the Foreign
Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Public Law 105-277; as
well as other statutory enactments, Reorganization Plans and Executive
Orders. Under those authorities, designated program sponsors facilitate
the entry of more
[[Page 34420]]
than 300,000 exchange participants each year.
The Fulbright-Hays Act is the organic legislation underpinning the
entire Exchange Visitor Program. Section 101 of that Act sets forth the
purpose of the Act, viz., ``to enable the Government of the United
States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the
United States and the people of other countries by means of educational
and cultural exchange * * *''. The Act authorizes the President to
provide for such exchanges when he considers that it would strengthen
international cooperative relations. The language of the Act and its
legislative history make it clear that Congress considered
international educational and cultural exchanges to be a significant
part of the public diplomacy efforts of the President in connection
with his Constitutional prerogatives in conducting foreign affairs.
The former United States Information Agency (USIA) and, as of
October 1, 1999, its successor, the U.S. Department of State, have
promulgated regulations governing the Exchange Visitor Program. Those
regulations appear at 22 CFR part 62, and have remained largely
unchanged since 1993, when USIA undertook a major regulatory reform of
the Exchange Visitor Program. The first fee regulation was promulgated
on September 27, 1999, when USIA published an Interim Final Rule on
fees. 64 FR 51894. User fees were adopted for the first time under the
authority of Section 810 of the United States Information and
Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, 22 U.S.C.1475e, and the
Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701 .
Following the guidelines set forth in Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular No. A-25, USIA determined that the following user fees
were appropriate in order to recoup the full cost of providing a
benefit or service to the users of those benefits or services: Request
for Sec. 212(e) waiver review--$136; Request for program extension--
$198; Request for change of program category--$198; Request for
reinstatement--$198; Program Designation --$799; and Requests for non-
routine handling of Form IAP-66 --$43. The Interim Final Rule became
Final on April 14, 2000, 65 FR 20083, and it has not been changed since
that date.
In 2006, the Department examined the current fee structure for
compliance with applicable laws and policies, and to determine the
appropriate level of fees and whether additional fees are justified.
The analysis proceeded from the guiding principles set forth in the
legislative framework and authorities cited above, namely, that user
fees should be fair, that they should reflect the full cost to perform
the services, and that services performed on behalf of distinct,
identifiable beneficiaries (versus the public at large) should, to the
extent possible, be self-sustaining. As a result of our review, we
determined that additional fee categories and increased fees were
justified.
The services covered by the new categories of fees include those
related to new applications for Designation and Redesignation. These
fees also include the cost of applications and requests for amendments,
allotment requests, and updates of information, as well as the costs
for program compliance, regulatory review and development, outreach,
and general program administration. There are also new fees for
``changes,'' i.e., requests for change of program category, extension
beyond maximum duration, requests for reinstatement, requests to update
the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) status, and
similar requests. The fees received for this category of services also
include the appropriate share of costs for regulatory review and
development, outreach, and general program administration.
The new fee structure was developed by once again following the
guidelines set forth in OMB Circular A-25, as well as the Statement of
Federal Finance and Accounting Standards No. 4 (SFFAS 4). In accordance
with SFFAS 4, the Department used an ``activity-based costing'' (ABC)
approach to develop a sustainable cost model to align the costs of the
program to the specific services performed on behalf of program
sponsors and other program stakeholders. Activity-based costing is a
method of identifying the work that is performed, how resources are
consumed by that work, and how that work contributes to the production
of required outputs. The ABC methodology enabled the development of a
bottom-up budget that factored in forecasts for expected demand of
program services in the years when the fees are effective and would
provide the program with adequate resources to meet that future program
demand and eliminate the existing application backlog.
Full Cost
One of the most critical elements in building the cost models to
determine user fees is to identify all of the sources and the
appropriate amounts of costs to be included in the analysis. According
to the legislative and regulatory guidance as documented in the legal
framework, user charges should be based on the full cost to the
government of providing the services or things of value. OMB Circular
A-25 defines full cost as all direct and indirect costs to any part of
the Federal government of providing a good, resource, or service. These
costs include, but are not limited to, an appropriate share of:
[cir] Direct and indirect personnel costs, including salaries and
fringe benefits such as medical insurance and retirement.
[cir] Physical overhead, consulting, and other indirect costs
including material and supply costs, utilities, insurance, travel, and
rents or imputed rents on land, buildings, and equipment.
[cir] Management and supervisory costs.
[cir] Costs of enforcement, collection, research, establishment of
standards, and regulation, including any required environmental impact
statements.
