Exchange Visitor Program-Sanctions and Terminations, 62112-62117 [E7-21522]
Download as PDF
62112
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it
is certified that this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking is promulgated
under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section
40103. Under that section, the FAA is
charged with prescribing regulations to
assign the use of the airspace necessary
to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
since it contains aircraft executing
instrument approach procedures to
Gould Peterson Municipal Airport,
Tarkio, MO.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
I
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;
AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING
POINTS
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of Federal aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, signed
August 15, 2007, and effective
September 15, 2007, is amended as
follows:
I
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
ACE E5 Tarkio, MO [New]
Gould Peterson Municipal Airport, Tarkio,
MO
(Lat. 40°26′46″ N., long. 95°22′02″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile
radius of Gould Peterson Municipal Airport,
Tarkio, MO.
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
*
*
16:25 Nov 01, 2007
Jkt 214001
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 11,
2007.
Ronnie L. Uhlenhaker,
Manager, System Support Group, ATO
Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 07–5425 Filed 11–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 62
[Public Notice: 5981]
RIN 1400–AC29
Exchange Visitor Program—Sanctions
and Terminations
Department of State.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department is amending
its regulations to add to and modify the
existing actions for which the
Department may sanction a sponsor.
The change in the regulations will
streamline the review process to offer
sanctioned sponsors the procedural due
process rights equal to those that the
Administrative Procedure Act
guarantees. In addition, the Final Rule
eliminates summary suspension and
modifies program suspension to halt the
activities of a sponsor that has
committed a serious act of omission or
commission which has or could have
the effect of endangering the health,
safety, or welfare of an exchange visitor,
or damage the national security interests
of the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: This Final Rule is
effective 30 days from November 2,
2007.
The
former United States Information
Agency (USIA) and, as of October 1,
1999, its successor, the U.S. Department
of State (Department), have promulgated
regulations governing the Exchange
Visitor Program. Those regulations now
appear at 22 CFR Part 62. The
regulations governing sanctions appear
at 22 CFR 62.50, and regulations
governing termination of a sponsor’s
designation, at 22 CFR 62.60 through
62.62. The ultimate goals of the
sanctions regulations are to further the
foreign policy interests of the United
States, and to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of Exchange Visitor
Program participants. These regulations
largely have remained unchanged since
1993, when the USIA undertook a major
regulatory reform of the Exchange
Visitor Program, as administered by the
Office of Exchange Coordination and
Designation (Office).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
On May 31, 2007, the Department
published a Proposed Rule on sanctions
and terminations with a comment
period ending July 30, 2007. 72 FR
30302–30308. Forty-nine (49) parties
filed comments, which the Department
reviewed and evaluated. The Alliance
for International Educational and
Cultural Exchange (Alliance), a
membership organization, and the
Council on International Educational
Exchange (CIEE) represented a number
of individual designated program
sponsors in their comments. Twentyfive (25) commenting parties favored the
Proposed Rule. The remaining
commenting parties criticized the
Proposed Rule in one or more respects,
and several parties recommended
changes to the Proposed Rule.
Having thoroughly reviewed the
comments and the changes that
commenting parties recommended, the
Department has determined that it will,
and hereby does, adopt the Proposed
Rule, with minor edits, and promulgates
it as a Final Rule. The Department’s
evaluation of the written comments and
recommendations follows.
As the Department noted in the
Supplementary Information accompanying
the Proposed Rule, The [Fulbright-Hays] Act
authorizes the President to provide for such
exchanges if it would strengthen
international cooperative relations. The
language of the Act and its legislative history
make it clear that the Congress considered
international educational and cultural
exchanges to be a significant part of the
public diplomacy efforts of the President in
connection with Constitutional prerogatives
in conducting foreign affairs. Thus, exchange
visitor programs that do not further the
public diplomacy goals of the United States
should not be designated initially, or retain
their designation. Accordingly, it is
imperative that the Department have the
power to revoke program designations or
deny applications for program redesignation
when it determines that such programs do
not serve the country’s public diplomacy
goals.
The above statement is the
underpinning for the Department’s
entire approach to the sanctions regime
of the Exchange Visitor Program.
Comment Analysis
One of the overall criticisms of the
Proposed Rule was that the Department
eliminated the requirement that it find
alleged violations of Part 62 to be willful
or negligent before imposing sanctions.
Fifteen (15) comments were opposed to
the change. The Department believes
that such criticism is without merit. A
program sponsor, prior to being
designated or redesignated, must
demonstrate that it (i.e., the responsible
officer and alternate responsible
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
officer(s)), its employees, and third
parties acting on its behalf have the
knowledge and ability to comply and
remain in continual compliance with all
provisions of part 62. [§ 62.3(b)(1);
§ 62.9(a) and (f)(1) and (2); and
§ 62.11(a).] Since knowledge and ability
to comply and remain in full
compliance with the regulations are
fundamental requirements of sponsor
designation, it is essentially irrelevant
whether a sponsor violates regulations
willfully, negligently, or even
inadvertently. Violations, whether or
not willful or negligent, may harm the
national security or the public
diplomacy goals of the United States, or
pose a threat to the health, safety or
welfare of program participants, and the
Department must have the capacity to
respond appropriately. Moreover, the
process set forth in the revised sanctions
regulations provides that a sponsor
being sanctioned may submit a
statement in opposition to or mitigation
of the proposed sanction. This process
provides the sponsor with the
opportunity to explain the
circumstances of the alleged violation,
and to argue that a lesser sanction, or no
sanction at all, would be appropriate in
view of those circumstances. In
addition, the review process available
for significant sanctions provides a
second opportunity for the sponsor to
make its case before a panel of three
Review Officers not connected with the
Exchange Visitor Program, thus
affording additional protection from the
arbitrary or capricious imposition of
sanctions. A total of sixteen (16)
comments were in favor of the change.
Twelve (12) commenting parties
opined that the criteria for imposing
sanctions are extremely broad and do
not provide an adequate basis for the
Department to determine, for example,
under what circumstances it would
propose to terminate rather than
suspend a sponsor’s designation or
impose lesser sanctions. It should be
noted in this regard that four of the six
grounds for imposing sanctions are the
same as those in the prior rule. The two
new grounds—actions that may
compromise the national security of the
United States or undermine its foreign
policy objectives—are of a nature that
inherently requires broad discretion in
the choice of appropriate sanctions.
Moreover, as previously noted, the
process for imposing and reviewing
proposed sanctions affords a sponsor
ample opportunity to argue that
alternative sanctions would be more
appropriate.
Nineteen (19) of the commenting
parties criticized the lack of an agency
review process for the ‘‘lesser
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:25 Nov 01, 2007
Jkt 214001
sanctions,’’ in which the decision of the
Office is the final Department decision.
[§ 62.50(b)] One (1) comment was in
favor. However, the lack of a review
process for ‘‘lesser sanctions’’ is
unchanged from the prior rule. Under
the prior rule, reduction in the size of
a sponsor’s program was deemed a
‘‘lesser sanction’’ (and thus not subject
to further agency review) if it was
limited to a reduction in participants of
10 percent or less or, in the case of a
geographical reduction, if it would not
cause a significant financial burden for
the sponsor. The only change in the
Proposed Rule was an increase in the
potential size of the reduction, from 10
to 15 percent, and the reminder that
subsequent 10-percent reductions may
be imposed in the case of continued
violations (a possibility that was
inherent in the prior rule). The reason
for the more limited process for ‘‘lesser
sanctions’’ remains the same as in the
prior rule: their relatively minor impact
on sponsors does not justify the burden
and expense, for both the Department
and sponsors, of the more extensive
process afforded for more significant
sanctions. The modest increase of 5
percent in the size of a potential
program reduction does not, in the
Department’s view, alter this rationale.
Fourteen (14) commenting parties
criticized the bases for and the process
by which the Department will
implement a suspension. The prior rule
allowed for ‘‘suspension’’ and
‘‘summary suspension.’’ In practice, the
Department never utilized the
suspension provision of the regulations,
and that provision is eliminated in the
Final Rule, which redesignates
‘‘summary suspension’’ as
‘‘suspension.’’ Under the prior rule,
only one ground for this sanction
existed: endangering the health, safety
or welfare of a participant. The Final
Rule adds another ground, the necessity
of which became apparent after the
events of 9/11: Damaging the national
security interests of the United States.
The Department believes that the
continued necessity for it to be able to
act swiftly, and with immediate effect,
in such circumstances is self-evident.
Moreover, it should be noted that the
summary process for such suspensions
has been improved for sponsors in two
respects. First, a sponsor is afforded
additional time in which to submit an
initial opposition to the suspension.
Second, such an opposition is received,
reviewed and decided at a higher level,
by the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Educational and Cultural
Affairs (PDAS) rather than by the Office.
As under the prior rule, the sponsor
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
62113
may seek further agency review of this
decision, by a three-member review
panel.
Thirteen (13) of the commenting
parties criticized new language
providing that the Department may
determine that a class of designated
programs compromises the national
security of the United States or no
longer furthers the public diplomacy
mission of the United States [§ 62.62].
Three (3) comments were in favor of this
regulation. If the Department makes
such a determination, it may revoke the
designations, or deny applications for
redesignation, of sponsors of that class
of exchange visitor programs. As the
Department noted in the Supplementary
Information accompanying the Proposed
Rule, the Exchange Visitor Program is
part of the Department’s public
diplomacy efforts in furtherance of the
President’s Constitutional prerogatives
in conducting foreign affairs.
Accordingly, the Department noted,
termination of a program category
because it no longer furthers the
Department’s public diplomacy mission,
or compromises national security, has
always been inherently within the
discretion of the Department. Following
9/11, the Department concluded that its
regulations should make that authority,
and the means by which it would be
exercised, explicit.
Thirteen (13) of the commenting
parties opposed the elimination of a
trial-type hearing in appeals of
significant sanctions. Moreover, those
same parties opine that the criteria for
imposing a suspension are more
stringent than the criteria for revoking a
designation or denying an application
for redesignation of a program.
It is entirely appropriate that the
grounds for the suspension sanction be
drawn far more narrowly than those for
the other significant sanctions.
Suspension represents a rapid response
to an urgent problem, with expedited
procedures including the possibility of
an immediately effective sanction, not
stayed by any opposition or request for
review. In this, it is unlike any other
sanction. That is why it is reserved for
violations whose seriousness justifies it:
Cases in which national security is
compromised, or in which a danger is
posed to the health, safety or welfare of
participants. It would be inappropriate
to apply its procedures to other
violations; and it would be equally
inappropriate to restrict the availability
of other sanctions to its narrow grounds.
With regard to the elimination of trialtype review procedures for significant
sanctions, the Department has found
that such procedures are costly, timeconsuming and burdensome for both the
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
62114
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Department and sponsors. As noted in
the Supplementary Information
accompanying the Proposed Rule, such
procedures are not required by any
applicable statute, and are not necessary
to afford due process. Under the Final
Rule, sponsors are afforded notice and
ample, repeated opportunities to be
heard. When the Office proposes a
significant sanction, a sponsor may
submit to the PDAS an opposition,
including factual and legal arguments
and additional documentary material,
such as affidavits and other evidence.
Following a statement in response by
the Office, the PDAS issues a written,
reasoned decision confirming,
withdrawing or modifying the sanction.
The sponsor may then seek review of
the PDAS decision, before a threemember panel, no member of which
may be from the Bureau of Educational
and Cultural Affairs (of which the Office
forms a part, and which is supervised by
the PDAS). Once again, the sponsor has
the opportunity to file a statement
setting forth arguments of fact and law,
accompanied by documentary evidence
and other attachments. Following a
statement in response by the PDAS, the
review panel may, at its discretion,
convene a brief meeting with the
parties, solely for the purpose of
clarifying the written submissions. Then
the review panel issues a written,
reasoned decision confirming,
withdrawing or modifying the sanction.
This procedure affords ample notice and
opportunity to be heard, with a
reasoned decision on a clear record. If
the program sponsor is not satisfied
with the decision ultimately reached by
the Review Officers, it continues to have
the same opportunities as before to seek
relief in an appropriate court.
Finally, ten (10) of the commenting
parties requested that sponsors be given
the opportunity to cure alleged
violations before the Department
imposes sanctions. The Department
believes that if it were to provide
sponsors in all cases the automatic right
to cure an alleged violation or
deficiency with no risk that an actual
sanction will be imposed, then the
deterrent effect of the sanctions regime
effectively would be eliminated.
However, as a practical matter, the
Office seldom proposes formal sanctions
without first engaging in informal
discussions seeking to bring the sponsor
into voluntary compliance. Moreover,
although there is no right to cure, a
sponsor facing the imposition of
sanctions certainly may offer a
settlement or, in submitting its
statement in opposition to or mitigation
of the sanction, show it has cured the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:25 Nov 01, 2007
Jkt 214001
alleged violations and argue for a less
severe sanction, or no sanction at all,
and may request a meeting to present its
views.
Seven (7) comments favored, and two
opposed, the paper review set forth at
§ 62.50(f). The comments stated that a
review should also include statements
and information provided by exchange
visitor participants, concerned citizens,
and school officials.
Thirteen (13) comments were received
in favor of a sponsor’s not being able to
reapply for designation for a minimum
of five (5) years once a designation has
been revoked.
For the foregoing reasons, the
Department is promulgating the
Proposed Rule as a Final Rule.
Regulatory Analysis
Administrative Procedure Act,
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
The Department has determined that
this Final Rule involves a foreign affairs
function of the United States and is
consequently exempt from the
procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 553
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
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
businesses.
The Final Rule has been found not to
be a major rule within the meaning of
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It
will not have a substantial effect on the
States, the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, it has
been determined that the Final Rule
does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant application of
the consultation provisions of Executive
Orders 12372 and 13132.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive
Order 13272: Small Business
Since this rulemaking is exempt from
5 U.S.C. 553 and no other law required
the Department to give notice of
proposed rulemaking, this rulemaking
also is not subject to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or
Executive Order 13272, § 3(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Nonetheless, the Department has
analyzed the provisions of the Final
Rule and certifies that it will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Executive Order 12866, as Amended
The Department does not consider
this Final Rule to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866, as amended, § 3(f),
Regulatory Planning and Review. In
addition, the Department is exempt
from Executive Order 12866 except to
the extent that it is promulgating, in
conjunction with a domestic agency,
regulations that are significant
regulatory actions. The Department has,
nevertheless, reviewed the Final Rule to
ensure its consistency with the
regulatory philosophy and principles set
forth in that Executive Order.
Executive Order 12988
The Department has reviewed this
Final Rule in light of §§ 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate
ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish
clear legal standards, and reduce
burden.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132
This Final Rule will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with § 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This Final Rule does not impose any
new reporting or recordkeeping
requirements subject to 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
amended as follows:
I
PART 62—EXCHANGE VISITOR
PROGRAM
1. The Authority citation for part 62
is amended as follows:
I
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), 1182,
1184, 1258; 22 U.S.C. 1431–1442, 2451–2460;
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act
of 1998, Pub. L. 105–277, Div. G, 112 Stat.
2681–761 et seq.; 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; the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of
1996, Pub. L. 104–208, Div. C, 110 Stat.