The generally accepted government accounting practices for
managerial cost accounting, published in SFFAS 4, provide the standards
for cost definition, recognition, accumulation and assignment as they
relate to the recognition of full cost. These standards have been
applied to the determination of what costs to include in or exclude
from the Exchange Visitor Program fee model. According to SFFAS 4, with
respect to each responsibility segment, the costs that are to be
assigned to outputs include: (a) Direct and indirect costs incurred
within the responsibility segment, (b) costs of other responsibility
segments that are assigned to the segment, and (c) inter-entity costs
recognized by the receiving entity and assigned to the segment.
Following the relevant guidance, three general ``pools'' of costs
were identified that should be considered for inclusion in the Exchange
Visitor Program fee model: Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs/
Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation (ECA/EC) costs (direct
costs incurred by ECA/EC to administer the Exchange Visitor Program);
Bureau-wide costs (indirect costs to provide joint or common services
across ECA); and Department-wide costs (indirect costs to provide joint
or common services across the Department).
Cost Model Structure and Historic Program Cost
Costs within the ECA/EC ABC model were separated into three
categories: labor, non-labor, and ECA and Department costs. Bureau
costs were allocated from the Program Direction & Administration (PD&A)
budget of ECA's Program Plan; Department costs were
[[Page 34421]]
allocated from the Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ).
ECA/EC Costs
ECA/EC direct costs were easily identified through the
transactional data of ECA's fee account and the use of general figures
for the average grade and step for all current and planned positions.
The costs associated with the Coordination Division and the
administration of the ECA/EC G-1 exchange program were driven to
different activities and outputs than those for the Exchange Visitor
Program. As a result, these costs were included in the ECA/EC ABC model
but were excluded from the Exchange Visitor Program cost and fee
calculations. ECA/EC costs were identified as follows:
Labor Costs
OPM General Schedule Salary Rates for Washington, DC
area--We used the OPM General Schedule Salary rates tables, provided at
https://www.opm.gov/oca to populate the labor costs. The mid-range (step
5) for each grade was used to provide a consistent average labor cost
across the board. This is an accepted method used as prescribed by OMB
Circular A-76, as well as budgeting processes. In addition to salary
costs, the OMB standard of 32.85% of total salary was applied to
develop the cost for personnel benefits.
Non-Labor Costs
ECA/EC Fee Account (X0113.P)--The ECA/EC model uses
detailed transaction data pulled from CFMS for the fee account--fund
X0113.P.
ECA Bureau-Wide Costs
Bureau-wide labor costs were identified through specific personnel
within the ECA Executive Office (ECA-IIP/EX) who provide service
directly to ECA/EC. Bureau-wide non-labor costs were identified through
ECA's PD&A. Any costs directly related to other offices within ECA were
excluded from the analysis. Costs that were shared across ECA were
allocated costs to ECA/EC based on the ratio of ECA/EC to ECA FTE and,
in the instance of ECA's Management Information System project, the
ratio of funds managed.
Department-Wide Costs
There was much less insight into the nature of the joint or common
services provided by other bureaus throughout the Department to ECA/EC
and the Exchange Visitor Program. No detail related to the cost of
centrally provided services could be extracted from either the central
State Department financial system or ECA's corporate financial system.
In addition, neither the Department nor individual bureaus discretely
allocate the cost of centrally provided services to constituent bureaus
or formally establish shared services arrangements to receive
reimbursement for the cost of providing services to other bureaus.
As a result, the FY2007 CBJ (please spell out the acronym) was
identified as the best available source of Department-wide costs. Since
the Department does not discretely allocate intra-entity across
bureaus, a materiality was performed to determine the inclusion or
exclusion of these costs. Accordingly, these costs were evaluated on a
case-by-case basis for inclusion based on materiality factors presented
by SFFAS 4:
Significance to the entity--with limited exceptions, there
are no significant costs of goods or services that should be factored
into the full cost of Exchange Visitor Program outputs;
Directness of relationship to the entity's operations--
with limited exceptions, none of the Department-wide joint or common
costs can be considered as direct costs, an integral part of, or
necessary to, the outputs produced by the Exchange Visitor Program;
and,
Identifiability--no formal process exists to match
Department-wide joint or common costs to any other entity or
responsibility segment. Also, with limited exceptions, there is no
means by which to match any Department-wide costs to ECA/EC with
reasonable precision.
Finally, there was no economical way either to assign directly most
of these costs to ECA/EC or to identify or establish any cause and
effect relationships between most Department-wide costs and ECA/EC. As
a result, most Department-wide costs were excluded from the full cost
analysis and costs were only included from this pool when a distinct
relationship exists between ECA/EC and other bureaus, whereby ECA/EC
directly consumes services from the other bureau and these costs can be
reasonably estimated.