3009–546, as amended; Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA
PATRIOT ACT), Pub. L. 107–56, Sec. 416,
115 Stat. 354; and the Enhanced Border
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002,
Pub. L. 107–173, 116 Stat. 543.
2. Section 62.50 is revised to read as
follows:
I
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
§ 62.50
Sanctions.
(a) Reasons for sanctions. The
Department of State (Department) may
impose sanctions against a sponsor
upon a finding by its Office of Exchange
Coordination and Designation (Office)
that the sponsor has:
(1) Violated one or more provisions of
this Part;
(2) Evidenced a pattern of failure to
comply with one or more provisions of
this Part;
(3) Committed an act of omission or
commission, which has or could have
the effect of endangering the health,
safety, or welfare of an exchange visitor;
or
(4) Otherwise conducted its program
in such a way as to undermine the
foreign policy objectives of the United
States, compromise the national security
interests of the United States, or bring
the Department or the Exchange Visitor
Program into notoriety or disrepute.
(b) Lesser sanctions. (1) In order to
ensure full compliance with the
regulations in this Part, the Department,
in its discretion and depending on the
nature and seriousness of the violation,
may impose any or all of the following
sanctions ( ‘‘lesser sanctions’’) on a
sponsor upon a finding that the sponsor
engaged in any of the acts or omissions
set forth in § 62.50(a):
(i) A written reprimand to the
sponsor, with a warning that repeated or
persistent violations of the regulations
in this Part may result in suspension or
revocation of the sponsor’s Exchange
Visitor Program designation, or other
sanctions as set forth herein;
(ii) A declaration placing the
exchange visitor sponsor’s program on
probation, for a period of time
determined by the Department in its
discretion, signifying a pattern of
violation of regulations such that further
violations could lead to suspension or
revocation of the sponsor’s Exchange
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:25 Nov 01, 2007
Jkt 214001
Visitor Program designation, or other
sanctions as set forth herein;
(iii) A corrective action plan designed
to cure the sponsor’s violations; or
(iv) Up to a 15 percent (15%)
reduction in the authorized number of
exchange visitors in the sponsor’s
program or in the geographic area of its
recruitment or activity. If the sponsor
continues to violate the regulations in
this Part, the Department may impose
subsequent additional reductions, in
ten-percent (10%) increments, in the
authorized number of exchange visitors
in the sponsor’s program or in the
geographic area of its recruitment or
activity.
(2) Within ten (10) days after service
of the written notice to the sponsor
imposing any of the sanctions set forth
in § 62.50(b)(1), the sponsor may submit
to the Office a statement in opposition
to or mitigation of the sanction. Such
statement may not exceed 20 pages in
length, double-spaced and, if
appropriate, may include additional
documentary material. Sponsors shall
include with all documentary material
an index of the documents and a
summary of the relevance of each
document presented. Upon review and
consideration of such submission, the
Office may, in its discretion, modify,
withdraw, or confirm such sanction. All
materials the sponsor submits will
become a part of the sponsor’s file with
the Office.
(3) The decision of the Office is the
final Department decision with regard to
lesser sanctions in § 62.50(b)(1)(i)–(iv).
(c) Suspension. (1) Upon a finding
that a sponsor has committed a serious
act of omission or commission which
has or could have the effect of
endangering the health, safety, or
welfare of an exchange visitor, or of
damaging the national security interests
of the United States, the Office may
serve the sponsor with written notice of
its decision to suspend the designation
of the sponsor’s program for a period
not to exceed one hundred twenty (120)
days. Such notice must specify the
grounds for the sanction and the
effective date thereof, advise the
sponsor of its right to oppose the
suspension, and identify the procedures
for submitting a statement of opposition
thereto. Suspension under this
paragraph need not be preceded by the
imposition of any other sanction or
notice.
(2)(i) Within five (5) days after service
of such notice, the sponsor may submit
to the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Educational and Cultural
Affairs (Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, or PDAS) a statement in
opposition to the Office’s decision. Such
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
62115
statement may not exceed 20 pages in
length, double-spaced and, if
appropriate, may include additional
documentary material. A sponsor shall
include with all documentary material
an index of the documents and a
summary of the relevance of each
document presented. The submission of
a statement in opposition to the Office’s
decision will not serve to stay the
effective date of the suspension.
(ii) Within five (5) days after receipt
of, and upon consideration of, such
opposition, the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary shall confirm,
modify, or withdraw the suspension by
serving the sponsor with a written
decision. Such decision must specify
the grounds therefore, and advise the
sponsor of the procedures for requesting
review of the decision.
(iii) All materials the sponsor submits
will become a part of the sponsor’s file
with the Office.
(3) The procedures for review of the
decision of the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary are set forth in
§§ 62.50(d)(3) and (4), (g), and (h),
except that the submission of a request
for review will not serve to stay the
suspension.
(d) Revocation of designation. (1)
Upon a finding of any act or omission
set forth at § 62.50(a), the Office may
serve a sponsor with not less than thirty
(30) days’ written notice of its intent to
revoke the sponsor’s Exchange Visitor
Program designation. Such notice must
specify the grounds for the proposed
sanction and its effective date, advise
the sponsor of its right to oppose the
proposed sanction, and identify the
procedures for submitting a statement of
opposition thereto. Revocation of
designation under this paragraph need
not be preceded by the imposition of
any other sanction or notice.
(2)(i) Within ten (10) days after
service of such written notice of intent
to revoke designation, the sponsor may
submit to the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary a statement in opposition to or
mitigation of the proposed sanction,
which may include a request for a
meeting.
(ii) The submission of such statement
will serve to stay the effective date of
the proposed sanction pending the
decision of the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary.
(iii) The Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary shall provide a copy of the
statement in opposition to or mitigation
of the proposed sanction to the Office.
The Office shall submit a statement in
response, and shall provide the sponsor
with a copy thereof.
(iv) A statement in opposition to or
mitigation of the proposed sanction, or
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
62116
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
statement in response thereto, may not
exceed 25 pages in length, doublespaced and, if appropriate, may include
additional documentary material. Any
additional documentary material may
include an index of the documents and
a summary of the relevance of each
document presented.
(v) Upon consideration of such
statements, the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary shall modify,
withdraw, or confirm the proposed
sanction by serving the sponsor with a
written decision. Such decision shall
specify the grounds therefor, identify its
effective date, advise the sponsor of its
right to request a review, and identify
the procedures for requesting such
review.
(vi) All materials the sponsor submits
will become a part of the sponsor’s file
with the Office.
(3) Within ten (10) days after service
of such written notice of the decision of
the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, the sponsor may submit a
request for review with the Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary. The
submission of such request for review
will serve to stay the effective date of
the decision pending the outcome of the
review.
(4) Within ten (10) days after receipt
of such request for review, the
Department shall designate a panel of
three Review Officers pursuant to
§ 62.50(g), and the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary shall forward to
each panel member all notices,
statements, and decisions submitted or
provided pursuant to the preceding
paragraphs of § 62.50(d). Thereafter, the
review will be conducted pursuant to
§ 62.50(g) and (h).
(e) Denial of application for
redesignation. Upon a finding of any act
or omission set forth at § 62.50(a), the
Office may serve a sponsor with not less
than thirty (30) days’ written notice of
its intent to deny the sponsor’s
application for redesignation. Such
notice must specify the grounds for the
proposed sanction and its effective date,
advise the sponsor of its right to oppose
the proposed sanction, and identify the
procedures for submitting a statement of
opposition thereto. Denial of
redesignation under this section need
not be preceded by the imposition of
any other sanction or notice. The
procedures for opposing a proposed
denial of redesignation are set forth in
§ 62.50(d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (g), and (h).