The following direct intra-entity support was identified:
Office of the Legal Adviser--provides legal opinions to
the Exchange Visitor Program as required on various subjects including,
but not limited to, regulations, policies, designations and sanctions.
Pro-rated costs for personnel compensation were included based on the
ratio of ECA/EC to DoS personnel.
Bureau of Administration--provides administration and
infrastructure management across the Department. Pro-rated costs for
GSA rent were included based on the ratio of ECA/EC to DoS personnel.
Office of the Inspector General--provides compliance
assistance to the Exchange Visitor Program on a per referral basis.
Pro-rated costs for personnel compensation were included based on the
ratio of ECA/EC to DoS personnel.
FY08 and FY09 Budget Formulation
The main goals of budgeting are to facilitate operational planning,
resource allocation, performance evaluation, and strategy formulation.
In the user fee environment, the budgeting process garners even more
importance, as the budget becomes the cost basis for fees.
Organizations depend on the budgeting process to establish program
requirements and set fees with the expectation that revenues will cover
costs during the budget execution period. Too many times, organizations
focus on historic costs or expected revenues as the basis for fee
setting. By doing so, agencies become fee constrained and artificially
limit their ability to meet program requirements and performance
standards and service levels.
To develop the recommended fees for the Exchange Visitor Program,
the Department developed a bottom-up, requirements-based budget
targeting FY08 as the implementation year for the new fees. In this
approach, the Department defined the actual resource requirement to
perform all of the activities necessary to deliver program services
within existing performance targets and goals. This approach focused on
determining the budget required to meet this performance, and then
using this budget as the basis to establish fees. In addition, the
Department developed the budget requirement for a two-year period (FY08
and FY09) to coincide with the lifecycle of the fee as prescribed by
the Chief Financial Officers' Act of 1994.
This section presents the budget requirement formulation process
followed to formulate the FY08 and FY09 budget requirements and
establish the recommended fees. Program requirements were also
projected through FY12 based on current performance and growth
projections. By looking forward to future expected output vs. future
expected costs, the organization can set realistic fees instead of
depending on historical costs.
Exchange Visitor Program Budget Formulation
EVP followed a fourstep process to develop the FY08 and FY09 budget
requirement:
[[Page 34422]]
Step 1--Identify Strategy, Goals and Objectives.
Step 2--Develop Workload Requirements.
Step 3--Determine Organizational Capacity.
Step 4--Calculate the Budget Requirement.
The budgeting process begins by determining the organization's main
objectives and goals and envisioning a desired end-state. After mapping
out the strategy and goals, the next step is to develop performance
measures to gauge how the organization is progressing to achieving the
desired result. The next task is to develop a reliable forecast of the
expected volume of work in the upcoming period, as well as to identify
new requirements or initiatives that are needed to achieve the goals
and meet performance standards. The next step is to determine the
capacity and capability of the organization as it currently exists,
compare expected workload to existing capacity, and determine any
additional workload requirement. The final step is to then perform the
calculations to translate goals/objectives into financial and human
resource requirements.
Workload Requirements
The most basic element needed to develop the budget requirement for
FY08 is an accurate estimation of expected workload. To develop
workload estimates for the Exchange Visitor Program, the activities in
the ABC model were divided into two general categories: (1)
Application-based; and (2) non-application based. The following
processes were then used to develop application volume estimates,
workload estimates and, subsequently, budget requirements.
Total hours required to perform application-based workload:
Estimate the expected demand (future volume) for each type
of application, or output;
Determine the cycle time to produce each individual
output; and
Multiply the expected application volumes by the cycle
times to calculate the total work hours required to perform the
application-based workload.
Total hours required for non-application based workload:
Measure the percentage of time spent across the
organization on non-application-based workload;
Convert this percentage into hours; and,
Hold these hours as fixed cost (these hours can be held as
step-fixed if application based workload is expected to increase
materially going forward.)
Application Volume
To develop the workload estimates, application volumes from SEVIS
for FY03-FY06 (to date) were collected. These data and other
information regarding expected application demand were used to project
workload volume for FY07-FY12.
Assumptions
FY07 expected volumes are based on the average of the
volumes from prior years. For Amendments, a one-time spike of 80
applications is expected due to the implementation of the Intern
program category. For Extensions and Reinstatement-Update SEVIS Status,
FY07 volumes were calculated by applying a 2% growth rate to FY06
figures because of insufficient historical data.
FY08-FY12 expected volumes were calculated by applying a
2% annual growth rate. Permission to Issue volumes were held constant
to reflect the estimated workload demand, since no SEVIS data exists
for this application type.