(f) Responsible officers. The Office
may direct a sponsor to suspend or
revoke the appointment of a responsible
officer or alternate responsible officer
for any of the reasons set forth in
§ 62.50(a). The procedures for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:25 Nov 01, 2007
Jkt 214001
suspending or revoking a responsible
officer or alternate responsible officer
are set forth at § 62.50(d), (g), and (h).
(g) Review officers. A panel of three
Review Officers shall hear a sponsor’s
request for review pursuant to
§ 62.50(c), (d), (e), and (f). The Under
Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy
and Public Affairs shall designate one
senior official from an office reporting to
him/her, other than from the Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs, as a
member of the Panel. The Assistant
Secretary of State for Consular Affairs
and the Legal Adviser shall each
designate one senior official from their
bureaus as members of the Panel.
(h) Review. The Review Officers may
affirm, modify, or reverse the sanction
imposed by the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary. The following
procedures shall apply to the review:
(1) Upon its designation, the panel of
Review Officers shall promptly notify
the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and the sponsor in writing of the
identity of the Review Officers and the
address to which all communications
with the Review Officers shall be
directed.
(2) Within fifteen (15) days after
service of such notice, the sponsor may
submit to the Review Officers four (4)
copies of a statement identifying the
grounds on which the sponsor asserts
that the decision of the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary should be reversed
or modified. Any such statement may
not exceed 25 pages in length, doublespaced; and any attachments thereto
shall not exceed 50 pages. A sponsor
shall include with all attachments an
index of the documents and a summary
of the relevance of each document
presented. The Review Officers shall
transmit one (1) copy of any such
statement to the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary, who shall, within
fifteen (15) days after receipt of such
statement, submit four (4) copies of a
statement in response. Any such
statement may not exceed 25 pages in
length, double-spaced; and any
attachments thereto shall not exceed 50
pages. The Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary shall include with all
attachments an index of the documents
and a summary of the relevance of each
document presented. The Review
Officers shall transmit one (1) copy of
any such statement to the sponsor. No
other submissions may be made unless
specifically authorized by the Review
Officers.
(3) If the Review Officers determine,
in their sole discretion, that a meeting
for the purpose of clarification of the
written submissions should be held,
they shall schedule a meeting to be held
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
within twenty (20) days after the receipt
of the last written submission. The
meeting will be limited to no more than
two (2) hours. The purpose of the
meeting will be limited to the
clarification of the written submissions.
No transcript may be taken and no
evidence, either through documents or
by witnesses, will be received. The
sponsor and the representative of the
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
may attend the meeting on their own
behalf and may be accompanied by
counsel.
(4) Following the conclusion of the
meeting, or the submission of the last
written submission if no meeting is
held, the Review Officers shall promptly
review the submissions of the sponsor
and the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, and shall issue a signed
written decision within thirty (30) days,
stating the basis for their decision. A
copy of the decision will be delivered to
the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and the sponsor.
(5) If the Review Officers decide to
affirm or modify the sanction, a copy of
their decision shall also be delivered to
the Department of Homeland Security
and to the Bureau of Consular Affairs of
the Department of State. The Office, at
its discretion, may further distribute the
decision.
(6) Unless otherwise indicated, the
sanction, if affirmed or modified, is
effective as of the date of the Review
Officers’ written decision, except in the
case of suspension of program
designation, which is effective as of the
date specified pursuant to § 62.50(c).
(i) Effect of suspension, revocation, or
denial of redesignation. A sponsor
against which an order of suspension,
revocation, or denial of redesignation
has become effective may not thereafter
issue any Certificate of Eligibility for
Exchange Visitor (J–1) Status (Form DS–
2019) or advertise, recruit for, or
otherwise promote its program. Under
no circumstances shall the sponsor
facilitate the entry of an exchange
visitor into the United States. An order
of suspension, revocation, or denial of
redesignation will not in any way
diminish or restrict the sponsor’s legal
or financial responsibilities to existing
program applicants or participants.
(j) Miscellaneous—(1) Computation of
time. In computing any period of time
prescribed or allowed by these
regulations, the day of the act or event
from which the designated period of
time begins to run is not included. The
last day of the period so computed is
included unless it is a Saturday, a
Sunday, or a Federal legal holiday, in
which event the period runs until the
end of the next day which is not one of
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
the aforementioned days. When the
period of time prescribed or allowed is
fewer than eleven (11) days,
intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, or
Federal legal holidays are excluded in
the computation.
(2) Service of notice to sponsor.
Service of notice to a sponsor pursuant
to this section may be accomplished
through written notice by mail, delivery,
or facsimile, upon the president, chief
executive officer, managing director,
General Counsel, responsible officer, or
alternate responsible officer of the
sponsor.
I 3. Subpart E is revised to read as
follows:
Subpart E—Termination and
Revocation of Programs
Sec.
62.60 Termination of designation.
62.61 Revocation.
62.62 Termination of, or denial of
redesignation for, a class of designated
programs.
62.63 Responsibilities of the sponsor upon
termination or revocation.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
§ 62.60
Termination of designation.
Designation will be terminated upon
the occurrence of any of the
circumstances set forth in this section.
(a) Voluntary termination. A sponsor
notifies the Department of its intent to
terminate its designation voluntarily
and withdraws its program in SEVIS via
submission of a ‘‘cancel program’’
request. The sponsor’s designation shall
terminate upon submission of such
notification. Such sponsor may apply
for a new program designation.
(b) Inactivity. A sponsor fails to
comply with the minimum program size
or duration requirements, as specified in
§ 62.8 (a) and (b), in any 12-month
period. Such sponsor may apply for a
new program designation.
(c) Failure to file annual reports. A
sponsor fails to file annual reports for
two (2) consecutive years. Such sponsor
is eligible to apply for a new program
designation.
(d) Failure to file an annual
management audit. A sponsor fails to
file an annual management audit, if
such audits are required in the relevant
program category. Such sponsor is
eligible to apply for a new program
designation upon the filing of the past
due management audit.
(e) Change in ownership or control.
An exchange visitor program
designation is not assignable or
transferable. A major change in
ownership or control automatically
terminates the designation. However,
the successor sponsor may apply for
designation of the new entity, and it
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:25 Nov 01, 2007
Jkt 214001
may continue to administer the
exchange visitor activities of the
previously-designated program while
the application for designation is
pending before the Department of State:
(1) With respect to a for-profit
corporation, a major change in
ownership or control is deemed to have
occurred when one third (33.33%) or
more of its stock is sold or otherwise
transferred within a 12-month period;
(2) With respect to a not-for-profit
corporation, a major change of control is
deemed to have occurred when 51
percent (51%) or more of the board of
trustees or other like body, vested with
its management, is replaced within a 12month period.
(f) Non-compliance with other
requirements. A sponsor fails to remain
in compliance with Federal, State, local,
or professional requirements necessary
to carry out the activity for which it is
designated, including loss of
accreditation, or licensure.
(g) Failure to apply for redesignation.
A sponsor fails to apply for
redesignation, pursuant to the terms and
conditions of § 62.7, prior to the
conclusion of its current designation
period. If so terminated, the former
sponsor may apply for a new program
designation, but the program activity
will be suspended during the pendency
of the application.
§ 62.61
Revocation.
§ 62.62 Termination of, or denial of
redesignation for, a class of designated
programs.
The Department may, in its sole
discretion, determine that a class of
designated programs compromises the
national security of the United States or
no longer furthers the public diplomacy
mission of the Department of State.
Upon such a determination, the Office
shall:
(a) Give all sponsors of such class of
designated programs not less than thirty
(30) days’ written notice of the
revocation of Exchange Visitor Program
designations for such programs,
specifying therein the grounds and
effective date for such revocations; or
(b) Give any sponsor of such class of
designated programs not less than thirty
(30) days’ written notice of its denial of
the sponsor’s application for
redesignation, specifying therein the
grounds for such denial and effective
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
date of such denial. Revocation of
designation or denial of redesignation
on the above-specified grounds for a
class of designated programs is the final
decision of the Department.
§ 62.63 Responsibilities of the sponsor
upon termination or revocation.
Upon termination or revocation of its
program designation, a sponsor must:
(a) Fulfill its responsibilities to all
exchange visitors who are in the United
States at the time of the termination or
revocation; and
(b) Notify exchange visitors who have
not entered the United States that the
program has been terminated or
revoked, unless a transfer to another
designated program can be obtained.
Dated: October 22, 2007.
Stanley S. Colvin,
Director, Office of Exchange Coordination
and Designation, Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7–21522 Filed 11–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD05–07–088]
RIN 1625–AA00
The Department may terminate a
sponsor’s program designation by
revocation for cause as specified in
§ 62.50. Such sponsor may not apply for
a new designation for five (5) years
following the effective date of the
revocation.
PO 00000
62117
Sfmt 4700
Safety Zone: Holiday Flotilla Fireworks
Display, Motts Channel/ Banks
Channel, Wrightsville Beach, NC
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes the
establishment of a 1,000 foot safety zone
around a fireworks display for the North
Carolina Holiday Flotilla occurring on
November 24, 2007, on Motts Channel/
Banks Channel, Wrightsville Beach, NC.
This action is intended to restrict vessel
traffic on Motts Channel. This safety
zone is necessary to protect mariners
from the hazards associated with
fireworks displays.
DATES: This rule will be effective from
6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on November 24, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander,
Sector North Carolina, 2301 East Fort
Macon Road, Atlantic Beach, NC 28512.
Sector North Carolina maintains the
public docket for this rulemaking.
Comments and material received from
the public, as well as documents
indicated in this preamble as being
available in the docket, will become part
of this docket and will be available for
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 212 (Friday, November 2, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62112-62117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21522]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 62
[Public Notice: 5981]
RIN 1400-AC29
Exchange Visitor Program--Sanctions and Terminations
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department is amending its regulations to add to and
modify the existing actions for which the Department may sanction a
sponsor. The change in the regulations will streamline the review
process to offer sanctioned sponsors the procedural due process rights
equal to those that the Administrative Procedure Act guarantees. In
addition, the Final Rule eliminates summary suspension and modifies
program suspension to halt the activities of a sponsor that has
committed a serious act of omission or commission which has or could
have the effect of endangering the health, safety, or welfare of an
exchange visitor, or damage the national security interests of the
United States.
DATES: Effective Date: This Final Rule is effective 30 days from
November 2, 2007.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The former United States Information Agency
(USIA) and, as of October 1, 1999, its successor, the U.S. Department
of State (Department), have promulgated regulations governing the
Exchange Visitor Program. Those regulations now appear at 22 CFR Part
62. The regulations governing sanctions appear at 22 CFR 62.50, and
regulations governing termination of a sponsor's designation, at 22 CFR
62.60 through 62.62. The ultimate goals of the sanctions regulations
are to further the foreign policy interests of the United States, and
to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Exchange Visitor Program
participants. These regulations largely have remained unchanged since
1993, when the USIA undertook a major regulatory reform of the Exchange
Visitor Program, as administered by the Office of Exchange Coordination
and Designation (Office).
On May 31, 2007, the Department published a Proposed Rule on
sanctions and terminations with a comment period ending July 30, 2007.
72 FR 30302-30308. Forty-nine (49) parties filed comments, which the
Department reviewed and evaluated. The Alliance for International
Educational and Cultural Exchange (Alliance), a membership
organization, and the Council on International Educational Exchange
(CIEE) represented a number of individual designated program sponsors
in their comments. Twenty-five (25) commenting parties favored the
Proposed Rule. The remaining commenting parties criticized the Proposed
Rule in one or more respects, and several parties recommended changes
to the Proposed Rule.
Having thoroughly reviewed the comments and the changes that
commenting parties recommended, the Department has determined that it
will, and hereby does, adopt the Proposed Rule, with minor edits, and
promulgates it as a Final Rule. The Department's evaluation of the
written comments and recommendations follows.
As the Department noted in the Supplementary Information
accompanying the Proposed Rule, The [Fulbright-Hays] Act authorizes
the President to provide for such exchanges if it would strengthen
international cooperative relations. The language of the Act and its
legislative history make it clear that the Congress considered
international educational and cultural exchanges to be a significant
part of the public diplomacy efforts of the President in connection
with Constitutional prerogatives in conducting foreign affairs.
Thus, exchange visitor programs that do not further the public
diplomacy goals of the United States should not be designated
initially, or retain their designation. Accordingly, it is
imperative that the Department have the power to revoke program
designations or deny applications for program redesignation when it
determines that such programs do not serve the country's public
diplomacy goals.
The above statement is the underpinning for the Department's entire
approach to the sanctions regime of the Exchange Visitor Program.
Comment Analysis
One of the overall criticisms of the Proposed Rule was that the
Department eliminated the requirement that it find alleged violations
of Part 62 to be willful or negligent before imposing sanctions.
Fifteen (15) comments were opposed to the change. The Department
believes that such criticism is without merit. A program sponsor, prior
to being designated or redesignated, must demonstrate that it (i.e.,
the responsible officer and alternate responsible
[[Page 62113]]
officer(s)), its employees, and third parties acting on its behalf have
the knowledge and ability to comply and remain in continual compliance
with all provisions of part 62. [Sec. 62.3(b)(1); Sec. 62.9(a) and
(f)(1) and (2); and Sec. 62.11(a).] Since knowledge and ability to
comply and remain in full compliance with the regulations are
fundamental requirements of sponsor designation, it is essentially
irrelevant whether a sponsor violates regulations willfully,
negligently, or even inadvertently. Violations, whether or not willful
or negligent, may harm the national security or the public diplomacy
goals of the United States, or pose a threat to the health, safety or
welfare of program participants, and the Department must have the
capacity to respond appropriately. Moreover, the process set forth in
the revised sanctions regulations provides that a sponsor being
sanctioned may submit a statement in opposition to or mitigation of the
proposed sanction. This process provides the sponsor with the
opportunity to explain the circumstances of the alleged violation, and
to argue that a lesser sanction, or no sanction at all, would be
appropriate in view of those circumstances. In addition, the review
process available for significant sanctions provides a second
opportunity for the sponsor to make its case before a panel of three
Review Officers not connected with the Exchange Visitor Program, thus
affording additional protection from the arbitrary or capricious
imposition of sanctions. A total of sixteen (16) comments were in favor
of the change.
Twelve (12) commenting parties opined that the criteria for
imposing sanctions are extremely broad and do not provide an adequate
basis for the Department to determine, for example, under what
circumstances it would propose to terminate rather than suspend a
sponsor's designation or impose lesser sanctions. It should be noted in
this regard that four of the six grounds for imposing sanctions are the
same as those in the prior rule. The two new grounds--actions that may
compromise the national security of the United States or undermine its
foreign policy objectives--are of a nature that inherently requires
broad discretion in the choice of appropriate sanctions. Moreover, as
previously noted, the process for imposing and reviewing proposed
sanctions affords a sponsor ample opportunity to argue that alternative
sanctions would be more appropriate.
Nineteen (19) of the commenting parties criticized the lack of an
agency review process for the ``lesser sanctions,'' in which the
decision of the Office is the final Department decision. [Sec.
62.50(b)] One (1) comment was in favor. However, the lack of a review
process for ``lesser sanctions'' is unchanged from the prior rule.