Cycle Time
EVP staff were surveyed to collect percentage of time estimates
that each staff member spent to complete one application or request for
each application type. The Department also performed a sampling
exercise to validate the estimates collected in the survey. Over a
five-day period, observations of the actual time spent performing the
individual tasks for each activity were collected. A mean for each task
was established and then summed to calculate the mean cycle time for
each application type.
Total Workload Requirement
With cycle time information and forecasts for application volumes,
the total application-based workload requirement was calculated, in
hours, for FY07-FY12.
Organizational Capacity
To determine capacity of the current organization, the Department
calculated the ratio of FTE hours dedicated towards application work
and non-application work. ECA/EC staff completed activity surveys to
provide estimates for percentage of time spent performing each
activity, as defined in the ABC model. Survey data was summarized
across office and position levels, and the percentage of application
and non-application-based workload was determined. The Department used
the OMB Circular A-76 standard of 1776 hours for the total number of
productive hours for a Federal employee as the basis for establishing
hours and FTE levels.
The Department compared the total number of hours required to
complete the application-based workload to the existing total capacity
for application based-workload. This provided the gap between capacity
and the true workload requirement. For forecasting purposes, non-
application-based costs were held as fixed. The total number of
application hours in excess of capacity was divided by 1776 to quantify
an FTE requirement in future years.
Budget Formulation
Once the forecasted workload requirement was established, the
future budgets for each general cost ``pools'' included in the full
cost of the Exchange Visitor Program were developed.
ECA/EC Direct Cost Estimation
ECA/EC Direct Costs were provided by the ECA Executive Office (ECA-
IIP/EX) budget staff. Labor costs were determined according to the
grade level of each employee within ECA/EC. We used the following
assumptions in estimating ECA/EC Direct Costs:
Estimated salary and benefits based on OPM's Washington,
DC-area GS salary table, assuming Step 5;
Estimated salary and benefit costs based on grade levels,
as recommended in an organizational analysis performed by ECA/EC;
Applied the OMB Circular A-76 standard of 32.85% for
fringe benefits for each employee;
For FY07-FY12, applied a 3.1% COLA growth rate to salaries
to account for inflation;
FY07 staffing model reflects the following expected staff
additions:
[cir] Compliance Division: 1 GS-9, 1 GS-13;
[cir] Private Sector Programs Division: 1 Program officer at GS-13;
and,
[cir] Office of the Director: 1 Deputy Director at GS-15.
Cycle times were established assuming standard processes
and current performance standards;
FY08-FY12 costs were estimated factoring in the additional
resources required as estimated in the workload analysis; and,
Non-application workload was held as fixed and all
additional resources were applied 100% to application workload.
For non-labor costs, ECA-IIP/EX provided detailed transaction data
pulled from Corporate Financial Management System (CFMS) for fund
X0113.P (fee account) to identify ECA/EC direct costs for FY05 and
FY06. Basic assumptions and or growth rates
[[Page 34423]]
were applied to estimate all non-labor direct costs.
ECA Bureau-Wide Cost Estimation
ECA Bureau-wide costs represent indirect costs to provide joint or
common services across the Bureau. No direct or cause and effect
relationships are evident for these costs. Consequently, reasonable
allocation methodologies were used to determine the appropriate amount
of cost to allocate to ECA/EC for inclusion in the full cost model. ECA
Bureau-wide costs were divided into two pools of cost: Labor and Non-
labor. Then Application Development costs were separated from the Non-
labor cost pool, as different cost allocation methodologies were used
to perform cost allocation for this line item.
Labor Costs
A 3.1% COLA growth rate was applied to the pro-rated
figures.
Non-labor Costs
The average percentage of PD&A costs to the overall
Exchanges Support budget using FY05 and FY06 figures was calculated and
used to derive the PD&A costs for FY07.
Using FY05 and FY06 figures, the average percentage of the
individual PD&A line items to the total PD&A amount was calculated.
These average rates were applied to the FY07 PD&A summary amount to
calculate the individual PD&A line items in order to derive an
estimated value for the Application Development line item for FY07.
Using FY05 and FY06 values, the Department developed the
average percentage of ECA Application Development costs allocated to
ECA/EC. The FY07 Application Development line item was then multiplied
by the rate to develop pro-rated FY07 application development costs.
To forecast the ECA Bureau-wide figures for FY08-12, a 4%
estimated growth rate for FY08 and a 2% estimated growth rate for FY09-
FY12 was applied to the Exchanges Support line item as presented in the
FY07 CBJ. The PD&A summary figure and individual line items were then
calculated using the FY05-06 average percentage rates.