Under the prior rule, reduction in the size of a sponsor's program was
deemed a ``lesser sanction'' (and thus not subject to further agency
review) if it was limited to a reduction in participants of 10 percent
or less or, in the case of a geographical reduction, if it would not
cause a significant financial burden for the sponsor. The only change
in the Proposed Rule was an increase in the potential size of the
reduction, from 10 to 15 percent, and the reminder that subsequent 10-
percent reductions may be imposed in the case of continued violations
(a possibility that was inherent in the prior rule). The reason for the
more limited process for ``lesser sanctions'' remains the same as in
the prior rule: their relatively minor impact on sponsors does not
justify the burden and expense, for both the Department and sponsors,
of the more extensive process afforded for more significant sanctions.
The modest increase of 5 percent in the size of a potential program
reduction does not, in the Department's view, alter this rationale.
Fourteen (14) commenting parties criticized the bases for and the
process by which the Department will implement a suspension. The prior
rule allowed for ``suspension'' and ``summary suspension.'' In
practice, the Department never utilized the suspension provision of the
regulations, and that provision is eliminated in the Final Rule, which
redesignates ``summary suspension'' as ``suspension.'' Under the prior
rule, only one ground for this sanction existed: endangering the
health, safety or welfare of a participant. The Final Rule adds another
ground, the necessity of which became apparent after the events of 9/
11: Damaging the national security interests of the United States. The
Department believes that the continued necessity for it to be able to
act swiftly, and with immediate effect, in such circumstances is self-
evident. Moreover, it should be noted that the summary process for such
suspensions has been improved for sponsors in two respects. First, a
sponsor is afforded additional time in which to submit an initial
opposition to the suspension. Second, such an opposition is received,
reviewed and decided at a higher level, by the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs (PDAS) rather
than by the Office. As under the prior rule, the sponsor may seek
further agency review of this decision, by a three-member review panel.
Thirteen (13) of the commenting parties criticized new language
providing that the Department may determine that a class of designated
programs compromises the national security of the United States or no
longer furthers the public diplomacy mission of the United States
[Sec. 62.62]. Three (3) comments were in favor of this regulation. If
the Department makes such a determination, it may revoke the
designations, or deny applications for redesignation, of sponsors of
that class of exchange visitor programs. As the Department noted in the
Supplementary Information accompanying the Proposed Rule, the Exchange
Visitor Program is part of the Department's public diplomacy efforts in
furtherance of the President's Constitutional prerogatives in
conducting foreign affairs. Accordingly, the Department noted,
termination of a program category because it no longer furthers the
Department's public diplomacy mission, or compromises national
security, has always been inherently within the discretion of the
Department. Following 9/11, the Department concluded that its
regulations should make that authority, and the means by which it would
be exercised, explicit.
Thirteen (13) of the commenting parties opposed the elimination of
a trial-type hearing in appeals of significant sanctions. Moreover,
those same parties opine that the criteria for imposing a suspension
are more stringent than the criteria for revoking a designation or
denying an application for redesignation of a program.
It is entirely appropriate that the grounds for the suspension
sanction be drawn far more narrowly than those for the other
significant sanctions. Suspension represents a rapid response to an
urgent problem, with expedited procedures including the possibility of
an immediately effective sanction, not stayed by any opposition or
request for review. In this, it is unlike any other sanction. That is
why it is reserved for violations whose seriousness justifies it: Cases
in which national security is compromised, or in which a danger is
posed to the health, safety or welfare of participants. It would be
inappropriate to apply its procedures to other violations; and it would
be equally inappropriate to restrict the availability of other
sanctions to its narrow grounds.
With regard to the elimination of trial-type review procedures for
significant sanctions, the Department has found that such procedures
are costly, time-consuming and burdensome for both the
[[Page 62114]]
Department and sponsors. As noted in the Supplementary Information
accompanying the Proposed Rule, such procedures are not required by any
applicable statute, and are not necessary to afford due process. Under
the Final Rule, sponsors are afforded notice and ample, repeated
opportunities to be heard. When the Office proposes a significant
sanction, a sponsor may submit to the PDAS an opposition, including
factual and legal arguments and additional documentary material, such
as affidavits and other evidence. Following a statement in response by
the Office, the PDAS issues a written, reasoned decision confirming,
withdrawing or modifying the sanction. The sponsor may then seek review
of the PDAS decision, before a three-member panel, no member of which
may be from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (of which
the Office forms a part, and which is supervised by the PDAS). Once
again, the sponsor has the opportunity to file a statement setting
forth arguments of fact and law, accompanied by documentary evidence
and other attachments. Following a statement in response by the PDAS,
the review panel may, at its discretion, convene a brief meeting with
the parties, solely for the purpose of clarifying the written
submissions. Then the review panel issues a written, reasoned decision
confirming, withdrawing or modifying the sanction. This procedure
affords ample notice and opportunity to be heard, with a reasoned
decision on a clear record. If the program sponsor is not satisfied
with the decision ultimately reached by the Review Officers, it
continues to have the same opportunities as before to seek relief in an
appropriate court.
Finally, ten (10) of the commenting parties requested that sponsors
be given the opportunity to cure alleged violations before the
Department imposes sanctions. The Department believes that if it were
to provide sponsors in all cases the automatic right to cure an alleged
violation or deficiency with no risk that an actual sanction will be
imposed, then the deterrent effect of the sanctions regime effectively
would be eliminated. However, as a practical matter, the Office seldom
proposes formal sanctions without first engaging in informal
discussions seeking to bring the sponsor into voluntary compliance.
Moreover, although there is no right to cure, a sponsor facing the
imposition of sanctions certainly may offer a settlement or, in
submitting its statement in opposition to or mitigation of the
sanction, show it has cured the alleged violations and argue for a less
severe sanction, or no sanction at all, and may request a meeting to
present its views.
Seven (7) comments favored, and two opposed, the paper review set
forth at Sec. 62.50(f). The comments stated that a review should also
include statements and information provided by exchange visitor
participants, concerned citizens, and school officials.
Thirteen (13) comments were received in favor of a sponsor's not
being able to reapply for designation for a minimum of five (5) years
once a designation has been revoked.
For the foregoing reasons, the Department is promulgating the
Proposed Rule as a Final Rule.
Regulatory Analysis
Administrative Procedure Act, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
The Department has determined that this Final Rule involves a
foreign affairs function of the United States and is consequently
exempt from the procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 553 pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
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 businesses.
The Final Rule has been found not to be a major rule within the
meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996. It will not have a substantial effect on the States, the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, it has been determined that the Final Rule does
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant application of
the consultation provisions of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Since this rulemaking is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 553 and no other law
required the Department to give notice of proposed rulemaking, this
rulemaking also is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or Executive Order 13272, Sec. 3(b). Nonetheless,
the Department has analyzed the provisions of the Final Rule and
certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Executive Order 12866, as Amended
The Department does not consider this Final Rule to be a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, as
amended, Sec. 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. In addition, the
Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent
that it is promulgating, in conjunction with a domestic agency,
regulations that are significant regulatory actions. The Department
has, nevertheless, reviewed the Final Rule to ensure its consistency
with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in that
Executive Order.
Executive Order 12988
The Department has reviewed this Final Rule in light of Sec. Sec.
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity,
minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce
burden.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132
This Final Rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Sec. 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This Final Rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 62
Cultural Exchange Programs.
0
Accordingly, 22 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:
PART 62--EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM
0
1. The Authority citation for part 62 is amended as follows:
[[Page 62115]]
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), 1182, 1184, 1258; 22 U.S.C.
1431-1442, 2451-2460; Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act
of 1998, Pub. L. 105-277, Div. G, 112 Stat. 2681-761 et seq.;
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; the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of
1996, Pub. L. 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, as amended;
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA
PATRIOT ACT), Pub. L. 107-56, Sec. 416, 115 Stat. 354; and the
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L.
107-173, 116 Stat. 543.
0
2. Section 62.50 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 62.50 Sanctions.
(a) Reasons for sanctions. The Department of State (Department) may
impose sanctions against a sponsor upon a finding by its Office of
Exchange Coordination and Designation (Office) that the sponsor has:
(1) Violated one or more provisions of this Part;
(2) Evidenced a pattern of failure to comply with one or more
provisions of this Part;
(3) Committed an act of omission or commission, which has or could
have the effect of endangering the health, safety, or welfare of an
exchange visitor; or
(4) Otherwise conducted its program in such a way as to undermine
the foreign policy objectives of the United States, compromise the
national security interests of the United States, or bring the
Department or the Exchange Visitor Program into notoriety or disrepute.
(b) Lesser sanctions. (1) In order to ensure full compliance with
the regulations in this Part, the Department, in its discretion and
depending on the nature and seriousness of the violation, may impose
any or all of the following sanctions ( ``lesser sanctions'') on a
sponsor upon a finding that the sponsor engaged in any of the acts or
omissions set forth in Sec. 62.50(a):
(i) A written reprimand to the sponsor, with a warning that
repeated or persistent violations of the regulations in this Part may
result in suspension or revocation of the sponsor's Exchange Visitor
Program designation, or other sanctions as set forth herein;
(ii) A declaration placing the exchange visitor sponsor's program
on probation, for a period of time determined by the Department in its
discretion, signifying a pattern of violation of regulations such that
further violations could lead to suspension or revocation of the
sponsor's Exchange Visitor Program designation, or other sanctions as
set forth herein;
(iii) A corrective action plan designed to cure the sponsor's
violations; or
(iv) Up to a 15 percent (15%) reduction in the authorized number of
exchange visitors in the sponsor's program or in the geographic area of
its recruitment or activity. If the sponsor continues to violate the
regulations in this Part, the Department may impose subsequent
additional reductions, in ten-percent (10%) increments, in the
authorized number of exchange visitors in the sponsor's program or in
the geographic area of its recruitment or activity.
(2) Within ten (10) days after service of the written notice to the
sponsor imposing any of the sanctions set forth in Sec. 62.50(b)(1),
the sponsor may submit to the Office a statement in opposition to or
mitigation of the sanction. Such statement may not exceed 20 pages in
length, double-spaced and, if appropriate, may include additional
documentary material. Sponsors shall include with all documentary
material an index of the documents and a summary of the relevance of
each document presented. Upon review and consideration of such
submission, the Office may, in its discretion, modify, withdraw, or
confirm such sanction. All materials the sponsor submits will become a
part of the sponsor's file with the Office.
(3) The decision of the Office is the final Department decision
with regard to lesser sanctions in Sec. 62.50(b)(1)(i)-(iv).
(c) Suspension. (1) Upon a finding that a sponsor has committed a
serious act of omission or commission which has or could have the
effect of endangering the health, safety, or welfare of an exchange
visitor, or of damaging the national security interests of the United
States, the Office may serve the sponsor with written notice of its
decision to suspend the designation of the sponsor's program for a
period not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. Such notice must
specify the grounds for the sanction and the effective date thereof,
advise the sponsor of its right to oppose the suspension, and identify
the procedures for submitting a statement of opposition thereto.
Suspension under this paragraph need not be preceded by the imposition
of any other sanction or notice.
(2)(i) Within five (5) days after service of such notice, the
sponsor may submit to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Educational and Cultural Affairs (Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
or PDAS) a statement in opposition to the Office's decision. Such
statement may not exceed 20 pages in length, double-spaced and, if
appropriate, may include additional documentary material. A sponsor
shall include with all documentary material an index of the documents
and a summary of the relevance of each document presented. The
submission of a statement in opposition to the Office's decision will
not serve to stay the effective date of the suspension.
(ii) Within five (5) days after receipt of, and upon consideration
of, such opposition, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary shall
confirm, modify, or withdraw the suspension by serving the sponsor with
a written decision. Such decision must specify the grounds therefore,
and advise the sponsor of the procedures for requesting review of the
decision.
(iii) All materials the sponsor submits will become a part of the
sponsor's file with the Office.
(3) The procedures for review of the decision of the Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary are set forth in Sec. Sec. 62.50(d)(3) and
(4), (g), and (h), except that the submission of a request for review
will not serve to stay the suspension.
(d) Revocation of designation. (1) Upon a finding of any act or
omission set forth at Sec. 62.50(a), the Office may serve a sponsor
with not less than thirty (30) days' written notice of its intent to
revoke the sponsor's Exchange Visitor Program designation. Such notice
must specify the grounds for the proposed sanction and its effective
date, advise the sponsor of its right to oppose the proposed sanction,
and identify the procedures for submitting a statement of opposition
thereto. Revocation of designation under this paragraph need not be
preceded by the imposition of any other sanction or notice.
(2)(i) Within ten (10) days after service of such written notice of
intent to revoke designation, the sponsor may submit to the Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary a statement in opposition to or mitigation
of the proposed sanction, which may include a request for a meeting.
(ii) The submission of such statement will serve to stay the
effective date of the proposed sanction pending the decision of the
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary.
(iii) The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary shall provide a copy
of the statement in opposition to or mitigation of the proposed
sanction to the Office. The Office shall submit a statement in
response, and shall provide the sponsor with a copy thereof.
(iv) A statement in opposition to or mitigation of the proposed
sanction, or
[[Page 62116]]
statement in response thereto, may not exceed 25 pages in length,
double-spaced and, if appropriate, may include additional documentary
material. Any additional documentary material may include an index of
the documents and a summary of the relevance of each document
presented.
(v) Upon consideration of such statements, the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary shall modify, withdraw, or confirm the proposed
sanction by serving the sponsor with a written decision. Such decision
shall specify the grounds therefor, identify its effective date, advise
the sponsor of its right to request a review, and identify the
procedures for requesting such review.
(vi) All materials the sponsor submits will become a part of the
sponsor's file with the Office.
(3) Within ten (10) days after service of such written notice of
the decision of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, the sponsor
may submit a request for review with the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary. The submission of such request for review will serve to stay
the effective date of the decision pending the outcome of the review.
(4) Within ten (10) days after receipt of such request for review,
the Department shall designate a panel of three Review Officers
pursuant to Sec. 62.50(g), and the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary shall forward to each panel member all notices, statements,
and decisions submitted or provided pursuant to the preceding
paragraphs of Sec. 62.50(d). Thereafter, the review will be conducted
pursuant to Sec. 62.50(g) and (h).
(e) Denial of application for redesignation. Upon a finding of any
act or omission set forth at Sec. 62.50(a), the Office may serve a
sponsor with not less than thirty (30) days' written notice of its
intent to deny the sponsor's application for redesignation. Such notice
must specify the grounds for the proposed sanction and its effective
date, advise the sponsor of its right to oppose the proposed sanction,
and identify the procedures for submitting a statement of opposition
thereto. Denial of redesignation under this section need not be
preceded by the imposition of any other sanction or notice. The
procedures for opposing a proposed denial of redesignation are set
forth in Sec. 62.50(d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (g), and (h).
(f) Responsible officers. The Office may direct a sponsor to
suspend or revoke the appointment of a responsible officer or alternate
responsible officer for any of the reasons set forth in Sec. 62.50(a).
The procedures for suspending or revoking a responsible officer or
alternate responsible officer are set forth at Sec. 62.50(d), (g), and
(h).