The same estimated growth rates were used to forecast the
ECA FTE figures and develop ECA/EC to ECA FTE ratios for FY08-FY12.
Finally, the forecasted numbers were pro-rated using the
forecasted FTE and Funds Managed ratios as previously described.
Department-Wide Cost Estimation
Department-wide costs were collected from the FY07 CBJ. This
document provided actual costs for FY05, estimated costs for FY06, and
budgeted requests for FY07 for both cost and FTE. The following
variables were used to forecast the Department-wide costs for FY08-12,
based on the figures presented in the FY07 CBJ:
A 3.1% COLA growth rate (applied to FY07 CBJ) for pro-
rated personnel compensation costs; and
Average % increase from prior 2 years applied to FY07
budget figures for GSA rent figures.
ECA/EC FY08 Budget Model
The final step in the budgeting process was to align the budget
requirement to its funding sources. ECA/EC has three sources of funds:
1. Exchange Visitor Program Fees--revenue generated by the Program
Designation and Exchange Visitor Changes Fees;
2. DHS ICE Reimbursable Agreement--reimbursement for expenses to
support SEVIS development, operations and maintenance; and,
3. Direct Appropriation--funding to cover operations of the ECA/EC
G-1 Program and Coordination Division.
To accomplish this, the ABC model was architected to align the
costs of program outputs to their respective funding sources. Using the
same basic model architecture, model periods for FY07-FY12 were
established and the output volumes, activity drivers and budgetary
resources were adjusted according to forecasts. Finally, the Department
entered the forecasted costs of the organization, aligned those costs
according to the appropriate funding source, and calculated the model
to determine the total budget requirement to be recovered in Exchange
Visitor Program user fees.
Recommended Fees
To set the recommended fees, the budget periods of the Exchange
Visitor Program ABC Model were calculated to develop the cost of each
fee category for FY07-12 based on forecasts. The units were calculated
based on the expected periodicity of the fee defined in the fee
structure.
To set the recommended fee, the budget requirement and forecasted
number of units for FY08 and FY09 were combined to reflect the two-year
expected life cycle of the new fee. The Department divided the total
cost by the total forecasted volume for each fee category to calculate
the unit-based fee.
The Chief Financial Officer Act of 1994 and OMB Circular A-25
require that fees be reviewed every two years. ECA/EC will operate and
maintain the ABC model in order to monitor the program against its
financial plan as part of ongoing operations. Every two years, ECA/EC
will revise the model as necessary and evaluate the fee structure and
fee amounts. As the Exchange Visitor Program evolves, any program
changes will be reflected in the costs model and the fees will change
accordingly.
The new fees will be flat fees, i.e., they will not vary based on
program size and exchange visitor volume. Future fees, however, may be
higher or lower depending on how volumes and costs vary in the future.
Regulatory Analysis
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United
States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not
subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
This rule is not subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act or any other act and,
accordingly it does not require analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and Executive Order 13272,
section 3(b).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA),
Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires
agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may
result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State,
local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will
not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for
purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
121. 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 adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of United
[[Page 34424]]
States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in
domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Review
The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its
consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in
Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of the
proposed regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider
the rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of
section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order, since it is not likely to have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state,
local, or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or 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 rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The
regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this regulation.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the proposed regulations in light of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate
ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and
reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 62
Cultural Exchange Programs.
Accordingly, 22 CFR part 62 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 62--EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 62 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), 1182, 1184, 1258, 1372
(2001), 1701-1775 (2002); 22 U.S.C. 1431-1442, 2451-2460; 6501
(1998); 5 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1-11 (1977); Reorganization Plan No. 2
of 1977, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 200; E.O. 12048 of March 27, 1978; 3
CFR, 1978 Comp. p. 168.
2. Revise Sec. 62.17 to read as follows:
Sec. 62.17 Fees and charges.
(a) Remittances. Fees prescribed within the framework of 31 U.S.C.
9701 must be submitted as directed by the Department and must be in the
amount prescribed by law or regulation.
(b) Amounts of fees. The following fees are prescribed for Fiscal
Years 2008-2009 (October 1, 2007-September 30, 2009):
(1) For filing an application for program designation and/or
redesignation (Form DS-3036)--$1,748.
(2) For filing an application for exchange visitor status changes
(i.e., extension beyond the maximum duration, change of category,
reinstatement, reinstatement-update SEVIS status, ECFMG sponsorship
authorization, and permission to issue)--$246.
Subpart H--[Removed]
Sec. 62.90 [Removed]
3. Remove Subpart H--Fees and Sec. 62.90.
Dated: June 12, 2007.
Stanley S. Colvin,
Director, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7-11810 Filed 6-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