(g) Review officers. A panel of three Review Officers shall hear a
sponsor's request for review pursuant to Sec. 62.50(c), (d), (e), and
(f). The Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs shall designate one senior official from an office reporting to
him/her, other than from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural
Affairs, as a member of the Panel. The Assistant Secretary of State for
Consular Affairs and the Legal Adviser shall each designate one senior
official from their bureaus as members of the Panel.
(h) Review. The Review Officers may affirm, modify, or reverse the
sanction imposed by the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary. The
following procedures shall apply to the review:
(1) Upon its designation, the panel of Review Officers shall
promptly notify the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the
sponsor in writing of the identity of the Review Officers and the
address to which all communications with the Review Officers shall be
directed.
(2) Within fifteen (15) days after service of such notice, the
sponsor may submit to the Review Officers four (4) copies of a
statement identifying the grounds on which the sponsor asserts that the
decision of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary should be reversed
or modified. Any such statement may not exceed 25 pages in length,
double-spaced; and any attachments thereto shall not exceed 50 pages. A
sponsor shall include with all attachments an index of the documents
and a summary of the relevance of each document presented. The Review
Officers shall transmit one (1) copy of any such statement to the
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, who shall, within fifteen (15)
days after receipt of such statement, submit four (4) copies of a
statement in response. Any such statement may not exceed 25 pages in
length, double-spaced; and any attachments thereto shall not exceed 50
pages. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary shall include with all
attachments an index of the documents and a summary of the relevance of
each document presented. The Review Officers shall transmit one (1)
copy of any such statement to the sponsor. No other submissions may be
made unless specifically authorized by the Review Officers.
(3) If the Review Officers determine, in their sole discretion,
that a meeting for the purpose of clarification of the written
submissions should be held, they shall schedule a meeting to be held
within twenty (20) days after the receipt of the last written
submission. The meeting will be limited to no more than two (2) hours.
The purpose of the meeting will be limited to the clarification of the
written submissions. No transcript may be taken and no evidence, either
through documents or by witnesses, will be received. The sponsor and
the representative of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary may
attend the meeting on their own behalf and may be accompanied by
counsel.
(4) Following the conclusion of the meeting, or the submission of
the last written submission if no meeting is held, the Review Officers
shall promptly review the submissions of the sponsor and the Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary, and shall issue a signed written decision
within thirty (30) days, stating the basis for their decision. A copy
of the decision will be delivered to the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary and the sponsor.
(5) If the Review Officers decide to affirm or modify the sanction,
a copy of their decision shall also be delivered to the Department of
Homeland Security and to the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the
Department of State. The Office, at its discretion, may further
distribute the decision.
(6) Unless otherwise indicated, the sanction, if affirmed or
modified, is effective as of the date of the Review Officers' written
decision, except in the case of suspension of program designation,
which is effective as of the date specified pursuant to Sec. 62.50(c).
(i) Effect of suspension, revocation, or denial of redesignation. A
sponsor against which an order of suspension, revocation, or denial of
redesignation has become effective may not thereafter issue any
Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status (Form DS-
2019) or advertise, recruit for, or otherwise promote its program.
Under no circumstances shall the sponsor facilitate the entry of an
exchange visitor into the United States. An order of suspension,
revocation, or denial of redesignation will not in any way diminish or
restrict the sponsor's legal or financial responsibilities to existing
program applicants or participants.
(j) Miscellaneous--(1) Computation of time. In computing any period
of time prescribed or allowed by these regulations, the day of the act
or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is not
included. The last day of the period so computed is included unless it
is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a Federal legal holiday, in which event the
period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of
[[Page 62117]]
the aforementioned days. When the period of time prescribed or allowed
is fewer than eleven (11) days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, or
Federal legal holidays are excluded in the computation.
(2) Service of notice to sponsor. Service of notice to a sponsor
pursuant to this section may be accomplished through written notice by
mail, delivery, or facsimile, upon the president, chief executive
officer, managing director, General Counsel, responsible officer, or
alternate responsible officer of the sponsor.
0
3. Subpart E is revised to read as follows:
Subpart E--Termination and Revocation of Programs
Sec.
62.60 Termination of designation.
62.61 Revocation.
62.62 Termination of, or denial of redesignation for, a class of
designated programs.
62.63 Responsibilities of the sponsor upon termination or
revocation.
Sec. 62.60 Termination of designation.
Designation will be terminated upon the occurrence of any of the
circumstances set forth in this section.
(a) Voluntary termination. A sponsor notifies the Department of its
intent to terminate its designation voluntarily and withdraws its
program in SEVIS via submission of a ``cancel program'' request. The
sponsor's designation shall terminate upon submission of such
notification. Such sponsor may apply for a new program designation.
(b) Inactivity. A sponsor fails to comply with the minimum program
size or duration requirements, as specified in Sec. 62.8 (a) and (b),
in any 12-month period. Such sponsor may apply for a new program
designation.
(c) Failure to file annual reports. A sponsor fails to file annual
reports for two (2) consecutive years. Such sponsor is eligible to
apply for a new program designation.
(d) Failure to file an annual management audit. A sponsor fails to
file an annual management audit, if such audits are required in the
relevant program category. Such sponsor is eligible to apply for a new
program designation upon the filing of the past due management audit.
(e) Change in ownership or control. An exchange visitor program
designation is not assignable or transferable. A major change in
ownership or control automatically terminates the designation. However,
the successor sponsor may apply for designation of the new entity, and
it may continue to administer the exchange visitor activities of the
previously-designated program while the application for designation is
pending before the Department of State:
(1) With respect to a for-profit corporation, a major change in
ownership or control is deemed to have occurred when one third (33.33%)
or more of its stock is sold or otherwise transferred within a 12-month
period;
(2) With respect to a not-for-profit corporation, a major change of
control is deemed to have occurred when 51 percent (51%) or more of the
board of trustees or other like body, vested with its management, is
replaced within a 12-month period.
(f) Non-compliance with other requirements. A sponsor fails to
remain in compliance with Federal, State, local, or professional
requirements necessary to carry out the activity for which it is
designated, including loss of accreditation, or licensure.
(g) Failure to apply for redesignation. A sponsor fails to apply
for redesignation, pursuant to the terms and conditions of Sec. 62.7,
prior to the conclusion of its current designation period. If so
terminated, the former sponsor may apply for a new program designation,
but the program activity will be suspended during the pendency of the
application.
Sec. 62.61 Revocation.
The Department may terminate a sponsor's program designation by
revocation for cause as specified in Sec. 62.50. Such sponsor may not
apply for a new designation for five (5) years following the effective
date of the revocation.
Sec. 62.62 Termination of, or denial of redesignation for, a class of
designated programs.
The Department may, in its sole discretion, determine that a class
of designated programs compromises the national security of the United
States or no longer furthers the public diplomacy mission of the
Department of State. Upon such a determination, the Office shall:
(a) Give all sponsors of such class of designated programs not less
than thirty (30) days' written notice of the revocation of Exchange
Visitor Program designations for such programs, specifying therein the
grounds and effective date for such revocations; or
(b) Give any sponsor of such class of designated programs not less
than thirty (30) days' written notice of its denial of the sponsor's
application for redesignation, specifying therein the grounds for such
denial and effective date of such denial. Revocation of designation or
denial of redesignation on the above-specified grounds for a class of
designated programs is the final decision of the Department.
Sec. 62.63 Responsibilities of the sponsor upon termination or
revocation.
Upon termination or revocation of its program designation, a
sponsor must:
(a) Fulfill its responsibilities to all exchange visitors who are
in the United States at the time of the termination or revocation; and
(b) Notify exchange visitors who have not entered the United States
that the program has been terminated or revoked, unless a transfer to
another designated program can be obtained.
Dated: October 22, 2007.
Stanley S. Colvin,
Director, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7-21522 Filed 11-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P